• Hail Guest!
    We're looking for Community Content Contribuitors to Stratics. If you would like to write articles, fan fiction, do guild or shard event recaps, it's simple. Find out how in this thread: Community Contributions
  • Greetings Guest, Having Login Issues? Check this thread!
  • Hail Guest!,
    Please take a moment to read this post reminding you all of the importance of Account Security.
  • Hail Guest!
    Please read the new announcement concerning the upcoming addition to Stratics. You can find the announcement Here!

Ultima Online 2 - 2006 (From Origin Systems!)

G

georgemarvin2001

Guest
@Roland:
First, thanks for the info about using the Pinco mod to re-size the hotbars. For anybody who doesn't know about it, if you open user settings>actions>Pinco's UI, it's toward the bottom of the list. I had totally overlooked the icon for it.
P.S.: It would be great if somebody made a convenient list of all the features in the Pinco mod and how to find and use them.

Pinco's mods will make EC MUCH easier to use. I made the compartments for stuff like health, mana, stamina, etc. about twice as large so that they are more easily readable. I left the hotbars for spells their current size. I might even scale down the size of the hotbar that I will use for the menu stuff; I won't use it constantly, so it can be really small, in an out-of-the-way corner.

I also changed the default zoom like the sticky at the top of the EC forum suggested, so the graphics don't look quite so crappy now. The problem is, why didn't the devs do simple stuff like that themselves? It would have taken them a few minutes to make the client much more functional.
However, there are still some major issues with the client.

1. My character is centered on the screen; not easy to look away every time he casts a spell. They should have an easy toggle button so we can toggle spell effects on and off, or just don't make effects that are bright flashes of light in the first place.

DIRECT QUOTE from Pinco: Unfortunately the spell effects cannot be disabled... so I hope you are not epileptic or the earthquake could kill you

That is NOT encouraging, regarding the future of the EC, as those annoying spell effects hurt my eyes and give me a headache. A simple on/off toggle would make the EC much more user friendly for the hundreds of people who try it and just simply can't use it because it hurts their eyes. I CAN'T play a mage using the EC because of those bright white spell effects; 10 minutes and I have to go take 3 or 4 aspirin for a migraine. That's why my treasure hunter has to switch back and forth like 10 times for a chest; I need the EC to check out the items and see if there's anything worth keeping, then switch to the CC to fight the monsters, since he's a mage.

2. Most of us don't want to spend weeks figuring out how to make the new client as functional as the old one. If any of the devs had been playing UO, they should have realized that they needed to make a new client that, in terms of functionality, was easy to figure out and worked similarly to the old client. Giving us a new client that doesn't function like the old one is like telling somebody to use the more efficient Dvorak keyboard after he has typed all his life on a Qwerty. If you give somebody who has never seen a keyboard before the Dvorak, he can type faster with it. But an old typist who has been using Qwerty all his life will never be able to type as fast on a Dvorak.

3. We're all in agreement that the EC could use some much higher-res graphics. The original UO graphics were ahead of their time in 1997, but that was nearly 14 years ago.

The problem with 3rd dawn wasn't the graphics, it was memory leaks, crashes and and overall poor performance. By the time they had fixed a few of the worst problems, most of us had already given up on it.

Unfortunately, that will probably be the fate of the EC. I can't really see UO surviving much longer if we don't either move forward to a modern client, a more new-player-friendly combat system, a less confusing armor and weapons system, new eye candy, etc., or back to a pure classic, pre-AOS game, which was about skills and groups of players working together, not about graphics, uber items and eye candy.

Both wouldn't be so bad. Maybe change the ruleset on the deserted shards to make them pure classic, never-changing PvP shards, where everybody can only use the CC, and they would use pre-AOS combat rules and systems.
And fix the EC and bring it up to date for the rest of us, so the people who like the current item-based combat system, all the eye candy, and don't want to take the chance of getting PK'ed while doing PvM, will start bringing some of their friends from other games to UO.
 
W

Woodsman

Guest
As far as the spell effects, maybe try this:

User Settings -> Graphics -> Particle Detail

Would "Low" turn down a lot of those effects?

