What killed Sierra?

[Sir Perceval of Daventry]

We've talked about so many things involving KQ, SQ, Sierra, etc....We've talked about how sad it is that Sierra is gone, etc. But I don't think we've ever talked about what killed Sierra...It's an interesting subject, I think.

Sierra was the largest and most profitable computer game studio (with over 1,500 employees and ranking as the market share in computer gaming in the mid 90s) as of 1996, with over a dozen subsidiaries around the US and in different countries crafting around 70 games per year in all genres.

Sierra went from that high status to being merely a brand name by 2004, with the brand name finally phased out in 2009.

At their peak, they were a mighty company, not just in adventure games but in the computer game industry in general, so discussing how they fell (not how sad it is that they fell) could make for interesting conversation.

[Bludshot]

Sierra.

[crayauchtin]

It's not like it's some super incredible mystery. It's what happens when you don't adapt well to changes in your industry. You die.

When Sierra began, there weren't that many game companies to choose from. They made a quality product that pushed the limits of technology. This put them ahead of a very small pack. But computers were not at their height.

And as more and more computer companies arose and more and more people became adept at programming, the competition got stiffer. And instead of continuing to make innovative products that pushed the limits of technology as they had always done before -- they attempted to make products that they thought would "sell" better by doing what other companies were doing. This is what we saw with Mask of Eternity, isn't it?

As far as I know, not once in the entire history of business has "blending in with the competition" EVER been a smart decision.

And, yes, this was probably largely due to changes in management, as I understand it.

In other words: what killed Sierra was Sierra making a number of poor decisions. And there's no great mystery in that, it's been the downfall of businesses for forever.

[darthkiwi]

Wasn't there a thread about this? Somebody did a very in-depth history of Sierra's final years. It was very enlightening.

IIRC, Ken Williams thought Sierra would work better if it were under a different company to provide... I forget. More stability? More resources for the company to draw on if it were in a pool of more people? But, as it turned out, the company he sold Sierra to actually tore it apart.

This is just my foggy, awful memory talking, though, so take this with a heavy pinch of salt. In any case, I think the actual business-exchanges that went on in Sierra's final years are probably much more interesting than just saying "The market changed" or "All companies die". After all, in the early 90s they were still at the top of their game, buying up other companies for their own use (eg. buying a company specialising in lip-sync so they could use it in the KQ games) which paid off tremendously. And they innovated with Sierra online, even if it was a few years too early. And Ken's long term business plan was always to move away from adventure games and into other software, so the argument that "adventure games just died" (which I myself might have made a few years ago) doesn't actually hold, unless we also assume that Sierra was such a massive company that it took years to turn the ship around, as it were.

[Sir Perceval of Daventry]

It's not like it's some super incredible mystery. It's what happens when you don't adapt well to changes in your industry. You die.

When Sierra began, there weren't that many game companies to choose from. They made a quality product that pushed the limits of technology. This put them ahead of a very small pack. But computers were not at their height.

And as more and more computer companies arose and more and more people became adept at programming, the competition got stiffer. And instead of continuing to make innovative products that pushed the limits of technology as they had always done before -- they attempted to make products that they thought would "sell" better by doing what other companies were doing. This is what we saw with Mask of Eternity, isn't it?

As far as I know, not once in the entire history of business has "blending in with the competition" EVER been a smart decision.

And, yes, this was probably largely due to changes in management, as I understand it.

In other words: what killed Sierra was Sierra making a number of poor decisions. And there's no great mystery in that, it's been the downfall of businesses for forever.

The thing that puts that makes that standard explanation questionable is that as late as '96, when the industry was very competitive and diversified already, Sierra was the market share leader in computer games. Even as late as '97, '98, their main competitors were considered by the industry to be EA and Microsoft, that's how powerful they were. What makes it interesting is that Sierra and Blizzard Entertainment were acquired by the same company, CUC, on the same exact day and yet one survived despite having a very small and relatively not diversified product line while Sierra had games out in every genre, many of them successful, and died.

That's why it's interesting....It's not like Sierra was just an adventure company which fell out of their tree when the adventure genre did; they had their fingers in most parts of the game industry and were literally like a gaming empire in terms of their size and influence.

[Lambonius]

It's not interesting, at all.  Even less so because this has been discussed to death in every way shape and form, on multiple forums.  Who cares?

