Love it or hate it, going free-to-play may save this game

[Dol'Gorath]

I think this thread illustrates perfectly why UO will never grow again and will continue to dwindle. How can a game improve when the playerbase in general is against and tries to block every little change? F2P if done right will be a blessing for UO. You DO NOT have to sell overpowering game changing items to run a cash shop. Players are interested and will buy vanity items and pets and other things like unique looking items that will make them stick out even without having stats. It's a known fact UO is not growing. The EC is still in "Beta" gee wonder why? [those anti-change people again] and the shards are emptier than ever. And any change that is done to bring new players is strongly opposed. Do you consider in your efforts to keep the status quo you are dooming UO to death?

UO has one of the largest player bases of ANY MMO in the world, ironically it's mostly on free shards and not the EA run production shards, I wonder why? Could it have something to do that people escaped to avoiud the hated AOS based game and grind UO has become? You people constantly bash WoW and similar games for being grinds and do you not realize this is what UO is now too? Farm Doom, farm the abyss, farm peerless, farm this farm that for better and better items, get your best in slot, etc. UO had more freedom and as a result more community before AOS. You were not always in dungeons grinding for more and more and more like you are now and could socialize with your guildmates or have amazing RP communities and a massive player network. All this is gone now.

F2P and the introduction of a classic ruleset shard would do wonder for UO and it's potential cannot be imagined yet. Free Shards are run by private entities and players are subject to the whims of the admins and staff who could give away things to their friends and such, and are not gauranteed to always be there. So free to play official servers, both with AOS and Classic rulesets that are gauranteed to be there? That would be great! Classic Ruleset doesnt nescesarily need to be a classic shard either, in fact I think a full classic would be bad because people will tire of a game that doesn't change. Just remove all the items stats, revert to the classic items and convert AOS and future content to work that way or remove skills that have no place in that set [imbuing]

In closing, stop opposing everything, change is needed to save UO. Do you want UO around another 13 years or do you want it to close down at some point in the next 4 to 5 because the subs dropped below sustainability? Many shards are so low population now that it's probably getting too expensive for EA to keep them [Siege, Legends, Sonoma, Oceania, etc]
The time to make a choice is now and I hope the devs are seriously discussing UO's future.

 

[I Play UO]

The EC is still in "Beta" gee wonder why? [those anti-change people again] and the shards are emptier than ever. And any change that is done to bring new players is strongly opposed. Do you consider in your efforts to keep the status quo you are dooming UO to death?

The EC does not allow you to PvP at the same level the CC does. That's a fact. I'm not going to compromise my game play because the devs failed for the nth time to make a good client. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the classic client. Imagine how much better UO would be today if they focused all of the time they put into failed clients on game play instead.

 

[Dol'Gorath]

The EC does not allow you to PvP at the same level the CC does. That's a fact. I'm not going to compromise my game play because the devs failed for the nth time to make a good client. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the classic client. Imagine how much better UO would be today if they focused all of the time they put into failed clients on game play instead.

The classic client has all sorts of limitations to what can and cannot be done. Sticking to 13 year old technology will not push things forward.

 

[Dicimiie]

There is absolutely nothing wrong with the classic client. Imagine how much better UO would be today if they focused all of the time they put into failed clients on game play instead.

This statement is incorrect. There is something wrong with the classic client. It is not a marketable client. If the game is to continue, it needs to be marketed to gain more players. So the classic client is holding things back. I'm not saying the client is the only thing holding it back, but I will say its a big hurdle.

 

[Prince Caspian]

Something that was always appealing about the Ultima Series was the tremendous care and attention to detail of the games. They were products that the producers cared about and were proud about.

Once EA bought this game, that went down the drain. Now its all about the money, and nothing else.

Its an intangible, but it's definitely there, and I think it rots at the core.

 

[Martyna Zmuir]

Once EA bought this game, that went down the drain. Now its all about the money, and nothing else.

EA has ALWAYS owned UO. Its time for people to start remembering this.

EA bought OSI in September 1992, the same year that Ultima VII was released. (UO wasn't even a glimmer in Garriot's eye yet)

While it is very easy to blame EA's f-ed up corporate culture for UO's decline, you also have to take into consideration the spate of sub-par Dev Teams we've had, and the poor leadership of producers who only take the safe, milk-toast design path.

When a team is willing to release the T-Map update in a horribly broken state, or the High Seas in a bug-riddled barely functioning state (and they KNEW IT), you know they have a problem with the concept of professionalism.


Like I've said before, F2P isn't going to draw throngs of new people. Why would someone who could play LotRO, WoW, or even RuneScape going to want to play UO - a game with 13yo bugs and a Dev Team who HIDES from the p(l)ayers more often than not?

