Maybe WOW PvP is a little more involved then I give it credit for, but it's still overly simplistic and any 5 year old can succeed at it with relative ease.
Going to back to what you said, you stated the warrior can "intercept" a mages fire bolt which stuns the mage??? Really?? I have a lvl 20 or so warrior in WOW and I don't recall any such hotbar action. I'm not saying that it doesn't exist. It probably does, but I was just unaware of such.
Regardless, I'd still like to see a brand new mmo come out with a PvP system much closer to what AC1 had rather then what WOW exhibits today. In fact, I'd love to see an even more skill required AC1 PvP system where you actually have to press certain keyboard buttons to take different swings and so forth. Or swinging your sword by holding down your right mouse button and actually maneuvering the swing with your mouse or something. If you don't slide your mouse in a straight line, perhaps you miss or even drop your weapon. That could be cool. I guess I'm just getting tired of hotkeys for every damn action you take in a game.
Its because the intercept skill is learned at level 30
Indeed, WoW's pvp system is still pretty simple, but it is a lot more, lets say, "Player skill" based, then a lot of other MMORPG's if you ask me, WoW's pvp system is very easy to get into, but takes some time to master. Imho, AC pvp is still king when it comes to playerskill involvement in pvp, but WoW defenitly deserves 2nd place (although it will set back to 3rd place if we include Guild Wars).
If your looking for a system like Asherons Call, which means playerskill based instead of character skill based, I think you might want to keep an eye on Age of Conan & Huxley (although keep in mind Huxley is an MMOFPS). AoC isn't EXACTLY like AC, but its combat is unqie and seems to reward playerskill over character. Darkfall would also match, but I think its just vaporware.
Yeh, WOW isn't a bad game. It's actually a great game and a great introduction mmo. I just want more.
Speaking of Darkfall. Man, that game promises a LOT and sounds like a dream come true mmo for people in my shoes looking for more from mmorpgs. But Darkfall is BS and I have given up on it long ago. Didn't it state it was expected to release in the fall on 2003 on its' own FAQ at one point?? That's just ridiculous. Even if it does ever come out, I have a strong feeling that it would go a very similar route as did Dark & light and be a huge disappointment.
I am looking at Age of Conan and further at Warhammer Online to be a big improvement over WoW in the style of mmo I desire to see on store shelves.
well I'll just say like I said in my thread...its time for MMO's to make some changes. It's the same rehashed games over and over again. The most innovative approach that I've seen so far is GW's but that's really only in the PVP department.
Instead of actually claiming something to be ignorant, perhaps you might take an example of Zaxtor and actually post a counter arguement?
@ Zaxtor, that may be so, but as you already pointed out yourself, those servers are completely free. even though they take donations, How many people actually donate as much as 15$ a month? hundreds, if not thousands of people are required to fill a server. Not to mention that server also comes with additional costs, and can be difficult to maintain, since people will still expect future updates, and with 2 complete diffrent rulesets, this COULD provide difficulty's.
EA doesn't have his head up its arse like some people would like to think. They are king when they see a way to make profit.
The problem is, understanding how to make a profit. Sure, EA saw a way to make a profit in MMOGs, see SIMs online and the millions they dumped into it, but they don't know how. They try to sell MMOGs like a retail boxed sequel, lots of quick development and new content packed into a box every year. Whereas, what matters with MMOGs is balance and quality.
Well, it is ignorant to say that something does not exist because it's not possible, when it has already been done. And that's the exact approach you took.
Classic Ultima Online has already been proven to be a successful design. It was also proven to be a successful design when competing with consensual games like Everquest and Asheron's Call, both of which gained over 300,000 subscriptions during the time and yet Ultima Online continued growing at the same rate as it had since it's existance.
Where EA failed was to look at Everquest's and Asheron's Call's higher growth rates and assume they should change their game design. Within a year after changing UO into a competing consensual game, the steady growth UO had for three years stopped and the game actually began losing subscriptions; probably with the help of DAoC which offered something that players had begun to miss in UO, non-consensual competition.
UO has also been a victim of their business plan. EA makes all their money by selling boxes. That is their business plan. Obtain as many high profile IP rights as possible and pump out as many boxes and sequals as they can. As a result, all of thier service oriented MMOGs have gone by the wayside. All this time they have held on to one that was successful at one time, UO, and done nothing with it but pump out expansions and milk it for a very extremely small percentage of EA's revenue; probably more than anything to merely say to investors, "yes, we have an MMOG offering."
EA has been generating 3 billion per year selling boxed games and sequels. It was not until the WoW MMOG came along and woke them up, with 1 billion in revenue off a single IP, off a single MMOG. Now EA is way behind the ball and desperate, buying out Mythic and trying to revitalize UO. They finally see the potential of MMOGs, but is it too late?
A good start would be to bring back a Classic UO server offering, a game design proven to be successful among gamers, along with the new graphics upgrade. Will they do it? Most likely not, they don't know how to make good MMOGs, they only know how to push boxes.
Instead of actually claiming something to be ignorant, perhaps you might take an example of Zaxtor and actually post a counter arguement?
@ Zaxtor, that may be so, but as you already pointed out yourself, those servers are completely free. even though they take donations, How many people actually donate as much as 15$ a month? hundreds, if not thousands of people are required to fill a server. Not to mention that server also comes with additional costs, and can be difficult to maintain, since people will still expect future updates, and with 2 complete diffrent rulesets, this COULD provide difficulty's.
EA doesn't have his head up its arse like some people would like to think. They are king when they see a way to make profit.
Well, it is ignorant to say that something does not exist because it's not possible and that's the exact approach you took.
Classic Ultima Online has already been proven to be a successful design. It was also proven to be a successful design when competing with consensual games like Everquest and Asheron's Call, both of which gained over 300,000 subscriptions during the time and yet Ultima Online continued growing at the same rate as it had since it's existance.
Classic UO was successfull BACK THEN. It was also because it was pretty much the only game avaible back then.
Where EA failed was to look at Everquest's and Asheron's Call's higher growth rates and assume they should change their game design. Within a year after changing UO into a competing consensual game, the steady growth UO had for three years stopped and the game actually began losing subscriptions; probably with the help of DAoC which offered something that players had begun to miss in UO, non-consensual competition.
They changed their game design with the release of Trammel, and Trammel was released back in 2000. And after the release of Trammel, Subscriber numbers INCREASED for 3 YEARS, with at its peak in 2003 with 250k subscribers. Only after then subscribers began to decline, this can be blamed on the simple age of the game & the competition with other MMORPG's.
Classic Ultima Online has already proven to be successful, but EA makes all their money by selling boxes. That is their business plan. Obtain as many high profile IP rights as possible and pump out as many boxes and sequals as they can. UO has also been a victim of their business plan. As a result, all of thier service oriented MMOGs have gone by the wayside. All this time they have held on to one and done nothing with it but pump out expansions and milk it for a very extremely small percentage of their revenue, probably more than anything to merely say to investors, "yes, we have an MMOG offering."
