PDA

View Full Version : UT2004's devastated community and UT2007's future


raveno
10th Jul 2005, 12:58 AM
Today I was at the atari forums and I read this rather disturbing thread entitled "Decline in UT Community". In it was revealed that Epic changed the code in UT2003 and UT2004 to boost UT2004 player numbers with bots and that Gamespy willingly publishes these player numbers to make it look like UT2004 is a popular game when it actually has very few players. Even quake 3 has a lot more players and I consider its numbers pretty low.

Now I'm a bit pissed off because I just bought this game for my nephew and a copy for myself because I thought this game had a large following according to www.gamespy.com, but that is a total lie. Apparently www.csports.net carries the real player numbers for this game and my goodness they are low!

After many days of playing I found out that for the most part I was playing against bots online and I feel a bit stupid. Also the servers in many cases seem empty. I was going to register at the atari forums and voice my displeasure but they seemed to have removed the thread but luckily I read most of my stuff offline so I was able to make a copy of the thread. It is attached to this post if you want to read it. Why would a company change their code to fool customers that their game has a large following when nothing could be further from the truth?

This is really upsetting because I would have chosen Battlefield 2 instead. I want a online game so I can play against real players not bots. Is UT2007 going to be publishing false player numbers as well? Next time I will check out credible statistic sites before I buy an online game :(

Brood
10th Jul 2005, 01:44 AM
You came in a bit late, I think you will find that most people enjoy numerous mods rather than the vanilla game.

T2A`
10th Jul 2005, 01:45 AM
Do you have any actual proof Epic's code counts bots or are you just believing what you read from one guy on the Intarweb? :rolleyes:

The game is still fun. The only difference is you have to work to become part of a community, and since you posted here, you might as well stick around. There's more to the game than just opening the server browser and poking around. Post on forums, hit up IRC, join a clan... You'll find games to play.

Does the game have crap player numbers for what it has to offer for a hell of a lot of reasons? Sure. Should that affect whether or not you play it? No; only the fact of whether or not you enjoy the game should. Besides, pubs generally suck in this game anyway. You're better off not looking for random servers to play on and sticking to a community.

Check out nightstormer's post on the second page of that stuff you posted. He pretty much hit the nail on the head as to why the player numbers are low, though I'd also add that mods do nothing but separate the community even more. Example: Pub CTF is almost non-existent. Pub ultra-mega-headshot-instagib CTF is quite popular (comparatively speaking).

Taleweaver
10th Jul 2005, 01:45 AM
Why would a company change their code to fool customers that their game has a large following when nothing could be further from the truth?
Obviously to fool people into buying the game.

Sorry, but the amount of players online isn't that much of a priority to me; I care more for what the game has to offer, and in this case I think that's pretty much. The main problem with the player numbers is that they are spread out over different gametypes, so some gametypes have almost never have anyone online. :hmm:

Wowbagger
10th Jul 2005, 04:12 AM
IMHO UT2004 is the best MP FPS ever made and all the reviews at the launch gave UT2004 very high scores (i didnt read ONE bad review)

But it IS dead and it died way too early. :(

Why? i have no idea.
Sure the game is still fun but when i cant find ONE good CTF server with the retail maps running and NO idiotic mods, its not fun anymore. (hell, even the official servers run CTF-FaceClassic ONLY)

I want to play UT2004 with people online not offline with bots.

Epic delivered, maybe it was us the community who killed it?

Selerox
10th Jul 2005, 04:24 AM
Why? i have no idea.

The players. Whiny, arrogant players who rather than play the game, simply talk about it. They created a self-fulfiling prophecy by telling themselves the game had "died", even when thousands of people wre playing it, and guess what? Thousands of people started believing it too. So the number is players started to drop. When that happens, it's a one way street.

I'd also blame Epic for strangling the UT200x series at birth by making a game that quite frankly wasn't UT. UT2003 had elements of UT, but it was an entirely new game. Guess what? No-one wanted that. They wanted UT, with a few tweaks and new graphics/maps. We didn't get it. We got a mess. A mess that took a whole new game to fix.

Will UT2007 inject life into the series? Yes, I've got no doubt about that. Most people are starting to go into the "holding pattern" that they did at the end of UT99. People are waiting for the new game, but people are still playing the game.

As for CSports.net? I don't trust their figures at all, and never have done. I don't trust Gamespy's either tbh.

shadow_dragon
10th Jul 2005, 06:05 AM
About once a month somone drops in here were udneniable proof that UT is dead and mentioning something about bots being counted as players. (as if it's a conspiracy) and everytime they manage to mention that Quake3 is still doing well. It reminds me far too much of the old petty flame wars that used to go on between Q3 and UT.

Zur
10th Jul 2005, 07:09 AM
I don't trust Gamespy's either tbh.

Gamespy is commercial through and through to the point where they alienated Mac players with their game protocol. I don't trust them.

naliking
10th Jul 2005, 10:29 AM
Bah. I've said it countless times. UT2004 player numbers are completely made up and not even remotely close to what Gamespy posts.

Many of us were around when Epic made a "code change" in UT2003 after a patch (which was never mentioned in the patch ;) ), in order to count bots as players and who knows what else, soley for the purpose of giving the appearance that the game was popular when the game was pratically dead. UT2004 numbers are so low you can count the players by hand in minutes, but of course www.gamespy.com reports that UT2004 is the 4th most played online first person shooter game. We all know that is nonsense. UT2004 actually ranks around 16th position :D . www.csports.net seems pretty precise since they now try to filter bots and other methods of cheating the stats system.

What is bothersome is that there seems to be a willful attempt to deceive players and the community (and most games do not do that intentionally), and Gamespy of course goes along with it.

Tampering with online numbers and creating bogus player counts to generate publicity and sales can actually be considered illegal in some countries, because it is fraud. Anytime you see magazines or websites quoting Gamespy figures saying UT2004 is a top game, that is actually fraudulent advertising.

What is funny is that members of the UT community, and a lot of server admins have asked Epic to stop doing this cheating ever since UT2003 and many probably abandoned the game since this nonsense continues and will probably continue in Unreal Tournament 2007 . Fanboys that know the truth keep saying online numbers don't matter but apparently Epic thinks so :D

As pointed out in the Atari comments thread (the zip file you attached to your post) UT99 is the only successful game in terms of popularity that Epic have made. All the sequels were either cheesy or just a ripoff of community mods/maps and games like Battlefield 1942, Quake (if we consider UT2003), and Planetside which Onslaught is based directly on :D

In fairness to Epic, it was Digital Extremes that started the destruction of the Unreal Series with UT2003 but Epic continued the trend in UT2004 :)

Let's see if they get it right with UT2007 and if the game can stand on its own merit rather than creating false statistics to influence players and Game magazines and reviewers. If not there is always Enemy Territory:Quake Wars .

Discord
10th Jul 2005, 10:56 AM
Meh. It's still the 14th most popular online FPS in the world with 273,000 players this month, even according to CSports. It's not ubiquitous like CS, but I dunno that I'd call this community "devastated." I never have a problem finding a game, although sometimes I do have to wait a bit to get into a "good" NA CTF server.

The upside is that you end up recognizing a lot of the people you play with... that's fun.

Besides, most of the highly- populated games use ping limitation... sure, there are 1,000,000+ players, but the number of servers you can actually get into is a good bit less.

I have bots filtered out of my serverbrowser, so it's pretty rare that I run into them... if I do, I usually change servers. And I still get games when I want them.

UT != dead.

But yeah, it's true that Gamespy stats count bots as players, and it's true that Epic is complicit in that. That sucks, I really wish they wouldn't do that.

hal
10th Jul 2005, 11:41 AM
I can't believe that thread got deleted (I actually posted in it).

The bottom line is that, yes, bots do appear to be counted in the server browser totals. This is nothing new as it has been happening since UT2003. It IS harder to find a good pub game than it used to be. Player numbers ARE dwindling. No one will deny any of that.

What does bother me, though, is the notion that the game is a disaster or that the community is devastated. Combine the UT players with the UT2004 players from Csports and you get numbers comparable to the Quake community, and solidly in the top 10. What we have is a pretty evenly divided group of players that are split on the gameplay that they prefer. That, to me, is the main disappointment.

One thing that people keep saying - and the naysayers keep ignoring - is that the type of game that has dominated the Gamespy/Csports lists for the last few years has changed. Action FPS are no longer the darlings of the consumer and military/tactical shooters have taken its place. You cannot dismiss that!

For the type of game that UT2004 is, and considering that it had to shake the bad rep that some assigned to UT2003, I'd say that one year later... it's holding its own. Those are not bad numbers. Sure, I'd like to see them higher, but I have no doubt that come UT2007... they will be.

Devastated? No. Disaster? No. Dissappointing in that the UT and UT200x players weren't able to unite into one strong community instead of two evenly divided ones? Yes. Of course, the exact same thing has happened to the CS community but, fortunately for them, their player numbers are enormous. I'd say look for the same thing to happen when Quake 4 comes out.

Sir_Brizz
10th Jul 2005, 01:27 PM
Ugh.....naliking, it would help if you had ANY facts to back your statements up.

UT2003 ALWAYS COUNTED BOTS AS PLAYERS. This was never denied and was always undeniable.

UT2004 DOES NOT. The ONLY time bots are counted as players in UT2004 is when bots are ACTUALLY PLAYING. That means if you join an empty server and then 10 bots join behind you, those 10 bots will count. However, as long as the server remains empty, the bots ARE NOT COUNTED. This is how UT2004 has worked from the beginning and was a massive change over how UT2003 worked.

So in essence, the OP got it backwards. There was a code change in UT2004 to fix the problem with UT2003 where bots were ALWAYS reported to the master server player counts. That no longer happens.

Discord
10th Jul 2005, 02:25 PM
The ONLY time bots are counted as players in UT2004 is when bots are ACTUALLY PLAYING.

That's better than it was, but it still ought to be never IMO.

I can't believe that thread got deleted (I actually posted in it).

Topics guaranteed locked or deleted at INA (and they've really been into deletion lately):

1. OMG WHERE'S TEH STATS?!!
2. UTComp (any)
3. ONS vs TDM
4. Instagib vs Weapons
5. Low online numbers for UT2k4

I'm surprised that one lasted as long as it did. I didn't post in it because it's been done to death over there.

Action FPS are no longer the darlings of the consumer and military/tactical shooters have taken its place.

That's a common assertion. Plenty of truth in it, too.

Others like to point at the learning curve. Still other people point to hardware requirements, although you can run UT2k4 on a reasonably old machine these days. Another scapegoat is the multiplicity of gametypes (ie, since there are so many, each one ends up underpopulated individually... thereby causing reactions like threadstarter had).

I like to point out that a lot of the players, especially in the classic gamemodes, have been playing UT for a godzillion years by now. They know what all the weapons do, they know the maps, they know how to tweak for performance, they know how to configure UT's umpteen little control details, and they're ready to rock on day one. That makes it really hard for a new gamer or even an old gamer who's new to UT to get into the action and have fun... which is why I say thank freakin' God for ONS... a lot of the vets won't touch it with a 10- foot pole, which helps make it comfortable for newbs.

And plus, the market has changed a lot since '98. And the Epic boys are getting older. :p


You can go over and over this stuff until you're blue in the face, it won't really do much for you. I like the game, I play the game, it's that simple. Some people (apparently a lot of people, lol) don't. So?

Zur
10th Jul 2005, 02:50 PM
The world is dying, can't you tell ? What are you doing sitting on your arse playing a video game then ;) ?

naliking
10th Jul 2005, 03:04 PM
I can't believe that thread got deleted (I actually posted in it).

The fact that they would delete that thread rather than lock it speaks volumes! ;) . You will notice that Epic has never commented on this issue.

Here is where the stupidity of fabricating player numbers lies in this case. Both Epic and Gamespy has sacrificed their credibility and integrity for minimal gain in terms of real world player numbers. This means that while a certain amount of people like raveno may have been fooled into purchasing the game under a false premise, the real player numbers shows that it has not yielded significant gains in attracting more players online.

It will no doubt fool magazines and magazine reviewers who will automatically give UT2007 rave reviews and great scores. Look at the great scores UT2003 and UT2004 received and it turns out neither game has longevity and both failed to appeal to a large audience.

