Something Needs Done!

[Dakkon Blackblade]

Most classic sharders have accepted it and are now happily playing on free shards, which honestly is just fine in my opinion. I currently play on one that won't be named but just opened and consistently has 2,000 people online.

I honestly hope we never see another classic shard thread here on stratics again, while I was a proponent the ship left a long time ago and it would surely would be a waste from this point on to even put it on the table years from now assuming there is a UO in a few years.

I'm thinking that will mostly depend on how well TOR does.

 

[Uvtha]

Ill be as simple as possible in my views here, as I'm tired of the point by point thing...

UO is not getting new players. UO is losing players. You seem to want EA to shift a lot of money INTO a failing game, and a franchise that hasn't put out a single player game in over 20 years. There is no logical reason for them to do that rather than work on new, modern games with franchises that are new, or not outdated. If you ran EA you would do that same thing. Sadly its a business, not an art commune.

You seem to think that what keeps players from playing UO now will still keep them from playing when its free. This goes against all evidence the web has to offer.

DDO was not getting players, they were losing players. They went F2P. They gained MILLIONS of players. Their "Subscriptions" (Read: The accounts that cost 14 a month and before were the ONLY option to play) rate went up 40%. People don't cite this occurance because it offers some special value to players as you seem to think, but because IT DREW PLAYERS IN AND INCREASED REVENUE. And it took no investment.

Its a really simple equation. People get bored + people don't want to spend money = people are willing to try any game so long as its free.

When people play a free game and they like it, then they end up paying for something. This has been proven time and time and time again. Just ask Draconi. He proponent of F2P and F2P for UO specifically.

It's the most sensible method of growing UO that there is, and when the subs drop a little more there will be zero reason to not do it.

 

[Nevyn]

Tried pitching an idea with Nieves to Sunsword a few years back to license out the right to run your own servers. Possibly include a development kit. Kind of NWN-style. Would keep in well with the online sandbox feel, and with a good disclaimer there's no real cost/liability overhead. Might as well make some money off people running their own servers, and would even potentially give grounds to sue to protect their own product from people running unlicensed.

He sounded kind of interested, but never really heard anything after that. Bummer. Seemed like something that would at least pull a bit of interest. There would definitly be "classic" rulesets (as well as all the other permutations that have been requested over the years, like "classic + Pub 16" etc etc), and the team would be making money without increased development costs or hardware/bandwidth costs. Oh well.

 

[Morgana LeFay (PoV)]

As a lot of others have pointed out, the potential for an EA/Mythic ran Classic Shard is zero at this point.

Which begs the question: Given the way they have developed the game post-Trammel, and the way the customer service and QA are at this point...would you really want to play on a Classic Shard they created and supported at this point??

 

[jaashua]

The way the game looks, nobody will even give it a chance. Make the game look spectacular and we, the players, will sell it....and, frankly, it wouldn't be difficult.

 

[Woodsman]

You seem to want EA to shift a lot of money INTO a failing game, and a franchise that hasn't put out a single player game in over 20 years.

Actually I don't want remakes - most of the Ultima games I like play just fine through emulators or have either already been remade through mods of existing modern games, or have mods in progress. I don't care if there are some major Ultima fanboys within BioWare who want to remake them. If they want to DOSBOX the Ultima games and release them for free or through GOG.com, great, it would take them a day or two.

I'd rather the Ultima fanboys in BioWare throw their support behind UO.

You seem to think that what keeps players from playing UO now will still keep them from playing when its free.

Life changes, outdated graphics, boredom from having done just about everything, changing tastes, a desire to play a different style of MMO, are all things that F2P doesn't address. I've listed many more in other posts. A good game is a good game regardless of the pay model and many factors influence why people drop games that have nothing to do with how they pay for them.

Free to play is never free to play anyways, you're still giving them money, you're just breaking it up into a few transactions. Rather than $10 a month, you're paying $5 one week, $2 the next, $4 a few weeks later and you repeat that cycle the following month. No UO vet is going to come back and play UO without a house and EA is not going to give that away for free.

Its a really simple equation. People get bored + people don't want to spend money = people are willing to try any game so long as its free.

Unless I'm mistaken, the UO trial is still around so people can try it for free. Many of the restrictions on free accounts that F2P supporters mention parallel the trial accounts with the exception of the time. If they bumped the trial accounts to the endless thing like with Warhammer, the F2Pers should be appeased without the need to make a lot of code changes to the game.

If I were an F2P supporter, I would focus my attention on extending the trial accounts, because the UO devs did make it clear that F2P was not an option. Your chances of getting some kind of endless trial accounts are better, although they might resist those since it's not helping Warhammer all that much.

When people play a free game and they like it, then they end up paying for something. This has been proven time and time and time again. Just ask Draconi. He proponent of F2P and F2P for UO specifically.

Yeah, let's talk to Draconi and the others. Oh wait, even though UO was profitable, EA gutted Mythic and a lot of those people are gone. That's the same EA that you think would hire more developers under F2P instead of just use what they already have.

It's the most sensible method of growing UO that there is, and when the subs drop a little more there will be zero reason to not do it.

There is nothing sensible about EA's treatment of UO over the past 13 years.

You assume that they are interested in growing subs or revenue, but their actions prove otherwise. Companies that have MMOs that are profitable, and that have solid expansion teams like what we saw with Stygian Abyss, do not casually gut those teams and leave a skeleton crew to fix issues with the expansion and to roll out a partial expansion like HS.

Somebody in EA's leadership does not care about UO, otherwise UO would not have suffered when it was profitable. If anything, I would make the case that somebody in EA's leadership was out to make sure that UO failed, because the actions that have been taken over the years, the multiple moves, the numerous dev team turnover, the gutting of dev teams when UO is profitable, are all signs of somebody wanting UO to just go away. F2P will not change that.

 

[Zosimus]

There is nothing sensible about EA's treatment of UO over the past 13 years.

