The difference is that its free to play. That is why Runescape had so many players. The rest is gravey, but not much of a factor in attracting players. Any game that is free will get a ton of players, which is why I am an advocate for UO going f2p.I go back to the cardinal piece of Crap RuneScape that blows UO away in number of subscriptions and is a total piece of crap in terms of content and Graphics. Pretty much which ever P2p server you log onto has atleast 500 people on server and very often 1000. Whats the difference between the two? The Runescape team keeps things interesting, they send regular emails asking what we can do to make things better, I have not played since 2002 and get emails asking what it would take to get me to sub again and come back........... They have a presence in gamestores even if it is just with gametime cards, they advertise primarily in Europe being a Brit based game and they in general make people feel they are getting their moneys worth. RS has been around since 1998/1999 and has grown from those of us who were the first 500 to several hundred thousand F2P and P2p subscribers. However in comparison to UO the game RS is total trash What you are saying about UO should then apply to RuneScape but for some reason it does not. I make the comparison between these two because they are comparative in age and graphics as well as overall theme and game play. I still go to the RS page and boards to chat with old friends and at the top of the page it shows how many people are logged in and playing usually between 20,000 and 40,000. I doubt seriously UO is any where near those numbers and UO should be.
If Runescape had only subs like UO does it would be dead, or a ghost town of slowly dwindling die hards like UO.
Also the gameplay is based in addiction from what I understand like all the other so called "amusement park" mmo games. I personally know people who play RS and they absolutely hate it... yet they keep playing for all the little build in endorphin kicks for completing your little tasks. WOW as well, though clearly its also much much better made than RS and probably more fun to play.
The devs try to make UO more like that with their "grind only" style content additions, but the foundation of the game is directionless, so the effect is limited.
Really I don't know that UO SHOULD have so many players. It's kind of a mess. A lovely mess to those of us who can see past the layers and layers of dense, undocumented, incongruous systems and content (and clients...) and the outdated world design, muddled graphics...the modern top shelf mmo level of monthly sub cost, to the shinning gem beneath, sure. But really... it's niche retro game, and the niche it fills is not a big one, and has competition not only from older single players/non massive multiplayer games (which personally I spend far more time playing than I do UO) as well as modern retro style fare. And really, they should have just taken what was good and made a sequel with an updated framework rather than trying to layer modern touches on the ancient code. I fully support doing that now even, but I doubt it would be any good, in my opinion anyway.
I DO think UO could have a pretty good sized player base, even into the 100k+, but never with the 13 bucks a month sub rate. It simply wont happen no matter what you do. Adding some free option is the only method that will have a substantial effect on the user rate at this point. The game is just too outdated on a lot of different and important levels.