Slashdot Mirror


Ultima X Odyssey - Wisdom In Cancellation?

Thanks to Corpnews.com for its discussion of the history of the Ultima MMO franchise in the content of the recent cancellation of MMO title Ultima X: Odyssey. The author argues of the cancellation: "This isn't a surprise. No, really. More fundamentally, all this points to the fact that somebody in EA's headcheese department is scared stiff of potentially sapping subscribers from the only truly successful title [Ultima Online] to come out of the company's development sweatshops." He claims: "Furthermore, all this comes at a time when the amount of 'surefire bets' in the industry seems to be dropping exponentially. Miniscule subscription bases for former hot-ticket games like Horizons and Shadowbane, coupled with disappointing numbers for Star Wars Galaxies - at last count, the game widely predicted to crack the MMO industry open and bring in a new rush of players... make it easier than ever for suits to pull the plug on projects which require millions of dollars to even hit the shallow waters of beta." Where does EA go from here with the online Ultima franchise, given that this is the second cancelled online Ultima title?

21 of 43 comments (clear)

  1. Was cancelled for good reasons by TreyBastian · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Being an old Ultima Online Vet I have to say it was cancelled for good reasons. Ultima Online was once a Great Game that turned into Diablo II with the Age of Shadows Expansion Pack. What it apears to me is that the developers are trying to revive this once great game. The new publich coming out even prooves the effort by balancing the Player vs Player system.

    --
    Founder of http://www.b-realm.com trey@b-realm.com
    1. Re:Was cancelled for good reasons by Kethinov · · Score: 2, Informative

      How is this modded as funny? It's true.
      I quit playing Ultima Online because Age of Shadows completely fucked up PVP. Essentially, if you wanted to be able to compete at all, you had to have lots of gold. Something that simply wasn't true before AoS. With AoS it ceased to be player vs player and became item vs item.

      I took about a year off from UO then started playing on free servers. I HIGHLY recommend any and all disgruntled UO players looking for a free and better alternative check out UOGateway which will allow you to simply and easily connect to player run servers; many of which are highly professional, highly popular, and fuckloads of fun. I'll never go back to EA's twisted version of it.

      --
      You're right, I wouldn't steal a car. But if it were possible, I sure as hell would download one!
  2. Madden? by the_skywise · · Score: 4, Funny

    What about EA's sports franchise? Isn't that still a profit center for EA? Or is that losing money as well?

  3. Just give up already. by bluemeep · · Score: 5, Funny
    They've tried generic fantasy ganes, generic sci-fi games and completely off-the-wall longshots. Only one of them even remotely pulls it's weight and that's because it's one of the major milestones of the industry. Just save us all a lot of grief and quit hemorrhaging money on MMOs already.

    Hell, give up on online play completely. Throw some cash at a few promising single player games! They still exist, after all. All of these project cancellations have really hurt my already shaky opinion of EA -- to the point where I might just make a concious effort to avoid their titles. But if some of the developers under their wing can cook up something really outstanding with their full support (and negligable meddling), it'd go a long way towards turning that opinion around.

    I'm sure there's a Madden Online joke in there somewhere...

  4. MMORPG success? Ha... by hoferbr · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Are the companys finally realizing that there aren't enought hardcore gamers to sustain all MMORPG titles?
    Half of the MMORPG currently in development are doomed to vanish after six months of relative success.

  5. Obvious really. by TheLink · · Score: 4, Insightful

    They still can have new games and they should before the old stuff gets "real old". But what they need is a new game that enhances the "network effects"- more and more players playing the "same game".

    So it has to be compatible with the existing game. e.g. even if it's a new world with different rules etc, the players can be migrated between them, (and probably communicate with each other between worlds - pick the right cost- heck link the "Ether resistance" to the CPU/bandwidth usage if you want) e.g. wormhole/teleport or whatever. Let them retain their attributes and some of their stuff (you could force them to leave behind some items- can't take everything back in the old world).

    If you want you could even force them to spend X gp/credits/USD/items etc to travel between the worlds. Or make it a quest or something. Come up with a story.

    Maybe some things become transformed into other things during the transfer (greater risk/chance of arbitrage opportunities if you do that).

    If lots of players move to the new world, then you can retask/reassign the resources for the old world for the new world.

    It is better for you to risk cannibalizing your old game than for SOMEONE ELSE to cannibalize yours.

    Perhaps I totally don't get it coz I'm not an MMORPG player or designer. But I don't see why my idea is any worse than frustrating their _developers_. Good developers/artists want to see their work become reality, bad ones are relieved if it never does :).

    Cancel stuff enough times and they'll make a new game - for a competitor.