What does bother me, though, is the notion that the game is a disaster or that the community is devastated. Combine the UT players with the UT2004 players from Csports and you get numbers comparable to the Quake community, and solidly in the top 10. What we have is a pretty evenly divided group of players that are split on the gameplay that they prefer. That, to me, is the main disappointment.

One thing that people keep saying - and the naysayers keep ignoring - is that the type of game that has dominated the Gamespy/Csports lists for the last few years has changed. Action FPS are no longer the darlings of the consumer and military/tactical shooters have taken its place. You cannot dismiss that!

I don't think you can combine the UT2004/UT2003 community with the UT99 community to claim the Unreal Community as a whole manages to make the top 10. Other games are holding their own as separate entities from their predecessors. Clearly the UT99 community is a different beast which rejects most things that have do with what many claim are flawed sequels :D .

You cannot blame tactical military shooters for Unreal franchise's decline. UT2003 is what almost killed the franchise within a blink of an eye. UT2003 was one of the most if not most downloaded demo in game history at that time and within 2 months the Unreal franchise came crashing down. A well done sci-fi game has not been made recently to compete with the polish of some of these military shooters. I'm willing to bet Enemy Territory: Quake Wars or some upcoming sci-fi game will prove you wrong.

Quake 4, I don't have much hope for as far as online gaming but Quake Wars holds a lot more promise judging from the trailer.

I just hope Epic is not spending the bulk of UT2007 development creating a method to create ghost A.I players that have pings in order to fabricate fictional player numbers. :p

naliking
10th Jul 2005, 03:11 PM
Ugh.....naliking, it would help if you had ANY facts to back your statements up.

UT2003 ALWAYS COUNTED BOTS AS PLAYERS. This was never denied and was always undeniable.

UT2004 DOES NOT. The ONLY time bots are counted as players in UT2004 is when bots are ACTUALLY PLAYING. That means if you join an empty server and then 10 bots join behind you, those 10 bots will count. However, as long as the server remains empty, the bots ARE NOT COUNTED. This is how UT2004 has worked from the beginning and was a massive change over how UT2003 worked.

So in essence, the OP got it backwards. There was a code change in UT2004 to fix the problem with UT2003 where bots were ALWAYS reported to the master server player counts. That no longer happens.
UT99 had bots but never counted them as players online. UT2003 started counting them after UT2003 demo was released and it was immediately noticed by server admins after a patch to the retail version. When this was taking place there were a few threads at the atari forums about it.

EPIC had been asked numerous times and never denied making a change to count bots in UT2003 and in fact always ignored any post about it, and finally in UT2004 when it was getting out of hand they changed the code to make it not as noticeable by only counting bots when someone joins an empty server (but when that person leaves do the bots leave the game in progress when the server becomes empty? :D) .

Only a blind fanboy would fail to recognize that bots (and maybe counting demo players) makes up almost all UT2004 player numbers reported on Gamespy. Search my post history as I have explained this to you before!

Let's do some basic math. If you have 1000 servers and each of them have one real player and 6 bots, Gamespy will report 7000 players when in fact there are only 1000 players. You are so blind with your fanboy mentality that you will do anything to defend anything remotely Unreal related, even the unethical fabrication of player numbers. :)

Sir_Brizz
10th Jul 2005, 04:48 PM
UT99 had bots but never counted them as players online. UT2003 started counting them after UT2003 demo was released and it was immediately noticed by server admins after a patch to the retail version. When this was taking place there were a few threads at the atari forums about it.
UT2003 always counted them. That is a well known fact by all of the UT community. There was no patch or any other crap involved, bots WERE ALWAYS COUNTED.
EPIC had been asked numerous times and never denied making a change to count bots in UT2003 and in fact always ignored any post about it, and finally in UT2004 when it was getting out of hand they changed the code to make it not as noticeable by only counting bots when someone joins an empty server (but when that person leaves do the bots leave the game in progress when the server becomes empty? :D) .
That's because they never did make a change. UT2003 always counted bots. UT2004 is fine as a fix. 90% of the servers that have bots in them ARE ALWAYS EMPTY. The bots coninue to be counted until the current game ends, and then they are not counted anymore. Even by OVERESTIMATING the number of bots, it can't be that more than 50% of the players that are reported arebots. Even by that EXTREME overexaggeration, there are ALOT of UT players.
Only a blind fanboy would fail to recognize that bots (and maybe counting demo players) makes up almost all UT2004 player numbers reported on Gamespy. Search my post history as I have explained this to you before!
I know you have, with similar results. You have ZERO facts, and the only thing you can come up woth to back you up is CSports.net, which almost all of the community of every game CSports reports DO NOT AGREE WITH THE PLAYER NUMBERS. Wtg :tup: I guess? :con:
Let's do some basic math. If you have 1000 servers and each of them have one real player and 6 bots, Gamespy will report 7000 players when in fact there are only 1000 players. You are so blind with your fanboy mentality that you will do anything to defend anything remotely Unreal related, even the unethical fabrication of player numbers. :)
That's right. Although it's an extreme overecaggeration of what is actually happening, because IF THOSE 1000 SERVER REMAINED EMPTY, GAMESPY WOULD REPORT ZERO PLAYERS. How many people do you know that stick around on "bot" servers for more than 5 seconds by themselves? I'd like to know how much time you spend in game period, because the way you talk is as if you've never even run the executable.

klasnic
10th Jul 2005, 05:17 PM
Very interesting read, you guys. I personally don't believe for a mo that this community is dead or indeed that 2k4 isn't a popular game. I do, however have one theory as to why the UT community has become so diverse... MSU. Do any of you have any thoughts on it and UT's modding community? Has it had as much a negative impact as a positive one?

I think MSU brought in a whole lot of ppl to the UT scene who were never really part of it, were never really UT fans. How many mods rather than building on what was good about 2k4 and improving upon it actually turned it into a completely different game? All these realism mods (and incidentally I do play a few) turned something Unreal into realism.

If I wanted that I'd go buy a realism game. I don't. The reason most mods flopped online imo is there was nothing unreal about them.

Successful ones like JB, Chaos, CloneBandits... They all built on 2k4 and made it just as much or even more fun. The realism ones and there are so many may be very polished and some are very good but still there's nothing unreal about them.

Is it possible a lot of community ppl actually went different ways because very little 'unreal' stuff was made. The community needs good talented ppl to develop stuff that players actually want and will use. Imho the community became too diverse because of MSU, because there were too many different things to choose from when all I personally want is an Unreal game :)

naliking
10th Jul 2005, 05:31 PM
UT2003 always counted them. That is a well known fact by all of the UT community. There was no patch or any other crap involved, bots WERE ALWAYS COUNTED.

That's because they never did make a change. UT2003 always counted bots. UT2004 is fine as a fix. 90% of the servers that have bots in them ARE ALWAYS EMPTY. The bots coninue to be counted until the current game ends, and then they are not counted anymore. Even by OVERESTIMATING the number of bots, it can't be that more than 50% of the players that are reported arebots. Even by that EXTREME overexaggeration, there are ALOT of UT players.

I know you have, with similar results. You have ZERO facts, and the only thing you can come up woth to back you up is CSports.net, which almost all of the community of every game CSports reports DO NOT AGREE WITH THE PLAYER NUMBERS. Wtg :tup: I guess? :con:

That's right. Although it's an extreme overecaggeration of what is actually happening, because IF THOSE 1000 SERVER REMAINED EMPTY, GAMESPY WOULD REPORT ZERO PLAYERS. How many people do you know that stick around on "bot" servers for more than 5 seconds by themselves? I'd like to know how much time you spend in game period, because the way you talk is as if you've never even run the executable.
Bots were not counted in the original UT2003 demo. Use some logic man. You don't even have to have been a server admin to figure this out. Why would Epic need to start counting bots when UT99 was a success and had tons of players. They even stated that they thought that UT2003 would do HUGE numbers online. It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever for them to start counting bots as early as the UT2003 demo. They thought UT2003 would be ****ing HUGE. They thought it would be the Counter-Strike Killer. They had no clue :D

Now imagine the shock when player numbers for the demo and retail version of UT2003 tanked and people started fleeing from the game as if they were doused with gasoline and set on fire. :)

Even if you believe they enabled bots before the patch, they would have done it in response to people's reaction to the demo, and if we make an even bigger leap, one could argue perhaps they were planning this deception from the reaction people had to the UT2003 leaked BETA.

You claim I exaggerate the effect bots (and perhaps demo players) have on the amount of UT2004 player numbers, but as I have pointed out countless times before, I have in the past actually counted players by hand and my numbers come close to matching www.csports.net numbers. Also consider the fact that ONS often has tons more bots online than actual players. So you might have 4 players and 12 bots. Now if there are 1000 ONS servers that would yield 4000 + 12000 bots - LOL! Which would mean Gamespy would show 16,000 players for ONS when there are actually only 4000 players :p

T2A`
10th Jul 2005, 07:47 PM
I do, however have one theory as to why the UT community has become so diverse... MSU.It's just another reason to add to the large list, I believe. There were already enough gametypes upon release. Ten gametypes is nothing to shake a stick at, and then someone found out about VCTF in addition to those ten. None of the mods are really all that accepted and played too much, but you're right that now there are who knows how many gametypes compared to the original 11. The real purpose behind MSU, IMO, was for Epic to find some people to hire.

Discord
10th Jul 2005, 08:31 PM
You claim I exaggerate the effect bots (and perhaps demo players) have on the amount of UT2004 player numbers, but as I have pointed out countless times before, I have in the past actually counted players by hand and my numbers come close to matching www.csports.net numbers. Also consider the fact that ONS often has tons more bots online than actual players. So you might have 4 players and 12 bots. Now if there are 1000 ONS servers that would yield 4000 + 12000 bots - LOL! Which would mean Gamespy would show 16,000 players for ONS when there are actually only 4000 players :p

That much is true. I've done the handcount myself a couple of times and always came out close to CSports... and that's with filters off.

And, at the time of writing CSports stats (http://www.csports.net/(vj3adgm54yqsacuazlugbhar)/TopGames.aspx) shows 1264 UT2004 players while Gamespy (http://archive.gamespy.com/stats/) shows 6616. There are differences on almost all other games as well, but in most cases GameSpy actually shows fewer players than CSports, and in no other case is it a 5:1 ratio in either direction.

You cannot blame tactical military shooters for Unreal franchise's decline.

Not solely, no. But I think it would be a mistake not to recognize that the futuristic shooter is way out of vogue right now. Doom3 anyone? Of course, it doesn't help that Doom3 is poop. :lol:

Neither did it help that UT2003 wasn't much to write home about.

All the sequels were either cheesy or just a ripoff of... games like Battlefield 1942...

A well done sci-fi game has not been made recently to compete with the polish of some of these military shooters. I'm willing to bet Enemy Territory: Quake Wars or some upcoming sci-fi game will prove you wrong.

All indications thus far seem to demonstrate that ET:Quake Wars (made by those guys from Wolfenstein: ET... a, yep you guessed it, WW2 tactical shooter) is going to be BF2 with bAdAzZ sPaCeDuDeS... whoa, man!

Just further evidence, really, that the old- school DM- based raygun shooters (read: iD and Epic) are totally played out... and after more than a decade, that's just the way the cookie crumbles.


So it's hard times for UT. Big schmeal. What exactly is Naliking's point anyway, besides to stick out his tongue? Threadstarter's perspective I can understand... I don't really agree with it, since I found CS:Source's massive population to be more of a nuissance than anything, but I understand it. At any rate, and as stated, counting bots is wrong, mmmmkay?

Meantime, Epic will need/ want to keep making new versions of their engine, which means more UT games on the way, at least for now, and for as long as it's profitable. Maybe one of these days it'll hit the bigtime again. Maybe not. As long as I can get a game, I still don't much care.

BITE_ME
10th Jul 2005, 10:32 PM
raveno. Just go buy Counter Strike. It has the most players....well thats what Game Spy says. Then go to their forums after playing a couple of games. Then post about the cheaters with their hacks.

hal
10th Jul 2005, 11:02 PM
I don't think you can combine the UT2004/UT2003 community with the UT99 community to claim the Unreal Community as a whole manages to make the top 10. Other games are holding their own as separate entities from their predecessors. Clearly the UT99 community is a different beast which rejects most things that have do with what many claim are flawed sequels :D .