User Settings -> Graphics -> Particle Filter

This I'm not sure about, but maybe turn it off as well ("None" I believe)
 

Gheed

Certifiable
Stratics Veteran
Stratics Legend
New blood.. new players that is where KR/EC failed. Blaming the CC players feels wrong... is wrong. But you can't really go buying time slots on prime time to go on a rant blaming the millions of other gamers who didn't want to play it either now can you? Easier just to blame the CC folks I guess.
 
C

canary

Guest
New blood.. new players that is where KR/EC failed. Blaming the CC players feels wrong... is wrong. But you can't really go buying time slots on prime time to go on a rant blaming the millions of other gamers who didn't want to play it either now can you? Easier just to blame the CC folks I guess.
Well it appears that there is two types of CC users.

Die hard CC enthusiasts are the first type. Those that love it because it IS the CC, it is what was around in 1997 and by golly that's what they love. They are in love with the look of the client. If anything would be upgraded, they would rather not play UO at all if it meant sacrificing said client.

The second type (of which I am one) are those who prefer the CC over the EC, but would dump both in a heartbeat for a slick, professionally done, working client. They do not love the CC, but they were not impressed with the EC either, and if only given that choice stay with the CC. There are many reasons why.

For myself, I do not like the way the game world 'waves' as I run and objects seem to flicker. I do not like the art on the paperdolls. The zoom function in the EC makes the game look like Atari circa 1984. I do not like any of the leftover KR artwork that still is in the EC. I find that the CC provides me, if having a choice, with more of what I want. Yes, I'm aware that many modders have made the EC experience more palatable. I still prefer the CC until the time comes that we get something done well. In its state (even now) the EC, to me, is not what I want to use.

Regarding art in UO KR, I am still floored that at no point does it appear the art directors said: 'You know what? This is ugly, and we can do it better.' There seemed to be absolutely zero care put into the art (squatting paper dolls, for example... really??). Yes, there were a few nice pieces, but overall there were an amazing amount of complaints of the game world looking blurry and washed out, and when that many people start to object... people who pay your bills, even... you might want to listen.

I was part of the beta. I know that many of the issues brought up regarding the KR client were outright ignored. It was bizarre. And sadly, the client has languished since inception... which in reality if they did the job they should have, it would have been embraced by a higher percentage than it was.
 

HD2300

Certifiable
Stratics Veteran
Stratics Legend
Well it appears that there is two types of CC users.

Die hard CC enthusiasts are the first type. Those that love it because it IS the CC, it is what was around in 1997 and by golly that's what they love. They are in love with the look of the client. If anything would be upgraded, they would rather not play UO at all if it meant sacrificing said client.

The second type (of which I am one) are those who prefer the CC over the EC, but would dump both in a heartbeat for a slick, professionally done, working client. They do not love the CC, but they were not impressed with the EC either, and if only given that choice stay with the CC. There are many reasons why.

For myself, I do not like the way the game world 'waves' as I run and objects seem to flicker. I do not like the art on the paperdolls. The zoom function in the EC makes the game look like Atari circa 1984. I do not like any of the leftover KR artwork that still is in the EC. I find that the CC provides me, if having a choice, with more of what I want. Yes, I'm aware that many modders have made the EC experience more palatable. I still prefer the CC until the time comes that we get something done well. In its state (even now) the EC, to me, is not what I want to use.

Regarding art in UO KR, I am still floored that at no point does it appear the art directors said: 'You know what? This is ugly, and we can do it better.' There seemed to be absolutely zero care put into the art (squatting paper dolls, for example... really??). Yes, there were a few nice pieces, but overall there were an amazing amount of complaints of the game world looking blurry and washed out, and when that many people start to object... people who pay your bills, even... you might want to listen.

I was part of the beta. I know that many of the issues brought up regarding the KR client were outright ignored. It was bizarre. And sadly, the client has languished since inception... which in reality if they did the job they should have, it would have been embraced by a higher percentage than it was.
Yes. It is silly to expect CC users to rush to use the EC, when the graphics in the EC are blurrier versions of the CC graphics. It has to be better, not worse, otherwise why would anyone move across.

