[UO Herald] Update From Mythic

[UO News]

As director of the MMO community here at Mythic, I'd like to refer you to a post made by Mark Jacobs on the Warhammer Herald regarding changes here at Mythic. I'd like to mirror these sentiments for UO. Ultima Online has an active and dedicated community of world-wide players. EA has supported this franchise for over 11 years and as long we have players dedicating themselves to the game that will not change. As a company, EA is proud to have three exciting MMOs UO, DAOC and Warhammer Online in its family of games.

More...

 

[Tina Small]

If you're having trouble with the link above, try this instead: http://herald.warhammeronline.com/warherald/NewsOverview.war. I think it goes to the same article.

 

[Storm]

Well hopefully this shuts some of the doom sayers up UO is not going to be terminated as long as they have customers I would not be suprised to see UO here still in another eleven years!

 

[Aboo]

Well hopefully this shuts some of the doom sayers up UO is not going to be terminated as long as they have customers I would not be suprised to see UO here still in another eleven years!

I'm sure my husband would moan knowing it might be around another 11 years but I look forward to it.

 

[GalenKnighthawke]

Neat.

Thank you.

-Galen's player

 

[deadite]

Robert. Thanks for touching base with us. You should come in and say hi more often. We're a real friendly bunch.

 

[GhostGL]

I'm sure my husband would moan knowing it might be around another 11 years but I look forward to it.

As long as we get jetpacks at some point.

 

[JC the Builder]

As I read his statement it was eerily similar to what I posted when the rumors started.

It might be a good thing that they closed down OSI a couple years ago. The cost of maintaining a separate studio is higher than having it all combined now at Mythic. As long as UO maintains a certain level of players then the game should continue. That is as long as Mythic doesn't get axed.

 

[Yalp]

they are committed to customer service?

maybe that should read...they should be committed for their customer service.

well good to know they are alive and kicking on the other side of the screen.

 

[R Traveler]

No single word about UO on warherald.

 

[AesSedai]

- Good to hear
also as I'd hoped for & suspected.
I mean sure, Mark mentioned that there had been thoughts about dissolving UO in the past; but in this economy, even an EA big chief should be able to see that UO has brought in money for over 11 years, even with some of the mishandling that its inevitably suffered from.

After following that link, I'm reminded of the nice 'banhammer' image on that page.
Maybe 16K out of several hundred thousand accounts isn't huge, but it is significant and does serve a purpose by showing some potential cheaters that they run a risk if they indulge.
A few reminders like that, perhaps monthly/bimonthly, perhaps on the auto patch screen, could also do UO some good, imho.
Like: 'XXX accounts burninated last month (banned for cheating the UO community)'

 

[Hemisphere]

I wonder why gold selling is a bannable offence in War but not in UO.

 

[Maplestone]

"We have no plans for X"

It is nice to see them trying to get ahead of the rumor mill given the EA results, but I squirm a little at him saying "Obviously, demand for a large QA and play-testing staff also falls after launch" ... not what I want going through the heads of the SA QA staff right now.

 

[AesSedai]

- Primarily because the creator of WHO has been steadfastly against real money transactions & UO has always allowed it.

 

[JC the Builder]

After following that link, I'm reminded of the nice 'banhammer' image on that page.
Maybe 16K out of several hundred thousand accounts isn't huge, but it is significant and does serve a purpose by showing some potential cheaters that they run a risk if they indulge.
A few reminders like that, perhaps monthly/bimonthly, perhaps on the auto patch screen, could also do UO some good, imho.
Like: 'XXX accounts burninated last month (banned for cheating the UO community)'

You might think that, but the "banhammer" in Warhammer has barely moved in months. It was over 10,000 the first month because they were banning gold sellers left and right. Are gold sellers really cheaters? No. But they are included and probably make up 90%+ of the people banned. Also they have banned quite a few people for leveling too fast by playing in a group. If that number was for actual cheaters it would be very low.

 

[Maplestone]

Are gold sellers really cheaters? No.

um ... the ToS of Warhammer disagree with you rather bluntly, don't they?

*skims Warhammer ToS*
*doesn't notice any formal reference to the gold trade being banned*

hmm ... that's an odd disconnect.

 

[Hemisphere]

surely it's the gold buyers who are the cheaters

 

[GalenKnighthawke]

I wonder why gold selling is a bannable offence in War but not in UO.

Basically UO was invented before in-game stuff for RL money became considered a serious issue. And now it's arguably too late. (Though I personally think banning that stuff sounds like a good idea, I'm just saying it's arguable that it's too late now.)

WHO, by contrast, came into being in an age where cash-for-gold/items was widely seen as an issue rather than "eh, as long as the seller GOT it legitimately, who cares."

-Galen's player

 

[Littleblue]

Thank you for the infos, Mythic.

 

[GalenKnighthawke]

surely it's the gold buyers who are the cheaters

What is cheating depends upon the rules of the game. If you violate the rules of the game, you're cheating by definition. And what cheating is serious enough to throw out a player depends on who's running the game at any given moment.

In other words.....Selling or buying gold is cheating in WHO, and not in UO, because the latter game has different rules than the former.

Nothing magical about it, just.....The rules.

-Galen's player

 

[THP]

Cu all u guys and gals at the 20th birthday!! quote me then!!

Maybe i will hang my boots up then... because i will be older and hitting 50!! then again maybe retirement will mean even more UO!!! Yeeeeee-aahhhhhh

 

[GAMBIT35]

Wow, you guys do believe everything you read. It's obviously a damage control article that doesn't even mention UO.

 

[Uriah Heep]

In keeping with my new positive outlook and nice perspective *polishes rose colored glasses* it did seem as tho the post on UOHerald was kinda an afterthought...one of those, "OMG we better say something about UO or they will be on UHall pissin and moanin again!"
heheh
but better than nothing, I reckon

 

[JC the Builder]

um ... the ToS of Warhammer disagree with you rather bluntly, don't they?

*skims Warhammer ToS*
*doesn't notice any formal reference to the gold trade being banned*

hmm ... that's an odd disconnect.

There are lots of things against the Terms of Service which are not cheating.

I just went and checked the graphic to see if it clarifies what the bans consist of. Right on the picture in small text it says "banned for selling gold". So there are really no cheaters in that number to begin with.

 

[Infiniti]

Thank you for keeping us informed Robert. As one of the 'many dedicted people' I would really hate to see UO close. I've only been playing for 7yrs. but would enjoy another 11.

 

[AesSedai]

- & now to move the topic of the 'Banhammer' and UO versus WHO item selling debate to another thread.
Wait for it. Wait for it...

x: So here is a new thread on these other subjects.

 

[Maplestone]

There are lots of things against the Terms of Service which are not cheating.

*begins to formulate a snarky counter-argument*

*realizes that technically you're right*

*grumbles, takes a testosterone-antidote and heads off to play*