I tell you why we need a classic shard

[Darius II]

go read the last 5 quarterly reports by ERTS(Electronic Arts). No mention of any of EA Mythic's games.

They use to have a section in their quarterly statement breaking down their online games which at that time included Pogo franchise and UO. Now Ea wont even mention Ultima Online in their report.

i quit the game back in 2003. I am willing to pay 15 bucks a month and would have the past 7 years for a classic shard. EA lost about $1000 from me over a 7 year span. and if you multiply that by the thousands of people that have played the free shards over the past 7 years, you talking about 100's of millions to your bottom line you guys missed out on

we asked, no one ever delivered.

The UO devs back than didnt understand that people are willing to pay for a superior product if you give them what they want. These free shards are fine, but they are corrupt. People would pay 15 bucks to a corporation such as Electronic Arts because they know they will have stability and they know they will wake up in the morning and their house will still be their.

I am not here to bash the current UO. Those people who play UO will not come to the classic shard. but theirs 1000's and 1000's of people playing free uo shards right now that will fork over 180 bucks a year to play a classic shard. just look at xbox live arcade...people keep purchasing the classics over and over again. same thing with movies and music. hell jimi hendrix is in the top 5 on the billboard charts this week.

just make a classic shard. please

 

[Baba_Booey]

Truer words have never been spoken. We've got your money... come and get it suckas..

 

[popps]

i quit the game back in 2003. I am willing to pay 15 bucks a month and would have the past 7 years for a classic shard. EA lost about $1000 from me over a 7 year span. and if you multiply that by the thousands of people that have played the free shards over the past 7 years, you talking about 100's of millions to your bottom line you guys missed out on

I often read posts saying that going item based for UO kept people playing it.

Personally, I am not sure at all about that.

I much more preferred a skill based game with much less weight on items. It might be nostalgia of the times that once were, I don't now, but this craziness about items, items and some more items I do not think it as good for the game, eventually, given all of the problems it brings with it like players' inequalities and wide differences and balance issues.

 

[Santa Claus]

If Ea made decent innovative sports games they could make lots more than with any UO shard...

Heck if they had made a decent Warhammer game they would not have lost millions ...

And I am not sure retro shards are profitable for companies. DAOC has a retro shard and I guess they had the old code, but I am not sure it is profitable for them.

 

[Stewpid]

If enough people would support a classic shard, perhaps they should go for it. Should be easy enough. They could put an in game poll asking:

Would you like us to use most of our resources to make a classic shard for you?

Simple yes or no.

Or, perhaps a question like:

Would you like us to devote our resources and time to

a: Fixing bugs?
b: Finishing the enhanced client?
c: Finishing all the other previous projects?
d: Making a classic shard?

 

[phantus]

Heck if they had made a decent Warhammer game they would not have lost millions ...

If Turbine could have made their version...

 

[Gelf]

 

[Morgana LeFay (PoV)]

I tell you why we need a classic shard

We might need a Classic Shard...



...but we DON'T need another Classic Shard thread.

 

[Uvtha]

I think that laboring under the contention that all the people playing free shards would have been paying customers all these years if there was an old school shard is wishful thinking.

People play free games because they are free. Have you seen the complete garbage games out there with literally over a million players? There's like 80.

 

[Morgana LeFay (PoV)]

Have you seen the complete garbage games out there with literally over a million players?

 

[georgemarvin2001]

@Uvtha: Actually, a lot of those free online games aren't really crap. Look at D&D, for instance. D&D has a HUGE following. It has a free online version with brand-new 3-D graphics that are at least WoW quality, probably better, hundreds of quests, and it's as polished as they come. But it doesn't have as many active players that the pre-AOS UO free shards do. Neither do the WoW free servers, for that matter.

UO is the only pay to play online game that has 7 times as many players on free shards as it does on the production version of the game. Also, I haven't seen any WoW free servers that actually advertise that they use an old version of the game. To the contrary, they all advertise that they are totally up to date with the latest patch.

On the other hand, it would be suicidal for a UO free shard to advertise that they use a post-AOS ruleset. Some of the UO pre-AOS free shards have as many as 162,000 players, while the most populous post-AOS free shard that I could find had 164 players. Not 164,000. Just 164.

Most online games will assume that there will be about 1 player on a free shard per 20 paid subscribers on production shards. By that standard, UO should have 10 million subscribers, not 75,000.

