“About half our player base is more interested in playing through the story than playing online!”

“About half our player base is more interested in playing through the story than playing online,” Garriot explains.

Taken from this interview: http://www.examiner.com/article/e3-2015-interview-lord-british-returns-with-shroud-of-the-Avatar

Just for all of those think that there are 90%+ people interested in SotA because they want an MMORPG and wonder why there is an offline mode, too.

 

Yet thats not what people actually want.

 

I'd say a large portion of players want a progression of UO, or simply a new MMO, not claiming to know the %, but I'd like to see any evidence of %. It sounds like a guess to me.

 

If half of the players are in it for the story and playing alone how can they not want it? I am confused...
I am here for the story and playing alone

Also if you read through the comments on the Kickstarter page from the start of the campaign then you see that there are MANY gamers who want SotA to be the next single player Ultima.

 

I'd wager that the greatest dollar value comes from the MMO side despite what the number of players actually is.

 

PoTs aren't coming from the single player exclusive side.

 

I'd say that the 20 Million+ players of Skyrim or the 4 million+ players of the Witcher 3 are not interested in POTs but they are a player base that Portalarium still has to consider.

Also very interesting in this regard, something I posted in another thread:

People should watch the old Kickstarter videos to know what people here pledged for and what SotA is and what role the overland map plays in the game:



Very interesting is this video with Warren Spector as in it Richard clearly says what SotA is: "What we hope to do is create a story-driven solo-player experience that harkens back to Ultima 4 to Ultima 7 that also has the ability to play online with an opt-in or opt-out method as to how multiplayer you want it to be."

 

An interesting stat. Never questioned why there was an offline mode (especially when we watch what went down with Elite: Dangerous), but yeah, it's hard for me to really believe that this community sits in the minority.

Respectfully, though, I don't feel that Skyrim player base is a good sample set. I've played TES series since Daggerfall, and I'd say that we (pardon me while I take the liberty in speaking on behalf of millions of people) more so accepted, than desired those limitations dating back to Morrowind when modders tinkered with how to enable online multiplayer capabilities.

Now, speaking for only myself again, I can honestly say that SotA would have not benefited from my backing had it not been for the online multiplayer aspects. My library is already ripe with a significant amount of single player role playing options.

 

Thank you for sharing the article. I agree with Starr that "There will never be another Ultima—not without Richard at the helm. But if you are looking for a genuine Ultima experience, that’s what Shroud of the Avatar is.".

In the past I always have defended EA that they did a pretty good job with the UO expansions after Richard left to keep Ultima alive. Now that I am waiting for Time of Legends to be released and playing SotA during Pre-alpha. UO has become less and less of something I want to log into and play. All of my excitement has moved to SotA.

The difference I see is having Richard involved with this stories in the lore (which I missed) and interacting with him in game. That is Ultima.

 

Can this line between story and online be so decisively drawn? Personally, I'm most intrigued with playing out the story in an online environment, interwoven with community stories and drama.

 

So is there a question about this sound bite?

I am confused what the thread is about?

(Ok, found my answer, as its from a recent interview and hilights current player base by style of game mode)

If half the potential players are waiting for story mode offline only, ok...

We're all waiting as collective fans of the IP.

 

I expect the assumption was based upon the number of players who log onto the game in single player..........I would say that there are many reasons why people do this; not wanting to play an MMO is just one of those many reasons.

 

It sort of can. The problem is the MMO part of the game has a profound impact on what the game mechanics are going to be like. My concern with the single player mode is it will feel a bit like Kingdoms of Amalur did - running around by yourself it what feels like an empty world designed to be more of an MMO. We've still seen so little of the single player side of things so far though.

 

Remember: we can speculate, while Portalarium has the relevant data. We can question their interpretation, but they know what/how their players play, not "us".

And remember also that offline-oriented players are FAR less prone to post in a forum, than online-oriented ones.

The fact fewer of them are less vocal than the noisy online crowd doesn't mean they're not there.

Also. the fact that the single player lovers still don't have a game to play extensively, while the online community can always attend an event and think they're the end-all-be-all of the customer base.

 

You are probably correct in that assumption, though I'd love to see the raw data nonetheless. For me, when I first started I logged a decent chunk of time in "single player mode" just kicking the tires and not wanting to have to compete in shared instances for resources. But considering that time spent as an indication of my desire for a single player only experience would equate to a misinterpretation of the actual facts.

 

Nice.

Here's my defense:

"In January 2014 it was announced that more than 100 million accounts had been created over the game's lifetime."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_of_Warcraft

Take Skyrim plus Witcher 3 and mltiply by 4 and you are still short.

MMOs still sell, I don't think they have forgotten that.

 

I find it amusing that even when the information comes straight from the creator, people refuse to accept it.

 

I originally backed the game from my nostalgia for Ultima's 3 to 7 as did most people I know who backed.
But I've come to like the idea of multiplayer aspects so long as the storyline is strong!

 

If you read the first descriptions of the game and watch the first videos SotA is described as a story-driven single player RPG with the option to play online with friends or in an MMO like mode.
I think they designed the game with single player in mind and it showed that they were right when now half the player base is in for the story and the SP aspect.

 

Number of players is not equal to dollar value though.

Richard's comment is great for attracting single player fans, without falsifying the reality.