Whats The 1ST, 2ND And 3RD Changes Done To Uo That Caused A Decline In Subs ?

[RaDian FlGith]

I gotta say, Garriott hated EA. anyone who easter egg hunts in Ultimas knows that. And he hated EA before the buyout.

Oh, I definitely don't make the assertion that Garriot loved EA... there were definitely issues before, during, and after the purchase. Sadly, a better run Origin Systems might have saved it from needing to be sold.

also, EA gave him $250k to make UO. EA hd no part in making it, they actually hindered it by forcing Garriott to work on either his new Ultima, or UO. EA shot UO in the foot before it hit alpha even.

Well, consider at the time, Ultima Online was an entirely different project too. They were basically working on a multiplayer Ultima, but they were looking at maybe 50 players, certainly not 500, and definitely not 5,000+. Post UO, it's easy to say EA shot themselves in the foot, as UO could have been so much better from the start, but on the other hand, pre-UO, this whole online gaming thing wasn't exactly a proven market. And... EA, even by UO's development, had lost its role as a visionary game developer, and had become, well, as I like to put it: "EA started out as a cute little game developer, and then someone fed the f'er after midnight, and it turned into a hideous green monster." If only a different company with vision had purchased UO... but that's a whole different story.

yes yes it's all argument, this I know. Just image though, what if it wasn't EA who bought them? Would our Lord have ever left? Would he have did Tram the way he wanted? Would he have allowed UO to go from medieval to the current sci-fi game? And most important. Would he have allowed AoS or comic book mechs be added into the game?

Well, you know, if a company like Blizzard had purchased OSI, UO might have been the WoW of today... or the Duke Nukem of yesterday. It's hard to say. I do believe that Garriot, Koster, and everyone on UO before Sunsword (whose name I can't recall at the moment) became lead developer were considering ways to handle the rampant, anti-social gaming aspects that plagued early UO (heck, even the interview with Vogel shows that the producer was aware there was a serious issue with the game's social workings). Would we have had Trammel handled differently or better? We could hope. One thing I think we can agree on is that some "Trammelization" of UO would definitely have happened. As for AoS and sci-fi? Yeah, he'd have allowed it. Remember, most of Lord Blackthorn's Revenge was left over asset from UWO:Origin. Aside from a couple of aspects, UO hasn't gone sci-fi. And sci-fi intermixed lightly with fantasy has been around for ages... AD&D Expedition to the Barrier Peaks was an awesome sci-fi meets fantasy module, and there were even rules conversions to mix Star Frontier and Gamma World with AD&D. No, it's not UO, but it's not unusual either.

who knows, UO could have died back in 2000 if things were different. One thing I know for sure though, EA doesn't care about us the players or the game. Never has never will. period.

Yeah... there's no way to guess what UO might have been... But I fully agree with you, and have said for ages that UO has been EA's ONLY successful MMO, and they STILL don't understand why. Sure, DAoC could be considered their second, but then, they bought that.

 

[Kaladin]

1) Felucca ruined UO from the start. It scared away a lot of players who might still be playing now. You got a few experienced players early on in the game who exploited their way into riches off the backs of newer players at the time.

2) Insurance. There should be no insurance. I mean, There should also be no risk of losing items. I shouldn't need insurance to guarantee that I'll keep my items.

3) Poor implementation of new housing areas.

 

[RaDian FlGith]

He also would not have let pkrs exist in the way they did! would he have created tram probably not! it was the players who made the game go in the direction the game did ! they forced it ! what they should have done is made it so if you went red and you died it was forever and you lost every thing or at least made it so there was very very sever actions for what you did!
to force everyone to be a killer in a game that was creating a world was wrong and would never have worked!
a world cannot survive with total chaos!

Well, I suspect we'd still have seen some non-con PvP areas, but (and truly, had Sunsword had a little more vision, this would have been a non-issue) had they simply taken Trammel and made IT the PvP+ area, sending the murderers packing, UO would have saved themselves a ton of long-term subscribers, because while many people continued to play for the next couple of years, certainly the destruction of many communities simply because they wanted out of the PvP+ area was one of the first heralds of departure from UO.

But yeah... everyone (save the weird revisionists who believe that UO was "intended" to be the chaotic mess that it was) knows UO couldn't have survived without some Trammelization effect.

 

[Uvtha]

1) AoS made UO a Calc exam.

Yeah you have to like...add...

Id say not have wasted like a year on KR, then another on SA clients, and just have been working on UO2, which is at least 5 years over due.

Or set up a free to play option.

 

[HD2300]

1. Not enough new content, not often enough for p(l)ayers to justify resubscriptions
2. Saying they will stop cheating, and doing effectively nothing
3. Failing to develop a decent competitive client

The systems are there, as there is 12 years of systems development, but the client isnt up to scratch and the just isnt enough new content/events.

