OP: The reason that they don't do it is because compared to even some of the poor titles of today, they were just bad games.
Yep, that's right. UO, EQ, AC, etc. All of them bad.
Developers have realized that some of the kludgy mechanics that they needed to use based of the technical limitations of the day, or for lack of better ideas should be long since retired. I played and loved UO, AC, SB, and more. However, just like I have little desire to go back and play games like Wizards Crown, or Wizardry, or Ultima III, etc. I don't want to go back to the older MMOs.
As the genre evolves, devs feed off each other and come up with better ideas on how to make a game fun and appealing. Many of these are just modest incremental improvements, but who really wants to deal with many of the time sinks/headaches that came with those earlier titles. Sure, you'll find many people who say they do... however, when push comes to shove, and they have to choose their entertainment dollars which will they choose? An archaic, but nostalgic mess? No.
I can play any of the titles of yesteryear through varrious DOS emulation programs. Why don't I? Well because interface design, graphics, and even playstyle have improved so much that it is literally painful to play some of those classic titles that I had so much fun playing. Yet then, I didn't know how good things could be, so it was fine. Now, I see things like that and shake my head wondering what I was ever thinking.
So with that being said, any developer who would take a project on like this would need to sink a serrious effort into not only the rendering engine, but many of the fundamentals: interface design, quest design, loot balance. They would have to update the game to the basics of what people expect in this day and age from a MMO. Even so, with the best of intentions you would still be getting a very small audience for a very large outlay.
Keep the older games in a place where you really can enjoy them: your memories.
Mostly because there's no evidience that such a re-release would be profitable enough to justify the expense. UO, EQ1, DAOC all went the route of classic or fresh start servers, and while it brought people back for a short time, there was little in terms of long term subcscription gains. That certainly is true UO and EQ are now retro niche market games with a relatively small player base. Even making sequels has not worked out well, with the failures of AC2, UO2/3, (never launched), and even EQ2 can only be considered a marginal success. AC2 failed sue to low subs, UO expansions were simply cancelled because not good enough. EQ2 while not as successful a game as WoW still managed to make money for SoE which is why the game is still alive and has a regular series of expansions, it is though getting old. I'd venture to say that since WOW MMORPG developers haven't figured out what to do to ensure a big subsciption success, pretty much all games have tanked a few months post release regardless what IP they use. (assuming the yardstick for success is 500K long term subs). I'd wait and see how FF and SW:TOR do next year before you write that only WoW can be a major mmo.
I didn't say that only Blizzard can make a major MMO, just that since the release of WOW no other developer has managed to do so.
Certainly when we look forward to the future there's a strong probabilty that someone will do so, and those two titles you mentioned are strong contenders for sure.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
The problem with EQ2 is, while it is a great game and the only one I have ever seen to use working flails, it just didn't feel like EQ to me. The old places were there but different, I had to work to hard to get to my class and the constant branching path ways made me feel more like I was playing a single character strategy game than an rpg. If it had been more like the classic, pick class, level 50 pic prestige specialization of class, then I think Id of enjoyed that more than. Pick base class, fighter, rouge, caster, pick specialization, pick final class model they had.
To me it was to radical a split from the feel of EQ, that being said it is still a beautiful and in depth game.
It costs a company far less to keep a game a live then to rebuild and rerelease it. To rerelease it would be at least 60 mil but probably more.
So now they have to get enough people to both cover that 60 million and make a profit which is a risk. Where as by keeping the game running they are continuing to make a profit off of it (as soon as it isn't profitable it gets the axe). Companies don't like risk.
Also you risk alienating your fans of the game, they've played a game (UO, AC, EQ) for a decade. When you rerelease it you are clearly going to tweak systems to fix all the broken aspects that never worked right, you're going to tweak quests, and since you are doing all new art and rendering engine you may inadvertantly change the whole art style from what they were familiar with. So now you might lose all those loyal customers who are the type to stick with a game until the day it dies. Replacing those types of players is difficult.
These games are also a more involved game style. You have to learn all the aspects to maximize a character. There's a lot of lore and story to learn. It's not the more simplified modern style of here's the information right in front of you and a piece of that information flat out says (this weapon is better). Asheron's Call has so many factors effecting weapon damage that unless you know the systems, you wouldn't be able to tell that weapon x is better then weapon y. A lot of people don't like that level of complexity. So these games would end up with 50-100k steady subs.
So not including box sales and having 100k steady subs and a 60 million dollar investment, it would take 40 months to make back that money assuming there was no upkeep costs so every sub dollar went to profits. So it would really take a minimum of 4-5 years to start making a profit. Big risk to hope a game will do that well when you are already making profit from it.