I'd rather discuss the future, like all those games being made by ex-Sierra developers and the Sierra fan community.

[Sir Perceval of Daventry]

Wasn't there a thread about this? Somebody did a very in-depth history of Sierra's final years. It was very enlightening.

IIRC, Ken Williams thought Sierra would work better if it were under a different company to provide... I forget. More stability? More resources for the company to draw on if it were in a pool of more people? But, as it turned out, the company he sold Sierra to actually tore it apart.

This is just my foggy, awful memory talking, though, so take this with a heavy pinch of salt. In any case, I think the actual business-exchanges that went on in Sierra's final years are probably much more interesting than just saying "The market changed" or "All companies die". After all, in the early 90s they were still at the top of their game, buying up other companies for their own use (eg. buying a company specialising in lip-sync so they could use it in the KQ games) which paid off tremendously. And they innovated with Sierra online, even if it was a few years too early. And Ken's long term business plan was always to move away from adventure games and into other software, so the argument that "adventure games just died" (which I myself might have made a few years ago) doesn't actually hold, unless we also assume that Sierra was such a massive company that it took years to turn the ship around, as it were.

First part is true. Ken was worn down and didn't want to be a CEO anymore; He wanted to stay with Sierra and focus on R&D and the creative end of things. He'd begun phasing out his role as the "business guy" at Sierra before it was sold. He sold it to CUC for several reasons:

1) He trusted the man who made the offer. Walter Forbes was the CEO of CUC and had also been a helpful member of Sierra's board of directors since 1991. He surprised Ken one day after a board meeting with the offer. Ken at first turned down CUC's offer when they laid out their vision--a monolithic game company comprising Sierra and several other companies. He only took the deal when they accepted his conditions--which were good ones--and then failed to honor any of them after the sale.
2) CUC asked for Sierra at a very high stock price, and as Chairman, he had a duty to the shareholders of Sierra to make them money.
3) The reason you mentioned

Sierra was indeed at the top of their game at the time of the sale. In '96, the year it was sold, they had 32% of the entire computer game market. They had 1,500 employees, their stock price was rising year after year, they had bought 6 or 7 other companies just in 1995 alone; They were expanding into every conceivable field of software, from RTS games to Simulations to Action to Action/Adventure to Racing games; They even had small subsidiaries which specialized in non-entertainment software. When they were sold, and even for about 4 years after, they were huge. They knew how to program games for a DVD drive as early as '96, and Ken wanted to move Sierra toward console games as well, and envisioned that nearly every game would have some sort of multiplayer internet component.

(Posted on: November 03, 2012, 06:24:59 PM)

It's not interesting, at all.  Even less so because this has been discussed to death in every way shape and form, on multiple forums.  Who cares?

I'd rather discuss the future, like all those games being made by ex-Sierra developers and the Sierra fan community.

The games being made will only be interesting when they come out. I can't gauge quality just from the team member's name or screenshots. It isn't the same anyway.

[Blackthorne]

It's not interesting, at all.  Even less so because this has been discussed to death in every way shape and form, on multiple forums.  Who cares?

I'd rather discuss the future, like all those games being made by ex-Sierra developers and the Sierra fan community.

Amen.  I've talked about this to death for the last 10 years.  It's all been said, it's all been discussed.  It died.  Series of poor business and entertainment choices.  It just became a company that it wasn't originally.  It's not some big mystery.

I'm far more interested in the future.  There's actually potential there.

Right now, we've got Jane Jensen, Scott Murphy & Mark Crowe, Josh Mandel & Al Lowe and (hopefully) Lori and Corey Cole making some new games.  There's been whispers of Jim Walls coming out of retirement to help develop a new police procedural game... and that's just Sierra employees.  Tim Schaeffer's got an adventure, Chris Murphy's got Tex Murphy - the guys original from Icom have a Kickstarter working for Shadowgate, and they own the rights to Uninvited, Deja Vu 1 and 2 and other "MacVenture" games.... there's so much potential going on.  These are just the old school developers, too - there's Phoenix Online - who just released chapter one of Cognition, which is just the start to a series.... there's Warbird Games who's making Jack Houston and The Necronauts, there's a bunch of really awesome, handsome and amazing guys at some company making a game called Quest For Infamy, amongst other things, there's Chris Gianelloni making Reincarnation.... Replay games bought a game orginally developed in AGS called "Fester Mudd and The Quest For Gold"... there's some amazing stuff!