You assume that they are interested in growing subs or revenue, but their actions prove otherwise. Companies that have MMOs that are profitable, and that have solid expansion teams like what we saw with Stygian Abyss, do not casually gut those teams and leave a skeleton crew to fix issues with the expansion and to roll out a partial expansion like HS.

Somebody in EA's leadership does not care about UO, otherwise UO would not have suffered when it was profitable. If anything, I would make the case that somebody in EA's leadership was out to make sure that UO failed, because the actions that have been taken over the years, the multiple moves, the numerous dev team turnover, the gutting of dev teams when UO is profitable, are all signs of somebody wanting UO to just go away. F2P will not change that.

Best post in this thread

 

[Tox The Murder]

Somebody in EA's leadership does not care about UO, otherwise UO would not have suffered when it was profitable. If anything, I would make the case that somebody in EA's leadership was out to make sure that UO failed, because the actions that have been taken over the years, the multiple moves, the numerous dev team turnover, the gutting of dev teams when UO is profitable, are all signs of somebody wanting UO to just go away. F2P will not change that.

:bowdown:

 

[silent death197831]

I have been playing for almost 11 years and have been hearing uo is dieing for almost 11 years. Yet every day i log in i have a great time playing a game i still love. I also every day hear uo is dieing. I dont believe it!!

 

[Ravenspyre]

I have been playing for almost 11 years and have been hearing uo is dieing for almost 11 years. Yet every day i log in i have a great time playing a game i still love. I also every day hear uo is dieing. I dont believe it!!

Not to be blunt, but I am sure people that have played Shadowbane, Earth and Beyond, Matrix Online and such all claimed the same thing. I've been sitting by the sidelines, but I have no desire to return. Everything I had is long since dust. Marketing this game would be an absolute joke, anyone who believes it would help is the highest levels of delusional. F2P model will not help out either. The game is more than dated. It was an antique back when it was new on the market as better shinier graphics already well and existed. The engine itself is nearly 30 years old.

How many people are going to keep denying this simple fact, UO is no where near what it once was, at it's peak having nearly 275,000 subscriptions. And for another person they say UO is doing better than DAoC, my sources tell me DAoC is only doing marginally better than UO. This tells me the game is sub 50k subs now.

The only thing keeping UO open is the ancient programming and server architecture is probably the easiest to maintain and doesn't cost near as much as something like DAoC or WAR does to maintain. But if TOR proves wildly successful, what makes you guys even imagine that UO will not be served its walking papers? Because 1 few people still like the game? That thinking didn't save EnB, didn't save Shadowbane or Matrix Online, didn't even save UO2 project or UXO project or the myriad other games that have been cancelled.

Oh, a new sandbox game like UO is desperately needed in the MMOG market. Unfortunatley I don't think it's gonna happen for a while.

It's a simple fact, everything that has a beginning has an ending. UO will come to and end eventually, and considering the game has less than a skeleton crew now, it's amazing how many people are in pure denial about the future of this game. I am sad it went down this road, and honestly, it still shocks me the number of people that forced UO to remain in it's antique state. The reasons are varied but the major problem with UO that stunted it was the player base.

 

[Miss Smoocher]

well the more people leave looks like i get more stuff!!! uo will wont end tell i leave and i am not going damn it.

 

[Annonymous User]

I doubt uo will ever go away to be honest. Its kind of like bragging rights for having the oldest traditional mmo. Think of it like this Not only do we 'as ea' have the blah blah blah star blah blah who cares wars mmo, we also have the longest running mmo.... Who doesn't want to come throw there money in our toilet ?

 

[Annonymous User]

Not to be blunt, but I am sure people that have played Shadowbane, Earth and Beyond, Matrix Online and such all claimed the same thing. I've been sitting by the sidelines, but I have no desire to return. Everything I had is long since dust. Marketing this game would be an absolute joke, anyone who believes it would help is the highest levels of delusional. F2P model will not help out either. The game is more than dated. It was an antique back when it was new on the market as better shinier graphics already well and existed. The engine itself is nearly 30 years old.

How many people are going to keep denying this simple fact, UO is no where near what it once was, at it's peak having nearly 275,000 subscriptions. And for another person they say UO is doing better than DAoC, my sources tell me DAoC is only doing marginally better than UO. This tells me the game is sub 50k subs now.

The only thing keeping UO open is the ancient programming and server architecture is probably the easiest to maintain and doesn't cost near as much as something like DAoC or WAR does to maintain. But if TOR proves wildly successful, what makes you guys even imagine that UO will not be served its walking papers? Because 1 few people still like the game? That thinking didn't save EnB, didn't save Shadowbane or Matrix Online, didn't even save UO2 project or UXO project or the myriad other games that have been cancelled.

Oh, a new sandbox game like UO is desperately needed in the MMOG market. Unfortunatley I don't think it's gonna happen for a while.

It's a simple fact, everything that has a beginning has an ending. UO will come to and end eventually, and considering the game has less than a skeleton crew now, it's amazing how many people are in pure denial about the future of this game. I am sad it went down this road, and honestly, it still shocks me the number of people that forced UO to remain in it's antique state. The reasons are varied but the major problem with UO that stunted it was the player base.

if you don't play and you think so low of what uo has become, why do you even post or read these boards ? Its because you really do want to play... Whatever you guys amaze me. Do you hurl your self off a cliff when you are bored with life ?

 

[gunneroforgin]

I will play UO until the final Gm asks me to turn out the lights when I am done.

 

[Ravenspyre]

if you don't play and you think so low of what uo has become, why do you even post or read these boards ? Its because you really do want to play... Whatever you guys amaze me. Do you hurl your self off a cliff when you are bored with life ?

I love posts like this. It demonstrates how blind some people can be. I loved what UO was, when AoS hit I tried to like it, I am sure some people will attest to that, but eventually I just didn't, and I played UO since December of 97 up until before Mondain's Putrescent added the stupid ass elves. The writing is on the wall and it simply amazes me how many people turn a blind eye to the facts in front of them;

Fact: UO has less than a skeleton crew on it. Seriously read the developer list for High Seas, then compare the development list with Stygian Abyss.

