O
Old Man of UO
Guest
Alrighty... I can live with that!
-
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!
how would the game lose even 1 player if this takes place? you realize that the current shards would not be converted into classic shards, but rather a classic shard would appear on the shard selection list, You wouldn't have to play on this shard if you don't want to and can continue to play modern uo on your regular shard if you like to, there would be no reason for current players to quit over a classic shard being created, and regarding KR it still is amazing that anyone enjoyed playing on that client, im fine with 2d
Ive been saying all along EA will do nothing about the cheats. After all the hot air and smoke theyve been blowing the fact is they actually see just how many people are cheating. I spoke with a player I know that runs a speedhack and he flat out just said he will keep speedhacking since all hes likely to get is a warning. Lol at EA for collecting 2 months worth of data just to come to the conclusion the players already knew. Cheating is rampant in UO and now nothing will be done because its all about the bottom line. EAs official policy on cheating in UO should simply be "stop cheating or we will say stop again." Oh how unjust banning a cheater would be claims EA, but in truth the only thing unjust about banning a cheater to EA is the fact a huge percentage of thier players would need to get banned and thats their revenue. Im very dissapointed with Cal and his lip service. Once again EA drops the ball and continues to let the direction(or lack thereof) of UO be dictateed by the will of a trashy playerbase. EA has run this game like trash and the trashy playerbase is the result.
A
Aragon100
Guest
It is kinda interesting that old classic griefers and scammers seems to be the bottom trash of MMO players for some in this thread when we can all read about the today players that cant play 1 second in today UO without cheating. My guild that is a old school PvP guild have never cheated during OSI UO or on any freeshard. We have manners and know what is right and what is wrong. And you never get anyones respect for cheating.
Old scammers and griefers when UO was a classic game had their own ingenuity to thank when they took advantage of other players WITHIN the accepted rules. They didnt speedhack or used third party programs. Today cheaters seems to be a much, much worse infestation.
A thief was not well seen by many but he worked in a roleplayish way exactly as he should.
Conclusion - UO was a way more fair game during the old classic days, basically a better, fairer game.
Ok i agree on trammel but how can you explain that UO lost 80000 subscribers within a year after AoS arrived?
http://www.mmogchart.com/Chart2.html
Those players left UO to play freeshards with old settings, classic shards.
The ones that claim that AoS didnt have this extremely negative impact on subscribers can continue to believe that but your dead wrong.
Give us our classic shard and we will prove you wrong.
I couldn't agree more, the maturity it takes to yammer out "boo-hoo I'll quit", isn't much. It's kinda sad, so called adults, in the realm of UO, act like little ones from my kids play school class. I think Madden football's a joke, but you don't see me advertising immaturity over something EA is producing........UO is EA, and visa-versa...........
lastly, if you want to "quit" ......leave now, have the stones to back the gibberish.
A classic shard will appease some. Transfers shouldn't be....UO always, in my arrogant opinion, has always been about taking the time to achieve something.
I see advanced character tokens as a lazy persons way to get ahead.
all for now
later
I'm sorry for all of you who don't know how to adapt... And I'm sorry you don't like UO now... I do and many others do.
What I don't like is cheaters.
Another thing... if you can just make and craft all the crap you loot from someone what's the point of looting it?
If the armor is a dime a dozen and anyone can make the same thing and it does nothing "special".... what is the thrill of taking it???
This makes NO sense... And if I can go reequip in 2 min and be back in the fight WHERE is the RISK?
OMG I might get killed and have to make me another set of valorite armor.... OOo.... that's a horrible risk!....
Give me a break.
Sorry there is NO risk.
You all seem to have rose colored glasses when it comes to pre-AoS....
I'm glad I don't.
A
Aragon100
Guest
You dont have to loose the "incredible sword of insta hit ancient wyrms" to feel you made a loss. Some armor and weapons of good quality is a + for the winner and a - for the one that lost a fight. No big deal but it creates a bit more exiting fighting.
A crafter that worked for 30 minutes and loose all his ore to a PK will feel a loss, not just in the material but also time wasted. It add thrill to the game and that was lost after AoS. I always used my gatherer in felucca to get that thrill, trammel was never an option. Even got fighting skill on my gatherer so he could defend and sometimes kill the PK which was hillarious.
M
Morgana LeFay (PoV)
Guest
That's great...but why exclude anyone that enjoys something different? It seems that appealing to both pre-AoS/Tram fans AND post-AoS/Tram fans would be the ideal solution, rather than just saying "hey, take what we give you, if you don't like it...we don't want your money"
I don't see how this applies to the discussion of a Classic Shard, but I completely agree. Cheaters have always been an issue with UO since the very beginning.
Some people enjoy chocolate, others enjoy vanilla. What is the purpose of only producing chocolate if you can also sell to people that enjoy vanilla?
That's an interesting conclusion, but not one I'd agree with in any shape or form. Scammers may have used "game mechanics" in order to scam other players, but there certainly were, even back then, a number of people exploiting bugs in order to take advantage of other players. That's not exactly the type of element ANY game needs.Old scammers and griefers when UO was a classic game had their own ingenuity to thank when they took advantage of other players WITHIN the accepted rules. They didnt speedhack or used third party programs. Today cheaters seems to be a much, much worse infestation.
A thief was not well seen by many but he worked in a roleplayish way exactly as he should.
Conclusion - UO was a way more fair game during the old classic days, basically a better, fairer game.
Griefers are an unwelcome statistic in any game. They play specifically to interrupt and disrupt other players' game experience. They find "fun" in going around and doing what they can to detract from another's experiences. Whether it be disrupting an RP event, casting fields at an in-game event, following someone around and tagging every creature someone else starts to fight (the good ol' "Well, you can go somewhere else," adage), to killing tamable creatures just so someone can't get one and so forth, why anyone would stand behind the mindset of a griefer is beyond me.
Okay, let's take a look at those numbers for a moment:Ok i agree on trammel but how can you explain that UO lost 80000 subscribers within a year after AoS arrived?
http://www.mmogchart.com/Chart2.html
Those players left UO to play freeshards with old settings, classic shards.
By 1998, UO has 50,000 subscribers, double that by 1999. During this time, UO:T2A is released. Now, numbers continue to slowly rise, but by 2000, they're reporting 150,000 subscribers. In the meantime, UO development changes because of UO2/UWO:O, which clearly detracts from a second expansion that should probably have launched in 1999. Mind you, at the same time, stuff like necromancy and advanced alchemy are in the works, and they do a client overhaul in several areas, and so they're clearly still developing the game.
In 2000, UO:R is "released," because while subscribers are still growing, they're losing long-term players, and that reason is the PvP free-for-all ruleset. They realize this and they move forward with a plan to correct it. If we take your chart to heart, there's no mistaking that post UO:R, UO adds another nearly 100,000 subscribers in the course of about a year.
2001 sees the release of Third Dawn, 2002 the release of LBR, and the Age of Shadows lands in 2003. February of 2003, by the way. Now, you'll notice the trend from 2001 through 2003 shows that after the release of Third Dawn, the subscriber base remains fairly constant after a short drop. What you might also notice is that according to this chart you're pointing at, there's another dip in subscribers to just over 200,000, just PRIOR to the release of UO:AoS.
AoS is released, and what does your chart show? Yeah, that's right... a rise in the subscriber base to 250,000 players. The largest subscriber base that UO has ever had. And while it trends down some, it remains a solid 250,000 all the way into early 2004. Now, yes, as we enter 2004, it begins to decline, and eventually settles in at 150-175k subscribers all the way into early 2005.