If we can all build some success here, we might be able to lure other former designers, artists and musicians from the golden age out.  Personally, I'd love to get Christy Marx out to do Conquests of The New World: The Fountain Of Youth!  Hahaha.


Really, Sierra's dead.  It's gone.  Kaput.  It disappeared - schlitz happens, and that's really it.  May it rest in peace, and may the memories we have always shine brightly in our souls, but the future's so bright, I gotta wear shades.


Bt

[Lambonius]

It's not interesting, at all.  Even less so because this has been discussed to death in every way shape and form, on multiple forums.  Who cares?

I'd rather discuss the future, like all those games being made by ex-Sierra developers and the Sierra fan community.

Amen.  I've talked about this to death for the last 10 years.  It's all been said, it's all been discussed.  It died.  Series of poor business and entertainment choices.  It just became a company that it wasn't originally.  It's not some big mystery.

I'm far more interested in the future.  There's actually potential there.

Right now, we've got Jane Jensen, Scott Murphy & Mark Crowe, Josh Mandel & Al Lowe and (hopefully) Lori and Corey Cole making some new games.  There's been whispers of Jim Walls coming out of retirement to help develop a new police procedural game... and that's just Sierra employees.  Tim Schaeffer's got an adventure, Chris Murphy's got Tex Murphy - the guys original from Icom have a Kickstarter working for Shadowgate, and they own the rights to Uninvited, Deja Vu 1 and 2 and other "MacVenture" games.... there's so much potential going on.  These are just the old school developers, too - there's Phoenix Online - who just released chapter one of Cognition, which is just the start to a series.... there's Warbird Games who's making Jack Houston and The Necronauts, there's a bunch of really awesome, handsome and amazing guys at some company making a game called Quest For Infamy, amongst other things, there's Chris Gianelloni making Reincarnation.... Replay games bought a game orginally developed in AGS called "Fester Mudd and The Quest For Gold"... there's some amazing stuff!

If we can all build some success here, we might be able to lure other former designers, artists and musicians from the golden age out.  Personally, I'd love to get Christy Marx out to do Conquests of The New World: The Fountain Of Youth!  Hahaha.


Really, Sierra's dead.  It's gone.  Kaput.  It disappeared - schlitz happens, and that's really it.  May it rest in peace, and may the memories we have always shine brightly in our souls, but the future's so bright, I gotta wear shades.


Bt

By the time I finished reading this post, my hand had inadvertently entered my pants.

[Bludshot]

So is it safe to say the crown consensus to this question is: It's boring.

[GrahamRocks!]

Actually, this is all pretty new to me. I've only known about Sierra for a year, and didn't know much about how they fell (aside from a few whispers of "Chainsaw Monday").

[crayauchtin]

Wasn't there a thread about this? Somebody did a very in-depth history of Sierra's final years. It was very enlightening.

I actually had thought that was Perceval who did that, until he made this thread. I don't know why.

[Blackthorne]

Actually, this is all pretty new to me. I've only known about Sierra for a year, and didn't know much about how they fell (aside from a few whispers of "Chainsaw Monday").

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sierra_On-Line

Give it a read - all the information you'd need is there.  The downward spiral begins in 1996.


Bt

[Cez]

It's not interesting, at all.  Even less so because this has been discussed to death in every way shape and form, on multiple forums.  Who cares?

I'd rather discuss the future, like all those games being made by ex-Sierra developers and the Sierra fan community.

Amen.  I've talked about this to death for the last 10 years.  It's all been said, it's all been discussed.  It died.  Series of poor business and entertainment choices.  It just became a company that it wasn't originally.  It's not some big mystery.

I'm far more interested in the future.  There's actually potential there.

Right now, we've got Jane Jensen, Scott Murphy & Mark Crowe, Josh Mandel & Al Lowe and (hopefully) Lori and Corey Cole making some new games.  There's been whispers of Jim Walls coming out of retirement to help develop a new police procedural game... and that's just Sierra employees.  Tim Schaeffer's got an adventure, Chris Murphy's got Tex Murphy - the guys original from Icom have a Kickstarter working for Shadowgate, and they own the rights to Uninvited, Deja Vu 1 and 2 and other "MacVenture" games.... there's so much potential going on.  These are just the old school developers, too - there's Phoenix Online - who just released chapter one of Cognition, which is just the start to a series.... there's Warbird Games who's making Jack Houston and The Necronauts, there's a bunch of really awesome, handsome and amazing guys at some company making a game called Quest For Infamy, amongst other things, there's Chris Gianelloni making Reincarnation.... Replay games bought a game orginally developed in AGS called "Fester Mudd and The Quest For Gold"... there's some amazing stuff!

