Will EA protect Ultima as a brand?

[Siteswap]

A sequel where players who have played for many years would end up losing their houses, what communities are left, their items, characters, etc., would fail miserably. It would really **** off existing players who would probably turn their backs on EA.

Fail miserably? Are you serious? Do you really think EA would give a toss if UO lost its existing estimated 60,000 current subscribers if the "new sequel" attracted 1 million subscribers as Rift did? Of course they wouldnt.

 

[Evlar]

Now if your willing to give the names of these top illegal sites an the addy for them to Cal in a pm I bet you you will see those sites gone very quickly.

I'm sure he's got more important things to do with his time.

I'd love to see all the "FREE SHARDS" gone. The players who should be here like the rest of us. To get things changed you need the mouths who want it in the game not off on some free shard thumbing their nose at EA. That dont change things.

I wouldn't love to see all the "FREE SHARDS" gone.

I paid and played UO for ten years on official shards. The game changed in myriad ways and lots of people raised their voices in concern at the direction the game was heading. EA and a succession of different development teams apparently didn't listen, therefore I and countless others voted with our wallets. Simple as that.

Now for me to enjoy any form of UO that appeals to me, unfortunately it's not at the official shards, it's at the free shards. The fact that it's free is more of a bonus than a necessity. If I and doubtless plenty of other people liked what UO has turned into, no doubt whatsoever, we'd be still here... paying to play the game.

Think of it this way... there's been plenty of - shall we say - heated debate, over the years about "Classic Shards". Perhaps it was always a fools crusade to ever hope that EA would ever support that motion, from what I would consider a sizeable enough portion of UO fans and players, to support its viability as an alternative option.

As the years passed by and as UO's seemingly obvious lack of importance to EA became arguably more apparent, then so decreased any chance that a "Classic" option would become a reality. Sure, in the last two or three years it was a more open topic for discussion on boards like these and the concept even seemed to be in the thoughts of the current developers, but given the reduction of staff, notably in the development team, there wasn't a cat in hell's chance that they would be able to manage "current" UO and "classic" UO. Neither the budget or the hands to do it and certainly no chance of extra funds from EA to get such a venture off the ground, unless it was going to make big bucks. A niche like "classic" UO wouldn't make big bucks, though it could likely support itself.

Let's face the truth though... UO whether "current" or "classic", is a niche market. It's plain as daylight that EA aren't about niche markets, they're about "wider appeal". Look at the arguments over Dragon Age 2, coincidentally developed by BioWare, who have absorbed UO's developers, Mythic, as part of EA's reshuffling.

There was uproar from a large section of fans of Dragon Age: Origins and long-time fans of BioWare as a studio. Subsequent comments from the game producer and members of the development team, seemed little else than a slap in the face for long time fans of the first game.

So, in the grand scheme of things, just because you're still here, paying to play UO, don't for one minute think that you've got the ear of EA... or even any chance of being heard. The only thing they seem to listen to, is the power of the wallet.

Only now, since the criticism Dragon Age 2 received, was backed up by arguably much poorer overall sales than expected, have there been murmurings from BioWare that perhaps the direction they took the game, might not have been for the best.

When it comes to UO however, there's far too much water under the bridge, too much time passed and changes made, for any voices raised to make any difference whatsoever. Be it from current players or former players.

They won't go after the free shards, simply because it's not worth their while doing so. Why? Because "protecting" their official game and shards from any perceived "threat" that the free shards might pose, is a completely pointless. They would only gain those former players as customers, if they themselves offered what those people want, which is something EA will never do.

We'd all love to see UO do well, be "relevant" or a force in the modern MMO market, but the fact remains, it isn't - and never will be again. It's a poorly funded, poorly supported, under-developed and poorly maintained game, that will never rediscover former glories.

 

[Uvtha]

Or another where you can buy gold outright, or 7xGm skills, or ethy's.

This is exactly how Blizzard won their courtcase
Blizzard awarded $88M from WoW private server lawsuit | Massively

God that is absurd. I mean I understand the societal function of IP laws (even though I am by aesthetic nature extremely opposed to them) but nearly 100 million dollars? That's just stupid.

 

[Uvtha]

We'd all love to see UO do well, be "relevant" or a force in the modern MMO market, but the fact remains, it isn't - and never will be again. It's a poorly funded, poorly supported, under-developed and poorly maintained game, that will never rediscover former glories.

I think step one to making a better game is to accept that UO is NOT relevant in the modern mmo market. UO is a niche game, and it needs to accept its place and work to broaden an strengthen the niche that it has carved out.

Sadly it seems that because UO was the "grandaddy" mmo they seem to think that it gives the game a leg up some how and makes it worth mentioning in the same breath as wow. That's just an attitude that needs to be dropped.

 

[Fayled Dhreams]

I think step one to making a better game is to accept that UO is NOT relevant in the modern mmo market. UO is a niche game, and it needs to accept its place and work to broaden an strengthen the niche that it has carved out.

Sadly it seems that because UO was the "grandaddy" mmo they seem to think that it gives the game a leg up some how and makes it worth mentioning in the same breath as wow. That's just an attitude that needs to be dropped.

well said ...

It IS "old wo/mans talk" ...
back in the day, I remember when ... used to be ...
need to show some respect youngen

"need to earn it", you used to say

I did

yeah ... and Ya SPENT it old wo/man
ya gots nothing left except old dreams and broken code
We put you in a home but can't Hire any attendants to care
we would try to sell ya, but your thread bare rags
and busted carriage, tacked to a dreadhorse carcass ...
in an age of hybrid handheld intergalactic magic ...

hanzel and gretal won't even visit ...

much less "your kids" ...

 

[Woodsman]

Fail miserably? Are you serious? Do you really think EA would give a toss if UO lost its existing estimated 60,000 current subscribers if the "new sequel" attracted 1 million subscribers as Rift did? Of course they wouldnt.

