Will EA protect Ultima as a brand?

[Nexus]

I agree with what you say the problem is (new blood), but I really don't think that your answers to UO's problem can help overcome it.

First I think that the EC is NOT our savior, but rather a harbinger of slow agonizing death, much as I believed UO3D to be. It divides our player base, and the development team which I believe both are already thin to begin with.

Actually, you know what? I was going to DL the EC client all over again and make a few comparisons in this post, but the patcher just crashed 3 times trying to DL the client. lol It's not worth the headache. It's just bad.

Yea UO has issues, and the EC isn't a Saviour, but 2 clients aren't near the top of the list either. Bugs and Rampant Cheating probably top the list. I've not found many posts on other site that these two things aren't among the top reasons people have claimed to have left the game.

My opinion on the Client debate.. the EC doesn't go far enough. UO is pretty much unmarketable because of how dated it is. UO can't draw enough new blood to really make a difference as long as it's stuck in the 90's.

 

[In Flames]

Yea UO has issues, and the EC isn't a Saviour, but 2 clients aren't near the top of the list either. Bugs and Rampant Cheating probably top the list. I've not found many posts on other site that these two things aren't among the top reasons people have claimed to have left the game.

My opinion on the Client debate.. the EC doesn't go far enough. UO is pretty much unmarketable because of how dated it is. UO can't draw enough new blood to really make a difference as long as it's stuck in the 90's.

I absolutely agree.

I think if you want to replace the 2d client you have to put a bit more love into it than ripping off the same UI as every other MMO out there. And I would imagine making the graphics actually WORSE as they have is not the way to go. If you want to replace 2d rip off the 2D interface, uprez it and then polish. If you want to replace our old graphics, give us something COMPARABLE at the bare minimum, you don't give us something that looks worse. Sure the grass looks nicer, guess what, I don't give a s*** about your grass looking better or your trees swaying. Want to know why? Because my character now looks like he stuffed his body through a cheese grater and used silly putty and scotch tape to put himself back together.

I was gone for the last two years and this specific topic STILL gets my blood heated.

 

[Nexus]

I absolutely agree.

I think if you want to replace the 2d client you have to put a bit more love into it than ripping off the same UI as every other MMO out there. And I would imagine making the graphics actually WORSE as they have is not the way to go. If you want to replace 2d rip off the 2D interface, uprez it and then polish. If you want to replace our old graphics, give us something COMPARABLE at the bare minimum, you don't give us something that looks worse. Sure the grass looks nicer, guess what, I don't give a s*** about your grass looking better or your trees swaying. Want to know why? Because my character now looks like he stuffed his body through a cheese grater and used silly putty and scotch tape to put himself back together.

I was gone for the last two years and this specific topic STILL gets my blood heated.

I actually don't mind the UI being similar to other games, what I think hurts UO the most in any attempt to modernise it is the mechanics of how you interface with the UI, and the Isometric view that UO has.

Really to draw new fresh young blow to revitalise the title they are going to have to join the pack and move into the 21st century of MMO's and that means a full 3d environment. Now I know this isn't popular with everyone. I've also stated what I feel is the best solution, stick in a "Legacy Graphics" option in what ever client to use the old CC graphics and as much as the interface as possible. This would please the most amount of people while reducing the Client backend work from 2 clients to 1.

 

[popps]

Yea UO has issues, and the EC isn't a Saviour, but 2 clients aren't near the top of the list either. Bugs and Rampant Cheating probably top the list. I've not found many posts on other site that these two things aren't among the top reasons people have claimed to have left the game.

My opinion on the Client debate.. the EC doesn't go far enough. UO is pretty much unmarketable because of how dated it is. UO can't draw enough new blood to really make a difference as long as it's stuck in the 90's.

I absolutely agree.

I think if you want to replace the 2d client you have to put a bit more love into it than ripping off the same UI as every other MMO out there. And I would imagine making the graphics actually WORSE as they have is not the way to go. If you want to replace 2d rip off the 2D interface, uprez it and then polish. If you want to replace our old graphics, give us something COMPARABLE at the bare minimum, you don't give us something that looks worse. Sure the grass looks nicer, guess what, I don't give a s*** about your grass looking better or your trees swaying. Want to know why? Because my character now looks like he stuffed his body through a cheese grater and used silly putty and scotch tape to put himself back together.

I was gone for the last two years and this specific topic STILL gets my blood heated.

Graphics, Graphics, Graphics and more Graphics...........it just is beyond me why I keep reading Graphics (lack of it...) as the main reason for UO not to get new players.

I must be from Mars, I guess, because personally, while I do not disdain looking at nice graphics, it is NOT what keeps me playing a game.

