Resources - is 2 clients truly worth it?

[Penana Car]

The majority of players presently play the original (2D) client. Whereas the enhanced client is used by some, mostly for casualties such as bank sitting and stocking vendor houses. In my opinion it is simply too ugly to enjoy full time. I was a Third Dawn beta tester (wrote a well published article about it at the time, in fact) and I've had my fair share of experience on the "enhanced client". The graphics in the 2D client are quite simply better, more fluent, and avatars/creatures don't simply look like sliders that run on the spot. In 2D everything from wearables to the trees look like they belong. The EC was just a poor overhaul of what already existed, when they could've enhanced the classic experience.

What is the benefit of maintaining two clients? If one had to go I'm presuming the classic client would stick around. When EA will not lower the subscription cost, why not axe one client or the other, to put out better quality patches etc. What is the worth without the subscriber base of running two clients? Tell me how this is a smart business decision, to run 2 clients for a game on life support.

Axe a client and give the game itself those extra resources!

No Ultima Worlds Online: Origin, then no Enhanced anything for me please.

Honest opinions only please, nothing personal. Just trying to help build the community by reviving a once great game.

 

[Uvtha]

The majority of players presently play the original (2D) client. Whereas the enhanced client is used by some, mostly for casualties such as bank sitting and stocking vendor houses. In my opinion it is simply too ugly to enjoy full time. I was a Third Dawn beta tester (wrote a well published article about it at the time, in fact) and I've had my fair share of experience on the "enhanced client". The graphics in the 2D client are quite simply better, more fluent, and avatars/creatures don't simply look like sliders that run on the spot. In 2D everything from wearables to the trees look like they belong. The EC was just a poor overhaul of what already existed, when they could've enhanced the classic experience.

What is the benefit of maintaining two clients? If one had to go I'm presuming the classic client would stick around. When EA will not lower the subscription cost, why not axe one client or the other, to put out better quality patches etc. What is the worth without the subscriber base of running two clients? Tell me how this is a smart business decision, to run 2 clients for a game on life support.

Axe a client and give the game itself those extra resources!

No Ultima Worlds Online: Origin, then no Enhanced anything for me please.

Honest opinions only please, nothing personal. Just trying to help build the community by reviving a once great game.

I don't really think the 2d client gets much dev time, so its not really such a big issue. But though I don't use it, the new client is the one that would have to stay. It works better even though it looks muddled.

 

[Penana Car]

I don't really think the 2d client gets much dev time, so its not really such a big issue. But though I don't use it, the new client is the one that would have to stay. It works better even though it looks muddled.

Fair enough, but then do you agree with my assertion that it isn't business smart to maintain both?

One or the other. None of this - I play this , you play that - balanced across the board.

It is irritating in a way, if this is where the subscription cost is going, into maintaining two clients for a singular game. Waste of time. Also a bigger window for bugs to occur which they don't have the "resources" to fix.

Everybody says adapt to change. Well, flip it on them. Make them adapt to one client alone. I've put in my input. I appreciate yours as well.

If EA is reading my threads and would like my services to improve this game somewhat from its present state while proving more cost efficient and profitable, I am open to negotiation.

Thanks

 

[Uvtha]

Fair enough, but then do you agree with my assertion that it isn't business smart to maintain both?

One or the other. None of this - I play this , you play that - balanced across the board.

It is irritating in a way, if this is where the subscription cost is going, into maintaining two clients for a singular game. Waste of time.

Everybody says adapt to change. Well, flip it on them. Make them adapt to one client alone. I've put in my input. I appreciate yours as well. Thanks

I think its fine. It doesn't cost extra money to keep two clients going or anything, other than the fact that it cost money (time) to develop the new one lots of people don't use. The old one came with the game, and gets few to no updates specific to it, so its not costing the game anything.

What would be nice would be the SA client having some kind of toggle, one for old style graphics, one for new. Not the oddball mix it has now. Then you can get rid of the old client.

 

[Penana Car]

I think its fine. It doesn't cost extra money to keep two clients going or anything, other than the fact that it cost money (time) to develop the new one lots of people don't use. The old one came with the game, and gets few to no updates specific to it, so its not costing the game anything.

What would be nice would be the SA client having some kind of toggle, one for old style graphics, one for new. Not the oddball mix it has now. Then you can get rid of the old client.

I don't think its viable to assume that there is not time spent to maintain both clients. If you had to choose just one though, that is what I was wondering, and I appreciate your input. Not really worth a debate.

 

[Uvtha]

I don't think its viable to assume that there is not time spent to maintain both clients. If you had to choose just one though, that is what I was wondering, and I appreciate your input. Not really worth a debate.