Mind you, late 2004 saw the release of Ultima Online: Samurai Empire, as well as World of Warcraft. It should be noted that even in the face of World of Warcraft, Ultima Online's numbers stay roughly the same into 2005.
By mid 2005, UO's numbers have dropped to about 125,000 subscribers. Is this because of Age of Shadows? Hardly. Up until 2007, UO's numbers maintain pre-UO:R numbers, and then they finally trickle down into the less than 100,000 subscribers area. What could cause this?
Plain and simple: By 2005, UO was an 8-year-old game. In 2005, they chose to release Mondain's Legacy without a physical box. Now, that decision was clearly based on what EA felt to be its market acceptance potential, or in other words, would anyone buy the game off the shelf? Certainly they'd tried the 7AE, T8A, and 9AC (and, in fact, released T8A with a box just after ML was launched without one), but those were compilation releases with little gems to encourage purchase that did little to attract new blood into the game (as evidenced by the trend line).
So while we can sit and point at AoS as the culprit for UO's "downfall," it's not. The facts are (and if we choose to take this chart as fact, it supports these claims) that Ultima Online had its largest playerbase in its history POST AoS. It held onto a good deal of that playerbase for a full year after release, and while there was decline, UO kept a decent playerbase well past the next expansion and even in the face of World of Warcraft.
Of course, elsewhere, it's claimed that Felucca wasn't dead post-Trammel, and while it didn't die an immediate death, it had a huge heart-attack and was well on its way out THE DAY TRAMMEL WENT LIVE. It never recovered from that, not with Champ Spawns, not with double-resources. Not with Factions. Nothing has ever enticed a sustainable playerbase back into the Feluccan ruleset.
Sure, we can say that there's 1,000 people running rampant at various times on emulator shards just dieing to play Classic Ultima. And there's tales that nearly everyone supporting a Classic Shard knows of just so many people who would come back to pay for the old Ultima Online Classic Shard experience. Those claims are suspect at best. I believe there is a niche audience who would enjoy a Classic Shard... But I don't necessarily believe it's a viable one. However, as I've discussed elsewhere, there are certainly ways to find out without causing the present UO to lose valuable development time that can be best spent on securing its future.
Of course, the very chart you're using to support that belief proves otherwise, but why bother with actually studying the trends when you can just point to a dip and say, "Look, that happened after AoS, so that had to be the cause!" Of course, using that logic, I suppose I could claim, "The release of the Third Dawn Client was the best thing that ever happened to UO because look at how the numbers rose after it was released!" We both know I'd be wrong about that claim, but hey, I'm interpreting the chart using your method now, and that's what it clearly shows.
I sincerely doubt that, but time will tell.
A
Aragon100
Guest
First, these figures should be read with a big chunk of salt. They might be totally wrong but is still kinda interesting.
I must ask you, are you seeing the same chart as i do?
The raise to 250K is before AoS was released february 13 2003 and it holds for some months after AoS was released but definetly not to 2004. The downfall of subscribers according to this chart starts already march-april 2003 and continue to drop all through the year to be arround 210K at the end of 2003.
March/april is just a month or two after AoS was released and that fits alot better to my view of lost felucca subscribers after AoS.
Many of these subscribers that ended their subscription when AoS arrived would love to play the classic UO game again and i'm sure there is still alot of us out there.
OF COURSE they might be totally wrong, and OF COURSE they need to be read with a big chunk of salt... but I find it curious that it was proof of your claims, and now, not so much?
Here, let me help:
There, now we can be sure we're on the same page, and that we have all of UO's release milestones (and WoW's too) penciled into this chart. This way, we're certain we're talking about the correct time periods.
Actually, no, no it's not. At best it happens at the same time as AoS's release (which, of course, makes sense given that they'd probably have internally released numbers at release). I mean, come on, post AoS, the subscriptions hold up to pre-AoS levels a full YEAR after AoS is released.
Now again, I agree that there is a dip that leads into 2005, but what I find most interesting is that if you take the average gap between expansion content, T2A to UO:R non-inclusive, the major dip happens when it's clear that there's no expansion being released yet. In fact, there was an abnormally large gap between expansions between AoS and SE. Think that might have anything to do with the decline as well? Bored players looking for something new to do? But again, UO, while dropping, maintains a strong playerbase all the way through after SE's release, AND in the face of WoW's release (yes, there's downward trending, but not a huge collapse -- if you want to see a huge collapse, follow EQ's trendline of the same era).
Of course you're going to skew this to better fit your view of Felucca subscribers. What I think is hysterical is that by the time of AoS, Felucca on most shards was a barren wasteland wherein you might, if you were lucky, bump into someone else. Faction fighting died down to low levels well before LBR, and the gankers and griefers had mostly gone away well before that (who are you going to gank and grief via PvP if there's no one there?). Sure, there was (and remains) activity in Felucca, but nothing like there was the day before Trammel went live.
You keep saying that. However, your definition of "many" and what it would take for it to be financially viable are, in my opinion, vastly inconsistent with each other.
E
Evlar
Guest
Classic or not, what I would gauge from that chart, is not only the increased competition and "success" of other games, but that considering AoS was as "popular" as some here claim, it did little to halt the decline afterwards. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it plateaued for what? Less than a year? Six months even?
That hardly suggests that such a major and important "expansion" to the game was a resounding success. Not when numbers start to slide as significantly as they did. Looking at the chart, it seems after the plateau following AoS, looks like a drop of something like 70k or more? Clearly one can't discount that you have several other games at or around their peaks too, during that period.
It does beg an interesting question however. Was this period also the time when UO lost most of what was unique about it, in order to try and hang on the coat-tails of those other games, by emulating aspects of them? Difficult to say for sure, but the evidence makes compelling viewing, whichever angle you look at it from.
Essentially yes, UO continued to grow steadily following UO:R, possibly because those who weren't happy with those changes and left, were balanced or possibly even outnumbered by those indifferent or favourable. UO was still growing. Online gaming was still a "new" developing market. There also weren't as many rival games yet, plus there was still the option of Fel provided for no-holds-barred PvP.
Undoubtedly, alongside a variety of other factors of course, I would be comfortable in saying that UO:AoS didn't achieve perhaps what it set out to. Indeed, quite the opposite. UO:R was a change players could live with, they still had options within the same game, to suit what they wanted from it. UO:AoS introduced something different entirely, which I venture more people disliked, than liked on the whole, plus there was no alternative option within the same game. You either liked it, lived with it, or didn't.
That's why for me personally, UO:R wasn't such a big issue. I had the best of both worlds available. If I wanted Fel, it was there. If I wanted Tram, it was there. Choice. What open choices did AoS offer to players that didn't like it?
Of course, I'm not here to argue that one person's preference for post/pre-AoS content is either right or wrong, but it is interesting to note the impact it had on the game. Indeed, I venture that more people prefer and preferred pre-AoS content, than post-AoS content. Interestingly, that's the single biggest area of "classic" UO that it's supporters are in favour of.
That hardly suggests that such a major and important "expansion" to the game was a resounding success. Not when numbers start to slide as significantly as they did. Looking at the chart, it seems after the plateau following AoS, looks like a drop of something like 70k or more? Clearly one can't discount that you have several other games at or around their peaks too, during that period.
