Please advertise UO

[Tazar]

Ah... so...

My role on KR was as a junior designer: designing and implementing a few parts of the UI (only two come to mind: the tooltip help guides for the Skills, and the newer version of the Crafting interface).

The EC is the engineering department's baby, and the designers spent 95% of our time on the server doing live support or expansion content

Don't get me wrong though, I was asked for input on the EC throughout, and I still feel its important to have a new, extensible, up-to-date game client for UO that fully matches the performance of the original 2D client *and* matches its functionality while providing a streamlined interface, improved graphics, and features that simplify gameplay (for instance: a UI for interacting with your house instead of saying "I wish to lock this down")

Hence why, honestly, I think the original 2D client could be converted to a web client or the server could be engineered to work with a fully 3D engine. Imagine UO with an engine that renders like Oblivion but lets you live in Britannia =)

Nice to know you are still lurking around here occasionally. Great to see you!

 

[Babble]

And still so many companies fail at that and struggle even with their free to play systems.

DDO and now LOTR seem to get it right.
Warhammer free for 10 levels is sort of a joke still.

 

[Hannes Erich]

...or the server could be engineered to work with a fully 3D engine. Imagine UO...

Draconi, I have been imagining this (and drooling at the thought of it) for a long time! UO is admirable for its depth, but the years have wore on the old bag. The last couple times a dev team wanted to give UO a facelift, they missed the point and started working on a completely DIFFERENT Britannia. No one upstairs ever seems to get how TOTALLY FABULOUS AWESOME it would be if the same world (with all our characters and stuff) got ported over to a 3D engine.

I prefer models where you can buy "fluff" that makes you look awesome(r), power-ups that can be created by players at mid-levels of the gameplay, and where the highest value items are still in-game drops and craftables.

Paragon Studios (City of Heroes) has MASTERED the art of what they call "booster packs" for their monthly subscription game. They add to the experience of the game without introducing any balance issues. The community supports and looks forward to upcoming packs when they're announced, and they sell like you wouldn't believe.

 

[Evlar]

Whilst browsing around at some FTP browser based games last night, I happened across "City of Eternals", a vampire orientated game, which also links to Facebook. You can even call upon "real" friends to be your "minions" for group orientated quests.

Although it's a quest based leveller, it does have some interesting aspects to it.

The majority of character items, buffs and additions can be purchased from NPC vendors, meaning that you can create a top-level character through gameplay alone.

You can purchase a separate in-game currency to buy "fluff" for your character, such as clothing items, and yes, even housing addons. Although there's no external housing customisation, you can buy interior items to fully customise the interior of your apartment. Not too dissimilar to the look and feel of the SIMS when it comes to the interiors.

It's certainly an interesting game model, especially using social networks like Facebook.

Thing is, the graphics based on an isometric view, aren't too dissimilar to those of UO. Obviously given the game is "newer", they're a bit more polished and consistent. It shows what can be done though.

It's also another reason why I think it's high time, that those developing UO really should grab the bull by the horns and seriously look at browser and social network gaming, as a step forward for the game.

 

[Babble]

Linkrealms has an interesting concept too.
Diablo style graphics, but each account gets an area they can build as they like.


UO could profit by introducing more dynamic systems.
The time where monsters had to spawn at one point are hopefully past.

Not managing to update dungeon chests for 10+ years is just pathetic.
We have trophies, how difficult would it be to have roaming named monsters who would give heads for trophies?

UO is not dead it is just very very uninspired for the lat 10? years.

 

[Beleg Megil]

Not advertising UO at some level is ridiculous. And saying that you can't advertise it because of the graphics, or that its a 13 year old game, is moronic. It is NOT the game it was 13 years ago. It changes with every publish.

Just because some PLAYERS and even worse, EX-PLAYERS who AREN'T IN ADVERTISING can't imagine how to market UO doesn't mean it should not be marketted.

 

[canary]

Not advertising UO at some level is ridiculous. And saying that you can't advertise it because of the graphics, or that its a 13 year old game, is moronic. It is NOT the game it was 13 years ago. It changes with every publish.

It may not be the game it was 13 years ago, but it has the graphics it had 13 years ago via the classic client. In addition, the art work on KR was so subpar that it updated the graphics to about circa 2001-2 (and it was released in 2007).

Bottom line: You can't openly market a product that looks like this. You just can't. What is 'moronic' is that you think it can happen, to be honest.

Go to any store. Look at the titles on the shelf. Unless they are languishing in a bargain bin somewhere, the graphics are going to look current. UO doesn't have that.

You can state otherwise til you are blue in the face, but you are wrong. Flashy, new things appeal to people. Bottom line. That's just how it works. UO, aesthetically, has a look that only appeals to a niche market. Sorry. As such, it is not, at this time, marketable and certainly it is NOT feasible in EA's eyes. There is no viable angle at this point UO can produce that would interest their marketing department in pushing this product.

 

[Beleg Megil]

It may not be the game it was 13 years ago, but it has the graphics it had 13 years ago via the classic client. In addition, the art work on KR was so subpar that it updated the graphics to about circa 2001-2 (and it was released in 2007).

Heard of Enhanced Client? Yeah, we know in your opinion and according to your tastes, you don't like the art of the EC. Tough crap, you don't speak for everyone. Neither do I. Either way, the graphics even in the classic client have changed in the past 13 years. Take off your blinders.