The people at EA should be thinking about what went wrong, and when, and how to fix it at this late date.

 

[five oclock]

heres another one...

Ok Free shard...Hrm..ITS FREE! Look at this game. its 12 years old!!!! Its showing it!!! I would NOT pay to play this game if I had a choice. But playing as long as I have...

Has NO ONE tried out the Million other games out there? Better grapics better sound heck better everything?

Also UO is old school. Its like playing Diablo. There are times I still get that Diable CD out.

But seriously folks..The player base is gone. The only people really left are the diehards..US. Yeah there are new players coming on BUT they are old players coming back. Are they staying or are they leaving?

Kids today want to play the hip games. UO is your daddies game..and we are still playing it.

How many of us still play our OLD atari games??? if ya smart you are not. BUT you can go down to the store and buy a joystick with 5 games IN IT!!! Why? for it brings us back to a different time and place.

Im NOT saying UO is dead, dieing, closing, ending etc etc. Im saying Its US. ALL of us that are keeping this game going by paying to play. The die hards. The never going to quit for I have 20000 accounts with massive rares and arties....Or the I have just one account Been playing for 12 years made alot of good friends and lost alot of good friends over the years. Its the memories...

Bring in a classic shard. The first few months its going to be big. Then its going to fizzle out and be just as empty as the other shards that are around here. For a classic shard is just a band aid to a missing arm....I mean a flesh wound <--saying this is my best british ascent.

 

[Cetric]

We might need a Classic Shard...



...but we DON'T need another Classic Shard thread.

Thank You!rolleyes:

 

[hungry4knowhow]

Some of the UO pre-AOS free shards have as many as 162,000 players, while the most populous post-AOS free shard that I could find had 164 players. Not 164,000. Just 164.

Unless you are talking # of accounts, you are completely wrong. There is no free uo shard period that has over 1500-2000 regular active players. And of the 162k ACCOUNTS it might have, most players have 3-10 accounts themselves.

 

[Connor_Graham]

UO is the only pay to play online game that has 7 times as many players on free shards as it does on the production version of the game. Also, I haven't seen any WoW free servers that actually advertise that they use an old version of the game. To the contrary, they all advertise that they are totally up to date with the latest patch.

On the other hand, it would be suicidal for a UO free shard to advertise that they use a post-AOS ruleset. Some of the UO pre-AOS free shards have as many as 162,000 players, while the most populous post-AOS free shard that I could find had 164 players. Not 164,000. Just 164.

Most online games will assume that there will be about 1 player on a free shard per 20 paid subscribers on production shards. By that standard, UO should have 10 million subscribers, not 75,000.

The people at EA should be thinking about what went wrong, and when, and how to fix it at this late date.

Dat's an awfool lot of noombers you tossed around dere. Where day all come from?

In other words, proof please, from official EA sources, or none of it is worth any more than the pixels it took to put them on the screen.

 

[Llewen]

Ok, let's play pretend. Let's pretend that the devs announce a "classic" shard. All these painfully redundant threads about classic shards will finally be put to rest, right? Not on your life.

The instant they announce a classic shard the threads complaining about how they chose the wrong rules set to base the classic shard on will start, and there will be a lot of them, and in fact there will continue to be a lot of them as long as there are active boards discussing anything to do with UO. And along with the threads complaining about how they chose the wrong era to base their classic shard on, there will be dozens of polls asking whether anyone likes the rules set that was chosen, and of course worded as much as humanly possible to make disliking the choices that were made the only reasonable option, and dozens more polls asking which era should have been chosen.

Fine, we can accept that, so the classic shard opens, and we all hear a massive "Woohoo!" from fans of old school UO all over the face of planet Earth. There will be lots of people that will try it out. It will probably be the most active shard of any of them when it opens. And of course all those people that complained about the rules set not being quite classic enough will try out the new shard, then come back and start another wave of threads complaining some more about how the wrong era was chosen.

And then the vast majority of those who gave the initial "Woohoo!" and enthusiastically rolled their first character on the "classic" shard will start to realize, you know, this isn't anywhere near as much fun as it was ten years ago. Then another wave of threads complaining about how the wrong era was chosen will hit the forums. And within a month, two at tops, the classic shard will be a ghost town, and you will be able to run on foot from Trinsic, to Yew, to Minoc, and not meet a living soul.

