For those who follow MMOGCHART..

[Guest]

<blockquote><hr>

<blockquote><hr>

UO has done nothing but stopped growing since that was removed

[/ QUOTE ]

Uh uh...no. Gotta love revisionist history.

The Trammel/Fel split saw the account numbers shoot through the roof. People were leaving the game because of the frustration with the whole idea of "player policing" before Trammel. Once we got Trammel we had the "golden age" of UO.

[/ QUOTE ]
You should refer to the chart linked to in this very topic. It clearly shows UO having approximatly 185,000 subscribers when UO:R was released. This data comes from EA's own press release when Renaissance launched. After Trammel the number grew to about 245,000 and later settled at 225,000. At no point were players leaving UO pre-Trammel enough to cause the graph to decline.

Lots of people quit World of Warcraft but their subscription numbers keep going up. Your so called "Golden Age" was a period of stagnation in terms of subscription growth.

 

[imported_GalenKnighthawke]

I never know whether to laugh or cry at these bizarre discussions.

Like many business ventures, UO may well one day die.

But when it does, it will bear no relationship to the various people who insist on predicting its imminent downfall.

The first post I could find predicting UO's imminent death was within a few months of its release (this was on the Usenet).

*looks around*

-Galen's player

 

[Guest]

We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
For he to-day that sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother; be he ne'er so vile,
This day shall gentle his condition;
And gentlemen in far off games now-a-bed
Shall think themselves accurs'd they were not here,
And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks
That fought with us along Brittania's way.

 

[Stigmatas]

JC you just never get it do ya?

If EVE had a "Trammel", I guarantee they would have more subs. When I played, I cant count the number of people who quit, due to the "PK's"

Kind of just like "back in the day" with UO.

You call a growth of subscriptions, after the onset of Trammel, a stagnation?

You really do live in your own world.

There are people who like to pvp. There are also many many more who like to play the game without being messed with while doing so. Do you get that? And by the charts #'s there, and the proof that we ALL saw (maybe not you of course) in game of people leaving in droves to go to EQ at the time, and the growth rate after the induction of Trammel, would lead anyone with 2 brain cells to rub together a clue as to how people really want to play.

 

[Guest]

<blockquote><hr>

...

They did not yet reach decline status, no, however the number DID level off visibly while EQ, the first REAL UO competitor which had as one of it's biggest selling points a PvP switch SKYROCKETED past UO even though the gameplay in EQ was VASTLY inferior.

Even the devs at the time mentioned that UO was "bleeding accounts" and that non-con PvP was one of the biggest reasons why. We've been over this before. UO grew because it had no real competition. Within a stupidly short amount of time, EQ surpassed and eclipsed UO's sub numbers.

[/ QUOTE ]
What may seem like bleeding might have simply been normal attrition turnover rates for a MMO. There should have been no reason to panic as long as the number of players coming in exceeded those leaving.

As for competition, Everquest launched in March 1999. Over the next year before Renaissance both EQ and UO were gaining subscribers! EQ was probably a hit due to heavy advertising and a 3D look. Then World of Wacraft came along a few years ago and knocked everyone down by introducing a third component: an easy and powerful client that anyone can pick up and play.

Is it any wonder that Kingdom Reborn has been such a dismal failure when the graphics are not liked, it isn't in stores or advertised and the ease of use is worse than 2D? The only way UO will ever start growing again is if a real investment was made into a new client and serious changes bring the fun back to all areas of UO, PVP and PVM.
<blockquote><hr>

If EVE had a "Trammel", I guarantee they would have more subs.

[/ QUOTE ]
EVE does have a Trammel, it is called Concord. They are the guards which watch over 1/3 to 1/2 of the universe and are summoned any time a player attacks another. However, the further you move out from the main system the longer it takes for them to respond. Eventually you reach was is known as 0 sector space, completely out of reach of Concord. It is tough to live in but the rewards are there to make it worth the risk.

Mirroring the entire game and turning on easy mode is what destroyed UO's careful balance and has caused so many problems which are still felt today. For example scripting.

 

[imported_Skrag]

This has been done to death.

Subscriptions were not falling during the pre-Tram era, but EA wasn't limited to looking at total subscriptions. They could see how many people were joining, and how many were quitting, and the number of people quitting because of PK was too high. I've posted quotes from ex-UO developers to this effect before.

"But what difference does that make as long as total subscriptions were going up?"