It does beg an interesting question however. Was this period also the time when UO lost most of what was unique about it, in order to try and hang on the coat-tails of those other games, by emulating aspects of them? Difficult to say for sure, but the evidence makes compelling viewing, whichever angle you look at it from.
Essentially yes, UO continued to grow steadily following UO:R, possibly because those who weren't happy with those changes and left, were balanced or possibly even outnumbered by those indifferent or favourable. UO was still growing. Online gaming was still a "new" developing market. There also weren't as many rival games yet, plus there was still the option of Fel provided for no-holds-barred PvP.
Undoubtedly, alongside a variety of other factors of course, I would be comfortable in saying that UO:AoS didn't achieve perhaps what it set out to. Indeed, quite the opposite. UO:R was a change players could live with, they still had options within the same game, to suit what they wanted from it. UO:AoS introduced something different entirely, which I venture more people disliked, than liked on the whole, plus there was no alternative option within the same game. You either liked it, lived with it, or didn't.
That's why for me personally, UO:R wasn't such a big issue. I had the best of both worlds available. If I wanted Fel, it was there. If I wanted Tram, it was there. Choice. What open choices did AoS offer to players that didn't like it?
Of course, I'm not here to argue that one person's preference for post/pre-AoS content is either right or wrong, but it is interesting to note the impact it had on the game. Indeed, I venture that more people prefer and preferred pre-AoS content, than post-AoS content. Interestingly, that's the single biggest area of "classic" UO that it's supporters are in favour of.
A
AesSedai
Guest
Re: Producer's Update - Non-Classic Shard .. Thoughts
[might want to tag onto this if you don't want to be chunked in with the
Classic Shard
'debates'..]
I'd like to hear more input about.. the other subjects
Classic Shard is all that matters! -there, I got the first cheapie in
- In other news...
[might want to tag onto this if you don't want to be chunked in with the
Classic Shard
'debates'..]
I'd like to hear more input about.. the other subjects
Classic Shard is all that matters! -there, I got the first cheapie in
c.f. 2007. At start 110,000. At end 75,000. Net Loss 35,000 accounts.Here, let me help:
That was the impact of KR and no new content for 9 months. If the Classic shard goes ahead it will be effectively the next expansion. PvEers will have to wait years for their expansion and new PvE content. PvEers wont pay to play a game that caters to griefers, not when there are other free options like LOTRO, D&D Online and Everquest that are PvE friendly. This is why if a Classic shard goes ahead, for every returning account, UO will lose 10 existing accounts.
U
uo_Pirate
Guest
I think what a lot of people are not understanding is not really their own fault, they just were never around when some of us were so they have a, from what im seeing, a huge misunderstanding of what a classic pre-aos world was like... And honestly, I forget who posted it but if hundreds of guys at their homes, just as a hobby, can host well done, carefully crafted entertaining and amazingly accurate in some cases, free servers out there, then I dont think it should be to hard for OSI to do this too... And personally, something between pre-ren and t2a would be prime, because thats just enough land mass to still run into people yet still enough to be able to escape... Although that was over half the fun back in the day, not getting uber gear (like a lot of these kids now a days) but running into people and having an adventure or just a random rp moment. Anyways, I think people need to understand, there are a lot of people who still watch the uo forums (Ahm, me!) just praying that OSI will do a classic server, go look on random forums around the web or talk with any "ultima" fan (not necessarily ultima online) and they will tell you why they play free servers yet still are checking to see if OSI will do something that a lot of people want.
To sum up, I think everyone needs to stop bashing each other, there is not really a huge reason against creating a new pre-aos server... Most people on ultima now a days never even tried pre-aos and odds are itll be to different and rough for them, although for the rest of us, do us a favor and please give us what we want so we can pay you osi.
Anyways, I think people need to understand, there are a lot of people who still watch the uo forums (Ahm, me!) just praying that OSI will do a classic server, go look on random forums around the web or talk with any "ultima" fan (not necessarily ultima online) and they will tell you why they play free servers yet still are checking to see if OSI will do something that a lot of people want.To sum up, I think everyone needs to stop bashing each other, there is not really a huge reason against creating a new pre-aos server... Most people on ultima now a days never even tried pre-aos and odds are itll be to different and rough for them, although for the rest of us, do us a favor and please give us what we want so we can pay you osi.
V
Venzanas
Guest
I'm only posting to let people know there are definitely old players out there that would be interested in a "classic" shard.
I love the old UO pvp concept, a fight with a consequence, may the best (or least surprised) man or party win- winner take all. Nothing that couldn't be lost, but nothing that couldn't be gained. It was fun me and friends still talk about every once in awhile. It'd be fun to do it again.
I play wow now, and a lot of my old friends did too. The game mechanics are entertaining, but there's no consequence to any action. The only thing that matters is time. If you have 14 hours a day, you can have the best gear, and do the best in whatever facet of the game you enjoy. If you don't, you will not be considered anything but a newb or decent. I don't have 14 hours a day.
However, in the old UO I didn't need 14 hours a day to grab a GM spear out of the box in the house, chase down someone, put a spear in their back and steal their reg pouch, and mount an offensive to any orange I could find.
Please bring back a classic shard. We're waiting. ... And we're going to take you all out.
I love the old UO pvp concept, a fight with a consequence, may the best (or least surprised) man or party win- winner take all. Nothing that couldn't be lost, but nothing that couldn't be gained. It was fun me and friends still talk about every once in awhile. It'd be fun to do it again.
I play wow now, and a lot of my old friends did too. The game mechanics are entertaining, but there's no consequence to any action. The only thing that matters is time. If you have 14 hours a day, you can have the best gear, and do the best in whatever facet of the game you enjoy. If you don't, you will not be considered anything but a newb or decent. I don't have 14 hours a day.
However, in the old UO I didn't need 14 hours a day to grab a GM spear out of the box in the house, chase down someone, put a spear in their back and steal their reg pouch, and mount an offensive to any orange I could find.
Please bring back a classic shard. We're waiting. ... And we're going to take you all out.
F
Farquhar
Guest
I have been lurking the past few days, and am enjoying this thread quite a bit.
I thoroughly enjoyed how somebody attributed the loss of customers in something like 2004 or 2005 to wow, and nothing game related. And in the same breath is arguing how uo was dying without uo:r. If you're going to use the "other game analogy" for losing players, then use it through out please. Everquest was mmo 2.0 and opened the flood gates for high subscription number games. UO lost playerbase because of EQ, just like it lost some to WoW. (uo lost me to wow by the way, I still play it unfortunately hehe). Anyways, whatever argument you choose to use against a classic server, make sure its uniform throughout your entire argument.
One last comment about that fantastic growth after uo:r was released. Two factors, and it had nothing to do with ruleset fel/trammel.
1. One house per account - This is the lesser of the two reasons.
2. And you can find this in ea quarterly reports for the time period - uo released in the asian market for the first time ever with uo:r. They could have called it uo:triangles and made the big expansion idea thing to do with triangles instead of fel/trammel, it wouldn't have mattered, as nobody new in that market understood what felucca or trammel meant. It was a new mmo on the market in the global asian community. So lets call a spade a spade please, the growth had nothing to do with north american subscriptions, they remained stagnant as disclosed in those ea quarterlies (before they decided to lump all online gaming (ie: pogo accounts) into one category to hide individual numbers.)
The last comment, I agree with you regarding classic being a niche market. It absolutely is. Just like the current version of UO is to the rest of the world - probably why the same stuff people were complaining about 6 years ago when I stopped playing are still being complained about today as I read the forums.
