UO only sold for a while because it was the only game in town. After EQ was released, many jumped ship, and yes, they had to make Trammel to save UO.
Again, UO before Trammel, in my subjective opinion, was a horrible game, and i am glad very few games would consider the same design.
Many jump ship from every game anytime a new title is released. You state your "subjective opinion", but multiple awards, world records and the fact that it's one of the longest running MMOs in the world would disagree with you.
Let's look at numbers. Highest point of UO's sub is roughly 250k. Highest point of EQ sub is 500k. And we don't need to talk about WOW, do we?
1/2 of EQ is the definition of "pale in comparison" .. isn't it?
UO only sold for a while because it was the only game in town. After EQ was released, many jumped ship, and yes, they had to make Trammel to save UO.
Again, UO before Trammel, in my subjective opinion, was a horrible game, and i am glad very few games would consider the same design.
Many jump ship from every game anytime a new title is released. You state your "subjective opinion", but multiple awards, world records and the fact that it's one of the longest running MMOs in the world would disagree with you.
UO sold because it was a great game. But that's my subjective opinion... supported by a pile of empirical evidence.
Dude... you've got something in the side of your cheek. "hands over a pair of tin snips*
-- Whammy - a 64x64 miniRPG - RPG Quiz - can you get all 25 right? - FPS Quiz - how well do you know your shooters?
UO only sold for a while because it was the only game in town. After EQ was released, many jumped ship, and yes, they had to make Trammel to save UO.
Again, UO before Trammel, in my subjective opinion, was a horrible game, and i am glad very few games would consider the same design.
Many jump ship from every game anytime a new title is released. You state your "subjective opinion", but multiple awards, world records and the fact that it's one of the longest running MMOs in the world would disagree with you.
Let's look at numbers. Highest point of UO's sub is roughly 250k. Highest point of EQ sub is 500k. And we don't need to talk about WOW, do we?
1/2 of EQ is the definition of "pale in comparison" .. isn't it?
Outside of WoW how many MMORPG have had more than 500k subscribers? Majority of MMORPG are 250-500k.
Outside of WoW how many MMORPG have had more than 500k subscribers? Majority of MMORPG are 250-500k.
TOR (and sub is OPTIONAL)
GW1 & 2 sold way more than 500k
and how about f2p that makes WAY more than 500k subs?
How many are playing LoL, and World of Tanks .. and how much are these games making?
Plus, we are talking about UO ... which did NOT have 500k sub .. it had at most 250k .. which is a LOT less than 500k.
Exactly one or two. UO and EQ sold in millions not just their peak numbers.
We weren't talking about F2P though many F2P are still in that range or less. That means UO and EQ were in the normal mainstream range of players. It's also unknown if they made more or less than F2P. 45 million to 90 million a year in subs plus box sales and expansions is nothing to sneeze at.
MOBA/Match based games are not equivalent to MMORPG.
We weren't talking about F2P though many F2P are still in that range or less. That means UO and EQ were in the normal mainstream range of players. It's also unknown if they made more or less than F2P. 45 million to 90 million a year in subs plus box sales and expansions is nothing to sneeze at.
MOBA/Match based games are not equivalent to MMORPG.
and many f2p are more than that range .... and yes, MOBA/match based games are not equivalent .. but hey, they are MMOs now ... and all online games compete with one another anyway.
If you look at all online games, UO really is not that successful (but WoW, LoL, WoT, D3, TOR and a long list of other games are).
The best pvp is within a strong pve world as environment drives conflict just as in real life. Developers generally miss this concept or lack the skill to deliver or even try it.
Games are made either/or because proper tools must be in place for players to control and limit pvp. There is little to no defense against it when real life offers many defenses but these tools are not offered. It is the true sandbox game. If you allow conflict you should also allow resolution.
Most mmos are too simplistic to offer even remotely balanced conflict. A full suite of community and guild tools are required offering governing mechanics which most don't even try to offer. Posters here saying it's either or are merely reflecting the current state of games that offer nothing to it's players.
Developers cannot offer total freedom to kill without limitation. It is the players who should control what is accepted behavior within a community based game. Seeing how most games strip community out of their mechanics to allow total freedom or none at all we will not see an evolution of this. F2p games will never see by their very philosophy.
A developer can only create such a concept by making a purely genre game built upon social development and governance. So far we typically see only parts of the equation within many games but not one.