There's not much to debate. The one client is updated, and the other one isn't. If its not updated it takes up no dev time which the only way that any client costs money. They give us patch notes for the clients. You asked if it was smart business. The only bad business it may be guilty of is it seems really weird to have two clients, and people might think that things are run poorly. shrug.

 

[Penana Car]

There's not much to debate. The one client is updated, and the other one isn't. If its not updated it takes up no dev time which the only way that any client costs money. They give us patch notes for the clients. You asked if it was smart business. The only bad business it may be guilty of is it seems really weird to have two clients, and people might think that things are run poorly. shrug.

So give us the client that takes no time to maintain and devote more of those key resources to the game, problem solved. Cost efficiency.

They already agree that the Enhanced Client is the exact product as the Classic Client if they are supporting both.

 

[Woodsman]

The majority of players presently play the original (2D) client..... The graphics in the 2D client are quite simply better, more fluent, and avatars/creatures don't simply look like sliders that run on the spot. In 2D everything from wearables to the trees look like they belong.

I would get fully behind the CC as the only client if it would bring in more players, but it's not.

The majority of players may run it, but it's not bringing in thousands of new people every month. It's not like the CC graphics haven't had a chance - UO's been declining for nearly 8 years.

It's time we have a graphics update that uses modern displays, that sticks around, and that is actually supported, because unless things change, I guarantee you we won't be having a CC/EC discussion 5 years from now, unless it's about which client we preferred before UO was shut down.

 

[Woodsman]

So give us the client that takes no time to maintain and devote more of those key resources to the game, problem solved. Cost efficiency.

UO's problem is not a lack of content in the game. It has more content than probably any other MMORPG out there. It's getting that content in front of new player that's the problem, and the CC just ain't doing it, and hasn't been doing it.

If you want cost efficiency, you get an high resolution graphics update that sticks, because that's the only way a lot of people are going to give UO a chance.

The fact that EA is still supporting two clients after over 10 years speaks volumes about what's cost effective - they know the CC is not going to keep UO going in the long - there comes a point at which if UO doesn't get new players, it will be closed.

If EA thought the CC could keep UO going, they would never have done the 3D client, the Kingdom Reborn client, or the EC.

 

[Nimuaq]

I don't think you're being fair, but as you have previously stated that you haven't paid to play Ultima Online since 2010, I guess that's why your assessment of the Enhanced Client is so negatively biased above. In its current form, the trees are exactly the same on both clients, in fact, all of the item graphics are exactly the same, only the mobile, some (not all) of the terrain and the paperdoll art are different. A lot of work has also been done to sharpen the graphics and when you set your zoom level appropriately (see Traveler's tutorial on this), the art no longer feels strange.

I know a lot of veteran players who use the Enhanced Client and while we all think that it still can be much better, even with some minor graphic tweaks, I do believe it would be a mistake to wipe a client that is the result of many efforts spent by both the developers and the players, and that is being used by so many players.

Your poll question was asked many times before, and the consensus was: axe both clients to develop a new client with the functionality of the Enhanced Client together with the graphics of the Classic Client that are re-touched for higher resolution.

 

[Raptor85]

I would get fully behind the CC as the only client if it would bring in more players, but it's not.

The majority of players may run it, but it's not bringing in thousands of new people every month. It's not like the CC graphics haven't had a chance - UO's been declining for nearly 8 years.

It's time we have a graphics update that uses modern displays, that sticks around, and that is actually supported, because unless things change, I guarantee you we won't be having a CC/EC discussion 5 years from now, unless it's about which client we preferred before UO was shut down.

Graphics has little to do with why UO isn't pulling in players, yes it's ONE factor, you won't get some of the younger crowd without awesome graphics, but for that crowd the EC won't even come close to cutting it either, frankly the EC's graphics are just terrible for the most part, sure there's a few gems in there but most of those are rendered exactly the same in the CC anyways. Bugs, gameplay, lack of content, nothing for "Real" beginners to do, confusing mixes of systems (multiple quest systems, tons of mods that do the exact same thing, 90% of abilitys either being broken or worthless). I mean, I play plenty of online games, and quite a few mmos, and many look more out of date than the CC, and THEY have absolutely no problem bringing in thousands of players around the world. There's a few popular ones out now that actually look styled after Tibia which makes the art in UO's CC look modern by comparison. Especially in the pvp and competitive crowd graphics is secondary to game play and frankly UO is WAY lacking in that department, it's trying to sit somewhere in between sandbox and diablo-style item grind and manages to fail at properly being either, it's like we have two half-games that don't quite play nice with each other in one.