The difference is that the number of people joining is bound to go down as time goes by. I mean, there are only so many people in the world who will ever try a particular game. But the number of people who can quit is always 100%. Once they start, it's always possible for them to stop. Ergo, the number of people quitting had to be reduced. To demonstrate:

Game A is adding 10k subscribers per month after release, and losing 2k per month, for a total growth of 8k monthly.

Game B is adding 20k subscribers per month after release, and losing 12k per month, meaning they also have total growth of 8k monthly.

So after one year, both games are even with 96k subscribers. But now the games are getting older, newer games are coming out, and of all the people in the world who are interested in these games, a lot of them have already tried them, and either decided to stay or not.

So now it's a little later, and Game A is only adding 5k subscribers per month, while still losing 2k in the same period. This means their total monthly growth has slowed to only 3k monthly.

Meanwhile, Game B is adding 10k subscribers per month (still twice the rate of Game A) but they're also still losing 12k per month. Uh oh, now they're LOSING 2k subcriptions monthly.

The rate at which people quit a game is of dire importance even if the game is still gaining total subscriptions, and the "stagnant" period would have been a total collapse if the quit rate hadn't been reduced.

 

[Stigmatas]

<blockquote><hr>

...

At no point were players leaving UO pre-Trammel enough to cause the graph to decline.

They did not yet reach decline status, no, however the number DID level off visibly while EQ, the first REAL UO competitor which had as one of it's biggest selling points a PvP switch SKYROCKETED past UO even though the gameplay in EQ was VASTLY inferior.

Even the devs at the time mentioned that UO was "bleeding accounts" and that non-con PvP was one of the biggest reasons why. We've been over this before. UO grew because it had no real competition. Within a stupidly short amount of time, EQ surpassed and eclipsed UO's sub numbers. UO's growth chart started to level out and only resurged when UO:R was introduced (also remember that UO:R was "released before it was released" meaning that players downloaded and "upgraded" to UO:R quite a while before the boxes appeared in stores.

UO's accounts grew after UO:R until shortly after the release of Third Dawn due to the release status of the new client (at the time) and at that point stayed stagnant through the non-expansion LBR, spiked again right after AOS opened new house land (which UO was SORELY in need of after the account changes due to 9/11) and from that point started the current downward trend.

[/ QUOTE ]


QFT

Read that again JC and followers. Then read it again. Keep reading it until it sinks in.

Its sad that people have to keep repeating it year after year after year. UO had no competition in the begining. There are sooooo many variables to subscription #'s that not one person here can state their opinions as fact.

I however use the fact's of what I saw and heard in game, since 19 ninety freakin 7, of what non-con pvp and Trammel did to UO. I saw them leave in droves. I saw them come back. I've seen an empty Felucca and a full Trammel. I've seen other MMO's be launched.

Look around the facets. Keep in mind what you saw since Trammel opened up. Think about that next time.

A sadistic part of me would actually like to see this Pre UOR shard, or even the entire game go back to non-con pvp, just to watch it die. Then rub it in for years to come. If they ever did it like a lot of the diehard's would like to see, watch them subs DIE.

 

[Guest]

*looks at the continuing exchange of bickering posts*

hmm ... apparently Henry V I'm not.

 

[Guest]

...

"SHUT YOUR FESTERING GOB YOU TIT!"

"But I came here for an argument!"

"Oh! This is abuse, arguments are two doors down on the right"

/Python

 

[Gildar]

<blockquote><hr>

<blockquote><hr>

A new chart was added yesterday.

Remember when Jeremy came in an hinted at the last increase being accurate? I'm curious if she will chime in now.

To me,given the fact that she acknowledged the increase as valid, I can also draw the same about the newly published decrease. Looks like 75k and headed down.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is close to my calculations... (paraphrased below)

[/ QUOTE ]Sorry to burst your bubble...