Fact: Substantial updates to the game are coming so far and few in between they can hardly be called updates at all.

Fact: The only thing keeping UO open is because UO was the first major public pay to play and hugely successful game before World of Warcraft changed the bar. The only claim to fame that UO has left is age, and about the only reason left outside of the minimal cost (hence the constant dev team downsizing) EA even keeps UO open. Because it allows them to beat their chest on the matter.

Fact: UO is not gaining new subscriptions and it's losing what little it has left. The engine is nearly 3 decades old, the graphics are horribly dated even when UO was new, and any sense of the sandbox that was left long since disappeared with the AoS update.

Fact: Every time EA closed down a UO sequel project and supposedly were putting the resources into UO proper for proper updating; NOTHING HAPPENED! Where are the resources from the UXO project? Where are the resources from the UO2 project? Nothing happened. They added a few mobs and ****ed up story lines from their original projects that they don't even resemble what they were and sounded more like fan fic from some obscure website on the net.

Fact: Every potential chance the UO engine has had to upgrade and become more than it was, the UO player base has purposely sabotaged it. When UO3D was around the player base went out of their way to denounce it. Reborn Client, people went out of their way to denounce it despite people even saying it ran better than the 2d client. Now you have that piece of **** enhanced client and wallowing in the filthy beds you made for yourself as you watch the world crumble around you.

Fact: EA has not been putting more than necessary to keep UO up and running. Maybe you haven't noticed but the updates to UO are flowing exactly how MxO updates were before it closed down. The devs are doing what they can with the resources they have. If you can't see the similarities then you truly are ignoring the facts.

 

[Remo_Williams]

Not sure what i should do then. Just quit in protest and start messaging the stratics boards? I enjoy the game. Im sorry that your glory days were ruined but as long as i am able to play the game, ill play it. If there was an alternative then id take it. There isnt anything out there that id rather play. Its not like i dont have other choices. If writing a letter to my congressman and asking them to intervene and give EA stimulus money for the express use on UO would help, then id do it. If i thought getting on here and starting a new thread to bash the game and the developers would get me anywhere, then id be first in line to sign up. That hasnt helped so far so i dont see the point.

I play ultima online. I love this game. I dont want another wow or rift or whatever the flavor of the month is. I have issues that id love to see dealt with , but there doesnt seem to be anything that i can do about it. If the game becomes unplayable for me then ill quit. Until then , ill be on legends.

 

[Dakkon Blackblade]

I love posts like this. It demonstrates how blind some people can be. I loved what UO was, when AoS hit I tried to like it, I am sure some people will attest to that, but eventually I just didn't, and I played UO since December of 97 up until before Mondain's Putrescent added the stupid ass elves. The writing is on the wall and it simply amazes me how many people turn a blind eye to the facts in front of them;

Fact: UO has less than a skeleton crew on it. Seriously read the developer list for High Seas, then compare the development list with Stygian Abyss.

Fact: Substantial updates to the game are coming so far and few in between they can hardly be called updates at all.

Fact: The only thing keeping UO open is because UO was the first major public pay to play and hugely successful game before World of Warcraft changed the bar. The only claim to fame that UO has left is age, and about the only reason left outside of the minimal cost (hence the constant dev team downsizing) EA even keeps UO open. Because it allows them to beat their chest on the matter.

Fact: UO is not gaining new subscriptions and it's losing what little it has left. The engine is nearly 3 decades old, the graphics are horribly dated even when UO was new, and any sense of the sandbox that was left long since disappeared with the AoS update.

Fact: Every time EA closed down a UO sequel project and supposedly were putting the resources into UO proper for proper updating; NOTHING HAPPENED! Where are the resources from the UXO project? Where are the resources from the UO2 project? Nothing happened. They added a few mobs and ****ed up story lines from their original projects that they don't even resemble what they were and sounded more like fan fic from some obscure website on the net.

Fact: Every potential chance the UO engine has had to upgrade and become more than it was, the UO player base has purposely sabotaged it. When UO3D was around the player base went out of their way to denounce it. Reborn Client, people went out of their way to denounce it despite people even saying it ran better than the 2d client. Now you have that piece of **** enhanced client and wallowing in the filthy beds you made for yourself as you watch the world crumble around you.

Fact: EA has not been putting more than necessary to keep UO up and running. Maybe you haven't noticed but the updates to UO are flowing exactly how MxO updates were before it closed down. The devs are doing what they can with the resources they have. If you can't see the similarities then you truly are ignoring the facts.

This person speaks the truth.

 

[MageCruella]

I think UO is holding its own and there is enough long term support (read: automatic renewals) to keep it going. We may find ourselves condensing our numbers ..and in that I extend my hand from Legends. We are what we are and if we find ourselves to be the retirement home of gaming..so be it. Legends has my heart and my support.

Perhaps it could become a home for the up and coming game students internships. If well managed and not let run amuck that could be amusing.

In the end, at least on Legends, we are family. If you want glitz, with all due rspect, ..go to WoW.

 

[Ravenspyre]

I think UO is holding its own and there is enough long term support (read: automatic renewals) to keep it going. We may find ourselves condensing our numbers ..and in that I extend my hand from Legends. We are what we are and if we find ourselves to be the retirement home of gaming..so be it. Legends has my heart and my support.

Perhaps it could become a home for the up and coming game students internships. If well managed and not let run amuck that could be amusing.

In the end, at least on Legends, we are family. If you want glitz, with all due rspect, ..go to WoW.

Ignorance is bliss it seems, and the truly ignorant use terms like go to WoW.

 

[Woodsman]

I think UO is holding its own and there is enough long term support (read: automatic renewals) to keep it going.

They may have the players to keep it going for a few more years, but they definitely don't have the staff and they don't have the support of EA - that was made crystal clear with the butchered video and with the dev team's actions during the HOC when it was clear that EA had them on a very tight leash. I get my hopes up when I hear about new a quest system, a new player experience, new art, etc., but I don't see EA doing what's necessary, which is hiring. I still don't get how they are going to push out a high-res art update with the current staff, they just don't seem to have the numbers. It's possible they are going to tap into other groups within BioWare or even EA, but given the lack of respect that UO (And Camelot) get within EA, I don't see that happening. The same turf wars that killed off Origin look to be still going on.

