Yes, Diablo 3 is finally getting released in a few weeks (maybe). I am curious to know if this is going to be another nail in the coffin.
-
Hail Guest! We're looking for Community Content Contribuitors to Stratics. If you would like to write articles, fan fiction, do guild or shard event recaps, it's simple. Find out how in this thread: Community Contributions
-
Greetings Guest, Having Login Issues? Check this thread!
-
Hail Guest!, Please take a moment to read this post reminding you all of the importance of Account Security.
-
Hail Guest! Please read the new announcement concerning the upcoming addition to Stratics. You can find the announcement Here!
Thoughts on Diablo 3, and the UO player base..
- Thread starter Emil Ispep
- Start date
- Watchers 10
- Status
T
Tazar
Guest
While Diablo III looks to be a great game - it is not a true MMORPG and does not seem to have the variety available in UO. (Yes - I played it during the open beta this weekend).
As to the nail in the coffin... I don't see it... the two games are too different.
As to the nail in the coffin... I don't see it... the two games are too different.
Ultima Online's greatest threat comes not from other games, but from it's owners and it's own policymakers. It will be gone one day, victim of a long slow suicide...
...
I'm keeping my accounts open but will be more focused on D3 at least for a while after it is released (continuing focus will depend on the success in certain areas of the game). I'll be keeping a watch on UO particularly to further EC development and improvement.
Beyond that, Uriah Heep's statement is 100% correct. I've been reading posts about the "death of UO" since EQ was in beta and how Shadowbane was going to "Play to Crush!!11!!1" and so forth and so on. Some have done better than UO... some have been spectacular only in their level of abject failure (or non-existence in some even more infamous cases).
If UO dies it will be due to the actions of the owners and, yes, the devs themselves.
Note that the game that doomed Star Wars Galaxies was... Star Wars Galaxies.
I'm keeping my accounts open but will be more focused on D3 at least for a while after it is released (continuing focus will depend on the success in certain areas of the game). I'll be keeping a watch on UO particularly to further EC development and improvement.
Beyond that, Uriah Heep's statement is 100% correct. I've been reading posts about the "death of UO" since EQ was in beta and how Shadowbane was going to "Play to Crush!!11!!1" and so forth and so on. Some have done better than UO... some have been spectacular only in their level of abject failure (or non-existence in some even more infamous cases).
If UO dies it will be due to the actions of the owners and, yes, the devs themselves.
Note that the game that doomed Star Wars Galaxies was... Star Wars Galaxies.
W
Woodsman
Guest
Yeah, there is no one game that will end it. There are a lot of games coming out this year and next year which will either draw UO players away, or tie up potential players' time and money, but no single game.
As for Diablo 3, a lot of fun, but Blizzard's next true MMORPG, "Titan" or whatever they are calling it, that ironically has a bunch of ex-UO devs, is more of a threat when it comes out next year than Diablo 3 is.
No negativity intended... but curious
W
Woodsman
Guest
And the game that doomed Warhammer Online was... Warhammer Online. And the game that doomed World of Warcraft was.. World of Warcraft.
Okay, so World of Warcraft is not doomed, but it's impacted more by the direction set by the WOW producers, and by the players rolling through the content and thousands of quests quicker than Blizzard can churn it out.
Same with Star Wars: The Old Republic - it's biggest problem is not any other games like Guild Wars 2 or Diablo 3, but the fact that so many people hit the cap and/or did all of the content they were interested in.
Steve Jobs made a comment that Apple doesn't suffer based on what other companies do, but instead what Apple does themselves, and that applies to the MMORPG arena.
...
Depends on the devs... looking back, I'm fairly certain people can think of devs that they rather would or would not have. Also highly depends on the format of the new game. Thus far, UO is really a one of a kind being an open-world skill based sandbox vs the level-zone-theme park model used for everything else of note.
LOL
Sunsword, anyone remotely connected with AoS, and whoever concocted the limitations on mage summons...stay away from those
And Vlaude, if negativity weren't allowed in UHall, there would be no posts
It's how its worded and handled that matters.
W
Woodsman
Guest
Supposedly the devs for Titan were pulled from Warcraft and are the best and brightest that helped get World of Warcraft over 10 million players.
Blizzard has also said it would not be a Warcraft clone, not based on any existing Blizzard IP, and would not compete with Warcraft. They also said they were designing it to still be updated and played, 10, 15, and 20 years out. So either they are going with some kind of sandbox game, or they are going for some kind of social/Facebook game. Anything else and it would be competing with Warcraft. Blizzard could not make another themepark MMORPG and claim it didn't compete with Warcraft.