*edited to make sure people don't think I'm bull****ting.
o The average number of paying customers for Ultima Online increased to over 183,000 as compared to over 113,000 for the same period last year.
o The increase in paying customers was partially due to continued strong sales of Ultima Online, which includes new events, land masses, new homes and parties within the Ultima worlds.
o In addition, we established servers for Ultima Online in Korea in September 1999, Taiwan in November 1999 and Australia in January 2000 which resulted in new customers for the three months ended June 30, 2000, as compared to the same period last year.
This is taken from the quarterly report for 2000. Go back and take a look at that huge increase in numbers right around when uo:r was released - Late 1999...when did they launch internationally? Late 1999
here is from the following quaterly:
o The average number of paying customers for Ultima Online increased to over 190,000 for the three months ended September 30, 2000 as compared to over 120,000 for the same period last year and was over 194,000 for the six months ended September 30, 2000 as compared to over 116,000 for the same period last year.
o We established servers for Ultima Online in Korea in September 1999, Taiwan in November 1999 and Australia in January 2000 which resulted in new customers for the three months and six months ended September 30, 2000, as compared to the same periods last year.
M
macroplanet
Guest
I do not post here much, but I feel I should share my thoughts.
I've been a player of Ultima Online since 1999, absolutely loved the game. Still do. Of course I do not agree with most of the decision that UO has gone with in the past decade, but that doesn't mean I hate the game. I have not played the game since 2009, but I still believe it is by far the most advance and exciting mmo on the market to date.
A classic server would be a hard one for the EA team to nail, but I'm sure it would be most popular for a lot of people. I think a lot of people that play on player run servers would be interested in jumping over and trying the new classic server. I know for a fact that I would register up again and try it out. And if I ever did feel like playing regular UO, then I still had that option.
To me having these two options (not counting Siege) would be great for a lot of people. Hell, EA might even get new players pulled in from all the buzz.
Who knows what could happen, but I for one am for this option. I really hope they actually consider it this time.
I've been a player of Ultima Online since 1999, absolutely loved the game. Still do. Of course I do not agree with most of the decision that UO has gone with in the past decade, but that doesn't mean I hate the game. I have not played the game since 2009, but I still believe it is by far the most advance and exciting mmo on the market to date.
A classic server would be a hard one for the EA team to nail, but I'm sure it would be most popular for a lot of people. I think a lot of people that play on player run servers would be interested in jumping over and trying the new classic server. I know for a fact that I would register up again and try it out. And if I ever did feel like playing regular UO, then I still had that option.
To me having these two options (not counting Siege) would be great for a lot of people. Hell, EA might even get new players pulled in from all the buzz.
Who knows what could happen, but I for one am for this option. I really hope they actually consider it this time.
C
canary
Guest
Classic shard might also benefit from a ton of 'cease and desist' letters regarding people using their game for player run shards. After all, why buy the cow if you get the milk for free?
Because the milk is tainted?
Server stability, performance issues, downtime, mismanagement, mistreatment by management, lack of professional attitude, poor support network, multi-accounting, allowed scripting, no accountability..
These are reasons some people would rather go through an official source and pay for it rather than deal with the BS associated with a lot of free shards.
N
NorCal
Guest
Amazing factual post. The quarterlies really show where growth came from and it really hurts the arguement that UO was dying without Tram. Opening new markets created the majority of the growth. It's also true that you can't blame losing subs on WoW not AoS, but blame numbers leveling out on PKs and not recognize the impact of EQ.I have been lurking the past few days, and am enjoying this thread quite a bit.
I thoroughly enjoyed how somebody attributed the loss of customers in something like 2004 or 2005 to wow, and nothing game related. And in the same breath is arguing how uo was dying without uo:r. If you're going to use the "other game analogy" for losing players, then use it through out please. Everquest was mmo 2.0 and opened the flood gates for high subscription number games. UO lost playerbase because of EQ, just like it lost some to WoW. (uo lost me to wow by the way, I still play it unfortunately hehe). Anyways, whatever argument you choose to use against a classic server, make sure its uniform throughout your entire argument.
One last comment about that fantastic growth after uo:r was released. Two factors, and it had nothing to do with ruleset fel/trammel.
1. One house per account - This is the lesser of the two reasons.
2. And you can find this in ea quarterly reports for the time period - uo released in the asian market for the first time ever with uo:r. They could have called it uo:triangles and made the big expansion idea thing to do with triangles instead of fel/trammel, it wouldn't have mattered, as nobody new in that market understood what felucca or trammel meant. It was a new mmo on the market in the global asian community. So lets call a spade a spade please, the growth had nothing to do with north american subscriptions, they remained stagnant as disclosed in those ea quarterlies (before they decided to lump all online gaming (ie: pogo accounts) into one category to hide individual numbers.)
The last comment, I agree with you regarding classic being a niche market. It absolutely is. Just like the current version of UO is to the rest of the world - probably why the same stuff people were complaining about 6 years ago when I stopped playing are still being complained about today as I read the forums.
*edited to make sure people don't think I'm bull****ting.
o The average number of paying customers for Ultima Online increased to over 183,000 as compared to over 113,000 for the same period last year.
o The increase in paying customers was partially due to continued strong sales of Ultima Online, which includes new events, land masses, new homes and parties within the Ultima worlds.
o In addition, we established servers for Ultima Online in Korea in September 1999, Taiwan in November 1999 and Australia in January 2000 which resulted in new customers for the three months ended June 30, 2000, as compared to the same period last year.
This is taken from the quarterly report for 2000. Go back and take a look at that huge increase in numbers right around when uo:r was released - Late 1999...when did they launch internationally? Late 1999
here is from the following quaterly:
o The average number of paying customers for Ultima Online increased to over 190,000 for the three months ended September 30, 2000 as compared to over 120,000 for the same period last year and was over 194,000 for the six months ended September 30, 2000 as compared to over 116,000 for the same period last year.
o We established servers for Ultima Online in Korea in September 1999, Taiwan in November 1999 and Australia in January 2000 which resulted in new customers for the three months and six months ended September 30, 2000, as compared to the same periods last year.
Z
Zezak
Guest
Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
Cal don't take the negative stuff to heart (I am sure you don't) take the constructive criticism and positive remarks to heart.
I laugh when people say they want a "cheat" free UO. It will never be cheat free. Sure maybe they could do a better job (maybe not) but there will always be people looking for a way to cheat the system so don't bug out on the devs if they don't create a utopia.
Cal don't take the negative stuff to heart (I am sure you don't) take the constructive criticism and positive remarks to heart.
I laugh when people say they want a "cheat" free UO. It will never be cheat free. Sure maybe they could do a better job (maybe not) but there will always be people looking for a way to cheat the system so don't bug out on the devs if they don't create a utopia.
A
AesSedai
Guest
- Here is a theory: this thread has lost interest unless debating the pros-and-cons of a UO 'Classic Shard' intrigues one...
(I wonder if the author's desire was just to distract? .. Or, was it just many of the the readers' desires to detract? - I do wonder...)
(I wonder if the author's desire was just to distract? .. Or, was it just many of the the readers' desires to detract? - I do wonder...)
Today's UO is not good, I can not stay logged in an hour, But when I log into my Fav PRS I'm on for hours. I am just down to a couple accounts now one 12 and one 13year, and debating on which of them I am gonna close before next billing cycle. Trammel merged on to existing servers killed UO, AoS was just one of the nails in the coffin.