I wasn't really playing at the time- I still had an account active, but when I heard that UO and Camelot were sliding into the BioWare group, I thought it was going to be a good thing, but nothing really positive has happend to UO since that happened. The BioWare executives are probably only concerned about Star Wars/Dragon Age/Mass Effect. Warhammer is an albatross around their necks that they probably can't wait to get rid of, especially since another company is developing a Warhammer MMO.

If you want glitz, with all due rspect, ..go to WoW.

A lot of us want a UO that's going to be around for another 5 years or more. That's going to require a graphics upgrade and it's going to require support and respect from EA that consists of more than a passing reference to UO when talking about Star Wars/World of Warcraft, or a link in a tab on BioWare's webpage.

When a DOS game that came out 15 years ago has official forums on BioWare Mythic's official forums website, when Warhammer:AOR, a game that went from a 1 million purchases/players to 300,000 in a few months, and down to probably less subscribers than UO in just a few years has official forums on BioWare Mythic, while Camelot and UO are treated like they don't exist on those very forums, something is wrong. As badly as Warhammer crashed and burned, it's still got the support of EA/BioWare - they are are still putting out occasional producer's letters talking about the future in a clear manner.

Meanwhile, what do we get? We get chopped up videos from EA PR that give the appearance of revealing some kind of huge corporate EA secrets and therefore must be reduced to 4 second soundbites, we get "town halls" where too much time is spent deciding what they can and cannot talk about.

EA can spend $300 million on Star Wars, but the head of BioWare can't be bothered to spend 5 minutes in 2011 talking about UO and that he and the others within BioWare support UO.

I understand that Cal and the others on the dev team have to have everything they say run past EA PR and Corporate, but if somebody like Ray Muzka has the authority to approve secret projects, I'm sure he could spend 30 seconds sending a tweet saying he supports UO and that they are serious about growing UO in the long term.

It makes no sense other than there being some kind of outright hatred of UO within EA. That should have ended years ago, and the current CEO even said things were going to change, but reality says otherwise.

 

[Lord Essex]

Somebody in EA's leadership does not care about UO, otherwise UO would not have suffered when it was profitable. If anything, I would make the case that somebody in EA's leadership was out to make sure that UO failed, because the actions that have been taken over the years, the multiple moves, the numerous dev team turnover, the gutting of dev teams when UO is profitable, are all signs of somebody wanting UO to just go away. F2P will not change that.

snap:

 

[Jirel of Joiry]

Wanna save UO? Convince EA to make it the first ZERO tolerance cyberbullying/cyberharassment game. Cyberbullying and cyberharassment have run ALOT of UO players away. I could sit here and list all the people in the last 9 years I have seen pack up and leave Legends over harassment/greifing issues but if I did this would turn into a marathon post.

UO isn't the only game with this problem. I have a friend that plays Battlefield, he says its bad there too. I have talked to a WoW player that was harassed in game for a solid year and half before Blizzard finally did something. Its a problem in all online games I have heard of it in Warhammer, LOTRO, DnDO, heck even POGO! I've heard of it on Xboxlive, Wii's Online gaming and Playstation's too. I know its asking a hell of a lot of EA to take a hard line on this but its feasible. My friend that plays Battlefield works in IT security. He says if EA really wanted to make a ban stick it wouldn't be that hard. It would require a both a ip and credit card ban. It would also require a credit card when you register. Also if someone is caught violating the ban, turn them over to law enforcement.

Seriously I don't care how ugly or outdated the graphics if you promise players a game they can play in relative peace, believe me they will flock to it. However in order for EA to do something like this they'd have to admit there is a problem something the gaming industry simply will not do.

Me I'm hoping to work with my congressman and senator to get legislation drafted to force the online gaming industry to clean up its act. I'd rather be proactive than wait till some poor child is bullied and harassed in their favorite online game till they hurt themselves. It is scientific fact that repeated verbal abuse is both psychologically and emotionally damaging to anyone but more so to a child or adolescent. Maybe I'm the only person that feels than being online doesn't give you Carte Blanc to be a jerk.

Seriously it'd be a huge boost if they made UO the first Zero tolerance policy game. Being the first isn't easy. I don't really see EA wanting to step out there and do something.

 

[Woodsman]

My friend that plays Battlefield works in IT security. He says if EA really wanted to make a ban stick it wouldn't be that hard. It would require a both a ip and credit card ban.

If your friend actually worked in IT security, he would know how useless an IP ban is.

Me I'm hoping to work with my congressman and senator to get legislation drafted to force the online gaming industry to clean up its act.

I'd rather not see Congress involving themselves in any more regulation than necessary. They don't even understand the internet completely, let alone MMOs. It's just asking for trouble. You're talking about a group of people who are bought and paid for anyways, and they are going to go with whoever has the best lobbyists. EA, Sony Online, Activision Blizzard, etc. would just throw a bunch of money and favors at them and your would-be legislation would end up in a black hole.

Seriously it'd be a huge boost if they made UO the first Zero tolerance policy game.

EA would just shut UO down since it would be too expensive to hire the personnel necessary to make it zero tolerance if there was any kind of legislation.

Plus the largest MMOs in the world are owned by non-American companies, including Blizzard/World of Warcraft and Sony Online. Either such legislation would be too expensive for them to make a profit and they'd shut down their MMOs or more than likely, they would just block American players and move their operations outside of US territory, similar to what the online gambling industry did.

There is the alternative as well where MMOs would remove as much personal interaction between players as they could, which would be just as bad as them closing down MMOs or blocking Americans. Anybody who has seen any of those kids games that Disney, Nickolodeon, etc. push, you'd know what I'm talking about, where players aren't really allowed to interact with each other.

On top of that, the griefers would change their tactics - they'd play the innocent and try to get others banned and under a "zero tolerance" policy, it would be easier than you think. The griefers would love a "zero tolerance" policy.