Classic UO WAS successfull back then. After they changed UO, the game became even more successfull.
EA has been generating 3 billion per year selling boxed games and sequels. It was not until the WoW MMOG came along and woke them up, with 1 billion in revenue off a single IP, off a single MMOG. Now EA is way behind the ball and desperate, buying out Mythic and trying to revitalize UO. They finally see the potential of MMOGs, but is it too late?
A good start would be to bring back a Classic server offering, a game design proven to be successful among gamers, along with the new graphics upgrade. Will they do it? Most likely not, they don't know how to make good MMOGs, they only know how to push boxes.
If a classic server would be profitable, EA would have already launched one. They KNOW when & How to make profit.
Lets take a look at things
1: UO was released. Back then, it was the only well known MMORPG in the west.
2: Everquest was released, quicky became the number 1 rival of UO.
3: Everquest outperformed UO.
4: UO added "trammel". Subscriber base went up and reached the peak.
To say that UO had no competition means that you failed to read the very post you were replying to. Half-way through UO's pre-Trammel growth, EQ and AC were released to the tune of over 300,000 competitive MMOG subscriptions - more than UO has ever had. That is plenty of competition, but you know what? UO continued to grow steadily at the same rate as it had since inception, even with the competition of nearly twice UO's subscriptions.
That wiki entry is not accurate. After Trammel was released subscriptions did not continue to rise for 3 years, subscriptions began to drop off after less than a year, that's a fact as reported by EA themselves. Anyone can make wiki entries and often anyone does. Here is the data from Electronic Arts themselves, official press releases and financial reports:
If a classic UO server would be profitable, EA would already have launched one, its that simple. truth is, very few people are actually intrested enough in a classic UO server, or even UO in general out of the ones already playing.
That's one of the most ignorant posts I have read today.
"If something doesn't exist, then it must not be profitable" - Gameloading
Instead of actually claiming something to be ignorant, perhaps you might take an example of Zaxtor and actually post a counter arguement?
@ Zaxtor, that may be so, but as you already pointed out yourself, those servers are completely free. even though they take donations, How many people actually donate as much as 15$ a month? hundreds, if not thousands of people are required to fill a server. Not to mention that server also comes with additional costs, and can be difficult to maintain, since people will still expect future updates, and with 2 complete diffrent rulesets, this COULD provide difficulty's.
EA doesn't have his head up its arse like some people would like to think. They are king when they see a way to make profit.
Let me give you a definition of a server Gameloading.
1. A program that is ran on a decent high tech machine depending if the mmo is heavily client side or server side.
2. Either ran on a 100mbit connection or a 1000mbit connection.
3. On that same pc is the database connecting the data within the server.
Now allow us to sum the cost up. Your average user already has that computer that any company runs a plan game server.
The company already funded that. Now you have your 100mbit to 1000mbit a 100mbit cost around 60 or 70 bucks. a 1000mbit $125
Now you pay for your weekly programming allowance. Depending on which of your staff is doing it for charity or not it could cost probably 12% of your monthly income of $9 per user. If a case is bought that is an extra 50 in your pocket you pretty much covered 1/3 of the cost of your internet for that box within one customer buying it. The rest of the bullshit is pure profit. It doesn't take a genius to setup a server on a box that is your average user a gig and a 2.5 to 3.0 ghz cpu with a decent cooling system. You keep making it out that a server is this huge box of treats that get handed out to everyone who pays the owner $9. Now running multiple servers your still making a shit load just from customers buying a box with a 45 cent disc. Great you made a cardboard box with a disc and selling it for $50. Soo just from the box buying your gaining probably somewhere between 50% to a 65% profit. Saving some on the side should the box juice up on you. and the net connection and then your randomized programmers. GM's? Most people do it for free because of the high status you are given. But that is about it.
WOW you got your super box of tricks server. If you cut back on the staff you could just run off on boxs or donations alone. Not to mention how an item mall would affect you.
Take a deep drink of your demon Lad, tonight we tangle with the fire in the gut.
To say that UO had no competition means that you failed to read the very post you were replying to. Half-way through UO's pre-Trammel growth, EQ and AC were released to the tune of over 300,000 competitive MMOG subscriptions - more than UO has ever had. That is plenty of competition, but you know what? UO continued to grow steadily at the same rate as it had since inception, even with the competition of nearly twice UO's subscriptions. That wiki entry is not accuracte. After Trammel was released subscriptions did not continue to rise for 3 years, subscriptions began to drop off after less than a year, that's a fact as reported by EA themselves. Anyone can make wiki entries and often anyone does. Here is the data from Electronic Arts themselves, official press releases and financial reports: Ultima Online Timeline and Subscription Facts EA does not know how to make competitive MMOGs.
Even so, fact still stands: UO's peak time was AFTER the trammel & big changes release. it makes much more sense to conclude that the drop of subscribers was due the age of the game and the competition with other MMORPG's,especialy Final Fantasy XI, which became a great hit in both US/EU AND Japan, both where UO was doing very good. FYI, FFXI was released in 2003, around the same time UO's subscriber base began to drop. Coincidence? I think not.. UO is still running after all these years, it seems EA DOES know how to maintain an MMORPG.
On a sidenote, I DID read the post. Trammel was released in 2000, Everquest in 1999, only one year diffrence. so since the start of UO -> 1999, there was pretty much nothing else to play, because MMORPG's weren't very known
To the poster above me, I do not know the exact costs of a server, but I do know the official RF Online server costs several thousands of $ each month. its quite expensive, because customers expect top of the line servers.
Everquest was released on March 16, 1999 and grew to 225,000 subscriptions before Trammel was released. And don't discount Asheron's Call, released October 31, 1999, which grew to 85,000 competitive subscriptions before Trammel was released and The Realm Online, which was released December 31, 1996, nine months before Ultima Online, and grew to 25,862 subscriptions in May of 1999 and even Meridian 59, one of the first MMOGs, released September 27, 1996 had more than 25,000 beta testers and is still going today.
So, lets look at the exact facts, rather pulling speculation out of your head based only on what you have been told or what you have come to know or believe over the years.
Ultima Online was not the first MMOG released, it was the third. The Realm Online, which grew to over 25,000 subscriptions is not to be ignored, nor is Meridian 59’s 25,000 beta testers at release. Those are significant numbers even for many MMOGs today. However, comparatively, it was a much greater amount, when MMOGs were still new; Ultima Online had 50,000 four months after release. So what do we have competing with Ultima Online in 1999 before Trammel was released?
