-
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!
- Status
No it's just easier then arguing with him..I didn't even realize who I was responding to till the second post..then it was just like oh..foot meet mouth it's useless...
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I think you need to remove that "fact" from your book. http://www.meridian59.com/ (released 1996) And I'm sure if I tired I could find some MUDS running longer, but they aren't techincally MMOs by today's standards.
If "Potential market" wasn't so important than why is the entire industry transitioning to free to play? Players can play free and there is the chance they will never buy anything. Some do, some don't. Some people playing free to play games have never spent a cent on them and yet the games thrive on those that choose to buy. So once again, if potential is such an unreliable factor, why is the industry at large embracing it?
Just because free shard players aren't paying UO subscribers, there is no need to ignore their opinions because they can be won back if the service they want is provided.
Many free shards live on donations and already have a F2P model in place. And you can easily tell that people pay because tons of people have items that can only be obtained by spending money. Some have been around over 10 years at this point, almost as long as production UO itself. Do some research and investigate before assuming they are just a waste of money and time. Hosting servers costs almost nothing these days, hell they admitted they don't even have real servers anymore in that UO meeting, since the UO servers have been moved to the cloud.
Last edited:
People who play on FreeShards do not want to play UO. They want to play the game that the freeshards offer. I'd go into more details why but that discussion is further off topic than this thread has gone and is discussed ad nausum in other places. Getting UO green lighted will NOT bring freesharders over. It will, however, bring new players in.
Yeah I suppose you're right this topic has gone off course. But even if its gets greenlit the sub model is turning off potential players. *shrug*
The PRICE of the sub model is. It's more expensive per month than some other MMOs. I've been playing EVE Online for free based on the charity of other players for a few years now.... (Point on target, ransom ransom ransom)
Put yourself in the new customers shoes..the "modern gamers"
-12.99 a month
-dated graphics
-small dev team with no plans of future expansions
-small player base
-no real marketing
-other games are offering incentives and are FTP
...would you sign up? And why?
Maybe you'll get one out of a thousand..the market we are currently trying to grab are old UO players ones that have quit..so we are most definetly targeting current/past free shard players..not 15-18 yr old gamers..I can't even get my 17yr old to log in on my account for free to try it..his first impression is..that looks like crap.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-12.99 a month
-dated graphics
-small dev team with no plans of future expansions
-small player base
-no real marketing
-other games are offering incentives and are FTP
...would you sign up? And why?
Maybe you'll get one out of a thousand..the market we are currently trying to grab are old UO players ones that have quit..so we are most definetly targeting current/past free shard players..not 15-18 yr old gamers..I can't even get my 17yr old to log in on my account for free to try it..his first impression is..that looks like crap.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Yes, yes, make your snide little personal attack. I, on the other hand, knew who I was replying to, and the kind of non-answer answer I'd get.
When you address what I said, particularly that companies are not in the business of losing money for the sake of nostalgia, let me know.
Cazador already explained the funding structure. And as I asked, how well would that work out for EA to depend on "donations"? Once again, that'll work for a small development team putting out a stream of similar F2P games, but not a major entity like EA that wants steady revenue.
I never said anything about "just a waste of money and time." Where did you get that? And as far as what it costs to host all the shards at AWS (strictly speaking not "moved to the cloud" as far as players are concerned because the servers were already in "the cloud" from our perspective), I doubt EA will tell us. It's also besides the point that I'm making.
Put yourself in the new customers shoes..the "modern gamers"
-12.99 a month
-dated graphics
-small dev team with no plans of future expansions
-small player base
-no real marketing
-other games are offering incentives and are FTP
...would you sign up? And why?
Maybe you'll get one out of a thousand..the market we are currently trying to grab are old UO players ones that have quit..so we are most definetly targeting current/past free shard players..not 15-18 yr old gamers..I can't even get my 17yr old to log in on my account for free to try it..his first
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-12.99 a month
-dated graphics
-small dev team with no plans of future expansions
-small player base
-no real marketing
-other games are offering incentives and are FTP
...would you sign up? And why?
Maybe you'll get one out of a thousand..the market we are currently trying to grab are old UO players ones that have quit..so we are most definetly targeting current/past free shard players..not 15-18 yr old gamers..I can't even get my 17yr old to log in on my account for free to try it..his first
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
M59 hasn't been active the whole time from 1996 to now, it went dark for a while.
LOL WHUT? How is a 16 year old game, one that is accredited for laying the ground work to make the industry what it is today, one that is often taught, discussed, and referenced in many conferences, and put many people into the jobs they have today NOT ready for the public eye? When I started my career in the gaming industry in 2009 the entire company was based on how cool UO was. I was hired because of the exposure UO had brought me since 1998 (and Stratics too!). My boss's boss is a friend of Richard Garriot and worked with him many times in the past. This isn't some game in pre-alpha shaking out the bugs, it's a well vetted game that desires all the exposure it can get. Sure there are bugs, but who cares? While this game still lives and breathes and is operated by someone willing to develop for it, it would be a CRIME to NOT putting it out in the public's eye is as much as physically possible.