Actually one alternative to your legislation proposal is to get the companies to ban anybody under the age of 17 or 18 from playing MMOs, and you don't even need legislation for that. I'd be okay with kicking a lot kids out of MMOs.

 

[Jirel of Joiry]

The gaming companies will never do that and the reason why is that ages 14-18 make up the largest percent of gamers. There is NO way they're gonna close the door to that much money. Its too big a loss financially speaking. The gaming industry has never changed or policed its self until it was quite literally rammed down their throats. Remember before the ESRB the gaming industry would market unsuitable games at young kids. The ESRB was formed because of the whole Mortal Kombat flap.

I respectfully disagree with you. The only way that change will be affected on the online gaming world is if legal legislation is passed. The game industy does not listen to or care about the players, it will not police itsself, so it doesn't exactly leave alot of options. The game industy is all about money, EA is proof of that.

 

[Woodsman]

The gaming companies will never do that and the reason why is that ages 14-18 make up the largest percent of gamers.

14-18 year olds definitely aren't UO's target audience or make up their largest percentage

I respectfully disagree with you. The only way that change will be affected on the online gaming world is if legal legislation is passed. The game industy does not listen to or care about the players, it will not police itsself, so it doesn't exactly leave alot of options. The game industy is all about money, EA is proof of that.

And you don't think Congress isn't all about money? EA and the other companies could easily buy off the right people, it happens all the time. If your side doesn't have the money, Congress won't do anything.

I would not want Congress writing any such legislation simply because they wouldn't understand what it is they are doing, and because one side or the other would clearly misrepresent it for their own personal gains - witness the internet neutrality discussion and how one side has deliberately mangled it to make it out to be something else, and has been successful in selling that interpretation to a public that doesn't know any better. They do so because the ISPs have lobbied them hard and thrown a lot of money their way. As a result, consumers are going to get screwed really hard in the coming years by the ISPs.

 

[Kael]

They Disscusing it? :O

Not only did they discuss it, they gave it a big fat 'NO' just earlier this month. They said its not something they are going to think about or visit at the present (after 'thinking' about it for essentially a full year).

So, yeah, no offense but you are a little late to the party.

I'm sure it will be revisited again fairly shortly imho

If suscriptions keep dropping..they will need to look at figuring out how to add more.

Even if just for the potential of adding more people ( or just keeping a ton of the player base now) the choice of some form of Classic Shard will again rear its head

 

[GalenKnighthawke]

I'm sure it will be revisited again fairly shortly imho

If suscriptions keep dropping..they will need to look at figuring out how to add more.

Even if just for the potential of adding more people ( or just keeping a ton of the player base now) the choice of some form of Classic Shard will again rear its head

To believe that a custom rules shard would bring people in requires us to assume that players would come back to pay for something they can get for free on free shards now, and furthermore they would come back in such great numbers that it would be economically worth the time and money it would take to code in a new rules set with existing code.

Of course, were this true, there wouldn't need to be a near-constant need to find ways to lure people to Felucca (the term "lure" comes from a Fel player at the video House of Commons, and I find it to be a telling term), people would have liked it enough to stay to begin with. There would not have been a need to create a long line of lures from Khaldun to power scrolls to double resources to get people there.

Also Siege and Mugen would be the most-populated instead of the least-populated shards, because those are the closest we can get, probably, under the current rules to the kind of custom shard being requested.

Also the free shards would be bustling with people without offering additional incentives. The wouldn't have to offer gigantic tame-able horde minions as pets, or the humiliation of afk scripters or 750+ skill caps, or better GM service, or enforcement of RP, or new monsters/new art, or anything, as incentives, they could just say "hey, we're pre-UO:R and we're free!!!" and people would flock in such great numbers that EA could not possibly ignore them.

Of course, none of this is true.

And finally, all of the games that were supposed to kill UO by luring away the PvP crowd would be doing a lot better than they are. A long line of games from Dark Age of Camelotto Shadowbane to Darkfall were supposed to kill UO by luring away PvPers. All failed in that effort; UO still stands. I read that Shadowbane has shut down, the verdicts on Darkfall have ranged from disappointment to disgust, and Dark Age of Camelot is either on par with UO or slightly below it. We may or may not ever have an expansion, or booster, again, but we've had them more recently than DAoC. And we're finishing up one epic scenario and gearing up for the next, non-epic scenario.

Hmm. This post sounds oddly familiar.

-Galen's player

 

[canary]

I'm sure it will be revisited again fairly shortly imho

If suscriptions keep dropping..they will need to look at figuring out how to add more.

Even if just for the potential of adding more people ( or just keeping a ton of the player base now) the choice of some form of Classic Shard will again rear its head

They simply do not have the manpower to allocate to such a thing.

 

[Vlaude]

To believe that a custom rules shard would bring people in requires us to assume that players would come back to pay for something they can get for free on free shards now, and furthermore they would come back in such great numbers that it would be economically worth the time and money it would take to code in a new rules set with existing code.

Of course, were this true, there wouldn't need to be a near-constant need to find ways to lure people to Felucca (the term "lure" comes from a Fel player at the video House of Commons, and I find it to be a telling term), people would have liked it enough to stay to begin with. There would not have been a need to create a long line of lures from Khaldun to power scrolls to double resources to get people there.

Also Siege and Mugen would be the most-populated instead of the least-populated shards, because those are the closest we can get, probably, under the current rules to the kind of custom shard being requested.

Also the free shards would be bustling with people without offering additional incentives. The wouldn't have to offer gigantic tame-able horde minions as pets, or the humiliation of afk scripters or 750+ skill caps, or better GM service, or enforcement of RP, or new monsters/new art, or anything, as incentives, they could just say "hey, we're pre-UO:R and we're free!!!" and people would flock in such great numbers that EA could not possibly ignore them.

Of course, none of this is true.