While I don’t know how many of Meridian 59’s 25,000 beta testers were converted to paying subscribers, even with the other games, there were at least 335,000 competitive MMOG subscriptions to Ultima Online's 185,000 at the release of Trammel. UO did in fact have significant competition while it was a non-consensual game. And, yet, how did this non-consensual PvP Ultima Online perform, even with all this competition? It continued to grow at approximately the same rate as it had since release:
To clear up something first, Meridian59 wasn't the first mmorpg. The first graphical mmorpg was Never winter nights (don't confuse it with the neverwinternights pc game released a few years ago)
25k subscribers is safe enough to ignore. 25k beta testers are also completely safe to ignore. And how many of those games were actually known? I can tell you that, Very little. VERY little people knew of the existance of Meridian59 and the Realm online. Even today, very few people actually know what your talking about when you mention those titles. From my experiences, most people are still convinced UO was the very first mmorpg.
As I said, it may still have grown, that does not take away that it was being outperformed by Everquest. And as we can see here:
The real major downfall in subscribers in UO was not untill 3 years after the release of trammel. It went up & down a little, but it remained around the same mark. which, to me, brings me to the conclusion Trammel was not the cause of UO's current position. Its simply its age & the compeition,
Semp is not accuratly representing the data with his screen shot. He cuts it off early because what happens next does not work towards his point. I you go to http://mmogchart.com/Chart2.html you can see that there is far more to the chart than he has shown. The big bounce that you see in DAoC's numbers on his screenshot is because of the launch all games have this.
However if you look you will see that by Jan-03 UO actually has higher numbers than DAoC on the chart. DAoC's numbers have dropped and UO's have actually had a good bounce to higher than the DAoC release. The conclusion that could be drawn from this was that people tried DAoC and went BACK to UO's post Trammel style.
DAoC doesnt pass UO again till late 03. At this point UO begins its lond decline, almost certainly due to the age of the game compared to competitors.
Most importantly this decline directly coincides with the rise in subscription numbers and release of FFXI and more importantly SWG. Due to the nature of early SWG and Raph's involvement this is the most likely UO killer.
I agree with Gameloading here the data just does not support your argument.
Nobody else needs to read this, this whole post is for two troubled kids, Gameloading and Hakiko. Everyone with a brain can refer to the previous post, three posts up, which includes all the FACTS.
To the first troubled kid, Gameloading, you cannot ignore the 25k subscriptions of The Realm Online when Ultima Online itself only had 50k at the same time. That is competition. Do you understand that 25k is half of 50k? Then you go on with more crazy ideas wrongly opinioning that because you or others had not heard of The Realm online and Meridian 59 that they don't count. Well, 25k people knew about The Realm Online and were playing it when 50k knew of Ultima Online and were playing that. That fact alone blows your theory that Ultima Online had no competition.
However, that is beside the point, I don't need to teach you about math and how 25k is significant when the maximum you are comparing it to is 50k or even 150k, it's not an amount to discard, because even if you do completely ignore it that still leaves over 300,000 competitive subscripitons at the time Trammel was released and none of them had an effect on the non-consensual Ultima Online's overall rate of growth.
Besides, what you seem to be failing to realize is that less than a year after the release of Trammel UO not only began losing subscriptions, but it stopped gaining them too, the game stopped growing. In the next nearly seven years Ultima Online has only grown by 10k more subscriptions than the 240,000 it had way back in 2001 around the 3d release, before it's first losses began within a year after the Trammel expansion. Seven years for 10k subscriptions! And here's the kicker, that 10k peak in subscriptions only lasted for 3 months. You call that growth? I call that a short 3 month spike in seven years of failure at attracting players. And guess what caused that spike? It happened right after the 7th Anniversary Edition was released, which included, you guessed it, seven free account keys, and then they opened Age of Shadows so that everyone would have a reason to use their seven free account keys - yep and a new housing area.
To the second troubled kid, Hakiko, you not only missed the point of the chart I posted, but you must have also missed the discussion. We were specifically talking about pre-Trammel UO and Gameloading came up with the brilliant idea that the reason pre-Trammel UO was so successful is because it had no competition. When in fact it did have well over 300,000 subscriptions of competition before Trammel was released. The section of the graph I posted shows this period exactly and accurately - it's an exact copy of the graph you posted. And to your faulty speculation, UO only passed up DAoC during the time that it spiked at 250k for a short 3 months, see the above information to the first troubled kid. Not only did you miss the discussion, but also the whole point. However, as it relates to the discussion now, when DAoC was released you can see that all the consensual games either slowed in growth, EQ, or stopped growing, AC and UO:
Nobody else needs to read this, this whole post is for two troubled kids, Gameloading and Hakiko. Everyone with a brain can refer to the previous post, three posts up, which includes all the FACTS. To the first troubled kid, Gameloading, you cannot ignore the 25k subscriptions of The Realm Online when Ultima Online itself only had 50k at the same time. That is competition. Do you understand that 25k is half of 50k? Then you go on with more crazy ideas wrongly opinioning that because you or others had not heard of The Realm online and Meridian 59 that they don't count. Well, 25k people knew about The Realm Online and were playing it when 50k knew of Ultima Online and were playing that. That fact alone blows your theory that Ultima Online had no competition. This right her eand now proves you have just ZERO understanding about bussiness in general. Ultima Online was at its START then, no wonder it had such low subscriber base back then. VERY little people knew about the Realm Online, just because it had 25k subscribers IN NO WAY DOES THAT MEAN THAT IT WAS COMPETIVE WITH UO. It is NOT proof in any way or form. It had only 25k subscriber at its peak. 25k! You are comparing a game that was just released with a PEAK number of a diffrent game.
However, that is beside the point, I don't need to teach you about math and how 25k is significant when the maximum you are comparing it to is 50k or even 150k, it's not an amount to discard, because even if you do completely ignore it that still leaves over 300,000 competitive subscripitons at the time Trammel was released and none of them had an effect on the non-consensual Ultima Online's overall rate of growth. Besides, what you seem to be failing to realize is that less than a year after the release of Trammel UO not only began losing subscriptions, but it stopped gaining them too, the game stopped growing. In the next nearly seven years Ultima Online has only grown by 10k more subscriptions than the 240,000 it had way back in 2001 around the 3d release, before it's first losses began within a year after the Trammel expansion. Seven years for 10k subscriptions! And here's the kicker, that 10k peak in subscriptions only lasted for 3 months. You call that growth? I call that a short 3 month spike in seven years of failure at attracting players. And guess what caused that spike? It happened right after the 7th Anniversary Edition was released, which included, you guessed it, seven free account keys, and then they opened Age of Shadows so that everyone would have a reason to use their seven free account keys - yep new housing area. ofcourse it didn't grow anymore, UO was ANCIENT. It was the COMPETITION with other MMORPG's that made UO stop gaining subscribers. The game was old, You have absolutely ZERO proof that it was actually the trammel expansion that killed UO. Zero, Nothing, NADA. What do we know, after the release of the expansion, the subscriber base was pretty much stable and didn't went down bigtime for 3 YEARS, They didn't gain any new players, but didn't lose one either. Truth is, VERY few games actually still grow after so many years after a release, and UO is not one of them . Saying its because of Trammel is pure speculation. (especialy considering that the subscribtion numbers were still rising for roughly 8 months AFTER the release of trammel)
EA is lord and king in the gaming franchise. They KNOW what their doing. If a classic server would be profitable, they would have put up already, You can jump up & low, and from left to right, they have bussiness analyst, they have been around in the mmorpg genre. You and I are just MMORPG players.