 

[Vlaude]

People have different ideas about this depending on their playstyle throughout the years. People have left the game for a lot of different reasons, whether they didn't like getting pk'd (lol), or didn't like trammel/AoS/item insurance. I can say for a FACT that ALL of the people I used to play with TOLD me the reason they left related to trammel/AoS/item insurance. Am I implying they made up the majority of players that have left? No. But that's a good 20 people with multiple accounts in a guild called FEL on Catskills. Have some of them come back at times? A few, heck I've been back for a good 8 months or so now and know of at least one that has come back for a bit too. The rest have stayed gone as far as I know. However, business has a cold side and whatever future UO holds will continue to be made with business in mind (as it always has), even if that means ignoring certain requests.

 

[olduofan]

People have different ideas about this depending on their playstyle throughout the years. People have left the game for a lot of different reasons, whether they didn't like getting pk'd (lol), or didn't like trammel/AoS/item insurance. I can say for a FACT that ALL of the people I used to play with TOLD me the reason they left related to trammel/AoS/item insurance. Am I implying they made up the majority of players that have left? No. But that's a good 20 people with multiple accounts in a guild called FEL on Catskills. Have some of them come back at times? A few, heck I've been back for a good 8 months or so now and know of at least one that has come back for a bit too. The rest have stayed gone as far as I know. However, business has a cold side and whatever future UO holds will continue to be made with business in mind (as it always has), even if that means ignoring certain requests.

kinda OT Maybe this should be discussed in anther thread

I just had a thought what if they removed ins and made it so what a player is wearing cant be looted as well as resources so craftsmen wont get grief as much.In Most games player don't worry about losing items

 

[Vlaude]

kinda OT Maybe this should be discussed in anther thread

I just had a thought what if they removed ins and made it so what a player is wearing cant be looted as well as resources so craftsmen wont get grief as much.In Most games player don't worry about losing items

If you're asking my opinion on that (since you quoted me) I think that's a terrible idea (which has everything to do with my bias as a classic shard supporter). I would only be on board with something like that if AoS item properties were all done away with at the same time (which won't happen).

 

[olduofan]

I would like to see that as well and I'm only thinking of all players that left becuase they left town and got pked then looted. I dont think being killed was the worst part for most it was working hard for months to lose it so easy that turned players off thats why they made tram maybe instead they should have just made looting more limited or not at all. Im not saying this what I want it was a brief thought I had. Now I find my self thinking why did they ever do it in the first place should have know it would be a problem every one was coming from single player game and we could reload a saved game if thing went wrong, not Here tho.

Like I said just a thought..

Also how and why does item property make a difference if players can be looted or not I;m a bite lost on that logic and I'm just trying to understand not flame you.

 

[Vlaude]

Also how and why does item property make a difference if players can be looted or not I;m a bite lost on that logic and I'm just trying to understand not flame you.

Well, I was mostly saying if characters can't lose items they should take away AoS properties because that creates an imbalance based on items rather than skills. There are a lot of different directions arguing that could go, but I'll admit that was more of an argument when AoS first released than it is now. However, if we ever did start getting new players again it would be a big issue again.

If players can be looted with AoS properties (like on Siege) then item properties make less of an impact. But it's funny that people think Siege is a replacement for a classic shard because of this. Let's see here, I have one account, which means one character on Siege. Would you be happy with only one character on the shard you play on? I didn't think so...

But I hope this won't turn into another classic shard debate thread, that argument is over. It's time to decide if we enjoy the game how it is or leave, like many have already done.

 

[dukarlo]

Yup. Trammel actually brought in players.

Did Trammel bring in players or did the fact that high speed internet and better computers bring in players? People forget that when UO came out the masses did not have computers or cable or dsl. Many people did but i certainly would not say the masses. I will say Trammel along with AOS alienated the most players without a doubt. With trammel, the playerbase was split in 2 over night and with AOS, the game was completely changed alienating another section of the playerbase.

 

[Martyna Zmuir]

Would he have allowed UO to go from medieval to the current sci-fi game? And most important. Would he have allowed AoS or comic book mechs be added into the game?

As Ra pointed out previously, LBR cyborgs were UO2 ports into UO. EA 'saved' some money by utilizing assets from what was probably an expensive contract with McFarlane. Its just sad that his art clashed so terribly with other UO art. But then, it was made for a 3D game with a completely different visual feel.

And if you really want to get technical, Ultima has always had sci-fi elements. Ultima I had ray guns, spaceships, and time travel. Ultima II had more of the same, as well as extensive use of time travel. Ultima III had a big megalomaniacal supercomputer bent on world domination. Savage Empire had aliens and a lost hi-tech city in a hidden valley on Earth. Martian Dreams had a trip to an inhabited Mars, aliens, and LOTS of hi-tech gadgetry. Ultima VII had an alien spaceship. Ultima Underworld II had aliens...

 

[GalenKnighthawke]

As Ra pointed out previously, LBR cyborgs were UO2 ports into UO. EA 'saved' some money by utilizing assets from what was probably an expensive contract with McFarlane. Its just sad that his art clashed so terribly with other UO art. But then, it was made for a 3D game with a completely different visual feel.