It depends on what year we are in. Honestly, it's hard to predict how EA is feeling towards UO at any given moment. Some years, EA wants to get rid of UO, as they nearly did when Mark Jacobs had to go to bat and save UO. Some years they see UO as an expense or as a way to cover losses elsewhere, such as when EA was hurting financially after Warhammer bombed and some other titles failed to live up to expectations and they gutted the Stygian Abyss group. Other years, they pretend to have a passing interest in it. In still other years, they cancel other Ultima games like Ultima Online 2 or Ultima X because they are afraid they might compete with UO.

Right now, we are in a weird year. EA seems to care about Ultima - Ultima Forever and GOG.com, and they seem to care about UO - all of the things being worked on for new players like the graphics update.

 

[Woodsman]

People are much more likely to play a game where they don't have to pay ever, than a game that they will have to pay in a month. Lots of people go in thinking "i will never spend money on this game" and of course they will, but if they know they will HAVE to pay money and in short order then they wont bother.

At their heart, the f2p games that most people here cite are actually subscription games - the companies want you to ultimately subscribe or pay more in micro-transactions than a monthly subscription, and they put restrictions on the f2p accounts to encourage you to do just that. These companies do not design their F2P systems so that they bring in less revenue than they would under a normal subscription model.

Anybody who starts playing one of these games and thinks they won't run into situations where they have to pay for either micro-transactions or a subscription is ignorant as hell and hasn't read up on the game. They are also going to be incredibly disappointed.

Lord of the Rings make you pay for the privilege to ride mounts and do other things we take for granted, Dungeons and Dragons makes you pay to have a better login queue and various other things, and both Rings and D&D as well as Everquest 2 make you pay to lift the caps on the amount of gold you are allowed to have and to access certain classes. Everquest only gives you access to 33% of the classes, and 24% of the races. All of them have limits on skill levels or areas you are allowed to access. The amount of restrictions on free accounts requires charts, literal charts, to show you the full listings of restrictions.

At the end of the day, the "f2p" options are nothing more than trial accounts in disguise designed to get you to pay the same or more as you would if they were subscription only, and UO still has problems that can't be fixed by f2p, and UO is still only $10 a month.

 

[Nexus]

At their heart, the f2p games that most people here cite are actually subscription games - the companies want you to ultimately subscribe or pay more in micro-transactions than a monthly subscription, and they put restrictions on the f2p accounts to encourage you to do just that. These companies do not design their F2P systems so that they bring in less revenue than they would under a normal subscription model.

Anybody who starts playing one of these games and thinks they won't run into situations where they have to pay for either micro-transactions or a subscription is ignorant as hell and hasn't read up on the game. They are also going to be incredibly disappointed.

Lord of the Rings make you pay for the privilege to ride mounts and do other things we take for granted, Dungeons and Dragons makes you pay to have a better login queue and various other things, and both Rings and D&D as well as Everquest 2 make you pay to lift the caps on the amount of gold you are allowed to have and to access certain classes. Everquest only gives you access to 33% of the classes, and 24% of the races. All of them have limits on skill levels or areas you are allowed to access. The amount of restrictions on free accounts requires charts, literal charts, to show you the full listings of restrictions.

At the end of the day, the "f2p" options are nothing more than trial accounts in disguise designed to get you to pay the same or more as you would if they were subscription only, and UO still has problems that can't be fixed by f2p, and UO is still only $10 a month.

One exception , you don't have to pay in LOTRO, seriously, outside of very few features such as Monster Play, it is possible through completion of deeds which unlock better character traits and skills, to earn enough Turbine Store Points "TP" to purchase every possible feature you'd want. I know a couple of players who have done this. One in a month earned around 4,000 store points by focusing on deed completion with characters on various servers.

Yes, it's dull dull grinding but it is possible, and it is also something most players will do anyways to build their characters to max potential.

 

[Uvtha]

At their heart, the f2p games that most people here cite are actually subscription games - the companies want you to ultimately subscribe or pay more in micro-transactions than a monthly subscription, and they put restrictions on the f2p accounts to encourage you to do just that. These companies do not design their F2P systems so that they bring in less revenue than they would under a normal subscription model.

Yeah, I understand how f2p games work. I'm not just talking off of the top of my head. ;P

Anybody who starts playing one of these games and thinks they won't run into situations where they have to pay for either micro-transactions or a subscription is ignorant as hell and hasn't read up on the game. They are also going to be incredibly disappointed.

But you CAN play these games without paying even if its at an impaired level and that's the point. People DO say "oh i'll play but I wont buy anything", that's when the bait is taken, and lots of the fish get caught on the hook of micro transaction. That's how it works, and it DOES work.

Lord of the Rings make you pay for the privilege to ride mounts and do other things we take for granted, Dungeons and Dragons makes you pay to have a better login queue and various other things, and both Rings and D&D as well as Everquest 2 make you pay to lift the caps on the amount of gold you are allowed to have and to access certain classes. Everquest only gives you access to 33% of the classes, and 24% of the races. All of them have limits on skill levels or areas you are allowed to access. The amount of restrictions on free accounts requires charts, literal charts, to show you the full listings of restrictions.

Yeah that's how it works. It shows you how the game plays and that the game is fun with no commitment consequence... but wouldn't it be even MORE fun with this dungeon, or this snazzy flaming horse? It's only 2 dollars! No big deal!

At the end of the day, the "f2p" options are nothing more than trial accounts in disguise designed to get you to pay the same or more as you would if they were subscription only, and UO still has problems that can't be fixed by f2p, and UO is still only $10 a month.

Not quite. As I said before there's a difference in consumer appeal between "free trial" and "free to play". A free trial is something that people usually don't bother with unless the game is already potentially appealing to them. A free GAME on the other hand WILL get random plays when people have a bored evening and want something new to do, and if they like it, they wont lose access to whatever they accomplish after a few weeks.

