I agree that EA is banking on big things from WAR. I just don't understand why.
Mythic owned the rights to WAR. Those rights did not belong to EA. They still don't belong to EA. Mythic got a very nice contract deal out of EA. Why do you think EA relocated to their headquarters? I don't know why WAR is expected to be so huge. However, Mythic's track record with DAoC does excite people, and people have wanted to play Warhammer as a MMORPG for quite some time.
Not world wide. Its huge in Europe. Its American numbers peaked at around 40,000 but when you throw in the European numbers they have more subs then UO. Although, UO had more when it peaked then DAoC has had. However, DAoC was a niche game, and it was one of the most successful niche games ever. In the end, it doesn't matter how many subs you have...it does matter how many of those subs actually stay with the game, and DAoC has a very good track record of keeping players playing.
I think that’s the whole reason EA acquired Mythic, because there is so much competition in MMO’s already. EA purchased a company that’s developing the online version of an already well known game with a strong following of players and fans worldwide. If Mythic can create an online version that has a similar experience to the tabletop games then they will have tons of player’s world wide, it’s probably one of the best bets to actually compete with other MMOs because of its already well established player base.
DAoC has less than 50k subs worldwide if you believe the numbers. How many does UO have?
Honestly at this point I'd be surprised if they have 50k world wide. As I said, DAoC never hit the subscriptions that UO had in the peak times. However, DAoC is a NICHE game and UO caters to a much larger market. DAoC is very likely the most popular NICHE game to date.
I totally and utterly disagree. They were the first to have RvR. They were the first to have seigable forts. They were the first to have an almost perfect balance of buffing classes, healers, tanks, and casters.
Roughly 100k, according to this article:
Then you're utterly wrong. RvR was a marketing bullet point to broaden the game's overall appeal. No actual thought was put into that aspect of the game. It's laughable in retrospect. How could somebody possibly think that a group-based PvM game would translate to PvP? Answer? Nobody did any thinking about it. Crowd control spells, which were absolutely requisite in PvM, carried over into PvP. So unless your side got off the CC spell first, you were dispatched like a typical group of mobs...chain mezed and killed one by one. What a thrill! About 3 or 4 years after the game went live, they got around to making some spells and skills work differently in PvP. The best anecdote from my time playing DAOC I can think of is berzerker damage. Players were literally screaming about how they were doing too much damage in PvP. At least a hundred logs had to have been posted on the Vault forums about it. Mythic officially addressed it a few times and repeatedly stated there was no problem. Come to find out after two years that they were only running the numbers against mobs when they'd test so they never saw the problem with the calculation. I can list off another dozen huge just core design problems with that game. Ultimately they killed it themselves with a huge gameplay altering expansion pack that had to be their first attempt at doing actual design work and they fell on their face and exposed their ineptitude in that area.
Pre-ToA servers have been around for at least a couple years. In fact that was one major problem with DAOC. They started releasing different version of the game to cater to different people. It looked desperate and split the playerbase. So they starter merging servers. Though the damage had already been done and by then WoW was out.
Try a mediocre way and appeal to none?
Sorry, but the current Classic servers are what kept DAoC from completely nosediving in sub numbers.
The person was referring to regular RvR servers, not the "full" PvP servers, which actually DID have good populations for a while, thankyouverymuch.
- Sounds great, where can I sign-up for that?
Nobody played the full PvP server. Nobody. It was insta-gank as soon as you hit lvl 10 or whatever it was that removed your flag. The others had good populations for the first year, but DAOC was the only show in town during that time.
Not "stayed focused" .... GOT focused ... its a new thang.
- oh no he di'nt
And quite well too!...There, all answered. Welcome back all
I'll quibble the #2. wrong
You mean September 1992, long before UO was released, or probably even conceived of? (Source of the date is the Wikipedia; I thought it was earlier than that actually. I remember it being the 80s!)
Oh, I think it's QUITE clear that Garriott was far less of a genius than we've given him credit for. I read an article in PC Gamer last year that highlighted Rich Vogel post Origin and he is still creating Ultima-esque games with a small developer. They are low res and very high on story and heart. Something tells me it was guys like Rich and Raph and others who were the real brains behind UO and probably the latter Ultima single player games. Case in point, Tabula Rasa. Regardless of the execution, the ideas behind it, that Garriott was coming up with or buying into, were stupid and unoriginal.And quite well too!
mmm
simply was mis-stated ... Never Was, has been or can be a "clear cut future" for UO ...
"Ultima Online was kind of a red-headed stepchild during its development." Garriott admits. "Everyone at EA was focused on Ultima IX which was seen as more of a sure thing. Nobody at EA really understood what Ultima Online was all about." In fact, the same can be said about the team. The history of UO's development is filled with mistakes that seem obvious only in retrospect. "We honestly never expected to sell more than 50,000 boxes." He said. Garriott also cited some of the earliest plans for the title that called for only one server for the entire game. That plan went up in smoke during the initial beta test when 50,000 players tried to jump on the game in the first weekend, almost causing the entire project to crash. Still, the initial debacle of the game's beta test had a silver lining - the realization that maybe there was a market for a shared world in cyberspace. source
"clear cut future" .... AIN"TTT no such critter ....
Hopes and Dreams and plans and scheme's o' Mice an' Men, gang aft agley.
GameSpy: What's the closest you feel you've ever come to re-creating those early D&D sessions in a computer game?
Garriott: Honestly ... none have come very close. Ultima's 1-9 were all solo player, and thus missed the social element, and UO is largely a big monster hunting fest, with a general lack of clear purpose. So, a great D&D-like experience is still ahead! circa 2003
/quibble ...
Besides ... how does one "answer" a statement ?
#4 Was a question, and answered.
#3 No question, and more of an "unsolvable"(probably) ... personal condition.
#1 ... *sigh* Isn't that just a rephrasing of "Waiting for Godot"? ... I mean ... I know it cannot be considering the source ...still the errily similar pointlessness of it ...
O'well
entitled to your opinion ... but I think you missed the "context" of the question RG was asked:
