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

Hmm, I am not sure but maybe Richard said this because of the Kickstarter campaign. If you read through the comments there - especially at the beginning of the campaign - there were many people asking for a single player game like Ultima 7. There were also many people asking for a sandbox-MMO like Ultima Online. Maybe those were roughly 50:50.
I also think that many who pledged because of the single player (offline) mode are still waiting for a true single player experience to show up in the game. The devs said that they have to build the systems and the multiplayer first, so there is nothing to test and play for those who are in it for the single player game. Still hopfull for a true offline SP RPG experience they are waiting for the game that was promised during the Kickstarter campaign.

 

not sure why but this made me hungry, very hungry of to meet to ladies and take them to eat meat. Shabu-Shabu mmmm not quite peasants this is true but their tasty livestock. Since you will be dispatching and eating them i trust you will not object. Ta Ta.

 

I think single player should not be an afterthought. It is essential for SotA to be successful. Just look at how popular the genre is right now and how successful those games are.
Also even Funcom, know for MMORPGs, is now doing a single player game as they have realized how important this is in order to be successful.
I can't imagine SotA to be immensely successful if it would be an MMORPG only. Why? Because on the one hand, MMOs are played less and less nowadays. There hasn't been a new MMORPG announced at E3 or gamescom because the genre is not so popular anymore. Also the game offers no handholding which will attract an even smaller playerbase. The game doesn't look that good, why many gamers who are looking for good graphics will shy away from playing it.
So I think that in the end, the MMO player base of SotA will be rather small. Of those gamers, some will leave after playing a while - some might simply not like it, others might might find, that it offers not enough new features to justify leaving the other online games for SotA... Would those MMO players that remain be enough to support the game for a long time - for us to reach Episode 5?
If Portalarium offers a deep and great single player experience that is not negatively affected by the MMO-part and will play like other modern single player RPGs, then the game would cater to the single player gamers, too. And those are many as recent games have proven by their success. BUT an empty MMORPG with a story is not a single player RPG - there is much more to it... And I think it will be not that easy to build such a single player experience - especially when much of the games base frame is developed for an MMORPG experience.

 

Have you taken the time to think about what it is that Richard wants?

Look at what was attempted with UO and how it evolved. Then look at what's happening with SotA. UO was built as a ruleset with nothing but a sandbox. SotA is a ruleset being built with as much sandbox as possible while building the tools to deliver a story.

What you are calling MMO isn't really precise. It's being using as a catch all for anything that is not single player offline. Your issue is online persistent. But what you are not counting into your complaint is the benefits the online persistent world brings. The possibilities of content when it can be delivered on a wim and with ease is amazing. No single player game will be able to accomplish what SotA will have and offline mode will not be able to take full advantage of this.

It's my opinion that Portalarium is building the tools to deliver a deeper story driven experience than any game to date, single player or multiplayer. There might be some costs. Like the media might have a lower data budget. But IMO it will be well worth it. Or combat's need to talk to the server for everything instead of handled by the client. (latency)

Single player is far from an after thought. Single player offline does bring complications but, again, some costs are worth it, because the store is what makes this game possible (long term) and online is what ties everything together.

 

Most players are here because of Ultima Online, We want SoTA to be UO 2.0.

 

Luckily, you're wrong.

 

Complete wishful thinking.

Ultima has a long long history. Ultima Online was very small in comparison. The player base here reaches all the way back to the beginning.

 

I'm not saying something couldn't be changed. I'm simply saying how it currently is.

 

Nope. If you're here for that you never read the FAQ or kickstarter.

 

Wow you guys couldn't wait to take a dump all over UO. Good luck with acting like Ultima snobs to old UO players.

Sad to see SoTA turning into some weird renaissance faire simulator being funded by whales on an over priced cash shop...

I guess UO players should just "go back to private servers"?

Good luck with all that your going to need it.

 

Coming in with your original comment to basically dump on anyone who didn't share your view....well, that puts so much weight in the rest of your thoughts.