And all the resources that were poured into the "classic" shard will have been wasted, and there will be more complaining than ever. You can take it to Brit Bank and cash it...

 

[Raconteur]

And then the vast majority of those who gave the initial "Woohoo!" and enthusiastically rolled their first character on the "classic" shard will start to realize, you know, this isn't anywhere near as much fun as it was ten years ago. Then another wave of threads complaining about how the wrong era was chosen will hit the forums. And within a month, two at tops, the classic shard will be a ghost town, and you will be able to run on foot from Trinsic, to Yew, to Minoc, and not meet a living soul.

I agree,the nostalgia would be short lived.
I would rather see EA spend time and resources on making the current game better. Some of you *old timers* who long for a *classic shard* just need to adapt.

Sincerely Yours, Raconteur
12 year Vet!

 

[Unsatisfied]

http://vboards.stratics.com/showthread.php?t=185487

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Classic shard thread stop making more its just gonna **** everyone who isnt interested off and bring them in here to pancake about what a waste of time it is. If your interested in constructive input theres the link.

 

[Unsatisfied]

If enough people would support a classic shard, perhaps they should go for it. Should be easy enough. They could put an in game poll asking:

Would you like us to use most of our resources to make a classic shard for you?

Simple yes or no.

Or, perhaps a question like:

Would you like us to devote our resources and time to

a: Fixing bugs?
b: Finishing the enhanced client?
c: Finishing all the other previous projects?
d: Making a classic shard?

No point. It would be a completely biased poll because the majority of people who will be interested in the development of a classic shard dont use these forums because they quit a long time ago. And ontop of that only a small portion of gamers use forums at all even if they are still playing. So forum polls give a small biased result. You wouldnt get an accurate result to see if it would be worth it.

 

[the 4th man]

Ok, let's play pretend. Let's pretend that the devs announce a "classic" shard. All these painfully redundant threads about classic shards will finally be put to rest, right? Not on your life.

The instant they announce a classic shard the threads complaining about how they chose the wrong rules set to base the classic shard on will start, and there will be a lot of them, and in fact there will continue to be a lot of them as long as there are active boards discussing anything to do with UO. And along with the threads complaining about how they chose the wrong era to base their classic shard on, there will be dozens of polls asking whether anyone likes the rules set that was chosen, and of course worded as much as humanly possible to make disliking the choices that were made the only reasonable option, and dozens more polls asking which era should have been chosen.

Fine, we can accept that, so the classic shard opens, and we all hear a massive "Woohoo!" from fans of old school UO all over the face of planet Earth. There will be lots of people that will try it out. It will probably be the most active shard of any of them when it opens. And of course all those people that complained about the rules set not being quite classic enough will try out the new shard, then come back and start another wave of threads complaining some more about how the wrong era was chosen.

And then the vast majority of those who gave the initial "Woohoo!" and enthusiastically rolled their first character on the "classic" shard will start to realize, you know, this isn't anywhere near as much fun as it was ten years ago. Then another wave of threads complaining about how the wrong era was chosen will hit the forums. And within a month, two at tops, the classic shard will be a ghost town, and you will be able to run on foot from Trinsic, to Yew, to Minoc, and not meet a living soul.

And all the resources that were poured into the "classic" shard will have been wasted, and there will be more complaining than ever. You can take it to Brit Bank and cash it...

I hate to say it but he's right.

For one, the devs will just be shooting themselves in the foot at the whims a small handful. They'd be begging to get screwed in the long run.

Secondly, nostolgic trips are indeed very short lived. I've seen it first hand.
Take a bunch of us from grade school.....we all met up after discovery on facebook.....after 5 months of monthly get togethers, now there's no one asking whens the next time?

Gimmie back my MCO, that I would surely stay on board with.

And if you really want a classic shard, ignore morgana, just because she got her sticky, doesn't mean a classic shard will suddenly appear, it's just another lame sticky.

The more it's posted day after day after day, the more it will get noticed.
A sticky won't do that....sorry toots, it's true.

later.....much.

 

[Stewpid]

If enough people would support a classic shard, perhaps they should go for it. Should be easy enough. They could put an in game poll asking:

Would you like us to use most of our resources to make a classic shard for you?

Simple yes or no.

Or, perhaps a question like:

Would you like us to devote our resources and time to

a: Fixing bugs?
b: Finishing the enhanced client?
c: Finishing all the other previous projects?
d: Making a classic shard?

