NEWS [UO.Com] Greenlite UO on Steam

[Gidge]

A serious question. Many games require to have a steam account before playing. Is this your end goal? <- Note the frowny face.

In my excited fear I posted without reading further down. I am glad to not have to get steam to continue playing. It is very limiting! <- Note the happy face.

 

[Adol]

Regarding Steam itself, let me just clarify a few misconceptions;

Steam doesn't do anything with the game itself; some companies can choose to hook their game into Steam Achievements, but in general all that happens is Steam itself can launch the game, and will keep it patched and up to date, and provides an overlay with friends-chat (think ICQ/MSN Messenger etc) over any game it's associated with, but nothing beyond that. What you get is what the game developers put in any boxed game, or service they already run.

Let me give you an example; The Warhammer Dawn of War Series. It has many stand alone expansions, and a sequel. All the games are on Steam and self contained. If you buy Dawn of War 2 via Steam, you unfortunately also get the horrible Games For Windows Live with it, as that's what the publishers wanted. If you bought the DoW2 expansions, it was taken out again... because GFWL had a months long patch approval process, where as Steam trusts the Devs and auto-approves. If you bought Heroes Of Might and Magic say, you'd also get the rotten uPlay, which never ever seems to die no matter how much people kick and punch it. But FTL (Faster Than Light) is completely copy protection free, and remains so on Steam too.

So if Ultima Online made it to Steam, you'd get the Classic and Enhanced Client, and both could be launched from the same executable file as before. Account would be still tied to Mythic/Broadsword not Steam, and as UO has no copy protection, there'd be none on Steam either. As it's an MMO, you'd just be offered the opportunity to download, and patch the client via Steam.

Whether the Origin store will still be required is a trickier question. As EA still handle billing for UO, I suspect so. But it's possible they may work out allowing Game Credit sales on Steam as a separate service, and if so you could avoid EA entirely? We'll see; I know for EvE that Steam credits has to be used with a Steam Install. Once UO gets greenlighted we'll know more, but what won't happen is that you'll be required to change to Steam.

Some people are saying Steam isn't social media; That's not technically true; you have a Steam profile, where you can show off achievements and screenshots; it's tied to a forum posting identity, and any game on Steam has it's own forums, location you can submit steam screenshots etc too. But you can turn all that off, indeed switch Steam to Offline mode and you're not visible anywhere. Or turn it on for games that you didn't even buy through Steam, and have it act as just a chat program that allows you to boot a game from within it (or any other program for that matter)

What Steam DOES do is offer massive amounts of incredible discounts, flash sales, seasonal media blitzes etc... UO being tied into the Steam network would be incredible exposure, especially if it can piggy back on one of the big events. Honestly if you don't have Steam, you're frankly mad; they even give games away at times, last Christmas I won the complete Orange Box (Half Life 2 etc) and Portal 1 just from buying games from their own Xmas sale! Just do a google for "Steam Sale Comics" and their spectacular generosity has long been a meme... and as an aside, proves why the Games Industry is so up it's own ("this sentence doesn't parse" -Ed) about Piracy. Release a decent game for a reasonable price and people will beat down your door to get it legitimately; FTL (Faster Than Light) is proof of that. But that's another topic. For now... Viva Steam!

 

[Aran]

A serious question. Many games require to have a steam account before playing. Is this your end goal? <- Note the frowny face.

No

 

[A Thought Elemental]

If you guys are going to get a pile of new/returning players in through Steam, I hope you get your GM situation worked out before then.

 

[CovenantX]

There is more to this game than pvp.

You're right, but The PvPers are... or were over half of UOs playerbase.

I understand RL'sPKer's point, (not sure why they would vote 'no')... however usually it is the pvpers quitting first (hmm I know I've said that before)...

Most people that did play UO for pvp have actually quit, and it just so happens one of the Major reasons why players quit were referenced in RL'sPker's post.

What are they doing to bring back pvpers? Are they opening a Pre-AOS server? Have they balanced pvp? Is it still all RNG based dex monkey heavy? Is there something new, and worth while to fight for? Are pvp templates still extremely limited due to changes to tactics/ninjitsu/bushido, and casting with specials toggled? Pvpers still limited to only fel while the rest of the player base is scattered between 4 other lands making it even more barren?

I'm not crazy about a 'Classic Shard' but I would definitely play one if it were an "Official" server, I just don't think I'd like going back to pre-aos so much now that I've been use to my LRC suits for so long, but it wouldn't hurt to make one... I know there are plenty of free-shards that have a decent population (based on what I've heard from others).

I also don't buy what the Dev's say as far as "We're not going to make a Classic Shard, because we can't get enough people to agree what a "Classic Shard" is...

But Everyone I know that quit (besides one irl friend) quit because of pvp imbalances & changes that have been made to things that were (IMO) unnecessary. such as the specials toggling thing while casting spells. (Damn I've said that WAYYYYY too much in my postings on stratics).

There are still some things, and I completely agree with the RNG comment... It's NEVER a good thing to add "RNG" Anything to pvp, especially in places where RNG shouldn't exist like Mage dueling. (see my sig)

My apologies for being mostly off topic in this post, but if they want to bring people back, there does indeed need to be quite a bit of focus on Pvp.

