R.I.P Ultima Online ?

petrus4 writes "Terra Nova has posted my article about the possible impending death of Ultima Online. In it, I talk about why I think UO is in serious long-term trouble, and what can be done to possibly reverse the trend and rescue the game." From the article: "Admittedly when something is very large, its demise often takes a considerable period of time...The Titanic took something like four hours to sink after initially striking the iceberg. But there are a couple of reasons why I believe that from a long term market share perspective, the game could be in trouble."

Comments

A slight inaccuracy

[Xel'Naga]

Gameplay has become primarily item-based as opposed to skill-based. If you don't believe me, look at tradespot, check out the demand for LRC armour (as one example)

LRC armour is "Lower Reagent Cost"-armour, which makes it free (in a monetary sense) to cast spells. It is very popular, but it is mainly used for training. In Player Versus Player, the miniscule cost of buying reagents is almost always neglected.
Mind you, his point is valid, good items matter a lot. Just not LRC.

would be nice.

[JVert]

Would be nice if they sold the system before closing it.

I play UO and I don't agree with him

[Xel'Naga]

First of all, UO has been declared dying more often than *BSD. It's at a low point right now, granted, but it's not that bad. A few points:

A) Most people who has been there since the beginning has left.
I joined years after the beginning, yet my account is 74 months old. It would be quite a surprise if a considerable number of people had stayed for seven years playing the same game.

B) The developers have made changes I don't approve of (paraphrased).
*Shrugs* Hardly proof positive that the game is dying. The fact that people are paying loads of real money for items in the game is not a proof that people are loosing faith in it, quite the contrary.

E) They only accept credit cards!
Wrong. There are four options avaible. However, the poster's local shop have stopped selling game time coupons. He claims that's the main reason why he doesn't play the game any longer.

His solutions doesn't seem like ways to resuscitate a dying game. He suggests that a vast amount of new land is added, for housing. UO has a 1 house per account rule, so he's actually complaining of overcrowding.

His other arguments are either vague ( There is some evidence to suggest that the game's current programmers are frustrated with the age/possible obsolescence in some respects of the game's codebase.) or about minor things ( EA's "Return to Britannia," campaign last year did not instill confidence in me).

Re:so ?

[Anonymous Coward]

And people wonder why online gaming doesn't appeal to more people.

I can (and often do) play any of my TWENTY year old offline games any time I want, for as long as I have actual hardware to play my originals. That number is limited by the life of my hardware. And if you count emulation (I don't), that's another option for playing offline games forever. But online games that require external servers are at the mercy of (1) the ability of the official servers to stay profitable (and therefore worth operating), or (2) hackers who are willing to work on creating user-hosted communities.

Seven years for a game that I might want to play more of is a shame, especially if character development is the point of the game, like with MMORPGs. And that's part of why online gaming is of limited appeal to many people. I sure as hell am not going to pay a monthly fee for a game that can end at any time outside of my control. /rant

Let's look back in the past...

[SteroidG]

I've heard people telling me the death of UO when: EQ was released AC was released Diablo 2 was released Lord British left EA UO:Renaissance was released NWN was released UO:LBR was released AO was released Shadowbane was released SW:G was released ... Yet it's still here. I agree fully that UO is shit at the moment. But the fact is, the shitty parts are good for getting newer players into the game, even though it destroy the game play in the long term. Because makeing a better game is not the goal, getting more money by attracting newbies is. I mean, who cares if they leave after a few months? They'll just add some more crap (like Samurai Empire) and more will come. Just to be fair, the dev team has done some (not much) good things too. Such as customizable houses, new craftables and I didn't mind GGS (guaranteed gaining system) during my 2 weeks of return to Britannia program. Why bother predicting UO's demise when even Meridian 59 is still alive? To me, the spirit of UO has died with the release of UO:R, but hay, a living dead is still 'living'. It's simply gonna be here no matter how rotten it becomes.

Article not quite accurate

[SirBruce]

Since the article uses my numbers, here are my comments:

Firstly, just to clarify the numbers, while it did have its initial peak of 240K around April 2001, my chart clearly shows that UO actually rebounded in 2003 at reached a new peak of some 250K or more from March to June 2003, and this was confirmed by UO's producer himself ( http://www.uo.com/sept2003nl.html ). So while it's tempting to say the UO has been in decline for over 3 years now, it really has only been in decline for about 18 months.

Secondly, I think the current figure is probably closer to 170,000, not 165,000, and that's what my chart reflects.

Thirdly, I'm not sure where the figure of "the
game's population level has fallen by 32.25% in the last 28 months" comes from. April 2001 to September 2004 (the last data I have) would be 27.1% over 41 months. June 2003 to September 2004 would be 32.0% over 15 months, and May 2002 to September 2004 24.4% over 28 months.

Fourthly, before anyone old school fanboi tries to claim that it was Trammel (UO:R) that began the fall of UO, it was not. People who were working on UO at the time will tell you that they were rapidly losing many subscribers due to the unrestricted PvP, and that UO:R is what actually saved UO and allowed it to continue to grow. UO continued to do well until a confluence of events: the release of UO:3D (largely panned), the cancellation of the UO sequel OWO:O, and the beta test and subsequent release of Dark Age of Camelot.

Fifthly, it should be pointed out that something like half of UO's playerbase is now in Japan, so it is not surprising the the gameplay is changing to accomodate their play styles.

Finally, it's my personal opinion that there isn't much that can "save" UO at this point. The game was starting to look obsolete when they cancelled the first 3D sequel, and EA's short-sighted cancellation of the second 3D sequel (UXO) has only served to hurt the Ultima brand even further. Even a full-up 3D conversion of the game would not help it; the data shows that MMOGs, like most every other product in a capitalist market, has a limited life cycle. You can increase growth by expanding into new markets, but once a title is mature and consumers are familiar with it, there is very little you can do to get people to preferentially pick up a copy of UO off the shelf when you're up against a dozen other MMOG titles on that same shelf.

Bruce
http://www.mmogchart.com

Is this guy on crack?

[Foo2rama]

So what if you can get a 3d engine running on UO... it is still the first generation of MMORPG's everyone else has improved upon the recipe. WOW is destroying EQII right now becuase they looked back at all the mistakes that everyone else made and improved, not being tied to old ways of doing things. UO is dead face it the days are numbered. But assuming they have 100,000 people on line at 5 dollars a month that is half a million dollars a month... I think UO may be around longer then you think it will, it is still profitable for them to keep it up even if they no longer truly support it.