I don't think UO is as skill-based as it once was, especially after AOS, and then after the past few years, but it still is somewhat of a sandbox, and one of the very few. I wish that Star Wars (The Old Republic) had been a skill-based sandbox, but it appears that UO's greatest strength is probably one of it's greatest negatives as far as growing the genre.
?And Vlaude, if negativity weren't allowed in UHall, there would be no posts
UO and Diablo 3 have very little in common Uriah. Why should someone give up one to play the other? Negative or not it's almost the same as saying Battlefield 3 will be the death of UO. I'm familiar with UHall, I've been a part of it for over 9 years but the "nail in the coffin" comment made me not want to participate... I don't really care if it's allowed or not that's not up to me. My participation, however, is.
W
Woodsman
Guest
Diablo 3 and Guild Wars 2 are one-time purchases and don't require a monthly fee, so I doubt people will give up other MMORPGs, UO included. Maybe not login as much, but not give them up.
W
Woodsman
Guest
True. Although it is annoying you have to be on the internet even in single-player mode, but it's understandable why that is.
Wait, isn't DIII free to play (online)? Why would anyone quit UO for a free game?
Technically, the ultimate "doom" of Star Wars Galaxies was likely Star Wars: The Old Republic.
Not many months out from the release of the latter, Sony lose the Star Wars license for the former.
When all's said and done, people play games for the experience.
If Diablo 3 provides a more enjoyable experience to a person, it doesn't really matter whether it's F2P or subscription based. If they're getting a more enjoyable experience in another game, that game and a $10 of snacks a month is going to be rewarding than the game and a UO subscription.
W
Woodsman
Guest
Sony could have kept the license alongside EA if they hadn't botched SWG so badly back in 2005-2006, because they were different settings and because LucasArts has several companies licensing its property for different games. It's no different than EA having a Warhammer license for an online game at the same time THQ has one, only THQ ran into financial problems.
Anybody who played around that time remembered the New Game Enhancements that pretty much ruined it, and drove subs way down. As much as we pancake about AOS, it was nothing like NGE for SWG. SWG would have probably closed this year or next.
W
Woodsman
Guest
In reminiscing about SWG and UO and AOS, as much as I loathe AOS, I honestly can't say that it hurt UO as bad as the New Game Experience hurt SWG.
I meant "ultimate" as in "final".
SWG was more-or-less doing a UO; staying afloat.
The NGE was almost an exercise in alienating your existing players, but in spite of that, my understanding was that it was doing alright for itself.
SWG was more-or-less doing a UO; staying afloat.
The NGE was almost an exercise in alienating your existing players, but in spite of that, my understanding was that it was doing alright for itself.
While it looks fun enough, and I plan on playing it eventually, I was not overly impressed. It looks to me to be a step down from D2. Maybe its not, really haven't seen enough to say for sure.
I played Diablo 1 some years ago. I ended up not being able to finish. I couldn't play the last level because I somehow lost the economy sub-game, and thus didn't have enough money to get enough equipment to finish it.
I wouldn't say you're missing all that much. It wasn't any more fun than any other single-player, fantasy-themed games I've experienced. Was nothing, for example, compared to this little game called Ultima 4: Quest of the Avatar or Ultima 5: Warriors of Destiny.
-Galen's player
So Diablo 3 is the latest in a long line of games that will supposedly kill UO, eh? Add it to the list of games like Shadowbane, Asheron's Call, Everquest, and Dark Age of Camelot. Of those 4 titles, 1 is dead, 1 might as well be, 1 is doing no better than UO, and 1 appears to still be alive but has fallen way further from its own heights than UO did.
-Galen's player
-Galen's player
UO2 Uo2 Uo2!! Their is not another game like Ultima Online out right now, all these games like WoW, Star Wars, Warahammer, Darkfall, Rift Etc, Etc, Etc..................... Are all the same Darkfall came pretty close but they just weren't ready had the concept like UO though. Untill they make a game like Ultima Online almost specifically like it, with the better graphic engines out there to use. Then its gona be hard to kill Uo. Even if Uo Eventuallllly "dies" by e.a., it will still exist else where.
I'll definitely spend time away from UO to play Diablo III.
Just like I did for Diablo II.
Just like I do for other newly released games that I fancy.
But as others have said, Diablo is not a persistent MMO. So while there's going to be an impact due to time available, there isn't a direct competition.