Graphics are not everything when it comes to games like this, anyway. Any intelligent ad campaign would focus on other things besides the graphics which are unique to the UO experience. So get over the "omg, the graphics are too old to market!!" argument. It holds no water and is beside the point.

You can state otherwise til you are blue in the face, but you are wrong....etc...other crap canary is not qualified to yammer on about

You may disagree but you are in no position to say I am wrong. Sorry, but you are not in advertising and beyond that, you don't have common sense on your side. Yes, we know, you are embarassed by UO graphics...but if that's the only argument against advertising you have, and it seems like that's the case, you may as well pack it in.

Advertising ANYTHING correctly and well sells that product.

 

[canary]

Heard of Enhanced Client? Yeah, we know in your opinion and according to your tastes, you don't like the art of the EC. Tough crap, you don't speak for everyone. Neither do I. Either way, the graphics even in the classic client have changed in the past 13 years. Take off your blinders.

Graphics are not everything when it comes to games like this, anyway. Any intelligent ad campaign would focus on other things besides the graphics which are unique to the UO experience. So get over the "omg, the graphics are too old to market!!" argument. It holds no water and is beside the point.




You may disagree but you are in no position to say I am wrong. Sorry, but you are not in advertising and beyond that, you don't have common sense on your side. Yes, we know, you are embarassed by UO graphics...but if that's the only argument against advertising you have, and it seems like that's the case, you may as well pack it in.

Advertising ANYTHING correctly and well sells that product.

LOL yeah, right ... and you are still wrong. rolleyes:

The very fact you do not feel that graphics are impeding the success of a viable marketing push pretty much makes your opinion invalid.

 

[Sprago]

yes it can be advertised

i pay for it, you all pay for it, yet you dont think others will do the same. kinda moronic to think otherwise isnt it?

you advertise the skill options, the race options and the vast number of items that can be crafted or looted. this game has lots of interesting concepts. one more thing you advertise the fact its the first of its kind and the longest running mmorpg

 

[Dermott of LS]

...

The problem with the EC is that they went BACKWARDS with the graphics from KR. The only TRUELY KR level graphics in EC right now are the terrain graphics (and by extension floor, road and other building based graphics that are hard-coded as terrain). All other non-character model graphics are 2d and character models are running at roughly HALF the resolution that they were in KR.

And really... explain exactly just HOW you advertise a game in this day and age WITHOUT displaying the graphics?

Sorry but as much as I enjoy the game of UO, it's simply NOT going to work without a significant re-revamp.

Graphics, like it or not tends to be one of the quickest and first impressions about a game be it in a magazine print ad, TV spot, or simply the game box sitting on the shelf.

Graphics draw people into the game just as much as the setting, storyline, and gameplay and right now, UO's graphics are simply too far dated to work.

"But Dermott, people buy retro-games all the time, look at the Wii Virtual Console, XBox arcade, etc etc etc"

Yes, but they are buying (or most likely re-purchasing) games that they have already played and know, they're not buying them for the seriousness that a $12-15/month fee entails, they're getting them for nostalgia reasons. You can't advertise UO based on pure nostalgia... it doesn't work because ALL you have left ARE the graphics. The game is no longer what it was in 1998, it just has kept the graphics.

 

[Evlar]

Advertising ANYTHING correctly and well sells that product.

Well, let's hear how YOU would advertise the game then.

What you would promote about the game, versus the competition that's out there.

I'm not being defeatist, just realistic. Realistic enough to understand that the game must be profitable enough in its current format, to justify its existence.

UO in its current format, is always going to be aiming at a niche market.

That's why I've suggested before, that the production element of the game would be more than suitable enough to jump on the FTP/Social Networking/Item Store, bandwagon. Something like that needs to happen soon though, or they'll miss the optimum chance to do it. Hell, even RG and Portalarium are focusing on cross-platform, cross-media ways to target the social networking market.

If there happens to be a "classic" option, then this particular niche could sustainably remain subscription based, given there would be less opportunity to gain financially from the sale of "items".

There's glaringly obvious ways to promote the game in the current market. If EA take the opportunity to jump on them, is another matter entirely.

On a side note... don't be at all surprised to see the NetDragon version of UO they're supposed to have ready for release in 2011, be aimed at the FTP/Social Network/Item Store, model.

 

[canary]

yes it can be advertised

i pay for it, you all pay for it, yet you dont think others will do the same. kinda moronic to think otherwise isnt it?

you advertise the skill options, the race options and the vast number of items that can be crafted or looted. this game has lots of interesting concepts. one more thing you advertise the fact its the first of its kind and the longest running mmorpg

I personally find it 'moronic' to think others believe EA will invest money in advertising this. It isn't that I don't love UO, it's just that I'm being realistic.

You can 'sell' the gaming systems all you want. The first Legend of Zelda is an awesome game, but trust me when I say that droves of people are not going to invest in it due to the fact that: it's old, it's been around already for AGES and it looks like poo by today's aesthetics.

Like I said before: they need to make it appeal to a MASS MARKET before they can feel safe in giving it advertising, not a niche market. They need a new angle or hook. You just don't drudge up an old product and say 'LOOK AT IT! COME AND BUY IT!'.