If we can all build some success here, we might be able to lure other former designers, artists and musicians from the golden age out.  Personally, I'd love to get Christy Marx out to do Conquests of The New World: The Fountain Of Youth!  Hahaha.


Really, Sierra's dead.  It's gone.  Kaput.  It disappeared - schlitz happens, and that's really it.  May it rest in peace, and may the memories we have always shine brightly in our souls, but the future's so bright, I gotta wear shades.


Bt

By the time I finished reading this post, my hand had inadvertently entered my pants.

LOL

Let's not forget Himalaya's Mages. And there's other stuff coming that has yet to be announced.

Looking towards the future is always more exciting than dwelling in the past. Not that that's the intention of Percival with this post, but still, I always find the future much more exciting

[Blackthorne]

I can't believe I forgot Mage's Initiation on my list.  Yes, of course!

Yeah.  The decline of Sierra is no mystery.  The future.... well, that has yet to be seen, but man, it feels exciting.


Bt

[Bludshot]

Despite all the complaining, we've been living in a golden age for games.  Take off the rose-shaded glasses and that becomes pretty apparent.

[crayauchtin]

I agree. For the first time ever, you can really get games of any genre -- because now there's not just the big companies making what really sells to the biggest population, there's the "little guys" making things for niche markets. And because of that, some of the big companies are making games for niche markets and some of the little guys are making games that really sell.

And there's quality in every genre too. (And there's also total dren in every genre too... but that's gonna happen in any industry.)

At least, that's how it looks from my perspective.

[Blackthorne]

Yeah - exactly, there's a little bit of something for everyone out there.  People are out there, making the games they want to make, without having to worry about what fits a company profile or one company's bottom line.

Bt

[darthkiwi]

I wonder why Blizzard - which was a really specific development studio - went on to survive and thrive, while Sierra basically languished. From that wiki page it looks like Sierra was cut and cut and cut and reorganised in a number of different ways, and consistently failed to turn out a good game (though it published a few worthies). Whereas Blizzard, I assume, were very focused on their well-known IPs - Diablo, Starcraft, Warcraft - but did that well?

I know it's not great to hark over the past - "Oh, what a tragedy! Think what could have been!" - but I'm interested in the fall of Sierra because it was such a powerful company which suddenly collapsed. I really have no sentimental interest in them at all - I think that, in terms of game design, Lucasarts actually made much better adventures (go ahead, kill me) - but it's just interesting from a historical point of view. And also: what if a developer today makes the same mistakes Sierra made then? Wouldn't that be fascinating (and potentially devastating)?

Oh, and I agree about the rose-tinted spectacles. Ten years ago I wouldn't have: the indie scene didn't exist, there were a whole bunch of cookie-cutter shooters and movie tie-ins; overall, games had a lot of promise but were often really dull. You might look back on the 90s and go "Oh! Think what could have been! There was Fallout and Xcom and Thief and System Shock!" But now we have a faithful remake of Xcom, a lot of people liked Fallout: NV, Dishonoured is a pretty good evolution of Thief (and, more importantly, shows that this kind of game will sell if only you do a good job on it) and BioShock Infinite is right around the corner. And let's not forget Kickstarter. I'm certain that a number of Kickstarted games will fail in the near future, which will make people think twice about the kickstarting boom, but at the very least it provides a system where people who desperately want a project to succeed can actually financially help it to succeed.

So yeah, this is the best shape games have been in ages. Maybe forever.

[Neonivek]

Despite all the complaining, we've been living in a golden age for games.  Take off the rose-shaded glasses and that becomes pretty apparent.

I lost my post again UUUGH! soo much writing lost!

Anyhow...

Yes and No in terms of being in a Golden age. It really depends on what you value in your videogames and how you compare it to the original golden age of videogames.

I do personally think we are headed towards a golden age (What with even the Casual market becoming bored with average but profitable games and becoming more affluent then normal putting more power in gamer hands and out of the casual market) but we arn't quite there yet.