The legendary creator behind Ultima discussed his nearly four-decade connection to Dragon Con, the possibility of returning to the Ultima universe, artificial intelligence in game development, the problems facing modern gaming and how traveling to space fundamentally changed his perspective on Earth.

Garriott’s history with Dragon Con stretches back to the convention’s beginning. He recalled being the computer guest of honor at the first Dragon Con and becoming a fan of the convention through that experience.

Those early conventions also put him in the same rooms as creators who had influenced his career. Garriott recalled meeting Dungeons & Dragons co-creator Gary Gygax, whose work he described as fundamental to his own career. He later met Tracy Hickman at Dragon Con 2, beginning a relationship that eventually grew into collaborations that continue today.

For Garriott, conventions offered something else that was difficult for a game designer to find: direct contact with players. Publishing a game wasn’t like performing live onstage, so meeting players became an important feedback loop. At the same time, Dragon Con gave Garriott the opportunity to simply be a fan alongside everyone else.

A Return to the World of Ultima

One of the biggest subjects of the conversation was the future of Ultima.

Garriott directly addressed reports surrounding his efforts to reclaim copyrights associated with his original work. He said he notified the U.S. Copyright Office and Electronic Arts of his intention to reclaim those copyrights, explaining that the 35-year timeline following the 1992 sale reaches 2027.

“Next year I will own all my original copyrights,” Garriott said.

The situation, however, isn’t as simple as saying Garriott will control everything associated with Ultima. He stressed that copyrights and trademarks are separate, with trademark issues still complicating the situation.

Garriott said negotiations are underway concerning what happens next.

But when asked whether that could eventually mean returning to the series, he didn’t hide his intentions.

“We may return to the world of Ultima. That’s the plan.”

What would a modern Lord British game actually look like?

Garriott’s answer suggests it wouldn’t simply be an old Ultima with better graphics.

Ethics and virtues would again play a role in the story, while the world itself would be built around interaction. Garriott described a philosophy in which objects aren’t simply scenery. If players can see something, they should reasonably expect it to work.

Cups and plates could be picked up, placed somewhere else, filled and used. Even mundane objects should behave as though they belong in a functioning world.

“Everything will be interactive,” Garriott said.

That philosophy extends to the world itself.

Garriott isn’t interested in creating enormous environments simply for the sake of scale. Towns should contain enough buildings to make players believe they’re in a town, but those buildings should have a reason to exist.

He similarly favors carefully handcrafted environments rather than depending entirely on procedural generation. A world that looks natural isn’t necessarily a world that produces a good story.

Exploration is another element Garriott believes modern RPGs sometimes sacrifice in the name of convenience.

Many contemporary games give players a destination marker and sometimes a route leading directly toward it. Garriott sees value in making the player discover that route.

He described the example of traveling between two towns separated by mountains and forest. Instead of following a marker directly to a mountain pass, the player might need to enter the forest, reach the mountain range and search along it until discovering the passage.

That discovery is part of the adventure.

When the game shows the player exactly where to walk, Garriott said, “You’re not really exploring to get there.”

That doesn’t mean he wants to preserve every inconvenience from early computer RPGs. Garriott acknowledged that returning to some older keyboard-driven Ultima games can be extremely difficult today and said modernized versions would need modern interfaces.

The goal would be to remove unnecessary friction without removing discovery.

That experimental approach has been part of Ultima from the beginning.

Garriott recalled how the team behind Ultima Online once attempted to build an actual virtual ecology. Grass provided resources for herbivores, while carnivores hunted the herbivores. If players killed too many deer or sheep, predators could move toward populated areas, potentially attacking villagers and creating quests.

In controlled conditions, Garriott said the system worked beautifully.

Then players arrived.

They killed everything.

Wolves, sheep, deer — virtually anything players could attack disappeared faster than the simulation could compensate. Eventually, the development team removed the entire system.

“We spent, you know, human years on it and it was useless,” Garriott recalled.

Other experiments were far more successful.

Dialogue systems and NPC schedules helped create characters who appeared to live independently of the player. Characters could wake up, go to work, eat and eventually return to bed. Others might secretly leave at night and engage in activities players would only discover by abandoning their normal routine and following them.

Those experiments helped create the kind of living virtual world Garriott still wants to pursue.

AI, AAA Development and the Changing Game Industry

Artificial intelligence could play a role in building that next generation of virtual worlds.