    --
  6. MMOs more like TV shows than movies by servognome · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The execs are learning the differences between single player games and MMOs are similar to those of movies and TV shows.
    Single player games are 1-time experiences similar to movies, you play the game, you enjoy it, then the next game with better graphics and physics comes along and you play that. You can have tons of titles co-exist. Far Cry isn't killing the customer base for Doom 3 or half life 2, in fact people look forward to see how can they one-up what far cry did.
    Contrast this with the persistant experience of MMOs. Its more like a TV series like Friends or the Simpsons. People invest lots of time, they form relationships with the characters, they even alter their life to accomadate the schedule. In this scenario there are limited titles that can co-exist. By their nature you can't have a bunch of "hit" MMOs. Once an MMO has claimed a consumer base, its very difficult to convert them.
    Even followups to popular MMOs can fail (much like TV spinoffs) AC2 wasn't able to fully capitalize on the popularity of AC1. I have a number of friends who will quit MMOs altogether, or take a break, when EQ1 gets shutdown. They don't consider EQ2 to be a continuation of their EQ1 experiences.
    Just like every TV exec came up with their own version of Survivor, most of which have been cancelled, most of the MMOs that will come out are doomed to cancellation.

    --
    D6 63 0D 70 89 81 BB 8E 7B 7C 5F 5D 54 EA AB 73
    1. Re:MMOs more like TV shows than movies by MikShapi · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Excelent point, too bad I don't have any mod points today :-(

      I'd like to take your insight a few steps further though. Specifically the bit about us being able to invest our time&money (and hence pay for) multiple single-experience titles (like movies or single-player games) but no more than a select few ongoing experiences like TV-series or MMO's, and even that we take a break from or completely quit once we don't have the time to shell out.

      What that amounts to is that the MMO industry is significantly smaller, market-cap-wise, than the single-player industry. Given the market forces have time to do their thing, the MMO industry will find itself with budgets that compared to single-player games is much like a TV-series budget compared to a hollywood movie budget.

      But can games we'd want to play be made for significantly smaller budgets? I guess we'd be able to answer that in a couple of years, by simply checking if anyone is still making these titles or not.

      My personal opinion though is that any kind of product that requires:
      A. A huge public to use it in order to break even and start generating profit
      and
      B. Immense investment in time from its subscribers
      (Much more than the weekly 45 minutes we need to watch a TV series) - something people, especially the kinds with obligations, or families and kids, or ways of using that time to make money will not reluctantly give away.

      and an optional:
      C. Applies to a very limited public (which is computer-literate enough to actually get as far as finding out that MMOs exist and what they are)
      and
      D. Is in an industry with immense competition and huge corporations that can afford to lose tens if not hundreds of millions on the entire project.

      Making an MMO thus has slim chances if any of generating money and is a bad bad bad business idea.

      If EA had any financial brains (which they do but seem to be all clustered around the sports-game table, whereas their mothers-in-law seem to be running the CRPG/Adventure side of things), they'd re-hire Richard Gariott, give him a stash of money to buy a 3D engine that can handle a huge continuous map like Morrowind and tell him to go make a game with it. And not interfere or ax it until it's in retail. But hey, what do YOU expect from a mother-in-law?

      But hey, that's just my 2 worn-out cents of frustrated rant.

      --
      -
  7. Shit or get off the pot by Osmosis_Garett · · Score: 2, Insightful

    EA has been dangling its toes in the online market for too long. They've taken a few strange steps in that way, and have not supported sure fire winners (Hello, EA Sports on XBOX LIVE? Cmon, even I'd buy an XBox to play that).

    UO was published by Origin in the right place at the right time, and that sort of success is very hard to mirror. EQ has done it, as has DAoC to some degree. There is also Ragnarok and Lineage (1, not 2) to remember, so don't even begin to suggest that there isnt money out there to support these games. a subscription of about 20,000 is the magic number that these companies are aiming for to break a profit, and with a bit of imagination and a bit of risk, thats not a problem.

  8. Take that, bandwagon! by pommaq · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Why does each and every publisher need to have some grandiose MMORPG in their line-up? It makes no sense - the market is small, the maintenance costs are high, and with the treadmill setup everyone's using there really isn't room for more than one MMORPG (sometimes not even one, since most of them want you to put in at least an hour or two a day) per potential user. Totally senseless, it's been like that since the start, and I can't help but chuckle condescendingly every time a new UO/EQ clone goes down the toilet. Love seeing that herd mentality get punished, even if it probably means tighter budgets and less risk from the EA mooks in the future.

    Now, if you really have to make a massively multiplayer game, why not try some new ideas? Raph Koster's word is far from law, games like Puzzle Pirates have shown that level grind isn't the only way of doing things and that it's possible to have a vibrant online community without levels, without requiring you to be unemployed and/or a college student to be successful, and without beards and dwarves. The MMORPG scene consists 99% of me-too games and we really don't need any more of those. So, I'm not crying over Ultima X. Its predecessor was revolutionary in many ways and deserved its success, but honestly - what would this game bring to the table that wasn't already there? Creativity, please!