I mean, the game should not have ugly graphics, and I do not think that UO, whether in the 2D or EC clients, can be dismissed as looking "ugly". It might be outdated, not to par with other games, but ugly ? I do not think so.

Now, this said, since resources need to be handled on a priorities scale, if there is scarcity of resources, I'd rather them be spent on CONTENT rather than Graphics.

Why ?

Because it is the content who will keep me playing it. A game can look gourgeously, but if it lacks in content, I would not spend my time on it.
On the contrary, even if a game looked just average, graphically, but gave me a good playing experience because of its content and complexity, it would keep me playing it.

That is why I personally do not understand so much emphasys on graphics.

 

[Morgana LeFay (PoV)]

I'd love to see all the "FREE SHARDS" gone. The players who should be here like the rest of us. To get things changed you need the mouths who want it in the game not off on some free shard thumbing their nose at EA. That dont change things.

EA, Mythic, and Origin, have all had ample opportunity to provide the product that free shard players seek. They refused.

By that refusal, they said that they do not want our (their) business.

What else can be done? If you went to Wendy's to get a hamburger, and found them only serving chicken sandwhiches, would you just take the chicken sandwhich and deal with it, or would you go across the street to Burger King??

If EA found a way to close down the free shards, those players would simply abandon UO and move on to some other game that was more similar to what they were looking for (Steak sandwhich at Subway is closer to hamburger than chicken sandwhich at Wendy's)

 

[Uvtha]

Graphics, Graphics, Graphics and more Graphics...........it just is beyond me why I keep reading Graphics (lack of it...) as the main reason for UO not to get new players.

I must be from Mars, I guess, because personally, while I do not disdain looking at nice graphics, it is NOT what keeps me playing a game.

I mean, the game should not have ugly graphics, and I do not think that UO, whether in the 2D or EC clients, can be dismissed as looking "ugly". It might be outdated, not to par with other games, but ugly ? I do not think so.

Now, this said, since resources need to be handled on a priorities scale, if there is scarcity of resources, I'd rather them be spent on CONTENT rather than Graphics.

Why ?

Because it is the content who will keep me playing it. A game can look gourgeously, but if it lacks in content, I would not spend my time on it.
On the contrary, even if a game looked just average, graphically, but gave me a good playing experience because of its content and complexity, it would keep me playing it.

That is why I personally do not understand so much emphasys on graphics.

Uo has great depth. Probably the most depth of any sandbox mmo, but when people dont get past the graphics, no one ever knows. I also think the graphics are nice, and clean and classic, but it is undeniable that the graphics, and the framework the graphics are built on, is antiquated. You can tell this with no more than a cursory glance, especially with the SA client with it's ridiculously muddled mix of original art and KR monsters and avatars and some of the frankly amateurish bs that came out of Samuri Empire up doesn't help either.

Content DOES keep people playing, but you have to START playing to keep playing.

That said theres an easy way to spend time on content and not worry about the graphics, that would be go f2p because people will play anything with any kind of graphics so long as it's free, and once they do, they will realize the game is worth playing.

 

[Miss Smoocher]

if only UO looked like guild wars it would rock!!!!:bowdown:

 

[popps]

That said theres an easy way to spend time on content and not worry about the graphics, that would be go f2p because people will play anything with any kind of graphics so long as it's free, and once they do, they will realize the game is worth playing.

Well, there is no need for free to play, the TRIAL version should be enough.

Yes, unfortunately because of cheaters the trial version need be limited in its capabilities and so one cannot experience all there is to do in UO but I think it is quite a good vehicle to figure out pretty much how deep a game Ultima Online is.

 

[Sevin0oo0]

I'd rather them be spent on CONTENT rather than Graphics.

Because it is the content who will keep me playing it. A game can look gourgeously, but if it lacks in content, I would not spend my time on it.
On the contrary, even if a game looked just average, graphically, but gave me a good playing experience because of its content and complexity, it would keep me playing it.

I tried ROM w/ the 'better' graphics,instanced dungeons (cool), all that - dumped it after about 30mins All because of graphics. I prefer UO - It's average graphics works (except for the 'unintended' art changes which ruins it for awhile), the Content is rich, abundant and plentiful (if they could make it all work correctly, then Leave It Alone), which leaves me at: I'd rather them be spent on game CONTROL, rather than Content - they don't/won't/can't control actions In-game (and never will), how they gonna do it Out of game?

 

[Woodsman]

Safety, Safety, Safety and more Safety...........it just is beyond me why I keep reading Safety (lack of it...) as the main reason for NCAA football to have 18 players killed and 159 injured in 1905.