The Javascript that updates that ticker:
<font class="small">Code:</font><hr /><pre>var thisMonth = new Array('Jan','Feb','Mar','Apr','May','Jun','Jul','Aug','Sep','Oct','Nov','Dec');
var thisWeek = new Array('Sunday','Monday','Tuesday','Wednesday','Thursday','Friday','Saturday');

//myDate = new Date('Monday, 15 March 1999 16:33:20');
var myMin = myDate.getMinutes();
var myHour = myDate.getHours();
var mySec = myDate.getSeconds();
var myDay = myDate.getDate();
var myWeek = thisWeek[myDate.getDay()];
var myMonth = thisMonth[myDate.getMonth()];
var myYear = myDate.getYear();
var today = myWeek + ', ' + myDay + ' ' + myMonth + ' 19' + myYear;
var avgTraffic = 64581;
var avgLived = 22468002;
var tmpLived = avgLived * (myDay - 1);
var tmpTraffic = avgTraffic * (myDay - 1);
var minToDate = ((myDay - 1) * 1440) + (myHour * 60) + myMin;
var sesPerMin = (avgTraffic / 24) / 60;
var totSess = parseInt(tmpTraffic + ((avgTraffic / 24) * myHour) + (((avgTraffic / 24)/ 60) * myMin));
var totLived = parseInt(tmpLived + ((avgLived / 24) * myHour) + (((avgLived / 24)/ 60) * myMin));
var aggSec = mySec;
var aggMin = minToDate % 60;
var theGuilds = 0;

function toTraffic() {
totLived += 251;
document.ticker.lived.value = totLived;
document.ticker.guild.value = theGuilds;
TimerID = setTimeout('toTraffic()', 1000);
}

function toTraffic2() {
y = Math.round(Math.random() * 2750) + 750;
x = Math.round(Math.random() * 15) + 5;
totSess += x;
document.ticker.traffic.value = totSess;
TimerID = setTimeout('toTraffic2()', y);
}</pre><hr />

To paraphrase...
"Average time played" = 22468002 * time passed so far this month + 1251 per second you're on the page (approximately, somewhat random in how much it adds per update and how frequent between updates, client-side lag may impact the actual average added per second).
The ticker is completely worthless now.
It might be based on data that was accurate back in 1999, but it's worthless today.


That said... while I would be more shocked to learn that UO subscription numbers are increasing than I would to learn that they are decreasing, I'm not concerned about it being cancelled any time soon.

 

[mdacc#one]

75k x $12 per month x 12 month/year = ~10 million a year.

they've trimmed down their staff

they've merged their sites

I think they are still making good profits.

UO ain't going anywhere.

 

[mdacc#one]

75k x $12 per month x 12 month/year = ~10 million a year.

they've trimmed down their staff

they've merged their sites

I think they are still making good profits.

UO ain't going anywhere.

 

[Guest]

<blockquote><hr>

I however use the fact's of what I saw and heard in game, since 19 ninety freakin 7, of what non-con pvp and Trammel did to UO. I saw them leave in droves. I saw them come back. I've seen an empty Felucca and a full Trammel. I've seen other MMO's be launched.


[/ QUOTE ]

1) I was there, It wasn't that bad from my end. I rarely got pked after they put in stat loss. Most of the crying was from morons who went to the x-roads or some other spot absurdly hot with pks and got obliterated.

2) Even IF it was a huge problem that does NOT mean that tram was the correct solution. It was a terrible idea to curb the problem, and along with insurance was the single worst decision ever made in this games development should you ask me.

The better way to go, like was mentioned being done in eve was keeping the same land mass, and extending varying levels of safe zones, with rewards improving the more dangerous areas you enter. This way the communities are not destroyed, the pkers still have fun, the non pvpers still have fun, there is risk vs reward... everything is better. Tram was a terrible idea.

 

[Guest]

<blockquote><hr>

I however use the fact's of what I saw and heard in game, since 19 ninety freakin 7, of what non-con pvp and Trammel did to UO. I saw them leave in droves. I saw them come back. I've seen an empty Felucca and a full Trammel. I've seen other MMO's be launched.


[/ QUOTE ]

1) I was there, It wasn't that bad from my end. I rarely got pked after they put in stat loss. Most of the crying was from morons who went to the x-roads or some other spot absurdly hot with pks and got obliterated.

2) Even IF it was a huge problem that does NOT mean that tram was the correct solution. It was a terrible idea to curb the problem, and along with insurance was the single worst decision ever made in this games development should you ask me.

The better way to go, like was mentioned being done in eve was keeping the same land mass, and extending varying levels of safe zones, with rewards improving the more dangerous areas you enter. This way the communities are not destroyed, the pkers still have fun, the non pvpers still have fun, there is risk vs reward... everything is better. Tram was a terrible idea.