Take a look at This Thread started in 2012, guess what... it's still not locked either, how about that...

 

[CovenantX]

Oh... and

 

[DJAd]

Do you think the UO team read through all the comments on the Steam page? It seems to look like people are saying they would only come back if there was some "classic shard". Same thing is all thats being said on the Facebook page.

 

[petemage]

But even if there was a classic shard, returning people would soon find out they just got older and might have overemphasized the "good old days".

 

[Captn Norrington]

Human nature is amazing sometimes...while something is happening we complain about it and hate it, then 10 years later remember it as being great, just like every generation saying the generation after them messed up the world.

 

[DJAd]

But even if there was a classic shard, returning people would soon find out they just got older and might have overemphasized the "good old days".

Yep I agree. Times have changed. I enjoy UO as it is today. Sometimes good memories are best left alone.

 

[Lythos-]

But even if there was a classic shard, returning people would soon find out they just got older and might have overemphasized the "good old days".

I've played multiple freebies and on any given day the major ones are more populated than the most populated EA shard. The pre AOS ones and the pre SA ones are the most popular. The "good old days" seems to be doing rather well for those people so why not attempt to capitalize on something here?

If you can draw in at least 15-20 new subs on a sever with virtually no maintenance or added content then that sounds like a complete win to me.

 

[Winter]

You're right, but The PvPers are... or were over half of UOs playerbase.

I call you on this to offer any shred of proof to that statement. PvPers never were even close to half of the UO population. Many people delved in both PvP and PvM, but PvM has always dominated the play style of UO. AOS, Trammel and finally broken Factions has pretty much cemented that, but PvP was never the dominant play style in UO.

 

[Dimitroff]

I would never get close to something that has a "free" label on it.
The best MMOs I have ever played were always the ones to have a subscription system.
Even the games, which are labeled F2P and which are published by the big companies, offer some kind of constant monthly subscription. And many of them are way below the UO level.
So, let's make a breakdown.
$12,99 a month we pay for:

1. The only true playerhousing in all the MMOs to date.
2. Unparalleled level design, which is only comparable to WoW.
3. Unparalleled character versatility.
4. Unparalleled crafting system.
5. Unparalleled complexity of the gameplay.
6. Instant action and absence of forcing you to spend time travelling.
7. Unique trading system, which I hate, but which is, nevertheless - unique.
8. Miasma.
9. Reds, who always make me watch my back, while champing.
....
10. A spinning roasted pig as a deco.

Guys, pay no attention to 10-20 flamers at Steam.
Broadsword, please, put my 10 points into your Steam presentation.

 

[Thrakkar]

3. Unparalleled character versatility.

The skill system is nice. Way better than levels & classes. But IMHO one game did it better: SWG! Buying skill boxes from any profession tree was awesome!

4. Unparalleled crafting system.

IMHO it's not that complex. Yes, it's one of the few games, where you can actually fail and loose resources, but that's it. Using the same recipe and the same resources will always yield exactly the same item (with the exception of a few random bonus resists, which are rather a nuisance that a feature to me). Imbuing? Well, juggling around with imbuing weight isn't that interesting IMHO. The actual imbuing is then just a race against the RNG of how much resources you waste.
For me, SWG again did it better.

But alas, SWG is no more. While I could have lived with the CU, the NGE completely killed it off.

 

[Flagg]

I've tried more MMOs than a person ever should. UO remains my favorite. It is 50% nostalgy and 50% the fact I can spend time doing things I never could in any other MMO.

There is certain otherness in UO. Much in UO just differs from anything in any other modern MMORPG. Due to culture that still exsists around rares and house deco, loot and items have value and uses unlike anything in any other game. Trading,buying, selling all feel different. Hunting rares feels different. Attending rare festivals. Sitting by an IDOC, waiting for it to collapse with flock of other vultures around me. Deciding to build X and the act building it; UO's house customization tool is so powerful you can make literally anything you can think of, within concept of 2d medieval fantasy. Thanks to amount of space everywhrere but Atlantic, finding plots isn't an issue anymore either. Due to combination of certain arcane lack-of-streamlining and nostalgy, even simple mundane things like talking to another player feels 'different'. Sitting at an Auction feels 'different.' Taming a dragon feels'different'.

I believe what apppeal UO has to a brand new player is in this otherness. I believe it is there even without nostalgy glasses. It is extremely difficult to advertise it or speak of it though. It isn'ty easy to put some E-Z-Sell - bullet points, screenshots or videos. It creeps in to you gradually. You need to be playing for that. New players might appreciate it. New players won't be playing the game.

As long as the arcane, obsolete sub model is there, it doesn't matter how much visibility UO gets in Steam or anywhere else. It will never see some grand new wave of brand new players. Client, latest expansion +1 month free for 30 bucks&rather steep monthly sub fee. This concept appears absurd, jurassic and ridiculous to eyes of new player. It isn't just silly but rather, appears an insult. After one takes a look at HUGe selection of very good, very recent F2P games with very fair and well done paying models, way UO handles things looks alien. To new player, UO with it's monthly fee is just EA ripping off people already hooked,without even trying to expand. Which I recon is what it basically is, so yeah.