I must be from Mars, I guess, because personally, while I do not disdain looking at nice, safe plays, it is NOT what keeps me from watching a game. I do not understand why the NCAA is going to allow the forward pass or start encouraging players to wear more padding and actual helmets. Why do football players feel this need to wear helmets?

popps, you are my favorite poster and that was done out of love.

Graphics, Graphics, Graphics and more Graphics...........it just is beyond me why I keep reading Graphics (lack of it...) as the main reason for UO not to get new players.

I must be from Mars, I guess, because personally, while I do not disdain looking at nice graphics, it is NOT what keeps me playing a game.

Because it is the content who will keep me playing it. A game can look gourgeously, but if it lacks in content, I would not spend my time on it.
On the contrary, even if a game looked just average, graphically, but gave me a good playing experience because of its content and complexity, it would keep me playing it.

That is why I personally do not understand so much emphasys on graphics.

If everybody was like you, then UO would have 100 of thousands of subscriptions, and many shards wouldn't resemble ghost towns.

I agree with you that UO has the most content of any game, but content doesn't matter if young or new MMO players won't give it a chance.

 

[Woodsman]

That said theres an easy way to spend time on content and not worry about the graphics, that would be go f2p because people will play anything with any kind of graphics so long as it's free, and once they do, they will realize the game is worth playing.

UO is free to play for two weeks. Personally I'd like to see them extend the trial to a full month, but how long does it really take somebody to figure out if $10 a month is worth it?

If somebody would play UO if it was free, but they aren't willing to pay $10, then that does not help UO at all, because EA cares about money first and foremost.

 

[In Flames]

Graphics, Graphics, Graphics and more Graphics...........it just is beyond me why I keep reading Graphics (lack of it...) as the main reason for UO not to get new players.

I must be from Mars, I guess, because personally, while I do not disdain looking at nice graphics, it is NOT what keeps me playing a game.

I mean, the game should not have ugly graphics, and I do not think that UO, whether in the 2D or EC clients, can be dismissed as looking "ugly". It might be outdated, not to par with other games, but ugly ? I do not think so.

Now, this said, since resources need to be handled on a priorities scale, if there is scarcity of resources, I'd rather them be spent on CONTENT rather than Graphics.

Why ?

Because it is the content who will keep me playing it. A game can look gourgeously, but if it lacks in content, I would not spend my time on it.
On the contrary, even if a game looked just average, graphically, but gave me a good playing experience because of its content and complexity, it would keep me playing it.

That is why I personally do not understand so much emphasys on graphics.

I would completely dismiss the EC as ugly. Sure it has some nice particle effects and what not but every player character in the EC looks horrible. As do many if not most of the other mobiles.

 

[In Flames]

if only UO looked like guild wars it would rock!!!!:bowdown:

No it wouldn't -_-

 

[Gilmour]

Graphics, Graphics, Graphics and more Graphics...........it just is beyond me why I keep reading Graphics (lack of it...) as the main reason for UO not to get new players.

^ the reason why its so important to finish the EC, i think the devs are realizing this also now.

if some potential suscriber open either of the current clients coming from any modern mmo, he will go "i aint playing this" and shut it down before he can grasp the depths of UO.

 

[In Flames]

I actually don't mind the UI being similar to other games, what I think hurts UO the most in any attempt to modernise it is the mechanics of how you interface with the UI, and the Isometric view that UO has.

Really to draw new fresh young blow to revitalise the title they are going to have to join the pack and move into the 21st century of MMO's and that means a full 3d environment. Now I know this isn't popular with everyone. I've also stated what I feel is the best solution, stick in a "Legacy Graphics" option in what ever client to use the old CC graphics and as much as the interface as possible. This would please the most amount of people while reducing the Client backend work from 2 clients to 1.

The isometric view is what makes UO's combat experience what it is. The problem with the current EC is that it looks worse than legacy graphics as it currently is. Specifically player character's look HORRENDOUS in game.

 

[Spiritless]

^ the reason why its so important to finish the EC, i think the devs are realizing this also now.

If you think a "finished" EC client will be graphically good enough to draw players to UO, you have unrealistic expectations. Doing so would require a total overhaul to how graphics and maps are handled and almost certainly require a migration to a 3D environment.

A large percentage of people, realistically, are not going to pay roughly the same amount per month as game like WoW, Rift, etc. unless the environment looks at least on par with games of that ilk. Decent graphics don't make a game, but at least they make it marketable.

 

[Gilmour]

If you think a "finished" EC client will be graphically good enough to draw players to UO, you have unrealistic expectations. Doing so would require a total overhaul to how graphics and maps are handled and almost certainly require a migration to a 3D environment.

A large percentage of people, realistically, are not going to pay roughly the same amount per month as game like WoW, Rift, etc. unless the environment looks at least on par with games of that ilk. Decent graphics don't make a game, but at least they make it marketable.