Why on earth not? Unreal/UT and their sequels are all a part of the same series. Many of the players own/play/have played all of them. The only other community to which I made that comparison was Quake - as it is the most similar in gameplay to Unreal/UT. Add up all of their online numbers and tell me if I'm wrong.

You cannot blame tactical military shooters for Unreal franchise's decline. UT2003 is what almost killed the franchise within a blink of an eye. UT2003 was one of the most if not most downloaded demo in game history at that time and within 2 months the Unreal franchise came crashing down. A well done sci-fi game has not been made recently to compete with the polish of some of these military shooters. I'm willing to bet Enemy Territory: Quake Wars or some upcoming sci-fi game will prove you wrong.

Quake Wars is a different beast, regardless of how well it does. It's nothing like the gameplay that the rest of the Quake series offers, let alone the Unreal series. It's the old-school-action-fps to which I am refering.

Bots were not counted in the original UT2003 demo. Use some logic man. You don't even have to have been a server admin to figure this out. Why would Epic need to start counting bots when UT99 was a success and had tons of players. They even stated that they thought that UT2003 would do HUGE numbers online. It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever for them to start counting bots as early as the UT2003 demo. They thought UT2003 would be ****ing HUGE. They thought it would be the Counter-Strike Killer. They had no clue :D

Now imagine the shock when player numbers for the demo and retail version of UT2003 tanked and people started fleeing from the game as if they were doused with gasoline and set on fire. :)

Even if you believe they enabled bots before the patch, they would have done it in response to people's reaction to the demo, and if we make an even bigger leap, one could argue perhaps they were planning this deception from the reaction people had to the UT2003 leaked BETA.

All of that is wild speculation. Conspiracy theory at best.

Sir_Brizz
10th Jul 2005, 11:35 PM
Bots were not counted in the original UT2003 demo. Use some logic man. You don't even have to have been a server admin to figure this out. Why would Epic need to start counting bots when UT99 was a success and had tons of players. They even stated that they thought that UT2003 would do HUGE numbers online. It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever for them to start counting bots as early as the UT2003 demo. They thought UT2003 would be ****ing HUGE. They thought it would be the Counter-Strike Killer. They had no clue :D
You truly prove you are an idiot. UT2003 always counted bots. It doesn't take a garbage man to tell you that.

The rest of you post was worthlessly full of "conspiracy theory" and about ZERO facts, like evrything else you post. I don't know anyone that thought UT2003 would beat CS. But thanks for the idea :rolleyes:

naliking
10th Jul 2005, 11:40 PM
Not solely, no. But I think it would be a mistake not to recognize that the futuristic shooter is way out of vogue right now. Doom3 anyone? Of course, it doesn't help that Doom3 is poop.

I can agree with that. And Doom 3 was definitely messed up. However any game done right and marketed right and done by a recognized developer should attract players. Sci-Fi can appeal to the world war 2 crowd if done right. There are probably a lot of world war 2 games that are not popular online at all because they were not done properly.


All indications thus far seem to demonstrate that ET:Quake Wars (made by those guys from Wolfenstein: ET... a, yep you guessed it, WW2 tactical shooter) is going to be BF2 with bAdAzZ sPaCeDuDeS... whoa, man!

True, but it is still a science fiction based game. In fact it really does seem like a BF2 clone in terms of appearance but it does look interesting.


What exactly is Naliking's point anyway, besides to stick out his tongue?

Not really :D . You don't see me starting multiple threads about UT2003-4's demise. Usually the only time I comment on it is when some fanboy uses Gamespy stats to trash other games or decides to use them to proclaim how great UT2004 is based on player numbers or claims UT2004 to be the superior game.

naliking
11th Jul 2005, 12:01 AM
You truly prove you are an idiot. UT2003 always counted bots. It doesn't take a garbage man to tell you that.

The rest of you post was worthlessly full of "conspiracy theory" and about ZERO facts, like evrything else you post. I don't know anyone that thought UT2003 would beat CS. But thanks for the idea

You crack me up. Find the original UT2003 demo and prove that it sent bots as players to Gamespy's stats. Remember, what is displayed in the server browser is not necessarily what is sent out with regard to queries that request the data. Then find a theory as to why several UT2003 server admins started complaining about it when they perceived that bots were suddenly being counted in queries.

Either way, there can only be one conclusion as to why Epic would start counting bots in UT2003 when they did not count bots in UT99. I know logic is not your strong point as you have demonstrated countless times before, but even a buffoon as yourself must clearly see that their intent was to deceive the public as to how many people were playing the game because they feared UT2003 was going to bomb and bomb hard :p . That's not a conspiracy theory that is common sense. ;)

hal
11th Jul 2005, 12:17 AM
Since you brought up logic, might I remind you that because you cannot think of another reason that it is so... does not make it so.

Sir_Brizz
11th Jul 2005, 12:36 AM
Yep. Common sense is to read what other people whine about and then form your opinion around it. WTG naliking. There is any one of a thousand reasons bots were reported (and yes, what shows up in the server browser is EXACTLY what Gamespy sees. It is ALL READ DIRECTLY FROM THE MASTER SERVER. Gamespy can't get any information about UT servers that is NOT located in the Master Server file, which resides on Epic's server).

MuLuNGuS
11th Jul 2005, 04:40 AM
hmm..

forget about stats, go...play teh game and have fun.


u dont buy a CD from band that was purchased from many ppls before.

sure, a online game is nothing without online players, but there are still enough out there....and i think that will be the case in the future too.

Taleweaver
11th Jul 2005, 06:37 AM
forget about stats, go...play teh game and have fun.


u dont buy a CD from band that was purchased from many ppls before.
I completely agree with the first part, but for some reason, I get the idea that lots of ppl indeed buy something because lots of other ones do it, regardless of the quality/use of the said object.

One detail about the numbers of online players has always made me wonder: why is it important? Barely anyone plays BR; in fact, in the server browser, you can always count the amount of populated servers on one hand. Yet still, I can find a decent BR game with real humans 9 out of 10 times (AND with good ping). Why do the pubs need to be populated with many thousands of players at the same time? Last time I checked, I wasn't able to join more than one server at the same time...

naliking
11th Jul 2005, 08:10 AM
Since you brought up logic, might I remind you that because you cannot think of another reason that it is so... does not make it so.
I can't argue with that, but my assumption is the most plausible scenario if you believe people behave according to reason. It is unlikely Epic's president came into the office one day and said. "Hey guys I think we need to start counting bots as players just for the hell of it and if anybody asks why we are doing this, just delete their posts". :)

If they enabled bots counting as players by mistake, they would have addressed the issue and removed it and would have answered questions about it. If it was a mistake they were definitely aware of it long before UT2004 came out, which means once again, that bot counting as players was left in their for nefarious purposes. :lol:

So the most plausible scenario is the one which contains the willful intent to deceive as to how many people actually play the game.

naliking
11th Jul 2005, 08:23 AM
Yep. Common sense is to read what other people whine about and then form your opinion around it. WTG naliking. There is any one of a thousand reasons bots were reported (and yes, what shows up in the server browser is EXACTLY what Gamespy sees. It is ALL READ DIRECTLY FROM THE MASTER SERVER. Gamespy can't get any information about UT servers that is NOT located in the Master Server file, which resides on Epic's server).

Player data is most likely generated from the game itself and naturally that data would propogate to the Master Server. If UT2004 generates false information, Gamespy will receive that information and so will any other tool that queries individual servers directly. Gamespy KNOWS that the data is falsefied as they have posted at the atari forums when people accused them of posting incorrect stats, and that was a long time ago. Csports went ahead and tried to stop games using bots to create false numbers and Gamespy chose not to for obvious reasons :D . Now you have a situation where games that have an excessive amount of bots compared to real players, and counts those bots as players will display a grossly inaccurate count on stats sites that don't filter them.

That's when you end up with a case like UT2004 where Gamespy reports 8000 players when in fact there are only really a thousand human players playing the game ;)

LooseCannon
11th Jul 2005, 08:29 AM
WARNING: sweeping generalisation: :eek:

Most people are stupid. Forming their own opinions is too hard. They follow the popular masses. They buy the No.1 pop music CD, because it's No.1.

The retail marketeers know this and use it over and over. The thread starter is an example. When something drops from No.1, most people think it's no longer as good.

If one wishes to form one's own opinions, maintain ones own values and enjoy what one trully enjoys oneself, then decide if you like the people in the smaller UTx.. community or the masses in the 'popular' games.

OMG! There are over 100,000 people playing Counter Strike at this moment. That's a lot of idiots, based on my initial, sweeping generalisaion.

I know that everybody is somebodies idiot (haxed quote - idiot for wierdo - author unknown to me), but I like to idiots around the UTx.. community. ;)

WARNING: my opinions, agreeing with other posters above: :D

1. There are too many mods verses hours in the day. After 6mths online, I'm still learning the basic game types and they're plenty fun for me.

2. Onslaught does indeed provide a place for newer players to get involved and help the team.

Wowbagger
11th Jul 2005, 08:37 AM
Since Sci-Fi shooters arent the most popular genre Epic needs to make UT2007 shine and shine brightly.
It wont be enough with pretty gfx anymore.
When reading the interviews with Epic it sounds like they know this and build the game accordingly.
Then again we heard all this before UT2003 came out and to some extent UT2004.

UT2007 needs to be solid in every aspect to be REALLY successful.

Lets face it we gamers are many more now (not just a few nerds) and were spoiled with all the good MP games coming out.
We (sadly) dont want to do the work anymore, it all has to be served by the Devs.
Its not 1999, when the community helped making the game with all sorts of mods etc, and if the Devs doesnt realise that theyll fail.
Its sad but true.

Ive said this before, in UT they invented but also borrowed, stole alot of good stuff from other games and made a solid game that crushed the competition.
They need to do that again (especially with QW ET comming out)

Wowbagger
11th Jul 2005, 08:50 AM
WARNING: sweeping generalisation: :eek:

Most people are stupid. Forming their own opinions is too hard. They follow the popular masses. They buy the No.1 pop music CD, because it's No.1.

The retail marketeers know this and use it over and over. The thread starter is an example. When something drops from No.1, most people think it's no longer as good.

If one wishes to form one's own opinions, maintain ones own values and enjoy what one trully enjoys oneself, then decide if you like the people in the smaller UTx.. community or the masses in the 'popular' games.

OMG! There are over 100,000 people playing Counter Strike at this moment. That's a lot of idiots, based on my initial, sweeping generalisaion.

I know that everybody is somebodies idiot (haxed quote - idiot for wierdo - author unknown to me), but I like to idiots around the UTx.. community. ;)

WARNING: my opinions, agreeing with other posters above: :D

1. There are too many mods verses hours in the day. After 6mths online, I'm still learning the basic game types and they're plenty fun for me.

2. Onslaught does indeed provide a place for newer players to get involved and help the team.


True, its wrong to declare a game dead just because its not top 5 but when its impossible to find a good (no 150 speed low grav or maps made seemingly by 6 year olds or 24/7 Faceclassic ) server its just no fun anymore.

Sure one could isolate oneself in the competetive community playing clans but truth is that community is getting very thin too.

I bought HL2 and have played some CS:S and altho its not my prefered gametyp it was VERY refreshing to select servers by what map i wanted to play on a FULL server, instead of like in UT2004, joining one of the few populated, closest to a default setting/retail map, server running.

Sir_Brizz
11th Jul 2005, 09:22 AM
Player data is most likely generated from the game itself and naturally that data would propogate to the Master Server. If UT2004 generates false information, Gamespy will receive that information and so will any other tool that queries individual servers directly.
They don't query servers. That's what the Master Server list is for :p That's why if the Master Sever is down, Gamespy stops working.
Gamespy KNOWS that the data is falsefied as they have posted at the atari forums when people accused them of posting incorrect stats, and that was a long time ago. Csports went ahead and tried to stop games using bots to create false numbers and Gamespy chose not to for obvious reasons :D . Now you have a situation where games that have an excessive amount of bots compared to real players, and counts those bots as players will display a grossly inaccurate count on stats sites that don't filter them.
I absolutely don't, as well as don't know anybody, that ever trusts or has trusted CSports numbers. Go ahead if you like, but even by hand counting they are quite a ways off. What you aren't gettiong here is that there isn't an "elite" group of people that go around to every empty server in the server list and join them just to make the bots show up. It is completely implausible that there are 7000 bots and 1000 players. It is almost statistically impossible.
That's when you end up with a case like UT2004 where Gamespy reports 8000 players when in fact there are only really a thousand human players playing the game ;)
See above. Statistically improbably, and more likely impossible.