And if you really want to get technical, Ultima has always had sci-fi elements. Ultima I had ray guns, spaceships, and time travel. Ultima II had more of the same, as well as extensive use of time travel. Ultima III had a big megalomaniacal supercomputer bent on world domination. Savage Empire had aliens and a lost hi-tech city in a hidden valley on Earth. Martian Dreams had a trip to an inhabited Mars, aliens, and LOTS of hi-tech gadgetry. Ultima VII had an alien spaceship. Ultima Underworld II had aliens...

You are making a critical error, one pointed to by the following quote from our fellow GLer Ra'Dian:

Use facts, not make believe, to support your arguments.

I knew from the start that this argument wouldn't actually use facts, so after my post predicting what the main, non-factual arguments would be, and pointing out what was obviously wrong with them, I've stayed away from this thread save for the occasional random sampling.

During which I noticed your post, and Ra'Dian's unintended ironic quote, and couldn't resist saying something.

You and Ra Both of you really need to just stay away from this thread. You both at least try to be grounded in reality (though I must point out that you both on occasion fail so luckily I am on GL now to point it out to both of you when you do ). This thread, though, is geared towards those who do not try.

-Galen's player

 

[Martyna Zmuir]

*looks at Galen like he's suddenly grown a second head*

I'm going to assume you're trying to be ironic, since Ultima is 'make believe.' Thus any 'facts' regarding it are also 'make believe.'

*pats you on the head*

However, within the context of this particular digression of the thread, Ra's quote is in regards to things said about 'real world' interactions between OSI and EA.

My post was the context of sci-fi elements in Ultima/UO, and only referenced a single line of Ra’s post. A tangential link at best.

 

[jaashua]

Did Trammel bring in players or did the fact that high speed internet and better computers bring in players? People forget that when UO came out the masses did not have computers or cable or dsl. Many people did but i certainly would not say the masses. I will say Trammel along with AOS alienated the most players without a doubt. With trammel, the playerbase was split in 2 over night and with AOS, the game was completely changed alienating another section of the playerbase.

Using that argument, why would the population start to decline in 2003 when numbers of high speed users was still climbing? You're using that as the sole correlation.

 

[Llewen]

1. Lord Blackthorn's Revenge. The introduction of steam punk into what had been a high fantasy setting was a big mistake. It was around that time that subscriptions started declining.

2. The announcement of Punk Buster, and then the decision to cancel it. They've somewhat made up for that mistake with the recent implementation of third party cheat detection, but they essentially gave cheaters free reign in UO for ten years, and their negligence allowed a culture of cheating to flourish that has yet to have it's back broken. EA has lost a lot of subscriptions as a result of the avoidance of dealing with this issue.

3. Old age. Face it, way back when, UO was innovative, and a real pioneer in the world of MMORPG's. It isn't any more. There are so many choices out there, and all of the newer ones look better, and have learnt lessons from the success of MMO's like WoW, and the many mistakes that were made in the early years by teams like those developing Ultima Online.

 

[canary]

1. Lord Blackthorn's Revenge. The introduction of steam punk into what had been a high fantasy setting was a big mistake. It was around that time that subscriptions started declining.

2. The announcement of Punk Buster, and then the decision to cancel it. They've somewhat made up for that mistake with the recent implementation of third party cheat detection, but they essentially gave cheaters free reign in UO for ten years, and their negligence allowed a culture of cheating to flourish that has yet to have it's back broken. EA has lost a lot of subscriptions as a result of the avoidance of dealing with this issue.

3. Old age. Face it, way back when, UO was innovative, and a real pioneer in the world of MMORPG's. It isn't any more. There are so many choices out there, and all of the newer ones look better, and have learnt lessons from the success of MMO's like WoW, and the many mistakes that were made in the early years by teams like those developing Ultima Online.

I don't really agree with #1 being that deal breaking, #2 is understandable, and totally agree with #3.

 

[red sky]

In summary, the main decline in subscriptions is due to a thing called time. You see, people change as this thing called time continues. They move on to other things as they travel down this path known as life. They can choose to remain apart of the UO community or devote their time to something new. Regardless of what UO does to better itself, this thing called time will change the number of subscriptions in UO, whether it be for the worse or better. In our case, it has been for the worse; however, this is natural considering the current state of the real world, the average age of the majority of players who subscribed during UO's peak, and the fact that your average person tends to be dynamic and move on to other things when given a long enough time interval.

 

[canary]

Most of my friends have left simply due to boredom, lack of interesting things to do in game (yes, I'm aware some of you think 'You could do stuff FOREVER in UO), and a bad, aging client that is ugly. The ugly part works for both clients.

My boyfriend lovingly calls UO 'That ugly game you play'. I can get him to play other onlines, but not UO.

 

[Llewen]

1. Lord Blackthorn's Revenge. The introduction of steam punk into what had been a high fantasy setting was a big mistake. It was around that time that subscriptions started declining.

I don't really agree with #1 being that deal breaking, #2 is understandable, and totally agree with #3.

Well, the thing is as I think back, I do think that was when sub numbers started declining. That was why I listed it.