I disagree, alot of ppl are far more modest than you think.. anyways, am only saying it needs to be good enough to keep them going till they grasp the important thing (the gameplay), which to this date have not been matched in its diversety.

 

[In Flames]

We don't need Crysis 2 or Witcher 2 graphics here. Something around Torchlight's level would be a great place to START though.

 

[Spiritless]

Well, you're free to disagree as much as you want, but there's a reason why games like WoW have millions of subscribers, and why Rift attracted 1,000,000+ subscribers at launch a few months ago... and it wasn't because they had the depth and gameplay of UO.

On that point, I think people are also prone here to big up a little too much UO's gameplay as though it's still something to be envied. While that once may have been true, these days UO's gameplay in comparison to modern games isn't much to shout about either. PvM AI was written in '97 and optimized for people still on dial-up and anything that once made UO unique has been pretty much lost as EA have, instead of playing on UO's strengths as a unique product, chose to genericize the game by attempting to emulating the more successful MMOs while simultaneously not standing a chance in competing with them. There's also no real PvP to speak of or particularly much incentive to PvP; EA ostracised those of that playstyle long ago.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. If UO wants to compete in the modern market, a sequel needs to be created from scratch with a modern client, modern graphics and modern gameplay. It has the potential to be huge as people do respect the franchise; with a modern game to market Britannia could thrive once more.

 

[In Flames]

There's also no real PvP to speak of or particularly much incentive to PvP; EA ostracised those of that playstyle long ago.

Ostracized yes, but we all leave and then return when PvP in other games doesn't scratch the itch as well.

Then we get angry with the dev team and leave again.

^^

 

[Woodsman]

I've said it before and I'll say it again. If UO wants to compete in the modern market, a sequel needs to be created from scratch with a modern client, modern graphics and modern gameplay.

The EC is the same engine powering Rift, Fallout 3, did I mention Rift, Warhammer Online, Elder Scrolls: Oblivion, and a slew of other successful modern games.

The content is there, the engine is there, it's just deciding whether to go half-way on the graphics or not.

I agree with you that a modern looking UO could do wonders for a boost in new players, assuming they followed through on the quest and new player systems. People mock WoW's graphics, but the new player experience is second to none.

A sequel where players who have played for many years would end up losing their houses, what communities are left, their items, characters, etc., would fail miserably. It would really **** off existing players who would probably turn their backs on EA. We are the most emmo of all MMO players.

It's a moot point, Star Wars is sucking down all of the manpower and money for the next few years.

 

[Gilmour]

We don't need Crysis 2 or Witcher 2 graphics here. Something around Torchlight's level would be a great place to START though.

UO in its current form will never be 3d, nor need it be. there are many great games coming out still in the same kind of perspective as uo, tho yea, they are turnable in most cases.. but alot of people doesnt mind this.

thing is just you want an EC that is respectable, that behaves, looks and performs like it should, and i am not asking for wow style animation or whatever, this is not needed at all, nor would that be in the concept of EC to offer a fairly lightweight (3d wise) Client.. all that is needed, really is to make art that doesnt look pixelated and is worthy of continueing the lagecy of grabbing new subbers to uo, which in time may like classic client better than enhanced client. <- not impossible.

 

[Spiritless]

@Woodsman: A sequel does not necessarily have to equate to the closing of Ultima Online I. If enough people wanted to keep their houses and continue playing, it'd stand on its own.

You actually highlight more reasons why a sequel would be beneficial. We need a clean slate; a fresh start for everyone. Put the ridiculously broken economies behind us, scratch the advantage of all the duped gold and items... and begin afresh where veterans and new players alike stood on a level playing field, once again. If the sequel was good enough, I think you'll find many warming to the idea of starting anew for that reason. Plus, an entirely new game would be a huge marketing point. Incremental updates to the EC aren't.

That's my POV anyway.

 

[Fayled Dhreams]

I'd love to see all the "FREE SHARDS" gone. The players who should be here like the rest of us. To get things changed you need the mouths who want it in the game not off on some free shard thumbing their nose at EA. That dont change things.

EA, Mythic, and Origin, have all had ample opportunity to provide the product that free shard players seek. They refused.

By that refusal, they said that they do not want our (their) business.

What else can be done? If you went to Wendy's to get a hamburger, and found them only serving chicken sandwhiches, would you just take the chicken sandwhich and deal with it, or would you go across the street to Burger King??

If EA found a way to close down the free shards, those players would simply abandon UO and move on to some other game that was more similar to what they were looking for (Steak sandwich at Subway is closer to hamburger than chicken sandwhich at Wendy's)

/not exactly true ...

considering yourself for an example ...
YOU ain't exactly "abandoning/moving on" ... now are you?