Oh but you read it on TEH INTARNETS! IT MUST BE TURE!!!!!!!!!!! Go back to INA where your "opinion" came from.

klasnic
11th Jul 2005, 09:26 AM
Perhaps it's just that the bot AI is so good they appear human :lol:

naliking
11th Jul 2005, 10:07 AM
They don't query servers. That's what the Master Server list is for :p That's why if the Master Sever is down, Gamespy stops working

My understanding is that you connect to the Master Server list to get a list of servers. Once you have those server IPs, you can make your query directly to those servers to get the data that you want. This means if you only want to monitor a select group of servers and you know their IP, you don't have to go through the Master Server in order to create a statistic summary regarding number of players and whatever other data the game gives out.


I absolutely don't, as well as don't know anybody, that ever trusts or has trusted CSports numbers. Go ahead if you like, but even by hand counting they are quite a ways off. What you aren't gettiong here is that there isn't an "elite" group of people that go around to every empty server in the server list and join them just to make the bots show up. It is completely implausible that there are 7000 bots and 1000 players. It is almost statistically impossible

Discord a UT2004 admirer has already backed up my claim that hand counting UT2004 players more often than not matches up with www.csports.net data. The difference between me an you is that I along with friends have very often counted UT2004 players by hand. Wait t'il 2AM USA time and then count the players yourself. I already demonstrated to you that it is easily plausible for UT2004 to have 7000 bots and only 1000 players


Oh but you read it on TEH INTARNETS! IT MUST BE TURE!!!!!!!!!!! Go back to INA where your "opinion" came from.

Actually my opinion comes from real world observation and actual participation in validating the data myself. Your opinion and remarks are just the typical knee jerk reaction of the typical fanboy. :)

Perhaps Epic is working on creating a bunch of dummy fictional servers for UT2007 which nobody can connect to in order to play, and those servers will always appear to be full. However they will be full of A.I bots with PINGS, pretending to be real players and those servers will then broadcast false data in order to inflate UT2007's player count. Then no filter will be able to detect a bot from a human player :lol: .

Taleweaver
11th Jul 2005, 10:33 AM
I can't argue with that, but my assumption is the most plausible scenario if you believe people behave according to reason. It is unlikely Epic's president came into the office one day and said. "Hey guys I think we need to start counting bots as players just for the hell of it and if anybody asks why we are doing this, just delete their posts". :)
I agree that made-up theory isn't likely, but how about this one (also fictional):

Epic's president came into the office one day and said. "Hey guys, I just wanted to play a little 1 on 1 with some guy on the internet, so I queried the master list and selected a server that had only 1 (human) player in it. As soon as I joined such a server, I realised this wasn't going to be a 1 on 1 match: there were 10 bots around, which weren't clearly shown when I joined. Why don't we change the player numbers of the servers so it include bots to the player total, so people who see the server on the master list can form an idea of how crowded the server is?" The other Epic employees thought about this, took into account that you can still see whether a server has human players in it by checking the playernames (bots aren't listed here), and decided the chief had a good point.
What they forgot was that Gamespy, a third party company and thus not invited to this meeting, used the very same player numbers to calculate the total amount of active players. As a result, the "number of players" suddenly boosted seriously on gamespy. Unfortunately, the anti-community part of UT (the guys/girls that bought the game just to complain about it) picked up this flaw before Gamespy did, and immediately drew the conclusion it HAD to have some marketing purpose. Threads with complaints started raining down and buried every chance Epic had to say that the feature was to show people in advance whether they were going to enter a normal fight or a spamfest.

How's that for a plausible scenario? I know I've been in that situation; in UT99, it's not that easy to know in advance how many players are ON the server (bots and humans combined). You have to check the number, check the server settings for bots and then make the calculation. Easy, but not very intuitive or fast.

Steyr
11th Jul 2005, 10:39 AM
I'd also blame Epic for strangling the UT200x series at birth by making a game that quite frankly wasn't UT.
That was digital extremes. DE made the sucka** UT2003 and then Epic, seeing the horror, tried their best to fix it so it didn't ruin the Unreal Tournament name. Needless to say, Epic is doing this next one themselves.

Repeat after me: Epic is teh roxxor. Digital Extremes is teh suk.

kafros
11th Jul 2005, 10:50 AM
naliking ask yourself these simple questions:

1. Would you join an empty server or a server with only 1 player?
2. Would you join a server that has 6 players if you had an indication on the server browser that they were all bots?

Let me guess No, No.

As it is now you can join and after a while the human players replace the bots. If not you quit. But at least there is a chance that someone will join.

Zur
11th Jul 2005, 11:17 AM
How about fixing the bots/player issue as follows :

6(4)

Meaning 6 players are real and 4 are bots.

naliking
11th Jul 2005, 11:46 AM
I'm going to address Taleweaver's theory and Kafros at the same time.

First off, if you want a one on one match wouldn't you join a 1-on-1 server where the player count is restricted to only two players. Otherwise any server you join may suddenly end up with more players than you bargained for :D

At any rate Taleweaver's theory and (Kafro's observation) is actually a pretty good theory and is plausible but Taleweaver your account still supports the intent to deceive notion and Kafro's observation supports it as well. There is NO way around that as you will see :D

While there can be a benefit to seeing how crowded a server is and showing all players on it including bots in the server browser, THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR NOT MAKING IT IMMEDIATELY CLEAR WHICH PLAYERS ARE BOTS AND WHICH ARE NOT. It is quite clear from complaints that the average player will not be clicking on names to see what is a bot and what is not. AZURA has shown quite easily how this can be corrected.

While this may or may not have benefits in the server browser, THERE IS NO EXCUSE TO SEND THAT DATA TO A QUERY THAT ASKS FOR THE NUMBER OF PLAYERS on a server and certainly they should not allow that data to end up in the hands of well known stat sites. What is shown in the Server Browser does not have to be dependant on what is sent out in regards to a query.

Now we cannot forget the outcry in the community of people complaining about connecting to a server and then they end up playing bots. People don't want that feature. It annoys them. Epic was aware of that in UT2003 and they were aware of people complaining about Gamespy stats and the same bot counting feature remains in UT2004 after 3 years of complaints for obvious reasons, and they have never responded publicly to any of the complaints for obvious reasons. 3 years is more than enough time to correct the Gamespy stat issue and fix the bot counting as players issue which showed up in UT2003 coincidentally around the same time it was clear the Unreal Franchise was falling apart :)

Selerox
11th Jul 2005, 11:58 AM
That was digital extremes. DE made the sucka** UT2003 and then Epic, seeing the horror, tried their best to fix it so it didn't ruin the Unreal Tournament name. Needless to say, Epic is doing this next one themselves.

I stand corrected. No idea why the hell Epic came to mind then :o

DE make great maps and great artwork, but I really don't think they "get" gameplay. I think the fact that UT2004 was overall a far better game (IMO anyway) than UT2003 bears that out to some extent.

I'm slightly worried about UT3 for one reason. I think the gameplay will be solid as a rock, but I'm worried that the maps won't be up to scratch. Most of the best maps of UT2004 were DE rather than Epic. One plus-point on this is that CliffyB has nothing to do with UT3.

Steyr
11th Jul 2005, 12:35 PM
One plus-point on this is that CliffyB has nothing to do with UT3.
Plus point as in "reason to justify my worry" or plus point as in "whew, good, I was worried that he would mess it all up"? Personally I love CliffyB and his works, especially his old UT map DM-Compression. Anyway, he does have a part in UT3, a big part. He's overseeing the whole thing. Not as the designer, but as a step above that. He's like the ideamaker who doesn't have time to manage all the distribution of work and stuff like that. He's also overseeing Gears of War the same way.

Sir_Brizz
11th Jul 2005, 01:10 PM
My understanding is that you connect to the Master Server list to get a list of servers. Once you have those server IPs, you can make your query directly to those servers to get the data that you want. This means if you only want to monitor a select group of servers and you know their IP, you don't have to go through the Master Server in order to create a statistic summary regarding number of players and whatever other data the game gives out.
The problem is judging what you actually have based on that information. AFAIK, player numbers aren't counted in the server browser by how many PlayerController's are actually in the game, but (if there are people on the server) the number of bots minus the number of players. Otherwise the bots aren't counted, period.
Discord a UT2004 admirer has already backed up my claim that hand counting UT2004 players more often than not matches up with www.csports.net data. The difference between me an you is that I along with friends have very often counted UT2004 players by hand. Wait t'il 2AM USA time and then count the players yourself. I already demonstrated to you that it is easily plausible for UT2004 to have 7000 bots and only 1000 players
How accurate is your hand counting? Not very, I would guess. I don't know what kind of friends you have that their idea of a fun Saturday night is sitting around in the UT2004 Server Browser counting one by one every person playing UT2004. The numbers I have seen on GameSpy are pretty accurate. Also consider that GameSpy counts vanilla gametypes, as well as mods. There is not really a thorough way to count every single person playing UT2004 by hand. If CSports is only counting Vanilla gametypes (minus ONS/AS/VCTF/ and mods) then I might agree with their numbers more.
Actually my opinion comes from real world observation and actual participation in validating the data myself. Your opinion and remarks are just the typical knee jerk reaction of the typical fanboy. :)
Actually, my information comes from real world information. I PLAY UT2004. You very apparently do not. I know what the player numbers look like, and it's not 7000 bots and 1000 players. No matter what you "say", that is an astronomical overexaggeration. Considering the way that bot counting works in UT2004, it is next to impossible for 7000 bots to be appearing in the server browser when there are only 1000 people playing.
Perhaps Epic is working on creating a bunch of dummy fictional servers for UT2007 which nobody can connect to in order to play, and those servers will always appear to be full. However they will be full of A.I bots with PINGS, pretending to be real players and those servers will then broadcast false data in order to inflate UT2007's player count. Then no filter will be able to detect a bot from a human player :lol: .
Maybe they will filter you out of the internet. OH CONSPIRACY :tinhat:

I find Taleweaver's theory to be the most reasonable. It isn't really creating false information. If anything, it is giving a big F U to every stats site out there that cares about player numbers, because everyone would ALREADY KNOW THEY WERE FAKE. Is there anyone that thinks Gamespy's numbers are accurate? Because I don't. But I don't trust CSports anymore than I trust them. And I'd rather play a game or do any one of a million other things I have to do before I start sitting around counting players in the server browser.

hal
11th Jul 2005, 01:14 PM
Afaik, Cliffy isn't working on UT2007 at all.

Steve Polge is the project lead and Jim Brown is the lead level designer. Cliff may very well sit in on the meetings, play-test, and throw in his .02, but he's heavily involved with Gears of War as its project lead.

Taleweaver makes some good arguments in favor of a non-conspiritorial theory. Let me throw a few more things out that I believe further discount a willful deception:

1) There is more than one stats site. What's the point in "trying to fool" just one?
2) How would Epic possibly know that UT2003 players numbers would eventually dwindle? As I recall, the player numbers were pretty decent for the first few months.
3) Assuming that they were "willfully trying to fool" a single stats site, and having just poured their heart into UT2004, believing it to be a much better product and seeing the enormous numbers generated by the UT2004 demo... why continue to "be deceptive"?
4) Anybody can click on a server that shows player numbers and see for themselves how many human players there are. Bot names are not displayed.
5) From a sales standpoint, what kind of impact does gamespy's stats page really have? The vast majority of people that bought UT2004 (and many "multiplayer" games with a single player aspect) never play online.