    1. Re:Take that, bandwagon! by 0x0d0a · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Why does each and every publisher need to have some grandiose MMORPG in their line-up? It makes no sense - the market is small, the maintenance costs are high, and with the treadmill setup everyone's using there really isn't room for more than one MMORPG (sometimes not even one, since most of them want you to put in at least an hour or two a day) per potential user.

      I agree that the market is vastly over-saturated. However, there are reasons why each publisher can be easily convinced that an MMORPG is worth the risks:

      * Very, very good antipiracy protection -- you're selling a service, not really the game.

      * A subscription model. Aside from making more money per year than a per-copy game, it's easy to get people "subscribed".

      * Good, free AIs. Oh, there are disadvantages to having humans running other NPCs (such as out-of-context behavior), but major advantages. People are smart, understand commands in English and can organize tactics. They can become friends (and hence increase the value of the game). If there is competition, there is generally tough competition out there -- in most single-player games, it's possible to beat/out-manuver all the computer AIs.

      * A channel to make more sales. If you have a strong media channel to your customers, you can freely push ads to other products that you're making.

      * A predictable revenue source. If you have sales numbers for each month, you have nice, predictable numbers to work with to show investors and whatnot.

      * Greater freedom from deadlines. If a developer doesn't have to finish all of a game by a deadline -- he can build another country while being paid by revenues from initial sales -- he has the ability to work on a project that is uniquely his for a long period of time.

      * Planned obsolescence. There is now a lot of video game content out there. Every person that is still spending time playing Tetris or Pac-Man or Super Metroid is not buying new games. Unless you can somehow springboard new sales from the old, having people continuing to play your game is *bad* -- it means that your market is less interested in buying your next game. I can play a fifteen-year-old videogame for most systems today. With an MMORPG, once the other players are gone, the game is "gone", and a player has nothing to do but buy the next product from the publisher.

      * Gambling mentality -- the nature of MMORPGs has shown to exploit well addictive personalities. Vendors love addictive types of people -- they will do a marvelous job of shoveling money into the company's pockets forever. MMORPGs generally have no "end", continually have new content, and generally do a good job of forcing people to *start* playing a little bit per time period, making it easy to play a *lot* per time period without an effort of will.

  9. Soaps & sitcoms by LondonLawyer · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I disagree that MMO is necessary "a bad bad bad business idea". I do think the approach is still wrong.

    It's unrealistic to imagine that a large and complex online environment can be built, provided and maintained for a large player base without costing the developers big bucks. The automatic reaction is to charge players to buy the game and then latch onto them with a monthly fee. Games are pushed out the door early to try to claw back cash from the initial purchasers and suffer because players don't perceive their end of the deal as value for money. When I've paid the equivalent of a regular game just to be able to pay the monthly subscription and I need to keep an internet connection all the time I'm playing, I'm going to want to be seriously impressed. MMOs seem to me to have too much to live up to in terms of expectation (and this is compounded by hype) for them to be able to deliver. Look at SWG as a case in point. The approach is too geared towards providing a product in the form of a game and not focussed enough on providing the service to justify the monthly fee.

    Where does the money come from to support a soap or a sitcom? In part advertising, in part merchandising. How does a soap or sitcom develop the following which these revenue streams depend on? Mostly because they are provided at low cost, often because they start small and low budget. Nobody paid a monthly fee just to watch Friends but the cost was bundled with a package (cable subscription, whatever) which allowed you access to the show. It grew huge. Same with Buffy. Same with most any big TV show you can think of.

    These things need to be bundled together as packages which can be subscribed to with minimum front-end cost to the subscriber. They need to bring in advertising and merchandising to subsidise the cost as much as possible. They need big network names to get on board and turn them mainstream. I don't think that day is too far off and I think predictions of the imminent death of online gaming are premature. There will be plenty that fail (as with TV) but the few that are successful will eventually be huge.

    1. Re:Soaps & sitcoms by 2TecTom · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Ok, ok enough already. You've made your points. I agree, MMO's are more short-lived. However, I believe the whole concept is being approached the wrong way. I believe the problem isn't in the MMO's, it is in the corporate model.

      Actually, I'm surprised that no one here has suggested an open community development effort. Why not create open standards, engines and objects. GPL and copyleft everything. Let Google handle the who's who and rankings. Then stand back and watch the MMO's grow.

      Who knows, maybe that'll be the next "web"

      --
      Words to men, as air to birds.
    2. Re:Soaps & sitcoms by MikShapi · · Score: 2, Informative

      Agreed, however I think you're missing the important point here.

      The ENTRY PRICE you pay for a sitcom is a few bucks a month and 45 minutes a week.