S
spade gt
Guest
Glad to see a little more info about consideration of a Classic server! Hope to soon hear that it's gone from consideration to development.
M
Morgana LeFay (PoV)
Guest
Would it be possible for you to repeat this post in proper English so that it might make some sense?
rolleyes:
E
Evlar
Guest
Well, so long as additional and possibly separate resources are provided to produce it (which will be necessary), thus not affecting what you enjoy, there's nothing for you to worry about really, is there?Classic Shard? No thank you, already played that game years ago. I am still playing UO, and enjoying it more than ever
You'll get to keep what you enjoy, whilst we get to enjoy something we've hoped and asked for, for a very long time.
Win win.
N
northwoodschopper
Guest
i'm now actually curious of which would draw more support or be more profitable:
a classic shard
or
a non-felucca/consentual pvp shard (where the harrower and powerscrolls, factions were part of the tram ruleset, and so forth)
a classic shard
or
a non-felucca/consentual pvp shard (where the harrower and powerscrolls, factions were part of the tram ruleset, and so forth)
M
Morgana LeFay (PoV)
Guest
That's awesome! Good for you!Classic Shard? No thank you, already played that game years ago. I am still playing UO, and enjoying it more than ever
Since no one is suggesting changing the game you enjoy, it shouldn't affect you at all.
M
Morgana LeFay (PoV)
Guest
If you could, please explain how the latter would bring back any players that left the game, or attract any new players.
While you are at it, why not touch on how that idea would not just hasten current players to what some call the "end game".
Thing is, when you just put everything out on a silver platter for people in Easy Mode, they will quickly collect everything they want, get bored, and quit.
Personally, if the devs want to create a Classic Shard, and then just put a gump into the game at sign in on the regular shards that just allows you to just pick any item, skill, pet, etc. in the game...it's fine by me, because the day the Classic Shard opens, no one will ever see my skinny white butt on any other shard ever again.
S
Stupid Miner
Guest
Hey! This is the Uhall! We don't allow reasonable and realistic thinking in here!
Shoo! and don't come back until you adopt some absurd conjectures such as "The Devs should do this and this and this all at the same time because they dwell outside of time and have infinite resources."
rolleyes:
N
NorCal
Guest
What exactly can't you understand about that? That you can't blame the loss of subs on World of Warcraft and not acknowledge the impact that Age of Shadows had on subscriptions. Then turn around and blame PKs for the leveling out of subscriptions before UOR and not acknowledge the impact EQ had on subscriptions. Did you read the post I quoted? If you had it should have been obvious.
N
northwoodschopper
Guest
nothing wrong with addressing the casual gamers with the latter. sure it turns off hardcore gamers, but the casual market is absoluting booming with short term and possible long term money potential!
perhaps the meek will inherit sosaria afterall!
with the proliferation of 'classic' emulated servers, makes one wonder how well an official classic server would fare in comparison.
M
Morgana LeFay (PoV)
Guest
Thank you for restating. I did misread your original post, and I agree with what you are saying. WoW and EQ had a significant impact on UO subscriptions. UO:R and AOS also had a significant impact on UO subscriptions.
Sorry if I was confused, there was a double negative there and no comma delineation. I am not saying that to be a grammar-nazi, I just did understand your point until I re-read it.
M
Morgana LeFay (PoV)
Guest
The "meek" already inherited Sosaria with the release of UO:Rnothing wrong with addressing the casual gamers with the latter. sure it turns off hardcore gamers, but the casual market is absoluting booming with short term and possible long term money potential!
perhaps the meek will inherit sosaria afterall!
It does in fact. It also makes one wonder how many of those servers would even exist if OSI/EA/Mythic had not screwed up the game's evolution so badly that these people felt compelled to not only play elsewhere...but they went so far as to create an entire emmulation package complete with populated server worlds (takes hours, and hours, and hours, and hours to populate an empty T2A era shard btw).
Why would so many people flock to something that, according to you and others like you, no one has any interest in whatsoever?
Why would there even be server emulators that took several people an immense amount of time and effort to create? Do you really believe that these people did all of that work just to save $9.99 per month??
Why would so many people hang on to a game that is 13 years old, and still play it on unofficial servers that could close down at any minute and are ran by someone with absolutely ZERO accountability for anything they do??
If there is so little interest in a Classic Shard, as you and others claim, then I'd really like to know the answers to the question above.
Of cource the non-felucca one would be more profitable long term, because 90-95% of former players were PvEers.
Seige is the Classic shard + expansions. It is dead.
Darkfall is the 3D Classic shard. It is dead.
Simply. If EA does a Classic shard, it will be many many years until the next expansion that caters to PvEers. This would be cataclysm for UO.
This is a great question and I do think UO lost its identity by focusing on what other games were doing, rather than capitalizing on its own strengths. Instead of focusing on what made UO unique, the developers tried to emulate mechanics from other games. A game like EVE, for example, has embraced a different play style and continues to gain subscribers in the face of extreme competition. We can only wonder whether UO could possibly have enjoyed similar success if they had taken a similar path.
E
Evlar
Guest
Come on... tell us which "source" you plucked that golden nugget of a statistic from then?
Hang on... what do you mean, you plucked it out of thin air!?!
Although EVE is a different genre, it is a very good example of a game which has followed its own path, for the most part. It carved out a sizeable niche market and is a great example of playing to one's own strengths.
My main disappointment with UO over the years, is indeed that it's direction ended up following games it actually opened the door for in the first place. It's widely known through previous developer blogs, that although there were issues with aspects of the game, there were more options available and possible to implement, other than those that were.
Personally, I don't view a "classic" option as a step backwards, or to the side. I view it as a step in the right direction, a "back to basics" matter of principal. After all, what are the alternative incentives to welcome former players, or players you yearn for a game that's not such a grind, but more sandbox? Yet another expansion, with more items? I really don't think so.
Certain people who claim that masses would leave en-mass without another expansion "soon", aren't the same loyal players of UO that have kept the game going for as long as it has. They're "floaters", who get bored with things quickly, complain if they don't get what they want now!
Those sort of gamers will never be satisfied and will continue to cycle through different games at a whim. They're certainly not the type of niche market developers should be trying to base long term game developments around.
UO isn't going to suddenly buckle and die if a "classic" option is provided, or if it isn't. The core player base will see to that, so long as EA are making the profits they require.
N
northwoodschopper
Guest
i dunno, i just can't really see an official classic shard retaining that many players after a couple months. being that there are pirate servers proliferating, it'll be hard to convince the free-players to pay for an account which would have more restrictions than on pirate servers (like scripting, unattended macroing, the whole free accounts bit, unoffical 3rd party apps), with the trade off merely being more stable. especially if there isn't much attention from the devs to tweak balance, and such (just look at pirate server updates, some you can follow the rise and fall of their respective pops). and i'd hate to see gm support be even more half-assed, gm support on siege is pretty bad when canned responses only apply to prodo servers.
i think it would be a monumentous effort on the devs part to get a full blown classic server up and running, and i don't know if the players are going to be patient to stay through the hiccups and misunderstandings this time around, with free alternatives abound.
i think it would be a monumentous effort on the devs part to get a full blown classic server up and running, and i don't know if the players are going to be patient to stay through the hiccups and misunderstandings this time around, with free alternatives abound.