 

[Dicimiie]

Something that was always appealing about the Ultima Series was the tremendous care and attention to detail of the games. They were products that the producers cared about and were proud about.

Once EA bought this game, that went down the drain. Now its all about the money, and nothing else.

Its an intangible, but it's definitely there, and I think it rots at the core.

I was thinking about this earlier, actually. It's a shame that what was originally a game based purely on inspiration and pride became one of a profit margin. There is a lack of pride now.

I would love to know how many people working on UO today actually play it. To me, it should be a requirement. Not only should they have to play it, but it should be a requirement for them to log so many hours in game doing PvP, PvP etc. Get an idea of what the players are talking about.

Doesn't it strike anyone else as funny that the free shards out there get so much more done with the game than the company that owns it? And it's such a simple concept. The people that run those free servers have a passion for the game. They enjoy creating the gaming experience for others. They must, since they don't make any money on it.

There are systems out there that the production shards should look at. Some of them are absolutely amazing. And they are player-created. It's incredible.

 

[Fayled Dhreams]

EA has ALWAYS owned UO. Its time for people to start remembering this.

EA bought OSI in September 1992, the same year that Ultima VII was released. (UO wasn't even a glimmer in Garriot's eye yet)

While it is very easy to blame EA's f-ed up corporate culture for UO's decline, you also have to take into consideration the spate of sub-par Dev Teams we've had, and the poor leadership of producers who only take the safe, milk-toast design path.

When a team is willing to release the T-Map update in a horribly broken state, or the High Seas in a bug-riddled barely functioning state (and they KNEW IT), you know they have a problem with the concept of professionalism.


Like I've said before, F2P isn't going to draw throngs of new people. Why would someone who could play LotRO, WoW, or even RuneScape going to want to play UO - a game with 13yo bugs and a Dev Team who HIDES from the p(l)ayers more often than not?

Well ... no.

Goes to a lack of applicable specifics.

Nice writing, but, without the applicable specifics ... not too likely to stumble upon a "correct" answer.

Do you know WHY OSI was bought by EA?
Simply put: OSI could not afford to produce the distribution of its successful games.
And iirc, it was the cost of 3.5 floppies that caused EA's "economy of scale" to appear "attractive".
*shrugs*
Appears trivial, sure ... but ... it was the >point/condition< upon which the "decision" was made.
And yep! that singular point was a part of the >other< "problems" ... and those are just the market/distribution components.
There are several "components" to any successful "operation".

Just saying
GameSpy.com - Gaming's Homepage
Richard was not exactly focused, as a "producer", on the one project known as "Ultima Online".

*grins*
So ... Ultima Online, is as it was when created

consideration the spate of sub-par Dev Teams we've had, and the poor leadership of producers who only take the safe, milk-toast design path.

there NEVER was a "known successful" path to design/build a team, nor a description OF "good game distribution", nor a solid(known) Target market.
*shrugs*
If Moses had taken a right ... the Jewish nation would have had the oil, and the others left with only the sand ... maybe.

Not much has been made of a VERY applicable point ...
UO could be just "suffering" from a public change of taste ...
When was the last time Your Family ... played a board game? Sat around a radio listening to a program, went to a "live" theater performance, hosted a neighborhood Bridge-club, drove across town so the folks could dance the steps of the current favorites(or practice the old timey ones) ... ?

*smiles broadly*
The Free Sharders ARE the equivalent of American Contract Bridge League - Home Page ... and where UO will survive on into the future.

Trivial point of definition:
Meridian 59? yep ... >was< first ... went offline and
ERGO: had to reset their "continuous clock"
/simple

 

[Skrag]

EA has ALWAYS owned UO. Its time for people to start remembering this.

I'd seriously temp-ban anyone who said otherwise at this point. It's really really tiresome hearing some blinkered sap try to sound "in the know" by blaming whatever on an EA acquisition that took place 5 years before the game came out.

While it is very easy to blame EA's f-ed up corporate culture for UO's decline, you also have to take into consideration the spate of sub-par Dev Teams we've had, and the poor leadership of producers who only take the safe, milk-toast design path.

Man, what do you think a 13+ year old MMO looks like even if it makes every single design decision you happen to prefer? Do you think the game would just magically NEVER decline no matter how many years or decades go by or how many dozens of new games come out?

Like I've said before, F2P isn't going to draw throngs of new people. Why would someone who could play LotRO, WoW, or even RuneScape going to want to play UO - a game with 13yo bugs and a Dev Team who HIDES from the p(l)ayers more often than not?

If it sucks and is doomed then STFU and quit already.

 

[Martyna Zmuir]

Fayled, please start writing like a normal person. You're about as easy to follow as Waldo.