And thats the whole point, f2p games get more looks than sub games even ones that have free trials. That's just a fact. From that point if you have a decent core basic game and a well devised micro transaction shop many of the people who sign up saying they won't spend anything DO spend.

Also as I said most of these free to play games also have subscriptions, so UO could go f2p and it wouldn't be any different to anyone who wants to keep being a subscriber. And the low population is beginning to noticeably effect the quality of play in UO. Something f2p would fix.

Oh, and UO isn't 10 bucks a month unless you pay fora year. I know that may sound like a small distinction, but most people would not consider paying 10 dollars let alone 13 a month to play a game like UO at a cursory look.

 

[Uvtha]

One exception , you don't have to pay in LOTRO, seriously, outside of very few features such as Monster Play, it is possible through completion of deeds which unlock better character traits and skills, to earn enough Turbine Store Points "TP" to purchase every possible feature you'd want. I know a couple of players who have done this. One in a month earned around 4,000 store points by focusing on deed completion with characters on various servers.

Yes, it's dull dull grinding but it is possible, and it is also something most players will do anyways to build their characters to max potential.

Options like that make these games a lot more palatable as well. It's really all about the set up you have. If the set up sucks, it wont make as much money. That's the real challenge.

 

[Woodsman]

And the low population is beginning to noticeably effect the quality of play in UO. Something f2p would fix.

f2p is not going to fix the 1990s graphics, the crappy new player experience, the horrible official website, or the bad quest system. It's just not, and those kinds of things do have a major impact. Popular MMOs are popular not because of their payment methods, they are popular because of attention to detail and because time and money were invested in polishing them.

I shudder to think what f2p + UOgamecodes.com would be like given the problems we already have with it

UO got lucky in that it was the first major retail MMO and I think we tend to forget that being first means you get a lot more slack, but the more polished games that saw the mistakes made with UO early on quickly eclipsed UO, with EverQuest being the first, and then WoW a few years later.

As much as I mock the space fighting in the upcoming Star Wars MMO, it's probably going to rival Rift when it comes to recent launches that were very polished. I'm still shocked that EA is giving them breathing room and not forcing them to launch before they are ready. They are putting a lot of money into polishing it, and just as importantly, they are putting a lot of effort into engaging the potential community. I don't think Rift comes close to the Star Wars team when it comes to engaging the potential community.

f2p also doesn't fix or address why hundreds of thousands of people have left UO over the years.

Now some of the reasons why so many people have left have actually been addressed - in third party shards, which is what kicked this thread off, but EA is not going to address that aspect any time soon. They can't even decide on what would constitute the kind of "classic" shard that might bring some of those people in.

Not quite. As I said before there's a difference in consumer appeal between "free trial" and "free to play". A free trial is something that people usually don't bother with unless the game is already potentially appealing to them.

Take away the time limits of UO's trial account and it would mirror f2p accounts since it has many restrictions that mirror f2p restrictions from other games. Maybe EA should drop the time limits and just rename the trial accounts "free to play accounts" since it seems the only difference is the name and the time limit

Oh, and UO isn't 10 bucks a month unless you pay fora year. I know that may sound like a small distinction, but most people would not consider paying 10 dollars let alone 13 a month to play a game like UO at a cursory look.

Actually 6 months is $10 a month and occasionally it's cheaper.

If you don't fix the major problems that UO has, then it doesn't matter how the money is collected, it will eventually be closed down. UO could afford to go from 250,000 down to the 60,000 or so that we have now, but there's going to come a point where that 60,000 is going to drop enough to make UO unprofitable. We can joke that we've been hearing that it would close for years, but it's one thing when there are 150,000 or 100,000 subscriptions, and it's another when it's creeping down into the 60,000 and below range.

It does seem that somebody above UO and DAoC is interested in seeing them both bring in new players, which is why we are getting high resolution graphics, another new player experience, a new quest system, and Camelot is getting another new player experience and a new website.

I think it's also important that Cal was willing to dredge up talk of a Classic shard. He went so far as to mention that people outside of the UO devs have asked about it. I thought it was a mistake for him to mention it, but maybe not, he might have been sending a sign to the classic shard fans that they want to do and will do it when resources permit.

 

[Nexus]

Graphics, Graphics, Graphics and more Graphics...........it just is beyond me why I keep reading Graphics (lack of it...) as the main reason for UO not to get new players.

I must be from Mars, I guess, because personally, while I do not disdain looking at nice graphics, it is NOT what keeps me playing a game.

I mean, the game should not have ugly graphics, and I do not think that UO, whether in the 2D or EC clients, can be dismissed as looking "ugly". It might be outdated, not to par with other games, but ugly ? I do not think so.

Now, this said, since resources need to be handled on a priorities scale, if there is scarcity of resources, I'd rather them be spent on CONTENT rather than Graphics.

Why ?

Because it is the content who will keep me playing it. A game can look gourgeously, but if it lacks in content, I would not spend my time on it.
On the contrary, even if a game looked just average, graphically, but gave me a good playing experience because of its content and complexity, it would keep me playing it.

That is why I personally do not understand so much emphasys on graphics.

You can't catch someone's eye in an ad on a website, or even on a box on a shelf with "Content", you need the graphics to get their attention to start with.

If it looks pretty and shiny someone will read the part of the ad with descriptions of content. This is a universal thing not just in games, it's why when you go the the market they have the mirrors in the produce racks, to make them look fuller, it's why the apples are waxed to make them shinier, it's why name brand companies pay huge sums to have their products placed at eye level. It's all done to catch the eye so you'll actually look at the product. UO's current graphics don't do that.

 

[Nexus]

Options like that make these games a lot more palatable as well. It's really all about the set up you have. If the set up sucks, it wont make as much money. That's the real challenge.