I agree completely that Gamespy stats for UT200x are incorrect, but isn't that Gamespy's fault? CSports counts the unique players and does just fine. While I'd like to see a better definition in the server browser totals of actual people playing and a more accurate count on Gamespy's stats page, it ultimately doesn't matter to me if it is right or not as long as I can find a game that I like.

shadow_dragon
11th Jul 2005, 01:52 PM
Here's a possibility. Maybe EPic never fixed this problem because no one ever really cared? Possibly a few anti UT Quake3 fan boys cared but? Seriously? Why should epic go out of their way to fine tune the reports that Gamespy, (Read, someone else) tells everyone.
Personalyl i avoid gamespy liek the plague, gamespy's sites are always a mess and whenever i get linked to something to do with them i get irritated fairly quickly.

Personally, when i buy a game and, i would liek to think that most people do too and i know everyone i know does this, but personally, when i buy a game, when i go out and purchase a game that i want to play or order a game online i check to see how it looks and check to see what it does and how well it does it. People bought UT2004 ebcause it's got goodplay and good graphics.
NOT even when Epic or UT spokespersons let information go about their game or upcoming games do they quote gamespy stats to my memory. THey know that all people care about is THE game.

I don't care if Gamespy doesn't report things correctly myself and i don't see why server admins would be so outraged as to "complain" as much as Naliking suggests they do/did. Does it harm them?

Most of this thread has turned into a conspiracy theory and it's not the first time it's been provoked by Naliking. Surely you should've made your point by now old man?

naliking
11th Jul 2005, 02:04 PM
1) There is more than one stats site. What's the point in "trying to fool" just one?

Their intent was most likely to fool ALL stat sites, and they DID. They also fool other 3rd party tools which connect to servers. :)
www.csports.net was fooled for the longest time. In fact csports was so fooled by UT200X false data, that they even did feature articles about the stunning number of players that were playing UT2003 (or was it UT2004?) and were not aware of how quickly the number of players dropped . In fact I think csport's main administrator is a UT200x modder. I think he posts here some times.

After a number of complaints csports did something about it, which no doubt unmasked the UT2003-4 bot scandal of the 21st century :lol:
Gamespy on the other hand admits they became aware of the issue on the atari forums but does nothing about it ;)


From a sales standpoint, what kind of impact does gamespy's stats page really have? The vast majority of people that bought UT2004 (and many "multiplayer" games with a single player aspect) never play online.

With regard to many multiplayer games are played offline. This is true but after UT99, UT2003 and UT2004 are largely recognized as online only games because their single-player is so poor. A few people will play offline to practice against bots and many will play through the single player aspect once, but most people familiar with the series probably bought it for online play.

Let's assume there was no deception involved whatsoever. Why would they avoid answering the question for 3 years, about the bot issue. It would only take half a second to say. Yes its true or No its not.

The reason is because the Unreal Series benefits immensely from this deception because even though they cannot retain players they get tons of publicity from websites and magazines that continually say that UT2004 is at the top of the heap in online games, and they use Gamespy stats to back that up. "Buy UT2007 the sequel to UT2004 which is the 3rd most popular online shooter according to Gamespy!" :lol:

In the end, when they finally do answer the question, I'm sure they'll probably make up an excuse similar to Taleweaver's fictional account, but they will never be able to deny, regardless of however the bot scandal got started, that they intentionally used it to fool the public into thinking this was a popular game.

PsychoMoggieBagpuss
11th Jul 2005, 02:36 PM
I think you need to stay away from the meths or even better, find a game you like and then post in their community.
Your entire post record at BU consists of either posts rubbishing the games in the U-engine series, talking about csports and how the player numbers are a fix or suggesting that we are part of big conspiracy to get people to buy Pariah.
If you don't like the Unreal games then what are you actually doing here in the first place (apart from trolling)?

Sir_Brizz
11th Jul 2005, 03:14 PM
I've never seen any of UT's PR even mention GameSpy stats. I've never heard a ranking associated with UT unless it was "Best Multiplayer Game ever" from Epic. Why would you admit you were only the 3rd most popular online game? If there is any deception it's in the markleting (which, I might add, doesn't even reference GameSpy stats) when they say that a certain game is the most popular game of all time. But why would any respectable company say anything else??

Discord
11th Jul 2005, 03:49 PM
Since Sci-Fi shooters arent the most popular genre Epic needs to make UT2007 shine and shine brightly.


That is absolutely true, and it's probably the one good thing that will ever come out of a thread like this.

UT2004 is a really good game IMO... it's relatively bug- free for at least a decent majority of users, it's got more content than you can shake a stick at, the weapon balance is awesome, the classic gamemodes (DM/CTF) came out really well this time, ONS is obviously unfinished but still pretty fun, the GFX are nice, the features are plentiful (hell, it has crossplatform voice chat, you can't beat that with a stick), it's nothing to sneeze at this UT2004.

But just being "really good" isn't going to cut it any more, mostly due to the franchise's age and the overall decline of the genre. The next UT is going to be called on to take it to the hole, so to speak, in every conceivable way.

I'm usually somewhat pessimistic by nature, so I don't know if Epic can pull it off this time out. I definitely know I'm not going to complain if they do, though. ;)

captainrad
11th Jul 2005, 04:39 PM
Your opinion and remarks are just the typical knee jerk reaction of the typical fanboy.
someone is a csports fanboy.. wont let that site go for a moment. not to mention sterotypical ;)

naliking
11th Jul 2005, 06:37 PM
I think you need to stay away from the meths or even better, find a game you like and then post in their community.
Your entire post record at BU consists of either posts rubbishing the games in the UT franchise, talking about csports and how the player numbers are a fix or suggesting that we are part of big conspiracy to get people to buy Pariah.
If you don't like the Unreal games then what are you actually doing here apart from trolling?

Of course you would have no problem if my entire post history consisted of gloryfying UT200X's amazing rise to the top of the first person shooter list based on false data. I guess if posting facts and truths to the contrary is trolling then I'm one of the biggest trolls on this forum :D

If you say I hate all Unreal games then you don't know my post history. I do like one Unreal title, but I'll let you guess which one that is. ;) I've also made one or two posts about what is good about the Unreal Series...I think :lol:


Most of this thread has turned into a conspiracy theory and it's not the first time it's been provoked by Naliking. Surely you should've made your point by now old man?

Yes I think I've made my point, but my intentions for posting was simply to clear up some misconceptions that keep coming up concerning UT2003/UT2004's claim to popularity.

Is it just me or is this environment a bit hostile? - hehe

Here's hoping UT2007 is a successful game provided they do things honestly. That should calm the fanboys down :)

naliking
11th Jul 2005, 06:40 PM
I've never seen any of UT's PR even mention GameSpy stats. I've never heard a ranking associated with UT unless it was "Best Multiplayer Game ever" from Epic. Why would you admit you were only the 3rd most popular online game? If there is any deception it's in the markleting (which, I might add, doesn't even reference GameSpy stats) when they say that a certain game is the most popular game of all time. But why would any respectable company say anything else??

I never mentioned UT's PR mentioning Gamespy stats. They probably have, but they don't need to because others will do it for them. I have however seen magazines and news sites and review sites mention it. This is no different from game publishers and developers quoting review sites about how their game scored 9/10 or 10/10 and believe me there is plenty of that. ;) . You cannot forget all the magazines that look at Gamespy's stats and claim UT2004 is a top game but they don't bother mention Gamespy in their article, but Gamespy influenced them to come to that conclusion.

There is also the added benefit that sometimes statistics actually influence reviewers who believe that if tons of people are playing a game, then the game can't possibly be bad :D

hal
11th Jul 2005, 06:49 PM
Most of your posts have nothing to do with facts but are just your theories. You've taken a handful of things and tried to link them, adding in a hidden motivation, of which you know nothing about. Keep trying though.

Oh, and yes, the vast majority of people who buy UT games do not play online. Certainly not every day, possibly not every month. Figure out the sales versus the online numbers. Yet again, another conjecture on your part.

I'm glad you like UT - I really am. I like it to. But let the wild unsubstantiated theories go. Or at least don't pose your opinion as fact.

nuttella
11th Jul 2005, 06:54 PM
With regard to many multiplayer games are played offline. This is true but after UT99, UT2003 and UT2004 are largely recognized as online only games because their single-player is so poor. A few people will play offline to practice against bots and many will play through the single player aspect once, but most people familiar with the series probably bought it for online play.

You're wrong about that. There's not much to the single-player Tournament, but many people, myself included, continue to play primarily or only "practice" matches. The UT series' bot AI is quite simply the best FPS AI there is. Clearly Epic recognized the popularity of offline play by putting the work into creating the best bots on the planet. And "people familiar with the series" are well aware of the quality of botplay...

shadow_dragon
11th Jul 2005, 07:01 PM
Yes I think I've made my point, but my intentions for posting was simply to clear up some misconceptions that keep coming up concerning UT2003/UT2004's claim to popularity.

There is no misconception. UT(number) is popular.
Popularity=Selling lots of games and people playing game and liking it!
Popularity doesn't = What Gamespy says.

T2A`
11th Jul 2005, 07:08 PM
I'm slightly worried about UT3 for one reason. I think the gameplay will be solid as a rock, but I'm worried that the maps won't be up to scratch. Most of the best maps of UT2004 were DE rather than Epic. One plus-point on this is that CliffyB has nothing to do with UT3.My thoughts exactly. I really wish they'd get some maps from DE... We need more of their skill to get cool maps lronic, and we need a retail Soma map or two! They really should get contract work from the best community mappers like Hourences again. Very good decision for UT2004.

Plumb_Drumb
11th Jul 2005, 07:21 PM
My thoughts exactly. I really wish they'd get some maps from DE... We need more of their skill to get cool maps lronic, and we need a retail Soma map or two! They really should get contract work from the best community mappers like Hourences again. Very good decision for UT2004.

i think whoever made the UC2 maps should make some maps for our new game.
Those maps are incredible, for the most part; far surpassing most maps in UT2004.
________
CALIFORNIA DISPENSARY (http://california.dispensaries.org/)

hal
11th Jul 2005, 08:40 PM
That would be Epic.

naliking
12th Jul 2005, 05:14 AM
Most of your posts have nothing to do with facts but are just your theories. You've taken a handful of things and tried to link them, adding in a hidden motivation, of which you know nothing about. Keep trying though.

Oh, and yes, the vast majority of people who buy UT games do not play online. Certainly not every day, possibly not every month. Figure out the sales versus the online numbers. Yet again, another conjecture on your part.

I would call csports numbers and counting UT2004 players by hand concrete facts ;)

Just because you buy a game does not mean you are playing it (more than once). Everyone that I know that bought UT2003 and UT2004 are not playing these games offline often because the single-player aspect is poor and consider the fact that most of them actually disliked both games. The rapid decline in UT2004 online numbers despite the game being relatively stable and bug free will also give a reflection on whether people are playing it offline. If they hate it online because they hate the gameplay(when playing conditions are ideal) then chances are they hate if offline even more :lol:


You're wrong about that. There's not much to the single-player Tournament, but many people, myself included, continue to play primarily or only "practice" matches. The UT series' bot AI is quite simply the best FPS AI there is.

Read my reply to Hal. I also did acknowledge that a few people will be practicing against bots (probably mainly newcomers to the series)


There is no misconception. UT(number) is popular.
Popularity=Selling lots of games and people playing game and liking it!
Popularity doesn't = What Gamespy says.

Yes UT is popular compared to Big Rigs :lol: or maybe Tribes Vengeance but it is no longer popular comapared to other online shooters in the top 10.
UT2003's popularity is what devastated the Unreal Series. Tons of people bought it and apparently most of them hated it - LOL! . There is good popularity and bad popularity.