Just like I did for Diablo II.
Just like I do for other newly released games that I fancy.
But as others have said, Diablo is not a persistent MMO. So while there's going to be an impact due to time available, there isn't a direct competition.
I would say the most players playing UO are playing also other games. I would say there are only a few who are so disappointed today that they leave because of Diablo 3.
By the way UO is soo booring the last months, but iam still here, i hope we will get new content by the end of the year, revamping the boss loot for example.
By the way UO is soo booring the last months, but iam still here, i hope we will get new content by the end of the year, revamping the boss loot for example.
I quit playing Chess when Backgammon came out. It was a much better game before they started using International Chess rules. Chess is so boring now. No one plays that anymore. Backgammon has better graphics and random number generators!
"Hey I'm some crabby negative Stratics poster and I wanna make a post about how UO sucks and is doomed. Gee what current event can I hang a thread like that on? Oh I know, a GAME is coming out. That hasn't happened in the last 15 years, this is new and exciting."
I quit chess when they nerfed pawns to only 1 space moves after 2 initial moves....ruined the game. NERF QUEENS.
S
Sevin0oo0
Guest
I don't have any thoughts on D3, that's just 'some other game', just as I'm unaffected by new releases of Farm Town. Later down the road if I start seeing a lot of posts saying long-time UO'er, quitting permanently for a game that's been out for a few weeks, then maybe I'll have thoughts, until then, meh
Diablo II was great. Never played the first one, though. Still, hard to imagine playing Diablo II now, what with its grid based movement. Who plays MMOs or MOBAs with grid based movement anymore? Oh...
Diablo is fun and I'm sure I'll play it a little.. So maybe I voted wrong.
I don't worry about UO shutting down.. EA will want to keep the "Longest Running MMO" fame going forever I think. Even when they quit working on the game they'll probably leave the servers running.
And if they ever do shut down the official servers.. then I will either join an un-official one.. or start my own shard.
I don't worry about UO shutting down.. EA will want to keep the "Longest Running MMO" fame going forever I think. Even when they quit working on the game they'll probably leave the servers running.
And if they ever do shut down the official servers.. then I will either join an un-official one.. or start my own shard.
There are some HUGE things Diablo III have going for it that cannot be overlooked.
My favorite being they have made scripting it inefficient. You can no longer bot the cow level/bosses. How you ask? Diminishing returns on character gains through repetitive spawn points, as well as the addition of rare items only dropping from random spawn world boss/rare monster encounters. It makes me happy to know I am not in competition for resources/gear with people who are running/scripting multiple accounts while they're off doing things away from their PC.
Diablo has always had amazing gameplay in its favor. DIII is no different. They've taken their time and done well with this title, and I base this statement off almost 300 hours of playtime (between both the first and second beta). I am telling you from experience, it is very well put together!
Another thing I really like is how they play with the idea of a player based auction house system that allows pay-pal alternatives. Don't have the gold? Pay "Steve" 3$ instead and the item is yours. You're not paying company "x" for the item, but rather a player!
DIII has a Universal UI.
DIII has a friends list.
There is no monthly charge!
While you can argue UO is more expansive, has more to offer, etc, when it comes down to it both games are of the same genre. Therefore, MMORPG fans may be enticed to leave title A for title B, especially when title A has not conformed to the times or had new and exciting content (or AI) added in quite some time.
I doubt that many will completely leave UO for DIII, but my time will be significantly less until UO can get it's stuff together (if ever). DIII may become the stepping stone for those waiting for Guild Wars II and other titles as well. Why? Because, at least, these games will be populated.
My favorite being they have made scripting it inefficient. You can no longer bot the cow level/bosses. How you ask? Diminishing returns on character gains through repetitive spawn points, as well as the addition of rare items only dropping from random spawn world boss/rare monster encounters. It makes me happy to know I am not in competition for resources/gear with people who are running/scripting multiple accounts while they're off doing things away from their PC.
Diablo has always had amazing gameplay in its favor. DIII is no different. They've taken their time and done well with this title, and I base this statement off almost 300 hours of playtime (between both the first and second beta). I am telling you from experience, it is very well put together!
Another thing I really like is how they play with the idea of a player based auction house system that allows pay-pal alternatives. Don't have the gold? Pay "Steve" 3$ instead and the item is yours. You're not paying company "x" for the item, but rather a player!
DIII has a Universal UI.
DIII has a friends list.
There is no monthly charge!