What uo's problems are is...
1. Bugs/exploits
2. lack of actual content (with every patch we lose as much as is gained with things being "temporarily" disabled to be fixed)
3. poor platform support (a cross platform client should have been made long ago, let the game be played mobile, on the massive number of non x86 netbooks, on the web...instead of wasting time on the EC a "enhanced" java client should have been made, why do we need TWO windows-only clients?!?)
4. lack of community events (the em program is nice but it's no replacment for an active team making short term fast paced story arcs like most games do)
5. Price...sure $16 a month is "cheap" if looked at monthly, but when you play a lot of games you gotta look at that and say....why does UO cost me more to play monthly than 4 of my other mmo's combined? Plus the outdated model of charging subscription AND charging for expansions/item store isn't helping either, it takes a lot of money to really get "started" in uo, you're lookign at around $30-$50 for a brand new player which is unacceptable when newer games are far cheaper, many don't charge for the game at ALL only the sub.
6. half-developed content. Many of the newer things like high seas are borderline worthless, released completely unfinished with promises of it being finished in the future.

 

[MalagAste]

My opinion on this issue is a bit biased. I seriously wish we could get more folk to understand that the 2d client is really holding back the game. If more folk would embrace the EC they could focus more on updating the Graphics and things and we could do SO much more with a client that is easier for the DEV's to maintain and improve.

Lets face it the 2d client is outdated and falling behind. It's not going to improve because it's 15+ years old.... the engine that runs it is extremely outdated.

Bringing in new players is less and less likely to happen on the old client with the poor graphics.


I'd like to encourage folk to look at Grimm's art pages. Some of those things are incredible and to me that's what the EC could do if it weren't held back by people who feel the need to cling to the old.

 

[Dermott of LS]

...

Oh geez... where to start...

The majority of players presently play the original (2D) client.

Ok, this is true.

Whereas the enhanced client is used by some,

And this is about where the truth ends.

mostly for casualties such as bank sitting and stocking vendor houses.

From most reports, users of the EC had a more stable experience in the fight/event against Exodus. If you actually talk to EC users over on the EC forum you'd find out that most EC users are active in the game world. Oddly enough, stocking vendors to cater to the 2d free-form postage stamp has been a difficulty in the EC from the time it was the KR client forward.

In my opinion it is simply too ugly to enjoy full time.

Fair, but this is due to using low resolution 2d client graphics. Aside from character/creature models and the terrain, the in-game graphics in the EC are the exact same graphics in the 2d client. The problem is that the 2d classic graphics simply DO NOT SCALE. Thus they are pixelated and distorted. UO had a higher resolution client for a while but it was "revamped" (read: horribly compromised and downgraded) into the EC.

I was a Third Dawn beta tester (wrote a well published article about it at the time, in fact)

Yeah, so was I *shrug* as well as T2A and the closed beta test for the EC/Stygian Abyss since I was involved in the modding community for the KR client (and later the EC client)

and I've had my fair share of experience on the "enhanced client". The graphics in the 2D client are quite simply better, more fluent, and avatars/creatures don't simply look like sliders that run on the spot.

Define "fair share of experience" because you seem to forget that the EC is by and large using 2d/Classic Client graphics.

In 2D everything from wearables to the trees look like they belong. The EC was just a poor overhaul of what already existed, when they could've enhanced the classic experience.

The problem with the EC was that they compromised so heavily on the graphics throwing out actual advancement in an attempt to appease players that will never accept anything NOT the 2d client anyway. In the end, what we got was the first time in 30+ years an Ultima title DOWNGRADED in terms of technology. The Classic Client is at its technological limit. It was most likely deemed far easier and efficient to begin with a clean slate with new technology to add in what have become standard features of MMOG client UI, then use that technology to (in theory) provide a UO gameplay window that would more properly fit modern monitors and resolutions.

What is the benefit of maintaining two clients?

Best I can come up with is that you have one for lower end, more portable systems (like tablets and netbooks, although my current netbook runs the EC fine) and for customers' preference and one that can be used by people who want to push the technological limits, have more up to date graphics and options, and to have a client/visual that can be used for advertising/promotional purposes without being considered and outdated joke.

If one had to go I'm presuming the classic client would stick around.

This would be the worst mistake they can make. Sorry, but while the 2d client is retaining a certain portion of the playerbase, it does nothing in terms of ability to bring in new or returning users. Like it or not, regardless of the gameplay quality, graphics are the "book cover" that attract people to the game.