It is like expecting XBox players to all rush out to play a Commodore 64 instead.

EA should dump the EC, and use the Dragon Age II client.
 

Dermott of LS

UOEC Modder
Stratics Veteran
Stratics Legend
...

You'll find that that is one of the biggest and foremost complaints even the EC users have is that they downgraded the graphical quality because they HAD to try and compromise and put in the CC graphics and it doesn't work. The EC default resolution is different than the CC Native resolution, and without any form of internal scaling, everything gets pixelated and distorted.

I don't know that the devs need to invest in yet another client package and start (again) from ground zero, but they do need to spend the time to improve what they already have because Gamebryo can go a LOT further than where things are set right now... KR was proof of that.
 

HD2300

Certifiable
Stratics Veteran
Stratics Legend
...

You'll find that that is one of the biggest and foremost complaints even the EC users have is that they downgraded the graphical quality because they HAD to try and compromise and put in the CC graphics and it doesn't work. The EC default resolution is different than the CC Native resolution, and without any form of internal scaling, everything gets pixelated and distorted.

I don't know that the devs need to invest in yet another client package and start (again) from ground zero, but they do need to spend the time to improve what they already have because Gamebryo can go a LOT further than where things are set right now... KR was proof of that.
The Devs said that they had to downgrade KR cause graphics chips couldnt handle it. That means it is a problem with the Gamebryo engine in "2D" when there are lots of mobiles or something else.

Conceptually having a client with better graphics is the way to go. However after 4-5 years of getting nowhere, it is really time to dump the Gamebryo engine and use something better like the Dragon Age II engine.
 

Dermott of LS

UOEC Modder
Stratics Veteran
Stratics Legend
...

Well one thing, that was 2-3 years ago now and even then with a midgrade (for the time, now horribly out of date) GeForce card, it would run ok. Anything GeForce 7xxx and up should be fine. If people don't want to upgrade at least that far, then I can't really help them.

Secondly, I wonder how much of that had to do with the decision to be backwards from the 3d client by going back to the stop motion style of animation instead of using the ploygon/skin system.

The BIGGEST problem with ALL of the new clients has been the "Get it to 75-80% and then ignore it for years on end" game that has been played 3 times in a row now.

Doesn't matter what client engine they use if they don't get the job done both on a functional and on a visual level.
 
C

canary

Guest
Doesn't matter what client engine they use if they don't get the job done both on a functional and on a visual level.
Indeed.

And, Dermott, I know you just adore that KR banana tree, but the fact of the matter is that a wide percentage of UO players hated the KR art. H. A. T. E. D. And its not even a matter of 'I want my CC art!'... it's just that they disliked the KR art itself.

It was also a bad idea to render much of the new art in a way that was not compatible to the old CC art. Gorgets look bizarre. Sandals look different. Static backpack items and common items in general lacked 'sharpness' that the art in the CC had. I mean, statue busts turned into blobs. Snowglobes became... whatever that is. And honestly...? That's plain unacceptable.

That said, I don't think adopting the CC art was a good step. They should have had a team of artists reworking what was already in there (the KR client) to make it more readily acceptable by the majority of the players.

Like the stirrings of adopting the CC paperdolls into the EC client. It should never had to happen in the first place. The artists of the KR client and art director should have ensured a product that would be greeted readily by the largest percentage of people be made available.

They didn't. Well, they half did by releasing a new female paperdoll (with its own problems), one that stuck out like a sore thumb next to the KR monkey man.
 

Dermott of LS

UOEC Modder
Stratics Veteran
Stratics Legend
...

The items were a problem, mainly in that many of the equipment pieces were do DRASTICALLY different from the Legacy versions, or in some cases seemed to have been swapped within themselves (studded and ringmail leggings I KNOW were a mixup because I was ENDLESSLY grabbing the studded leggings in loot when I was trying for metal pieces).

It's not just the banana tree that I miss but most if not all of the plant artwork from KR, the banana tree just showed what really was possible in terms of quality.