You know what, I haven't ranted this long in a while. If you are troll, good job, if not then I hope you understand where I am coming from because you are so far off the mark. If you are seriously worried about problems with the game then a larger player base that brings in more money is just more reasons to fix these issues.
Things change. Usability improves. Graphics improve. People take things for granted, which they got used to over the years as games evolved, which UO cannot provide.
The small dev team has to maintain two clients as long as the client wars go on.
Economy is is borked. Scripters are running rampant.
It's still a great game, but yeah, the question, if it really is ready for the public eye, is justified IMHO.
Taylor
Former Stratics CEO (2011-2014)
VIP
Alumni
Supporter
Stratics Veteran
Stratics Legend
UNLEASHED
Campaign Benefactor
I hear what you're saying. There's truth to it--could be a challenge to make it appeal to completely new players when they compare it to flashier MMOs. Could be impossible.
But I think their market isn't new players, I think it's former ones. I own FFVII on Steam, which was also released in 1997 and has had no graphics changes. I bought it because of nostalgia and had fun rediscovering it. Worth a shot, imo.
But I think their market isn't new players, I think it's former ones. I own FFVII on Steam, which was also released in 1997 and has had no graphics changes. I bought it because of nostalgia and had fun rediscovering it. Worth a shot, imo.
I agree. Get rid of the EC and all the post-LBR shoehorned in ugly ass graphics "upgrades"
I voted No.
Honestly people think about it. Basically all they are trying to do is remind people UO exists by getting it's name out. They are doing nothing to bring back the players who quit UO for a reason. $12.99 for an outdated, empty rundown game. Who are the people who quit the game, and who remains? It's been mainly the pvp base that has left the game, and Trammies are those who remain.
What are they doing to bring back pvpers? Are they opening a Pre-AOS server? Have they balanced pvp? Is it still all RNG based dex monkey heavy? Is there something new, and worth while to fight for? Are pvp templates still extremely limited due to changes to tactics/ninjitsu/bushido, and casting with specials toggled? Pvpers still limited to only fel while the rest of the player base is scattered between 4 other lands making it even more barren?
The game is not worth looking at from a pvpers stand for $12.99 a month. It's hardly worth playing even if it was FTP in it's current pvp state.
$12.99 on steam...
Honestly people think about it. Basically all they are trying to do is remind people UO exists by getting it's name out. They are doing nothing to bring back the players who quit UO for a reason. $12.99 for an outdated, empty rundown game. Who are the people who quit the game, and who remains? It's been mainly the pvp base that has left the game, and Trammies are those who remain.
What are they doing to bring back pvpers? Are they opening a Pre-AOS server? Have they balanced pvp? Is it still all RNG based dex monkey heavy? Is there something new, and worth while to fight for? Are pvp templates still extremely limited due to changes to tactics/ninjitsu/bushido, and casting with specials toggled? Pvpers still limited to only fel while the rest of the player base is scattered between 4 other lands making it even more barren?
The game is not worth looking at from a pvpers stand for $12.99 a month. It's hardly worth playing even if it was FTP in it's current pvp state.
$12.99 on steam...
Last edited:
Awesome Idea!
Since the CC is on a steady decline and the EC catched up to 50% already, let's scare away half of the playerbase!
loooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooool
Aran made probably the best argument and I really do agree with him. He stated it like an adult and not a child throwing a hissy as well.
Most of your premises are incorrect in ways I've addressed in other posts. The amount of attention paid to PvP by the team underestimated, the amount of interest in PvP and in the PvP-oriented free shards exaggerated. This is territory that's been gone over many a time.
-Galen's player
-Galen's player
I think UO has a decent shot at attracting old players via Steam actually. The nostalgia among old time players is pretty strong and UO's name tends to pop up frequently around the net in the old "What is the best game you've ever played?" or "What is your fondest gaming memory?" threads. The old demands for shards reverted to a particular version of the game have been around since the start of MMOs and they're not unique to UO and are never taken seriously.
I've been waiting a few years for either a Return to Britannia promo or a revision of the subscription charges to convince myself to come back to the game. Neither has come yet, but I hope that getting on Steam might trigger one or the other. I think it's highly unlikely that a F2P model would be successful for UO as I can't think of anything new the developers could add to the game to entice people to purchase that they haven't already added in the many veteran rewards and anniversary bonuses. At the same time though, I feel that the current subscription rate is borderline exploitative of the loyal playerbase, and it's the one thing that is holding me back. I know you guys here on Stratics don't like talking about that, but I've said it anyway.