Nice going on the insults by the way, gives you a nice info on how well you can handle yourself in a debate.
Seriously. It's now 2007 and look at the most popular mmos that we as gamers have so graciously accepted as our mmorpg of the year 2007. Shallow and non-challenging. Now before all you WOW fans try and flame me and tell me that WOW is challenging, I really want you to "stop" first and ask yourself if grinding out those top levels are really challenging or if its just boring. There IS a big difference you know! Isn't it sad when Ultima Online, even with all of its trammel "protect the weak at heart" nonsense is still one of the deepest and most challenging mmos out there? And what we have accepted as a replacement is pretty eye-candy that is nothing but a seriously long grind-fest and is quite honestly only a challenge to a retarded and blind monkey! Anyone's great grandmother or very young child can play and excel at a game like World of Warcraft. Hell, my 5 year old daughter plays it for crying out loud! She also plays "Barbie Horse Adventures" on my PS2. So perhaps 7.5 million should jump on Barbie's latest PS2 adventure because it too is simple and easy and mindless to play if you are over the age of say 8 years old. Some of you may call me hardcore. And that I am the exception rather the rule of what mmo fans love today. But that's exactly my point! Shouldn't more of us desire more challenge in our mmos? Shouldn't we want SOME kind of consequence of dying in the game?? I'm certainly not saying we should love a game where griefing is rewarded, but for crying out loud,we should like a game where there is big rewards for big risks and the simple fact is most of todays mmos have very little if no "risk" what-so-ever! You never lose a damn thing if you mindlessly run your level 6 avatar into a red level 50 mob. The higher the risk, the higher the reward! But if there is no risk (as in no death penalties) then the game is basically "no risk, all reward". And we wonder why so many get so bored of todays mmos after just a short period of time. Compare that to the avid fans of older mmos like the original Everquest, Asheron's Call (1), and the old school Ultima Online (Pre-Trammel). In those classics where there is a huge risk vs reward challenge, the fans of the late 90's when those games blossomed STILL play their games almost a decade later! We really should be ashamed for supporting such mindless, un-challenging, all-reward, no risk eye candy today. Go ahead and flame away WoW fans. but atleast provide some kind of thought process in your flames, please. - Zaxx
The answer is no, we shouldn't be ashamed. Since it is a pay to play game you vote with your money. If someone hates logging on and thinks playing is a waste of time then continuing to play is a problem with them, not the game.
With that said thank you for your view. Posts like this are encouraging for future companies or current ones kicking around MMO ideas.
This right her eand now proves you have just ZERO understanding about bussiness in general. Ultima Online was at its START then, no wonder it had such low subscriber base back then. VERY little people knew about the Realm Online, just because it had 25k subscribers IN NO WAY DOES THAT MEAN THAT IT WAS COMPETIVE WITH UO. It is NOT proof in any way or form. It had only 25k subscriber at its peak. 25k! You are comparing a game that was just released with a PEAK number of a diffrent game.
So that's your problem, not only do you not know what facts are, but you don't know what proof is. You think that because I typed something you don't agree with, that "proves" I have "ZERO understanding about business in general." When it is a fact that I own three businesses.
If you have two MMOGs and one is at 25k while the other is at 50k, they are competing. You are trying to claim they are not? But once again that is beside the point when you consider the total competitive subscriptions that the non-consensual UO had, which was over 300,000. And the fact is that the non-consensual UO kept right on growing as it always had even with this competition from other consensual games. It was not until after UO added a consensual expasion that it began competing with consensual games; and lost.
ofcourse it didn't grow anymore, UO was ANCIENT. It was the COMPETITION with other MMORPG's that made UO stop gaining subscribers. The game was old, You have absolutely ZERO proof that it was actually the trammel expansion that killed UO. Zero, Nothing, NADA. What do we know, after the release of the expansion, the subscriber base was pretty much stable and didn't went down bigtime for 3 YEARS, They didn't gain any new players, but didn't lose one either. Truth is, VERY few games actually still grow after so many years after a release, and UO is not one of them.
Its you , mate, that doesn't seem to understand how this market works. EA is lord and king in the gaming franchise. They KNOW what their doing. If a classic server would be profitable, they would have put up already, You can jump up & low, and from left to right, they have bussiness analyst, they have been around in the mmorpg genre. You and I are just MMORPG players.
UO never had a problem growing as a non-consensual game as you can see from the graph. And it is a fact that after UO went consensual, when the non-consensual DAoC was released all three major consensual MMOGs slowed or stopped growing, you can see that on the graph. That must just be a huge coincidence, huh?
This right her eand now proves you have just ZERO understanding about bussiness in general. Ultima Online was at its START then, no wonder it had such low subscriber base back then. VERY little people knew about the Realm Online, just because it had 25k subscribers IN NO WAY DOES THAT MEAN THAT IT WAS COMPETIVE WITH UO. It is NOT proof in any way or form. It had only 25k subscriber at its peak. 25k! You are comparing a game that was just released with a PEAK number of a diffrent game. So that's your problem, not only do you not know what facts are, but you don't know what proof is. If you have two MMOGs and one is at 25k while the other is at 50k, they are competing. You are trying to claim they are not? But once again that is beside the point when you consider the total competitive subscriptions that the non-consensual UO had, which was over 300,000. And the fact is that the non-consensual UO kept right on growing as it always had even with this competition from other consensual games. It was not until after UO added a consensual expasion that it began competing with consensual games; and lost. they are NOT competing when One of them is at its peak, and the other one is at its start and is growing by the day. 25k subscribers at peak is NOT a good thing in any way or form, but you just completely fail to understand that logic. I never denied That UO was still growing back then, I merely pointed out that it was outperformed by Everquest. Even after UO added the trammel expansion, its subscribers STILL went growing for 8 months, and only after that it went down. I merely pointed out that it would a better logic would be that was simply because of the AGE of the game, and competition with other MMORPG's.
ofcourse it didn't grow anymore, UO was ANCIENT. It was the COMPETITION with other MMORPG's that made UO stop gaining subscribers. The game was old, You have absolutely ZERO proof that it was actually the trammel expansion that killed UO. Zero, Nothing, NADA. What do we know, after the release of the expansion, the subscriber base was pretty much stable and didn't went down bigtime for 3 YEARS, They didn't gain any new players, but didn't lose one either. Truth is, VERY few games actually still grow after so many years after a release, and UO is not one of them.
