This was mentioned in the dev diary. As I understand it they are working on updating the new player experience before they open the Steam doors.
-
Hail Guest! We're looking for Community Content Contribuitors to Stratics. If you would like to write articles, fan fiction, do guild or shard event recaps, it's simple. Find out how in this thread: Community Contributions
-
Greetings Guest, Having Login Issues? Check this thread!
-
Hail Guest!, Please take a moment to read this post reminding you all of the importance of Account Security.
-
Hail Guest! Please read the new announcement concerning the upcoming addition to Stratics. You can find the announcement Here!
- Status
I'm a sucker. I had to check this thread again. Same old claims and counterclaims I've been hearing for years. Oh god, will it ever stop? That is all. Carry on.
Made ya look!
...
With 3d technology having gotten better in the 16 years since the 3d client was created, polygonal models in-game, even in an MMO such as UO can EASILY be the same or even higher poly-count and look as smooth (while still) as the sprite versions. The technical advantages to the polygonal system is that the graphical footprint is MUCH smaller in terms of client size, they are easier to update, and the animation itself is much much much smoother than 2d stop-motion.
But if people want to stay anchored to 1998 technology, then I guess they can suffer with the limitations of that technology and go back to talking about empty shards and shard mergers.
It's mainly the technical aspects of 2d sprites vs 3d polygons that I'm talking about. Of course when the 3d client was first created, 3d polygonal models still had a long way to go to equal the high poly-count renders used for 2d sprites.
With 3d technology having gotten better in the 16 years since the 3d client was created, polygonal models in-game, even in an MMO such as UO can EASILY be the same or even higher poly-count and look as smooth (while still) as the sprite versions. The technical advantages to the polygonal system is that the graphical footprint is MUCH smaller in terms of client size, they are easier to update, and the animation itself is much much much smoother than 2d stop-motion.
But if people want to stay anchored to 1998 technology, then I guess they can suffer with the limitations of that technology and go back to talking about empty shards and shard mergers.
omg thank you for this!
I do pixel art and had done some stuff as well, but never submitted to her challenge.
Gotta say, if they would just embrace and luv the pixel, UO would improve greatly and the masses will come back. Should keep the artwork the same - they pixel style is not hard to bring forward.
When Mythic got restructured/killed off/whatever I think that was a major near death experience for UO and DAOC both. Yet, they lived through it. I can't see that immediate death in UO's horizon. Maybe once the current devs retire from work life. ..Which is like..5 years?
Eventually, the day will come of course. All things considered, UO's cycle will be remembered as an insanely long run. In some ways it will never die. There is going to be unofficial UO shards hosted for a decade or two to come.
I remember back when they wanted something besides the CC and did a vote. It showed that literally 100's and 100's of people said that if they took away there CC they would close all there accounts. I was indeed one that voted against a new client and to keep the old or I would close my 5 accounts. So began the split to try and keep everyone happy and in the end one big messed up swimming pool of graphics and what ever else it effects. I don't know. I'm not computer savvy but I do play CC and tried EC more than once and do keep it up to date but us old people just don't adapt. CC UO Forever!
Lets not forget that both the KR and EC client were abject failures. Both were designed to replace the CC, not stand alongside it. Both failed miserably.
Yeah, but KR was made going on 10 years ago. Obviously 3d models can look amazing (see diablo 3 for example) but in 06-07 that was a substantially larger feat, and one that would have required a computer upgrade in a large portion of the playerbase. So I think it's understandable. Obviously a nice high poly count 3d model is a superior choice, but that doesn't mean sprites are going to look bad, or work poorly aside from size issues as you say.
Again, I don't think that's fair. First of all, as was pointed out KR technically wasn't that different than the CC, other than in a UI sense. Like we have been talking about, it uses the same sprite system. The UI functionality of the KR client was clearly superior, and the EC (with piuco's help) is even better yet, I don't think anyone disagrees with that, or anyone doesn't wish that the CC had that same functionality.