 

[Kael]

1) AOS - the move to a more item based system

2) Insurance- imho this began the slide of crafters as viable characters to mere extra character slots that every account had

3) All the landmass additions that spread out the population from the cities...it lowered the accomplishment of owning a house and destroyed the community of newer players that relied on banks as makeshift homes

 

[Morgana LeFay (PoV)]

1) Time - Time passed, games got better, more games came out that built upon what UO had done and surpassed it.

2 and 3 - see # 1.

 

[Radugast]

1. People pleading with the Devs to waste valuable time on 3d clients (3rd Dawn, EC, ect). Time and efforts that could have helped the CC function better. The type of people that must have the latest graphics are a very difficult crowd to please, they typically move from game to game anyways.

2. AOS changed the game alot

3. Not Trammel! The game was still pretty good after it came out and factions was fun back then. Alot of people quit right after 3rd Dawn came out including myself for 4-5 years.

 

[Farsight]

Time, support, new player experience, advertising and bugs.

Time - After a few years of the same old thing, it can get dull if you don't make your own fun. The counter to that would have been regular expansions or changes right out the door. But that box has been opened, now they can only try to keep the fools who stay.
Support - The number one reason that my friends have claimed to leave in the past was from a disagreement with the management, whether it was a bugged character which the GMs didn't fix or a hacked account which wasn't handled in a timely manner. In the early days, lack of support was just a thing, but after competition came into the pictures, people could leave and play another game.
New player experience - I can't count the number of new players who had so many issues getting started that they just quit. UO has a big learning curve and a lot of different systems, and no way to teach players how to use it outside of web sites created by the players themselves.
Advertising - If people don't see it, they don't know it's there
Bugs - The number two reason I've seen people leave is being victimized by some bug or another, be it the old trade window bugs, house looting bugs or running over crates and candles.

Honorary mention - The "Classic client" which was out of date even when it came out.

I can't count to three, it's more than four, right?

 

[NuSair]

1. Rampant Pk'ing
2. Release of other MMORPGs (EQ then WoW)
3. Scripting/duping

I realize those fall outside the confines of the original post, what changes done to UO caused subscription decline.... as most people in this thread did...

As far as things done to UO that directly caused a loss in subscriptions....

It was released too early. I feel that there were never systems implemented or implemented fully, plus I think they would have had time to come up with a better answer for the pk'ing issue other than Tram. Granted, I feel at the time, creating Tram was the best option, but I think that if handled before the release date, would have been better.

 

[Morgana LeFay (PoV)]

It was released too early. I feel that there were never systems implemented or implemented fully, plus I think they would have had time to come up with a better answer for the pk'ing issue other than Tram. Granted, I feel at the time, creating Tram was the best option, but I think that if handled before the release date, would have been better.

That's an interesting statement. I have to say, I completely agree (except for the part that creating Tram was the best option).

If UO had launched with meaningful consequences to PK'ing, and everyone needs to remember, that the original launch version had almost ZERO consequences besides going Dread Lord and not being able to enter towns, then I think it would never had lost the subscriptions of PKs/Anti-PKs...and probably would have retained more subscriptions of the people that left because of it.

However...let's all be realistic here. The PK/Tram issue is a very old one...and doesn't really have much effect on subscriptions today. UO, as it stands, has lost more subscriptions due to the fact that it is almost 14 years old, with graphics that prove it, than any other reason.

You and I might not care as much about graphics, but the average gamer does.

Everyone here knows that I am not a fan of Trammel or AoS, but I honestly do not think that either of those have been responsible for any net loss of subscriptions. Could UO gain some subscriptions back by doing away with those things? Probably not. More people would likely quit than it would bring back. Could UO gain some subscriptions by adding a shard that lacked those things (Classic Shard)? I still believe so, but obviously EA/Mythic does not share that opinion.

 

[Dermott of LS]

...

Morgana, rare as it may be agree with your last two posts in this thread. However, I am skeptical on the long-term viability of a classic shard, but that is a completely seperate argument.

I'm in favor of players being able to choose whether they wish to be exposed to the risk of PvP or not, but I also think the way they implemented Trammel was the wrong way. At the very least, they would have saved MANY built up player run communities by releasing the rulesets REVERSED than what they did (i.e. force the PKs/PvP people into the newer facet instead of the non-PvP... the fact that Trammel filled up as fast as it did is testament as to how necessary that choice was).

Ideally, they should have designated servers as open-PvP or consentual-PvP servers. Sure you'd still have a lot of upheaval of people having to decide to stay on their shard or move, but it would have been only marginally different than it was (yes, I know that there were no shard xfers yet so people would have to start from scratch if they moved).

I do know that some of the expansions DID end up losing accounts directly after release (LBR for certain, and SE and ML were both in the downward trend after the AOS peak), but beyond that, you're 100% right about the "time" issue.

 

[Viper09]

IMO, trammel rules should have been saved for the other real land-mass expansions instead of just creating an exact duplicate. Such as all the other land-masses.

 

[Morgana LeFay (PoV)]

I'd have rather seen them leave the landmass alone, and create areas within it that were patrolled by guards, or patrolled by paladins, or something that had some kind of realistic basis for preventing PK'ing other than..."well, you just can't do that here".