Early on, the artwork WAS in bad shape, but before KR was canned, they had cleared up the artwork considerably and really only needed to finish that job.

I've gone over in other threads what I think the best mix would be, it's not as easy as "Use Legacy graphics" or "Use KR graphics" because they each have their advatages and disadvantages, some look better, some worse, etc.

At the very least, when redoing KR into EC, they should have retained the KR artwork for use as a High Resolution option (just flip the artwork option they had in KR so that it defaulted to Legacy but allowed you to run KR graphics) so people who COULD run the higher resolution had that option.

As for paperdolls, no argument there although I don;t see going to the 2d versions as an improvement either. Tweak the female model a little and revamp the male model and keep it as an Enhanced paperdoll. The Legacy paperdoll would run into the same problem that Legacy containers do in the EC... they are REDICULOUSLY tiny on a modern monitor.
 
C

canary

Guest
Interesting enough, Grimm was very anti 'black line' around objects in the KR client.

Have you ever seen Champions Online? The art in there also is 'black lined' with a toggle to remove (the black line similar to the lines that are around CC art pieces), so you can have it both ways.

It's a shame when deciding a course of at action they didn't do that. I think that not having that implemented was a mistake, personally... but also that if you would have a toggle, everyone would win. I think that it was a definite art mistake, and when you essentially have LOTS of players asking for a certain feature, him saying 'Well this is how _I_ like it' should actually be more like 'Well, if players want it, its something we should definitely be looking into'. After all, again... it was imperative that the highest amount of players adopt the new client. And they didn't. For the most part they stayed away in droves, and what I believe is a very high percentage still do.

I think as a whole, for a game that prides itself on being able to be customized (modding the UI aside), UO definitely does fail in that aspect.

I too would love a toggle for the KR art. And hey, black line ability. But I also would have went and used actual 3d models locked in isometric (if you can't have straight up 3d client). 3d models have come a long way in the past few years.
 

Dermott of LS

UOEC Modder
Stratics Veteran
Stratics Legend
...

I'm right with you on the black lines thing, I remember when (I want to say it was Crysta?) did the comparison of a screenshot in KR with and without the black lines and the difference it made.

Of course by the same token, the end result of KR was nothing like the early screenshots either and I would have preferred the earlier trees to even the KR trees (however I think the earliest screenshots were done when they were going to go away from the tile-based system and thus were removed when they went back to tile-based).

Either way, it's not that I'm saying that KR artwork was perfect, but it was in many ways an improvement (and in many others NOT).

The biggest problem though remains the lack of followthrough... that trumps any and every argument we might have on the particulars. Regardless of how good a new client looks, if you leave it in "beta" or a half-completed "release" for years at a time, you're not going to get new blood interested (or older accounts re-interested for that matter).

And I can't fault the dev team 100% on that... not that I don't fault them at all, they share quite a burden as well... because they really get jacked over by EA it seems just when we start thinking that we might see a client that will finally reach the level we expect to see, but really that doesn't justify or excuse months and years of lack of attention either.
 

Roland of Atlantic

Journeyman
Stratics Veteran
Stratics Legend
1. My character is centered on the screen; not easy to look away every time he casts a spell. They should have an easy toggle button so we can toggle spell effects on and off, or just don't make effects that are bright flashes of light in the first place.

DIRECT QUOTE from Pinco: Unfortunately the spell effects cannot be disabled... so I hope you are not epileptic or the earthquake could kill you

That is NOT encouraging, regarding the future of the EC, as those annoying spell effects hurt my eyes and give me a headache. A simple on/off toggle would make the EC much more user friendly for the hundreds of people who try it and just simply can't use it because it hurts their eyes. I CAN'T play a mage using the EC because of those bright white spell effects; 10 minutes and I have to go take 3 or 4 aspirin for a migraine. That's why my treasure hunter has to switch back and forth like 10 times for a chest; I need the EC to check out the items and see if there's anything worth keeping, then switch to the CC to fight the monsters, since he's a mage.
I understand that, and see where you are coming from. I was absent for a couple years, and came back straight into the EC client, and frankly I thought the effects were a bit wild too. Granted I don't play my mage much, but when I do, I don't suffer any ill effects. This seems to suggest that it will get better as you become accustomed to it. Try the partical filters that someone mentioned, maybe that will give some relief. That being said, I think they were going for impressive with the mage effects, as they should, because mages are supposed to be slinging around impressive lightning bolts and flashy explosions that are intended to harm enemies in spectacular ways. They seem to fall a little short of optimum in the implementation, and are creating headaches instead. LOL