 

[canary]

one more thing you advertise the fact its the first of its kind and the longest running mmorpg

Great, since you are obviously a marketing genius, please assist my 88 year old grandmother in finding a nice, studly 18 year old to take her out for a hot date. I'm sure there will be tons of people banging down the door for that. rolleyes:

Your notion doesn't solve the problem THERE IS NO ANGLE TO MARKET. Being 'old' is not a selling point, if anything, it currently is a detriment.

To take my grandmother's story one step further, she might have more men interested in her after a complete body overhaul or knowing she was a billionaire.

 

[Beleg Megil]

canary...just...wow. You've compared a MMORPG to everything that you really can't compare it to, including an early 80s movie and your grandmother.... and you expect anyone to take anything you say as an intelligent, informed opinion.

You are just trolling.

Good advertising can sell anything. That's law. That's gospel. That's "bears crap in the woods" level truth.

Anyone that doesn't get that is an idiot. Period.

"Please Advertise UO".

Agreed. Nuff Said.

And since I saw some idiot is trying to turn this thread into yet another "classic shard will save us all" pile of crap, I'm done with it.

 

[canary]

canary...just...wow. You've compared a MMORPG to everything that you really can't compare it to, including an early 80s movie and your grandmother.... and you expect anyone to take anything you say as an intelligent, informed opinion.

You are just trolling.

Good advertising can sell anything. That's law. That's gospel. That's "bears crap in the woods" level truth.

Anyone that doesn't get that is an idiot. Period.

"Please Advertise UO".

Agreed. Nuff Said.

And since I saw some idiot is trying to turn this thread into yet another "classic shard will save us all" pile of crap, I'm done with it.

I'm trolling because I am giving you an actual, informed opinion? Riiiiiight. rolleyes:

Yet you have utilized both 'moronic' (which I countered) and 'an idiot' to those who disagree with you. That makes, uh, perfect sense.

 

[Babble]

Good advertising can sell anything. That's law. That's gospel. That's "bears crap in the woods" level truth.

Anyone that doesn't get that is an idiot. Period.

Yes, but if they advertise something outdated they are either called idiots or scammers

 

[Evlar]

Good advertising can sell anything. That's law. That's gospel. That's "bears crap in the woods" level truth.

Anyone that doesn't get that is an idiot. Period.

Really? Or can we take reality into account also? Care to define what would be "good advertising" in the context of UO?

Yes, UO can be advertised as is. But will it be worthwhile and will it generate sufficient response to make it worthwhile? Or, do you throw enough muck at a wall to hope some of it sticks? That doesn't make good business sense to me.

In it's current format, UO is not likely to benefit from much more than returning players (who know it's already there) or recommendation (from existing players).

You're highly unlikely to gain any major inroads into the current mainstream, unless something else gives. That would likely be that the game itself is adapted, in any number of means.

I would suggest that the game "as is", is marketed towards the FTP/Social Network/Game Store and browser "mainstream" that now exists in strength. This means that elements of the game would have to change though, to fit into those markets, in order to gain more mainstream appeal. But would current players be happy with such changes, or would they evolve with the changes?

As is, current UO can be nothing more than a niche product. Some well placed advertising might encourage a relatively small influx of new or returning players, but it would have to be done very precisely and at minimum cost to make it profitable. Sadly, it's all about the bottom line.

If the current format of UO was as mainstream marketable as some would suggest, then don't you think that the number crunchers at EA would already be doing it?

Look at the bigger picture and something has to give. Either the game remains nestled "as is" in it's small, but profitable, niche market. In this case, you have to use well targeted advertising, to suit the dynamics of your "target" audience. Or, you make major changes to the game, change the dynamics of the audience you're aiming for, in an attempt to make it more mainstream and thus, a more marketable product, perhaps then using blanket advertising. Use "Evony" as an example there... how many websites do you see with an Evony advert somewhere? That's blanket advertising.

 

[Lorax_Pacific]

Anyone care to write the UO advertising campaign slogan? First of all do a SWOT and with that you'll be enlightened.

Don't Know what a SWOT is?

Anyway, if I think of the reason I am here it is because I played Ultima II, III, IV and left to college and ignored video games so I could get my degree. I loved the original games and I think it was Ultima IV that we could have four characters in a group. Well, I named them my friends and wished we could all play together. So UO came out and after getting over the shock of a monthly fee I liked it.

So no advertising was needed for me, because I was already hooked.

What does the SWOT tell us about UO? Probably there are a huge number of threats, some opportunities, and the players being the greatest strength has become a weak population. It is necessary to get a vision of the opportunities and translate that into a team to achieve that goal. Quality needs to be considered a threat to the game, because every bug is a disappointment to the players.

-Lorax

 

[Martyna Zmuir]

Sorry to break it to all the pom-pom wavers, but UO is completely unmarketable as it currently exists. EA/Mythic completely dropped the ball with the release of SA. The only ‘advertising’ they did was on their own woefully outdated website and two tiny interviews where they managed to insult their p(l)ayerbase. They didn’t even bother with print or site banner ads!

If they really wanted SA to have any sort of new player impact they would have released it as a box, not download only. NO shelf presence = NO significant sales.

These are the things that hold UO back:
The continuation of the CC. Sorry, but a 13+ yo client with a TINY resolution and 1994 graphics hasn’t cut it since 1997. Origin thought too small when creating UO and set the bar too low.