All that aside, there's going to come a day when the slow trickle of players leaving UO reaches the point where the owners decide it is financially unsustainable to keep the servers running. Getting UO greenlighted on Steam will almost certainly mean that date is further in the future than it would be without. That reason alone should motivate you to spend a few minutes going through the voting process.
I've been waiting a few years for either a Return to Britannia promo or a revision of the subscription charges to convince myself to come back to the game. Neither has come yet, but I hope that getting on Steam might trigger one or the other. I think it's highly unlikely that a F2P model would be successful for UO as I can't think of anything new the developers could add to the game to entice people to purchase that they haven't already added in the many veteran rewards and anniversary bonuses. At the same time though, I feel that the current subscription rate is borderline exploitative of the loyal playerbase, and it's the one thing that is holding me back. I know you guys here on Stratics don't like talking about that, but I've said it anyway.
All that aside, there's going to come a day when the slow trickle of players leaving UO reaches the point where the owners decide it is financially unsustainable to keep the servers running. Getting UO greenlighted on Steam will almost certainly mean that date is further in the future than it would be without. That reason alone should motivate you to spend a few minutes going through the voting process.
You can arouse interest in UO on Steam, maybe hundreds of thousands. But IMO only a very few will bother when they hit the junkyard we call an account management system. From talking to the few returnees I have seen, that, and not graphics, is why they almost didnt come back.
Taylor
Former Stratics CEO (2011-2014)
VIP
Alumni
Supporter
Stratics Veteran
Stratics Legend
UNLEASHED
Campaign Benefactor
Arg, I'm concerned about that, too. It's the reason I didn't renew my accounts--two months of support tickets, still no way to update my CC info.
That'd primarily impact people who remembered their old account details. I hope they make it smoother. :<
That'd primarily impact people who remembered their old account details. I hope they make it smoother. :<
If this is an actual goal of the devs, to update, tweak, and add to the game to bring back past players, it would be very beneficial for the team to find out why those players left. I know myself and others often feel like there were core elements of UO that many loved, but fell by the wayside in favor of "quick fix" EA moneymakers (booster packs, filler items, vanity items, etc etc) I love uo, but not for the same reasons i started playing.
Only saying that to bring back old players, it would help to find out why they left, and try to direct the game to once again to be able to accommodate those players.
Taylor
Former Stratics CEO (2011-2014)
VIP
Alumni
Supporter
Stratics Veteran
Stratics Legend
UNLEASHED
Campaign Benefactor
It's a good idea. Let's say they want a statistically significant sample of 1,000 people, and they want the feedback to be easy to quantify, what's the best way to collect this info from 1,000 former players?
Hope this helps good ole UO out! I voted today, unfortunately seems like there are a lot of naysayers really giving it a hard time. But they will still be offering the 14 day free trial according to what I read so that is good news. To vote I did not follow the link, I just logged in to the steam client then searched for UO manually in the green lite section.
http://massively.joystiq.com/2012/0...d-a-look-at-the-guinness-world-records-of-on/
It just wouldn't quite feel right to finish off this list without mention one of the genre's progenitors: Ultima Online. The original sandbox MMO has an entire section dedicated to it in the record book, and rightfully so. Any game that's been around for over a decade is bound to have some achievements to its name. UO holds seven titles in the 2012 book alone, including the title for the first retail MMO expansion pack, the first implementation of player housing, the first in-game ecosystem, and the (incredibly sad) title of the MMO with the most cancelled sequels.
All emphasized text is from the original site, not added by me.
As I recall the catch is that UO's recognized as being the longest-running subscription based game, or paid game, or something like that. Some kind of metric where the other game, though longer-running, doesn't meet it. So like many things, what metric you used matters a lot.
-Galen's player
Captn Norrington
Stratics Forum Moderator
Moderator
Professional
Stratics Veteran
Stratics Legend
UNLEASHED
Campaign Supporter
I truly do not understand why anyone on this forum would vote no...yes I read all the posts...but still, if people don't like it on steam, fine, at least give it a chance. The worst that can possibly happen if its put on steam is only a few people will come back...and a few are better than none right?
I would think the first step is get someone specializing in public relations to figure out the best way to bring people to a questionnaire. probable thru well placed links or banners. Then provide simple questions. stuff like "what do you find most important to a game?" difficult and complex pve combat? simple and fun pve combat? High risk pvp? would you be more likely to pvp for a reward? for the thrill? questions on cost a player would be likely to happily pay. questions on when a person left, and if changes in the game at the time had anything to do with it. Questions on what other games a player has played and enjoyed (then look at those games to see the strongpoints)
These are just off the top of my head, but are the types of questions after careful engineering and presentation to the target group of past U.O. players might help the dev team decide what new additions or changes to the game would both keep current players playing, while possibly also drawing in past players.