If you ask me, I'd say the only reason why the Unreal Series still continues to exist is still largely due to people's perception of UT99 even though not many people are playing it today. But amazingly it has at least as many players as UT2004, if not more :)

Taleweaver
12th Jul 2005, 05:44 AM
I would call csports numbers and counting UT2004 players by hand concrete facts ;)

Just because you buy a game does not mean you are playing it (more than once). Everyone that I know that bought UT2003 and UT2004 are not playing these games offline often because the single-player aspect is poor and consider the fact that most of them actually disliked both games. The rapid decline in UT2004 online numbers despite the game being relatively stable and bug free will also give a reflection on whether people are playing it offline. If they hate it online because they hate the gameplay(when playing conditions are ideal) then chances are they hate if offline even more :lol:

In contradiction with your opinion (you don't believe that even comes close to a fact as well, do you?), Epic believes most players still stick to the offline section. Now before you bring in the argument that these aren't objective opinions either, consider the following:
* it is in no way relevant to their sales (are ppl more likely to buy a game that's mostly singleplayer based? No, because unlike online, it DOES NOT MATTER how many players are out there playing offline at that time)
* they are using their opinion to create a stronger singleplayer experience for UT2007. Now why would they do that if - according to you - players tend to buy it, play it once and then forget about the game?
* you and your buddies might think the singleplayer campaigns are poor, but can you think of another FPS with a bot AI like this? I'm not saying that they are a good equivalent for a real human, but compared to the bots in other games, you can't deny that UT's bots are much more humanlike than the others.

Oh, and with "singleplayer", do you mean the campaigns or practice matches as well? The mutators, gametypes and different maps can keep you occupied for a very long time. Add in the downloadable mods (with bot support), mutators and maps and you can keep yourself happy even longer!

Yes UT is popular compared to Big Rigs :lol: or maybe Tribes Vengeance but it is no longer popular comapared to other online shooters in the top 10.
Ah, is that what your point is all about? Yes, that's true. I mean...what were we thinking? UT2004 isn't popular. Quake isn't popular. In fact...there is only 1 game that deserves the term "popular", and that's counterstrike. Forget about all the other games that ever will be created, no matter how good-looking, innovative or creative it is, because everyone should buy whatever everyone else is playing. As such, counterstrike will become immortal, and the servers will remain full until doom's day.

nuttella
12th Jul 2005, 06:57 AM
Just because you buy a game does not mean you are playing it (more than once). Everyone that I know that bought UT2003 and UT2004 are not playing these games offline often because the single-player aspect is poor and consider the fact that most of them actually disliked both games.

So everyone that you know includes no one on these forums. I think what you mean is "Everyone that I agree with".

Yes, UT was a better game. Get over it.

UTGirl
12th Jul 2005, 07:11 AM
I`ve never played UT2k4 online, and will (probably) never do. I`m with the UT-series since 2000 and never played a single match online!

Mostly I play with the bots (they are really good, of course they can`t act like human beeings) and it`s pretty funny.
Or I play with Friends in LAN, I like that more. If someone frags me, I can take instand revenge :stick:

It`t just more fun knowing the people IRL, I think. Internet ist just so..... unpersonal

There are tons of d/ls availabe which are making the game more exciting! (mods, gametypes, maps, skins, models, and so on....)

That`s just my opinion, but I don`t think that Epic betrayes here with the number of people online.

Nosnos
12th Jul 2005, 07:17 AM
UT was a better game by the standards you had when it was released... release UT today and it wouldnt be popular, at least nowhere near as popular as it was in it's glory days... No futuristic shooter will be able to overtake the "realistic" shooters out there... unless there is a major swing in the preferences of the avarage gamer from realistic to unrealistic...

Sir_Brizz
12th Jul 2005, 08:28 AM
I would call csports numbers and counting UT2004 players by hand concrete facts ;)
I still doubt that you have hand counted players. Do you even own UT2004?

naliking
12th Jul 2005, 05:37 PM
In contradiction with your opinion (you don't believe that even comes close to a fact as well, do you?), Epic believes most players still stick to the offline section. Now before you bring in the argument that these aren't objective opinions either, consider the following:
* it is in no way relevant to their sales (are ppl more likely to buy a game that's mostly singleplayer based? No, because unlike online, it DOES NOT MATTER how many players are out there playing offline at that time)
* they are using their opinion to create a stronger singleplayer experience for UT2007. Now why would they do that if - according to you - players tend to buy it, play it once and then forget about the game?
* you and your buddies might think the singleplayer campaigns are poor, but can you think of another FPS with a bot AI like this? I'm not saying that they are a good equivalent for a real human, but compared to the bots in other games, you can't deny that UT's bots are much more humanlike than the others.

If Epic said that then they are wrong or you misintrepreted what they said, and what I remember hearing them say. The fact is most people who buy a game with an added online component do not play online. This is or was a fact of almost any game (except maybe games built only for online play only, or games which have extremely bad single-player or extremely bad bot match components.)

So most people who bought Unreal Tournament 2004 did not play online compared to those who did or do. That does not mean they are playing the game offline! As I told Hal, if a game is built mainly for online play and people stop playing online even when conditions are great, then this will probably reflect what is happening offline unless the game has a great single-player mode (not offline bot matches).

In UT2004, bot matches offline are similar to online play so in UT2004 you can be sure if tons of people stop playing online because they hate the gameplay then that is probably what is happening offline ;)


UT was a better game by the standards you had when it was released... release UT today and it wouldnt be popular, at least nowhere near as popular as it was in it's glory days... No futuristic shooter will be able to overtake the "realistic" shooters out there... unless there is a major swing in the preferences of the avarage gamer from realistic to unrealistic...

Actually I agree with you and have said the exact same thing in the past. A Sci-fi shooter done properly with changes can compete with realistic shooters. Of course if UT2004 was UT99 with only a graphics upgrade there would be a lot more people playing UT today since at least most of the original fan base would not have ditched the series. Instead we now have UT2004 struggling just to make it to 14th place in online shooter popularity. :D

UT2007 may be better, and I hope this time it's not going to blatantly rip off the work done by people in the mod community without crediting them if they do.

Unreal Series is becoming known as quite the rip off artists. I remember when UT2004 initially took Halo's warthog design with almost no changes. Good thing Epic was working with microsoft and that Bungie is owned by microsoft. And what's with the UT2007 playstation 3 demonstration. It looks like it was staged directly from Terminator 2 :lol:


I still doubt that you have hand counted players. Do you even own UT2004?

Well if you doubt me then believe Discord's hand counting verification. It's not too hard to count 800 or less player's at certain times ;) . If we were talking counter-strike now that would be a different story :D

Selerox
12th Jul 2005, 05:57 PM
Or, you could just shut up about it maybe? For once? Ever?

Discord
12th Jul 2005, 06:08 PM
Or, you could just shut up about it maybe? For once? Ever?

Hehe, not likely.

Here's some more "simple math:" "I liked one Unreal game" + "UT sequels sucked" + {while ("Epic = teh eViL"), eViL += 1} + every third post is from this guy while threadstarter is nowhere in sight equals...

drumroll please...

that most ridiculous of all creatures, the attention- whoring disgruntled fanboy. Worst kind of fanboy that ever was. The kind who, rather than sensibly saying "what a shame" and toddling off to play some other game, keeps hanging around to whine and pule about what a dirty disgrace the whole thing has become and to shout, "Look at me! Look at meeeee! Behold, for I am the aggreived! O whither justice...?"


And that's the last tidbit I'm feeding this troll. You guys can keep stroking its ego if you like, as for me I'll be happy to see this thread roll off the page.

PsychoMoggieBagpuss
12th Jul 2005, 06:15 PM
What discord said, this is getting boring.
Or at least stop giving him the nails so he can keep sticking himself back up on his cross...

shadow_dragon
12th Jul 2005, 06:18 PM
If Epic said that then they are wrong or you misintrepreted what they said, and what I remember hearing them say.
Lol! You don't know what they said ro whether they asid it but your still sure that they're wrong regardless. Seriously is this some hgue ellaborate joke? The fact is most people who buy a game with an added online component do not play online. This is or was a fact of almost any game (except maybe games built only for online play only, or games which have extremely bad single-player or extremely bad bot match components.)
This bit is interesting, probably true and just about mkes sense though doesn't mean much. We've already been saying for pages that a large majority of UT players do so offline and thus why online stats aren't a realistic figure to determine overall popularity.

So most people who bought Unreal Tournament 2004 did not play online compared to those who did or do. Right yes, most people who have UT play fofline compared to those who do. That does not mean they are playing the game offline! What?..........
As I told Hal, if a game is built mainly for online play and people stop playing online even when conditions are great, then this will probably reflect what is happening offline unless the game has a great single-player mode (not offline bot matches).
It's not a good technique to debate with words like "probably."
Presumably you hand counted those that play offline too, you seem to know a lot about them.

In UT2004, bot matches offline are similar to online play so in UT2004 you can be sure if tons of people stop playing online because they hate the gameplay then that is probably what is happening offline ;)
No it's not like online play, at all, rules maybe the same but the tactics, strategies and entire gameplay are entirely different.

UT2007 may be better, and I hope this time it's not going to blatantly rip off the work done by people in the mod community without crediting them if they do.
Irrelevant and... vaguely stupid. I thought you said you weren't here merely to slag the game off?

Unreal Series is becoming known as quite the rip off artists. I remember when UT2004 initially took Halo's warthog design with almost no changes. Good thing Epic was working with microsoft and that Bungie is owned by microsoft. And what's with the UT2007 playstation 3 demonstration. It looks like it was staged directly from Terminator 2 :lol:
Another paragraph of made up nonsense. The warthog "ripoff" never even made it into the game officially.

o·pin·ion - A belief or conclusion held with confidence but not substantiated by positive knowledge or proof: “The world is not run by thought, nor by imagination, but by opinion” (Elizabeth Drew).
A judgment based on special knowledge and given by an expert: a medical opinion.
A judgment or estimation of the merit of a person or thing: has a low opinion of braggarts.
The prevailing view: public opinion.
Law. A formal statement by a court or other adjudicative body of the legal reasons and principles for the conclusions of the court.
fact - Knowledge or information based on real occurrences: an account based on fact; a blur of fact and fancy.

Something demonstrated to exist or known to have existed: Genetic engineering is now a fact. That Chaucer was a real person is an undisputed fact.
A real occurrence; an event: had to prove the facts of the case.
Something believed to be true or real: a document laced with mistaken facts.
A thing that has been done, especially a crime: an accessory before the fact.
Law. The aspect of a case at law comprising events determined by evidence: The jury made a finding of fact.

(Edit- Totally agree with Discord. jsut his post occured during my typing mine.)

naliking
12th Jul 2005, 06:43 PM
Hehe, not likely.

Here's some more "simple math:" "I liked one Unreal game" + "UT sequels sucked" + {while ("Epic = teh eViL"), eViL += 1} + every third post is from this guy while threadstarter is nowhere in sight equals...

drumroll please...

that most ridiculous of all creatures, the attention- whoring disgruntled fanboy. Worst kind of fanboy that ever was. The kind who, rather than sensibly saying "what a shame" and toddling off to play some other game, keeps hanging around to whine and pule about what a dirty disgrace the whole thing has become and to shout, "Look at me! Look at meeeee! Behold, for I am the aggreived! O whither justice...?"

Come now Discord, take a look at the thread. Apart from my first post and this one, every post I made is in direct reply to someone who quoted me. It's the same thing that happened in the thread where someone was dissing Half-Life 2 and claimed it to be inferior to UT2004 engine. I make an unpopular post and then people just keep quoting me, therefore I am forced to respond :)

I'm not disgruntled at all. Whether the Unreal Series turns out great or not is irrelevant to me. If it turns out good I'll play it and post about how good it is. I am not a fanboy of any game because games don't take up much of my time. The problem is you and the biased fanboys seem to have an emotional link with the game and want to attack anyone who says anything negative about it. So much so that you misconstrue humor for an attack against the game.

Just remember, constructive critcism is a good thing ;)

Oh and shadow_dragon, I am aware of one post an Epic employee made specifically with regard to offline numbers and it was that most people who bought UT99 never even ventured online AT ALL and that their goal was to get them online. Something like that anyway. He never said they were playing it offline.

Well since I'm not wanted here I think it's time for me to leave again :(
.......until someone posts false information :lol:

T2A`
12th Jul 2005, 06:52 PM
Atari made UT2004.

Sir_Brizz
12th Jul 2005, 06:55 PM
This thread is lame. I like UT2004. Alot of other people like it. I play with them. End of story.

Black_Seeds
12th Jul 2005, 06:57 PM
I`ve never played UT2k4 online, and will (probably) never do. I`m with the UT-series since 2000 and never played a single match online!