Its you , mate, that doesn't seem to understand how this market works. EA is lord and king in the gaming franchise. They KNOW what their doing. If a classic server would be profitable, they would have put up already, You can jump up & low, and from left to right, they have bussiness analyst, they have been around in the mmorpg genre. You and I are just MMORPG players. UO never had a problem growing as a non-consensual game. And it is a fact that once UO went consensual, when the non-consensual DAoC was released all three major consensual MMOGs slowed or stopped growing. That must just be a huge coincidence, huh? That is because that was YEARS ago, When UO lost subscribers, it was because it was old. Also, DAOC was also consensual. The market has ALWAYS been reign by non-hardcore PVP, Always did. and probably always will. UO made the right move. You simply can't stop time, its completely normal for an MMORPG to lose subscribers after such a long time, Close to every MMORPG does. and that, my friend, is FACT. Anyway, I'm out of this debate. Your just going to assume that you know more about gaming then EA does, which manages to become one of the biggest gaming corporations in the world. No really point in debating then. We both come up with a diffrent theory, EA agrees with mine, all we need to know .
EA is lord and king in the gaming franchise. They KNOW what their doing. If a classic server would be profitable, they would have put up already, You can jump up & low, and from left to right, they have bussiness analyst, they have been around in the mmorpg genre. You and I are just MMORPG players.
I just can't pass up this gem! I don't even need to type anything in response. But for your benefit I will.
EA is only good at producing boxed games, their record with MMOGs is horrible - deja vu, didn't I already tell you this. And I have to tell you this on an MMOG forum. Do you know anything about EA's MMOGs except for Ultima Online, Gameloading?
And you assume that I am just an MMORPG player, or did you mean to type prove?
Kids like you, what a waste of time typing, but it's good PvP.
You both have viewpoints which you are trying to express. And I understand what both of you are trying to say myself. However, I will have to agree more with Gameloading on this one, surprisingly because Gameloading and I are usually 180 degrees apart.
While there is a ton of complaints today about Ultima Onlines Trammel expansion and how it ruined the game, the fact is that a great deal more people loved Trammel and being able to hunt dungeons, mine in the mountains, and adventure without the risk of being ebolted by murderers who would loot them of all their goods. People also enjoyed the safety of sitting in the towns by the bank and working on their smith, tailoring, carpentry and so forth skills without risk of a thief stealing from the pack while they worked or conversed with other players. All the people who loved trammel aren't the ones making all the racket today. It is only coming from those of us who hated the Trammel expansion that make all the noise today. And all our noise compared to the silence from all the people who liked Trammel make it seem like Trammel was the worst move EA ever made... when the fact is Trammel wasn't such a bad move on the part of EA financially.
I am not one of the masses who liked Trammel and the safety to all the players it brought. I hated it myself because it left my world of Felucia barren and lonely. Nobody ever wanted to go to felucia and take those risks like me. Even when UO tried to get players back into felucia by doubling the loot and ore etc obtained there over Trammel.. most players still wouldn't set foot in felucia, even for double the goods and profit!
Ultima Online was STILL fun after Trammel came. It was still Ultima Online. It just didn't have the excitement level (or risks) that it had before.
Ultima Online was more hurt by its aging graphics and stiff competition from games like Dark Age of Camelot, Lineage 2, and World of Warcraft then anything else.
However I still agree with semp and disagree with Gameloading on the part where Gameloading says EA would have already released a pre-Trammel server if they could make profit at it. I think that their overall costs in opening up one or two "pre-Trammel" servers would cost very little nowdays in their overall costs, and the potential return of old players due to such a change could help solidify UO as a contender today. It wouldn't double its current subscriber base, but it also couldn't hurt much. I also do not agree at all that EA is the best company at handling games and online games. I much more tend to agree with semp that EA pretty much sucks in this area. This is why I am so scared for Mythic who I think is MUCH better at handling mmo affairs then is EA. Their merger with EA can only hurt Mythic I think. Hopefully it will help EA rather then hurt Mythic. We shall see.
Just my two cents regarding this little debate between you guys.
Gameloading, here's a project for you. Find out how much money, your King and Lord, EA, spent on developing their own amazing MMOG, The Sims Online, with all their amazing knowledge, analysts, and reasearch and then find out how well it did and report back here at MMORPG.COM.
Nobody else needs to read this, this whole post is for two troubled kids, Gameloading and Hakiko. Everyone with a brain can refer to the previous post, three posts up, which includes all the FACTS. Ad Hominem To the second troubled kid, Hakiko, you not only missed the point of the chart I posted, but you must have also missed the discussion. We were specifically talking about pre-Trammel UO and Gameloading came up with the brilliant idea that the reason pre-Trammel UO was so successful is because it had no competition. When in fact it did have well over 300,000 subscriptions of competition before Trammel was released. The section of the graph I posted shows this period exactly and accurately - it's an exact copy of the graph you posted. It is not in fact an exact copy of the graph you pasted. It is the REST of the graph you pasted. You only pasted a portion of the graph in an attempt to mislead. The full graph shows an entirely different story as I described in my previous post. Also I do not comment on the argument regarding pre-Trammel competition due to the fact that neither of you presented any real numerical data to work off of. Just vague internet numbers. I only commented on your gross misuse of the data that you presented. You either use all the numbers or do not bring them to the table. And to your faulty speculation, UO only passed up DAoC during the time that it spiked at 250k for a short 3 months, see the above information to the first troubled kid. It is not faulty speculation it is born out in the data. The data clearly shows that UO recovered after an initial drop below DAoC immediatly after its release. The major, and final, drop in UO subscribers that follows directly coincides with the release in America of FFXI and SWG. SWG directly appealed to the more virtual world centric customer base of UO. It is the prime culprit in taking away subscribers. Logic: SWG was designed by many of the same people and appealed to the same kind of gamers. Data: UO dips as SWG rises almost simultaneously. You cannot back your claim that Trammel caused people to abandon UO for DAoC with the data available. It only shows the usual customer interest in a new game that results in a return to their original. Not only did you miss the discussion, but also the whole point. However, as it relates to the discussion now, when DAoC was released you can see that all the consensual games either slowed in growth, EQ, or stopped growing, AC and UO Again you only show a smaller section of a graph and ignore the longer trends. At that point the market had reached near saturation. MMOs had not penetraded deeply into the more casual market yet. The reason growth slowed was due to pulling from a customer base that was not growing as fast as the number of games available. AC was definatly the main loser inthis situation. This would cease to be a problem later as high profile licenses like Final Fantasy, Warcraft, and Star Wars drew mainstream attention to the MMO genre.
I will not comment on this situation again in this thread as it is a hijack of a perfectly legitimate discussion. I will not comment on it in another thread unless you bring new data to the table to support your argument as we have said all that we can on the data presented so far. If you want to flame Gameloading and I in another thread feel free I will not reply. I would prefer that you just start your own forum site and do it there.