The clusterfrack that is the EC. I play the EC damn near exclusively because I actually like being able to see what’s going on in the play window when using a ginormous monitor. So will other modern gamers. Sadly, Mythic had a brain fart when they decided to shove the CC graphics into the EC instead of manning up and fixing/replacing the new art with something that didn’t look like it had been drawn in crayon. Lowering the resolution on what little remained of the KR art (mobiles) continues to be a major issue. Oh, yeah, the male paper doll is still ugly as sin.

The complete lack of acceptable Customer Service. Sorry CS Department, but you suck. You don’t know the game, you don’t know how to play the game, and you make it clear that you don’t care. Worthless canned responses and overboard knee-jerk reactions to silly things like goza mats while obvious scripting and speed hacking run rampant is an unacceptable level of laziness.

The disturbingly poor Quality Assurance Department. There still is QA for UO, right? Do we share with WAR? Eh, either way, they suck too. How many glaringly obvious bugs and flubs have gotten through in the last several patches? Too many. Relying on your players to test your code, yet not bothering to listen to them and shoving it out the door anyway will not keep new customers around.


Things in UO’s favor:

Choice. We aren’t bound to a certain character template or set of skills. You can be a bard one month, then switch to mage or paladin the next. UO’s skills should be a massive draw.

Housing. Only a handful of games support housing, let alone *custom* houses. This system should see some love. Add all the tile sets, complete the sets with missing pieces and fix the SA pieces that don’t sit on the tiles properly. UO could shine better than it does here…

History. UO’s story goes back over 13 years now. All the events, plotpoints, triumphs, disasters, etc. Few other games have such things outside of adding a new instance or three. Few other games can tout even the appearance of a “living, breathing world”. This strength has been rekindled by the EMs. The Dev team just needs to empower them more and give tools to the p(l)ayers so they can more easily run their own events with a little bit of flash.


Fix what’s broken and enhance whets tarnished. Talk to the p(l)ayers about what they want to see worked on. Polish UO. Then consider advertising.


To those who think graphics don’t matter… Take a look down the PC game isle at any store, what do you see in the modern games? 1990’s art, or slick fully rendered 3D worlds? Now show UO (CC or EC) to someone in their teens or early 20’s. Once they stop laughing at you, ask them if they’d rather play a graphically WoW-esq game or UO.

As long as UO remains firmly entrenched in its niche it will not grow. Ever.


BTW: Simply because you market something doesn't mean people will buy it. Thats not even logical to throw out.

 

[Beer_Cayse]

Gad - I hope Cal reads this post if nothing else. It pretty much lays out the issues that need to be addressed in UO. Also, when they used WalMart as marketing outlet for one of the releases, the REGIONAL office of that retail chain elected to not carry UO in my area - effectively NOT allowing it to be sold retail in Central NY. Missed opportunity on this one.

 

[Uvtha]

yes it can be advertised

i pay for it, you all pay for it, yet you dont think others will do the same. kinda moronic to think otherwise isnt it?

you advertise the skill options, the race options and the vast number of items that can be crafted or looted. this game has lots of interesting concepts. one more thing you advertise the fact its the first of its kind and the longest running mmorpg

Advertising WOULD bring players in...just not that many. And I think the main reason alot of the people here play UO is that because we started like 5+ years ago, when the options were far fewer so we were willing to give UO a chance.

Don't get me wrong, UO is a great game (although tbh I would not play UO if not for the siege shard). But we as people who love UO need to be able to view the game from an outsiders perspective. And in a day where there are games with considerably better graphics that can be played at a basic level for free... graphics ARE an issue, and a definite roadblock from getting players. The EC isn't much better than 2d either. The monsters are nice but they do not mesh with the 2d client everything else graphics.

You can advertise features, and yes, that will bring some people in, but I think a lot of people will look and say "Sounds nice but those graphics are terrible". Now if you made the game F2P the graphics issue would be MUCH less important, many more people would give it a try, and get hooked on the deep content, then be willing to spend money.

 

[Uvtha]

That's why I've suggested before, that the production element of the game would be more than suitable enough to jump on the FTP/Social Networking/Item Store, bandwagon. Something like that needs to happen soon though, or they'll miss the optimum chance to do it. Hell, even RG and Portalarium are focusing on cross-platform, cross-media ways to target the social networking market..

Nod. F2P IS the future of online gaming. It's vastly more successful at building a player base to generate revenue.
But on the same note, casual gaming is still pretty much the big thing. There are of course plenty of hardcore gamers who want something they can play for 8 hours straight, but lots of people, especially those new to the gaming world (older people, and increasing amounts of females to some extent) are more interested in something that doesn't suck up all of your time, and the player competition (if there is any) is indirect (score vs score rather than pvp).

If were a betting man I would bet there will never be another WOW, a game that is full subscription from the get go with no other options, dominating the market.

 

[Archie]

UO brings out such strong emotions.

There's your marketing slogan.

 

[Uvtha]

Good advertising can sell anything. That's law. That's gospel. That's "bears crap in the woods" level truth.

You may want to ad to your "gospel": Good advertising costs LOTS of money. Good advertising, and lots of money are usually saved for products with a high likelihood of profitability.

In other words, why advertise an old failing product (regardless of quality) when you could just invest your money in something new.

Could UO become the worlds number one game in the world with its same subscription pay set up with a billion dollar ad campaign? Maybe. Would EA, or SHOULD EA from a business standpoint be willing to spend that money on a gamble? I don't think so.