No point. It would be a completely biased poll because the majority of people who will be interested in the development of a classic shard dont use these forums because they quit a long time ago. And ontop of that only a small portion of gamers use forums at all even if they are still playing. So forum polls give a small biased result. You wouldnt get an accurate result to see if it would be worth it.

Hence, the in game poll. Then everyone with an account can vote. Since apparently there is a huge grass roots effort on all these free shards for a classic shard, they will hear about it there. People are posting they would pay more money for a classic shard, well, they just need to reactivate an account and vote in game. It's win/win for EA. At least for one month people will be reactivating accounts to vote. If the vote for a classic shard wins, they make it. If it doesn't, they spend time fixing all the other problems with the game.

 

[Morgana LeFay (PoV)]

And if you really want a classic shard, ignore morgana, just because she got her sticky, doesn't mean a classic shard will suddenly appear, it's just another lame sticky.

Actually, I don't think they made the thread sticky...but thanks for the PR!

 

[Morgana LeFay (PoV)]

I would rather see EA spend time and resources on making the current game better.

You mean like they did with the 3 clients they developed that no one plays?

How many posts and threads do we see here complaining about how they should have done this with the new client, or that with the new client, or how they should have used the KR graphics in the new client, or kept the 3rd Dawn client, or kept the KR client, or how the SA client is superior/inferior to one another?

Its called choices...and just because it is a choice you wouldn't choose for yourself, doesn't mean that it is a waste of resources or time for someone else.

 

[Unsatisfied]

Hence, the in game poll. Then everyone with an account can vote. Since apparently there is a huge grass roots effort on all these free shards for a classic shard, they will hear about it there. People are posting they would pay more money for a classic shard, well, they just need to reactivate an account and vote in game. It's win/win for EA. At least for one month people will be reactivating accounts to vote. If the vote for a classic shard wins, they make it. If it doesn't, they spend time fixing all the other problems with the game.

It would still be bias, asking someone to reactivate an account to simply vote on a topic is rediculous, who in their right mind would pay $15 for something they no longer enjoy just to vote on a topic? And even if they were willing to it would take a lot to spread the word to enough people and convince them that its not a lie to get them to actually open their accounts. But scrap that its just not practical anyway.

 

[gunneroforgin]

Me thinks you might be the only one one the shard.

 

[Nihilus]

Posted by me in the other thread:

I'd just like to throw my support in here for a Classic Pre-AOS UO shard. I started playing in 97 and it's a dream of mine to get a chance to relive it.

UO Pre-Trammel is still IMHO the best MMORPG experience ever conceived and its a travesty that with 13 years of advancement, it's mechanics, features and gameplay have still to be bettered. It's not just rose-tinted spectacles, I've played the free-shards running today and it's as great as ever. The problem with them is that they are non-official and have limited players. I won't commit so much to a game that could be wiped or stopped at any point and so I wait for an official Classic shard.

I could go on ALL day about what made the classic ruleset so entralling and effortlessly fun. I'm sure most will have experiences of their own to recall. But for the naysayers, look at the "remake UO" craze going on these days with games like Mortal Online, or Darkfall. Non of which have achieved it (MO looks unlikely ever too). There has to be a reason why UO classic has this Holy Grail persona about it, and it seems modern MMO devs are trying to rediscover it. Whether it can be remade and modernised is debatable, but if we can get the classic game back certainly I'd be subbéd in a heartbeat and many more to be sure, as long as it was advertised well on places like MMORPG etc. The atmosphere of old could be returned and it's people, even the roleplaying would come i'm confident.

I would hate to think that the closest i'd get to playing an official classic UO shard with a healthy population would only be by remembering the good old days.

+1 life long sub to an official pre-AOS and Trammel shard (And my mate would too).

 

[five oclock]

Ok folks. So lets say they make a Classic shard. A before trammy shard ok. It fails miserably. Would Everyone then plz shut up about how trammy killed UO?

Heck even a before pub 16 or a before AOS shard?

 

[Morgana LeFay (PoV)]

Ok folks. So lets say they make a Classic shard. A before trammy shard ok. It fails miserably. Would Everyone then plz shut up about how trammy killed UO?

Heck even a before pub 16 or a before AOS shard?