And finally, all of the games that were supposed to kill UO by luring away the PvP crowd would be doing a lot better than they are. A long line of games from Dark Age of Camelotto Shadowbane to Darkfall were supposed to kill UO by luring away PvPers. All failed in that effort; UO still stands. I read that Shadowbane has shut down, the verdicts on Darkfall have ranged from disappointment to disgust, and Dark Age of Camelot is either on par with UO or slightly below it. We may or may not ever have an expansion, or booster, again, but we've had them more recently than DAoC. And we're finishing up one epic scenario and gearing up for the next, non-epic scenario.

Hmm. This post sounds oddly familiar.

-Galen's player

Kael is right. If too many players leave due to a bad economy or because they just don't want to play anymore the devs may revisit this unless they are able to recruit enough new players to make up for the losses (which is possible, but not likely).

Siege is siege, it's not classic. People may not play it for a number of other reasons than just not wanting to play in Fel. In fact, I think more people would play Siege if they just changed a few things such as letting people place housing without losing houses on their home shards, allowing more than one character per account, and removing the ROT. The devs should ask Siege players if they would want to exchange some of those things in order to increase its population.

Your assessment of other games such as DAoC and Darkfall is extremely biased and you're probably basing it off 1-2 comments from people who aren't in positions to be making them. Did the creators of any of those games claim to be a UO killer? I doubt it. UO's staying power has less to do with its quality than it does with the amount of time and money invtested by those of us who remain. So... if they lose enough players they have a few options if they want to keep it running: 1) Try to attract new players by either improving the quality of the game enough to bring in new subscribers or make it free-to-play or a hybrid F2P/membership game. 2) Try to draw back old players who left the game out of dislike for it.

 

[Woodsman]

If suscriptions keep dropping..they will need to look at figuring out how to add more.

It's called the high resolution art update stuff that they discussed in the video, house of commons, and on Facebook.

That is what they are doing, and they are throwing in a new quest system, and a new player experience as well.

They want new players who have never played UO, and there are well over 10 million of them out there, compared to the small number of people who played UO prior to Renaissance/AOS.

 

[Kael]

Kael is right. If too many players leave due to a bad economy or because they just don't want to play anymore the devs may revisit this unless they are able to recruit enough new players to make up for the losses (which is possible, but not likely).

Siege is siege, it's not classic. People may not play it for a number of other reasons than just not wanting to play in Fel. In fact, I think more people would play Siege if they just changed a few things such as letting people place housing without losing houses on their home shards, allowing more than one character per account, and removing the ROT. The devs should ask Siege players if they would want to exchange some of those things in order to increase its population.

Your assessment of other games such as DAoC and Darkfall is extremely biased and you're probably basing it off 1-2 comments from people who aren't in positions to be making them. Did the creators of any of those games claim to be a UO killer? I doubt it. UO's staying power has less to do with its quality than it does with the amount of time and money invtested by those of us who remain. So... if they lose enough players they have a few options if they want to keep it running: 1) Try to attract new players by either improving the quality of the game enough to bring in new subscribers or make it free-to-play or a hybrid F2P/membership game. 2) Try to draw back old players who left the game out of dislike for it.

X 2

 

[Kael]

If suscriptions keep dropping..they will need to look at figuring out how to add more.

It's called the high resolution art update stuff that they discussed in the video, house of commons, and on Facebook.

That is what they are doing, and they are throwing in a new quest system, and a new player experience as well.

They want new players who have never played UO, and there are well over 10 million of them out there, compared to the small number of people who played UO prior to Renaissance/AOS.

You honestly feel that a new quest system and a new player experience will bring them in ??? UO has a niche...a small one relatively compared to the heavies out there but a niche regardless. They must realise by now that UO will never be a WOW...spend the bucks to make a classic server then do they really need to update after that??? I would think it would be cheaper than having to constantly work on glitches...but then again i havent really got a clue

 

[Viper09]

My friend that plays Battlefield works in IT security. He says if EA really wanted to make a ban stick it wouldn't be that hard. It would require a both a ip and credit card ban. It would also require a credit card when you register.

IP ban?

Even the most inept can easily get around that with a tad bit of effort if they want. Credit cards, not a problem either. It might get rid of a few, but those who really want to keep playing can get around it.

 

[Woodsman]

You honestly feel that a new quest system and a new player experience will bring them in ???

No, of course not. It's all about the graphics these days. The new quest and new player stuff is required if they are going to keep any players who see the new graphics and realize that UO is no longer stuck in 1998 and decide to give UO a try.

The three go together - no new graphics = no new players. No improved quest and new player experience = no new players sticking around.

There are well over 10 million MMO players who have never tried UO. Probably well over 12 million. I happen to think that if they can update the graphics and get some of those players to finally take a look at UO, I think they might find something really unique and really good, and will stick around with UO.

Warcraft probably loses more players in a month than actively subscribe to UO - I think those players would like UO if they stick their heads in the door and take a look, but they aren't going to do that if they think UO is still living in the 1990s.

 

[Dakkon Blackblade]

Also the free shards would be bustling with people without offering additional incentives. The wouldn't have to offer gigantic tame-able horde minions as pets, or the humiliation of afk scripters or 750+ skill caps, or better GM service, or enforcement of RP, or new monsters/new art, or anything, as incentives, they could just say "hey, we're pre-UO:R and we're free!!!" and people would flock in such great numbers that EA could not possibly ignore them.

Of course, none of this is true.

There are two or three I can think of off hand that are quite bustling at all times of the day that do not offer additional incentives beyond Pre-UOR, they also happen to be the most popular free shards.

Now don't get me wrong Galen, I'm not making any argument about a classic shard bringing anyone back, at this point I actually agree people wouldn't bother coming back for it.

I can only say the one I play on averages 2,000-3,000 everyday day and night, people seem happy there so again it seems highly unlikely they would ever leave.

 

[HD2300]

1. Everyone should stop making the excuse that UO is understaffed, and you cant expect anything since UO is understaffed. This is pure nonsense.
FACT: There are similar MMORPGs with just one developer that churn out the equivalent of 1 booster pack per month. If you want specifics PM me, because EA/Mods dont want comparisons here.

2. If you keep expecting nothing, you will get nothing. So keep asking for new content, and dont believe the bs that UO doesnt have enough staff to get anything done.