And to clarify I am NOT against advertising UO. I just think that adapting it for F2P first... would be a much more lucrative business plan.

 

[Uvtha]

UO brings out such strong emotions.

There's your marketing slogan.

...In the people who have been playing it for 10 years heh. If you devote 10 years of your life to anything, you'll have strong feelings about it.

And lets be honest, most current UO players are long time vets.

 

[Zyon Rockler]

UO is the best game, MPG, there is simply because most of the other games ideas came from UO but how do you advertise a game with UO's graphics? I'm not saying that UO's graphics are bad but from an advertising point of view, it would not work.

The very first release of Ultima was probably 56 megs. It should probably be something like 5 gigs nows if not bigger. That alone sells but that's not my point. People playing UO wanted something better and when UO Third Dawn came out it wasn't good enough. As soon as they saw that Ultima was going to make money they should of began to build something amazing because people were looking for something.

One of the things was to be able to look through your character's eyes, to look up at the sky. One of the first groups of people to go, I believe, was Asheron's Call simply because people were looking for something better. I'm not saying they found it, i'm just saying that when they saw it advertised it looked to be better.

The next was Ever Quest and then finally WoW and now Star Wars, with a whole bunch of happy mediums that have finally caught up to the vision that UO presented in the first place, which was a world where people could interact with each other.

So, all of these people were basically sold the illusion of something better and they bought it. Like selling cigarettes, they're sexy to smoke and they make you look cool but what do cigarettes actually do? Well, they give you cancer and you die. So, advertising would be good but what is it you're going to sell?

I could see something like 2 characters in WoW looking around and one says to the other, "You know these graphics really aren't better and this game play sucks, i'm going back to UO" and the other guy just stands there with a stunned look as the other guy walks off.

 

[HD2300]

Good advertising can sell anything. That's law. That's gospel. That's "bears crap in the woods" level truth.

You may want to ad to your "gospel": Good advertising costs LOTS of money. Good advertising, and lots of money are usually saved for products with a high likelihood of profitability.

In other words, why advertise an old failing product (regardless of quality) when you could just invest your money in something new.

...

And to clarify I am NOT against advertising UO. I just think that adapting it for F2P first... would be a much more lucrative business plan.

this.

Usually spending money advertising new products, e.g. SWTOR, instead of a declining product is better use of advertising $$$.

However UO most probably gets a % of net to spend on development and marketing. Which means if EA can extract significantly more profit from UO, they would spend more advertising it.

This is why there are $4,000,000 per year reasons why EA should remove "professional" RMT sellers and take their place, see http://vboards.stratics.com/showthread.php?t=214286

 

[RaDian FlGith]

Long story short: Yes, you can market anything. Yes, you can market it well.

If the game doesn't live up to expectations, then you have wasted your marketing and gained a minor influx, trading that influx off for disappointment and permanently losing those temporary customers.

Until there is something worth marketing, those marketing dollars are better spent improving the game engine, the game experience, and the graphics. UO is a perfectly VIABLE game. It is NOT a perfectly MARKETABLE game. Until they bring viability up to speed with the 21st century, it will not be marketable.

 

[canary]

Long story short: Yes, you can market anything. Yes, you can market it well.

If the game doesn't live up to expectations, then you have wasted your marketing and gained a minor influx, trading that influx off for disappointment and permanently losing those temporary customers.

I believe that is called the 'Warhammer Method'.

 

[Hannes Erich]

I worked in PR for several years, including economic research writing and press materials for one of the nation's largest lobbying groups. As regards advertising strategies, there have been times when I've had to come up with some, shall we say, unique angles.

On advertising for UO, I won't pretend to be able to argue anyone here into submission, one way or the other. In fact, PR usually necessitates the viewing of hot issues with a detached attitude and perspective. I will say, that if EA ever wanted to advertise, it's not really feasible to fix everything that's broken in UO before advertising (it would just never happen). I'm definitely not waving pom-poms, obviously, as I'm about to unsubscribe from UO. But do I think UO should be advertised? Well, let me tell you how I'd answer you forumers if you were my employers.

Let's say (as an example, just pretend) that you're EA, but you're tired of being so risk averse. Or your spoiled niece, who plays UO, wants her own advertising department. Okay. What really matters is WHO I think UO should be advertised to, since you're thinking of creating a budget for advertising and PR. Obviously, no one who cares about graphics. I think we've covered that, sufficiently verbosely (and with more passion than most advertising departments possess, so-- go us!).

Lots of subscribers like UO's game play, its customization, its open-ended possibilities. Heck, lots of subscribers even LIKE the classic 2D graphics. So, Okay. Let's talk about those things. In a nutshell, we aren't going to sell mainstream gamers on this. Ever. This includes the enhanced client. (Because, oh come on, it's not that enhanced, given the MMO market.)

So you can't bank massive mega bucks anymore, which, it's true, only leaves us with more niche markets to consider, if even that. As many of you are already screaming about. But, well, many companies who sell products or services believe that anything worth selling is worth advertising. (Some services sell themselves, but UO isn't often in that category, not anymore.) These are the companies I have the most experience with, and I see their point.

