- This topic has 7 replies, 1 voice, and was last updated 18 years, 6 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
-
Is Sierra closed down completely, or will smaller outlets continue to produce the better selling games, like HalfLife?
When you tried to help out before the collapse (but were rudely ignored) were you in touch with any of the people you knew from when you left in 1996, or were they all completely new? Do you think Sierra was left in good hands when you left in 96?
-
Quote:
“… (by wndsrf_98008@yahoo.com) Do you think Sierra was left in good hands when you left in 96?…”
Grin… Search through this board and you’ll find plenty of comments from me on the acquisition of Sierra. The quick summary is that Sierra was bought by people who are currently facing criminal litigation, and may go to jail. The company has changed management many times since then, and is effectively gone now. I don’t know a single person that works there (as far as I know).
It used to really bother me, but now, I’m over it. Enough time has passed that it all feels like ancient history. I’m onto new things, and enjoying life. Most of the better people from Sierra are still in the industry making games, so the story has somewhat of a happy ending.
-Ken W
-
-
-
Quote:
“… (by Ken Williams)
(by Thomas S) Is sierra still a game developer? Or are they just a manafacture?I don’t know…
My sense is that Sierra is now nothing. I don’t think they are using even the brand name anymore….
…”It looks to me as Half-Life 2 (and a Half-Life 3 perhaps?) and the Tribes games are the only things that will be carrying the brand on. I don’t foresee any new games saying anything BUT Vivendi Universal.
-
-
Quote:
“… (by wndsrf_98008@yahoo.com) But were the crooks at Cendant the main reason for Sierra’s downfall? …”Good question, but I wasn’t there, so I can’t really say what happened.
There’s a part of the story which hasn’t been told that may have been a factor…
When Cendant acquired Sierra, they also acquired Davidson (which included Blizzard). At the very first meeting to discuss acquiring Sierra, Cendant mentioned that they were also evaluating the acquisition of Davidson, and would be seeking to increase profitability through some consolidation of costs. I certainly supported this, but also said that any effort to subordinate Sierra’s development groups to Bob Davidson would be a disaster. Bob Davidson was a very smart guy, and did a good job with Blizzard, but it was my opinion that it would be a mistake to have him take over Sierra’s product development. This point was negotiated throughout the deal, and a system was put in place which I believed would prevent Sierra from being subordinated to Davidson.
Cendant did partially keep their word. Davidson was given responsibility for all sales and manufacturing immediately, and for a brief period it appeared that I would continue to run Sierra’s product development. But then, Davidson and I started a series of territorial wars. Davidson was not getting along with Cendant (at the time called CUC), nor with me. I felt that the company was being torn apart by Davidson’s and my disagreement, and Cendant “shifted” me to running their online shopping project – leaving the entire software business to Bob Davidson. I supported this move. I still had doubts that Davidson could run Sierra, but knew that the two of us could not co-exist. Bob’s a very successful person, as am I, but we’re two different highly opinionated people, with very different approaches to business.
Unfortunately, Bob and Cendant also had their conflicts, and Bob left the company entirely. At this point, the right answer would have been to put me in charge of the software business, but that is not what occurred. Instead, a member of senior management from Cendant, with no software experience, and little operating experience, was brought in to run a huge software business. He was a super-intelligent, and nice guy, but in way over his head. It just didn’t work.
It’s tough to get work done with management change. Over the years, leadership at Sierra (and Davidson) changed more often than some people change pants. Without clear leadership and vision no company can succeed.
-Ken W
-
It is nice to look back on what has occurred, because I feel like perhaps I am seeing a slightly more accurate picture of what happened than would be portrayed as a public face during the actual events themselves.
I “worked” with Origin systems (Ultima Online) for a while in a volunteer type position, a Seer, who coordinated plot development on a massive player-wide scale throughout part of their online game. During that time, I was able to get something of an inside look into how things were structured behind-the-scenes and how shifts in management and changes in approaches affected change everywhere else. I also followed an online game Horizons for four years as it went from “birth” to release- and the original creator/lead of it was removed for someone else. Their vision was to create a game that was based on creating a solid game fitting what players wanted- not just what would reap immediate money, because in the end if you met the needs the money would follow. Of course, that vision held somewhat to the release point, but I think it was lost as management changed. It is so easy to get pessimistic and think “Is it really possible, now, for people to make good games and still make the ‘big money’ they want?”.
I’ve watched movies, and it seems to be some of the shift with that industry is now happening to gaming. They make hits, and make huge money- and instead of continuing to try new things to reach groups, they want to keep making more money. The push for “hits” and “success” puts the wrong people in charge and the wrong motives behind it. The people who have the creativity to make the hits are pushed too hard, or aren’t allowed the room for even minor failures that have to happen for a big success. This “watered down blockbuster” approach goes on until finally, the whole thing collapses as people get tired of it and someone else- someone daring- comes out with something new, something truly good, and then all the other biggies try to copy it or “own it”.My question is- is there anybody left who has what it takes to revive the adventure games in this new “blockbuster era of gaming”? The trick is finding someone who can tap the market, make revenue, and balance “profit” with “quality” without ever sacrificing true quality. I think that the director of the Incredibles said it well when he talked about his experience with the Simpsons: he would rather have used poorer quality animation from overseas (which is what the Simpsons started as) with an excellent plot, than stick with great animation and the generic poor plots infusing everyone. And in the end, the good stuff won out- the Simpsons became a big hit. Why? Was it great graphics and huge clout? No… not really.
-Patrick
-