By definition the game would be made for mature players who can visualize life beyond the "me me me!" culture. I cannot stress that the game would be made primarily as a pve game but with the full suite of management tools. The moment a developer tries to artificially drive pvp it will fail. True immersive pvp can only be driven by player need with a complex pve world. Anything less devolves the game into a scripted war game which nearly all mmos turn into currently.
We can't have PVPers and PVEers mixing that much, but not because one "griefs" more than the other. Please, how infantile. I've seen more "grief" over one player not being good enough to fill their group role, undercutting prices on the AH, node stealing, guild stealing, etc. etc. in purely PVE games than I ever have seen erupted over PVP. PVE players enjoy portraying the image that PVPers "wreck da game ecksperiensh" when in fact they quite likely do the same to other players all the time on their PVE game. They act like using being high level as a way to "bully" other players doesn't exist in a PVE game. Oh it does, they just don't feel comfortable putting their asses on the line. So that player they offend today never has a reasonable chance of squaring up with them later.
No, the reason why you can not mix the two is because generally PVPers are okay with being other players content. PVEers believe all content exists for the purpose of entertaining them, while they are under no obligation to give anything back.
Since the latter play style is the more common view and the one developers cater to more, we can't have meaningful player interaction of any type, not limited to PVP. MMO's are designed as plastic shallow representations of a living world, because the masses have shown developers that they're not mature enough to handle anything more. And by that I mean sacrificing a bit of their own personal experience and time in game so that the game as a whole can benefit.
The best pvp is within a strong pve world as environment drives conflict just as in real life.
nah .. "best" is subjective and that is just your opinion.
I would say e-sports pvp is "better" for many. Just look at how popular it is. Plus, what does real life have to do with games? We are talking about fun here, not realism.
The best pvp is within a strong pve world as environment drives conflict just as in real life. Developers generally miss this concept or lack the skill to deliver or even try it.
Games are made either/or because proper tools must be in place for players to control and limit pvp. There is little to no defense against it when real life offers many defenses but these tools are not offered. It is the true sandbox game. If you allow conflict you should also allow resolution.
Most mmos are too simplistic to offer even remotely balanced conflict. A full suite of community and guild tools are required offering governing mechanics which most don't even try to offer. Posters here saying it's either or are merely reflecting the current state of games that offer nothing to it's players.
Developers cannot offer total freedom to kill without limitation. It is the players who should control what is accepted behavior within a community based game. Seeing how most games strip community out of their mechanics to allow total freedom or none at all we will not see an evolution of this. F2p games will never see by their very philosophy.
A developer can only create such a concept by making a purely genre game built upon social development and governance. So far we typically see only parts of the equation within many games but not one.
By definition the game would be made for mature players who can visualize life beyond the "me me me!" culture. I cannot stress that the game would be made primarily as a pve game but with the full suite of management tools. The moment a developer tries to artificially drive pvp it will fail. True immersive pvp can only be driven by player need with a complex pve world. Anything less devolves the game into a scripted war game which nearly all mmos turn into currently.
If you look at all online games, UO really is not that successful (but WoW, LoL, WoT, D3, TOR and a long list of other games are).
Not that successful? Pfffft Are you kidding!? It's one of the most successful games of all time and being one of the first of its kind, makes that fact even more impressive.
If you don't think a twenty year lifespan, more profit than I could ever count, a pile of awards and 8 world records is successful, you may have a skewed view of business.
If you look at all online games, UO really is not that successful (but WoW, LoL, WoT, D3, TOR and a long list of other games are).
Not that successful? Pfffft Are you kidding!? It's one of the most successful games of all time and being one of the first of its kind, makes that fact even more impressive.
Says you .. look at the player & revenue numbers from the game i listed .. all are WAY bigger than UO.
Subjectively you can say you like it .. objectively, it is a pittance compared to wow.
If you look at all online games, UO really is not that successful (but WoW, LoL, WoT, D3, TOR and a long list of other games are).
Not that successful? Pfffft Are you kidding!? It's one of the most successful games of all time and being one of the first of its kind, makes that fact even more impressive.
Says you .. look at the player & revenue numbers from the game i listed .. all are WAY bigger than UO.
Subjectively you can say you like it .. objectively, it is a pittance compared to wow.
The player numbers have jumped since the beginnings. UO wasn't the first, but it was the first to come out with large server numbers. So that's where most people suggest the true beginning of truly massively multiplayer starts. Before UO were games that most people never heard of. Lot's of WoW gamers never heard of UO, last I saw anyone mention.