YES! sliced beef IS closer to hamburger than Chicken ...

bytheby ... which sandwich is a sandwhich which a witch would prefer?
A: a sandwitch which has no sand, and no pieces of witches within ...
(they aren't normally known for cannibalism ... present company: deferred )

 

[Gilmour]

@Woodsman: A sequel does not necessarily have to equate to the closing of Ultima Online I. If enough people wanted to keep their houses and continue playing, it'd stand on its own.

Correct, a good example of this is EverQuest and EverQuest II which is both still running.

 

[Fayled Dhreams]

@Woodsman: A sequel does not necessarily have to equate to the closing of Ultima Online I. If enough people wanted to keep their houses and continue playing, it'd stand on its own.

Correct, a good example of this is EverQuest and EverQuest II which is both still running.

heh!
IF a sequel >actually got made<
and
Had enough polish and coherent graphics and software as requested

"old accounts" would stay on the current shards ONLY pending free transfers to what they've been asking for for YEARS ...

so, yeah, a "sequel" WOULD "kill off" CC&EC
IF a sequel >actually got made<
and
Had enough polish and coherent graphics and software as requested ...

See how that may be?

 

[Experimental]

none so far

and do remember we dont show ads either.

but thanks for asking..

Not to derail or anything, but why is Drachenfels misspelled in your sig?

 

[Gilmour]

Not to derail or anything, but why is Drachenfels misspelled in your sig?

i didnt even notice till now.. thanks. was not intentional.
but yes some derail

IF one was made, big IF (we all know this) it would be a whole new game. with whole new accounts, characters and whatever else. with nothing whatsoever transfered from old game to new.

 

[Elric_Soban]

Games going to the FtP model is a desperation move. The game isn't making it with a subscription, so they try that model. On paper it seems to make sense. But I think it's a self defeating course of action, because I think most gamers want a fair playing ground. And FtP leads to PtW (Pay-to-Win). Players start to see the costs of potions and fast advancements add up, and realize that it can cost them more than a subscription model.

That's not true, if they do it properly. I'l re-do your statement and say that offering MORE POWERFULL GEAR for RL money is a DESPERATION move. What they need to do is offer desirable, but NON-OP items. Deco stuff, skins, cosmetic crap or even the occaisional combat item that is comparable, NOT OP.. thats fine. Its when they say "+1 swords are free.. but +2 swords are 2.99" that you have an inbred, drooling on their own velcro-shoes dev team who just doesn't know which direction is up and the game dies under the weight of it's own searingly intense stupidity.

Hopefully EA doesn't fall into that rut. LOL who are we kidding, of course they will.

 

[Fayled Dhreams]

Just because someone sticks it in a EULA doesn't make it legally binding...

blah blah dodge and deflect and hypothesize

EA HAS protected Ultima as a brand, that they have rights to ...

Ultima 4 & EA: Corrections and Clarifications | Ultima Aiera
(thnx experimental )

shoulda scanned the thread for those recent additions while you were editing ... huh?

 

[Gilmour]

EA HAS protected Ultima as a brand, that they have rights to ...

Ultima 4 & EA: Corrections and Clarifications | Ultima Aiera
(thnx experimental )

shoulda scanned the thread for those recent additions while you were editing ... huh?

EA cant do a thing as long as the free shards are well... free.. the moment they start making money on the ultima brand, then they can take legal action.

 

[Woodsman]

Actually they have another separate EverQuest coming out in the next year or two which will mean three EQ titles.

The problem with that comparison is that EverQuest was pretty healthy when EverQuest 2 launched, with over 400,000 subscriptions. They could weather the loss of some players from EQ to EQ2.

UO has a tiny fraction of the numbers that EQ did when EQ2 launched. If they did a UO2 right, complete with good housing, there would be a lot of UO players who would go to UO2, and what happens when UO becomes unprofitable as a result? Even at UO's peak or during the time of UO2's development before it was canceled, it didn't have nearly enough players to keep it viable in EA's eyes, and in 2011 we probably have 25%-35% of the players we had back then.

The other problem with that thinking is that Sony also supported EQ much better during the time leading up to EQ2, and they still support EQ well. While some EQ players got all emo about EQ2, there were plenty who were happy with Sony's support of the existing EQ. Sony wasn't pretending that EQ didn't exist, it wasn't pushing EQ forums off to third party websites, etc.

We just feel neglected now with our out-of-date websites, problems with community service or relations, deliberate lack of a presence on the main BioWare and EA community sites and forums, etc. Imagine how we would feel with a UO2 that was treated like Star Wars, complete with a nice, constantly updated website, official forums, active community relations, constant media blitz, etc.