 

[imported_GalenKnighthawke]

<blockquote><hr>

<blockquote><hr>

The difference is that the number of people joining is bound to go down as time goes by. I mean, there are only so many people in the world who will ever try a particular game.

[/ QUOTE ]
And while you say that, World of Warcraft is preparing another press release on whatever number they have achieved now. You are talking about fighting over 1 million subscriptions at the time of UO:R when their is approximately 16 million total today. In a couple years that number will probably grow to 20 and then 30 million.

There is no question something should have been done about player killing, but allowing players to totally prevent it by moving to a new land was a huge mistake.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's well-established that WoW finds ways to pad their numbers.

Further, I have a very hard time believing they can get much bigger than they are now. There's only so many people who are interested in playing games like this, especially when those who are so inclined can play games, like Guild Wars, for free.

I will not be surprised if UO ends up outlasting WoW.

-Galen's player

 

[imported_GalenKnighthawke]

<blockquote><hr>

<blockquote><hr>

The difference is that the number of people joining is bound to go down as time goes by. I mean, there are only so many people in the world who will ever try a particular game.

[/ QUOTE ]
And while you say that, World of Warcraft is preparing another press release on whatever number they have achieved now. You are talking about fighting over 1 million subscriptions at the time of UO:R when their is approximately 16 million total today. In a couple years that number will probably grow to 20 and then 30 million.

There is no question something should have been done about player killing, but allowing players to totally prevent it by moving to a new land was a huge mistake.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's well-established that WoW finds ways to pad their numbers.

Further, I have a very hard time believing they can get much bigger than they are now. There's only so many people who are interested in playing games like this, especially when those who are so inclined can play games, like Guild Wars, for free.

I will not be surprised if UO ends up outlasting WoW.

-Galen's player

 

[imported_GalenKnighthawke]

If I am reading Skrag's post right, he and I agree completely.

Because it happens so rarely, when Skrag and I agree, it is statistically impossible for us to both be wrong.

I'm also pretty sure I remember the dev posts he's talking about. I remember them being on the old, official boards.

-Galen's player

 

[imported_GalenKnighthawke]

If I am reading Skrag's post right, he and I agree completely.

Because it happens so rarely, when Skrag and I agree, it is statistically impossible for us to both be wrong.

I'm also pretty sure I remember the dev posts he's talking about. I remember them being on the old, official boards.

-Galen's player

 

[Guest]

<blockquote><hr>

A new chart was added yesterday.

Remember when Jeremy came in an hinted at the last increase being accurate? I'm curious if she will chime in now.

To me,given the fact that she acknowledged the increase as valid, I can also draw the same about the newly published decrease. Looks like 75k and headed down.

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't know where that guy is getting his information, but from what I've read from Daedulas' studies... I don't think it can be accurate. Maybe I'm just paranoid about internet information and accuracy, then again....

 

[Guest]

<blockquote><hr>

A new chart was added yesterday.

Remember when Jeremy came in an hinted at the last increase being accurate? I'm curious if she will chime in now.

To me,given the fact that she acknowledged the increase as valid, I can also draw the same about the newly published decrease. Looks like 75k and headed down.

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't know where that guy is getting his information, but from what I've read from Daedulas' studies... I don't think it can be accurate. Maybe I'm just paranoid about internet information and accuracy, then again....

 

[Guest]

<blockquote><hr>

A new chart was added yesterday.

Remember when Jeremy came in an hinted at the last increase being accurate? I'm curious if she will chime in now.

To me,given the fact that she acknowledged the increase as valid, I can also draw the same about the newly published decrease. Looks like 75k and headed down.

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't know where that guy is getting his information, but from what I've read from Daedulas' studies... I don't think it can be accurate. Maybe I'm just paranoid about internet information and accuracy, then again....

 

[Guest]

<blockquote><hr>

A new chart was added yesterday.

Remember when Jeremy came in an hinted at the last increase being accurate? I'm curious if she will chime in now.

To me,given the fact that she acknowledged the increase as valid, I can also draw the same about the newly published decrease. Looks like 75k and headed down.

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't know where that guy is getting his information, but from what I've read from Daedulas' studies... I don't think it can be accurate. Maybe I'm just paranoid about internet information and accuracy, then again....

 

[Redxpanda]

I must be completely missing something here or perhaps i don't understand but lemme ask this:

Why isn't world of warcraft on that list.

 

[Redxpanda]

I must be completely missing something here or perhaps i don't understand but lemme ask this:

Why isn't world of warcraft on that list.