EA is lord and king in the gaming franchise. They KNOW what their doing. If a classic server would be profitable, they would have put up already, You can jump up & low, and from left to right, they have bussiness analyst, they have been around in the mmorpg genre. You and I are just MMORPG players.
I just can't pass up this gem! I don't even need to type anything in response. But for your benefit I will.
EA is only good at producing boxed games, their record with MMOGs is horrible - deja vu, didn't I already tell you this. And I have to tell you this on an MMOG forum. Do you know anything about EA's MMOGs except for Ultima Online, Gameloading?
And you assume that I am just an MMORPG player, or did you mean to type prove?
Kids like you, what a waste of time typing, but it's good PvP.
I'm not going to answer that question, as I made my point in this topic, said I would step out of this debate and I will. However I will give you one tip: If you want people to take you seriously, stop throwing out insults. Its really childish, and there is no need for flaming.
I just need to add that I completely agree with Zax... Old school UO (pre-trammel) and EQ/RoK/SoV were the best MMORPG's I've every played and still are to this day. However, the two games have changed so much and lost so much of their player base to crap games like WoW I can no longer enjoy them. I am CONSTANTLY thinking to myself "Wow do I miss playing old school MMO's." The one exception to old school MMO's was Camelot. Prior to the Atlantis expansion Camelot was also an extremely fun game.
Nothing I've played in the last 2 years can live up to these 3 games.
Comments
Maybe WOW PvP is a little more involved then I give it credit for, but it's still overly simplistic and any 5 year old can succeed at it with relative ease.
Going to back to what you said, you stated the warrior can "intercept" a mages fire bolt which stuns the mage??? Really?? I have a lvl 20 or so warrior in WOW and I don't recall any such hotbar action. I'm not saying that it doesn't exist. It probably does, but I was just unaware of such.
Regardless, I'd still like to see a brand new mmo come out with a PvP system much closer to what AC1 had rather then what WOW exhibits today. In fact, I'd love to see an even more skill required AC1 PvP system where you actually have to press certain keyboard buttons to take different swings and so forth. Or swinging your sword by holding down your right mouse button and actually maneuvering the swing with your mouse or something. If you don't slide your mouse in a straight line, perhaps you miss or even drop your weapon. That could be cool. I guess I'm just getting tired of hotkeys for every damn action you take in a game.
- Zaxx
Its because the intercept skill is learned at level 30
Indeed, WoW's pvp system is still pretty simple, but it is a lot more, lets say, "Player skill" based, then a lot of other MMORPG's if you ask me, WoW's pvp system is very easy to get into, but takes some time to master. Imho, AC pvp is still king when it comes to playerskill involvement in pvp, but WoW defenitly deserves 2nd place (although it will set back to 3rd place if we include Guild Wars).
If your looking for a system like Asherons Call, which means playerskill based instead of character skill based, I think you might want to keep an eye on Age of Conan & Huxley (although keep in mind Huxley is an MMOFPS). AoC isn't EXACTLY like AC, but its combat is unqie and seems to reward playerskill over character. Darkfall would also match, but I think its just vaporware.
Yeh, WOW isn't a bad game. It's actually a great game and a great introduction mmo. I just want more.
Speaking of Darkfall. Man, that game promises a LOT and sounds like a dream come true mmo for people in my shoes looking for more from mmorpgs. But Darkfall is BS and I have given up on it long ago. Didn't it state it was expected to release in the fall on 2003 on its' own FAQ at one point?? That's just ridiculous. Even if it does ever come out, I have a strong feeling that it would go a very similar route as did Dark & light and be a huge disappointment.
I am looking at Age of Conan and further at Warhammer Online to be a big improvement over WoW in the style of mmo I desire to see on store shelves.
We'll see.
- Zaxx
The problem is, understanding how to make a profit. Sure, EA saw a way to make a profit in MMOGs, see SIMs online and the millions they dumped into it, but they don't know how. They try to sell MMOGs like a retail boxed sequel, lots of quick development and new content packed into a box every year. Whereas, what matters with MMOGs is balance and quality.
Well, it is ignorant to say that something does not exist because it's not possible, when it has already been done. And that's the exact approach you took.
Classic Ultima Online has already been proven to be a successful design. It was also proven to be a successful design when competing with consensual games like Everquest and Asheron's Call, both of which gained over 300,000 subscriptions during the time and yet Ultima Online continued growing at the same rate as it had since it's existance.
Where EA failed was to look at Everquest's and Asheron's Call's higher growth rates and assume they should change their game design. Within a year after changing UO into a competing consensual game, the steady growth UO had for three years stopped and the game actually began losing subscriptions; probably with the help of DAoC which offered something that players had begun to miss in UO, non-consensual competition.
UO has also been a victim of their business plan. EA makes all their money by selling boxes. That is their business plan. Obtain as many high profile IP rights as possible and pump out as many boxes and sequals as they can. As a result, all of thier service oriented MMOGs have gone by the wayside. All this time they have held on to one that was successful at one time, UO, and done nothing with it but pump out expansions and milk it for a very extremely small percentage of EA's revenue; probably more than anything to merely say to investors, "yes, we have an MMOG offering."
EA has been generating 3 billion per year selling boxed games and sequels. It was not until the WoW MMOG came along and woke them up, with 1 billion in revenue off a single IP, off a single MMOG. Now EA is way behind the ball and desperate, buying out Mythic and trying to revitalize UO. They finally see the potential of MMOGs, but is it too late?
A good start would be to bring back a Classic UO server offering, a game design proven to be successful among gamers, along with the new graphics upgrade. Will they do it? Most likely not, they don't know how to make good MMOGs, they only know how to push boxes.
Well, it is ignorant to say that something does not exist because it's not possible and that's the exact approach you took.
Classic Ultima Online has already been proven to be a successful design. It was also proven to be a successful design when competing with consensual games like Everquest and Asheron's Call, both of which gained over 300,000 subscriptions during the time and yet Ultima Online continued growing at the same rate as it had since it's existance.
Classic UO was successfull BACK THEN. It was also because it was pretty much the only game avaible back then.
Where EA failed was to look at Everquest's and Asheron's Call's higher growth rates and assume they should change their game design. Within a year after changing UO into a competing consensual game, the steady growth UO had for three years stopped and the game actually began losing subscriptions; probably with the help of DAoC which offered something that players had begun to miss in UO, non-consensual competition.
They changed their game design with the release of Trammel, and Trammel was released back in 2000. And after the release of Trammel, Subscriber numbers INCREASED for 3 YEARS, with at its peak in 2003 with 250k subscribers. Only after then subscribers began to decline, this can be blamed on the simple age of the game & the competition with other MMORPG's.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultima_Online
Classic Ultima Online has already proven to be successful, but EA makes all their money by selling boxes. That is their business plan. Obtain as many high profile IP rights as possible and pump out as many boxes and sequals as they can. UO has also been a victim of their business plan. As a result, all of thier service oriented MMOGs have gone by the wayside. All this time they have held on to one and done nothing with it but pump out expansions and milk it for a very extremely small percentage of their revenue, probably more than anything to merely say to investors, "yes, we have an MMOG offering."