Yes, the naysayers here are speaking truth (hey, truth hurts), but I think they're also underestimating the size of some of those niche markets today. This is my somewhat informed opinion, but it's not gospel, not something I'd necessarily want to ram down your flame-retardant throat. At the top of the heap are the number of RPG and strategy gamers who prioritize game play over graphics. These geeks now feed amazingly gluttonous indie markets, and their wallets shouldn't be overlooked.

EA and BioWare Mythic may not be thinking of these guys and gals. Because maybe they (and us) are still thinking of UO as having a place in the mainstream MMORPG hierarchy. (That slick, shiny hierarchy. The hierarchy that doesn't seem to take us so seriously anymore.)

The indie RPG market is full of newer games that resemble UO, but possess a fraction of its depth, and in some cases have worse graphics. These people don't normally shop around on MMO sites. And let's not get into WHY lots of people buy that stuff. Let's just take into consideration the fact that they do.

 

[Uvtha]

I know I for one, as I said am not against JUST advertising, and I am certainly for it (I just view it as highly unlikely). I think its even feasible that UO could get back up to its old numbers if done correctly (an occurrence I also see as very unlikely).

I just see GREAT potential for uo as a F2P game. I could come up with a scad of good ways to modularize UO ranging from constrictive to not constrictive at all depending on how a person would want to go... there are just so many aspects that can be cut up and mixed about. And I think we can all agree that UO will hook you, and keep you playing, but it needs the time to hook you.

I totally agree that the idea that UO is part of the "big" mmo market needs to be dropped. It's pure historical fiction at this point.

 

[Hannes Erich]

I just see GREAT potential for uo as a F2P game.

I was going to mention this but forgot. This is the one ploy I would absolutely suspect has been raised in meetings at EA, given EA's (sometimes) successful adoption of the model elsewhere. (I'm still thinking about trying out Battle Forge, anyone here played that?) I'm partly surprised it hasn't happened already; and if UO ever gets into the hands of a dev team who is well-versed in the ways of F2P, I think we could be dragged into those changes.

I started playing MMOs in 1997 and (probably not alone on this) totally spat acid on the F2P model. That is, until a game called Pox Nora lured me in last year. Of course, I find that budgeting a $10 or $15 monthly allowance on that game (or holding off for the occasional expansion) works quite well. So, it hasn't been much of a change for me personally, in the way I spend for my otherworldly addiction.

F2P, in some few cases, has been implemented in ways that don't break game balance, or introduce other unwieldy issues. I haven't played any of EA's F2P games, so I don't know what their track record is.

 

[Uvtha]

F2P, in some few cases, has been implemented in ways that don't break game balance, or introduce other unwieldy issues. I haven't played any of EA's F2P games, so I don't know what their track record is.

That's a genuine concern. And its true, some F2P set ups are beyond horrible charging you for every other step you take, but some are much more reasonable and appealing, as with all things.

 

[Sturdy]

I played through SwG, DAoC, GW, and WoW and then came back to UO.

Why?
Because the game has depth and and freedom the other games lack. The variety of game play options and the richness of them is un matched.

The persistent customizable housing. The ability to dye items. The freedom of a skill based system. These are what sets UO apart.

Here is my slogan: "Sick of WoW? Give UO a shot."

Jeeze this is really not that complicated.

And as to whether selling is advertising let me clue you in on something: they are the same thing. Items are not just for sale in stores or on the internet because people buy them- money changes hands to get the items on the shelves in the first place. Lots of money.

I was a retail buyer for years and let me assure you it is the retailer that is the primary decision maker in the market- not the manufacturer and yes, not the customer. People buy what is available to them- and nothing else.
Sellers do not just follow consumer preference- they help create it.

Every item in the supermarket is there because the manufacturer, marketing company, or wholesaler paid for that spot. Either directly up front or through volume discounts and promises of marketing support.

The free market does not operate exclusively at the level of consumer choice. The manufacturers and wholesalers work with retailers to bring things to market. The customer is the last in line. Before a product can succeed or fail in the market place it must made available.

This is why UO is fading, because its owners have become complacent. They have stopped playing the game.

 

[Jean-Loot PKard]

Guys please be realistic! UO currently has between 5000 and 8000 paying customers . It nets a solid 100.000€ a month and that is perfectly fine for EA, since it costs near to nothing to maintain this game.

We all dearly love this game and rightfully so. I am still in love with the graphics, even if I have to change my monitors resolution from 1920*1200 to 1280*768 everytime I want to play. This game is unmatched in its complexity and for me (and I am guessing for most of us) it is of great sentimental value.

In the beginning of this year EA bought Playfish, a casual facebook/web games company for 308 MILLION Dollar. EA's focus is getting into the casual games market, developing their known brands like Battlefield, Sims, Mass Effect. EA Sports and Need for Speed. They will release Knights of the old Republic from Bioware which is the ONE AND ONLY MMO on the horizon that might be able to challenge World of Warcraft. EA will be opening up a big customer support center in Irleland for this too. To wrestle Blizzard you have to maintain a 24/7 customer support.

From all these hundreds of millions of dollars spent UO gets virtually nothing, that should clear up how high on the priority list UO is for EA. It is simply to small nowdays to be of importance. The game is not even mentioned in the 2010 annual report from EA.

It could be possible that they are transfering UO to the Browser market in the future (Hell i can play Quake 3 Arena in my browser, there should be no problem converting UO). But as long as UO is delivering such a steady amount of revenue, it will not be converted to free to play or whatever.

