The problem with a UO2 is that if you try to replace UO with another game, if you don't provide a means for UO players to migrate with their stuff and their characters and if you don't provide a similar sandbox-style environment, then there is damn good chance they'll just walk away completely, including look at other games or free shards.
This is what the Netdragon fanboys don't seem to comprehend - providing a replacement UO that isn't really really close to UO is going to provide an incentive for people to say "**** it" and walk away and look at other games or freeshards. Especially if a replacement UO is as cartoony and non-sandboxy as all of the other Netdragon offerings. If UO players want cartoony or non-sandboxes, they would have already left.
I wouldn't call myself a NetDragon "fanboy." I've just found UO boring enough lately to have the time to go digging around to find out what
might be coming next via the agreement between EA and NetDragon to develop a new 3D version of UO. I am definitely not a fan of the free-to-play aspect of NetDragon's games and would be pretty concerned if EA decides to have NetDragon actually operate the game on North American/European/Australian servers, especially if it goes free-to-play. I can understand (which doesn't mean I like or agree with) why EA may have decided to farm out the development of a new version of UO to a country where development costs are likely to be lower and to a company that is trying extremely hard to make a name for itself as a developer of quality games. So much of EA's focus has been on Star Wars the last couple of years, and yet here they have UO coming up with a record-setting 15-year anniversary. I suspect that after Bioware started working with NetDragon on coming out with the DKOL game in early 2009 and while they were struggling to push the Stygian Abyss expansion out the door and two years after the very poorly accepted roll out of the KR client, it was probably not that hard of a decision to make to decide to have NetDragon work on a massive upgrade to UO. For all we know, that decision was part of why Draconi left EA.
I agree with you completely that if a new 3D version of UO isn't similar to what we have now in terms of the sandbox-style environment and if it doesn't look great, people won't accept it. I'm not so sure about whether or not it's necessary for current and former players to be able to carry over their characters and "stuff" to a new game, however. In a lot of ways, I think a fresh start might be a better way to go if EA wants to get former players to give a new version of UO a try. Keep the basics of UO the same, add some new elements, provide some strong incentives for people to try out the new version at its very beginning with new characters, and it just might have a fighting chance to succeed. If it's accurate that there are at least 2.5 million UO accounts in existence (most of them dormant), that's a pretty good number of people who have tried UO in the past who might very well be willing to pony up a month or two's subscription fees to try an updated version.
With regard to NetDragon's games looking cartoony, keep in mind that all but one of their existing games are 2D or 2.5D. Dungen Keeper Online, their first joint project with EA, is their first true 3D project. Have you actually looked at some of the videos for it yet? Are they really what you would call "cartoonish"?
There are a bunch of Dungeon Keeper Online videos linked in this September 2011 review of DKOL:
Dungeon Keeper Online (CN) - Exclusive preview ~ MMO ☆ Culture. There's also a whole two pages of videos of better quality here on the official website for the game:
??-³?OL???-dk.91.com. Keep in mind that DKOL has both an above-ground component and a dungeon component and they were developed using two different game engines. I would expect a 3D version of UO to look much closer to DKOL than to any of NetDragon's previous games.
I'm certainly not nuts about the whole situation, but I really don't think UO can keep limping along as is. It will just continue to lose subscribers unless something truly drastic happens to it and I somehow doubt that EA is stupid enough to let that happen. But I think the timing the last few years has been such that they decided they had to outsource the development work to someone else. I suspect that they have kept the work very hush-hush and deliberately wrote the press release as vaguely as they did regarding where the new version will actually be available because they may not have wanted to smack their shareholders and customers (existing and former) smack in the face with the fact they outsourced new work to a company in a Communist country shortly before laying off 1500 of their own employees.
I guess if things play out the way I think they might (a new version of UO replaces what we currently enjoy), a lot of us will be asking ourselves how we're going to proceed. I think for many of us, what we decide is going to depend greatly on communication from EA and how it influences our opinion of them as a company. While we may have great esteem for some of its employees, is that enough for us to continue to support the company, especially if we look at online game industry jobs lost in the countries where we all live because companies like EA decide to outsource jobs to other countries. The more I read and the more I think about the situation, the less sure I am of what I will actually do. I'd like to think that a successful roll out of a new version of UO might mean at least more customer service jobs in the US and in Europe, but I somehow doubt EA will even think to tell us a detail like that.
Sorry this is long-winded and wordy as usual and not too well-organized. Much to think about on a Sunday afternoon. And all over a bunch of pixels we push around for enjoyment and, maybe more importantly, for the connections those pixels help us make with other like-minded individuals.