My number one objection to Trammel was that it split the population. My number two objection, is that long term, it made the game shallow and easy (for me and several other people I know at least).

But what NuSair said above...that it should have been released with mechanisms to curtail PK'ing in place at launch...that is something I agree with 100%.

I also think that if the game had launched with meaningful consequences to being a PK, there would have been far less of them...and when it did happen, it would likely have happened for a reason, not just random killing for the sake of doing so. If that had happened, I think a lot of players would not have developed the hyper-sensitivity to it that many have today.

But I digress.

I still contend, as I always have, that the reason UO's population (number of subscribers) has shrank has more to do with the fact that it is an old and outdated game than anything else. As many others have pointed out, Trammel actually brought some players back. It lost others however, even though the end result was a net gain. So I don't consider Trammel as a "change done to UO that caused a decline in subs". I'd much rather play UO without it, but that doesn't mean that everyone would.

Anyway...just my opinions.

Carry on.

 

[Nexus]

But what NuSair said above...that it should have been released with mechanisms to curtail PK'ing in place at launch...that is something I agree with 100%.

I also think that if the game had launched with meaningful consequences to being a PK, there would have been far less of them...and when it did happen, it would likely have happened for a reason, not just random killing for the sake of doing so. If that had happened, I think a lot of players would not have developed the hyper-sensitivity to it that many have today.

I don't really blame them for not doing it another way.. It's hard to blame someone for ignorance. They at the time simply didn't know what was going to happen in UO when it launched, there was nothing to compare it to.

While I will agree it might have been better if what was dubbed Trammel became the PvP open facet, I can also see some practicality in why they did it the way they did. By making the new land mass Closed to PvP they did the reds a favor. Those that had houses were not immediately blocked from accessing them, as they would have been if the circumstances were reversed, and considering how rampant PKs were at that point it would have caused just as much if not more backlash. I'm not saying this is why they did it the way they did, but I can see it having been a consideration.

If Trammel destroyed player communities, it's largely because they, they members of that community, let it. They lived in an Open PvP environment for years. I know several that have withstood the test of time and are still around. I know of some that fell into ruin and members have returned and rebuilt them. The only reason I can see a player established community falling into ruin is because they were unwilling to adapt, and/or it's members lacked the desire to persevere. Yes it would have been easier on them if the facet split was reversed in nature, but Trammel didn't "destroy" them.

 

[Farquhar]

Yup. Trammel actually brought in players.

No, it didn't.

As per investor quarterlies for 1999-2000, uo saw a 57 000 subscriber increase around the release of uo:r because they localized it for multiple languages and shipped it to the asian market. The free months in asia were expiring when uo:r was released.

They could have called it uo:triangles and made triangular shaped housing, and it would have still seen the same increase.

If you remove the asian growth from uo:r release quarter, the north american population was stagnant to decreasing.

The bottom line is there were other games out there for the north american market to play.

 

[Farquhar]

1. Runesabre's removal of pre-casting in combat.
- The first major assault on an equal level playing field for combat. It opened the doors for a flood of absolute nonsense like the curing before healing change, the swing timers based of dex, etc.

2. The move from Texas to California. UO lost its identity and started piecemealing in aspects of other games they thought players of those games enjoyed in hopes to get them to play uo.

3. Gordon "tyrant" Walton's goal of "dumbing the game down" with uo:r.
-Anything past this is just a further appeasement to the instant gratification crowd.

4. Here's a 4th one to step on some toes. Closing down the official uo boards and allowing a fansite to be the official gathering place for players. It allows people like me, who don't actually play the game, a place to criticize.

 

[Amber Moon]

4. Here's a 4th one to step on some toes. Closing down the official uo boards and allowing a fansite to be the official gathering place for players. It allows people like me, who don't actually play the game, a place to criticize.

That is ok, your a funny guy. I love fossils.

 

[Cirno]

4. Here's a 4th one to step on some toes. Closing down the official uo boards and allowing a fansite to be the official gathering place for players. It allows people like me, who don't actually play the game, a place to criticize.

Although making a fansite the official boards for the game might be another thing to go on the list of "things they maybe shouldn't have done that way", the overall move away from the main forum for the game having as limited a scope as the MyUO ones did is something I would class as a benefit.
If the developers are only seeing posts from people who are currently subscribed, then they are not seeing why the people who aren't subscribing aren't.
As troublesome as it may be, the perspective of non-players isn't really something that should be ignored. They may kick up a stink, but you can learn more by reading what they have to say than by ignoring them.

 

[Farquhar]

Although making a fansite the official boards for the game might be another thing to go on the list of "things they maybe shouldn't have done that way", the overall move away from the main forum for the game having as limited a scope as the MyUO ones did is something I would class as a benefit.
If the developers are only seeing posts from people who are currently subscribed, then they are not seeing why the people who aren't subscribing aren't.
As troublesome as it may be, the perspective of non-players isn't really something that should be ignored. They may kick up a stink, but you can learn more by reading what they have to say than by ignoring them.