Want some small amount of people who used to play in late 90's back once again? Doubtless Steam will help a great deal with it.

Want new life to UO? Sub model has to go. It is that simple. IMHO this is so undeniable there is no room for arguing it.

Guys, pay no attention to 10-20 flamers at Steam.
Broadsword, please, put my 10 points into your Steam presentation.

10-20 flamers at Steam make the potential new customers. Ignoring their voice and dismissing them as " spam bots for free shards" etc is somewhat self destructive.

 

[Smoot]

i bet if they did aways with subscriptions, but charged 8 dollars a month to own a house (house would start to decay immediately upon non-payment, not after 2 months) EA would make more money than they do now with just the current house owners.

that would enable an unlimited free to play version (no house) pretty easily.

 

[Flagg]

^ Yeah that is very close to how I figure they'd do F2P. Housing alone would make a perfect 'hook' for pulling people from F2P to playing. Though the immediate collapse - bit gives me creeps. Too easy to make mistakes. Not enough time to undo them. Credit cards expire, accounts run low, etc. Not nice to lose 10 year old house cause of that.

 

[CovenantX]

I call you on this to offer any shred of proof to that statement. PvPers never were even close to half of the UO population. Many people delved in both PvP and PvM, but PvM has always dominated the play style of UO. AOS, Trammel and finally broken Factions has pretty much cemented that, but PvP was never the dominant play style in UO.

Pre-ren there was almost no avoiding pvp, so technically over half of the population were pvpers. declined since trammel became part of UO, and more so with each and every expansion.
There weren't only Pks (reds) there were also groups of blue pvpers who would be protectors of the ones who preferred not to pvp in those days. This has long since been lost.

Did you notice, every expansion after T2A has added just about... nothing ... to pvp except imbalances that go months before they're looked at and even longer before they're balanced for pvp? We're still waiting on Stoneform + Protection to be fixed, from SA...


I'm not sure how long you've played UO, but unless you buy gold, items, & skills, you're not going to be pvping without pvming.

 

[Smoot]

^ Yeah that is very close to how I figure they'd do F2P. Housing alone would make a perfect 'hook' for pulling people from F2P to playing. Though the immediate collapse - bit gives me creeps. Too easy to make mistakes. Not enough time to undo them. Credit cards expire, accounts run low, etc. Not nice to lose 10 year old house cause of that.

agreed on the time, point is UO already has a perfect free to play model. Tons of other "pay to win" features that could be implemented, that wouldnt be game changing. like 20 extra skill points per character, 10 stats. Housing is just the blatant one.

as it is right now, the crazies with over 10 uo accounts ususally only pay one third of the time. shortening the "free" house time to even a month would increase revenue, will allowing those who keep accounts open all the time (such as myself) to open another account. id like to open another account just for a house, but currently 2 accounts at current price is my max for this game.

Oh and the game should be free. or at least like 15 bucks for all content (all expansions including abyss and high seas - not theme packs cause they really arent needed)

No way in hell i would take a second look at this game if i had to actually buy all the expansions, plus pay a sub, then realize to get anywhere off a fresh start i really had to buy gold if i wanted to do more than kill earth eles.

 

[CovenantX]

Oh and the game should be free. or at least like 15 bucks for all content (all expansions including abyss and high seas - not theme packs cause they really arent needed)

No way in hell i would take a second look at this game if i had to actually buy all the expansions, plus pay a sub, then realize to get anywhere off a fresh start i really had to buy gold if i wanted to do more than kill earth eles.

Hopefully this is where the Steam discounts come into play, buying all the expansions (even boosters) will definitely turn a lot of people off, considering there's Also a monthly sub.

 

[Uvtha]

2. Unparalleled level design, which is only comparable to WoW.

uhhh what? What on earth is special about UO's level design? I seriously cannot think of one area where level design in this game excels, and I can think of plenty of areas where it is woefully undeveloped (weather, environment interaction, environmental effects, atmosphere). The simple fact that the world is a flat 2d space severely limits level design potential.

Some places look nice for what it is aesthetics wise, but on the other hand some places look horrible, and many many places are uninspired/basic.

While I enjoy UO's aesthetics (cc anyway) I think the level design and immersion has been better or at least as good in pretty much every MMO I have ever tried. Simply because the newer games have access to all of the more modern technology so they can make large expansive spaces with actual physical depth with more vivid colors, lighting effects, terrain effects, environment interaction, and on and on...

 

[GalenKnighthawke]

I wonder if there are any threads that can't sooner or later be devolved into free to play, custom shards, shard mergers, or some variant.

I've seen variants on 2 of the 3 dead topics I named, and if the other hasn't been seen it ain't far behind. Never is. Not going to depress myself by going over every post in this thread.

So depressed already by this **** I'm talking in sentence fragments.

-Galen's player

 

[Flagg]

I wonder if there are any threads that can't sooner or later be devolved into free to play, custom shards, shard mergers, or some variant.

I've seen variants on 2 of the 3 dead topics I named, and if the other hasn't been seen it ain't far behind. Never is. Not going to depress myself by going over every post in this thread.

So depressed already by this **** I'm talking in sentence fragments.