The issue, and it IS a valid one is with the aesthetics. The KR experience was not good. Very few people liked it, and it wasn't because they wanted to live in 1998, it was because the art was really not very good, while the CC art IS pretty good, despite its garbage resolution, and limited pallet. That's why we now have the Frankenstein nightmare of the EC client, which I think is even worse in some respects. I really think they should have just kept the KR art, and altered it over time as I think I prefer a cohesive mediocre presentation to a in-cohesive decent one.
Either way there is no "modern" option. You have to be stuck in 98 or stuck in 07.
Of course a high res version of the CC art would have been one at least partial solution to the problems, but oh well.
I also don't think its fair to blame the dwindling population on any of the current players. If the stuff they put out was successful, it wouldn't have been an issue would it have? It would have drawn in a bunch of new players. Of course it didn't, so they had to try and work with the players they DID have.
Hell if everything simply had a black outline I think KR might have succeeded with some mild revisions. It really would have helped combat the washed out look of the thing.
Last edited:
Pixel art is cool and all, I do it too, but it's reallllly time consuming. Especially with animations.
I've grown weary of arguments laying any kind of blame at the feet of people that play the CC. Few people are concerned with the technology that works behind the scenes. Most users' concern is: does it look good? and is it easy to use? and how this is accomplished is irrelevant to the user. That artwork isn't just bad; it's profoundly different in many ways than the CC. The artists didn't try to recreate UO, they tried to re-imagine it. This is observable in many monster models, for example. The art even affects the usability in some ways, a simple example would be the complaints of inventory items being too small. Artwork seems to have always been the Achilles heel of UO ever since LBR, because EA seems unable to add artwork in the same style as the original art. Everything from monsters, clothes, to even gargoyle animations look out of place next to the original art.
I don't care what tech is used. Give me a client with art that resembles the classic art as closely as possible. No more re-imagining. CCer's are not "stuck in 97". They're stuck between a low-res pixel rock and a badly drawn hard place.
I don't care what tech is used. Give me a client with art that resembles the classic art as closely as possible. No more re-imagining. CCer's are not "stuck in 97". They're stuck between a low-res pixel rock and a badly drawn hard place.
That's it exactly. They didn't follow the feel of the game they were updating. The perspective difference alone was a huge and needless mistake, IMO.
Personally I wouldn't even mind 100% new re-imagined art, so long as it FIT, and you could play UO the way you used to play it. For a game so house/deco centric you need to make sure items work well together. They really failed badly on that score the KR.
It sure is a bummer the high res graphics aren't happening.
I cant help but believe that trying to maintain and update two clients isn't a drain on the limited resources. I would suggest they Shut EC down until they can make it everything it was suppose tobe... Take a year or so and have it roll out the same time as the new store....and the closing of shards and the switch to F2P! Then when the 1000's of new players come to try it out....they will have something spectacular to use!
Then you would be sure that UO will be around for another decade or more.
LOL oh sorry I forgot what company I was talking about!
If you are going to do that, you may as well put it on steam, charge 4.99 for the client and 4.99 for each expansion. Allow people to run their own servers.
Ummmmmm I think it is on steam or very soon will be. People running their own servers doesn't help the global game. The only thing that will do that is biting the bullet and dumping shards and changing the business model!
For anyone who is in business management and also follows the gaming industry....this is really such a no brainer! Either the execs at broadsword are working quietly on this right now ( which is how I would do it) or they need to be replaced....
For anyone who is in business management and also follows the gaming industry....this is really such a no brainer! Either the execs at broadsword are working quietly on this right now ( which is how I would do it) or they need to be replaced....
Thats just insane.
Heh.
Yes, we know. For over a year. Whoopee-do.
But at least the subscription fee keeps the typical F2P kids out.
I'd prefer them to the idiots that are in general chat now. I've played F2P MMOs and the general chats are often better.
Couldnt agree more with this.
Hilarious when you consider the type of player UO attracts with its antiquated subscription model. Those 'kids' are a far better class of gamer than 90% of the UO scum.
Not to rain on your parade, but EC comments aside, people have been preaching this exact same argument since 1997.