I would never say another word on the subject...and that is a promise. Once a Classic Shard was made available, I would play on it until the day it was shut down or got turned into another Trammel/AoS shard...at that point, my accounts would be closed, and I would never log into UO again...or post here again.

 

[Unsatisfied]

I would never say another word on the subject...and that is a promise. Once a Classic Shard was made available, I would play on it until the day it was shut down or got turned into another Trammel/AoS shard...at that point, my accounts would be closed, and I would never log into UO again...or post here again.

Ditto.

 

[Heartseeker]

I would never say another word on the subject...and that is a promise. Once a Classic Shard was made available, I would play on it until the day it was shut down or got turned into another Trammel/AoS shard...at that point, my accounts would be closed, and I would never log into UO again...or post here again.

Ditto.

Double ditto...

 

[Surgeries]

@Uvtha: Actually, a lot of those free online games aren't really crap. Look at D&D, for instance. D&D has a HUGE following. It has a free online version with brand-new 3-D graphics that are at least WoW quality, probably better, hundreds of quests, and it's as polished as they come. But it doesn't have as many active players that the pre-AOS UO free shards do. Neither do the WoW free servers, for that matter.

UO is the only pay to play online game that has 7 times as many players on free shards as it does on the production version of the game. Also, I haven't seen any WoW free servers that actually advertise that they use an old version of the game. To the contrary, they all advertise that they are totally up to date with the latest patch.

On the other hand, it would be suicidal for a UO free shard to advertise that they use a post-AOS ruleset. Some of the UO pre-AOS free shards have as many as 162,000 players, while the most populous post-AOS free shard that I could find had 164 players. Not 164,000. Just 164.

Most online games will assume that there will be about 1 player on a free shard per 20 paid subscribers on production shards. By that standard, UO should have 10 million subscribers, not 75,000.

The people at EA should be thinking about what went wrong, and when, and how to fix it at this late date.

@George...

Since you have no idea, really, how many people play EA servers, as you do not have access to that info...
You saying "Seven Times as Many" is misleading, and sensationalized.

Plus, George...honestly...you saying that "Seven Times the people play a Free Shard"...

How many other Pay to Play MMOs released their own code?

If people COULD play WoW, and any other MMO for free...as opposed to paying for it...

Don't you think a LOT more would play the free, vs the Pay to Play?

Logic says they would. People love free things...

Ever played RuneScape?

LOTS more people play RuneScape than UO I am pretty sure...doesn't mean it is better...it's just free.

Anyway...I am NOT saying that a Classic Shard should not be done...

I am just saying that your argument about your Free Shard research and the comparison of people that play Free Shards as opposed to the Pay to Play game means absolutely nothing without actual numbers from EA. Other than that, it is nothing but guessing on your part, although you present it as "Fact".

That's all.

 

[Morgana LeFay (PoV)]

There are free servers for WoW...they just get shut down periodically.

And EA never 'released' the 'code' for UO. That is a myth. The creators of UO emulators reverse engineered their server emulators from the CLIENT...which every one of us has if we are running UO.

 

[Evlar]

And then the vast majority of those who gave the initial "Woohoo!" and enthusiastically rolled their first character on the "classic" shard will start to realize, you know, this isn't anywhere near as much fun as it was ten years ago. Then another wave of threads complaining about how the wrong era was chosen will hit the forums. And within a month, two at tops, the classic shard will be a ghost town, and you will be able to run on foot from Trinsic, to Yew, to Minoc, and not meet a living soul.

I agree,the nostalgia would be short lived.
I would rather see EA spend time and resources on making the current game better. Some of you *old timers* who long for a *classic shard* just need to adapt.

Sincerely Yours, Raconteur
12 year Vet!

Well, let me put it this way...

I've played since 1999, on and off. My most consistent and played subscription was between 1999 and about a year after the launch of AOS. I've always maintained at least one subscription throughout all that time though, even if I didn't actually play it.

Since then, I've played, been disappointed, left, come back, played, been disappointed, left, come back... you get the picture. Over all that time, I've given the game plenty of chances.

You might say that the nostalgia would be short lived, but it's simply the fact that us "old-timers" yearn for a return to a time when less importance was placed on items. A time when skills defined a players ability, not what items they're kitted out in. Forget the PvP debate that's been associated with the "discussion", that's an entirely different issue. It's the skill based versus item based ideology of the game that has changed things, irreparably, in my opinion. It's first and foremost "skill" versus "item" based gameplay, that those calling for a classic shard, are united most.