When EA will not lower the subscription cost, why not axe one client or the other, to put out better quality patches etc. What is the worth without the subscriber base of running two clients? Tell me how this is a smart business decision, to run 2 clients for a game on life support.

Axe a client and give the game itself those extra resources!

No Ultima Worlds Online: Origin, then no Enhanced anything for me please.

Sorry, but not all UO players wish to live in 1998-2000. Graphics and technology evolves and improves, there NO REASON why UO can't. If I were "in charge", I would put my focus 100% behind the high resolution artwork revamp and getting the EC up to a high level of quality then as done with the 3d and KR clients... shut down any older clients and focus on just the EC which would simply be THE UO client.

Honest opinions only please, nothing personal. Just trying to help build the community by reviving a once great game.

Honest opinion... eliminating the EC in favor of the 2d client will ensure the continued slide of UO into obscurity and eventually close the game for good. Because I have been a subscriber, active player, UI mod developer, and fan of the game for over 14 years i think this would be a horrible way to see the game die... especially since it could have been prevented.

 

[Woodsman]

Graphics has little to do with why UO isn't pulling in players, yes it's ONE factor, you won't get some of the younger crowd without awesome graphics, but for that crowd the EC won't even come close to cutting it either,

Graphics has a lot to do with it, more than you think, but right now the graphics on either client are not up to speed. That's why we need the high resolution graphics update. Go look at GrimmOmen's personal page at the 3D renders he's done of his Ultima artwork. You should be pissed as hell that we don't see that level of detail within UO. I know it ticks me off. It looks better than KR and it's recognizable to CC players.

What uo's problems are is…

1. Bugs/exploits
People who have never played UO know nothing about the bugs/exploits, they see a game that's outdated. But bugs/exploits are a problem, we all see the scripters doing their thing, day in and day out, year after year. It's depressing.

2. lack of actual content
People who have never played UO do not realize how much content it has or has lost. I agree with you on a lot of things, but even with some of what you mention being pulled, UO has more content than just about any other MMORPG out there. If you made a list of the top 20 MMORPGs in North America, I've probably played 15 of them. None of them can really touch UO on content, and very few are actually truly persistent worlds.

3. poor platform support (a cross platform client)
If GrimmOmen had his way, UO would be running on the Unity platform, available across several platforms, even mobile/web. Still, it's a money problem, and EA isn't going to spend the money on a new engine at this point, not when all 4 of the BioWare Mythic games run on Gamebryo (the exception being the CC).

4. lack of community events (the em program is nice
Again, a lack of players and money. If UO had more players, then it could probably be easier to justify.

5. Price...sure $16 a month is "cheap"
Where does this $16 a month come from? Is it European or Japanese price? Because I pay $10 a month for 6 months, or $12.99 month-to-month. Still, UO's problem is not how they collect money. I do agree that $12.99 month-to-month is high, but EA is not going to reduce the price.

6. half-developed content.
Again, a money/player issue.

The root of most of the problems you list is a lack of money/resources. You will only get more money/resources if more players come in. If UO had 100,000 or 150,000 players, it would probably be a lot easier for the team to get more money/resources to address the things you mentioned.

The CC is not going to bring in thousands and thousands of new players, and without those new players, the money/resources won't be there to address the things you list.

 

[Woodsman]

Sorry, but not all UO players wish to live in 1998-2000. Graphics and technology evolves and improves, there NO REASON why UO can't.

Exactly. UO has more content than most MMORPG, if not all of them. UO could compete with modern MMORPGs if it had a better looking client.

It bugs me that people believe that UO simply can't compete and that there is no point in even trying. UO can compete, and I know a lot of people who believe this.

It really bugs me because Origin and the Ultima games used to be considered cutting edge technology. I hated having to upgrade my hardware for a new Origin game, but it was usually well worth it. There was a reason why Richard Garriott wanted to move on to a new UO. He was all about pushing technology forward, not sticking around in the past.

 

[Uvtha]

I would get fully behind the CC as the only client if it would bring in more players, but it's not.

The majority of players may run it, but it's not bringing in thousands of new people every month. It's not like the CC graphics haven't had a chance - UO's been declining for nearly 8 years.

It's time we have a graphics update that uses modern displays, that sticks around, and that is actually supported, because unless things change, I guarantee you we won't be having a CC/EC discussion 5 years from now, unless it's about which client we preferred before UO was shut down.

I wish they would have just kept working on the KR art. A lot of it was quite bad, but some of it (monsters mostly) was really nice. The UI needed a lot of work prettying up, as well, but I think it could have been sharpened up.