 

[Prince Caspian]

EA has ALWAYS owned UO. Its time for people to start remembering this.

EA bought OSI in September 1992, the same year that Ultima VII was released. (UO wasn't even a glimmer in Garriot's eye yet)

Um, bad choice of words. I meant when EA brought THIS FRANCHISE. Not this game in particular.

 

[Prince Caspian]

EA has ALWAYS owned UO. Its time for people to start remembering this.

I'd seriously temp-ban anyone who said otherwise at this point.

You can't ban people for being ill-informed. Double-click yourself and dismount the Charger of the Self-Righteous, please.

 

[Martyna Zmuir]

Skrag, may want to work on the reading comprehension and stop with the hyperbole. If it’s not stated _in words_ in my post, don't try to read into what I say.

While it is very easy to blame EA's f-ed up corporate culture for UO's decline, you also have to take into consideration the spate of sub-par Dev Teams we've had, and the poor leadership of producers who only take the safe, milk-toast design path.

Man, what do you think a 13+ year old MMO looks like even if it makes every single design decision you happen to prefer? Do you think the game would just magically NEVER decline no matter how many years or decades go by or how many dozens of new games come out?

Of course the game will decline as bigger, better, newer, shinier things come out. That’s called the march of time, progress, etc.

UO could have kept more subscribers by paying better attention to what the subscribers wanted, and what new gamers look for in an MMO. Perhaps we could have had a decent replacement client 10 years ago, instead of the mishmash of poorly conceived, downright UGLY replacements that have been churned out.

At any rate, you took what I said and went off on your own rather bizarre tangent.

Like I've said before, F2P isn't going to draw throngs of new people. Why would someone who could play LotRO, WoW, or even RuneScape going to want to play UO - a game with 13yo bugs and a Dev Team who HIDES from the p(l)ayers more often than not?

If it sucks and is doomed then STFU and quit already.

*looks at the quoted passage*

*looks at Skrag's delusional response*

Seriously, the edjumakayshun system failed you.

Did I say UO was doomed? No. Did I say UO sucked? No.

F2P isn't some magic wand that will revitalize UO. It *MIGHT* help stem the tide, but unless the game's flaws are properly addressed it would be little more than a band aid.

Fix the bugs.

Finish incomplete systems.

Balance the game.

Create a new player experience that actually prepares a newb.

THEN consider a F2P option and market it accordingly.

 

[Prince Caspian]

I would love to know how many people working on UO today actually play it. To me, it should be a requirement. Not only should they have to play it, but it should be a requirement for them to log so many hours in game doing PvP, PvP etc. Get an idea of what the players are talking about.

I was on this board when World War 2 Online first came out. I'm sure anyone else who was around at the time remembered how badly it blew up on the launching pad.

However, I did play it for a few years. And one of the best things about the game was the developers DID play with you. In fact, they had the Cornered Rat Software icon in their nametags. We also talked ot the devs on a daily basis on the forums. The community was very productive and communicative about issues with the game.

I still don't think WW2O's time has come yet -- I don't think technology will realistically achieve the scope the game strives for. Battlefield 1943 gives you the action fix, but not nearly the depth. Maybe one day...

 

[Roland of Atlantic]

I'm tired of EA horking out some garbage client and then a bunch of cheerleaders telling us we had better use it or else. I didn't care for it with Third Dawn and I don't care for it now. The EC is a joke.

Im nobody's cheerleader. You don't care for the EC probably because you belong to the no-change-or-I'll-quit crowd, and as a flag waving member of that crowd, you probably spent 10 minutes on it when it first came out in it's inevitably bugged state, or more likely, didn't even try it. So, you probably can't state any specifics about why you hate it and it sucks. I like it just fine, but judging by the membership and empty shards, they had better do something drastic to save the game or you will be left without a bank to sit at.

I'm suggesting that if they want to keep the game around, they will grow a set of balls, junk your precious classic client, and scrap my precious enhanced client and bring this game and it's culture back to present day. There is no excuse for letting it decline and fade into obscurity when it's a deeper game than any currently out there, and simply crippled from gaining loyal players because of the 1990's graphics.

 

[Roland of Atlantic]

The EC does not allow you to PvP at the same level the CC does. That's a fact.

Could you tell me specifically why? If you know it to be a hard fact, you could specify precisely what it is about EC that would hinder PVP. I just want to know because I just started to dabble a bit in PVP, and I'm curious. As far as I know, if you want any advanced macros at all in CC you need UO assist to even stand a chance.

Imagine how much better UO would be today if they focused all of the time they put into failed clients on game play instead.

It would probably be in the same boat it is now, graphically deficient, and unable to attract new players.