That for me, along with the player base, defines the quality of the game... not the addition of new items... followed by... the addition of new items... followed by... the addition of new items...

As one player amongst many who possibly feel the same way, *that* is what makes the game short-lived for us. It's now a vicious cycle. Because of AOS, the developers have to create more lands and content, just to keep the current subscriber base happy, let alone encourage new users. We come back, see what's new, stay for six months or so, then leave again. If we had the option of a server that matches our preferred era of gameplay, I'm sure we would stay around a lot longer.

I've already made my feelings clear about this in other threads. My accounts all expire in July of this year. Frankly, I'm not willing to continue paying for something that doesn't appeal to me any more. I have always maintained at least one account since 1999. That's at least $14 a month for over ten years. Mindful of that, I feel I've contributed my share, just like any other subscriber. Therefore, shouldn't I also have a voice?

Therefore I feel that it's deeply selfish and rude of you, or anyone, to suggest that those of us who are requesting a classic shard, shouldn't have as much say on future developments of UO as you, or any other subscriber. If anything, those of us *old timers* you're happy to refer to us as, have shown incredible loyalty to the game. There comes a point though, where one questions that loyalty, as I have.

If EA aren't even prepared to show statistical figures of the current subscriber base, then that would suggest to me that the game isn't sufficiently important enough to mention. That UO has haemorrhaged sufficient customers over the years, that something is causing the subscription base to decline.

So, my suggestion, is instead of knocking something that could potentially prolong the "life" of Ultima Online, even if you don't support it and wouldn't play it, then at least understand that those of us who do, care just as much about the future of UO as you might. A classic shard is just another option. Just another server or two on the long list you see already.

Hell, if it brings as many people back to the game as we hope it would, it could be argued that the "classic" players might actually end up contributing more in revenue, than those playing the current structure of the production shards.

So in essence, rather than knock the *old timers*, we know a thing or two, when we're gone, what will be left. When we're gone in sufficient numbers, will there still be a UO around?

Food for thought.

 

[Amren]

I want to see a classic server as much as anyone, however, if this game is in fact "dieing" then how could EA justify the development cost in what would no doubt be a niche market and won't guarantee a mass influx of subscribers?

 

[Lord Frodo]

georgemarvin2001 UO is the only pay to play online game that has 7 times as many players on free shards as it does on the production version of the game

Even using your numbers at 75K UO subs are you trying to tell us that there are 525K players on free shards? I call BS on this.

 

[Llewen]

I want to see a classic server as much as anyone, however, if this game is in fact "dieing" then how could EA justify the development cost in what would no doubt be a niche market and won't guarantee a mass influx of subscribers?

Ya, ya, ya, UO has been dying since 1997, before it was released in fact. In fact it is now one day closer to it's demise than it was yesterday.

There isn't an MMO out there that hasn't had it's hard core of dedicated doom sayers prophesying that it won't last more than a few more months, at most, with the possible exception of WoW, although I'm sure there are plenty that have said WoW is dying as well. I would hope though that even a complete idiot would give it more than a month or two.

UO is still here, thirteen years later. How much longer will it last? Who knows? Some day all the predictions will be true, but I'm betting it won't be before my next subscription renewal rolls around, which I will happily accept.

One thing I am certain of though, beyond a shadow of a doubt, is that a "classic" shard isn't going to stave off the end by even one day. A "classic" shard may attract a few hundred subscriptions, at most, but I would be extremely surprised if any but a very small percentage of those would turn into long a term commitment to the game.

 

[Amren]

Ya, ya, ya, UO has been dying since 1997, before it was released in fact. In fact it is now one day closer to it's demise than it was yesterday.

I never once said the game way dieing. To me the game died when it became a linear item farming game, when AoS was released.

I was commenting on the OP who said:

go read the last 5 quarterly reports by ERTS(Electronic Arts). No mention of any of EA Mythic's games.

They use to have a section in their quarterly statement breaking down their online games which at that time included Pogo franchise and UO. Now Ea wont even mention Ultima Online in their report.

So I dunno if logic has any place in the UO community, or if everyone left is such a fanboy that they only look at the game with rose tinted glasses, but assuming the OP is correct, why would EA no longer post UO in their quarterly reports?