 

[Woodsman]

For those who don't know what some of us are talking about, go to Grimm's page:

JPHARROD.COM

Click on "Art Direction" and "Character Design" and "Environment Art Design"

 

[Flutter]

Why do people keep making these threads?
I wish it were against stratics rules. You don't like one version or another don't play it.
So long as EA is willing to pay to support two clients the better it is for us. When EA starts saying "hey this is a waste of time and resources" it can NEVER be good.
Play the client you love and don't worry so much about it.

 

[Ezekiel Zane]

 

[Dermott of LS]

...

Well there was no need to push for a "new UO" when they started UO 2. A "persistent world" should in theory negate the need for a "sequel" since the current one never really "ends" (contrast to the level/raid model that DOES have an end that has to be "expanded" occasionally). All that would need to happen is that the client and server structures get updated to work with newer technology. Think of it this way... when UO came out, Windows 95 was the platform. Counting 95, there have been SIX versions of the Windows OS that have replaced each other (not counting Professional versions like Win 2000: 95, 98, ME, XP, Vista, 7). The same in theory should have been happening with UO, maybe not as frequently, but at least every 5 or so years.

Yes, I know the problems that were had with the 3d client (too early technologically, rushed out) and KR (horribly rushed out should have stayed in closed beta for much longer and polished), and even the EC (resolution downgrades, still plenty of bugs), but a lot of that was due to poor management decisions IMO.

Finally, any new client for UO needs to have the ability for the player to set graphical quality. Most if not all other games on the market do this already. UO is one of the few that really does not in any significant manner (at least in the RPG genre).

 

[Penana Car]

I'm just glad this thread is being used as intended. To voice opinions. Thanks all for keeping it clean after all I knew I was bound to ruffle some feathers with my opinions but I am not here to troll, just build constructive feedback and viewpoints from different sides.

Perhaps the Enhanced Client is the way to go ? I would like to see it sway one way or the other. Narrow it down to one client. Woodsman nailed it on the head, subscriptions. UO once had in excess of 100,000 subscriptions and it was great. Now it isn't so great. A good portion of population decline isn't a result of WoW coming to fruition it is the way UO has been on a steady decline through the years in too many ways to even name.

The subscription price needs to be reviewed, seriously, but that isn't what this thread was for.

I wanted opinions on shortening the rope to a single client across the board. This change will enable developmental resources to be utilized in more beneficial parts.

Appreciate it all, thanks.

 

[MalagAste]

I'll say this I ran two yes TWO characters in the EC during the Exodus event and neither one of them crashed or lagged up so bad I couldn't play. That's 2 clients running on the same machine. I really didn't have a problem at all. Meanwhile many of my friends in the 2d client crashed several times and they were running just one client. I also had Ventrillo running.

 

[Woodsman]

Well there was no need to push for a "new UO" when they started UO 2. A "persistent world" should in theory negate the need for a "sequel" since the current one never really "ends" (contrast to the level/raid model that DOES have an end that has to be "expanded" occasionally). All that would need to happen is that the client and server structures get updated to work with newer technology. Think of it this way... when UO came out, Windows 95 was the platform. Counting 95, there have been SIX versions of the Windows OS that have replaced each other (not counting Professional versions like Win 2000: 95, 98, ME, XP, Vista, 7). The same in theory should have been happening with UO, maybe not as frequently, but at least every 5 or so years.

Perhaps the Enhanced Client is the way to go?

It's a good analogy Dermott, but a better one is EVE Online. That game came out nearly 10 years ago, it's open world PvP, Sandbox all the way. By all rights, the industry believes those types of games cannot succeed, yet here we are in 2012 and EVE has several times the subs that it had in 2003 - 2004, and is over 400,000.

They've done massive graphics updates to EVE a couple of times, and that is a part of what has helped it grow when the industry thinks it shouldn't. It's a gorgeous game.

 

[Penana Car]

It's a good analogy Dermott, but a better one is EVE Online. That game came out nearly 10 years ago, it's open world PvP, Sandbox all the way. By all rights, the industry believes those types of games cannot succeed, yet here we are in 2012 and EVE has several times the subs that it had in 2003 - 2004, and is over 400,000.

They've done massive graphics updates to EVE a couple of times, and that is a part of what has helped it grow when the industry thinks it shouldn't. It's a gorgeous game.

Ultima Online with the downhill reputation it has would not be successful as an upgraded product. They'd have to launch a successor, essentially a UO2, to have a chance.

I like your thinking regardless.

 

[Woodsman]

Ultima Online with the downhill reputation it has would not be successful as an upgraded product. They'd have to launch a successor, essentially a UO2, to have a chance.