 

[Guest]

<blockquote><hr>

The first post I could find predicting UO's imminent death was within a few months of its release

[/ QUOTE ]

Every other MMORPG that has come out has been a UO killer, if you believe the posts.

Fact is...there's a lot of MMORPGs out there that would kill to have UOs subscriber base. It's not as high as it once was...but it's not like we have empty shards or anything. Except Siege, that is.

 

[Guest]

<blockquote><hr>

The first post I could find predicting UO's imminent death was within a few months of its release

[/ QUOTE ]

Every other MMORPG that has come out has been a UO killer, if you believe the posts.

Fact is...there's a lot of MMORPGs out there that would kill to have UOs subscriber base. It's not as high as it once was...but it's not like we have empty shards or anything. Except Siege, that is.

 

[Guest]

<blockquote><hr>

Why isn't world of warcraft on that list.

[/ QUOTE ]
The chart only covers 70K-700K, there's a separate page for WoWesque games.

 

[Guest]

<blockquote><hr>

Why isn't world of warcraft on that list.

[/ QUOTE ]
The chart only covers 70K-700K, there's a separate page for WoWesque games.

 

[utilitron]

<blockquote><hr>

<blockquote><hr>


That is close to my calculations... (paraphrased below)

[/ QUOTE ]Sorry to burst your bubble...

The Javascript that updates that ticker:
<font class="small">Code:</font><hr /><pre>var thisMonth = new Array('Jan','Feb','Mar','Apr','May','Jun','Jul','Aug','Sep','Oct','Nov','Dec');
var thisWeek = new Array('Sunday','Monday','Tuesday','Wednesday','Thursday','Friday','Saturday');

//myDate = new Date('Monday, 15 March 1999 16:33:20');
var myMin = myDate.getMinutes();
var myHour = myDate.getHours();
var mySec = myDate.getSeconds();
var myDay = myDate.getDate();
var myWeek = thisWeek[myDate.getDay()];
var myMonth = thisMonth[myDate.getMonth()];
var myYear = myDate.getYear();
var today = myWeek + ', ' + myDay + ' ' + myMonth + ' 19' + myYear;
var avgTraffic = 64581;
var avgLived = 22468002;
var tmpLived = avgLived * (myDay - 1);
var tmpTraffic = avgTraffic * (myDay - 1);
var minToDate = ((myDay - 1) * 1440) + (myHour * 60) + myMin;
var sesPerMin = (avgTraffic / 24) / 60;
var totSess = parseInt(tmpTraffic + ((avgTraffic / 24) * myHour) + (((avgTraffic / 24)/ 60) * myMin));
var totLived = parseInt(tmpLived + ((avgLived / 24) * myHour) + (((avgLived / 24)/ 60) * myMin));
var aggSec = mySec;
var aggMin = minToDate % 60;
var theGuilds = 0;

function toTraffic() {
totLived += 251;
document.ticker.lived.value = totLived;
document.ticker.guild.value = theGuilds;
TimerID = setTimeout('toTraffic()', 1000);
}

function toTraffic2() {
y = Math.round(Math.random() * 2750) + 750;
x = Math.round(Math.random() * 15) + 5;
totSess += x;
document.ticker.traffic.value = totSess;
TimerID = setTimeout('toTraffic2()', y);
}</pre><hr />


[/ QUOTE ]

To be fair I did add the disclaimers...

<blockquote><hr>

... assuming this information is correct ...

[/ QUOTE ]

<blockquote><hr>

Given the numbers, and assuming they are true...

[/ QUOTE ]

due to the lazyness of not wanting to read the code for the ticker

 

[utilitron]

<blockquote><hr>

<blockquote><hr>


That is close to my calculations... (paraphrased below)

[/ QUOTE ]Sorry to burst your bubble...