M
Morgana LeFay (PoV)
Guest
You could be right. No one has any way to know that at this point, and I am certain that all of that will factor into the final decision on whether or not to go ahead with the project.
Surely you must realize that there will be players that return that otherwise would not. Not everyone arguing in this, and other threads, can be so reasonable, but I you seem like a pretty level headed and reasonable poster.
The idea behind a Classic Shard is twofold, 1) to appeal to players that enjoyed UO before Trammel and AoS, and 2) to entice former players back to the game.
It is really hard for someone that enjoys Trammel and AoS to understand #1. They cannot understand how it is possible that anyone could enjoy UO without those things. The problem is, there are people out there that want to play UO, and would be happy as a clam to do so for as long as the game was up and running...without ever wanting to add Trammel or AOS.
I know several people like that, and I am one myself.
#2...now that's what the producers of Ultima Online really care about. Don't get me wrong, I know they care about us Classic fans...to a degree, but not to the degree that they would sink any meaningful amount of time, effort, or resources into creating a new shard just for us. They will only do it if they can be reasonably sure that it will draw back enough old players to turn a profit. There is all kinds of speculation on the costs and amout of development it would take to create a Classic Shard, on both sides of the argument. It ranges from 'all they have to do is load up an old backup of one of the shards' to 'they will have to develop it from the ground up, and it will cost millions of dollars and take ten years to develop'. Both positions are silly and exagerated. The truth is, there will be a cost. There will be development time. These might take away from development that might go towards the existing shards. But what the producers are looking at is a simple matter of which will bring in more new (or returning) subscription...doing what they have been doing for the last 10 years, or creating a Classic Shard.
Since I am one of the target audience for a Classic Shard, I can tell you...there is absolutely nothing that the devs can add to the current shards that would make me want to play UO again as long as Trammel and AOS and the subsequent expansions are in place. I might play Siege if they can straighten some of the issues they have there out, but even still, its just not holding my interest as long as it is so item based and the world is so sprawling.
With that said, if there truly is nothing that the devs can add that will bring players like me back, then in order to grow subscriptions they would have to develop something that would entice brand new players to the game. I can almost guarantee that another new client would cost more than a classic shard, and based on the failures of Third Dawn, Kingdom Reborn, and the SA "Enhanced Client", I imagine they are pretty gun shy when it comes to developing new clients about right now.
So for all the anti-classic shard people out there...here is your chance. What exactly do you feel that the developers could add to the game that would either entice back all players, or bring in new ones? We have already seen advertising and new client listed dozens, maybe hundreds of times...so try to think outside the box and come up with something different. Keep in mind, what is popular with the current playerbase is actually causing the game to lose subscriptions, not gain them...
Of course, we could do it a little bit differently:
EverQuest assuredly had some impact on UO's subscriber base, however, because UO was still a fairly new game, it was still increasing in subscriber-base. UO:R's release shows a marked increase in the UO subscriber-base, notably at a time when EA marketing had pretty decent reason to believe that the free-for-all PvP was killing the game.
Blaming AoS or WoW for UO's declining subscriber base later on is also pointing at potential causes, but honestly, in neither case is there substantial proof of either claim. Sure, there was about a 25k decline in subscribers in the 10 months following the release of AoS. Of course, the game was also six plus years old at the time. And, a year had passed, there was no new expansion in the works, nothing going on, and that summer EA canceled UX:O, closed Origin (EA Austin at the time of its closing), and packed up the people they could, sending them to EARS. Sure, we could point at AoS, but we could also point at turmoil at EA/Origin, and the fact that there was no expansion in development (remember, Samurai Empire didn't come out until late 2005, AoS was early 2004). There are PLENTY of factors above and beyond the release of AoS that strike more true than "AoS killed UO."
What we can also glean -- if we take subscription numbers to heart -- is that post AoS's release, there was not a significant decline in subscription numbers during the time when the post-AoS release was the buggiest and most complicated. That's important to note because it means people stuck it out.
Now, yeah, we can say AoS peaked UO's subscriptions, and nothing since has brought back that subscriber base. Again, in September 2004, the game was 7 years old. In 2005, 8. In 2006, 9. In 2007, 10. You get the point. The game lost marketing after the SE expansion (save for the T8A and 9AC boxes, which, well, not exactly the best way to bring someone into an old game). The game's engine had not significantly changed graphically in nearly a decade. And like it or not, almost without deviation, numero uno on the list of things that attract a player to any game is graphics.
So yeah, post AoS, UO's subscriber base declined. It's an old game. I mean, let's look at the apparent rise and fall of EverQuest. What do you suppose they did in mid-2005 that cost them 200,000 subscribers? Was it fallout from WoW? Did they do something wrong in-game? EQ's not dead yet either.
Let's look at Asheron's Call, at LotR, at Tabula Rasa... let's look at anything. In fact, let's perform more guesswork and blame the decline in subscriptions for EQ, SWG, AC, DDO, TR, LotR, and TSO's entire cancellation on UO:AoS. I mean, if we're going to indulge in hyperbole, let's go for the gusto.
We have to look at the overall picture.
No matter what picture is painted, "Classic Shard = Guaranteed Subscribers for UO" is one only Pablo Picasso is certain be able to see as a "clear image."
So, Morgana, given that shard emulation's been around since nearly the beginning of the public release of UO, which specific point was it that OSI/EA/Mythic/Bioware Mythic screwed up so badly that forced these people to go out and play elsewhere?
Since EQ never had the issue that plagued UO -- whichever one you'd like to blame -- what caused the EQ emulators to pop up?
How about WoW?
Did it ever occur to you that shard/server emulation came about simply because people could do it. There was client software out there that expected to talk to a server, and if you provided it with a functional server, voila, you could make your own gameplay and enjoy it as you felt.
This has zip to do with what EA screwed up.
Sure, there's a very niche market of folk who want to play under a classic ruleset -- a ruleset that by and large can't even be agreed upon as to what it is. (Yes, I know a thread exists where people have "hammered" this out, while still maintaining their own disparate opinions.)
What, exactly is your definition of "so many?"
And, well, I don't know, Morgana... why do people play games on MAME emulators for outdated arcade games and systems like the Atari 2600. I wouldn't exactly call a re-release of an Atari 2600 a path to financial stardom. (And yes, I know there are some plug & play 2600 "systems" with a limited number of nostalgic games on them out there, and that Jakks Pacific makes a business out of games like Pac-Man plugging directly into your TV... but those are nostalgic cases with a limited audience, and if I might add, a limited audience that is far larger than the classic shard support you're going to drum up.)
If you think the reason they exist goes anything beyond, "Because we could do so," you're fooling yourself. Server emulators were around before Pub 16, and they were around before AoS. In fact, I remember the first time I walked around inside of one set up on a LAN at my house was sometime in 1998, and we played in it not because we wanted to stop playing UO, but because we just wanted to blow away the statics and build a world of our own.Why would there even be server emulators that took several people an immense amount of time and effort to create? Do you really believe that these people did all of that work just to save $9.99 per month??
Stop trying to blow this into some sort of support for the idea that "Emulators Exist = People Want To Play Classic UO." Because if that's your argument, please explain to me why servers exist that function in a post-AoS fashion, and are as popular and more plentiful than the pre-AoS servers. I mean, really, how do you explain that dichotomy? Even in the emulator world, pre-AoS is not the predominant ruleset.
Strange, that, don't you think?
And, uh, what exactly again is "so many people?"