 

[Dakkon Blackblade]

1. Everyone should stop making the excuse that UO is understaffed, and you cant expect anything since UO is understaffed. This is pure nonsense.
FACT: There are similar MMORPGs with just one developer that churn out the equivalent of 1 booster pack per month. If you want specifics PM me, because EA/Mods dont want comparisons here.

2. If you keep expecting nothing, you will get nothing. So keep asking for new content, and dont believe the bs that UO doesnt have enough staff to get anything done.

It has nothing to do with understaffed, it's plain and simple, EA DOES NOT CARE ABOUT UO SURVIVING. Sure they enjoy the small revenue stream it brings in, but they clearly have no interest in developing it much more than it has been developed to this point.

And quite frankly I don't blame them, when you are making a new MMO that you have already sunk 300 million plus into, you have bigger fish to fry than some dinosaur of a game that is killing time until the switch gets thrown.


The population of UO is minuscule even for a niche game, you are all being phased out, slowly but surely. Of course an argument can be made along those lines for just about anything and what do I know I am just a disgruntled ex subscriber so take what I say with a grain of sand.

 

[Kael]

You honestly feel that a new quest system and a new player experience will bring them in ???

No, of course not. It's all about the graphics these days. The new quest and new player stuff is required if they are going to keep any players who see the new graphics and realize that UO is no longer stuck in 1998 and decide to give UO a try.

The three go together - no new graphics = no new players. No improved quest and new player experience = no new players sticking around.

There are well over 10 million MMO players who have never tried UO. Probably well over 12 million. I happen to think that if they can update the graphics and get some of those players to finally take a look at UO, I think they might find something really unique and really good, and will stick around with UO.

Warcraft probably loses more players in a month than actively subscribe to UO - I think those players would like UO if they stick their heads in the door and take a look, but they aren't going to do that if they think UO is still living in the 1990s.

If you look through the forums on WOW or really any of those games you will also find not only a reference to old UO but a huge thread of people talking about how good UO was back in the day before they screwed around with the game ( and most point to AOS as that screw up ) Obviously thats a ton of sentimental emotion looking back at the wonders of their first MMO experience. But perhaps it would bring back some players looking to find that first love again. UO doesn't need hundreds of thousands of players to return or try it out....thousands would be a good start though

 

[covert]

I think we should be hoping that someone has plans to do something of merit with the Ultima franchise because I think there are too many holes in this ship anymore called Ultima Online.

You cannot entice someone who is playing classic UO for free to come and pay for classic UO and honestly, looking backwards isn't an answer to the conundrums at hand. I still don't understand why this is even discussed!

 

[Kael]

Actually alot of people would come and pay.

The Free Shards do a great job of advertisement and events but there's something about them that just doesn't feel right

I can't believe 12 bucks a month would turn someone away from a game they love playing?? I know people that have 4 or 5 open accounts on Siege just holding plots and loots ( and not playing them ) just in the hopes that the population will increase.

 

[Zosimus]

To much competition in todays gaming. With all the online games, F2P, P2P, B2P, and consoles with online gaming the population is spread out. Check out the younger generation of games they have. Look at the graphics and game itself. Plus you have new games coming out year after year. Kids are growing up with better graphics and UO isnt appealing to them. Scrap all the arguments about how good and diverse UO because kids are into graphics. So there goes the younger audience they pass on. UO just doesnt advertise. Just pay attention to stratics when you come on. Look at all the games that advertise on uo stratics alone.

13 year old game just isnt going to bring in a huge influx of new players. UO.com site isnt realiable with updates or information. Cant even keep the guild numbers accurate. The devs have their hands full with the small crew they have. They were suppose to have 2 mini expansions a year right? So far its been one since they announced it and it was buggy as hell. Pretty sure they are pass their time frame for the second mini expansion.

Would EA advertise for a new UO2 with a new and updated game comparable to todays games? I bet my arse they would.

 

[Woodsman]

A few thousand people returning, ten thousand, twenty thousand people, those aren't enough to keep UO going in the long run. People dismiss such sentiments with the attitude of "oh people have been saying that UO has been in trouble for years", but they fail to recognize that it's not 2004 when UO could afford to lose over 150,000 accounts in the following 6-7 years. I don't think UO can afford double-digit percentage losses anymore.

One thing that bothers me about classic shard supporters is that they seem to have given up on UO competing with modern MMOs. There is nothing wrong with trying to keep players or bring back old players, but you can't base a future of a game on that - the future has to be about bringing in new players. Once you bring in a slew of new players, then talk about allocating resources to a classic shard. I think they are wrong that UO's future lies with its past - I think if the art is updated, and a few other things as well, I think UO could bring in a lot more new players and keep them. There are so many MMOs out there now, and many of them are unsatisfying when it comes to the long run, and you see that in those huge launches and then rapid dropoffs as people quit within a few months. The things that make UO good - housing, sandbox, etc., exist in very few other MMOs, and usually not together.

You can make a niche work. Look at EVE Online - it has/has had many ex-UO staffers work on it, it's a full-blown sandbox, and is arguably the most intensive hardcore PvP game out there, and is considered by quite a few players and developers to be the spiritual successor to UO's early PvP days. There is no tram, no PvP toggle, if you venture out of certain areas, you will face PvP at some point, whether you want it or not. That goes against the conventional wisdom that says you have to offer non-PvP alternatives. EVE didn't cross the 50,000 mark until sometime in the latter half of 2001, they didn't hit 100,000 until 2005, 200,000 in 2007 or 2008, then hit 300,000 in 2009 or so, and have recently hit 350,000+. They proved that you can take a niche and make it work and grow it if you are patient.

That should have happened with UO, but welcome to EA. EA can still fix things though, and the art update is a part of that. One of these days they might decide that having multiple niche MMOs can be a pretty good business strategy - just ask Sony. EA is working on a new Sims Online, and they've already got three MMOs, they just have to have patience and make solid decisions in the long run and both of those are...not exactly something that EA is known for when it comes to UO.