I do regret that Pinco was unable to change the effects, because his updates come usually within one to two days of the request for anything he can control. If he could have done anything about that issue, he would have about 20 minutes after someone mentioned it to him. It's a shame our devs can't mirror that. When one man can flip things that fast, why can't an experienced team keep things improving? The dev team might think EC is perfect because they don't get any constructive feedback about it.

2. Most of us don't want to spend weeks figuring out how to make the new client as functional as the old one. If any of the devs had been playing UO, they should have realized that they needed to make a new client that, in terms of functionality, was easy to figure out and worked similarly to the old client.
Well, you definitely have a point there. I don't think they could make it completely identical to the CC in menus and such, particularly with the macro menu, but the least that they could do was create a help menu or a walkthrough video showing you step by step how to make the system work so you can set yourself up and get functional in EC quickly and efficiently. That is truly lacking.

The problem with 3rd dawn wasn't the graphics, it was memory leaks, crashes and and overall poor performance. By the time they had fixed a few of the worst problems, most of us had already given up on it.
100% true. This is the reason why many aren't using the EC now. Some would balk because of previously mentioned deficiencies, but many tried the bugged, crashing, not even close to functional version when it first came out, were inevitably dissappointed with it, and it doesn't matter what you say about it now, they still will see it as non-functional. This is why they should completely finish something before players even lay eyes on it. Who wants to play worse on what is supposedly an upgrade?

I can't really see UO surviving much longer if we don't either move forward to a modern client, a more new-player-friendly combat system, a less confusing armor and weapons system, new eye candy, etc., or back to a pure classic, pre-AOS game, which was about skills and groups of players working together, not about graphics, uber items and eye candy.
One of those suggestions will save UO, and one will doom it. Both implemented together would be great. Options:

1. Create a classic shard with pre-AOS rules, and secure the client so it can't be used with hacks and UOAssist won't work on it, because you can't have your cake and eat it too. That should satisfy some of the long time players that long for the old days.

2. For (in my humble opinion) the vast majority of the others, recreate this game with current technology and bring it TASTEFULLY and COMPLETELY into the future.

If they do nothing, we are doomed, if they take option 1, we are doomed, for the same reasons. We can't stay profitable on loyal old timers, without new players.

If they take option 2, the game will be saved, because new players will be impressed with the visuals enough to stay around and be impressed with the gameplay and depth. Many old players would take this in stride and will play it, first because they will create tutorials on how to make the transition, and any bugs will be gone when it is ready for unveiling (for once, please!), and second, because CC and EC will not be there to lean on like a crutch. They will actually carefully listen to player feedback and implement changes in a timely fashion.

The BIGGEST problem with ALL of the new clients has been the "Get it to 75-80% and then ignore it for years on end" game that has been played 3 times in a row now. Doesn't matter what client engine they use if they don't get the job done both on a functional and on a visual level.
You hit that one just right. It's better if they get the beta bugs out before they release it, but if they can't, they need to be ON IT with patches, implemented daily, like Pinco does, until it's DONE. There are plenty of things that could be improved on EC, and many of them are one day projects, that if the devs listened to what was being said, and put into effect, would make it work so much better. But I honestly think they ruined any chance of it lasting by releasing it before it was not even close to palatable, with no setup instructions. Everyone tried it and dumped it before it got good enough to warrant attention.
 
K

Karthogen

Guest
interesting discussion on what 'could a', 'would a', 'should a' been but the reality of it is we have the game they gave us and you will either choose to play or not.