Why do millions of people play World of Warcraft? By the logic of your argument, EA should produce World of Ultima.
My answer is, "Yes, there are people who still enjoy playing a classic ruleset. However, the 'classic ruleset' on emulators varies server to server, and often has other stuff implemented into it that goes above and beyond what would even be considered a 'classic ruleset' in regards to UO development history. And again, there is no figure that indicates this is a viable number of people who are interested in this market."
Okay, and likewise, I'd like you to answer this question:
"If there is so much interest in the classic ruleset, why is it that most emulator servers emulate the post-AoS ruleset?"
I'd really like to know the answers to the question above.
E
Evlar
Guest
A very abstract view indeed, though I'll add some clarity. That a classic option will guarantee returning players, is in no doubt whatsoever. It's a no-brainer. The real question, which nobody can answer as yet, unless they have a crystal ball handy of course, is how many and how long will they stay? If anyone can answer that, then they should contact Cal immediately, because he'll also want their psychic projections as to what's best for every other aspect of the game.
We can all present whatever answer we like regarding "numbers", but isn't that also why they've got a survey group looking at things in more detail?
That's actually pretty easy to answer. It's the easiest to implement for those running those particular post-AoS servers in the main, but yes, there are indeed more of those than pre-AoS servers. For those running many of them, it's simply a hobby and a chance to utilise the customisation possibilities. They can "play" at being a games designer.
Here's the interesting thing though, which had you taken the time to research properly before you asked the question, you would also know the more accurate answer to your final question, instead of trying to apply "spin" to suit your own agenda and preferences.
Of all the free-servers out there, you can guarantee that the most populated, are indeed the pre-AoS servers. If pre-AoS wasn't so popular, why then can one pre-AoS server alone, have more individual players, than all the hundreds of others out there, combined? It's even been estimated with some certainty, that more than 80% of those playing free-servers, are playing one of the very few true-to-the-era "classic" rule-set servers.
As to why there are so many other types of "non-classic" free-servers out there, that's pretty easy to account for. The customisation possibilities. For many of those running them, it's a hobby. I've played on one such shard, whilst at the same time, paying and playing "proper" UO. On that particular server, there were about twenty of us literally just experimenting with different game mechanics, creating things that will never likely see the light of day in UO. That's not too dissimilar to many of those hundreds of "post-AoS" servers, as you refer to them. In truth, most of them either concentrate on individual aspects of play, such as RP-only, or are actually nothing like Ultima Online whatsoever. I've actually seen UO free-servers which are based on other games, movies, books, or other fiction, such as a Lord of the Rings themed server, or even a Final Fantasy themed server. There's even attempts at creating entirely different genre of games, like science fiction and horror themed games, with the UO "emulation", simply a platform or tool to utilise.
The fact remains though, the two or three "classic" orientated ones, account for the overwhelming proportion of their players. No matter how much you try to spin things, that fact remains constant. That's not blowing support on the "emulators exist" argument.
Haven't read many of the other posts. Most of them are pointless bickering.
What I don't really get is why they bothered with the Enhanced Client.
Board meeting
Chief EA man or whatever - "We need a new client to compete with the more graphically advanced MMORPGs"
UO Guys - "OK, we'll get right on it, we'll have to make sure it runs on a low spec machine still, its a really old game, we have to assume most of our playerbase hasn't ever upgraded"
Chief EA man or whatever - "Hows it coming along guys"
UO Guys - "Good actually, we've made a client which looks worse than anything else out and will work on a low spec machine, but terribly. I think people will love it"
Chief EA man or whatever - "GOOD WORK GUYS"
Instead of messing about with pointless clients which although possibly an improvement on a 13 year old game still are seriously lacking when it comes to other games, why not start fresh, a nice full 3d client. Just copy WOW even! It must be doing something right, don't you think?
Not sure this thread is even about what I've just talked about, but I just don't get the dev team. It just feels like they're wasting everyone's time.
Do people not feel they're kind of on a sinking ship?
What I don't really get is why they bothered with the Enhanced Client.
Board meeting
Chief EA man or whatever - "We need a new client to compete with the more graphically advanced MMORPGs"
UO Guys - "OK, we'll get right on it, we'll have to make sure it runs on a low spec machine still, its a really old game, we have to assume most of our playerbase hasn't ever upgraded"
Chief EA man or whatever - "Hows it coming along guys"
UO Guys - "Good actually, we've made a client which looks worse than anything else out and will work on a low spec machine, but terribly. I think people will love it"
Chief EA man or whatever - "GOOD WORK GUYS"
Instead of messing about with pointless clients which although possibly an improvement on a 13 year old game still are seriously lacking when it comes to other games, why not start fresh, a nice full 3d client. Just copy WOW even! It must be doing something right, don't you think?
Not sure this thread is even about what I've just talked about, but I just don't get the dev team. It just feels like they're wasting everyone's time.
Do people not feel they're kind of on a sinking ship?
Well you re just completely wrong, probably because you were not a witness of that era. When AoS launched, as with every new expansion, obviously UO has drawn a lot of attention. But it took some time to people to realize how wrong this expansion was. You didn't have people with FC 5/6 armors on day one, it took a while for that. Those who didn't leave because they didn't like this new playstyle, left when they realized trying to compete item wise was an unbearable JOB ( try 200 hours + in doom with horrible lag and con losses, and millions of gold wasted in insurance without ever getting an arte ).OF COURSE they might be totally wrong, and OF COURSE they need to be read with a big chunk of salt... but I find it curious that it was proof of your claims, and now, not so much?
Here, let me help:
There, now we can be sure we're on the same page, and that we have all of UO's release milestones (and WoW's too) penciled into this chart. This way, we're certain we're talking about the correct time periods.
Actually, no, no it's not. At best it happens at the same time as AoS's release (which, of course, makes sense given that they'd probably have internally released numbers at release). I mean, come on, post AoS, the subscriptions hold up to pre-AoS levels a full YEAR after AoS is released.
Now again, I agree that there is a dip that leads into 2005, but what I find most interesting is that if you take the average gap between expansion content, T2A to UO:R non-inclusive, the major dip happens when it's clear that there's no expansion being released yet. In fact, there was an abnormally large gap between expansions between AoS and SE. Think that might have anything to do with the decline as well? Bored players looking for something new to do? But again, UO, while dropping, maintains a strong playerbase all the way through after SE's release, AND in the face of WoW's release (yes, there's downward trending, but not a huge collapse -- if you want to see a huge collapse, follow EQ's trendline of the same era).
Of course you're going to skew this to better fit your view of Felucca subscribers. What I think is hysterical is that by the time of AoS, Felucca on most shards was a barren wasteland wherein you might, if you were lucky, bump into someone else. Faction fighting died down to low levels well before LBR, and the gankers and griefers had mostly gone away well before that (who are you going to gank and grief via PvP if there's no one there?). Sure, there was (and remains) activity in Felucca, but nothing like there was the day before Trammel went live.
You keep saying that. However, your definition of "many" and what it would take for it to be financially viable are, in my opinion, vastly inconsistent with each other.
This game started to become item based with publish 15 with runics. PVPrs complained about it but only valorite runics were better than what you could get before and they were very rare. You could also faction bless lower types and have Vanq quality which used to be best but with a huge risk using since you could be looted.