They can have their say in the exit forms when they click cancel. Those are what the dev's should be listening to, not the ramblings of a dude who hasn't played the game in 3 years and has no idea what is even in the game anymore.

I have no idea what an artifact is. I've never used one, I don't know what it's like in relationship to player combat. The last person I'd listen to, if I was designing this game, is the ramblings of a player who doesn't play(me). You end up with 100's of different directions to be pulled in and the result is a mishmash of stuff that has no real continuity.

Classic uo threads are a prime example. Each poster puts his/her stipulations on their version of what they would want in order to play the game again. If we listen to all them, we get a blank server with only grass to run around in, as long as somebody doesn't post that they don't like the grass lay out.

 

[Woodsman]

4. Here's a 4th one to step on some toes. Closing down the official uo boards and allowing a fansite to be the official gathering place for players. It allows people like me, who don't actually play the game, a place to criticize.

I don't know if it would step on toes, to me it just reinforces the low regard that EA has for UO.

All off the major MMOs have official forums. Their forums are very important to them.

EA has official forums with EA moderators that they use to communicate with EA customers and gamers:

EA Video Game Forum: EA Forums

BioWare has their own set of forums covering all of their games (except Camelot/UO, but Warhammer gets their own forums):

Choose Language | BioWare Social Network

UO and Camelot are under BioWare, BioWare has their own forum moderators, it would take 10 minutes to set up UO and Camelot forums.

It really does reinforce the view that EA cares very little for UO/Camelot. They give UO players Facebook pages. Oh and Twitter. As part of their new player experience, they should have official forums, because new players are going to be used to other games that have official forums.

 

[Woodsman]

Although making a fansite the official boards for the game might be another thing to go on the list of "things they maybe shouldn't have done that way", the overall move away from the main forum for the game having as limited a scope as the MyUO ones did is something I would class as a benefit.

The major MMOs all have their own official forums. There is value there and they recognize that.

The major EA games all have their own official forums, either directly under the EA brand or under the studios.

The parent studio of UO has very active forums covering their past, present, and future (Star Wars MMO) games.

UO and Camelot don't have their own forums because EA doesn't care, plain and simple. BioWare has moderators already on staff. UO and Camelot wouldn't exactly tie up a lot of their time compared to the Warhammer or Star Wars forums, or Dragon Age 2 or the new Mass Effect games.

They give UO players a Facebook page. That's their official discussion area (and there are plenty of discussions on their Facebook page - http://www.facebook.com/UltimaOnline#!/UltimaOnline?v=app_2373072738).

 

[Cirno]

They can have their say in the exit forms when they click cancel. Those are what the dev's should be listening to, not the ramblings of a dude who hasn't played the game in 3 years and has no idea what is even in the game anymore.

I have no idea what an artifact is. I've never used one, I don't know what it's like in relationship to player combat. The last person I'd listen to, if I was designing this game, is the ramblings of a player who doesn't play(me). You end up with 100's of different directions to be pulled in and the result is a mishmash of stuff that has no real continuity.

Classic uo threads are a prime example. Each poster puts his/her stipulations on their version of what they would want in order to play the game again. If we listen to all them, we get a blank server with only grass to run around in, as long as somebody doesn't post that they don't like the grass lay out.

An exit form is likely to be subject to bias, because the person is on the way out, they could be angry or upset, and as a one time thing it wouldn't give a very clear picture. Sometimes on the forums, people announce that they're "done with UO", without putting across a clear reason why.

I think you underestimate how valuable your input could be.
Something unique you offer is a perspective that's free of AoS (I think that's when the first artifacts appeared), it's not skewed by before/after comparisons.
Everyone's perspective is important, even if only to recognise trends and patterns, and shutting out a whole group of possible data is only going to skew your analysis.

If I were a dev, I'd listen to you
(That sounded kinda creepy)

 

[olduofan]

An exit form is likely to be subject to bias, because the person is on the way out, they could be angry or upset, and as a one time thing it wouldn't give a very clear picture. Sometimes on the forums, people announce that they're "done with UO", without putting across a clear reason why.

I think you underestimate how valuable your input could be.
Something unique you offer is a perspective that's free of AoS (I think that's when the first artifacts appeared), it's not skewed by before/after comparisons.
Everyone's perspective is important, even if only to recognise trends and patterns, and shutting out a whole group of possible data is only going to skew your analysis.

If I were a dev, I'd listen to you
(That sounded kinda creepy)

once again im not trying to ague with ya but if I was in-charge at uo and I had players quitting because they got so mad I would like to know what upset them so ya it mite be biased but its still something to keep record of if a lot of people quit and are saying the same thing then they can fix/adjust the issue. I just a thought feed back is always good imo

 

[jaashua]

No, it didn't.

As per investor quarterlies for 1999-2000, uo saw a 57 000 subscriber increase around the release of uo:r because they localized it for multiple languages and shipped it to the asian market. The free months in asia were expiring when uo:r was released.

They could have called it uo:triangles and made triangular shaped housing, and it would have still seen the same increase.

If you remove the asian growth from uo:r release quarter, the north american population was stagnant to decreasing.