From my personal view, i think alot of people left the game because pvp was not fulfilling anymore. I know i dont play U.O. anymore for the pvp. theres not enough to fight for, not enough of a reward, the versatility i once loved is still partially there, but heavily item reliant - making it only available to the most dedicated and bankrolled player.
I know the dev team is focusing on virtue vrs vice, and im crossing my fingers that its successful, if it went the the extra mile into providing what not just current players but also past players want some might come back.
I know the dev team is focusing on virtue vrs vice, and im crossing my fingers that its successful, if it went the the extra mile into providing what not just current players but also past players want some might come back.
There is more to this game than pvp.I voted No.
Honestly people think about it. Basically all they are trying to do is remind people UO exists by getting it's name out. They are doing nothing to bring back the players who quit UO for a reason. $12.99 for an outdated, empty rundown game. Who are the people who quit the game, and who remains? It's been mainly the pvp base that has left the game, and Trammies are those who remain.
What are they doing to bring back pvpers? Are they opening a Pre-AOS server? Have they balanced pvp? Is it still all RNG based dex monkey heavy? Is there something new, and worth while to fight for? Are pvp templates still extremely limited due to changes to tactics/ninjitsu/bushido, and casting with specials toggled? Pvpers still limited to only fel while the rest of the player base is scattered between 4 other lands making it even more barren?
The game is not worth looking at from a pvpers stand for $12.99 a month. It's hardly worth playing even if it was FTP in it's current pvp state.
$12.99 on steam...
The PvP was never any good. Not that PvP is ever really any good.
Captn Norrington
Stratics Forum Moderator
Moderator
Professional
Stratics Veteran
Stratics Legend
UNLEASHED
Campaign Supporter
I've always found it funny, that this game has literally hundreds, if not thousands of things to do, both in fel and tram...but yet the pvp'ers always say pvp is the only important thing and the trammel people always say pvp ruins the game... theres other things to like and hate to ya know 
Both sides of UO never have been able to co-exist in peace. I really haven't enjoyed pvp since AOS anyway because really, it's determined by whoever has more money where as pre-AOS everyone was more equal where even a macer in GM gear and a GM weapon could smash and break peoples fancy imvul armor and leave them naked >:].I've always found it funny, that this game has literally hundreds, if not thousands of things to do, both in fel and tram...but yet the pvp'ers always say pvp is the only important thing and the trammel people always say pvp ruins the game... theres other things to like and hate to ya know
Still doesn't mean pvp should be ignored. If anything it just proves my point that pvp in UO doesn't get supported because even the majority playerbase don't want to see it succeed. Even Siege refuses to call itself a pvp shard.
There is tons more to the game than pvp, but a good portion of the people who left the game left because changes and additions to the game ignored, limited, or gave no reason to pvp in UO. I would say i enjoy crafting now more than pvp, but guess where the demand for crafting is. pvpers who need high end pvp suits.
Its been said already that in the current state of steam games, returning players are more likely than new players, and alot of those players left because of pvp.
The devs said the only new content to expect this year is virtue vrs vice, so they arent ignoring pvp, just hoping it will be enough to possibly bring back some who left.
I'm all for putting UO out there and getting more players, when I bought UO, i bought it from HMV,l it was on the shelf, and it WAS ready for the public eye then, there was one client and no additional software required.
NOW it is not ready for the public, there are 2 clients, one requires UOA, another requires pinco's UI, and don't get me started on the awfulness of the 2 map options that link the two.
If i bought UO now and tried it, i would have given up after 10 minutes. When i install a game now, i don't expect to have to read through forums to find out what else i need to DL and install. It's not ready.
I voted yes on steam, and encouraged others to, just to give the powers that be a kick up the arse to sort it out. They'd be rabbits in a headlight if steam said OK.
Last edited:
Email survey to precious players, offering 1-2 months free play time or other non-transferrable in-game eye candy to complete the survey. Many emails are no longer valid, so you would have to over sample to get a valid response.
True, but just because a good portion of PvPers left UO due to the state of it all doesn't mean that the prospective players on Steam are all looking for PvP. Don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting that they ignore the PvP crowed, I'm just saying that UO has so much more to offer. It is because of that that I believe UO will do quite fine at attracting more players from Steam. As it is, there is barely any other way to be attracting newer players.
That aside, while PvP apparently sucks (depending on who you ask), more players who enjoy PvP coming in could not only breath more life into this part of the game, more players would also give Broadsword a reason to pay a little more focus into PvP.
In short, you can't hope to improve a game by resisting any form of advertising or shelf-life just because you think something is lacking. No MMO is ever fully fixed up if you talk to the players. Mervyn actually said it best above:
More players would encourage them to fix up different parts of the game and, if enough players start coming in, they may even get enough money to higher on more devs.
Last edited:
- Status