While you can argue UO is more expansive, has more to offer, etc, when it comes down to it both games are of the same genre. Therefore, MMORPG fans may be enticed to leave title A for title B, especially when title A has not conformed to the times or had new and exciting content (or AI) added in quite some time.
I doubt that many will completely leave UO for DIII, but my time will be significantly less until UO can get it's stuff together (if ever). DIII may become the stepping stone for those waiting for Guild Wars II and other titles as well. Why? Because, at least, these games will be populated.
I don't believe you're right.
The Diablos are action RPGs, while UO is more of a Virtual World.
Perhaps for a person that solely PvEs in UO, Diablo 3 will offer a better experience across the board for that player, but UO offers a much broader spectrum of experiences.
ROFL, you should of just asked if Diablo I or II was a nail in the coffin for UO. I think that's pretty much self-explanatory in itself. Just sayin.
Could careless about Diablo 3!
Oh no! Does that mean Diablo 3 has a nail in its coffin before its even released? Since people like myself aren't even going to play? *laughs*
So it's settled? They're both RPGs? I'm aware DIII is more action oriented and UO more sandboxy, but people do not have an unlimited amount of time to play. Most people have restrictions and will have to manage their time accordingly, choosing between one or the other. Unless they're playing them on side by side computers.
Per this, any single-player game can kill UO if it happens to capture the same audience.
The reality, however, is that single-player games and MMOs have different business models and different in-game experiences. It would appear that many people play some of both. This is not a difficult concept to understand.
-Galen's player
W
Woodsman
Guest
D3 might have an impact if it had a monthly subscription fee, but neither it nor Guild Wars 2 do. Many UO players that try one or the other or both will not see a need to discontinue their UO accounts.
UO activity might go down a bit, but that's it. Somebody who goes to play D3 will probably come back later in the year.
Except DIII isn't single player?
It has a single-player mode. You can play the entire game by yourself, from beginning to end. Speaking of ends, UO doesn't have one. D3 does, which is a key part of the differences between the games. D3 is much different from UO.
But none the less has the RPG appeal. It is marketed as an RPG, as is UO. This is my point. When I go to buy a game from Steam, I click "Role-Playing-Games/MMORPGs" because I enjoy that genre, and titles such as these would be found there. People who like FPSs would be less likely to mouse over this when shopping because more than likely, they would click on "First Person Shooters" section. The two would be listed in the same genre
The ability to play through from start to finish in single player is a huge difference. However, the thing that gives Diablo titles such high playtime value is the PvP. The same thing that is real endgame content on UO. Only they have more balance, more control over 3rd party programs and the such. UO has no endgame content to offer, it has ceased to develop, whereas DIII has already mentioned downloadable content.
Edited to point out that it may not end UO forever, however the one year decline in subscriptions could. If any company has a product in the red long enough, they'll sever ties. It's business.
The ability to play through from start to finish in single player is a huge difference. However, the thing that gives Diablo titles such high playtime value is the PvP. The same thing that is real endgame content on UO. Only they have more balance, more control over 3rd party programs and the such. UO has no endgame content to offer, it has ceased to develop, whereas DIII has already mentioned downloadable content.
Edited to point out that it may not end UO forever, however the one year decline in subscriptions could. If any company has a product in the red long enough, they'll sever ties. It's business.
Traditionally the most-basic definition of RPG is any game where your character's power, skills, abilities, equipment, and the like build up and develop throughout gameplay. Per this most basic definition, and applying your logic, we could assume that any new RPG could pose a threat to UO.
Others have already pointed that Diablo 3 is a different animal, a different kind of entity, a different kind of game, from UO. Only competing products in the most-basic sense where a fast food restaurant is "competing" with sit down restaurants, or where bookstores are competing with movie houses. It might be a concern to the local McDonald's when a sit-down restaurant chain opens next door, but not a terribly serious ones. Some customers might substitute one for the other, surely. But most won't.
-Galen's player
Yep. DIII is f2p, hence no real threat to UO. Also, unlike some other f2ps, DIII is going to be a huge grind if you expect to use it for PvP. I could see people closing some of their multiple accounts for "snacks," but not quit--unless they're done with factions, haha.
Any modern MMO is going to cost probably $3-5 more a month so that's like 30-50% more than UO, and that's really when players will start to think, "Should I quit UO?"
IMO DIII PvP will compete mostly with the existing f2ps, but mostly MOBAs, like LOL and DOTA2. I'm curious if EA will ever counter with a Dragon Age-style MOBA, because it's a hot market to tap.
- Status