      The entry price you pay for an MMO is a few bucks a month and an inconceivably disproportionate amount of time a week. It's the latter element that more and more people realize as the real price of an MMO, and are consequently unwilling to pay it.

      That's why quite a few people I know who played MMO's for a while just quit (and I doubt if they'll be coming back). Most modern MMOs highly reward people who literally live in them, and "punish" those who elect to spend "only" a few weekly hours. Use the decaying housing regime in UO as an example to that.

      Another point - "older" MMO's are now provided free of charge on the net. UO 1st-gen servers and the like. Think of how OpenOffice affects the sales of MS-Office97-level suites, or how free Linux distros affect the sales of circa-98 desktop OS's.
      That doesn't help bring in money to the producers of new games. And there's no corporate market out shopping for MMO's.

      You'd be hard-pressed to convince me to invest in an MMO business opportunity, be I a CEO of a VC firm, CEO of microsoft (I fully understand MS's rationale to jam out of this market), or just a guy with a stock portfolio looking for places to stick my money in. (currently, the last being my case).

      --
      -
  10. Horizons by Kyrthira · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Sure, Horizons has lost some of its player base. A new MMORPG -always- loses some of its player base after a few months, as some get bored and move on to other things.

    Some of the recent dropoff was due to the layoffs that occurred in the staff. Now that they've consolidated, they're working a little more on communicating with the players on what they want to see. One of the biggest problems was that the dev's never listened to the players, and they're at least trying to fix that now. There's talk of server consolidation, which may help some of the problems people mention with the population being too sparse.

    As for the problems some seem to have with the game? I was online earlier, trying to help one player who mentioned in a public channel that even through three ISPs and now cable internet, the game still ran slowly. After pinging and tracerouting the HZ server and finding nothing, he made the certain conclusion that it was the game. Several other players with similar hardware configurations did -not- have this problem. When I pointed this out to him, he pointedly ignored me.

    Sometimes, a game doesn't work on your computer because of your hardware configuration, settings, etc. These people that yell the loudest are only aiming for attention, they don't actually want to help fix what's wrong.

    --
    ~Kyrthira Phelan~
  11. Re:pretty obvious by KDR_11k · · Score: 2, Informative

    I just can't figure out how they've justified not firing people.

    Easy, they hired other companies (like Liquid Development) to do the work and just told them their contract is over. The company stopped working on UXO and worked on another of the numerous projects they were hired to work on. There's noone who could be fired over this.

    --
    Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
  12. Star Wars, breaking things open? by e.m.rainey · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Since when was STG suppose to be the big thing?

    Yes I was excited about it until I found out that I couldn't be a Jedi (a 0.002% chance is not good enough for me). And to add insult to injury, once a Jedi dies, it's dead FOREVER!

    FAT CHANCE, buster! My dollars go to City of Heroes and DAoC now.

    --
    The next remark is false. The previous remark is true.
  13. Re:Worlds of Warcraft... by Carnildo · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I think we've seen it: City of Heroes.

    --
    "They redundantly repeated themselves over and over again incessantly without end ad infinitum" -- ibid.
  14. New development funding model by Doctor+Cat · · Score: 2, Insightful
    I think instead of this "old school" model of "put in millions or tens of millions up front, then ship a boxed product that's real slick and flashy"... The huge risk in this area, coupled with the player's being not only willing to accept continual upgrades of the software with new features and art, but actually wanting it... These two factors suggest to me a model where a publisher makes a number of FAR less expensive prototypes, and then picks out the one or two that players are going nuts over and people are swarming in to play, and decide "THAT is where we're going to add five or ten million bucks worth of art and finish the job".

    Hmmm, I think I need to send some emails to some other people I know in the industry. :X)

    --

    Furcadia - A free online game with user created content, DragonSpeak scripting, & more.

  15. EA Needs a Good Idea by gamerdave · · Score: 3, Interesting

    There will always be failures in an overcrowded market, but for those that get it right, MMOGs can still be very lucrative under the subscriber model. Although people love to hate it, SWG has been very successful and reached a quarter million players much quicker than EQ did, and continues to grow. FFXI and City of Heros are also doing well, and WoW stands a chance of breaking all previous records. I still think MMORPGs have a bright future, but developers will have to think creatively to avoid becoming casualties in what is, at the moment, a sort of gold rush.

  16. why start development in the first place? by startled · · Score: 2, Interesting

    "This isn't a surprise. No, really. More fundamentally, all this points to the fact that somebody in EA's headcheese department is scared stiff of potentially sapping subscribers from the only truly successful title [Ultima Online] to come out of the company's development sweatshops."

    Sure, but unfortunately for EA, none of the higher-ups were "scared stiff" of dropping a few million dollars each on TWO separate, canceled UO sequels. Both canceled for the same reason, no less. Way to learn from your mistakes, guys.