UO did sell a lot more games, as JynxJSA previously mentioned, that aren't reflected in the top population. They lost a hell of a lot because of the PKing.
EA's experts did their projections and said UO would sell 10,000 units total. That was because of the market being in such early stages and really no background to go on. But they sold far more than that. THeir servers each held an equal 10,000 population with 3,000 capacity concurrently in game. They opened with 3 servers initially, and within a month had another 3, and more yet to come in short order. That first month was 6X what their experts thought they'd sell entirely. Even with the huge numbers leaving because of the open PvP, they maintained those servers.
To me, that spells a wild success, for the times.
EQ brought in more gamers. A lot more. But WoW put MMO's on the map as far as that goes. With WoW, it wasn't that the game was different. It was that they already had a huge fan base, most of whom had never heard of MMOs at all before WoW.
Hmmm, if you look at a game like SWTOR, it is primarily aPvE game, but you can choose to do PvP if you wish. No pushing or expectation to do so. Pretty harmonious.
If you look at all online games, UO really is not that successful (but WoW, LoL, WoT, D3, TOR and a long list of other games are).
Not that successful? Pfffft Are you kidding!? It's one of the most successful games of all time and being one of the first of its kind, makes that fact even more impressive.
Says you .. look at the player & revenue numbers from the game i listed .. all are WAY bigger than UO.
Subjectively you can say you like it .. objectively, it is a pittance compared to wow.
The player numbers have jumped since the beginnings. ......
blah blah blah .. lots of excuses.
Numbers:
UO - top 250k sub EQ - top 500k sub, just a few years after, DOUBLE the best UO can do WOW - do i really need to put up a number? LOL - do i really need to put up a number? D3 - do i really need to put up a number? WoT - do i really need to put up a number?
Heck .. even TOR, a game many dislike here, have 500k sub, and that is on top on millions free players. How about GW1 & 2?
If you look at all online games, UO really is not that successful (but WoW, LoL, WoT, D3, TOR and a long list of other games are).
Not that successful? Pfffft Are you kidding!? It's one of the most successful games of all time and being one of the first of its kind, makes that fact even more impressive.
Says you .. look at the player & revenue numbers from the game i listed .. all are WAY bigger than UO.
Subjectively you can say you like it .. objectively, it is a pittance compared to wow.
The player numbers have jumped since the beginnings. ......
blah blah blah .. lots of excuses.
Numbers:
UO - top 250k sub EQ - top 500k sub, just a few years after, DOUBLE the best UO can do WOW - do i really need to put up a number? LOL - do i really need to put up a number? D3 - do i really need to put up a number? WoT - do i really need to put up a number?
Heck .. even TOR, a game many dislike here, have 500k sub, and that is on top on millions free players. How about GW1 & 2?
Well H&H had open PVP and yet I was never attacked in all my time playing the game (though I did see an occasional corpse). Perhaps it was the fact that PKers could be tracked down and killed by their crime's "scent", or perhaps the game simply attracted a niche of players so few in number that almost nobody wanted to PVP anyone.
But that also means PVP didn't add anything to the game (just the threat of something really un-fun happening.)
As a game designer I understand the benefits of adding casual PVP (ie MMORPG PVP) to a predominantly PVE title (ie MMORPGs) to retain casual players. As a player I would rather just see no effort wasted on mediocrity. Instead I prefer for my PVP games to focus on being the best PVP games (ie not MMORPGs) and my PVE games to focus on having the best PVE.
Basically I can buy multiple games and I'll always maintain the mix of PVP-specialized and PVE-specialized games that appeals most to me, and so I can avoid mediocre things like MMORPG PVP.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
But the claim was: " It's one of the most successful games of all time". It could be both but it isn't in this case. nariusseldon simply address the fromer claim - of all time.
Same goes for your T-Model - success at it¨s time, but no success of all times.
p.s. UO pre tremmel failed with the murder system with hostile flags, fame/infamous and red names, mostly because of full loot. Had they instead changed the looting rules during pvp encounters i think the murder system would still be in use today.
Figured an actual UO player should chime in here! ... Another misconception about UO pre-trammel comes from players like the one I quoted. They played after trammel was introduced. It made felucca a war zone. It made the graphics ugly (dead trees, brown grass, dirt). Plus, since PvP was killed there was no PvP at all from the faction system. Trammel brought in players who wanted nothing of it so they didnt join order or chaos. This left felucca with nothing but PvP players. No defenders, bounty hunters or anything. More and more PvP players left and only the griefers stayed behind. So when new players went to felucca, known as original UO, they met an ugly land with griefers who were bored and waiting at the gates. This is how newbies got their opinion of UO. Also, most people saying it was bad didnt play it. If they were all telling the truth the population would have been in the millions back then.