-Galen's player

I think it makes good amount of sense to have a thread about Steam Greenlight "devolving" into conversation about future prospects of the game. Does it not make perfect sense to speak of what might increase or decrease accessibility, visibility of UO?

Wanting to talk about future of the game and attracting new players while - not - wanting to even touch the topic of F2P is a little like wanting to talk about house fires without wanting to talk about firefighters. : p

 

[GalenKnighthawke]

I think it makes good amount of sense to have a thread about Steam Greenlight "devolving" into conversation about future prospects of the game. Does it not make perfect sense to speak of what might increase or decrease accessibility, visibility of UO?

Wanting to talk about future of the game and attracting new players while - not - wanting to even touch the topic of F2P is a little like wanting to talk about house fires without wanting to talk about firefighters. : p

Except that all of these things have already been nixed by the team, and have no good arguments to support their utility. And, no, the deeply felt needs of some is not the same as a good argument.

*shrugs*

-Galen's player

 

[Flagg]

No good argument? Seriously? It is genuinely impressive you manage to dismiss all the pretty well thought of posts about the matter in this thread, for example, as " bad arguments". You've dug a very deep foxhole about the matter.

Actual carved-in-stone History of F2P and what it does to games' popularity,visibility and revenue is a pretty good argument in and of itself.

I haven't heard Broadsword talking about F2P btw. Did they do so during the recent Q&A type of a thing?

 

[Caelyr]

Do you think the UO team read through all the comments on the Steam page? It seems to look like people are saying they would only come back if there was some "classic shard". Same thing is all thats being said on the Facebook page.

Give people a soapbox, and some will inevitably use it to loudly assert their own needs, wants, and entitlement.

...
Actual carved-in-stone History of F2P and what it does to games' popularity,visibility and revenue is a pretty good argument in and of itself.

A handful of success stories selectively sampled from a multitude of games which have implemented the F2P model is not a good argument for UO's compatibility with the F2P model because it disregards a broader context (F2P implementations in the games industry as a whole) in favour of a blinkered view (successful F2P games). F2P can be massively profitable, or at least has been for a selection of games. However, this is simply not the case for every game it's applied to.
Being able to play a game for free is great, but what changes would need to be made to make UO profitable while F2P? How will gameplay be impacted, what new rifts will be created among the player base, and what will happen to our in-game economy?

I haven't heard Broadsword talking about F2P btw. Did they do so during the recent Q&A type of a thing?

Not as I recall; it seems instead that this notion has sprung from people who saw the words "UO" and "Steam" in the same sentence and decided it was another opportunity to dust off and rehash their age-old arguments.

 

[Flagg]

Give people a soapbox, and some will inevitably use it to loudly assert their own needs, wants, and entitlement.

A handful of success stories selectively sampled from a multitude of games which have implemented the F2P model is not a good argument for UO's compatibility with the F2P model because it disregards a broader context (F2P implementations in the games industry as a whole) in favour of a blinkered view (successful F2P games). F2P can be massively profitable, or at least has been for a selection of games. However, this is simply not the case for every game it's applied to.
Being able to play a game for free is great, but what changes would need to be made to make UO profitable while F2P? How will gameplay be impacted, what new rifts will be created among the player base, and what will happen to our in-game economy?

Vast, significant majority of current, active MMORPGs are F2P now. I bet they all made a drastic mistake of ...let's see here... "disregarding a broader context (F2P implementations in the games industry as a whole) in favour of a blinkered view".' : p
Anybody who doubts potential and functionality of F2P should look into the story of Old Republic.

You are absolutely right, some F2P games prove huge hits, some do worse. This is the case with any and every other line of commercial product ever made I recon. It isn't saying much about anything.

UO as F2P would prolly be something like this:
* Very little change for existing subs. You keep playing the game, paying a monthly sub for it and have more or less the same experience you have now. With possible and significant exception of having a lot of new players around you.
* Lot of new players. Most of them start and stay as F2P. Housing is behind paywall. That alone would propably make a large enough carrot. Perhaps shut the ability to use/benefit from powerscrolls behind paywall too. Maybe have insurance for subscribers only as well.
* Item shop is usually key moneymaker for an F2P game. Old Republic for example makes around 50% of it's incom via cash shop. This is a typical F2P feature that has been part of UO for a decade or so already. Active players already use it a great deal. It only needs more goodies, better accessibility and independence from Origin.

List of F2P MMORPGs from top of my head. Most of these are available in Steam. None of these require monthly sub to play. Most of these cost nothing to acquire. I recon all of these have more visibility and players than UO.


The Secret World* (Published by EA)
The Old Republic (Published by EA)
Dungeons and Dragons Online *
Neverwinter
Lord of the Rings Online
Rift
Runes of Magic
Aeon
Age of Conan
Star Trek Online
Everquest
Everquest 2
Runescape
Guild Wars
Guild Wars 2
Lineage
Lineage 2

Two of five most played games on Steam today are F2P too. ( Team Fortress 2, DOTA. ) Both of them have proven to be huge money makers for their developers. Even Blizzard's latest game is an F2P. World of Tanks, League of Legens are success stories so colossal in scale that everyone interested of gaming as an increasingly dominant slice of popular culture must have heard of them already.