The bottom line is there were other games out there for the north american market to play.

LOL. After UO:R the population increased steadily for the next three years. This wasn't a short burst. In fact, it grew at a faster rate after UO:R than before it. And there were multiple high profile MMOs released during that time and they had no negative impact on UO.

As I said, old graphics are okay for a while, but beyond a certain threshold they can no longer be considered noble or quaint and start to be perceived as a signal that the game lacks sophistication and modern sensibilities. Like a CEO for a Fortune 500 company who sucks his thumb. It was okay for him to suck his thumb when he was 2 and he may be a spectacular CEO, but if you're an investor it's going to turn you away.

 

[Cirno]

once again im not trying to ague with ya but if I was in-charge at uo and I had players quitting because they got so mad I would like to know what upset them so ya it mite be biased but its still something to keep record of if a lot of people quit and are saying the same thing then they can fix/adjust the issue. I just a thought feed back is always good imo

I agree
I didn't mean to imply that the exit forms were not worth looking at. I only meant to say that just looking at the exit forms would have their own biases, so they would not be so reliable as a single source of data.

Also, I may have omitted an assumption I made based on memory.
When I talk about moving away from the limited scope of the MyUO forums, I was working from my memories of how they were moderated, and how access was restricted to current subscribers.
UO currently doesn't have an "official" forum.
If I understand it correctly, Stratics used to be, until the fansite program was canned, at which point UO went to having no official forum.

 

[Zosimus]

Some forget to mention back in the day when subs did increase when some existing players at that time, opened up extra accounts when Trammel was created. The UO ebay boom began with selling of pixels and houses. Trammel did bring in new players but also players left. Some also capatilized on it

I am also going to add a 4th reason....

4) Need to build from scratch a new UO2. Can keep the current UO and have a newer UO2. Both games could make money for EA. Atm, Guild Wars will be doing the same thing. They dont charge monthly sub for Guild Wars and will not charge a monthly sub for GW2. Plus they are keeping GW online even with the launch of GW2.

I dont know how many keep up with current games but I have been signed up for a few years in my email with this www.gamerzines.com/mmo

Keeps me up to date on games I play or new ones coming out. Sometimes they have promotional codes with games I play to get free pixels I never see UO mentioned but I may have not seen it. I do see other EA titles mentioned.

 

[Woodsman]

When I talk about moving away from the limited scope of the MyUO forums, I was working from my memories of how they were moderated, and how access was restricted to current subscribers.
UO currently doesn't have an "official" forum.

The MyUO forums were better than nothing.

What they have now is Facebook, and they do actually use it to interact with UO fans. They even announced on FB that the plan for the new art was finished. That's something you won't see anywhere else.

It really is a sign of neglect. If you look at the Dragon Age 2 forums, just those forums for one EA title, there are 30 moderators and a dozen sub-forums covering all of the platforms, tech problems, strategy, announcements, etc. One of the sub-forums has hit a quarter of a million posts.

Dragon Age II Discussion forums for Dragon Age II

They even welcome Warhammer Online fans who can use their WAR account for their login:

https://social.bioware.com/signup.php

Welcome Warhammer Online: Age of Reckoning Players!

As part of WAR joining the BioWare Social Network all players will need to create a Social Network account, this account will allow you to take full advantage of all the features the site has to offer.
Already have a Social Network Account?

You don't need to create a new one! Simply register your WAR account.

Speaking of Warhammer, which was a Mythic creation, it has its own official forums with nearly a dozen moderators and around three dozen sub-forums covering tech help, character classes, new players, etc., etc.

Forum Home » Warhammer Online: Age of Reckoning

An 18 year old kid who spent $60 on Dragon Age 2 as his very EA title has the ability read the official EA BioWare Dragon Age 2 forums with 12 sub-forums moderated by a team of 30 people.

A Warhammer fan who has paid a few hundred bucks (or even doing the trial) gets an official EA BioWare Warhammer forums with three dozen or so sub-forums moderated by nearly a dozen moderators that covers everything from what classes to play and how to play them to tech help to new player guides.

A late 20s into their 50s adult who has spent potentially several thousand dollars on UO over the last 13 years or so and is spending at minimum $120 a year on UO per account, gets to post on Facebook.

The fact that EA BioWare is hosting Warhammer Online forums while ignoring UO/Camelot fans is just....words fail me. It would take them less than 10 minutes to set up an official UO and Camelot forums and you can use your EA logins for the accounts or just create a brand new login.

But hey, we've got Facebook!

 

[phantus]

Implementation has been UO's bane for many years.

1.)Trammel implementation was 100% necessary. We wouldn't be here today without it. Implementation was horrible. It could have been done so much better.

2.)AoS. Again implementation. Itemization of UO didn't kill it. It was the manner in which it was done. Horrible. It could have been done so much better.

3.)What cause actual decline in subs. The moving of the development team twice and the changeover in producers year after year.

 

[Cirno]

But hey, we've got Facebook!