 

[Longforge]

Frankly... I think the facts of where these ideas of F2P, Classic Shards, and "UO dying" originate are from a VERY LOW percentage of players.

1. Free 2 Play never helped a game be successful or even half way decent. Most F2P's require a subscription type payment to access the other 75% of the content and the cool content. F2P in UO would be the equivalent to being able to mine only up to Bronze Ore. No Ilsh, No Malas, No Ter Mur. F2P is a horrible and disgusting idea.... period.

Field of Dreams, "If you build it they will come". Not, "If you make it free they will come". I'd quit, period if it went F2P.

2. Classic Shards are everywhere. Lots of people play them. Bringing a Classic Shard back would kill most of the current shards by isolating their populations further from the people who would move. The End.

3. UO isn't dying, UO is in a sea of MMO's. When UO came out, it was a marvel in its time. UO pioneered the MMO platform. Lots of people come and go... rinse and repeat.
- The smaller shards feel the impact the most.
- UO could stand to lose quite a few Shards, but that isn't really a feasible idea.
- You would of course assume that UO is "dying" if you played a shard like Oceania in 2004 and play Oceania in 2011. Talk about once having a healthy population.... now its a relative ghost town.


OVERALL:

Been reading the same exact thread for 10 yrs.

FAIL

 

[Vlaude]

Frankly... I think the facts of where these ideas of F2P, Classic Shards, and "UO dying" originate are from a VERY LOW percentage of players.

1. Free 2 Play never helped a game be successful or even half way decent. Most F2P's require a subscription type payment to access the other 75% of the content and the cool content. F2P in UO would be the equivalent to being able to mine only up to Bronze Ore. No Ilsh, No Malas, No Ter Mur. F2P is a horrible and disgusting idea.... period.

Field of Dreams, "If you build it they will come". Not, "If you make it free they will come". I'd quit, period if it went F2P.

2. Classic Shards are everywhere. Lots of people play them. Bringing a Classic Shard back would kill most of the current shards by isolating their populations further from the people who would move. The End.

3. UO isn't dying, UO is in a sea of MMO's. When UO came out, it was a marvel in its time. UO pioneered the MMO platform. Lots of people come and go... rinse and repeat.
- The smaller shards feel the impact the most.
- UO could stand to lose quite a few Shards, but that isn't really a feasible idea.
- You would of course assume that UO is "dying" if you played a shard like Oceania in 2004 and play Oceania in 2011. Talk about once having a healthy population.... now its a relative ghost town.


OVERALL:

Been reading the same exact thread for 10 yrs.

FAIL

You seem out of the loop friend. Here, let me help you out. Last year, Cal, the producer, drug out the classic shard debate for the ENTIRE YEAR and even an extra 3 months. They decided "not right now." So, instead they are trying to make some graphical changes and enhance the new player experience so they obviously are going the route of trying to bring new players in.

UO's staying power the last 5-6 years had little to do with its ability to bring in new players. It had much to do with people staying because of the large investments they have in the game. A large percentage of active accounts fall into categories of players with multiple accounts, and people keeping accounts open to hold land and items. Those players aren't going anywhere any time soon.

But the game is a business, they need to think of new ways to make money... especially if the amount of money they are making is going down due to accounts closing. Cruising isn't going to cut it, they need to increase profit, not decrease it. Keeping the game as is will not do that, they need to make some changes. They have decided for now a classic shard is not their best option, but it may be revisited some day. For now, they are going to seek new players to increase profit. Will it work? Only time will tell.

 

[Kael]

@ Longforge

You have touched on the real opposition imho to a Classic shard. People will move from different shards to this Classic shard and it will make some shards even slower than they presently are. Is it much more healthier for the UO environment for people to become more disgruntled over time and quit than actually pay to play on a classic shard

@ Woodsman

Its not that Classic supporters are giving up on the ability of UO to compete with other MMO's. Rather we love the original game and feel that it can help UO compete with all the rest of the games out there

 

[Woodsman]

Its not that Classic supporters are giving up on the ability of UO to compete with other MMO's. Rather we love the original game and feel that it can help UO compete with all the rest of the games out there

They've made it clear that a Classic shard is not going to happen anytime soon. We are going to get an art update, new player experience, a new quest system, and a BioWare UO t-shirt long before we get a Classic shard.

Because of that, the Classic supporters should be supporting Siege and Mugen players, just like the free to players should be supporting a longer trial or some kind of better or ongoing "Return to Sosaria" program because both of those are much more realistic and can be worked on in the here and now. It was either on UO Forums or UO Journal that somebody made a good comment about EA should have an ongoing "Return to Sosaria" plan for anybody who has been gone for a least a year or two - give them a free month at anytime rather than very infrequently.

Not you, but some people, when it comes to Classic and F2P, have this "all or nothing" attitude, and they give the impression that if they don't get 100% of what they want, they are going to walk away from the game or ignore anything that is said, when there are avenues in which they could currently work to support the game they claim to love that could mesh with their ideas. If Siege and Mugen were bursting at the seams, it would be very easy for the devs to ask EA for the resources to work on a Classic shard. An expanded trial account program and a better "Return to Sosaria" would go a long ways towards accomplishing some of the goals that F2Pers have.

 

[Dakkon Blackblade]

To be clear I want UO to burn, I can't wait for the day they kill it and all of the "they been sayin dat fer years" crowd cry their crocodile tears while I lick them up.

I would not leave the free shard I play on now if Cal turned a 360 and announced classic were coming tommorow. Many older players who wanted it have simply become disenfranchised with the idea, they feel played with and lied to and now they are just like screw EA we have better options for free.

 

[Tazar]

I think we are well beyond the limits of Item B from the Rules of Conduct.

B. Help build the Community.
The success of our forums depends upon the quality posts of our participants. We are proud of the success of our forums and give our thanks to those who have chosen to make our forums their out-of-game home. To ensure continued success we are posting these guidelines so that all participants of the Stratics forums understand what is considered unacceptable behavior in the forums and can result in a temporary suspension or a permanent ban.