The Javascript that updates that ticker:
<font class="small">Code:</font><hr /><pre>var thisMonth = new Array('Jan','Feb','Mar','Apr','May','Jun','Jul','Aug','Sep','Oct','Nov','Dec');
var thisWeek = new Array('Sunday','Monday','Tuesday','Wednesday','Thursday','Friday','Saturday');

//myDate = new Date('Monday, 15 March 1999 16:33:20');
var myMin = myDate.getMinutes();
var myHour = myDate.getHours();
var mySec = myDate.getSeconds();
var myDay = myDate.getDate();
var myWeek = thisWeek[myDate.getDay()];
var myMonth = thisMonth[myDate.getMonth()];
var myYear = myDate.getYear();
var today = myWeek + ', ' + myDay + ' ' + myMonth + ' 19' + myYear;
var avgTraffic = 64581;
var avgLived = 22468002;
var tmpLived = avgLived * (myDay - 1);
var tmpTraffic = avgTraffic * (myDay - 1);
var minToDate = ((myDay - 1) * 1440) + (myHour * 60) + myMin;
var sesPerMin = (avgTraffic / 24) / 60;
var totSess = parseInt(tmpTraffic + ((avgTraffic / 24) * myHour) + (((avgTraffic / 24)/ 60) * myMin));
var totLived = parseInt(tmpLived + ((avgLived / 24) * myHour) + (((avgLived / 24)/ 60) * myMin));
var aggSec = mySec;
var aggMin = minToDate % 60;
var theGuilds = 0;

function toTraffic() {
totLived += 251;
document.ticker.lived.value = totLived;
document.ticker.guild.value = theGuilds;
TimerID = setTimeout('toTraffic()', 1000);
}

function toTraffic2() {
y = Math.round(Math.random() * 2750) + 750;
x = Math.round(Math.random() * 15) + 5;
totSess += x;
document.ticker.traffic.value = totSess;
TimerID = setTimeout('toTraffic2()', y);
}</pre><hr />


[/ QUOTE ]

To be fair I did add the disclaimers...

<blockquote><hr>

... assuming this information is correct ...

[/ QUOTE ]

<blockquote><hr>

Given the numbers, and assuming they are true...

[/ QUOTE ]

due to the lazyness of not wanting to read the code for the ticker

 

[RaDian FlGith]

<blockquote><hr>

It's well-established that WoW finds ways to pad their numbers.

[/ QUOTE ]That's the most ridiculous assertion that's been made in this entire discussion. Blizzard themselves indicate that their numbers DO NOT include various accounts such as promotional accounts, free accounts, gameroom accounts and so forth. They do not "find ways" to pad their numbers, and even if they did, they certainly aren't making up 9.9 million of their claimed 10 million subscribers.

<blockquote><hr>

I will not be surprised if UO ends up outlasting WoW.

[/ QUOTE ]There are only THREE ways that UO will outlast WoW:

1) Someone over at EA wakes the hell up and creates a client that actually brings UO into the modern gaming world (which will NEVER happen based on two cancelled 3D sequel games AND a horribly bug-ridden, badly implemented pair of new clients)...

2) Blizzard suddenly goes bankrupt...

3) Blizzard releases a sequel to World of Warcraft that makes the original WoW obsolete.

Otherwise, count on WoW being around for quite some time. A statement that, IMO, cannot be said in the same manner (ie: with a straight face) for Ultima Online. UO will be LUCKY to see another five years at this rate. And I'm willing to go on record that if it's still around to celebrate its 20th Anniversary, if you're still playing, I'll pay for a full year's subscription to it for you for one account.

Yes, I'm THAT certain UO's going to be long gone in 10 years.

 

[RaDian FlGith]

<blockquote><hr>

It's well-established that WoW finds ways to pad their numbers.

[/ QUOTE ]That's the most ridiculous assertion that's been made in this entire discussion. Blizzard themselves indicate that their numbers DO NOT include various accounts such as promotional accounts, free accounts, gameroom accounts and so forth. They do not "find ways" to pad their numbers, and even if they did, they certainly aren't making up 9.9 million of their claimed 10 million subscribers.

<blockquote><hr>

I will not be surprised if UO ends up outlasting WoW.

[/ QUOTE ]There are only THREE ways that UO will outlast WoW:

1) Someone over at EA wakes the hell up and creates a client that actually brings UO into the modern gaming world (which will NEVER happen based on two cancelled 3D sequel games AND a horribly bug-ridden, badly implemented pair of new clients)...

2) Blizzard suddenly goes bankrupt...

3) Blizzard releases a sequel to World of Warcraft that makes the original WoW obsolete.

Otherwise, count on WoW being around for quite some time. A statement that, IMO, cannot be said in the same manner (ie: with a straight face) for Ultima Online. UO will be LUCKY to see another five years at this rate. And I'm willing to go on record that if it's still around to celebrate its 20th Anniversary, if you're still playing, I'll pay for a full year's subscription to it for you for one account.