Anyone who couldn't figure out Asheron's Call's damage system would probably be considered mentally retarded. If you raised your strength, you would see a noticeable increase in damage. What was complicated about it? Was it the fact that certain monsters were weaker to certain elements? Electricity flows through water, a water golem is probably going to die to electricity, as is any water dwelling creature. Likewise, a golem made out of granite probably isn't going to conduct electricity very well, but a hammer will probably wreck it. A fire elemental is going to be put out by a frost bolt. Why is this so difficult to understand? The weapon had a damage type, and a damage range. All you needed to look at was the damage range to determine if it was a good weapon and simply use it on the right monster. Does your average person try to use fire on fire elementals or what?
Didn't play the game much did you?
There is Critical Strike, Critical Blow, Armor Rending, Resistance Rending, Elemental Damage, Hollow Damage, Shield Hollow Damage, Covenant Armor (special armor) vs other types of armor, weapon damage then weapon speed then animation speed depending on type of weapon. There are different types of armor buffs, base armor buffs, Impen spells, Vuln spells, natural resistances. And I didn't even cover all of it.
Each one of those factors into the damage done to a given target by a given weapon. There are skill curves based on your weapon skill vs the targets defense skills combined with all the effects above. It is a more complex damage system then any other game out there.
There is a 6 page thread on their main forums right now on strategies to fight 1 specific monster, because there are so many options and factors.
It would be better to actually play a game a bit before commenting though.
Comments
OP: The reason that they don't do it is because compared to even some of the poor titles of today, they were just bad games.
Yep, that's right. UO, EQ, AC, etc. All of them bad.
Developers have realized that some of the kludgy mechanics that they needed to use based of the technical limitations of the day, or for lack of better ideas should be long since retired. I played and loved UO, AC, SB, and more. However, just like I have little desire to go back and play games like Wizards Crown, or Wizardry, or Ultima III, etc. I don't want to go back to the older MMOs.
As the genre evolves, devs feed off each other and come up with better ideas on how to make a game fun and appealing. Many of these are just modest incremental improvements, but who really wants to deal with many of the time sinks/headaches that came with those earlier titles. Sure, you'll find many people who say they do... however, when push comes to shove, and they have to choose their entertainment dollars which will they choose? An archaic, but nostalgic mess? No.
I can play any of the titles of yesteryear through varrious DOS emulation programs. Why don't I? Well because interface design, graphics, and even playstyle have improved so much that it is literally painful to play some of those classic titles that I had so much fun playing. Yet then, I didn't know how good things could be, so it was fine. Now, I see things like that and shake my head wondering what I was ever thinking.
So with that being said, any developer who would take a project on like this would need to sink a serrious effort into not only the rendering engine, but many of the fundamentals: interface design, quest design, loot balance. They would have to update the game to the basics of what people expect in this day and age from a MMO. Even so, with the best of intentions you would still be getting a very small audience for a very large outlay.
Keep the older games in a place where you really can enjoy them: your memories.
I didn't say that only Blizzard can make a major MMO, just that since the release of WOW no other developer has managed to do so.
Certainly when we look forward to the future there's a strong probabilty that someone will do so, and those two titles you mentioned are strong contenders for sure.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
http://www.uoherald.com/kingdomreborn/
The problem with EQ2 is, while it is a great game and the only one I have ever seen to use working flails, it just didn't feel like EQ to me. The old places were there but different, I had to work to hard to get to my class and the constant branching path ways made me feel more like I was playing a single character strategy game than an rpg. If it had been more like the classic, pick class, level 50 pic prestige specialization of class, then I think Id of enjoyed that more than. Pick base class, fighter, rouge, caster, pick specialization, pick final class model they had.
To me it was to radical a split from the feel of EQ, that being said it is still a beautiful and in depth game.
P.S. They made an AC2, it was not so good.
Anyone who couldn't figure out Asheron's Call's damage system would probably be considered mentally retarded. If you raised your strength, you would see a noticeable increase in damage. What was complicated about it? Was it the fact that certain monsters were weaker to certain elements? Electricity flows through water, a water golem is probably going to die to electricity, as is any water dwelling creature. Likewise, a golem made out of granite probably isn't going to conduct electricity very well, but a hammer will probably wreck it. A fire elemental is going to be put out by a frost bolt. Why is this so difficult to understand? The weapon had a damage type, and a damage range. All you needed to look at was the damage range to determine if it was a good weapon and simply use it on the right monster. Does your average person try to use fire on fire elementals or what?
Didn't play the game much did you?
There is Critical Strike, Critical Blow, Armor Rending, Resistance Rending, Elemental Damage, Hollow Damage, Shield Hollow Damage, Covenant Armor (special armor) vs other types of armor, weapon damage then weapon speed then animation speed depending on type of weapon. There are different types of armor buffs, base armor buffs, Impen spells, Vuln spells, natural resistances. And I didn't even cover all of it.
Each one of those factors into the damage done to a given target by a given weapon. There are skill curves based on your weapon skill vs the targets defense skills combined with all the effects above. It is a more complex damage system then any other game out there.
There is a 6 page thread on their main forums right now on strategies to fight 1 specific monster, because there are so many options and factors.
It would be better to actually play a game a bit before commenting though.