UO is still here because it is someone's pet.! As long as it breaks even....or at worse doesn't cost much.... It will stay around indefinitely. Present management would have to risk losing this pet project if they attempted to do what is needed to improve things. Switching to F2P and merging shards are a no brainer..... But no solution is 100%! There is always a chance that the UO universe could implode during the transistion... As long as subscribers keep paying....then the safest solution is to change nothing.
Fees to Play would cost more than the monthly subscription does now I suspect if you wanted to do well in the game. Fee to Play is just a cheap sounding way for game companies to rake in more money from their customer base who they can nickel and dime out of more money than they can using a monthly subscription. I don't feel like paying more per month total to do well playing UO, $13 is a lot to pay now for a game.
Players are happy with the shard they are on or they would have moved to another shard. I like Siege and Chessie as they are, if I wasn't, I'd of tried out other shards, picked one, and transferred one character from Chessie to that new shard with a bunch of deco and gear by now, then trained new characters there. Being forced to move to another shard away from where I want to be just to make some other players who like mob scenes happy would be a showstopper. Those players who so want a mob scene can just move to Atlantic where they're happy without screwing over the game for players who don't want the mob scene. I like the rural small town feel of Chessie and Siege, living on a crowded city-like shard wouldn't be fun, so I'd have to go hunting for another game.
Want to reduce the number of people paying to play UO and reduce the money EA sees come in from UO? Merge shards to make some mob scene lovers happy and ruin the game for the rest of us who don't like mob scenes. This would work beautifully to bring UO to an end because of a lack of paying customers, it's a no brainer.
Only if the company sucks.
Me too. I like being able to do things when I want to, not wait in line to get my chance at killing something.
-Val'lyn
Free to play...
The idea here would be most likely a freemium model that new users pay for the client and each expansion separately.
Most of the code to separate the content for the expansions already exists, so it really wouldn't be that huge of a stretch.
Don't hold back tell us how you really feel about us UO Scum
I don't think some of you people understand how F2P MMOs work. The ones that start with sub fees keep them as an option and no restrictions are imposed on you. Nothing would change for you except for the possibility of new players.
And for every person like you closing 5 accounts...10 new ones would open!!!If they did either, merge shards or went f2p... my 5 accts would be closed.
Typically a small percentage of power users spend large chunks of money...anyone else could spend their $13-16/account or less and be further ahead!
The significant part is the UO is already a type of F2P....Thousands of dollars are spend weekly to third party providers for items that Broadsword doesnt think is worthwhile selling.
With the change to global bank accounts and the removal of checks could make Broadsword very wealthy...and give them more money to reinvest.
But instead you get whiners with no imagination screaming they will take their ball and go home if they dont get their way!
There is no ONE way F2P works...there is a bunch of different business models that would be very successful with UO. But you are right...most of those screaming dont have a clue what the game could be like...they are just afraid of change!
And we all know EA's track record in that category... EA Sucks. So lets not fool ourselves one little bit.
EA is one of the worst companies for Customer Service... They have earned their place as the WORST company 2 years running. That's no accident.
Seems you have whined quite a bit yourself about "your way" in this thread. *shrugs*
I don't see CC going anywhere, I don't see shard merges happening, and I don't predict f2p in the UO stars. I'm good.
Take away the cheaters, the dupers, the griefers, the scripters and the trash talkers and what have you got left? Probably about 10% of the UO population.Don't hold back tell us how you really feel about us UO Scum
Youre good? Seeing UO's numbers slowly but steadily decline and nothing in the way of any sort of effort made to do anything about it and youre good? Lets see how good you are when the numbers drop so low due to their inflexibility about clients and mergers and F2P that they pull the plug and you lose your game.Seems you have whined quite a bit yourself about "your way" in this thread. *shrugs*
I don't see CC going anywhere, I don't see shard merges happening, and I don't predict f2p in the UO stars. I'm good.