Yes, I'm THAT certain UO's going to be long gone in 10 years.

 

[Guest]

<blockquote><hr>

And I'm willing to go on record that if it's still around to celebrate its 20th Anniversary, if you're still playing, I'll pay for a full year's subscription to it for you for one account.

[/ QUOTE ]

Dunno, I could see it running in zombie status (no team for updates, whats in the game is it) for a long time. So long as it doesn't need to support a dev team outside of one or two bug hunters the game could maintain and be profitable (not very but whatever) with like 20k people.

Although I for one will leave the day they announce that the game will no longer be adding content, there are plenty who would stay.

 

[Guest]

<blockquote><hr>

And I'm willing to go on record that if it's still around to celebrate its 20th Anniversary, if you're still playing, I'll pay for a full year's subscription to it for you for one account.

[/ QUOTE ]

Dunno, I could see it running in zombie status (no team for updates, whats in the game is it) for a long time. So long as it doesn't need to support a dev team outside of one or two bug hunters the game could maintain and be profitable (not very but whatever) with like 20k people.

Although I for one will leave the day they announce that the game will no longer be adding content, there are plenty who would stay.

 

[Guest]

I wont be surprised either matey. ^_^

 

[Guest]

I wont be surprised either matey. ^_^

 

[imported_Skrag]

<blockquote><hr>

And while you say that, World of Warcraft is preparing another press release on whatever number they have achieved now.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm sorry, but what does this have to do with anything? The number of people who will ever try WoW is not infinite. Eventually the game will peak, and then decline. Not for a while, and not sharply, because Blizzard really knows how to code a game and market it, but it's inevitable. What, you think WoW is just going to keep growing forever to infinity subscriptions?

<blockquote><hr>

You are talking about fighting over 1 million subscriptions at the time of UO:R when their is approximately 16 million total today. In a couple years that number will probably grow to 20 and then 30 million.

[/ QUOTE ]
By this logic, the sales of Xbox 360 should drive up sales of the Atari 2600. After all, there are a lot more people who've tried videogames now than there were thirty years ago. LOL.

<blockquote><hr>

There is no question something should have been done about player killing, but allowing players to totally prevent it by moving to a new land was a huge mistake.

[/ QUOTE ]
I agree. They should have just Trammelized all the existing shards, invented shard transfers right then and there, and let everyone who didn't like it move to a couple of new PVP shards.

 

[imported_Skrag]

<blockquote><hr>

And while you say that, World of Warcraft is preparing another press release on whatever number they have achieved now.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm sorry, but what does this have to do with anything? The number of people who will ever try WoW is not infinite. Eventually the game will peak, and then decline. Not for a while, and not sharply, because Blizzard really knows how to code a game and market it, but it's inevitable. What, you think WoW is just going to keep growing forever to infinity subscriptions?

<blockquote><hr>

You are talking about fighting over 1 million subscriptions at the time of UO:R when their is approximately 16 million total today. In a couple years that number will probably grow to 20 and then 30 million.

[/ QUOTE ]
By this logic, the sales of Xbox 360 should drive up sales of the Atari 2600. After all, there are a lot more people who've tried videogames now than there were thirty years ago. LOL.

<blockquote><hr>

There is no question something should have been done about player killing, but allowing players to totally prevent it by moving to a new land was a huge mistake.

[/ QUOTE ]
I agree. They should have just Trammelized all the existing shards, invented shard transfers right then and there, and let everyone who didn't like it move to a couple of new PVP shards.

 

[imported_Ozymandies]

"612734440/60 = ~10212240 Minutes / 60 = ~170204 Days."


First of all, there are 24 hours in a day, not 60.

It should read

612734440/60 = ~10212240 Hours/24 = ~425510 Days.

You took your numbers on the 18th, so

24/7: 425510/18 = 23639 players

12/7: twice that or 47279 players

6/7: twice that or 94557 players

3/7: twice that or 189115 players

etc.


4/7: 141836 players

4/5 : 198571 players

4/3: 330952 players

Edit: I see you fixed this later in the thread. Now we got the same answers, always a good sign.

My second point is that March was a slow month. The ticker today is at 613M and its only the 10th.

OZ

 

[imported_Ozymandies]

"612734440/60 = ~10212240 Minutes / 60 = ~170204 Days."


First of all, there are 24 hours in a day, not 60.