Five or six of the games I've mentioned made more than 100 million for their devs in 2013. This in F2P earnings alone. I wonder how many success stories (SWTOR), smash hits (World of Tanks) and pop cultural phenomenoms (DOTA) it takes til you figure it is prudent to stop dismissing mentions of F2P as some irritating background static that couldn't possibly work for UO.

F2P doesn't need to be a - gigantic - success to do some good for the game either; Turbine has been very vocal about how going F2P saved both of their MMOs (LOTRO, DDO) from an axe few years back. Neither of these games is huge. Both of them are very much alive, with more players than UO. In 6 years, DDO went from 2-steps-away-from grave to seeing it's first actual expansion thanks to F2P. I think LOTRO switched like 5 years back. It is still alive, still kicking and still seeing new expansions today.


What personally irks me is how people against F2P so often, so easily like to imply people wanting the switch are doubtless somehow shady;
"unwashed greedy peasants who want to play mah UO for free!!11 Good thing I'm wealthier, better looking IRL and can afford to pay for my game!!"
People picking approach similar to above forget they preach to the choir in this regard. Most all here have at least one running subscription: F2P would not change way *I* play or pay for the game nor would it change way *you* play or pay for the game. It would bring more people and more life for you and me both to enjoy. This is what makes it a huge deal. Nothing is more important to an old MMO than stream of new players. It makes the game more fun for you and me. This is why so many existing subscribers want F2P so badly.

 

[Caelyr]

Vast, significant majority of current, active MMORPGs are F2P now. I bet they all made a drastic mistake of ...let's see here... "disregarding a broader context (F2P implementations in the games industry as a whole) in favour of a blinkered view".' : p
Anybody who doubts potential and functionality of F2P should look into the story of Old Republic.

You are absolutely right, some F2P games prove huge hits, some do worse. This is the case with any and every other line of commercial product ever made I recon. It isn't saying much about anything.

The point here was to highlight a blinding bias in favour of making UO free to play. If UO were to switch to a F2P model, the people responsible for its potential success would need to look not just towards the token successes among the genre, but also among the failed attempts at performing what you've described.

UO as F2P would prolly be something like this:
* Very little change for existing subs. You keep playing the game, paying a monthly sub for it and have more or less the same experience you have now. With possible and significant exception of having a lot of new players around you.
* Lot of new players. Most of them start and stay as F2P. Housing is behind paywall. That alone would propably make a large enough carrot. Perhaps shut the ability to use/benefit from powerscrolls behind paywall too. Maybe have insurance for subscribers only as well.
* Item shop is usually key moneymaker for an F2P game. Old Republic for example makes around 50% of it's incom via cash shop. This is a typical F2P feature that has been part of UO for a decade or so already. Active players already use it a great deal. It only needs more goodies, better accessibility and independence from Origin.

While this makes sense to me, UO is both an intense and time intensive game. We already have a free trial which limits you in the ways above. Starting fresh, it takes a while to bring a character to a certain level of playability without help, and that assumes prior knowledge of the game's systems, or the ability to procure said knowledge on the fly. Neither of those conditions should be expected of a new player. How many weeks or months should it take a new player to access some of the harder, more rewarding content? Assuming they aren't benefiting from the charity of other players, or able to make sense out of the sparse and often outdated information available on 3rd party sites.

Five or six of the games I've mentioned made more than 100 million for their devs in 2013

Meanwhile, Candy Crush Saga crapped on all of those - and it's a game you can play on the toilet. I wonder what the graph would look like if we were to plot "casualness" of F2P games against their "revenue".

I wonder how many success stories (SWTOR), smash hits (World of Tanks) and pop cultural phenomenoms (DOTA) it takes til you figure it is prudent to stop dismissing mentions of F2P as some irritating background static that couldn't possibly work for UO.

This is that blinding bias I mentioned. Not every opinion has to fall at either end of the spectrum. I suppose what I'm trying to say is ultimately:

UO is not like the games you've referenced. While they may offer their own type of grind, their own learning curve, how steep is the learning curve encountered when first playing UO? A majority of the returning and new players I've offered to help have - sooner or later - dropped out in favour of more immediately rewarding games, some of which offer further reward at the other end of a micro-transaction. While these games are often not to my taste, I have at times become smitten with one or two because, as a human being, I am programmed to seek reward, which they can temporarily offer through gameplay or other venues in which success can be achieved (hats, anybody?)

I don't know about you, but when I purchase something from the Origin store, I often feel like I've somehow lost, whatever convenience I gain. When I need something done but the associated grind is too time-consuming, too energy sapping, and too unrewarding for me to want to participate, I don't want to feel worse having overpaid for a specific convenience.

This is what makes it a huge deal. Nothing is more important to an old MMO than stream of new players. It makes the game more fun for you and me. This is why so many existing subscribers want F2P so badly.

As much as I hate to admit it, Mervyn made a good point earlier in the thread by suggesting UO is not fit to be presented to the public. In its current state, it has a broad range of fleshed out content which can offer an immense amount of depth. This is the problem. The systems in place don't satisfy the need of a modern gaming audience who have been trained by the internet to skim-read and selectively process information when it is presented to them in bulk. It's all too easy for potential players to skip on this game because it's simply inaccessible from their perspective.