Then, arrived publish 16, powerscrolls and I must say every trammie became a fel guy. There were 150+ people, all blue, attending tera keep (for example), and to be honest it is a very memorable UO time. But people soon realized that their long worked 7*100 characters had became completely useless. I had 15 of those at that time... over 3 years of playing 4 hours a day ruined... Anyway, as many I tried to adapt. But I know a lot who already quit at that time. Of course, the internet market was booming. So more people would join UO than leave still. But the community spirit of UO was gone. At some point also they removed stat loss and zergs of low quality players took over felucca, hoarding every single scroll and made it impossible to compete through normal gameplay. I have no doubt you could still compete in pvp on one of your toons provided you had spent countless hours on pvm, but all your other characters were taking dust at that point. I must add that over the course of the years they removed more and more possibilities. I can name a few: removal of AE spells through walls, removal of EVs hitting everyone on sight thus being a dangerous tool to use, add-on of controllers, removal of pet gating, various fields only hitting opposite notoriety players, instanced corpses, etc; many features making that game very realistic and thrilling were gone.
And then arrived AoS, while your only remaining active character eventually is complete and most of your friends already either have quit, play freeshards or test center only. After a few months, a few pvprs hoarded all the artes, casting at 5/6 speed etc... I was in biggest french pvp guild and I m the only one who survived it. I had none of those artes and didn t want to go to doom (too much lag and con losses and most boring thing ever added to this game), but since my characters had been turned to oblivion twice in little time I was expecting same would happen to those guys. Anyway, by 2004, 95% of my in game friends had quit UO, most went to freeshards.
All this to point out that when you say that AoS brought people to the game, you are completely wrong. It drew interest maybe, for sure not on the range of the internet boom of those years, but it simply took a while to realize AoS was cancer and it took a while for many to die from that cancer, as sneaky cancer usually does. None of the people I know who quit in 2003-2004 ever came back.
E
Evlar
Guest
One could be forgiven for thinking this same individual progressed from his sterling work, running EA's customer services.
M
macroplanet
Guest
It really seems some people are drawn away from the idea of a Classic Shard.
I just want to put my two cents in.
Ultima Online, EA, has tried a lot of things to try to get new players into UO. Hell I even try to get some of my friends playing the game. Of course most of them are blind and just saw the graphics and said "nah." But I did get a couple to play and actually really enjoy themselves. One being someone that only plays FPS games and realistic games. EA tried to get new blood in the game with the release of the Kingdom Reborn. However it didn't work as planned. I think some people returned but really disliked the client.
An official Classic Shard is the last attempt, in my opinion, that EA may try to get some old players back into UO. If they market it right, spend a few dollars, they could really be successful with this thing. There are hundreds of Classic Servers all over the net that people play on. I mean, HUNDREDS. Some of the most popular free servers have well over 5,000 people playing on it. From my experience, free servers are just raunchy. I just don't feel the connection in the game like I did on the official OSI servers. If EA were to try to get these players back into the game, you could easily see thousands of new players back into the game simply because they release a Classic Shard.
I understand there are many people here that have been playing UO for years and really don't want a change at all. But you might just have to sit back for a bit, for UO's sake. You may have to sacrifice a bit just to help keep the game alive. If something isn't done, I'm sure EA is looking at the cost of running the game versus the money they pull in with it very closely. Which is why I think they are finally realizing that a Classic Shard may not be such a bad idea.
But what would be a successful Classic Shard? Would it be a total revamp back to the T2A days? Would they keep the AoS ruleset, but place it in a Felucca only Britannia?
I'm interested to find out what EA is planning on doing with EA. I really hope we can find out some information this weekend as to what the future of UO has in store for us.
I just want to put my two cents in.
Ultima Online, EA, has tried a lot of things to try to get new players into UO. Hell I even try to get some of my friends playing the game. Of course most of them are blind and just saw the graphics and said "nah." But I did get a couple to play and actually really enjoy themselves. One being someone that only plays FPS games and realistic games. EA tried to get new blood in the game with the release of the Kingdom Reborn. However it didn't work as planned. I think some people returned but really disliked the client.
An official Classic Shard is the last attempt, in my opinion, that EA may try to get some old players back into UO. If they market it right, spend a few dollars, they could really be successful with this thing. There are hundreds of Classic Servers all over the net that people play on. I mean, HUNDREDS. Some of the most popular free servers have well over 5,000 people playing on it. From my experience, free servers are just raunchy. I just don't feel the connection in the game like I did on the official OSI servers. If EA were to try to get these players back into the game, you could easily see thousands of new players back into the game simply because they release a Classic Shard.
I understand there are many people here that have been playing UO for years and really don't want a change at all. But you might just have to sit back for a bit, for UO's sake. You may have to sacrifice a bit just to help keep the game alive. If something isn't done, I'm sure EA is looking at the cost of running the game versus the money they pull in with it very closely. Which is why I think they are finally realizing that a Classic Shard may not be such a bad idea.
But what would be a successful Classic Shard? Would it be a total revamp back to the T2A days? Would they keep the AoS ruleset, but place it in a Felucca only Britannia?
I'm interested to find out what EA is planning on doing with EA. I really hope we can find out some information this weekend as to what the future of UO has in store for us.
Actually, the real question is, "How many of those players are going to return?" long before it becomes, "How long will the stay?"
If you get 500 players to return, is it worth the development time? Because, as we've seen elsewhere, it's not just a matter of rolling out Pub 16, slapping it on a server, and calling it good. I know one emulator group's stood up and offered to be subcontracted, but I don't see EA legitimizing emulation in that manner (I could be wrong, and it would be an interesting thing to see them handing development of a classic server off to a separate group, but I don't believe that's the route they'll take -- before someone twists this around, I'm not saying I don't support them doing this, just saying I don't believe they will, and acknowledge that it's my belief, not fact).
It's funny that the common argument is that the current subscriber base (you know, the ones currently paying for the development of Ultima Online) don't have numbers to prove one way or another that moving development into an area that does affect the potential amount of development on the product we're paying for is the one that is truly in need of waving around these statistics. Or that development of a classic server will only bring new players, and will have no adverse affects on the current game. Or any other number of clear fallacies.
Yes, it's why they're carefully looking at it. However, they need to take all angles into account, not just saying, "Well, you know, we saw an online petition that 750 people signed... that must equate to hundreds of thousands of players waiting to give us money."
Which is the same truth that faces the classic ruleset. A majority of the "classic ruleset" servers aren't, in fact, running a pure classic ruleset, which plays back to the point of, "What exactly IS this classic rulseset?"
Sure, it's been estimated. Usually by people who want to see a classic server up and running. I'd love to see the studies provided that show this figure to be anything other than a made-up number, because while I will agree that pre-AoS servers probably have a larger playerbase per server that boils down to the same plain and simple truth that is the overall plain and simple truth that we're discussing: There's fewer of the pre-AoS servers out there, which means there's fewer of them run well, which means that the choice of pre-AoS servers is a lot more limiting than the post-AoS servers. It's not exactly a mystery.
Yep... and it's the same thing that faces the classic ruleset.
No, there is no substantial proof that "the overwhelming proportion" of players of UO emulators are playing a classic ruleset. None whatsoever. It's hyperbole and guesswork for the most part, and wishful thinking on another.
But, hey, if you want to start an independent survey group that runs around and tallies "active accounts" on emulator shards and can track them all down and give solid facts and statistics through the use of a baseline standard, go for it.
Until then: Classic shard emulators exist does not equate to a logical argument that there are thousands of payers out there just waiting to drop money into EA's pocket.