If you want to go the route of UO2, might as well offer a full migration path for existing UO players, complete with housing/items and communities. If they did that, I'd be behind migrating to UO2 in a heartbeat.

 

[Fayled Dhreams]

EA cant do a thing as long as the free shards are well... free.. the moment they start making money on the ultima brand, then they can take legal action.

/false

EA can simply send a letter ... which IS "a thing" that they can do
they could also get some youtubes unlisted ... simple request again

As above(mine) AFTER a simple letter ... they >could< move forward
sieze the property in question/used : for purposes of investigation
get into the associated operators financial accounts ...
communications twixt operators/players ...

the FSers >already< violated EAs IP rights ...
so already it is past "allegedly" suspect activity ...

just stop ... thread is dead ...

 

[Nexus]

EA HAS protected Ultima as a brand, that they have rights to ...

Ultima 4 & EA: Corrections and Clarifications | Ultima Aiera
(thnx experimental )

shoulda scanned the thread for those recent additions while you were editing ... huh?

Still doesn't change the fact the server software itself may not be in violation of any laws... Only people connecting to it are in violation of a EULA not those running the server.

Let me break it down how that would be.

The Emu's software is the result of an individual or a groups work in it's entirety and doesn't include any code from EA's official servers, it isn't a violation of copyright laws, that would be like saying OpenOffice or LibreOffice are in violation of copyright laws for making a Office Document suite similar to Microsoft Office. Now if they called it Ultima Online: Blah blah then the brand name would be protected but not the server itself. The letters UO themselves are unimportant to this, since they are an abbreviation that could stand for many many things. As long as the emulation packages do not include any of EA's work in their design, coding or distribution they are not breaking any laws.

They only become vulnerable once they are making money off of their emulated servers, because they are making use of EA's Client software to make money for themselves.

Ultima 4 bit, yea those "remakes" were using code from the old Ultima Floppies, big difference.

None of this stops someone from renting a server in one of dozens of countries that do not recognise US or European intellectual property laws.

 

[Fayled Dhreams]

Still doesn't change the fact the server software itself may not be in violation of any laws... Only people connecting to it are in violation of a EULA not those running the server.

Let me break it down how that would be.

The Emu's software is the result of an individual or a groups work in it's entirety and doesn't include any code from EA's official servers, it isn't a violation of copyright laws, that would be like saying OpenOffice or LibreOffice are in violation of copyright laws for making a Office Document suite similar to Microsoft Office. Now if they called it Ultima Online: Blah blah then the brand name would be protected but not the server itself. The letters UO themselves are unimportant to this, since they are an abbreviation that could stand for many many things. As long as the emulation packages do not include any of EA's work in their design, coding or distribution they are not breaking any laws.

They only become vulnerable once they are making money off of their emulated servers, because they are making use of EA's Client software to make money for themselves.

Ultima 4 bit, yea those "remakes" were using code from the old Ultima Floppies, big difference.

None of this stops someone from renting a server in one of dozens of countries that do not recognise US or European intellectual property laws.

Will EA protect Ultima as a brand?

They did ... /end thread topic

Tangent: Can EA do it again?
moot
Look and feel and piracy and plagiarism and ethics and law and enforcement and a whole lot of other periphery crap is ... moot

You may(of course) feel free to be a wiener about what you think is/isn't >righteously/legal/ "is" is<

won't have any actual impact until something is actually Proven(acted on officially)
to be such and so and as one would think and/or contrary to it.

by the way, for future reference

the fact the server software itself may not be in violation of any laws

software is ALWAYS "guiltless" ... it is the use that humans put it to that will ALWAYS be in judgement ...

ie.: lockpicks are guiltless ... DOH!

 

[Gilmour]

...Only people connecting to it are in violation of a EULA not those running the server....

The Emu's software is the result of an individual or a groups work in it's entirety and doesn't include any code from EA's official servers, it isn't a violation of copyright laws, that would be like saying OpenOffice or LibreOffice are in violation of copyright laws for making a Office Document suite similar to Microsoft Office.

Very good, and accurate comparishment.

 

[Spiritless]

Not quite.

First of all, the servers do require assets from a client install in order to serve the maps, etc. While the project may have been coded from the ground up, there's still that attachment and use of EA's copyrighted content.

Secondly, point 17 of the UO rules of conduct specifically states:

17 ) You will not create, use or provide any server emulator or other site where Ultima Online may be played, and you will not post or distribute any utilities, emulators or other software tools related to Ultima Online without the express written permission of Origin.

Those running freeshards certainly contravene this.

Point 5(d) of the EULA itself further states:

You agree to play Ultima Online only on the Service and not through any other means. You further agree not to create or provide any other means through which Ultima Online may be played by others - for example, through server emulators

I don't think its debatable that those providing, and also using, freeshards are violating UO's EULA.