How then do we recapture and hold their attention when a multitude of other games (such as the ones you listed) offer an experience which is almost instantly gratifying in comparison?

 

[Winter]

Is there any way to see the status of this on Greenlite? I've looked, can't find vote totals or any other status indicator, but probably looking in the wrong spot.

 

[Theron]

Is there any way to see the status of this on Greenlite? I've looked, can't find vote totals or any other status indicator, but probably looking in the wrong spot.

Was wondering about the same thing...

 

[Smoot]

Except that all of these things have already been nixed by the team, and have no good arguments to support their utility. And, no, the deeply felt needs of some is not the same as a good argument.

*shrugs*

-Galen's player

agreed, the team said they would never happen. however that was before steam. im not a dev, i dont care if uo goes ftp or has a classic shard or not, but its apparent from the steam comments that those are the reasons past / future uo players would Not play uo as it currently is. perhaps the dev team didnt realize how big of an issue this was compared to present game modeling for the millions of modern gamers on steam

 

[Flagg]

The point here was to highlight a blinding bias in favour of making UO free to play. If UO were to switch to a F2P model, the people responsible for its potential success would need to look not just towards the token successes among the genre, but also among the failed attempts at performing what you've described.

Absolutely; every business model UO could ever roll with comes with some measure of risk. Risk of failure is always there. If one implements F2P well, it is almost like a new launch for the game. There must be a push involved. In development, marketing and distribution. Wether Broadsword has money and muscle to pull such off is a very valid question to ask. How much bigger or smaller risk of failure in transaction to F2P would be in comparsion to risk in say, releasing a failed replacement for an old engine after another after another after another is an interesting thing to wonder.

Could you list MMORPGs that have switched from sub model to F2P and are, in hindsight, considered as failures in doing so?

While this makes sense to me, UO is both an intense and time intensive game. We already have a free trial which limits you in the ways above. Starting fresh, it takes a while to bring a character to a certain level of playability without help, and that assumes prior knowledge of the game's systems, or the ability to procure said knowledge on the fly. Neither of those conditions should be expected of a new player. How many weeks or months should it take a new player to access some of the harder, more rewarding content? Assuming they aren't benefiting from the charity of other players, or able to make sense out of the sparse and often outdated information available on 3rd party sites.

These are problems for every new player, regardless of wether he is sub in current model of an F2P in some potential future model. I agree they make very valid problems; coming as new player to an old MMO can be a huge pain. For a very long time, UO has offered solution for this that is identical to many F2P MMOs. RL cash. Are you a new player, tired of being poor and eager to get piles of millions to build your char with? No problem, buy advanced character tokens from EA for RL cash. Use one for yourself, sell the rest. Or buy anything else from Origin. Like 50-100 Euros later you are propably richer than I am, heh. Some see a huge problem in this, many others don't. I don't enjoy unrewarding shortcuts to millions. Idea of new player loving the game, wanting to do all kinds of things and having absolutely gigantic cap in wealth between him and almost everybody else is depressing enough though. If somebody wants to dispose some of the cap buy supporting UO for, say, 50 ectra Euros, I think that is great news for game and the imaginary new guy both.

Meanwhile, Candy Crush Saga crapped on all of those - and it's a game you can play on the toilet. I wonder what the graph would look like if we were to plot "casualness" of F2P games against their "revenue".

Graph would look very different, casual mobile games can make sick amounts of money. Often thanks to utterly sicknening F2P model. Unsure if it is relevant; an MMORPG and some casual mobile game are complete, utter opposites of spectrum. Just because both use F2P model doesn't mean they'd make a valid comparsion. Considering or comparing any western MMORPG and Candy Crush because both are F2Ps is like comparing current UO and NY Times because they both use a monhtly sub model. Completely different beasts.

This is that blinding bias I mentioned. Not every opinion has to fall at either end of the spectrum. I suppose what I'm trying to say is ultimately:

UO is not like the games you've referenced. While they may offer their own type of grind, their own learning curve, how steep is the learning curve encountered when first playing UO? A majority of the returning and new players I've offered to help have - sooner or later - dropped out in favour of more immediately rewarding games, some of which offer further reward at the other end of a micro-transaction. While these games are often not to my taste, I have at times become smitten with one or two because, as a human being, I am programmed to seek reward, which they can temporarily offer through gameplay or other venues in which success can be achieved (hats, anybody?)

UO is very different, but not utterly unlike. Any player of LOTRO or even WoW can find familair echoes from most all places he looks at. It isn't case of " omg what is this*failure to comply* :O" as much as " ooh, so THIS is how they do it in UO.."
In general, I think we, as UO players, like to give ourselves a bit too much credit and in turn, community of hardcore gamers bit too little credit. New hardcore player, likely a product of Internet era is perfectly able to figure an old MMO out, should desire and need arise. I think a new player either sees or does not see the..spark and things to love in UO reasonably fast. If it doesn't happen, he is gone. If it does happen, he is perfectly able to learn the game, search the net and figure it out. Amount of things to learn seems steep and overwhelming when you consider all you have learned in 15 years and consider what pouring it on brand new player would involve. Yet, there is nothing overwhelming in figuring out your own niche of game out at natural phase as a new player.