Quite true, players are given the option of either taking their time, to "earn" content, or hit the easy button with their bank accounts and buy content. It's also why I tell everyone interested in checking out LOTRO to buy a Shadows of Angmar box off Amazon, they get 30 days free time with the CD Key and it unlocks a lot of what people initially grind to acquire. You get to keep the gold cap removal, the two extra "packs" and most of what you get as a Subby, including 500 store points for being counted as a Subby for one month (this costs $7.99 for F2P alone not bad for a box you pay $9.00 for), the exception... You don't get to keep all the quest packs, you lose any that aren't normally associated with F2P. The later expansions such as Mines of Moria and Siege of Mirkwood once you buy them subby or not you don't lose quest content in those areas. Mounts... if you buy a SoA box you can level to lvl 20 easily in a matter of a couple days and get the riding trait for free, which isn't a big deal since riding is only 95 store points but if you are looking to build up as much as possible it's nice to save them. Otherwise you can spend 95 store points and get the trait at lvl 8.

All in all in LOTRO at least there are multiple strategies you can take to get the most out of the game with the least amount of cost over time, one of the things I think most companies that do F2P understand is there will be a certain amount of suckers who spend much more than a subby does a month, and a certain amount of people who will squeeze every penny so tight that the company won't be able to get their hands on it. And most subscribers will stay subscribers, and most of those who don't will be replaced by F2P people who Sub either permanently or here and there enough to offset the lose of assumable revenue.

Where I can see F2P being a net benefit to UO though is right now UO is not getting access to any of the suckers who are willing drop money getting stuff from a Store system. Sure most of the folks it might lure from the realm of the Freeshard, won't intend to spend anything... but well that's why they are suckers...

 

[Uvtha]

f2p is not going to fix the 1990s graphics, the crappy new player experience, the horrible official website, or the bad quest system. It's just not, and those kinds of things do have a major impact. Popular MMOs are popular not because of their payment methods, they are popular because of attention to detail and because time and money were invested in polishing them.

I already covered this. There are free to play games out there with vastly worse graphics than UO but with 10x the players. UO has its flaws, this is true, but it's advantages and good designs far outweigh the bad.

As for popular mmos being popular because of the payment plan... its been shown time and time again that when a games goes free to play the amount of players spikes up drastically. This isn't my option, its documented. People will try, and play free games.

I shudder to think what f2p + UOgamecodes.com would be like given the problems we already have with it

Like I said before, the important thing is to have a good model for going f2p. UO would need to implement a new system for it, which I believe they already had planned and more or less ready to go, so I would just bring in whoever it was who was working on the UO f2p plan before it was canned and let them do their thing.

UO got lucky in that it was the first major retail MMO and I think we tend to forget that being first means you get a lot more slack, but the more polished games that saw the mistakes made with UO early on quickly eclipsed UO, with EverQuest being the first, and then WoW a few years later.

Yeah, but I mean do you like amusement park games? I don't, that's why I'm here and not on an EQ or wow board. There ARE people out there who would like a game like UO. We are proof of that. They just need to find the game, something f2p would assist in.

f2p also doesn't fix or address why hundreds of thousands of people have left UO over the years.

Players leave games, it just happens, the key is to keep new players coming in, which f2p does. F2p is also likely to improve cash flow (again if all the other f2p games are any indication, it will) so that more monies could be devoted to development.

If you don't fix the major problems that UO has, then it doesn't matter how the money is collected, it will eventually be closed down. UO could afford to go from 250,000 down to the 60,000 or so that we have now, but there's going to come a point where that 60,000 is going to drop enough to make UO unprofitable. We can joke that we've been hearing that it would close for years, but it's one thing when there are 150,000 or 100,000 subscriptions, and it's another when it's creeping down into the 60,000 and below range.

I mean that's the whole point of going f2p. It brings in new players. Even if the game sucks it brings in the players. Have you seen some of the f2p games out there? There are some really lame ones that have 5-10x the players UO has.
Uo is not as broken as you make it out to be. It's a quality game, arguably the best sandbox mmo available, it has lost players for a myriad of reasons, but like I said, that just happens. Right now UO is bringing in VERY few players. That's the real problem.

There are no changes you could make to UO that would bump the subs up as much as f2p would other than making a whole new game. Why? Because UO isn't failing to get new players because of problems that you wouldn't even know about unless you had played the game for a fair amount of time, but because it looks so antiquated that people are not willing to pay to play it. Simple as that.
I mean do you really think that if we had a perfect quest system, an amazing website, and a first rate new player experience and (whooptydoo) high res sprites, that we would somehow gain 100k+ players? It just won't happen, because these are not the reasons people don't play UO.

 

[Woodsman]

I already covered this. There are free to play games out there with vastly worse graphics than UO but with 10x the players.

Let's see some examples of f2p games with vastly worse graphics but 10x the players so we can compare and contrast them to UO. It would be good for us to have a baseline for discussion.

As for popular mmos being popular because of the payment plan...

I didn't say that, I said payment plans don't have an impact on their popularity - they are popular because they are polished and because their overall experience is polished from their websites to their graphics to their new player experiences. I can't get into specifics, but the new player experience on Star Wars, from what I've seen, is going to pull people in nearly as well as WoW's does. WoW, Rift, etc. also are very polished.

They just need to find the game, something f2p would assist in.

People are more aware of UO than you think. I see UO mentioned often on various gaming websites. Right now UO is getting mentioned a lot because Richard Garriott just gave a big interview where he mentioned it several times and talked about its design.

Interestingly enough, when UO is mentioned in big stories (or small), many times it's also discussed in the comments, and guess what? Nobody ever says they would play it if it was f2p, they pancake about Trammel/Age of Shadows, or they mock the graphics. The idea that people would play if it was f2p is only mentioned here on Stratics and occasionally on UOForums (probably by the same people). Since the graphics are being updated, I find it interesting that Cal specifically mentioned a Classic shard again, and that really makes me think that they are considering it in the future. That would address the two biggest criticisms that many people make when talking about UO on other websites.