If they launch a sequel, the first problem is they lose all of the current players, unless they were to migrate all of their characters and housing over. we are a big part of the content - the castles and houses and vendors and other things, that's a part of the content. They'll still lose a lot.

The second problem is that you're talking about a new team and BioWare does not know how to do sandbox, assuming that EA would let them. BioWare has 5 online games - UO, Warhammer Online, Warhammer Wrath of Heroes, Dark Age of Camelot, and Star Wars The Old Republic. Only one of them, UO, comes close to a sandbox.

I believe that UO can still do quite well with a high resolution upgrade, 3D or not, while keeping the isometric perspective. Only a couple of games approach UO's depth, and out of the three I think of (Darkfall, EVE, Archeage), Darkfall and EVE are not going to appeal to a lot of people due to PvP, and Archeage is Korean only).

 

[Martyna Zmuir]

For those who don't know what some of us are talking about, go to Grimm's page:

JPHARROD.COM

Click on "Art Direction" and "Character Design" and "Environment Art Design"

The GL people were looking at his site on Tuesday. The "Environment Art Design" page is the one to look at. All of that is UO art. Just think of what UO would look like if everything were at that resolution.

Now, look at the Approval Pending slot. Assuming thats a blurred version of the real image, I think its fairly obvious what it is. In fact, there was a thread about it on here not to long ago...

 

[Petra Fyde]

ok
1. This is not our decision to make, regardless of who polls how here. This thread is therefore merely academic
2. IF the last poll on here could be classed as representative, the balance between CC and EC players is close to even, something like 55/45 % in favour of CC.
3. I play EC because my graphics card and monitor don't work very well off the 'default' setting - on that setting I can barely see CC. I most definitely do not spend all my time banksitting or stocking vendors.

 

[Penana Car]

ok
1. This is not our decision to make, regardless of who polls how here. This thread is therefore merely academic
2. IF the last poll on here could be classed as representative, the balance between CC and EC players is close to even, something like 55/45 % in favour of CC.
3. I play EC because my graphics card and monitor don't work very well off the 'default' setting - on that setting I can barely see CC. I most definitely do not spend all my time banksitting or stocking vendors.

Hmm, as UO is a service and it is a paid service I feel all input should be welcome to the decision making process.

Yes people have different preferences I acknowledge that. My preference is the classic client as stated.

 

[Martyna Zmuir]

Sorry to say, but the CC is holding UO back. Several Dev team members have stated this.

KR was stupefied to appease the CC diehards who refuse to move into this millennium.

"Nostalgia" is a terrible reason to allow UO continue to die a slow, agonizing death of attrition instead of moving forward. It's also terribly selfish.

 

[Uvtha]

...

Well there was no need to push for a "new UO" when they started UO 2. A "persistent world" should in theory negate the need for a "sequel" since the current one never really "ends" (contrast to the level/raid model that DOES have an end that has to be "expanded" occasionally). All that would need to happen is that the client and server structures get updated to work with newer technology. Think of it this way... when UO came out, Windows 95 was the platform. Counting 95, there have been SIX versions of the Windows OS that have replaced each other (not counting Professional versions like Win 2000: 95, 98, ME, XP, Vista, 7). The same in theory should have been happening with UO, maybe not as frequently, but at least every 5 or so years.

Yes, I know the problems that were had with the 3d client (too early technologically, rushed out) and KR (horribly rushed out should have stayed in closed beta for much longer and polished), and even the EC (resolution downgrades, still plenty of bugs), but a lot of that was due to poor management decisions IMO.

Finally, any new client for UO needs to have the ability for the player to set graphical quality. Most if not all other games on the market do this already. UO is one of the few that really does not in any significant manner (at least in the RPG genre).

Except that windows versions are just like game sequels. Its not like they kept updating windows 95 and it became windows 8. 95 was a different thing, and it stopped being used, and more over they moved to NT from DOS which 95 was still based in. They are all individually designed products.
There comes a time when the easy and cheaper thing to do is restart with new and better technology rather than to try and transmute something suuuuuuuper old into something modern. Turning UO into a game that would be on par with something you could call UO2 would take far more work than just making a new game. Just think man. KR took nearly TWO YEARS. That was just the UI and art. Imagine having to completely rebiuild the actual world and the way everything actually works while still keeping everything that must stay in tact in tact. It's just not at all feasible. That's why it never ever happens. UO is what it is. You could make it look glossier, (they already tried that and it failed miserably) but you can't feasibly change how the game systems operate, and the realities of the world.

And UO doesn't have a quality slider because it only has one quality. You have to design the game with quality settings in mind, and it has to be a game that is graphically presented with objects covered with textures the resolution of which can be altered, and actual lighting and shadow effects, in other words full 3d.

 

[Uvtha]

They've done massive graphics updates to EVE a couple of times, and that is a part of what has helped it grow when the industry thinks it shouldn't. It's a gorgeous game.

Replacing 3d textures is easy. Re-spriting a 2d game... is not easy. UO can do a graphics overhaul, but it takes 2 years, and when that bombs then it's not likely to ever happen again.

 

[Kas Althume]

Axe the enhanced client! On the other thand tho, if they'd axe the 2D client I'd have the final reason to close down my six accounts. For years I'm paying but barely playing (1h a month approx). I will not pay for a game which has a client where i have to guess what the displayed blob is supposed to be. I'm all for a new client with clear & sharp graphics but the current "3D" client is so ugly ... *cut, not going to rant about the EC any further*

 

[O'Brien]

Sorry to say, but the CC is holding UO back. Several Dev team members have stated this.

KR was stupefied to appease the CC diehards who refuse to move into this millennium.

"Nostalgia" is a terrible reason to allow UO continue to die a slow, agonizing death of attrition instead of moving forward. It's also terribly selfish.

Maybe more so-called "CC diehards" would be willing to "move into this millennium" if there was a client offered that actually improved upon the original and reached a development maturity beyond beta?

 

[Taylor]

I see your dead horse and I raise you:

 

[Spiritless]

Neither client is capable of attracting new players. You could scrap either and it wouldn't make any difference; it'd just serve to annoy and drive away the portion of current subscribers who used it thus lowering UO's subs even more. The sooner people realized that the better.

 

[Pinco]

if I have to answer the poll I say CC.
If I have to be truly honest I say both
UO need a serious new client with great 3d models, physics and many other improvements that would REALLY makes UO a great game. Right now if you compare uglyness and instability you can consider UO a clientless game.

 

[Warpig Inc]

EC is the boat and CC is the anchor. Cut the dead weight and lets move forward. Those that think there is not any double takes to put out new content artwise was ankle release dropped at birth. Even if we moved to a 360 goggle point of view with smell generator most new players don't want to play catch up with vets. Weak shards in general areas need to be shut down and clean slate restarted for any heavy advert new UO push for pure newb player catching. I don't even waste time getting on CC to stock my vendors. I'll say it. If it wasn't for the cheats and hacks CC would have less voice then it does now.

 

[Selurnoraa]

If they launch a sequel, the first problem is they lose all of the current players, unless they were to migrate all of their characters and housing over. we are a big part of the content - the castles and houses and vendors and other things, that's a part of the content. They'll still lose a lot.

Not to be rude or anything but the current playerbase in the grand scheme of things is like a speed bump. How many people are even left 50,000 - 100,000? Maybe even less I have no idea that actual numbers but I remember reading an article that the numbers peaked during AoS at around 250,000 so I gotta believe now that its significantly lower.

Atleast with a new UO game that stays true to the sandbox, the target should be a minimum of 1 million user playerbase. If you spent time and resources doing a graphics overhau lyou would be extremely lucky to even just double UO's numbers.

 

[Selurnoraa]

Neither client is capable of attracting new players. You could scrap either and it wouldn't make any difference; it'd just serve to annoy and drive away the portion of current subscribers who used it thus lowering UO's subs even more. The sooner people realized that the better.

Would it though? People will sit here and say that they would be when it came down to it would they?

 

[Tanivar]

Maybe more so-called "CC diehards" would be willing to "move into this millennium" if there was a client offered that actually improved upon the original and reached a development maturity beyond beta?

And this is what we need. Offer a Client that is better than the CC and most would likely start using it. The EC isn't that client.

 

[Woodsman]

Would it though? People will sit here and say that they would be when it came down to it would they?

If something isn't done, people won't have a choice. We won't be arguing over which is the better client, we'll be arguing over which freeshard to play, because there won't be an official UO if things keep on going the way they've been going since 2004.

People can argue back and forth from all angles, but the facts are this: There are fewer players than there were 10 years ago, and there are fewer players than there were 5 years ago, and EA is not a charity. Those of you who think everything is just dandy, step away from Atlantic and start surveying the other shards.

If something isn't done to bring in more players, UO will be canceled, end of story. Anybody who thinks EA would be willing to run UO at a loss, PM me and I'll send you my paypal address - for $100 I'll give you next week's winning lottery numbers.