How then do we recapture and hold their attention when a multitude of other games (such as the ones you listed) offer an experience which is almost instantly gratifying in comparison?

As I just typed in some other thread in some other place, there is certain otherness in UO. Due to certain old fashioned, old school, arcane approach and due to amount of sand inside box, familiar things 'feel' very different in UO. Even act as simple as talking to another player in UO is completely different to what it is in any modern MMORPG. There is otherness that, while technically cumbersome, serves UO extremely well. Some find great deal of charm in it. Many find it tedious and are gone fast. We want more of the former in.

 

[Smoot]

Currently, UO is set up to slowy die off. id say in about 5 years or so. thats fine, ill enjoy the content and the game until then.

If its to be kept around (and seeing things like the game going to steam gives hope for this) Something has to be done.
What that is doesnt really matter, but a fresh free to play model would be a pretty darn easy change that would breath life into the game, making it a viable choice for a modern gamer. UO would definitely get more players, and not simply struggle to keep the ones remaining.

 

[Thrakkar]

Is there any way to see the status of this on Greenlite? I've looked, can't find vote totals or any other status indicator, but probably looking in the wrong spot.

The absolute number of votes is irrelevant. That's not how Greenlight works.
http://steamcommunity.com/workshop/about/?appid=765&section=faq#developers

 

[Winter]

The absolute number of votes is irrelevant. That's not how Greenlight works.
http://steamcommunity.com/workshop/about/?appid=765&section=faq#developers

That doesn't really answer my question, unless I didn't understand the info on Steam. This is what Steam says in that regards:
How are games ranked on Steam Greenlight? How do I know how well my game is doing?
Games are ranked by the number of up-votes from the community. Once your game is submitted, you will see data on how your game is performing relative to other games in Steam Greenlight.

So, my question is still the same - is there any way to see the status of this on Greenlite? Is it only the submitter (Broadsword) that can see the number of up-votes?

 

[Thrakkar]

you will see data on how your game is performing relative to other games in Steam Greenlight.

So, my question is still the same - is there any way to see the status of this on Greenlite? Is it only the submitter (Broadsword) that can see the number of up-votes?

Yes, broadsword will see, how it performs RELATIVE TO OTHER GAMES. But there are no absolute numbers. Ordinary steam users don't see anything. Why should they see anything? Just because they're curious? Depending on the numbers, the open public could do more harm than good with it...

 

[Gidge]

I think overall, getting back some interested returning players and a new crop of players would be the best of both worlds. Naysayers will be naysayers. We just need to counter post the negativity with good things. Beat them at their own game. Our game. The best game!

 

[Monomaxos]

I voted for it but also been going through all the answers in this thread.

So, since I am of the few that are actually new players to the games will tell you this:

Mostly people that get attracted are sandbox gamers(not only but majority). I happen to be one. For example I wanted to play for years, but first I couldnt get a sub(hard to own a credit card here) and after it happened I got hooked up to other games. More recent, I tried another sandbox that had a lot of inspiration in features from UO(Mortal Online is that one). That other game reminded me of the game I wanted to play in the past, so I said to my self why not take the trial on UO and see if it worths it and so it happened since now I had a credit card too. What I liked on UO, is unlike Mortal Online and other sandboxes that took the footsteps of UO the community here ISNT toxic. Moreover the game is deep still(although it could use more additions) and the 2d overhead view gives faster and more direct control. Can the game be attractive to new players? Yes, but what a new player will look on a game is if its constantly updated and if there are unpassable roadblocks(eg. I recently came to understand on most recent devs video a new player will never own a castle while old players could due to world space while a game could just make house maps instanced to solve it). The sub isnt bad but some people come from countries where getting a credit card is a big process - they may have the cash but they dont have the way. A good f2p model on THIS game is limit skills effective skill lvl to 100 as max for f2p and limit housing. To get more players 1. steam 2. advertise on big game search site like mmohuts etc 3. be more careful on your videos - steam should have had at least one decent ingame video that displays community activities too 4. Update - Devs show the game is being actively worked on 5. Support all game styles(PVE/RP , PVP, Crafters/Traders, etc) - improvements and updates should go both ways. In the eyes of a new player like me UO is still a gem but it seems its evolution got somewhat slowed for years and therefore needs more effort from dev team to get it back on track

Also a question: Lots freeshards get advertise in the comments of UO page giving links etc, is this even something legal and if it isnt shouldnt they get at least a warning by Valve? Cause its like advertising a pirated game link in one of their games in my eyes

 

[the_gooch]

I also wanted to chime in on the comments being said about Ultima Online over at steam. Hopefully the Dev's are reading all this and are considering the options.

Im a returning player and have played since pre-tram. I recently came back to the game about 2 months ago now after about a 7 year break. One day i was thinking about all the old fun i used to have playing the best MMO ever made and got really nostalgic and decided to look up old pictures of the game to take a walk down memory lane. Much to my surprise the games servers were still ONLINE?! I was extremely excited and made a trail account almost instantly.