You have us, too, and we you

 

[Zosimus]

As a former DaoC player and Warhammer player ( still have my free trial account just have my 2 subs closed) I still have access to the forums. With my account management I can go in and activate both my War or DaoC accounts in a very simple way. UO is not listed since they keep that seperate.

I think the Mythic Entertainment | Camelot Herald - Community News for Dark Age of Camelot! for DaoC is 100% better than News Archive | Mythic Entertainment | Ultima Online for UO. Many various reasons why I think DaOc site is better but when you search for your character, anybody character or guilds you can get stats and such on what players are doing in the game. Plus you can actually see current game status when you are on the site..

Currently defending the realms:
2,326
North America
0
GOA Europe
2,326
Worldwide
Last Updated: 3/10/11 05:06 PM


On UO site it's just bland and boring. It be nice to see who is on top of the PvP scene or how certain players on shards are on top for PvP. How active is the game or what shard is more active.

 

[Morgana LeFay (PoV)]

1.)Trammel implementation was 100% necessary. We wouldn't be here today without it. Implementation was horrible. It could have been done so much better.

This is where I will have to step in and disagree.

An awful lot of current UO players make the assumption that there were really only two options 1) 100% open non-con PvP (as it was before Trammel) or 2) Trammel.

There were many better options that were available to the devs at the time.

This doesn't meant that something didn't need to change...it just means that Trammel was not the right answer either. So when I see someone say "UO wouldnt' be around without Trammel"...I have to disagree. Now, if you had said "UO wouldn't be around if the devs had not done something to curtail PK'ing"...I would agree.

But I don't really expect many Trammies to actually read or understand what I am saying here. Most just see "Trammel was necessary" and "I disagree" and automatically ignore the rest of what is being said, and jump to the conclusion that the person disagreeing wanted full non-con PvP. Heck, some even accuse the person that disagrees of being a PK.

2.)AoS. Again implementation. Itemization of UO didn't kill it. It was the manner in which it was done. Horrible. It could have been done so much better.

With Trammel in place, and UO not being level based, I agree 100%. Making UO into an item grind was about the only thing that was going to keep players interested after 'Easy Mode' was implemented.

3.)What cause actual decline in subs. The moving of the development team twice and the changeover in producers year after year.

Not sure many people that pay to play UO really give a rat's behind who the producer is or where he or she is located...as long as the product is quality.

Just saying.

 

[Woodsman]

You have us, too, and we you

I hate to think what UO would be like without Stratics.

 

[Cirno]

But I don't really expect many Trammies to actually read or understand what I am saying here. Most just see "Trammel was necessary" and "I disagree" and automatically ignore the rest of what is being said, and jump to the conclusion that the person disagreeing wanted full non-con PvP. Heck, some even accuse the person that disagrees of being a PK.

I agree with you, and I have never stepped foot in Felucca without a really good reason (and never hung around after that reason is done).
The developers should have embraced PvP, and found a way to let it coexist with other styles of play, rather than treating it as something undesired.

I am not really that into the idea of PvP, but I think if it hadn't been so disconnected from every other part of the game, I might have participated more. I prefer to play cooperative games, but that doesn't mean I wouldn't play competitive if the option seemed there.
Instead, PvP was locked away behind moonstones, and most of what I heard was that bad things would happen if I went to Fel. The only incentive to do it was if you really wanted to do it, anything short of that would likely be smothered by the popular belief (which was solidified by the devs' banishing PvP to another facet) that Fel was evil.

 

[phantus]

This is where I will have to step in and disagree.

An awful lot of current UO players make the assumption that there were really only two options 1) 100% open non-con PvP (as it was before Trammel) or 2) Trammel.

There were many better options that were available to the devs at the time.

This doesn't meant that something didn't need to change...it just means that Trammel was not the right answer either. So when I see someone say "UO wouldnt' be around without Trammel"...I have to disagree. Now, if you had said "UO wouldn't be around if the devs had not done something to curtail PK'ing"...I would agree.

But I don't really expect many Trammies to actually read or understand what I am saying here. Most just see "Trammel was necessary" and "I disagree" and automatically ignore the rest of what is being said, and jump to the conclusion that the person disagreeing wanted full non-con PvP. Heck, some even accuse the person that disagrees of being a PK.





With Trammel in place, and UO not being level based, I agree 100%. Making UO into an item grind was about the only thing that was going to keep players interested after 'Easy Mode' was implemented.



Not sure many people that pay to play UO really give a rat's behind who the producer is or where he or she is located...as long as the product is quality.

Just saying.

When I say Trammel I mean the idea. The curtailing of PK's was only part. There needed to be a way for new players to learn the game without having to go head to head with people who knew it inside and out and could game the system. I'm all for NPC paladins and stuff protecting areas but you know as well as I do that it would be circumvented.

That being said I could have given every single aspect of Trammel save one. Thieves. If you knew the gimmicks and had a friend playing a thief you were unstoppable. If you wanted to risk nothing and get ahead you could play a thief.

So I do agree with you that trammel wasn't necessary in the sense of trammel as a method to an end but there were certain elements of UO's wild west that made it impossible to compete with a growing MMO marketplace. The devs took the easy way.