 

[Woodsman]

Axe the enhanced client! On the other thand tho, if they'd axe the 2D client I'd have the final reason to close down my six accounts.

If UO continues the way it's been going for the last 8 years or so, you won't need a "final reason" to close down your six accounts, because EA will close them down automatically for you when it cancels UO. EA will not run UO at a loss contrary to what some wish. You'll probably get credits for the Sims or Ultima Facebook games.

But you may get your wish. If the rumors that were posted in a now-deleted thread are correct, it's quite clear that the high resolution graphics update isn't going to happen, which means UO won't have a 20th anniversary. EA may allow UO to survive at 75,000 or even 50,000 players, but it's not going to run UO in the red.

 

[Tanivar]

One thing to consider concerning the EC is this.

People who decide to try UO will do a search, wind up at UOHerald, and download the Enhanced Client, and try playing UO to see if they like it.

What they will be using is the tossed together basic EC. Certainly not an impressive UI.

Might they hear of Pinco's Mod before they say "This game is junk, a lot to do, but the UI bites"?

And if they do hear of Pinco's Mod for the EC, will they go to somebodies website to download it? You hear all the time how websites can download malware onto your computer just by going to them, much less by downloading and installing software from them. We know of Pinco from these Forums, somebody new to UO would not. The potential Newbie may not touch the Mod the basic EC desperately needs with the fabled 10 foot pole.

 

[Woodsman]

Those of you who swear you will not play anything but the CC, and that you don't need or want fancy graphics, did you all stop playing Ultima games after Ultima IV?

Because after all, the gameplay in Ultima IV was incredible, and seriously, who needed all those fancy things and fancy graphics they added in VI and VII.

 

[Sevin0oo0]

If I have to be truly honest I say both

Ditto. I didn't vote because the both option wasn't available.
Jeff has already said what he wouldn't have done, but duh, just killing clients will kill paying clients as well - reeks of hastily made decisions, usually the last ones some employees make before being axed
The decision has already been made on the future direction of 'Client', they'll tell us some day.

 

[Tanivar]

Those of you who swear you will not play anything but the CC, and that you don't need or want fancy graphics, ...

Roll a Reality Check Woodsman, and pay attention.

"Those of you who swear you will not play anything but the CC,..."

Your repeating the babble of much of the EC crowd. What most of us CC fans have been saying is that we won't give up a good client (The CC) for something not as good (The EC).

There are many 'New & Improved!!!' things available in the world these days that are poor replacements for the 'Old, primitive, outclassed, from the last millenium, etc, etc, etc' things as the advertisements for the new thing claim. Look at the smart phone craze. Pay hundreds for the new model every 9 to 12 months or be outdated and strange.


"and that you don't need or want fancy graphics, ..."

Many of us don't need the fancy graphics like D3 has. All I insist on are GOOD graphics, I don't care if they are the latest and greatest possible.

What I like is good content with a decent, nice to use, UI. I have both by playing UO using the CC, but I don't have both playing UO using the EC.

Fancy graphics in a game get a "Wow!... nice pics! " reaction and then fade into the background as I continue playing to see if the game has interesting content. Using D3 as an example, it would get the "Wow!... nice pics! " reaction then prove boring when it became clear all it was was a simple monster hacking game we're lead by the nose through like D2 and most other games out there.

Graphics have no real bearing on whether a game is good or not. Unless they just don't look right. A problem the EC has. But even if the EC graphics get fixed, there is still the simple fact the EC isn't as pleasant as the CC to use.

 

[Woodsman]

Your repeating the babble of much of the EC crowd. What most of us CC fans have been saying is that we won't give up a good client (The CC) for something not as good (The EC).

The EC is not as good as it should be, nobody questions that, but what a lot of us EC fans have been saying is that the CC is just not pulling in enough players to ensure the future of UO.

Ideally, the CC users would be pushing just as hard for the high resolution update and a better EC as the EC users have been pushing, because all of us are in this together - if something isn't done to bring in new players, UO will run out of time.

If UO runs out of time, then all of these debates about clients are meaningless. It's not a question of if, but when. It's no longer 2007 or 2002 when we had a nice buffer of over 100,000 players.

 

[Sevin0oo0]

"C:\Program Files\Electronic Arts\Ultima Online Enhanced\uopatch.exe /CC"
runs EC in Legacy mode w/ cc graphics. solved?

 

[temu]

I like the 2d client because it still has a real "ultima" feel, and I find the artwork to have its own charm.

 

[Borric]

If it were up to me, I would axe the EC and keep the CC.

BUT...

Create a new game, UO2. Fully 3D and all the new fancy stuff.