You do know the original ultimas had nothing to do with renaissance faire...that was more UO.

 

And i would guess that 90% of all skyrim players would be more than happy to have a coop or mulitplayer for skyrim.

 

Because I said "most players" instead of "most players Ive met in-game"? Thats your excuse? And save your wise old man Ultima knowledge for someone else bro. Ive played Ultimas 6-9, I know exactly what they are. Good try though.

 

This thread has a large contingent of Ultima players in it. Obviously there's a rift between UO and Ultima players as the core game functionality is seen by some to be either or. I consider myself neither an Ultima player nor a UO player. I just want a great game and I lean heavily towards multiplayer being a big part of what would make this game great.

My point though was just to say, don't let this thread be a representation of this community as a whole. It's not.

 

Why do that? What you basically just said was anyone in here isn't worth listening to as we are just a minor subset. I'm not even sure how you get away with that.

My excuse for what? Not coming into a thread with a blanket statement and lashing out when people don't agree or get upset with you?

The more I read on here the more I get that some feel threatened or condescending to those of us who enjoyed the original games. We aren't taking away your online paradise, we(I assume others feel this way) just want something close to what we had before. Truth be told Ultima Online was a poor ultima in the sense of what it felt like. It had it's strengths but story and lore were definitely not them.

 

And I accept that. I also misspoke earlier saying most players wanted UO2. I ment to say Most players I talk to and interact with in-game. Ive talked to dozens of other playes in game about UO, telling storys, asking what shards you played on, talking about how long we waited for some kind of sequel to UO. And to see people on these forums act like their disgusted at the mere mention of SoTA having anything to do with UO is very disappointing considering this game was funded in large part by UO players. And many many guilds coming over from UO. So acting like these games have nothing in common because Portalaruim put something in their FAQ is a joke... only Im not laughing.

 

That's not what I said or even meant to imply.

You seem to read everything I type as if I have dastardly motives. What I said is that people shouldn't take this thread as a representation of the entire community. I'm in this thread too ya know?

 

They should note that this is PART of the community. Views here do matter and they aren't just getting to them willy nilly.

How would you expect me to take what you said when you have continuously stated that singleplayer shouldn't even be in game?

 

1. I haven't continually said that single player shouldn't even be in the game. I've said I personally don't plan on playing it so I don't personally care if it's in the game or not.
2. Yes, of course the views here are just as important as anywhere else. However, they are just views of a few people that are very passionate about single player mode. They're not to be confused with the views of the population as a whole (we don't know what everyone else thinks).
3. The developers are really who you should care most about. I tend to write my posts for them, not for you or people lurking in the forums. When I replied above to that poster, I was trying to assure him that just because he's facing a lot of single player angst here, that doesn't represent all of the community. I think he appreciated that for exactly what it was - a reality check. It also doubles as a reminder to the devs that there are other people in the community that may not share the views of the single player elite.

 

I can't speak for RG. But I can say how I interpreted what he said about half the current gamers playing single player online. I think he was attempting to extend to the single player folks an olive branch. I think he was trying to say "look guys, we care about you".

But instead of just saying "thanks RG!" you guys (some of the very vocal people here in this thread) can't be satisfied with that. It's all single player or nothing.

Ya know, I followed Wasteland 2's development fairly closely and they didn't talk with the community hardly at all about their game. They just made a great game. They held tons of content back so they wouldn't ruin the story. They did pretty much the same thing that SOTA is doing. So I don't see why every week there has to be posts about the single player sky is falling. I do appreciate that you have valid concerns, but it's endless the amount of single player angst that comes from a few forum posters. I guess if it were me, I'd be testing what little there was to test and give feedback. Are any of you guys doing that? Cause that's probably the most powerful thing you could be doing to help your cause.

What I hear mostly is that people don't want to test anything because it will ruin the story for them. Which is a really comical stance to take if you're also asking the same questions about "where's all the content for single player?" every week.