Classic UO WAS successfull back then. After they changed UO, the game became even more successfull.
EA has been generating 3 billion per year selling boxed games and sequels. It was not until the WoW MMOG came along and woke them up, with 1 billion in revenue off a single IP, off a single MMOG. Now EA is way behind the ball and desperate, buying out Mythic and trying to revitalize UO. They finally see the potential of MMOGs, but is it too late?
A good start would be to bring back a Classic server offering, a game design proven to be successful among gamers, along with the new graphics upgrade. Will they do it? Most likely not, they don't know how to make good MMOGs, they only know how to push boxes.
If a classic server would be profitable, EA would have already launched one. They KNOW when & How to make profit.
Lets take a look at things
1: UO was released. Back then, it was the only well known MMORPG in the west.
2: Everquest was released, quicky became the number 1 rival of UO.
3: Everquest outperformed UO.
4: UO added "trammel". Subscriber base went up and reached the peak.
To say that UO had no competition means that you failed to read the very post you were replying to. Half-way through UO's pre-Trammel growth, EQ and AC were released to the tune of over 300,000 competitive MMOG subscriptions - more than UO has ever had. That is plenty of competition, but you know what? UO continued to grow steadily at the same rate as it had since inception, even with the competition of nearly twice UO's subscriptions.
That wiki entry is not accurate. After Trammel was released subscriptions did not continue to rise for 3 years, subscriptions began to drop off after less than a year, that's a fact as reported by EA themselves. Anyone can make wiki entries and often anyone does. Here is the data from Electronic Arts themselves, official press releases and financial reports:
Ultima Online Timeline and Subscription Facts
EA does not know how to make competitive MMOGs.
That's one of the most ignorant posts I have read today.
"If something doesn't exist, then it must not be profitable" - Gameloading
Instead of actually claiming something to be ignorant, perhaps you might take an example of Zaxtor and actually post a counter arguement?@ Zaxtor, that may be so, but as you already pointed out yourself, those servers are completely free. even though they take donations, How many people actually donate as much as 15$ a month? hundreds, if not thousands of people are required to fill a server. Not to mention that server also comes with additional costs, and can be difficult to maintain, since people will still expect future updates, and with 2 complete diffrent rulesets, this COULD provide difficulty's.
EA doesn't have his head up its arse like some people would like to think. They are king when they see a way to make profit.
Let me give you a definition of a server Gameloading.
1. A program that is ran on a decent high tech machine depending if the mmo is heavily client side or server side.
2. Either ran on a 100mbit connection or a 1000mbit connection.
3. On that same pc is the database connecting the data within the server.
Now allow us to sum the cost up. Your average user already has that computer that any company runs a plan game server.
The company already funded that. Now you have your 100mbit to 1000mbit a 100mbit cost around 60 or 70 bucks. a 1000mbit $125
Now you pay for your weekly programming allowance. Depending on which of your staff is doing it for charity or not it could cost probably 12% of your monthly income of $9 per user. If a case is bought that is an extra 50 in your pocket you pretty much covered 1/3 of the cost of your internet for that box within one customer buying it. The rest of the bullshit is pure profit. It doesn't take a genius to setup a server on a box that is your average user a gig and a 2.5 to 3.0 ghz cpu with a decent cooling system. You keep making it out that a server is this huge box of treats that get handed out to everyone who pays the owner $9. Now running multiple servers your still making a shit load just from customers buying a box with a 45 cent disc. Great you made a cardboard box with a disc and selling it for $50. Soo just from the box buying your gaining probably somewhere between 50% to a 65% profit. Saving some on the side should the box juice up on you. and the net connection and then your randomized programmers. GM's? Most people do it for free because of the high status you are given. But that is about it.
WOW you got your super box of tricks server. If you cut back on the staff you could just run off on boxs or donations alone. Not to mention how an item mall would affect you.
Take a deep drink of your demon Lad, tonight we tangle with the fire in the gut.
On a sidenote, I DID read the post. Trammel was released in 2000, Everquest in 1999, only one year diffrence. so since the start of UO -> 1999, there was pretty much nothing else to play, because MMORPG's weren't very known
To the poster above me, I do not know the exact costs of a server, but I do know the official RF Online server costs several thousands of $ each month. its quite expensive, because customers expect top of the line servers.
Everquest was released on March 16, 1999 and grew to 225,000 subscriptions before Trammel was released. And don't discount Asheron's Call, released October 31, 1999, which grew to 85,000 competitive subscriptions before Trammel was released and The Realm Online, which was released December 31, 1996, nine months before Ultima Online, and grew to 25,862 subscriptions in May of 1999 and even Meridian 59, one of the first MMOGs, released September 27, 1996 had more than 25,000 beta testers and is still going today.
So, lets look at the exact facts, rather pulling speculation out of your head based only on what you have been told or what you have come to know or believe over the years.
Ultima Online was not the first MMOG released, it was the third. The Realm Online, which grew to over 25,000 subscriptions is not to be ignored, nor is Meridian 59’s 25,000 beta testers at release. Those are significant numbers even for many MMOGs today. However, comparatively, it was a much greater amount, when MMOGs were still new; Ultima Online had 50,000 four months after release. So what do we have competing with Ultima Online in 1999 before Trammel was released?
While I don’t know how many of Meridian 59’s 25,000 beta testers were converted to paying subscribers, even with the other games, there were at least 335,000 competitive MMOG subscriptions to Ultima Online's 185,000 at the release of Trammel. UO did in fact have significant competition while it was a non-consensual game. And, yet, how did this non-consensual PvP Ultima Online perform, even with all this competition? It continued to grow at approximately the same rate as it had since release:
25k subscribers is safe enough to ignore. 25k beta testers are also completely safe to ignore. And how many of those games were actually known? I can tell you that, Very little. VERY little people knew of the existance of Meridian59 and the Realm online. Even today, very few people actually know what your talking about when you mention those titles. From my experiences, most people are still convinced UO was the very first mmorpg.
As I said, it may still have grown, that does not take away that it was being outperformed by Everquest. And as we can see here:
http://www.mmogchart.com/
The real major downfall in subscribers in UO was not untill 3 years after the release of trammel. It went up & down a little, but it remained around the same mark. which, to me, brings me to the conclusion Trammel was not the cause of UO's current position. Its simply its age & the compeition,
Semp is not accuratly representing the data with his screen shot. He cuts it off early because what happens next does not work towards his point. I you go to http://mmogchart.com/Chart2.html you can see that there is far more to the chart than he has shown. The big bounce that you see in DAoC's numbers on his screenshot is because of the launch all games have this.