 

[Gilmour]

Not quite.

First of all, the servers do require assets from a client install in order to serve the maps, etc. While the project may have been coded from the ground up, there's still that attachment and use of EA's copyrighted content.

Secondly, point 17 of the UO rules of conduct specifically states:

Those running freeshards certainly contravene this.

Point 5(d) of the EULA itself further states:

I don't think its debatable that those providing, and also using, freeshards are violating UO's EULA.

UO Terms of Service is not Legally bound.. it is the terms of uo which apply to uo.. they can ban them from uo if they got account on official shards.. but it dont hold in court.. this what we mean

 

[Spiritless]

That isn't necessarily true. In some cases, EULAs have been judged to be legally binding. This is where the topic starts going down the avenue of legal ambiguity and would need to be actually tested in law for anyone to conclude one way or the other about UO's EULA. The issue of whether UO's EULA is enforceable legally depends on a wide range of things.

What doesn't seem too ambiguous to me, though, is the fact that freeshards and those who play on them are definitely in violation of it, contrary to what others were saying earlier.

 

[Fayled Dhreams]

UO Terms of Service is not Legally bound.. it is the terms of uo which apply to uo.. they can ban them from uo if they got account on official shards.. but it dont hold in court.. this what we mean

what? Legally bound?
maybe ... if you don't >sign it(click thru)<
but
not being legally bound ... doesn't >give permission< TO set up an emulator ... now does it ...??
Then you are up against the http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap3.pdf
OTHER aspects of ripping on someone elses "creation"

what?
don't hold in court? lern lawyer speak from a beeter place than broadcast TV
can EA ban one from EA shards ... and Make that hold up in court?
duh ...

jeez ... board lawyers & bored posters ...

Who could tell the difference?

 

[Nexus]

First of all, the servers do require assets from a client install in order to serve the maps, etc. While the project may have been coded from the ground up, there's still that attachment and use of EA's copyrighted content.

Open Office, Libre Office, Bean, and other word processing software is able to read, write, and make use of Microsoft Offices proprietary file formats, show me a difference?

Secondly, if I installed UO to a machine without every starting an account, ie. I never even did a click through of the EULA/ToS how would it apply? Third you'd have to prove I accepted the EULA/ToS first for any of that to matter. Fourth UO doesn't use proprietary File formats for it's animation or map files, this means I can create any type of program to read them and there's not anything EA can do about it outside it's own network, the servers are not altering, modifying or redistributing them, the server operators doesn't view them anymore than me or you do, at most the server software indexs them as a reference. The software is just reading them and that isn't illegal, if it was every Antivirus program on the market would be illegal.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not in favor of people playing on Freeshards, quite the opposite. But there are many applications in which the use of EA's property is legal, such as to show criticism through satirical videos and teaching.

If someone make a satirical UO Video comic to show their displeasure of the state of the game using an emulator, that's protected. If I was to use it to teach lessons in basic economics, as an educator that could be considered protected.

Everyone attacks freeshards on the concept of "It takes people away from UO" and that I can agree with, but I'm also going to argue on the merit of that there are other positions where Freeshards can be used in a beneficial manner.

Here's the biggest problem, the Emulator Software is legal, it's how people use it that throws it into a possible conflict, it won't even run unless someone modifies it to point it at files in the UO Clients install directory. Saying the Emulator Software itself is a violation of any laws is wrong, it's how it's used that should be called into question, you can't attack the emulator you have to attack the individuals who run it.

Can EA shut down Freeshards, maybe, it would be difficult there are a ton of things EA would have to prove first. UO is the only MMO I've ever played you didn't click through a EULA when you go to log in, and again after every major update. EA cannot prove anyone of us has physically clicked that button saying "I accept", how many folks have given accounts to family, or friends? How many of us have every paid for a family members account? I can't force someone else into a contract that's illegal itself.

If a person installs and uses UO with out ever having the intention to play on EA's service and never sets up an account or registers a disks [Account Key] how can the be bound by an agreement they were never presented? UO has some major flaws when it comes to protecting it's rights inheriant in it's design.

 

[Spiritless]

Open Office, Libre Office, Bean, and other word processing software is able to read, write, and make use of Microsoft Offices proprietary file formats, show me a difference?

This is not an apples to apples comparison by any stretch. For a start MS released specifications for their proprietary formats under the Microsoft Open Specification Promise. Also reverse engineering for the purposes of interoperability is often seen as acceptable. Avoiding interoperability could potentially even violate various anti-trust laws. While it looks favorable at first glance to try and compare these things, this is entirely a different issue.