The way I look at what EA has done with UO is this.
They saw a cash cow, they bought a cash cow, and now they are milking that cash cow for everything it's worth with as little effort as possible.

I am sure the Dev's are wanting bigger and better things for UO as they are the ones pooring their heart in to the code they write. But if the Wallet upstairs will not give you any funding then your stuck with what you have and you make the best of it. One can oly hope that eventually EA will Realize this Cash cow could be huge with the right backing, or EA decides it is not worth it anymore and sells it to an upstart Development company that has high hopes with big backing.
 

HD2300

Certifiable
Stratics Veteran
Stratics Legend
UO needs a 3D client. If EA wants to bring in new players that is what UO needs.

Improvements to the EC just wont cut it. Maybe after a lot of work, eventually they can get 80% of existing players to use the EC instead of the CC, but it just wont bring in new players.

What is the point of spending more time on the EC, when it will never bring in new players? It is far better to start on another client that will.
 
K

Karthogen

Guest
Developing an entire new client would cost a lot of money, they would loose some of their old players with that big of a change and it would be a risk to see if new players would actually come in with the reputation UO now has in the gaming community.

Ideally I would liek for that to happen but, I don't see anyway EA would make that decision.
 
W

Woodsman

Guest
UO needs a 3D client.
Technically it has a 3D client - that's why the EC runs so smooth on modern netbooks and older laptops and desktops - it's using hardware acceleration. Unfortunately, it's pushing out older artwork and that's a style problem. I do agree with you that in addition to the artwork, something needs to be done with the client.

The problem is that if EA started over on a new client, how many years would that take. I kind of have the mindset that if they started over a new client, with the resources the dev team currently has, we would be facing at least a few more years of getting to where we are at now. We've been through this too many times. There is also the risk of EA wimping out again and allowing two clients to be active. It's useless to develop a new client if they are going to support the old as well, because that ties up resources across the board, especially if they started on a new graphics/artwork plan.

They had the right idea with Third Dawn - make the new content only accessible to the new client. The problem is they weren't aggressive enough and backed down.
 
C

canary

Guest
They had the right idea with Third Dawn - make the new content only accessible to the new client. The problem is they weren't aggressive enough and backed down.
Well, it didnt help that Third Dawn when released created MASSIVE lag on most computers. It was like running in clay or mud. People were turned off and never returned.
 

Dermott of LS

UOEC Modder
Stratics Veteran
Stratics Legend
...

Third Dawn was simply an idea too far ahead of its time. It was idea more for 2005 than 2001/2002, one geared more towards Geforce 5xxx and later than Geforce 2 and Geforce 4.

It was a step forward, but one that was probably TOO big at the time.
 

Roland of Atlantic

Journeyman
Stratics Veteran
Stratics Legend
Well, it didnt help that Third Dawn when released created MASSIVE lag on most computers. It was like running in clay or mud. People were turned off and never returned.
And, like everything else they release, it was released at about 75% ready status. It was bugged, barely playable, probably had a massive memory leak, etc. They still haven't learned from that. They still keep releasing things before they are good enough to be truly stable. How long was it after they released high seas until the pirate bugs were ironed out?... ARE the pirate bugs ironed out yet?
 
W

Woodsman

Guest
Developing an entire new client would cost a lot of money, they would loose some of their old players with that big of a change and it would be a risk to see if new players would actually come in with the reputation UO now has in the gaming community.

Ideally I would liek for that to happen but, I don't see anyway EA would make that decision.
The only other solution is to just let it stagnant and limp along until they shut it down. There is a point at which EA will pull the plug, and EA's CEO and top executives have laid out a new gameplan earlier this month that involves the company focusing on fewer/bigger/better titles, and UO and DAOC do not fit into that scheme.

I don't think UO will be like Warhammer where they just start merging and shutting down shards/servers, because I believe UO is run very efficiently on the server side as far as cost and resources used. Otherwise, some of the lower-populated shards would have already been closed down - UO did lose 66% of subscriptions between 2003 and 2008, which would have been a prime time to shut down some shards. Warhammer took a lot more resources, and so when Warhammer servers started shutting down, in addition to the numbers of subs being released, people knew that it was in trouble.