Garriott confirmed that his team is already experimenting with AI as a development and prototyping tool. Rather than spending months committing resources to an idea, developers could potentially test concepts quickly before deciding which direction deserves full production.

That could include fundamental questions such as whether combat should be real-time, turn-based or somewhere between the two.

Garriott isn’t approaching AI without concerns.

“As a human, I’m actually profoundly worried about what the future of humanity is going to be like,” he said while discussing the possibility of AI eventually becoming more intelligent than humans.

He also raised concerns surrounding energy and water consumption, training data and whether creators are being compensated for material used to train AI systems.

Within game development, however, he sees the technology as potentially giving individual creators more direct control.

Garriott remembered a time when he could personally create much of a game. As projects grew, his job became increasingly managerial. Instead of making the map, he became the person setting the vision. Leads worked beneath him, with additional teams beneath those leads.

Eventually, the people actually creating something could be several layers removed from the person who originally envisioned it.

“That’s frankly not fun,” Garriott said.

He also believes it can affect the finished product because what ultimately gets created may no longer feel like the work of the original creator.

AI-assisted tools could potentially reduce that distance.

A designer might create a detailed prototype before handing it to an artist or specialist for the final production work. The idea wouldn’t have to pass through as many layers of interpretation, and smaller teams could test ideas far more quickly.

Garriott believes that could make development less expensive while returning creators closer to the act of creation itself.

Cost is particularly important because Garriott believes the modern game industry is facing serious economic problems.

He compared the current environment to the video game crash of the early 1980s, arguing that the traditional AAA model has become increasingly difficult to sustain as development budgets and production timelines have grown.

He also criticized the industry’s increasing dependence on recurring monetization.

Garriott argued that free-to-play games and similar models can encourage developers to build mechanics around repeated purchases and unpredictable rewards. He compared some of those systems to the psychology behind gambling.

His concern comes down to incentives.

When a developer’s revenue comes primarily from selling the game, Garriott argued, the financial goal is to create something worth purchasing. When revenue depends on keeping players spending after they begin playing, developers have an incentive to encourage behaviors that produce additional transactions.

Garriott believes that difference can ultimately influence the design of the game itself.

From Lord British to the Edge of the World

Garriott’s fascination with exploration isn’t limited to virtual worlds.

His father was an astronaut, while his mother was a naturalist and artist. Garriott credits both with helping develop his curiosity at a young age. His mother would take him into the woods to investigate nature, follow insects and understand how things worked.

That desire to explore eventually took him far beyond the woods — to the North Pole, South Pole, the depths of the ocean and orbital space.

Space in particular changed him.

Garriott described orbiting Earth at roughly 17,000 miles per hour, circling the planet approximately every 90 minutes and watching a sunrise or sunset roughly every 45 minutes.

“You cannot take your eyes off the window,” he said.

Looking down at Earth, Garriott began noticing things that are difficult to comprehend from the ground.

The atmosphere appeared remarkably thin. Freshwater seemed limited. He could see deforestation, wildfires and pollution stretching across enormous areas.

Then he passed over Texas.

Garriott recognized his hometown, familiar roads and places where he had grown up. But after spending days observing the entire planet, those familiar locations suddenly existed within a scale he could directly comprehend.

The realization gave him goosebumps.

Earth went from feeling almost impossibly large to what Garriott described as “extremely finite and deeply interconnected.”

Only afterward did he learn that this shift in perception has a name: the overview effect.

Despite everything he has already accomplished, Garriott isn’t finished exploring.

Shortly before Dragon Con, he returned from Indonesia, where he had been diving around Komodo Island. He saw Komodo dragons for the first time and explored a coral reef that had been affected by a recent earthquake.

There are still places on Earth he wants to explore and others he hopes to revisit with his children.

Beyond that, Garriott wants to leave Earth orbit again.

The Moon and Mars are on his list.

Whether the next adventure is on Earth, in space or inside a virtual world, Garriott said he still has a “very long bucket list.”

And that list now appears to include Ultima once again.

Near the end of the conversation, Garriott revealed that one of the first projects being considered is essentially a return to Ultima IV: Quest of the Avatar.

“The first thing we’ll bring back is basically Ultima 4, Quest of the Avatar,” Garriott said, adding that experiments surrounding the project are already underway.

For someone whose career has repeatedly crossed the boundaries between games, technology and exploration, a return to Ultima would bring Garriott back to the world that made Lord British famous.

But if his comments at Dragon Con are any indication, he isn’t interested in simply recreating the past.

He wants to experiment with what comes next.