It should read

612734440/60 = ~10212240 Hours/24 = ~425510 Days.

You took your numbers on the 18th, so

24/7: 425510/18 = 23639 players

12/7: twice that or 47279 players

6/7: twice that or 94557 players

3/7: twice that or 189115 players

etc.


4/7: 141836 players

4/5 : 198571 players

4/3: 330952 players

Edit: I see you fixed this later in the thread. Now we got the same answers, always a good sign.

My second point is that March was a slow month. The ticker today is at 613M and its only the 10th.

OZ

 

[Guest]

<blockquote><hr>

<blockquote><hr>

It's well-established that WoW finds ways to pad their numbers.

[/ QUOTE ]That's the most ridiculous assertion that's been made in this entire discussion. Blizzard themselves indicate that their numbers DO NOT include various accounts such as promotional accounts, free accounts, gameroom accounts and so forth. They do not "find ways" to pad their numbers, and even if they did, they certainly aren't making up 9.9 million of their claimed 10 million subscribers.

<blockquote><hr>

I will not be surprised if UO ends up outlasting WoW.

[/ QUOTE ]There are only THREE ways that UO will outlast WoW:

1) Someone over at EA wakes the hell up and creates a client that actually brings UO into the modern gaming world (which will NEVER happen based on two cancelled 3D sequel games AND a horribly bug-ridden, badly implemented pair of new clients)...

2) Blizzard suddenly goes bankrupt...

3) Blizzard releases a sequel to World of Warcraft that makes the original WoW obsolete.

Otherwise, count on WoW being around for quite some time. A statement that, IMO, cannot be said in the same manner (ie: with a straight face) for Ultima Online. UO will be LUCKY to see another five years at this rate. And I'm willing to go on record that if it's still around to celebrate its 20th Anniversary, if you're still playing, I'll pay for a full year's subscription to it for you for one account.

Yes, I'm THAT certain UO's going to be long gone in 10 years.

[/ QUOTE ]


#1 who cares.
#2 new games will come out that will be better then WOW. WOW, you mean we will have another game to compare UO to.
#3 UO is a game.
#4 UO is a game.
#5 UO is a game.
#6 UO is an established game that brings EA money.
#7 Money is good for a company, so UO will stay.
#8 Okay, Ill predict UO wont be around in 25 years. Stupid. Stop predicting.

 

[Guest]

<blockquote><hr>

<blockquote><hr>

It's well-established that WoW finds ways to pad their numbers.

[/ QUOTE ]That's the most ridiculous assertion that's been made in this entire discussion. Blizzard themselves indicate that their numbers DO NOT include various accounts such as promotional accounts, free accounts, gameroom accounts and so forth. They do not "find ways" to pad their numbers, and even if they did, they certainly aren't making up 9.9 million of their claimed 10 million subscribers.

<blockquote><hr>

I will not be surprised if UO ends up outlasting WoW.

[/ QUOTE ]There are only THREE ways that UO will outlast WoW:

1) Someone over at EA wakes the hell up and creates a client that actually brings UO into the modern gaming world (which will NEVER happen based on two cancelled 3D sequel games AND a horribly bug-ridden, badly implemented pair of new clients)...

2) Blizzard suddenly goes bankrupt...

3) Blizzard releases a sequel to World of Warcraft that makes the original WoW obsolete.

Otherwise, count on WoW being around for quite some time. A statement that, IMO, cannot be said in the same manner (ie: with a straight face) for Ultima Online. UO will be LUCKY to see another five years at this rate. And I'm willing to go on record that if it's still around to celebrate its 20th Anniversary, if you're still playing, I'll pay for a full year's subscription to it for you for one account.

Yes, I'm THAT certain UO's going to be long gone in 10 years.

[/ QUOTE ]


#1 who cares.
#2 new games will come out that will be better then WOW. WOW, you mean we will have another game to compare UO to.
#3 UO is a game.
#4 UO is a game.
#5 UO is a game.
#6 UO is an established game that brings EA money.
#7 Money is good for a company, so UO will stay.
#8 Okay, Ill predict UO wont be around in 25 years. Stupid. Stop predicting.

 

[Guest]

*ttl*

I would really like to know what power that chart has... Every time it's posted the discussions go the same way - the way of the lock.

 

[Guest]

*ttl*

I would really like to know what power that chart has... Every time it's posted the discussions go the same way - the way of the lock.