That's the problem - there won't be any warning signs other than layoffs and reassignments among the UO devs, and so it's a lot harder to judge the health of UO, especially for players who don't pay attention to the company or fansites, and especially because EA has a history of laying off people at the end of the year, or making cuts in projects because other projects hurt the company's bottom line. If you were a Warhammer player who was oblivious to what goes on at EA, you would still know things were bad when you got the emails about servers being shut down.

With UO, that probably wouldn't happen - we will just get a note that says UO was being shut down.

EA is a for-profit company, and UO/DAOC don't fit into their fewer/bigger/better plan. UO can't keep relying on people like me coming back and reactivating their accounts to make up for people who leave.

I think UO will survive through 2012 - that is the 15th anniversary and EA will probably try to milk it for all its worth, but I know it won't make it to the 20th.

EA seems to be on a path of letting it stagnate and trying to keep the diehards around, and that's not a healthy path. At the current rate, the last year or two of UO will see a dev team whose only purpose is to fix bugs and keep the servers running and maybe some EMs (probably shared heavily between the shards). There won't be new content added. That's probably the point at which we'll know that the end is not far away - if it goes six months without any new content being added, or we see dev team layoffs with no word on replacements, and the only thing they talk about is bug fixes.

Before anybody says "we've been hearing UO will be shut down for years and it's still around", it lost 66% of its subscriptions between 2003 and 2008, and since the 2008 numbers, it's probably lost a good third. You just can't keep doing that and think that UO will somehow survive, at least not under EA. It's financially impossible. When you have hundreds of thousands of subscriptions, you can take a double-digit hit on the percentage of players. When you are down to tens of thousands of subscribers, you just can't do it. You just can't, especially if EA is having problems within the MMORPG group like they've had with Warhammer. UO is going to have less wiggle room than in the past thanks to the failure of Warhammer.

And EA won't sell off UO either - they have a huge stable of IP that they've paid for over the past 20 years, and they simply don't sell that stuff off casually. They'll just stop developing that IP and pretend it doesn't exist - ask Wing Commander/Privateer fans. Some have theorized that EA is afraid of selling off their IP because other companies might take it and do it right and make a bunch of money, embarrassing EA, but I don't think it's that complex. I think it's a matter of once EA owns something, that's pretty much it. They would have to be paid a lot of money to let go of something. I believe it's happened, but they received a lot of money and other things in return, and I don't see that happening now. Ultima is dead to them, especially after Ultima IX and then the cancellation of Ultima X. "Lord of Ultima" is only using the Ultima name because EA wanted to hop into social gaming and it was free for them to slap it on. I half expect a social gaming version of Privateer.
 
W

Woodsman

Guest
...

Third Dawn was simply an idea too far ahead of its time. It was idea more for 2005 than 2001/2002, one geared more towards Geforce 5xxx and later than Geforce 2 and Geforce 4.

It was a step forward, but one that was probably TOO big at the time.
Which is ironic, because once upon a time Origin was known for pushing the limits of hardware. Now Ultima represents the ultimate in staying on old hardware.
 

Dermott of LS

UOEC Modder
Stratics Veteran
Stratics Legend
...

Agreed. Up through KR they pushed hardware, EC was specifically designed to go BACKWARDS in this regard.
 
J

jaashua

Guest
The problem is that if EA started over on a new client, how many years would that take.
LOL. You realize this is Mythic now. These guys can whip out a new client in a matter of months. I have zero doubt if they started on models for the new client right now, they'd be done for the holiday season this year.

You go back and look at DAOC. The amount of artwork they tapped out for that game, INCLUDING a complete reworking of the client and every single model at some point, should tell you all you need to know about the capabilities of their art department. Given that UO probably has a higher player base than both their previous two active MMOs combined, I would assume the cost would be worth it to spend the time to potentially bring UO into the limelight of the MMO market.... a market now 100x bigger than when UO was originally released and is astoundingly lacking in games with the immense depth of UO.
 
Top