F2p is also likely to improve cash flow (again if all the other f2p games are any indication, it will)

Those other f2p games were also improving as games over time, some coming from shaky starts, and that had as much of an impact on improving revenue as anything, if not more. Many MMOs have fans who get pissed off at bugs/problems, and are going to come back if those get addressed.

Uo is not as broken as you make it out to be. It's a quality game, arguably the best sandbox mmo available, it has lost players for a myriad of reasons, but like I said, that just happens. Right now UO is bringing in VERY few players. That's the real problem.

It's not broken as a whole, but it's got several problems that add up. It's had two graphics upgrades plus new clients that were botched for one reason or another, it's had changes in the mechanics, etc. but the big problems now are getting newer players to even look at it, and to make it accessible to those new players and to keep those new players.

Dismiss things like modern clients, player guides and new player experiences and websites and the other "polish" I mentioned before, but a new player is going to be overwhelmed by UO if they don't have somebody holding their hand. UOHerald.com is useless. The current new player experience does not even come close to giving them a glimpse of UO. The vast majority of new players that UO could even hope to tap into are going to be used to theme-park MMOs like WoW. UO is going to frustrate them immediately and they will never become paying players.

It doesn't matter what kind of payment plan is in effect if people never get to the point where they subscribe or start plopping down for micro-transactions.

UO needs that kind of polish and it needs a graphics update to get people to take a look. You yourself even acknowledge that it needs a graphics update:

Because UO isn't failing to get new players because of problems that you wouldn't even know about unless you had played the game for a fair amount of time, but because it looks so antiquated that people are not willing to pay to play it. Simple as that.

There is absolutely no reason for a game from a company like EA to have such shoddy graphics, shoddy website, shoddy new player experience/guide, etc.

Thankfully somebody in BioWare has come around to realizing that they are a part of one of the biggest game companies in the world, and is directing the UO and Camelot devs to start fixing the things that need to be fixed, whether it's the graphics and new player experiences on UO, or the new player experience and website of Camelot.

One very interesting thing that gets missed - this idea that having a solid new player experience, it comes directly from the top of BioWare. Earlier this year, BioWare executives said they were not happy about players getting frustrated early on in one of their games (think it was a Dragon Age game, but might have been Mass Effect). Earlier this year, they directed all of their teams to put a lot more emphasis on the first few hours that a player spends in a game, and it looks like that carried directly into both UO and Camelot.

 

[georgemarvin2001]

Let's be honest here. EA would lose a LOT more by shutting down the free shards than it could possibly hope to gain. There were a handful of WOW free shards, which mostly duplicated the game as it exists in its official form, with a total of less than 1% of the number of paid WOW subscribers. On the other hand, there are literally hundreds of UO free shards, and several individual shards each have more members than the official UO does. In total, there are less than 100,000 people playing on the official UO servers, but there are over a million people playing on free shards.

But practically none of them are playing UO as it currently exists in its official form. Nearly all of the free shard players are either playing T2A or UO:R, Felucca-only shards. The consensus of about 99% of the free shard players is that anything post-AOS is pure trash, and they won't even play it for free. That can easily be seen by the fact that none of the top free shards has a post-AOS ruleset. If none of the free shard players wouldn't even play UO as it currently exists for free, they definitely aren't interested in paying to play it. That pretty much means that there is no financial incentive whatsoever for EA to shut down all of those pre-AOS free shards.

In summary: There just isn't an official Ultima product which has either a T2A or UO:R Felucca only ruleset, and there aren't any free shard players who would want to play UO as it exists today.

If EA cracks down on the free shards and forces them to shut down, nearly all of the free shard players will just quit playing UO at all, and a lot of them will pretty much boycott all of the other EA products in retaliation. That's a little over 1 million customers that EA would risk losing, and many of them would be angry enough that they would make sure all of their friends knew just how dirty they felt that EA had done them, by taking away their favorite online game out of spite, when they had begged for years to just bring back the old UO that they ruined with AOS.

EA will probably protect the UO brand. After all, bad decisions seem to be its forte. It takes a special kind of ignorance to manage to lose over 600 million dollars a year, mostly by not bothering to understand what it's even selling, and who its target markets should be and what they want.

 

[Zosimus]

I am going to bypass the issue of the F2P argument and use another model that Richard Garriott's brother came up with. Robert Garriott used the B2P model for Guild wars and the same model will be used for Guild Wars 2. Here are some comments and links that can be read to prove that a subscription model isnt always needed.

GB: Your website states that there will be no monthly charge to North American players. How do you plan on continually updating the game with new content without having a steady stream of income?

ArenaNet: We founded this company to create online role playing games, and we've designed Guild Wars around network technology that is very efficient in terms of bandwidth and hardware utilization. In addition to lower operating cost, we believe that we can sell a lot more copies of Guild Wars by not charging a monthly fee. We believe that not charging monthly fees allows larger communities of gamers to enjoy the online role playing game experience. The money earned from game sales will be turned right back to support the game and to develop the expansions. And because we will keep developing expansion packs for Guild Wars, we are highly motivated to keep our customers happy and keep them coming back for more. If they like what they've experienced, they will want to buy an expansion pack when it comes along.

Eight or ten years ago, no one believed that you could offer a gaming network for free, but Battle.net proved that you could offer a free gaming network and remain financially successful. Our new goal is to prove that you can offer an excellent online game with full support without a monthly subscription fee.

Quote above came from this... http://www.gamebanshee.com/interviews/guildwars1.php


Btw here is a link for NCsoft of their public earnings release. Quite interesting if you find in those reports of in-game items sales for some of their games revenue.... NCsoft


Here is another quote...

Are you considering subscription fees, or will Guild Wars 2 offer free online play?