From my perspective, this latest casualty in the AAA gaming space underscores a significant trend: major game studios are desperately trying to adjust to fundamental economic shifts in how consumers buy and consume games. The traditional models are creaking under the strain of ballooning development costs and changing player expectations. There’s a palpable tension between the allure of massive potential returns from established IPs and the colossal risks involved in bringing them to fruition.

EA’s Strategic Shift: A Necessary Cull or a Sign of Deeper Woes?

EA’s decision to ax the Black Panther game, which was being helmed by industry veterans including former Monolith Productions (Middle-earth: Shadow of Mordor) lead Kevin Stephens, is part of a larger, publicly stated strategy. EA Entertainment president Laura Miele, in an internal email cited by IGN (May 28, 2025), explained that such changes are intended to “sharpen our focus and put our creative energy behind the most significant growth opportunities.” This aligns with CEO Andrew Wilson’s 2024 declaration that the company would be “moving away from development of future licensed IP that we do not believe will be successful in our changing industry” (IGN, May 28, 2025).

The company appears to be concentrating its considerable resources on its most reliable cash cows – franchises like Battlefield, The Sims, Apex Legends, and its sports titles (CryptoRank, May 29, 2025). While this might seem like a prudent business move in uncertain times, it also signals a potential narrowing of creative output and a greater aversion to risk, especially with external IPs. The fact that Cliffhanger Games was a relatively new studio, announced in 2023 with a clear mission to “help players everywhere experience unique, personal stories of heroic adventure in living, reactive worlds” (EA.com, retrieved May 29, 2025), makes its closure alongside its debut project particularly jarring. It suggests that even promising projects with significant IP backing are not safe from the chopping block if they don’t fit into this sharpened focus or if the perceived risk-to-reward ratio becomes unfavorable.

The recent past has seen a slew of layoffs and project cancellations across the industry. Udonis Blog’s game industry layoffs tracker paints a grim picture, with over 10,500 layoffs in 2023 and a staggering 14,600+ in 2024, with 2025 already seeing over 1200 job losses (Udonis Blog, April 18, 2025). This “great correction” after a period of pandemic-fueled growth and aggressive expansion is forcing companies to re-evaluate their pipelines and operational costs.

The Marvel Conundrum: A Poisoned Chalice for Developers (Not Named Insomniac)?

The cancellation of the Black Panther game inevitably draws comparisons to another high-profile Marvel game that stumbled: Square Enix’s Marvel’s Avengers. Despite strong initial sales, the game was ultimately a commercial disappointment, failing to recoup its significant development and marketing costs (Wikipedia, retrieved May 29, 2025; Wolf’s Gaming Blog, September 18, 2023). It received mixed reviews, with criticism often leveled at its repetitive gameplay loop, technical issues, and a live-service model that many felt didn’t fit the experience (Wikipedia, retrieved May 29, 2025). The game was eventually delisted from digital storefronts, marking a costly misstep for Square Enix.

This raises a pertinent question: is developing a Marvel game an inherently risky proposition for studios not named Insomniac Games? Insomniac has, by all accounts, cracked the code with its critically acclaimed and commercially successful Marvel’s Spider-Man series and the upcoming Marvel’s Wolverine. Their games have been lauded for their deep understanding of the characters, engaging gameplay, and compelling narratives, largely avoiding the pitfalls that befell Marvel’s Avengers.

The success of Insomniac might, paradoxically, make the landscape even more challenging for other developers. The bar is now incredibly high. Furthermore, the attempt to create a connected Marvel gaming universe, akin to the MCU, has proven to be a “Herculean task,” as Screen Rant (August 1, 2022) noted in an article discussing why Marvel’s Avengers showed the risks involved. Relying on different studios with varying creative visions to produce consistently high-quality, interconnected experiences is a monumental challenge, especially when AAA game development cycles now routinely stretch for five years or more (CBR, March 6, 2025).

EA itself isn’t entirely abandoning Marvel, with an Iron Man game still reportedly in development at EA Motive (Kotaku, May 29, 2025). However, the cancellation of Black Panther, a character with immense global recognition and cultural significance, is a worrying sign.

The Untapped Potential: Black Panther’s Cinematic Success vs. Gaming Gamble

The decision to shelve the Black Panther game seems particularly puzzling when considering the monumental success of the IP in other media. The first Black Panther movie, released in 2018, was a cultural phenomenon and a box office juggernaut, grossing a staggering $1.349 billion worldwide (Box Office Mojo, retrieved May 29, 2025). The film resonated deeply with audiences, celebrated for its compelling hero, rich world-building in Wakanda, and powerful themes. Black Panther is not just another superhero; he is an iconic figure within the Avengers mythos and beyond, representing a significant and often underserved fanbase.

One would imagine that a well-crafted Black Panther game could have tapped into this massive and enthusiastic audience. Cliffhanger Games, in its mission statement, spoke of creating “an epic world for players who love Black Panther and want to explore the world of Wakanda as much as we do,” aiming to give players “more agency and control over their narrative than they have ever experienced in a story-driven video game” (Kotaku, May 29, 2025, quoting Kevin Stephens from the previous year). The potential for a deeply immersive, narrative-rich single-player experience set in the technologically advanced and culturally vibrant nation of Wakanda was immense.

However, the sheer cost and complexity of creating such an experience, especially one that could meet the sky-high expectations set by both the films and Insomniac’s Marvel offerings, likely played a significant role in EA’s decision. Developing a truly AAA open-world or richly detailed linear experience demands enormous teams, cutting-edge technology, and years of development – all translating to budgets that can easily run into hundreds of millions of dollars. If there’s any doubt about the ability to deliver a product that guarantees a massive return on that investment, especially in a market increasingly cautious about pre-orders and more discerning about where to spend their $70 (or more), the plug can be pulled swiftly.

Changing Tides: Consumer Habits and the Future of AAA

The broader context for these decisions lies in the shifting sands of consumer behavior and the economics of the games industry. The “games-as-a-service” (GaaS) model, while highly profitable for a select few titles like Fortnite or Apex Legends, has proven to be difficult to crack for many. Marvel’s Avengers attempted this model, and its struggles are well-documented. Players are increasingly wary of aggressive monetization, and the demand for ongoing content can stretch development teams.

Simultaneously, there’s a growing sentiment, which I share, that many gamers are craving well-crafted, complete single-player experiences. However, the financial viability of these large-scale narrative games is under constant scrutiny. Studios seem caught between the desire to build vast, engaging worlds and the pressure to incorporate recurrent spending mechanics or chase the elusive GaaS rainbow.

The trend of major publishers like EA, Ubisoft, and Microsoft focusing on their core, established franchises, as noted by Udonis Blog (retrieved May 29, 2025, in an article on Riot Games’ restructuring), is a defensive posture. It’s about minimizing risk in an environment where a single major flop can have devastating consequences. This often means fewer new IPs, less experimentation, and, as we’ve seen with Black Panther, the cancellation of projects that, while potentially brilliant, are deemed too uncertain or too resource-intensive outside of the “sure bets.”

The rise of subscription services like Xbox Game Pass and PlayStation Plus Extra/Premium also changes the calculus. While offering great value to consumers, they may also influence how publishers approach game releases and monetization, potentially de-emphasizing premium upfront sales for some titles in favor of driving subscription numbers.

A Wakandan What If?

The cancellation of EA’s Black Panther game and the shuttering of Cliffhanger Games is a multifaceted loss. It’s a loss for the developers who poured their time and talent into the project, a loss for fans eagerly anticipating a new interactive chapter for T’Challa (or potentially his successor, as some early concept art hinted at, according to Kotaku, May 29, 2025), and a potential loss for diversity and fresh perspectives in the AAA gaming landscape.

While EA’s strategic refocusing is understandable from a purely business perspective in a volatile market, one can’t help but feel that an opportunity has been missed. The potent combination of a beloved, globally recognized IP like Black Panther, the talent assembled at Cliffhanger Games, and the clear hunger from audiences for compelling superhero narratives seemed like a recipe for success.

Perhaps the risks associated with Marvel IPs, especially in the shadow of Avengers‘ struggles and the high bar set by Insomniac, proved too daunting for EA when weighed against their new, more conservative strategy. Or maybe the internal development realities of the project presented unforeseen challenges. Whatever the specific reasons, the outcome is a stark reminder of the immense pressures facing major game studios today. They are navigating a complex and rapidly evolving terrain where the thirst for blockbuster returns often clashes with the inherent risks of creative endeavor, leaving promising projects and talented teams as unfortunate casualties in the ongoing industry adjustment.

The dream of exploring a definitive, player-driven Wakanda in an EA-published title is, for now, relegated to the realm of “what ifs.” And the industry watches, wondering which major project will be next to fall as the giants of gaming continue to recalibrate for a new era.