Could it be:
1) EA is doing really well, but does not want to "brag" about their sucess?
2) EA is doing really poorly, possibly looking at the next round of layoffs?
3) EA is doing mediocre, and this game is just "good enough" to just break even?

 

[Morgana LeFay (PoV)]

Could it be:
1) EA is doing really well, but does not want to "brag" about their sucess?
2) EA is doing really poorly, possibly looking at the next round of layoffs?
3) EA is doing mediocre, and this game is just "good enough" to just break even?

2) EA is doing really poorly, possibly looking at the next round of layoffs?

Ding!Ding!Ding!Ding!Ding!!

We have a winner folks!!!

 

[Guido_LS]

2) EA is doing really poorly, possibly looking at the next round of layoffs?

Ding!Ding!Ding!Ding!Ding!!

We have a winner folks!!!

Dragon Age - Origins - 3 million plus sales, at $49 or more a pop...
Dragon Age - Awakenings - 2 million plus sales, at $39 a pop... and out for barely a week so far...
Mass Effect 2 - 3 million sales plus at $59 or more a pop...
Battlefield: Bad Company 2 - 2.3 million sales at $49 or more a pop...
Command & Conquer 4 - going to be another blockbuster, just like the rest of the series...
Left 4 Dead 2 - multi-million seller...

No, EA is doing fine - they have one of the strongest line-ups of PC software on the market today. It's their MMO department that seems to be struggling. One is left to wonder why....

 

[Derium of ls]

I'd abandon everything I've stockpiles the past 12 years for a classic shard. No character transfers (of course, can't take corrupted AOS crap items). I spend most of my time on a free shard actually, it's pre-AOS. I only log onto retail to do my bods... sad

 

[Cloak&Dagger]

No, EA is doing fine - they have one of the strongest line-ups of PC software on the market today. It's their MMO department that seems to be struggling. One is left to wonder why....

Maybe because they acquire a new company every other year and put them in charge instead of just leaving the current one in charge? Maybe because they almost force a ton of employment changes each year in that department? Honestly the number of people in and out of the MMO division of EA is staggering, yet EA does nothing with the actual products, they do not give the department goals or anything, EA has very little to do with why the games are not doing wonderfully (unless you blame the reasons I already gave). You could blame it on EA by saying they put a different person in charge every year or two which completely changes the focus of the entire team, other than that EA's hands are clean of all of it. They say "Meet this quarterly goal" long as the entire department does that, they don't care (maybe them not caring is another reason).

The vastness of EA allows them to let all their little micro-companies function by themselves as long as nothing majorly goes wrong.

 

[Gowron]

One, there's another thread on this that should have been added to.
Two, it never ceases to boggle my mind when people try to state as fact that thousands of players will stop playing free shards to come to an EA managed Classic Shard. This is an assumption at best.

 

[Morgana LeFay (PoV)]

One, there's another thread on this that should have been added to.

Agreed.

Two, it never ceases to boggle my mind when people try to state as fact that thousands of players will stop playing free shards to come to an EA managed Classic Shard. This is an assumption at best.

I don't think there is, or can be, any accurate way to guage how many players will or will not return to the game from free shards. Free shards are unique in the fact that they are FREE. Also, how many of the supposed thousands of players are free shards are also paying for UO, but not playing it.

There is simply not enough hard data to back up any claim one way or another...

...however, that does not mean that a Classic Shard is not necessary. There are many current subscribers that feel the same way I do about this issue, and as paying customers our needs and desires are just as important as any one else's.

 

[Llewen]

...however, that does not mean that a Classic Shard is not necessary. There are many current subscribers that feel the same way I do about this issue, and as paying customers our needs and desires are just as important as any one else's.

Perhaps you should define "many". A couple of hundred user accounts here on Stratics does not make a classic shard economically feasible, especially when you consider that out of the users of those accounts there are probably at least a dozen different opinions on what the phrase "classic shard" actually means...

 

[Llamfia]

+1 to OP!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Evlar]

...however, that does not mean that a Classic Shard is not necessary. There are many current subscribers that feel the same way I do about this issue, and as paying customers our needs and desires are just as important as any one else's.

Perhaps you should define "many". A couple of hundred user accounts here on Stratics does not make a classic shard economically feasible, especially when you consider that out of the users of those accounts there are probably at least a dozen different opinions on what the phrase "classic shard" actually means...