Mostly I play with the bots (they are really good, of course they can`t act like human beeings) and it`s pretty funny.
Or I play with Friends in LAN, I like that more. If someone frags me, I can take instand revenge :stick:

There are tons of d/ls availabe which are making the game more exciting! (mods, gametypes, maps, skins, models, and so on....)

That`s just my opinion, but I don`t think that Epic betrayes here with the number of people online.

This is mostly how it is for me.
I have been playing since 2000, and I have played offline that whole time. Only just now am I starting to play online although I still play against bots mostly.

DeeperShade
12th Jul 2005, 07:00 PM
In response to the first post:
If you bought it solely because you thought it had a massive following, then I have little sympathy. Some of the greatest games ever made are little known about.

In response to the 'epic is evil, gamespy are corrupt, INA is trying to take over the corp-political world' style posts:
http://img300.imageshack.us/img300/9030/tinfoil8xk.jpg

Yoshiro
12th Jul 2005, 07:06 PM
Ok, these are just a few words from me, a guy who hangs around the UT2k4 modding community far to much, and plays ONS every once in awhile.

While I can't speak much for the main game, I can tell you a little about the modding community. It is there and it is strong. Even long after the end of the MSU, there are still mods releasing, and even new mods being announced. And if you want proof that people play the mods out there, go back to csports.

Red Orchestra has thousands of unique players, and other mods such as Alien Swarm have communities that keep creating more content for their favorite mod (ie: new campains) even though the main team behind that mod switched development over to Half Life 2. Also older mods are still being supported by their devs. Troopers (even though nobody is currently playing it) is commited to making their mod exciting and fun before they leave it alone. Red Orchestra is still releasing patches for its mod even though they are working on a retail game. Strike Force is doing the same, working on a retail game, but also supporting an active community for their mod version.

And allready I have seen people starting to form mod teams for UT2k7, and UnWheel has mentioned that they are here for the long haul (and plan to move to UT2k7). I'm sure they will not be the only mod.

I will admit, there aren't as many players in UT2k4 as say, counter Strike, but that does not mean there are not many players. With the hundreds of mods and mutators that have been released for UT2k4 some of them are quiet spread out among various gametypes and total conversions. Yes, that means some of those mods only have a handful of players, but some of those mods, such as Alien Swarm and Air Buccaneers, you only need a handful of players to have a really fun and exciting game! Pirates in air baloons, swinging from air ship to air ship, as friends in one room pilot a ship against their friends in the next, or a group of friends setting up a server to go at it in Alien Swarm as they traverse the campain mode.

And Epic always supports its community. Even months to years after the game has been released, Epic is still giving patches to the game to make it better and fix problems that arise. And in the modding community they have always been there to lend support and give feedback to the teams. And they are allready gearing up for this same support for UT2k7. Also, they have allready talked with us, telling us what they did wrong in UT2k3/4 and listening to the community as they build UT2k7.

Some people will disagree with me I"m sure, but this is my opinion as I see it. I hang around several mod teams, chip in with a few, beta a few others. If it has been released on UT2k3/4 I have probably played it (if its a mod) be it good, bad, or ugly. But let me make one thing clear, many of the mod teams are very talented and I expect even greater things out of them in the future.

shadow_dragon
12th Jul 2005, 07:25 PM
Oh and shadow_dragon, I am aware of one post an Epic employee made specifically with regard to offline numbers and it was that most people who bought UT99 never even ventured online AT ALL and that their goal was to get them online. Something like that anyway. He never said they were playing it offline.
Offline numbers = numbers of people PLAYING it offline. Otherwise why would he say it. It's implicit.

Terms like fanboy shouldn't be thrown around, it's counter productive and pointless and yes that comment is aimed at Discord too. It's more or less an insult and i'm pretty sure offensive behaviour is frowned upon outside of "off topic".

Just remember constructive criticism IS a good thing.
But your point isn't a critcism, nor is it constructive. Your making up facts and suggesting conspiracies. THAT is why people have been retorting you, it's just plain silly.

hal
12th Jul 2005, 10:52 PM
If Epic said that then they are wrong or you misintrepreted what they said, and what I remember hearing them say. The fact is most people who buy a game with an added online component do not play online. This is or was a fact of almost any game (except maybe games built only for online play only, or games which have extremely bad single-player or extremely bad bot match components.)

So most people who bought Unreal Tournament 2004 did not play online compared to those who did or do. That does not mean they are playing the game offline! As I told Hal, if a game is built mainly for online play and people stop playing online even when conditions are great, then this will probably reflect what is happening offline unless the game has a great single-player mode (not offline bot matches).

In UT2004, bot matches offline are similar to online play so in UT2004 you can be sure if tons of people stop playing online because they hate the gameplay then that is probably what is happening offline ;)

Yet again, all of this totally based on YOUR opinion and the people that you know. Therefore it must be true. Right? What was that about "logic" and "false statements" again?


Actually I agree with you and have said the exact same thing in the past. A Sci-fi shooter done properly with changes can compete with realistic shooters. Of course if UT2004 was UT99 with only a graphics upgrade there would be a lot more people playing UT today since at least most of the original fan base would not have ditched the series. Instead we now have UT2004 struggling just to make it to 14th place in online shooter popularity. :D

And yet again. What makes you think that new people would be automagically attracted to a graphically updated UT? Did it occur to you that the people that are playing UT2004 might possibly like the game?

UT2007 may be better, and I hope this time it's not going to blatantly rip off the work done by people in the mod community without crediting them if they do.

Unreal Series is becoming known as quite the rip off artists. I remember when UT2004 initially took Halo's warthog design with almost no changes. Good thing Epic was working with microsoft and that Bungie is owned by microsoft. And what's with the UT2007 playstation 3 demonstration. It looks like it was staged directly from Terminator 2 :lol:

OMG A JEEP! A ROBOT! RIPOFF WTFBBQLOL! I suppose that the Goliath (that's the tank, btw) is a ripoff of some military sim? You're really reaching now, and your true intent in this thread is shining through.


Well if you doubt me then believe Discord's hand counting verification. It's not too hard to count 800 or less player's at certain times ;) . If we were talking counter-strike now that would be a different story :D

Since you mentioned CounterStrike again, I guess we can all assume that Unreal Tournament is a total failure of a game since it doesn't have the same online numbers. But of course... that has nothing to do with the genre does it?

Sir_Brizz
13th Jul 2005, 12:15 AM
All games are failures, Counter Strike is the only game.

CyMek
13th Jul 2005, 01:26 AM
OMG that took a long time to read!

I don't think that we'll ever see a really popular sci-fi FPS again. There are a couple of reasons I think this:

Improbable weapons: Now that graphics are good, I think that it is harder for people to suspend their disbelief of something. That and whenever you see something that does not make sense you are pulled a bit more from the immersion in the game.

Reliance on blood: I have never seen a popular sci-fi game that did not rely on massive amouts of blood and violence, and lets face it, a lot of people don't like that.

Learning: You have to go deep into the game. The first time I ever played Cs I knew instinctively what to do, bought an AK, and blew someones head off in 30 seconds. It was simple. And all the weapons work the same way. In sci-fi games you have to have a weird plathorea of weapons with a multitude of functions, since, it is the future after all. The problem is that not everyone likes having to learn to get good.

Community: In a FPS game (Not just Sci-fi) you have to MAKE a community. It's not natural for people killing each other to get together and do stuff. The game does not require it. In an MMO, yopu have to paricipate in a community. For that matter many MMOs are actually just that - a community and chatroom in 3d. Communities are what bond. BU is the only reason I still play UT2004.

naliking
13th Jul 2005, 03:43 AM
I'm really sorry guys I didn't me to come back so soon but:

Atari made UT2004

;) :lol:

By the way CyMek makes a good point, but sci-fi does not have to follow those formulas. This is a result of developers that keep copying each other.


Offline numbers = numbers of people PLAYING it offline. Otherwise why would he say it. It's implicit.

Actually its my fault in that I said "with regard to offline numbers", I just remember he was talking about offline play. But let's assume he meant most people are playing it offline. How the hell would he know? These offline players for the most part probably never even seen a Unreal Forum and probably rarely ever venture online in game communities, so they couldn't possibly respond to a online poll of this nature.


Yet again, all of this totally based on YOUR opinion and the people that you know. Therefore it must be true. Right? What was that about "logic" and "false statements" again?

I never said it would attract new people (although judging from reaction of people that play other games instead of UT2004, I can see that happening). I said it would have had more players simply because more of the UT99 fanbase would have gravitated over. Who knows maybe those people are lost forever now and won't be coming back.


OMG A JEEP! A ROBOT! RIPOFF WTFBBQLOL! I suppose that the Goliath (that's the tank, btw) is a ripoff of some military sim? You're really reaching now, and your true intent in this thread is shining through

If that was my true intent, why would I have only brought that issue up in this thread once? Perhaps I knew it would stir things up a bit ;)

Interestingly,although my observations and conclusions are common sense, and some here want to call them conspiracy theory, well what if I told you that Intel might be sabotaging AMD's chip performance in computer applications and forcing people not to by AMD? Of course this could not happen right.
oh but look here (http://www.crn.com/sections/breakingnews/breakingnews.jhtml?articleId=165701017) and here (http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/07/12/1320202&tid=142&tid=118&tid=123)

You see, today it's messing with player numbers, and then tommorrow it could be degrading performance on ATI cards, or forcing licencees to use one engine exclusively or worst :D

EL BOURIKO
13th Jul 2005, 05:49 AM
I actually don t care if it is 3 000 or 300.000 players registered in the stats.
All that I care about, is that I know for sure that my little community of players (about 30-40 people) is just made of 100% human. I don t need 300.000 players to have fun!

LooseCannon
13th Jul 2005, 06:54 AM
I wonder how long one should expect any computer game to remain in the top 10? Long enough to encourage enough sales to make a profit?

I bet UT2k4 has made someone a profit by now. It's still fun to play as well... bonus!

One would always like a bigger profit of course, but I guess Epic etc are quite pleased with themselves.

Does popular = profitable and vice versa? I believe it does.

How profitable is a moot point when it comes to my own enjoyment.

EDIT: Sorry PsychoMoggieBagpuss. Good point. :)

PsychoMoggieBagpuss
13th Jul 2005, 07:01 AM
Shhhhhh @nk.

TBH I don't think another game will ever have the impact that UT had when it came out (look at what it had compared to everything else that was out at the time, bots, mutators, ingame chat, loads of different game types out of the box, plus the MSU contests).
Now all of thats a given in any self respecting multiplayer game that comes out, except we now have a new checkbox for vehicals (thanks to tribes).
I really can't see where they will go from here.

JaFO
13th Jul 2005, 09:27 AM
..
Improbable weapons: Now that graphics are good, I think that it is harder for people to suspend their disbelief of something. That and whenever you see something that does not make sense you are pulled a bit more from the immersion in the game.

I think it's more like it is difficult to relate to a fantasy/sf-weapon compared to something even remotely realistic.
For me it was why Tribes didn't do it. The weapons where too far out there.
UT otoh has weapons I'm familliar with and/or that at least appear to function like a realistic weapon.


Reliance on blood: I have never seen a popular sci-fi game that did not rely on massive amouts of blood and violence, and lets face it, a lot of people don't like that.

I'd point at the succes of GTA-series and counter with that people obviously do like violence.
I think key is that it needs to look violent. SF/Fantasy tends to look a bit too clean.
As a result I think that the lack of gore in UT2kx was a dissapointment for a lot of people. Fragging someone in UT'99 was a bloody mess even at its worst settings ...


...The problem is that not everyone likes having to learn to get good.

I'd even say the (current) majority of players doesn't like to spend time to learn how to play.
UT definitely had/has a learning-curve that's like trying to climb mount Everest.
A bit too steep for its own good.

Otoh some people expect to be good at anything without any efford ...
Those are in general the ones that first scream "assaultrifle is weak" / "weapon/item X is overpowered", "map Y is unbalanced"
It also results in claims of 'cheaters' and the hunt for cheats if the game is 'too difficult'.