Also, full loot worked in UO because EVERYTHING was easily replaceable. All player made. You didnt have rare flaming swords of +2 STR. It was all just good fun. And you all missed out on it.
i played UO since launch, I was one of the PvPers left in felucca, i was in the most feared europe pvp guild 6i6 old school pvp video, im fardreamer in orange hair and pink beard, you can see me at 3m7s into the video.
now you know i played before the split, I dont know what misconceptions you think i have, is it because i think it was blue players whining about loot that created trammel?
If you look at all online games, UO really is not that successful (but WoW, LoL, WoT, D3, TOR and a long list of other games are).
Not that successful? Pfffft Are you kidding!? It's one of the most successful games of all time and being one of the first of its kind, makes that fact even more impressive.
Says you .. look at the player & revenue numbers from the game i listed .. all are WAY bigger than UO.
Subjectively you can say you like it .. objectively, it is a pittance compared to wow.
The player numbers have jumped since the beginnings. ......
blah blah blah .. lots of excuses.
Numbers:
UO - top 250k sub EQ - top 500k sub, just a few years after, DOUBLE the best UO can do WOW - do i really need to put up a number? LOL - do i really need to put up a number? D3 - do i really need to put up a number? WoT - do i really need to put up a number?
Heck .. even TOR, a game many dislike here, have 500k sub, and that is on top on millions free players. How about GW1 & 2?
I'm not saying UO was the "best of all time", for that is purely subjective. How about looking at "percentage of MMO players playing the games" instead of raw numbers? Maybe put some context into the mix?
In your list, only UO and EQ were out before the mass influx of players WoW brought in. Of course these other games' numbers are bigger with a bigger pool to draw from.
I do not know what these percentages are, but I think that would be a better measure of success than raw numbers with no context to them.
I'm not saying UO was the "best of all time", for that is purely subjective. How about looking at "percentage of MMO players playing the games" instead of raw numbers? Maybe put some context into the mix?
How about not? It is the ONLY MMORPG game at the time .. of course it is going to do well, even when it is making a very small splash (compared to the games i listed) in the gaming world.
Don't confuse lots of press (because it is first) and the ability to take over a big market.
But the claim was: " It's one of the most successful games of all time". It could be both but it isn't in this case. nariusseldon simply address the fromer claim - of all time.
Same goes for your T-Model - success at it¨s time, but no success of all times.
Heh, you are looking at it from another perspective than me.
If
you look at all online games, UO really is not that successful (but
WoW, LoL, WoT, D3, TOR and a long list of other games are).
I was addressing this comment. You just cannot take things out of their context. Now, had he added in "compared to SWTOR", then he'd be right. Just like it would be right to say that the Model T (a world changing success) was not as successful (assuming in sales numbers) as the AMC Gremlin.
Comments
1/2 of EQ is the definition of "pale in comparison" .. isn't it?
- RPG Quiz - can you get all 25 right?
- FPS Quiz - how well do you know your shooters?
GW1 & 2 sold way more than 500k
and how about f2p that makes WAY more than 500k subs?
How many are playing LoL, and World of Tanks .. and how much are these games making?
Plus, we are talking about UO ... which did NOT have 500k sub .. it had at most 250k .. which is a LOT less than 500k.
We weren't talking about F2P though many F2P are still in that range or less. That means UO and EQ were in the normal mainstream range of players. It's also unknown if they made more or less than F2P. 45 million to 90 million a year in subs plus box sales and expansions is nothing to sneeze at.
MOBA/Match based games are not equivalent to MMORPG.
If you look at all online games, UO really is not that successful (but WoW, LoL, WoT, D3, TOR and a long list of other games are).
Games are made either/or because proper tools must be in place for players to control and limit pvp. There is little to no defense against it when real life offers many defenses but these tools are not offered. It is the true sandbox game. If you allow conflict you should also allow resolution.
Most mmos are too simplistic to offer even remotely balanced conflict. A full suite of community and guild tools are required offering governing mechanics which most don't even try to offer. Posters here saying it's either or are merely reflecting the current state of games that offer nothing to it's players.