 

[RaDian FlGith]

Guys please be realistic! UO currently has between 5000 and 8000 paying customers . It nets a solid 100.000€ a month and that is perfectly fine for EA, since it costs near to nothing to maintain this game.

If the figures were truly that low, UO would be on complete and total life support. While they do not have a large development team, those figures wouldn't support both the development team we do have as well as the server infrastructure and bandwidth to play.

It could be possible that they are transfering UO to the Browser market in the future (Hell i can play Quake 3 Arena in my browser, there should be no problem converting UO). But as long as UO is delivering such a steady amount of revenue, it will not be converted to free to play or whatever.

God I hope they stay away from the browser market. I'm fine with them adopting the "free to play" strategy, because they can more than make up what they lose in subscriptions by offering cutesy little pixel crack -- they just need to make sure that there is a regular stream of pixel crack and that it's priced based on what it is. For instance, $3.99 to have a bookshelf that displays books when you put them inside it is a bit much. But if they were $1.50, and for $4.99, you got 5 of them, they'd probably sell a hell of a lot more.

If they go to F2P, they absolutely have to have someone making those kinds of decisions that has their finger on the pulse of the game, and can introduce items that are different enough, and unique enough to warrant spending money on them. I mean, there's a million possibilities, and if they introduced 5 to 10 new items a month on an F2P system, they might actually pull in more than $14.99 per person -- the flip side is that they will, indeed, lose the $14.99 per account from multiple account holders, and that's something I'm certain they're worried about. Still, if they played their cards right, they could make it work, and make all that money and more.

But... while F2P will maybe attract some old players back, I don't see that it would be absolute salvation for UO. I think they need to get a decent client behind the game, and stick with one client. Either update 2D, or finish the EC, and make it compatible with a 2D interface so that people have a choice. Though, I have to be honest, I would love to see UO in a living, breathing, fully 3D world -- thing is, as others have mentioned -- every time this comes up, someone goes flying off into outerspace about a new game. Ultima Online itself, what is present today, could transition to fully 3D, and not lose that which makes it special. But many at EA have no idea what makes UO special in the first place.

 

[Jean-Loot PKard]

If the figures were truly that low, UO would be on complete and total life support. While they do not have a large development team, those figures wouldn't support both the development team we do have as well as the server infrastructure and bandwidth to play.

UO uses a minimal amount of bandwith. You waste more bandwith surfing the web on modern sites than playing UO. One modern bladeserver that hosts one dungeon instance for WoW can run all current UO shards without any problems. EA uses huge amount of traffic companywide. If UO was responsible for one tenth of a percent I would be astonished.

The customer service is not existant, there are one or two GM online that fire out canned responses and unbug a few gamestopping issues for characters. The development team is tiny.

Now take a nowadays highly populated shard like Europa or Atlantic. On Europa you see 10 - 20 people in Luna on a good day during primetime. There are 10-20 people around Yew Gate and lets say there are 100 other people playing which given the emptieness of UO nowadays I find highly unlikely, but lets assume that. Thats about 140 people online on one of the highest populated servers. Ghosttown servers like Drachenfels have tight communities that organize themselfs in the general chat to get anything going and sometimes you can count the people with two hands.

I think that 5k to 8k subscribers are an absolutly respectable subscriber base for such an old game with such an old appearence. The development team is doing a great job given the team size and fundings they most likely receive.

Of course we want our hobby and love that is UO to be successfull. But I see no way backing up some numbers that are thrown around in this forum like 50.000 accounts.

If there are 10.000 payed accounts it would generate ~130.000$ per month plus the sales in the item shop for EA. Which game this old is generating that insane amount of cash I ask. For me UO is still a success story. You can pay a lot of developers and GM with that

EA will continue to add new stuff to keep us oldtimers playing and that's it. We can dream that something better is on the horizon for UO, but I highly doubt it.

 

[Uvtha]

It could be possible that they are transfering UO to the Browser market in the future (Hell i can play Quake 3 Arena in my browser, there should be no problem converting UO). But as long as UO is delivering such a steady amount of revenue, it will not be converted to free to play or whatever.

Well considering that theres a good likelihood of F2P improving revenue greatly, I think its certainly something worth looking at. But it wont get looked at until there is a real threat that UO will be shut down (who knows when that would be) because it would be viewed as a risky move, and regardless of what EA thinks about UO, I think the developers want to keep working on it, and being paid.

I think we will see an expansion of the item store like we have been seeing though.

 

[RaDian FlGith]

I think we will see an expansion of the item store like we have been seeing though.

Let's just hope that in the interim, they hire a REAL company to put together a REAL storefront, not that shoddily crafted, hideous thing they use now whereupon they can't even be bothered to use English sentences to describe things.

My grandmother, a pair of scissors, and a magazine could ransom-note together a better sales site than what they've got going right now.

 

[Uvtha]

Let's just hope that in the interim, they hire a REAL company to put together a REAL storefront, not that shoddily crafted, hideous thing they use now whereupon they can't even be bothered to use English sentences to describe things.

My grandmother, a pair of scissors, and a magazine could ransom-note together a better sales site than what they've got going right now.

Thats a fact. UOcodes is a freaking joke on all levels, functionally and aesthetically.

 

[Mook Chessy]

I need to drop a quick thought in here…

Do you know that currently a 2010 Honda Accord is faster 0-60 then a 1997 Porsche 911!