However if you look you will see that by Jan-03 UO actually has higher numbers than DAoC on the chart. DAoC's numbers have dropped and UO's have actually had a good bounce to higher than the DAoC release. The conclusion that could be drawn from this was that people tried DAoC and went BACK to UO's post Trammel style.
DAoC doesnt pass UO again till late 03. At this point UO begins its lond decline, almost certainly due to the age of the game compared to competitors.
Most importantly this decline directly coincides with the rise in subscription numbers and release of FFXI and more importantly SWG. Due to the nature of early SWG and Raph's involvement this is the most likely UO killer.
I agree with Gameloading here the data just does not support your argument.
Nobody else needs to read this, this whole post is for two troubled kids, Gameloading and Hakiko. Everyone with a brain can refer to the previous post, three posts up, which includes all the FACTS.
To the first troubled kid, Gameloading, you cannot ignore the 25k subscriptions of The Realm Online when Ultima Online itself only had 50k at the same time. That is competition. Do you understand that 25k is half of 50k?
Then you go on with more crazy ideas wrongly opinioning that because you or others had not heard of The Realm online and Meridian 59 that they don't count. 
Well, 25k people knew about The Realm Online and were playing it when 50k knew of Ultima Online and were playing that. That fact alone blows your theory that Ultima Online had no competition.
However, that is beside the point, I don't need to teach you about math and how 25k is significant when the maximum you are comparing it to is 50k or even 150k, it's not an amount to discard, because even if you do completely ignore it that still leaves over 300,000 competitive subscripitons at the time Trammel was released and none of them had an effect on the non-consensual Ultima Online's overall rate of growth.
Besides, what you seem to be failing to realize is that less than a year after the release of Trammel UO not only began losing subscriptions, but it stopped gaining them too, the game stopped growing. In the next nearly seven years Ultima Online has only grown by 10k more subscriptions than the 240,000 it had way back in 2001 around the 3d release, before it's first losses began within a year after the Trammel expansion. Seven years for 10k subscriptions! And here's the kicker, that 10k peak in subscriptions only lasted for 3 months. You call that growth?
I call that a short 3 month spike in seven years of failure at attracting players. And guess what caused that spike? It happened right after the 7th Anniversary Edition was released, which included, you guessed it, seven free account keys, and then they opened Age of Shadows so that everyone would have a reason to use their seven free account keys - yep and a new housing area. 
To the second troubled kid, Hakiko, you not only missed the point of the chart I posted, but you must have also missed the discussion. We were specifically talking about pre-Trammel UO and Gameloading came up with the brilliant idea that the reason pre-Trammel UO was so successful is because it had no competition.
When in fact it did have well over 300,000 subscriptions of competition before Trammel was released. The section of the graph I posted shows this period exactly and accurately - it's an exact copy of the graph you posted. 
And to your faulty speculation, UO only passed up DAoC during the time that it spiked at 250k for a short 3 months, see the above information to the first troubled kid. Not only did you miss the discussion, but also the whole point. However, as it relates to the discussion now, when DAoC was released you can see that all the consensual games either slowed in growth, EQ, or stopped growing, AC and UO:
PWNED!!!!
The answer is no, we shouldn't be ashamed. Since it is a pay to play game you vote with your money. If someone hates logging on and thinks playing is a waste of time then continuing to play is a problem with them, not the game.
With that said thank you for your view. Posts like this are encouraging for future companies or current ones kicking around MMO ideas.
Just not worth my time anymore.
And yes you earned another:
I just can't pass up this gem! I don't even need to type anything in response. But for your benefit I will.
EA is only good at producing boxed games, their record with MMOGs is horrible - deja vu, didn't I already tell you this. And I have to tell you this on an MMOG forum.
Do you know anything about EA's MMOGs except for Ultima Online, Gameloading?
And you assume that I am just an MMORPG player, or did you mean to type prove?
Kids like you, what a waste of time typing, but it's good PvP.
Semptiternal and Gameloading...
You both have viewpoints which you are trying to express. And I understand what both of you are trying to say myself. However, I will have to agree more with Gameloading on this one, surprisingly because Gameloading and I are usually 180 degrees apart.
While there is a ton of complaints today about Ultima Onlines Trammel expansion and how it ruined the game, the fact is that a great deal more people loved Trammel and being able to hunt dungeons, mine in the mountains, and adventure without the risk of being ebolted by murderers who would loot them of all their goods. People also enjoyed the safety of sitting in the towns by the bank and working on their smith, tailoring, carpentry and so forth skills without risk of a thief stealing from the pack while they worked or conversed with other players. All the people who loved trammel aren't the ones making all the racket today. It is only coming from those of us who hated the Trammel expansion that make all the noise today. And all our noise compared to the silence from all the people who liked Trammel make it seem like Trammel was the worst move EA ever made... when the fact is Trammel wasn't such a bad move on the part of EA financially.
I am not one of the masses who liked Trammel and the safety to all the players it brought. I hated it myself because it left my world of Felucia barren and lonely. Nobody ever wanted to go to felucia and take those risks like me. Even when UO tried to get players back into felucia by doubling the loot and ore etc obtained there over Trammel.. most players still wouldn't set foot in felucia, even for double the goods and profit!
Ultima Online was STILL fun after Trammel came. It was still Ultima Online. It just didn't have the excitement level (or risks) that it had before.
Ultima Online was more hurt by its aging graphics and stiff competition from games like Dark Age of Camelot, Lineage 2, and World of Warcraft then anything else.
However I still agree with semp and disagree with Gameloading on the part where Gameloading says EA would have already released a pre-Trammel server if they could make profit at it. I think that their overall costs in opening up one or two "pre-Trammel" servers would cost very little nowdays in their overall costs, and the potential return of old players due to such a change could help solidify UO as a contender today. It wouldn't double its current subscriber base, but it also couldn't hurt much. I also do not agree at all that EA is the best company at handling games and online games. I much more tend to agree with semp that EA pretty much sucks in this area. This is why I am so scared for Mythic who I think is MUCH better at handling mmo affairs then is EA. Their merger with EA can only hurt Mythic I think. Hopefully it will help EA rather then hurt Mythic. We shall see.
Just my two cents regarding this little debate between you guys.
- Zaxx
I just can't pass up this gem! I don't even need to type anything in response. But for your benefit I will.
EA is only good at producing boxed games, their record with MMOGs is horrible - deja vu, didn't I already tell you this. And I have to tell you this on an MMOG forum.
Do you know anything about EA's MMOGs except for Ultima Online, Gameloading?
And you assume that I am just an MMORPG player, or did you mean to type prove?
Kids like you, what a waste of time typing, but it's good PvP.
I'm not going to answer that question, as I made my point in this topic, said I would step out of this debate and I will. However I will give you one tip: If you want people to take you seriously, stop throwing out insults. Its really childish, and there is no need for flaming.Nothing I've played in the last 2 years can live up to these 3 games.