It's worth noting that the term "emulator" is technically inaccurate. It's an alternative implementation we're discussing here, and that in itself is not necessarily illegal. I would still argue that use of client files for the purposes of shard hosting may violate the intellectual property rights of EA, however, and certainly the EULA if it can be proved to be enforceable. Blizzard, in essence, successfully argued exactly this in their case against a private server operator in which they were awarded substantial damages.

If EA wanted to, of course, they could take action and get these theories tested in law. As I said, that's the only way to determine if any action can be taken once and for all. Until such time, no-one can say authoritatively one way or the other. There are difficulties and grey areas on either side of the fence.

This whole debate is kinda moot, though. Freeshards have existed for at least a decade and EA appears to have no interest in attempting to enforce their ownership of Ultima's IP.

 

[Fayled Dhreams]

Don't get me wrong, I'm not in favor of people playing on Freeshards, quite the opposite. But there are many applications in which the use of EA's property is legal, such as to show criticism through satirical videos and teaching.

If someone make a satirical UO Video comic to show their displeasure of the state of the game using an emulator, that's protected. If I was to use it to teach lessons in basic economics, as an educator that could be considered protected.

/false ... doable but FALSE

To use EAs IP >legally<
You MUST have EAs written consent ...

think not bubba?
Naomi just proved you different ...
Naomi >does not own the name< : Naomi
now, in-spite of all the idiocy involved
it is an example of little david(Naomi) bracing and defeating the giant Goliath(Cadbury)

how do you think the little free sharders will fare ... against the Goliath EA?

come on law is not your strong suit ...

 

[Nexus]

/false ... doable but FALSE

To use EAs IP >legally<
You MUST have EAs written consent ...

think not bubba?
Naomi just proved you different ...
Naomi >does not own the name< : Naomi
now, in-spite of all the idiocy involved
it is an example of little david(Naomi) bracing and defeating the giant Goliath(Cadbury)

how do you think the little free sharders will fare ... against the Goliath EA?

come on law is not your strong suit ...

That Copyright law you were touting, read Section 17 about fair use laws.. ie. when it's ok to use another groups copyrighted material without permission.

I also like to point out that all your arguments, only apply in countries wither intellectual property rights laws are recognised and enforced they are not a universal thing. What might hold true in one country might not in another.

 

[Uvtha]

Well, there is no need for free to play, the TRIAL version should be enough.

Yes, unfortunately because of cheaters the trial version need be limited in its capabilities and so one cannot experience all there is to do in UO but I think it is quite a good vehicle to figure out pretty much how deep a game Ultima Online is.

People are much more likely to play a game where they don't have to pay ever, than a game that they will have to pay in a month. Lots of people go in thinking "i will never spend money on this game" and of course they will, but if they know they will HAVE to pay money and in short order then they wont bother.

I mean all the games that went f2p has free trials too. Free trials really only attract people who think the game is appealing on some level already. Free games don't need that much appeal. The world is a boring place and people are broke, thus games with no threat of specific charge are appealing.

 

[Uvtha]

/false ... doable but FALSE

To use EAs IP >legally<
You MUST have EAs written consent ...

think not bubba?
Naomi just proved you different ...
Naomi >does not own the name< : Naomi
now, in-spite of all the idiocy involved
it is an example of little david(Naomi) bracing and defeating the giant Goliath(Cadbury)

how do you think the little free sharders will fare ... against the Goliath EA?

come on law is not your strong suit ...

mmmm IP law is kinda vauge about what fair use might be. Like mentioning Ultima in a book, or showing a screen shot of some ultima game, I don't know that that is a breach of IP laws. There is certainly wiggle room, but that would in no way cover free shards.

Ea could shut down any free shard they wanted via legal action.

 

[In Flames]

EA cant do a thing as long as the free shards are well... free.. the moment they start making money on the ultima brand, then they can take legal action.

If you look up the more popular free servers you will see one of the sites actually has a shop where you can buy some in game currency alongside a shirt and a poster.

 

[In Flames]

And after googling a little, I've found a server where you can buy your very own Shamino's Crossbow for the low low price of 20$ USD. And about 1000 other in game items (and by 1000 I mean like 20).

 

[In Flames]

Or another where you can buy gold outright, or 7xGm skills, or ethy's.

This is exactly how Blizzard won their courtcase
Blizzard awarded $88M from WoW private server lawsuit | Massively

Reeves was making a profit from the enterprise, using microtransactions on the server. The judge ruled that this was indeed copyright infringement against Blizzard, and ordered Scapegaming to pay $85.5M in statutory damages, $3M in inappropriate profits, and $63,600 in attorney fees.

 

[Siteswap]

EA would be crazy to close UO before trying a new business model.

EA would be crazy to do a lot of things when it comes to UO, but that hasnt stopped them so far...