I agree, CC probably won't be going away. Shard mergers seems kinda stoopid if you expect F2P to bring in a load of people. F2P? Seeing it work will make me a believer, nothing else. My confidence level is too low to even root for it. Just the facts ma'am;Seems you have whined quite a bit yourself about "your way" in this thread. *shrugs*
I don't see CC going anywhere, I don't see shard merges happening, and I don't predict f2p in the UO stars. I'm good.
As of this point-we have a store that can't provide everything to everyone. We also have a store that seems to be unable to sell usable codes, and sometimes can't deliver them in a timely manner.
We have the screwiest acct management system ever designed by mankind.
We have the occasional account getting closed without warning, and without an emmail to the customer...Now, for those who are gonna crow tht it is OUR responsibility to keep up with this, any service I ever subscribed to always would send me a notice ahead of time, and one when it happened, and quite ofter a few weeks later just to remind me again. Face it peeps, Email postage stamps are not that high priced
Information has gotten so hard to find on some of the systems in place ingame, that some people will get discouraged and just give up.
Customer service is nonexistent...except evidently for a few rare cases.
In spite of 3 attempts, they cannot make a newer more efficient client that has the feel and taste of UO.
They refuse to try to improve the CC.
New art looks like it came from a different game.
A lot of people like to get in a game, and play for entertainment. I would wager several F2P'ers will leave when they dicover you have to have a calculator and spreadsheet to make weapons and armor ingame, or to even figure out what is good enough to wear.
There's no advertisement...unless steam is gonna do it for us, who will ever know we are here?
And yet we still play
. But will the new peeps do it?
.
This would kill UO. UO has already stated that NO SHARD MERGERS WOULD HAPPEN AND BOTH CLIENTS WILL BE SUPPORTED till the day UO dies.
Isn't it amazing that Steam takes care of all of that?As of this point-we have a store that can't provide everything to everyone. We also have a store that seems to be unable to sell usable codes, and sometimes can't deliver them in a timely manner.
We have the screwiest acct management system ever designed by mankind.
We have the occasional account getting closed without warning, and without an emmail to the customer...Now, for those who are gonna crow tht it is OUR responsibility to keep up with this, any service I ever subscribed to always would send me a notice ahead of time, and one when it happened, and quite ofter a few weeks later just to remind me again. Face it peeps, Email postage stamps are not that high priced
Steam won't handle any of that for UO, though. They don't really handle any of that for any game, except codes.
Really unless the game was designed to be predatory it's not likely to be. Really the only f2p games that are predatory are ones that are money grabs first, games second, so UO wouldn't really apply. And really that kind of f2p model isn't used that much any more because, as we can see, people don't like it. The most predatory mmo I can think of off the top of my head is Marvel Heroes, and it's really not bad at all. I played it quite a bit, and I think I spent like 20 bucks, and not because I HAD to, but because I WANTED to. All UO would need to do is open an additional restricted free sub, get the item shop off of origin and into the client ideally, add items, and that's it. Basically just making the "trial account" permanent. It wouldn't change game play in the slightest for people who currently sub other than in positive ways. So long as you keep houses tied to paying accounts, there wouldn't even be a sub drop. Honestly I think it would be pretty hard to make UO that bad.
I personally had some expanded ideas, but you don't need to do anything any more complicated than that, and it would drive up the player base by a large margin, (and incrementally the sub rate) especially being on Steam.
Anyway, much like this thread, its an old argument. I doubt anyone is going to change their minds regardless of reasoning.
The facts, eh? Like the fact that f2p models obviously... Nah, nevermind. Carry on.
I know a lot about f2p games. It's a double edged blade. It can do for UO but only if the devs make it the right way and won't overdo like many other developers that got excited about it too much. Should they release on Steam, if there is a proper marketing campaign, an influx of newbs is to be awaited, but not most of them will be the right type. Most will be call of duty junkie kids to whom graphics are everything, the hardware is a thing to brag about and everyone who plays better is a cheater. They don't respect the old ways.
I always preferred the oldest scheme of "pay once yours forever" personally.
I always preferred the oldest scheme of "pay once yours forever" personally.
- Status