Do you really have to be so pedantic?

It's entirely because Morgana LeFay cannot quote exact figures, that the word "many" has been used. "Many" people have looked at this thread. "Many" people have commented. "Many" people don't actually look at Stratics, though "many" of those might like the idea of a classic shard...

How "many" times must you feel the need to be negative so "many" times... or should I quote exact figures?

When all is said and done, perhaps the reason the devs have dangled the carrot about their "discussion" about a classic shard concept, is to gauge opinions.

General opinion appears to suggest that, although there are differences of opinion, a classic server would be a welcome addition to the server line up. There's even more of a convergence of opinions as the discussions have progressed. There's more actual common ground than I think you give credence for.

 

[Llewen]

It's entirely because Morgana LeFay cannot quote exact figures, that the word "many" has been used. "Many" people have looked at this thread. "Many" people have commented. "Many" people don't actually look at Stratics, though "many" of those might like the idea of a classic shard...

And I'm telling you your concept of "many" may be "many" in the context of these forums, but I very much doubt it will translate to "many" on the actual shard. You only need to look at Siege Perilous to see the truth of the matter. Siege Perilous is the closest thing we have to a classic shard and it is, and always has been, extremely underpopulated. And it has always required far more development bandwidth than it's population has ever warranted.

And speaking of Siege Perilous, what do we do with Siege Perilous if a classic shard is opened? Or will Siege Perilous become the classic shard? An idea I might actually support as it would mean that less resources would be wasted. If you think Siege Perilous is empty now, it is a booming metropolis compared to what it will be if a classic shard is opened. The Siege Perilous crowd would probably pick up lock stock and barrel and move en masse to a classic shard.

 

[Evlar]

In all honesty, the only things that have stopped me from playing Siege, are connection speed (I'm in Europe. My Europa connection is fine though), along with the big whoopsie that they implemented AOS there too

Although Siege has "many" (sorry ) of the elements of gameplay I like, it's still just as item based as any of the production shards.

It would certainly be interesting to get a general consensus of opinion from Siege players, as their thoughts, were a pre-AOS classic shard be designated to replace it. I do often wonder though, why there are still so many shard choices available, given the obvious decline in the player base since the golden age (high subscription) days of UO.

One thing that I do get an impression about, reading through the forums, is that there seem to be an awful lot of unhappy players. Be this with the direction the game has been developed, with "cheating", desire for a "classic" shard, poor customer service, poor (although now improving) developer feedback.

Certainly it worries me looking at this alone, when it comes to the future of the game, more than any statistical evidence.

If a classic shard can breathe life back into the game, then great. If it's tried and ultimately fails to bring the game new momentum, then at least it's been tried. With that in mind, then whatever options are feasible, that can offer a classic option for players, without too much wastage of resources, then I'm all for it.

If it isn't feasible. If it simply won't happen, then unfortunately my days on "official" servers will soon come to an end. I'm not throwing my teddy, far from it. It's a personal decision that to get back to the gameplay I enjoyed most with UO, might be with one of the "free" servers, though not because it's free. I would gladly pay a subscription for a return to that gaming experience.

In the meantime, my hope is simply that there are enough people out there, who have similar thoughts, to make it a viable option.

 

[Llewen]

One thing that I do get an impression about, reading through the forums, is that there seem to be an awful lot of unhappy players.

Don't take it too much to heart, while there are some genuine reasons to be unhappy with the state of the game this is also just the nature of the official online forums of any mmo.

As for the rest of your post, I respect your opinion and your well considered and expressed reply. I could come around to the idea of a classic shard if it fully replaced Siege Perilous. Not that I have anything against Siege Perilous specifically, I just think maintaining three separate rule sets would be a mistake and waste of precious developer bandwidth.

 

[Morgana LeFay (PoV)]

Perhaps you should define "many". A couple of hundred user accounts here on Stratics does not make a classic shard economically feasible, especially when you consider that out of the users of those accounts there are probably at least a dozen different opinions on what the phrase "classic shard" actually means...

Do you really believe that the only people that want a classic shard are the ones that actively post on this website? That's a moronic assumption.

Like I said before...I have about as much empirical data to back up any claim's I make as you do.

And as to the different opinions as to what a classic shard would be...

...everyone that wants a classic shard can at least agree on one thing...

...it ain't what we got now.