Jeff: We get asked about this a lot, because no matter how many times we say it, the question continues to come up, I think some people have a hard time believing it, but Guild Wars 2 will maintain the existing business model - buy the game, take it home and play it, no subscription fees.

Mike: It's kinda funny for us because people are always looking for why we don't charge subscription fees, and with Guild Wars 1 there were all sorts of wild theories, like because it's not a persistent world, you're not really playing on ArenaNet servers, or you're not really using our bandwidth, but it's just not true. In Guild Wars you are playing on our servers, it's a fully hosted, secure game. And now with Guild Wars 2 we'll have a persistent world, and still no monthly fee.

How has the free online play revenue model worked out for you?
Mike: It's worked out really well for us. I think its reputation and sales kind of speak for themselves, and how big a hit the game has become. It was really gratifying for us, you know, we started this company and we were just a few guys with an idea and an IP no one had heard of before, a new publisher people weren't familiar with, and all that, and Guild Wars just kind of blew the doors off of everyone's expectations, and it's become one of the two games in the industry that I think everyone talks about these days, World of Warcraft and Guild Wars. Of course, we're not World of Warcraft, but we're doing quite well for a new development team with a new IP, so we're quite pleased with this business model.

Quote above taken from this link... Guild Wars Expansion and Sequel Interview


Another quote...

IGNPC: Speaking of bandwidth, Guild Wars has no monthly fee, which will be more than a little appealing to the masses. Assuming the game sells well, how are you preparing for a possible bandwidth onslaught?

Jeff Strain: We expect Guild Wars to do well and we are looking forward to having a large number of players consuming a great deal of bandwidth. So while we are maximizing bandwidth efficiency to make the game run as economically as possible, we are actually more focused on creating a game experience that allows the game to sell itself. In our opinion, the traditional MMO limits itself by charging a monthly fee and making more profit from a limited number of players. Our commitment is to offer a great game experience without a subscription fee, and we feel that having a larger community will balance our bandwidth costs.

When we decided to create Guild Wars and offer it without a monthly fee, our decision was based on years of developing AAA titles with significant online gameplay. In our view, the most successful way to sell a game is to have people play it and experience the quality of the game. We feel that one of the main obstacles against the wide scale success of online RPGs is the subscription fee associated with massively online games. The fee simply prevents a majority of gamers, of all types and ages, from even trying a game so the subscription fee has negated your best sales tool, the quality of gameplay. It is our opinion that the free online gaming model combined with frequent content updates is the optimum online paradigm for interfacing with consumers and creating a significant, enduring gaming franchise.

Ironically, our preparation to offset bandwidth use and server costs is to create a game that a great number of people can play and enjoy. We feel the larger numbers of players who will purchase Guild Wars will offset bandwidth consumption and online infrastructure.

Quote above taken from this link... http://pc.ign.com/articles/534/534454p2.html


Ok this last link below will be my last on this and its a link discussing Robert Garriott. Imho I think he came up with the right idea.

Inside the World of Guild Wars — Tech News and Analysis


Guild Wars did something right or they wouldnt be around now after 6 years and coming out with a new sequel named Guild Wars 2. Even with the GW2 coming out they are continuing to keep the original GW online.

 

[Woodsman]

I don't think UO has enough players for that to be financially viable.

But you know what game would probably have enough players? Star Wars: The Old Republic. It's going to have player numbers that match or exceed Guild Wars/GW2. That's an interesting thought.

The only problem is that EA has sunk $300 million into Star Wars, and they are having to pay a hefty ongoing license to Lucas. Without the licensing fees, they could probably get away with a Guild Wars model. Unfortunately Lucas is going to get his money whether they make a profit or not, so they'll stick to the monthly subscriptions and the paid expansions.

At the other end of the spectrum, you have EVE Online, who charges a monthly subscription, but doesn't charge for expansions or new content. They are also following a Guild Wars model with their MMOFPS that ties into EVE Online, Dust 514, which is a Playstation 3 only game that you buy, and then can play for free without monthly fees.

 

[Slayvite]

Is UO/Mythic and thus EA aware that UO freeshards are now being advertised for play on Facebook homepages?

New players arn't gonna come pay to play UO when they are being shown freeshards to play on one of the most commonly used websites in the world.
You can't buy the sort of advertising that facebook is giving to these freeshards for free.
Bad news that EA/Mythic don't seem to care.

 

[Woodsman]

Is UO/Mythic and thus EA aware that UO freeshards are now being advertised for play on Facebook homepages?

New players arn't gonna come pay to play UO when they are being shown freeshards to play on one of the most commonly used websites in the world.
You can't buy the sort of advertising that facebook is giving to these freeshards for free.
Bad news that EA/Mythic don't seem to care.

I don't understand why the BioWare Mythic community people don't delete those links on the official UO Facebook page. I just don't.

 

[georgemarvin2001]

One note about the EVE subscription model: EVE isn't strictly pay to play. I have a couple of EVE accounts, and I'm the CEO of an alliance (like a group of guilds). I don't pay subscription fees, though. A thing called PLEX is sold on the in-game market for about 400 million isk (the EVE equivalent of gold), which can be earned in a couple days by doing high-level missions, fleet ops, mining, making equipment or other normal game play. One PLEX is a 30 day game subscription. So you can't really say that EVE is entirely pay to play; there are a lot of players like me who buy PLEX in-game instead of paying the subscription fee, while others buy PLEX for real money from the EVE online store to sell on the in-game market for in-game currency that they use to buy equipment and other stuff they want. It is a gold sink, a way for veteran players to avoid paying cash to play, and a way for new players and those that want something really expensive to buy in-game currency from the company, rather than UO's system where other companies sell players gold, and EA doesn't get a penny from it, while players are often ripped off. Side note: You can also buy and sell your characters in EVE. The company gets a $20 fee each time you sell a character.