My first reaction to the server being online? "Wow they still charge that month a month, huh?" Obviously that didnt stop me from activating an account but lets be honest. This game is a classic(read: old) and its not getting any younger. Lowering the p2p price would increase population dramatically. I could convince new players to join if the game was cheaper per month and you would probably get alot of returning players to come back for extended periods if this happened as well. I know its not what the Dev's want to hear or anyone else who is running the game but it needs to happen. The only thing i truly miss about the old UO is interaction. Populations are so low, and with so many servers, lands, dungeons and cities player interaction is almost non existent.

Also alot of people are asking for a server with no insurance and more older style. Someone should tell them about Siege Perilous and Mugen servers. I think it could also be beneficial to add a BRAND NEW FRESH UNUSED siege ruleset server(s) where people could start off from scratch and not be bogged down by the 16 year vets with 5 of every item ever made. Lets make some new servers(maybe get rid of dead ones) with siege rulesets and i think alot of the issues would be solved.


Just my 2 cents.

 

[kelmo]

. I think it could also be beneficial to add a BRAND NEW FRESH UNUSED siege ruleset server(s) where people could start off from scratch and not be bogged down by the 16 year vets with 5 of every item ever made. .

Aww...

 

[the_gooch]

Aww...

Its mostly jealousy.

 

[Viper09]

I know the reasoning behind the desire for a new shard, but you can't deny that we already have too many shards. I don't know of any other MMO that has anywhere close to 27 servers (shards).

 

[Smoot]

I know the reasoning behind the desire for a new shard, but you can't deny that we already have too many shards. I don't know of any other MMO that has anywhere close to 27 servers (shards).

doesnt WoW have like 300 or something?. i remember it was alot. and yeah, i realize that game has alot more players, but still.

depending on how much dev time was actually needed to make a new shard, 1 new shard to bring back say 150 potential players might just be worth it.

i dont know how easy this would be tho. im assuming thats why we have no classic / pre aos shard, because its too hard to code. and why freeshards exist.

 

[Viper09]

doesnt WoW have like 300 or something?. i remember it was alot. and yeah, i realize that game has alot more players, but still.

depending on how much dev time was actually needed to make a new shard, 1 new shard to bring back say 150 potential players might just be worth it.

i dont know how easy this would be tho. im assuming thats why we have no classic / pre aos shard, because its too hard to code. and why freeshards exist.

For some reason I thought that only had a few that were separated by region, but perhaps I am mistaken.

 

[Uriah Heep]

But I guess Im too stooopid to understand why a freesharder can make a shard for anytime in history, and the people who wrote the code, cant. we were even told at one point it was all lost, yet freeshards do it. Not being argumentative, I just cannot wrap my head around the excuses we are given for it.

 

[Smoot]

For some reason I thought that only had a few that were separated by region, but perhaps I am mistaken.

i think your thinking of "battlegroups" yeah theres maybe 10 or 20. i had forgotten about those. which is a good point actually. altho wow has a ton of servers, becuase they are linked for instanced pvp / dungeon, its alot easier to find a group or battleground than if it was just pulling from your own server.

 

[Dol'Gorath]

But I guess Im too stooopid to understand why a freesharder can make a shard for anytime in history, and the people who wrote the code, cant. we were even told at one point it was all lost, yet freeshards do it. Not being argumentative, I just cannot wrap my head around the excuses we are given for it.

The freeshard code was written from scratch over several years and over several emulator types. The main emulator of choice these days is [dare I say it?] coded better than the official shards because the code is newer and cleaner. It can switch between AOS and Pre-AOS with a simple toggle of a line of code and a server reset. There are pre-AOS ruleset shards with content all the way up to high seas, so people who suggest that going back to the old ruleset will stagnate the game in the past is a bunch of lies. They simply moded the newer content to work with pre-AOS rules.

I doubt we'll ever see an official classic shard ever. I think it would be neat if they licensed the emulator and made an official classic shard running off it. That would take no dev resources and maybe they'd give the author a small cut [I know, I know, it won't happen]
Even though an official classic shard would draw in players especially since official servers are stable and not likely to go offline randomly.

 

[Darius Bloodbain]

Well, I voted for UO on Steam. I think it is a good move for more exposure.
As for me,
I have not posted on stratics for a long time, I come and read posts pretty regular tho.
I have played UO since 1998, so I was there through most of the *Cough* good ol days. haha
I guess when it comes to UO I am a lifer. I got my Nephew hooked a couple months ago,
and he opened up his own new account. Now I am working on a second nephew, and hoping
he likes the game enough to make his own account, so word of mouth and introducing
the game to family and friends that are gamers does help also.

 

[Viper09]

What happened to classic being defined as pre-UOR? Has enough time passed to where pre-AOS is now the standard for the "classic" era?

 

[Monomaxos]

I know the reasoning behind the desire for a new shard, but you can't deny that we already have too many shards. I don't know of any other MMO that has anywhere close to 27 servers (shards).

Actually the best solution would be to merge the current shards to make them more lively and add a few new ones for some people who prefer to start totally new. Personally? I like playing along with the vets, they are friendly and helpful, but some people prefer fresh start