Developers cannot offer total freedom to kill without limitation. It is the players who should control what is accepted behavior within a community based game. Seeing how most games strip community out of their mechanics to allow total freedom or none at all we will not see an evolution of this. F2p games will never see by their very philosophy.
A developer can only create such a concept by making a purely genre game built upon social development and governance. So far we typically see only parts of the equation within many games but not one.
By definition the game would be made for mature players who can visualize life beyond the "me me me!" culture. I cannot stress that the game would be made primarily as a pve game but with the full suite of management tools. The moment a developer tries to artificially drive pvp it will fail. True immersive pvp can only be driven by player need with a complex pve world. Anything less devolves the game into a scripted war game which nearly all mmos turn into currently.
You stay sassy!
No, the reason why you can not mix the two is because generally PVPers are okay with being other players content. PVEers believe all content exists for the purpose of entertaining them, while they are under no obligation to give anything back.
Since the latter play style is the more common view and the one developers cater to more, we can't have meaningful player interaction of any type, not limited to PVP. MMO's are designed as plastic shallow representations of a living world, because the masses have shown developers that they're not mature enough to handle anything more. And by that I mean sacrificing a bit of their own personal experience and time in game so that the game as a whole can benefit.
I would say e-sports pvp is "better" for many. Just look at how popular it is. Plus, what does real life have to do with games? We are talking about fun here, not realism.
Fantastic post.
Once upon a time....
If you don't think a twenty year lifespan, more profit than I could ever count, a pile of awards and 8 world records is successful, you may have a skewed view of business.
VG
Subjectively you can say you like it .. objectively, it is a pittance compared to wow.
UO wasn't the first, but it was the first to come out with large server numbers. So that's where most people suggest the true beginning of truly massively multiplayer starts.
Before UO were games that most people never heard of. Lot's of WoW gamers never heard of UO, last I saw anyone mention.
UO did sell a lot more games, as JynxJSA previously mentioned, that aren't reflected in the top population. They lost a hell of a lot because of the PKing.
EA's experts did their projections and said UO would sell 10,000 units total. That was because of the market being in such early stages and really no background to go on. But they sold far more than that. THeir servers each held an equal 10,000 population with 3,000 capacity concurrently in game. They opened with 3 servers initially, and within a month had another 3, and more yet to come in short order. That first month was 6X what their experts thought they'd sell entirely. Even with the huge numbers leaving because of the open PvP, they maintained those servers.
To me, that spells a wild success, for the times.
EQ brought in more gamers. A lot more. But WoW put MMO's on the map as far as that goes. With WoW, it wasn't that the game was different. It was that they already had a huge fan base, most of whom had never heard of MMOs at all before WoW.
Once upon a time....
I self identify as a monkey.
Numbers:
UO - top 250k sub
EQ - top 500k sub, just a few years after, DOUBLE the best UO can do
WOW - do i really need to put up a number?
LOL - do i really need to put up a number?
D3 - do i really need to put up a number?
WoT - do i really need to put up a number?
Heck .. even TOR, a game many dislike here, have 500k sub, and that is on top on millions free players. How about GW1 & 2?
Once upon a time....
But that also means PVP didn't add anything to the game (just the threat of something really un-fun happening.)
As a game designer I understand the benefits of adding casual PVP (ie MMORPG PVP) to a predominantly PVE title (ie MMORPGs) to retain casual players. As a player I would rather just see no effort wasted on mediocrity. Instead I prefer for my PVP games to focus on being the best PVP games (ie not MMORPGs) and my PVE games to focus on having the best PVE.
Basically I can buy multiple games and I'll always maintain the mix of PVP-specialized and PVE-specialized games that appeals most to me, and so I can avoid mediocre things like MMORPG PVP.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Same goes for your T-Model - success at it¨s time, but no success of all times.
now you know i played before the split, I dont know what misconceptions you think i have, is it because i think it was blue players whining about loot that created trammel?
Herald of innovation, Vanquisher of the old! - Awake a few hours almost everyday!
In your list, only UO and EQ were out before the mass influx of players WoW brought in. Of course these other games' numbers are bigger with a bigger pool to draw from.
I do not know what these percentages are, but I think that would be a better measure of success than raw numbers with no context to them.
VG
Don't confuse lots of press (because it is first) and the ability to take over a big market.
I was addressing this comment. You just cannot take things out of their context.
Now, had he added in "compared to SWTOR", then he'd be right.
Just like it would be right to say that the Model T (a world changing success) was not as successful (assuming in sales numbers) as the AMC Gremlin.
Once upon a time....