I really can't see SW:TOR being worth the $300 million everybody keeps talking about. From what I've seen, isn't SW:TOR just going to be WOW set in space? I didn't really see much other than a leveling game with some average end-game content and decent, but not stunning, graphics? I canceled my WOW account a few months back, it got boring. And there are like 100 WOW clones out there already. I don't think I'll be interested in yet another WOW wannabe for a long time.

If SW:TOR goes down in flames, or just gets a couple hundred thousand subscribers, while having to pay huge licensing fees, will EA just decide to kill off its whole MMO division? Probably not. Will it take a long, hard look at all of its MMOs, with the idea of cutting costs? Definitely. UO may not cost much, and probably still nets a small profit, but it's not making a fortune, either.

 

[Tox The Murder]

I wonder if EA Knows how many of their subscribers play FS. I'd say half of EA's 60-70k UO subscribers play free shards. Half the people i ask on my guild in atl last night play free shards.... EA doesn't care. [even though there is a rule against it]

 

[georgemarvin2001]

I would guess that the number would be higher than half. I don't think I logged into the official servers over once or twice a month for the six months or so that I subscribed. Official UO just doesn't compare to what the free shards have to offer.

One big problem with shutting down the UO free servers by denying them the right to use the official UO client: A lot of them already allow their players to use customized clients that don't really even resemble the official UO client anymore. For example, the Iris client lets you switch from 3D graphics to classic 2D graphics on the fly:
YouTube - ‪Ultima Online - Iris2 - Britannia in 3D‬‏
YouTube - ‪Iris2 - Ultima Online - 3D-Client‬‏
All that refusing to allow the free servers to access the current official UO client would do, is to speed up the development of the numerous custom clients that are popping up. There are even a couple of them in development that make WOW graphics look old and dated. That's something that the current dev crew can't even think about doing; they don't even have the resources to fix bugs that have been around since 2005.

None of the free servers use the ancient, often broken and hard to understand UO server-side code either. Unlike WOW, they aren't using copyright protected server-side code. They have made their own custom server-side codes using modern programming languages. Most of the free shards have changed the monster AI to make them more intelligent and harder to kill. Many have also changed the loot tables to prevent rampant inflation. A lot of them have built-in anti-cheat codes, as well. They also use the not-endorsed, but free and regularly updated Razor instead of paying for the officially endorsed but somewhat expensive UOAssist.

Since they have gone to a lot of trouble to write their own code, loot tables, and often do their own artwork, there isn't any real reason why they can't just change the name the free servers use to "Ultimate", "Ulti-Me Online", etc.

The biggest problem with UO using the ban hammer to enforce its EULA to get players to quit using the free shards is that most of the people who play both free shards and the official ones generally prefer the free shards to the official ones. They are paying for the official game because they are afraid that if it goes down, it may take the free servers with it. They won't exactly be sad if the official game tells them it no longer needs their money and is closing their accounts.

But there is also another problem with banning players who also play on free shards: Legally, it's a little murky whether it's against the EULA to use a client which somebody else created to access a game that isn't remotely similar to the current official UO.

Then there are other legal problems with trying to go after the free shard operators. Those problems stem from the original UO code; if they go to trial to and happen to go before a really smart judge (yes, there are a few of them out there), he may require some third-party analysis of the official UO server-side code, which was originally compiled with GNU C, very probably using a lot of free, open source code snippets to save time and money. (Remember when the T2A source code was leaked about 10 years ago?) You couldn't blame them for taking a few short cuts. After all, they didn't expect the game to last a year, much less 13. With the fast turnover of programmers, chronic under-staffing and the entire staff turnover during the move to California, and the tendency to just patch things instead of fixing problems permanently, there's a good chance that at least some of the current code still contains snippets of old code which are governed by the open source licenses. That would put UO in the murky gray areas of the law.

 

[NuSair]

If the EC looked as clean as the Iris client, I would switch in a heartbeat.

 

[Mithryl Elves]

Sup Flames, been a long time....... I just started playing again and i'm on ATL.


IMO UO needs to go free to play. With all of the direct purchase ingame items it would make total sense. It would lead to more people returning to the game as well as alot of the free servers drying up. Lord of the Rings and Dungeons and Dragons Online have been somewhat successful using this tactic and i really feel this is the move for UO at this point.


I also feel that they should allow players to purchase their own islands where housing can be placed by only them. Its something that i would pay for and i'm sure others would as well.

 

[Woodsman]

IMO UO needs to go free to play. With all of the direct purchase ingame items it would make total sense. It would lead to more people returning to the game as well as alot of the free servers drying up.

It makes a lot of sense that people would leave free servers and give up free housing so they could pay EA for housing under an f2p scheme.

People leave the official UO for the free shards purely for financial reasons. They would never leave the official UO to play on a free shard that tries to offer different rulesets such as pre-Renaissance/pre-Trammel or pre-AOS. It's all because they don't want to pay EA.

They are being forced to suffer through pre-Trammel or pre-AOS rulesets on those free shards and are just waiting for the day that EA makes UO f2p. If only EA would think of those people and offer a classic shard, I mean make UO f2p.

 

[georgemarvin2001]

About the subscription numbers: We can speculate, but the last time there were any official numbers from EA was way back in 2008, and there were 100,000 subscribers at that time. After that, they quit publishing any sub numbers.
MMO Data
Since UO peaked at above 250,000 subs, it's listed in the 150,000 to 1 million category.
The fact is that there were definite trend lines, always up from launch until the press release on the day of the AOS expansion in March, 2003 then continually downward from then until 2007.
The next time we saw anything concrete about subscriptions was when a consulting firm posted the entire industry subscription numbers in the fall of 2009. At that time, they listed UO as having just over 70,000 subscribers. The firm took the numbers down a few weeks later, as the firm that had done the research evidently hadn't given them permission to post them for public view.
You might need to take the most recent sub info that I have seen with a grain of salt: A blog written by a disgruntled, about to be fired EA employee stated, among other things, that there were about 50,000 paid subscriptions to UO as of October, 2010. The poster did have a lot of info about the company which checked out, and it elicited some response from EA staff. They evidently claim to have laid him off due to drug use.
If anybody was curious enough to pay a small fortune for access to their monthly industry report, NPD Group is an industry research firm that does track subscription numbers for every game in the industry, UO included. A few years ago, they would sometimes release old data to the public, but now it's all industry-only and costs a few thousand dollars to see the report.