Yet there is a huge Market for a 1997 Porsche…and there always will be.

My point is that age and outdated does not mean worthless, look at not just cars but watches (all jewelry for that matter), homes (people live without central air conditioning to preserve the historic value of their home) How many of you go to the same place to eat, alot of new and better places but somehow we go where we feel comfortable

I guess my point is that if people are willing to pay for anything, it has value; maybe if UO was advertised as the Original, unspoiled or classic game people would try it out.

 

[Evlar]

You know, I'm really going to be interested in what impact EA selling the rights for NetDragon to produce a "3D" Ultima Online game will be.

I have this sneaking suspicion that events such as this, the absorption of Mythic into BioWare, evidence that "artists formerly known as" Mythic are also involved in development aspects of SW:TOR, may indicate EA are at some stage, are going to "let go" of Ultima Online, as we know it.

Clearly, it's suggested that not only have Mythic provided help/consultation to NetDragon, as mentioned on a variety of MMO site reports, but that the rights are region specific at the moment. Namely China and its satellites, along with the Indian sub-continent. Should the lauch in a post-WoW China be a success, with a "new 3D" UO stepping into the breach, how long before EA decides to sell the entire rights to NetDragon, or that NetDragon seeks to buy them?

Just throwing some theories out there... you know...

Also, one of the biggest arguments for many against the classic shard concept, seems to be concern about redistribution of development time and resources, or less resources to support the production shards. Would it not be fair to assume that in some respects, evidenced by press releases and developer comments, that this is indeed already happening? UO developers are actively involved in the production, development, consultation, etc, of not just UO, but SW:TOR under the BioWare banner, the other Mythic titled, plus the "help" with the NetDragon effort?

Clearly, developers in most software houses out there will no doubt be multi-tasking and working on more than just the one project. It pays not to have one's eggs in one basket alone. But is this the impression that players of UO have in general, that the UO developers just work on UO?

Under such conditions, would EA embark upon an advertising campaign for UO, or indeed, why would they?

 

[Aroma]

Back to topic EA better start advertising UO. Who can we talk to or ask about why they don't????

 

[Uvtha]

I need to drop a quick thought in here…

Do you know that currently a 2010 Honda Accord is faster 0-60 then a 1997 Porsche 911!

Yet there is a huge Market for a 1997 Porsche…and there always will be.

My point is that age and outdated does not mean worthless, look at not just cars but watches (all jewelry for that matter), homes (people live without central air conditioning to preserve the historic value of their home) How many of you go to the same place to eat, alot of new and better places but somehow we go where we feel comfortable

I guess my point is that if people are willing to pay for anything, it has value; maybe if UO was advertised as the Original, unspoiled or classic game people would try it out.

Its not really a fair comparison. How much clamor is there for comodor 64? Very little. How many people still play king's quest? Not many.

Cars, and movies, and music don't age like computer hardware, and software do. Cars especially are more about appearance, status/prestige, and rarity, (often inflated by nostalgia) than how the function, even with new cars.

Old video games get played, yes, but most of the time they get played to relive the experience of playing it for the first time, and the games themselves are nowhere near as good as modern games on any level (with some obvious exceptions content wise along the way), and then you have arcade games like pac-man and galaga which dont need to look nice, and never did.

But UO is trying to stay relevant in the modern MMO market anyway. FF6 was a great game, but its not trying to be a new ps3 release.

 

[Evlar]

I still play the X:COM games, plus a few other "classic" games.

Perhaps targeting a "niche" market of retro-gamers perhaps?

There's enough around to make it worthwhile, otherwise why would there still be so much interest in the "abandonware" sites?

Also, I wonder what age groupings the average players of UO are? I would venture a guess that the majority are 30+ perhaps.

Interesting also, that some of us probably sound like our parents did about music, when we refer to great gameplay and older games. Funny how things work out like that.

 

[Uvtha]

I still play the X:COM games, plus a few other "classic" games.

Perhaps targeting a "niche" market of retro-gamers perhaps?

There's enough around to make it worthwhile, otherwise why would there still be so much interest in the "abandonware" sites?

Also, I wonder what age groupings the average players of UO are? I would venture a guess that the majority are 30+ perhaps.

Interesting also, that some of us probably sound like our parents did about music, when we refer to great gameplay and older games. Funny how things work out like that.

I think abandonware games are popular because.. they are free. Id play eye of the beholder probably. Would I pay 5 bucks for it? Unlikely.

Yeah the music thing is kinda funny, old age really creeps up on a person eh? I actually don't even like most of the music I used to ironically.

 

[Dermott of LS]

...

You also don't see the original X-Com games (mentioning original here to differentiate from the upcoming X-Com title) being actively advertised either.

As for music, post-grundge, witrh a few exceptions here and there, music has really gone down the toilet in quality... at least IMO.

 

[HD2300]

^^ UO already has had a 3D client, called the 3D client, which was axed. Also KR and EC "takes advantage of 3D-accelerated special effects."

... so dont assume that NetDragon is going to develop a 100% real 3D client just because "3D" was in the press release.

 

[Uvtha]

As for music, post-grundge, witrh a few exceptions here and there, music has really gone down the toilet in quality... at least IMO.

I'm kinda the opposite there from the norm. Almost all the music I like now is from the last 5-10 years.