About FTP: Changing to free to play may help a little, but I can't see anybody leaving a free shard to play official UO at this point. They have their guilds, they have the most popular rulesets, they get literally thousands of new players every week. They may have come back to the subscription game if there had been a classic shard, but when you look at the hundreds of free shards out there, and the million or so people playing UO on them, you will notice that practically none of them is playing post-AOS UO. If they won't play it when it's totally free, the odds of any of them playing on a micro transaction based server, which would still be fee based, just not subscription based, are slim to none.

One other weird fact: Richard Garriott is evidently raising capital to make a Lord British game on Facebook.

 

[Clx-]

We'd all love to see UO do well, be "relevant" or a force in the modern MMO market, but the fact remains, it isn't - and never will be again. It's a poorly funded, poorly supported, under-developed and poorly maintained game, that will never rediscover former glories.

Not a lot more to be said!

 

[Siteswap]

Official UO just doesn't compare to what the free shards have to offer.

Very true. And this statement in itself is the biggest indictment on EA of them all. The fact that 2 bit amateurs can do a better job than EA is an absolute disgrace and shows exactly how high a regard EA holds UO.

Quite simply they dont give a damn and are trying to squeeze every last penny from its subscribers through shoddy, untested boosters, expansions and clients.

So to answer the question in the thread title, Will EA protect Ultima as a brand?, the answer is NO. They dont give a toss.

 

[Nexus]

Very true. And this statement in itself is the biggest indictment on EA of them all. The fact that 2 bit amateurs can do a better job than EA is an absolute disgrace and shows exactly how high a regard EA holds UO.

Quite simply they dont give a damn and are trying to squeeze every last penny from its subscribers through shoddy, untested boosters, expansions and clients.

So to answer the question in the thread title, Will EA protect Ultima as a brand?, the answer is NO. They dont give a toss.

I don't agree with this. What it does show is the strength of open source software. Where EA might have 10 to 20 people working on UO, the Open Source Emulators have thousands. The sheer number of people working on those open source projects allows them to complete and surpass many dedicated studios. This holds true outside of UO, I made a post concerning it in OT yesterday, almost every innovation or improvement in your daily computing experience that has happened in the past 3 decades has it's roots somewhere in Open Source.

 

[georgemarvin2001]

@Nexus: Actually, I probably should correct that highly erroneous assumption: Concerning the core emulator program used by practically all of the free shards, the development team is not thousands. Or hundreds. Or dozens. Or even 10. Would ya believe, 7 part-time amateurs, who have real jobs and just tinker with it in their spare time?
Team - RunUO

Note that besides the UO emulator, they also made and maintain the free UOAssist alternative that is used by the majority of players on the official servers as well as free shards, despite the fact that it's not officially sanctioned. Free is the operative word here.

The truth is, 10 to 20 paid, full-time, dedicated programmers at EA should be able to make a product that is at least comparable with the products made by 7 amateurs playing around at a hobby in their spare time, most of whom aren't even professional programmers, and who are working on at least two other open source programs and operating their own free shards, as well.

 

[Siteswap]

@Nexus: Actually, I probably should correct that highly erroneous assumption: Concerning the core emulator program used by practically all of the free shards, the development team is not thousands. Or hundreds. Or dozens. Or even 10. Would ya believe, 7 part-time amateurs, who have real jobs and just tinker with it in their spare time?
Team - RunUO

Note that besides the UO emulator, they also made and maintain the free UOAssist alternative that is used by the majority of players on the official servers as well as free shards, despite the fact that it's not officially sanctioned. Free is the operative word here.

The truth is, 10 to 20 paid, full-time, dedicated programmers at EA should be able to make a product that is at least comparable with the products made by 7 amateurs playing around at a hobby in their spare time, most of whom aren't even professional programmers, and who are working on at least two other open source programs and operating their own free shards, as well.

@Nexus ... PWNED!

 

[Nexus]

@Nexus: Actually, I probably should correct that highly erroneous assumption: Concerning the core emulator program used by practically all of the free shards, the development team is not thousands. Or hundreds. Or dozens. Or even 10. Would ya believe, 7 part-time amateurs, who have real jobs and just tinker with it in their spare time?
Team - RunUO

Note that besides the UO emulator, they also made and maintain the free UOAssist alternative that is used by the majority of players on the official servers as well as free shards, despite the fact that it's not officially sanctioned. Free is the operative word here.

The truth is, 10 to 20 paid, full-time, dedicated programmers at EA should be able to make a product that is at least comparable with the products made by 7 amateurs playing around at a hobby in their spare time, most of whom aren't even professional programmers, and who are working on at least two other open source programs and operating their own free shards, as well.

You aren't counting the hundreds of people who submit patches and additions to the code base that those 7 review and test before implementing it into their software packages. Nor the hundreds that have released additions that are drop in packages that provide additional functionality to their software often to bring it closer to what EA has or provide completely custom content that EA doesn't have, quite often the best of these are bound into the initial package as major revisions are released.

Nor are you counting all the people who run Emulated servers, that do their own modifications that are outside the main package that don't re-release this modified code.

Oh and btw did you know those 7 part time folks are more than Canonical has actively working full time on Ubuntu Studio (as of Nov. of last year they had fewer than 5). And Ubuntu Studio is an entire Operating system that does releases every 6-8 months. Large numbers mean nothing.

 

[Petra Fyde]

Freeshards are in breach of EA's terms of service. End of topic