...
Community: In a FPS game (Not just Sci-fi) you have to MAKE a community. It's not natural for people killing each other to get together and do stuff. The game does not require it. In an MMO, yopu have to paricipate in a community. For that matter many MMOs are actually just that - a community and chatroom in 3d. Communities are what bond. BU is the only reason I still play UT2004.
In other words :
The problem is that no one likes to form a community.
Nowadays it is almost as if it has to come prepackaged with the game.
Some check stuff like CSports and conclude that there's noone (or not enough) people playing and dissapear.
It's the same reason why empty servers stay empty, while the full servers have waiting lines ...

The average gamer isn't looking for a 5-star restaurant that gets good reviews in specialised magazines.
They're looking for a McDonalds-experience : prepackaged & preformatted bits of stuff that the guy/girl at the counter claims is 'fun'. As a result they tend to jump ship whenever there's a new McDreck opened in the area ...

naliking
13th Jul 2005, 09:51 AM
If this message is repeated it's because some admin here has made it so Logged out users, mainly guests, cannot see my orginal post. Shame on you! Also it reinforces my point that some here are overly biased for sure and don't want regular users seeing my posts. If it's a forum glitch then I apologize :D

I'm really sorry guys I didn't me to come back so soon but:

Atari made UT2004

;) :lol:

By the way CyMek makes a good point, but sci-fi does not have to follow those formulas. This is a result of developers that keep copying each other.


Offline numbers = numbers of people PLAYING it offline. Otherwise why would he say it. It's implicit.

Actually its my fault in that I said "with regard to offline numbers", I just remember he was talking about offline play. But let's assume he meant most people are playing it offline. How the hell would he know? These offline players for the most part probably never even seen a Unreal Forum and probably rarely ever venture online in game communities, so they couldn't possibly respond to a online poll of this nature.


Yet again, all of this totally based on YOUR opinion and the people that you know. Therefore it must be true. Right? What was that about "logic" and "false statements" again?

I never said it would attract new people (although judging from reaction of people that play other games instead of UT2004, I can see that happening). I said it would have had more players simply because more of the UT99 fanbase would have gravitated over. Who know maybe they are lost forever now.


OMG A JEEP! A ROBOT! RIPOFF WTFBBQLOL! I suppose that the Goliath (that's the tank, btw) is a ripoff of some military sim? You're really reaching now, and your true intent in this thread is shining through

If that was my true intent, why would I have only brought that issue up in this thread once? Perhaps I knew it would stir things up a bit ;)

Interestingly,although my observations and conclusions are common sense, and some here want to call them conspiracy theory, well what if I told you that Intel might be sabotaging AMD's chip performance in computer applications and forcing people not to by AMD? Of course this could not happen right.
oh but look here (http://www.crn.com/sections/breakingnews/breakingnews.jhtml?articleId=165701017) and here (http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/07/12/1320202&tid=142&tid=118&tid=123)

You see, today it's messing with player numbers, and then tommorrow it could be degrading performance on ATI cards, or forcing licencees to use one engine exclusively or worst :D

naliking2
13th Jul 2005, 11:10 AM
If this message is repeated it's because some admin here has made it so users cannot read any of my posts. Also it reinforces my point that some here are overly biased for sure and BeyondUnreal is not a community site but a site solely to promote Unreal Games. I did not know that Epic provides the main funding behind this site. However people quoted me and asked for my response so here they are once AGAIN :D.

I'm really sorry guys I didn't me to come back so soon but:

Atari made UT2004

;) :lol:

By the way CyMek makes a good point, but sci-fi does not have to follow those formulas. This is a result of developers that keep copying each other.


Offline numbers = numbers of people PLAYING it offline. Otherwise why would he say it. It's implicit.

Actually its my fault in that I said "with regard to offline numbers", I just remember he was talking about offline play. But let's assume he meant most people are playing it offline. How the hell would he know? These offline players for the most part probably never even seen a Unreal Forum and probably rarely ever venture online in game communities, so they couldn't possibly respond to a online poll of this nature.


Yet again, all of this totally based on YOUR opinion and the people that you know. Therefore it must be true. Right? What was that about "logic" and "false statements" again?

I never said it would attract new people (although judging from reaction of people that play other games instead of UT2004, I can see that happening). I said it would have had more players simply because more of the UT99 fanbase would have gravitated over. Who know maybe they are lost forever now.


OMG A JEEP! A ROBOT! RIPOFF WTFBBQLOL! I suppose that the Goliath (that's the tank, btw) is a ripoff of some military sim? You're really reaching now, and your true intent in this thread is shining through

If that was my true intent, why would I have only brought that issue up in this thread once? Perhaps I knew it would stir things up a bit ;)

Interestingly,although my observations and conclusions are common sense, and some here want to call them conspiracy theory, well what if I told you that Intel might be sabotaging AMD's chip performance in computer applications and forcing people not to by AMD? Of course this could not happen right.
oh but look here (http://www.crn.com/sections/breakingnews/breakingnews.jhtml?articleId=165701017) and here (http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/07/12/1320202&tid=142&tid=118&tid=123)

You see, today it's messing with player numbers, and then tommorrow it could be degrading performance on ATI cards, or forcing licencees to use one engine exclusively or worst :D

rhirud
13th Jul 2005, 11:42 AM
No, you bought the right game.

I've been messing around with BF2 for the last few weeks, and UT2004 was the right choice.

a. BF2 is full of exploits. Put 4 engineers and a medic in a blackhawk chopper, and you can capture flags in 2 seconds flat without touching the ground. The engineers on board will repair any dammage making it invulnerable.

b. Many who play BF2 get ultra high stats by killing their friends. Spawncamping - the process of killing people the second they join the game, is also a favourite pasttime - and given a 15s spawn delay, isn't much fun.

c The game is unstable and crashes. It's patch has been withdrawn because it had a memory hole.

d It's very difficult to join up to your friends online - getting accepted on to a server is a hit and miss affair that can take up to 30 minutes. Getting your friends onto the same server gets very difficult.

UT2004 is slick, does not crash, is way faster paced, and there are plenty of nice servers out there where you can learn how to play. I'm giving up on BF2 untill a big patch is released - it's practically unplayable online at peak times; and the single player game is a joke.

UT2004 got it's hype wrong when released; it got bad reviews - many people e.g. in the BF2 community don't even know it has vehichles. And the demo of UT2004 is awful - who was the gernius who thought that primeval was a map with a selling point?? But there is still a strong core of UT2004 players, and I can't see other games on the horizon that will cap it.

Give those counterstrikers and BF2 er's one round of spiffingrad as a demo, and they'll be hooked.

naliking2
13th Jul 2005, 11:45 AM
The bottom line is that it seems Epic built bot counting as players into UT2003 and UT2004's infrastructure because their game flopped and not many are playing it at all, and they managed to fool ALL stat sites and 3rd party tools that monitor player counts. Even if you give them the biggest benefit of doubts, it is undeniable that they have used this bot fiasco to fool reporters, reviewers and the community. 800 players online at once is nothing to be ashamed of if its achieved honestly, but instead they use bots to show 6000 players are playing when there is only 800 human players.

By condoning this and ignoring it, you leave the door open to further exploitation in the future similar to the AMD v.s Intel fiasco.

It's also lame that an admin at BeyondUnreal would abuse his power and delete/hide all my posts because my "theories" are more likely true than not. How else is he abusing his admin priveleges?

Hal said it was lame they deleted the Atari thread, yet BeyondUnreal wants to sensor negative but constructive criticism. If all you want is to promote the series then why bother with forums. If you don't like a thread don't post in it!

Sir_Brizz
13th Jul 2005, 01:03 PM
The bottom line is that it seems Epic built bot counting as players into UT2003 and UT2004's infrastructure because their game flopped and not many are playing it at all, and they managed to fool ALL stat sites and 3rd party tools that monitor player counts. Even if you give them the biggest benefit of doubts, it is undeniable that they have used this bot fiasco to fool reporters, reviewers and the community. 800 players online at once is nothing to be ashamed of if its achieved honestly, but instead they use bots to show 6000 players are playing when there is only 800 human players.
This might be so if it were true.

What the bottom line really is is that UT200X has always counted bots. Epic had no way to know on the release of the original UT2003 demo how many people would be playing UT2003, and, admittedly, most people didn't give a rats ass about bot counting until the player numbers DID start dwindling. IMO, this 100% discounts your whole "conspiracy theory". There is no telling what was involved in that counting getting implemented in the first place, and the fact that it wasn't removed in UT2004 only goes to further prove my point, as they admitted to changing the way that bot counting works when UT2004 was released.
AMD v.s Intel
Really, what does this have to do with anything. Is this something you just barely learned about and decided that it has some relevancy to what we are talking about here? We've known about these legal proceedings for a number of weeks. I can't speak for everyone else, but I've personally known about it for even longer than that. I find it laughable that you use a company like Intel to represent Epic when AMD would be a better comparison. To be honest, I find it ridiculous that you found the AMD vs. Intel lawsuit worthwhile to this discussion, as it has no bearing on the it whatsoever.
It's also lame that an admin at BeyondUnreal would abuse his power and delete/hide all my posts because my "theories" are more likely true than not. How else is he abusing his admin priveleges?
Maybe they got sick of you trolling.
Hal said it was lame they deleted the Atari thread, yet BeyondUnreal wants to sensor negative but constructive criticism. If all you want is to promote the series then why bother with forums. If you don't like a thread don't post in it!
So...where was the "constructive" part of anything that you said in this entire thread? Where was the "constructive" part of anything that you have posted on BuF? I'm still confused why you continue to come here if you hate UT and Epic.

rhirud
13th Jul 2005, 02:01 PM
No - bottom line is that Epic has developed a functioning and working AI that actually work in an online environment; most games with bots are just silly, stupid and irritating.

Unreal Tournament 2004 1,594 277,118

Are the Cnet stats right now - a community of probably 200,000 players - (because some of the 277,118 in 31 days are players who play with more than one alias.

This thread isn't hidden - I can't see what the real issue is.

As I said - buy BF2 - play it for a few weeks. Then play onslaught for a few weeks. The sin of developers releasing unstable, unplayable games is far greater than this issue.

And if you see what EA are doing with those who run their ow nervers at great cost, creatively (they ban the server) - in order to promote an additional revenue stream of their own licenced "ranked" servers- which are far less admined, and contain far more players who play the game's many exploits; honestly, it is Epic who shine the light for the future of PC development.

rhirud
13th Jul 2005, 02:09 PM
It is EA that is devestating it's community; Epic's community s still plodding on.

UT2004 never was a big commercial success, but nonwithstanding, many decent PC gaming mags rate ut2004 as the best online game

The only real contender is BF2, and patched it might offer some competition for ut2004, but right now it is really problematic (unless you want to switch your firewall off- and many gamers seem daft enough to do just that.)

If you watch what EA is doing with promoting ranked servers- servers you pay to play on, that are poorly admined, full of exploiters; and compare them to decent community servers, with teamplay - but are unranked.

So you either play a good game, but don't progress your character or play against bug exploiters. It's a hobson's choice; and EA's move to make money from those who pay to set up servers to host their game is an abysmal precedent that threatens how we know online gaming and is the real decimator and devestator



Whoops - a double post - dunno what happened there - repetetive but i'll leave them in. Thread's been moderated I guess

naliking2
13th Jul 2005, 03:43 PM
What the bottom line really is is that UT200X has always counted bots. Epic had no way to know on the release of the original UT2003 demo how many people would be playing UT2003, and, admittedly, most people didn't give a rats ass about bot counting until the player numbers DID start dwindling. IMO, this 100% discounts your whole "conspiracy theory". There is no telling what was involved in that counting getting implemented in the first place, and the fact that it wasn't removed in UT2004 only goes to further prove my point, as they admitted to changing the way that bot counting works when UT2004 was released.

I already completely and convincingly answered this question and you already know that and want me to continue posting ;). Search my posts that are quoted, or wait t'il the admins unhide/undelete my posts from my original account. Epic had every way of knowing UT2003 was going to flop or fail. Even the local 9 year old that followed the UT2003 leak and the mass exodus during the demo could have predicted that. Why in 3 years have they not addressed the problem, why would Gamespy who has known about the problem for a very long time not fix their site to filter out cheating bots and demo players like www.csports.net did once they found out they were being tricked? Why hasn't BeyondUnreal asked them about it, in a formal interview?


Maybe they got sick of you trolling

Interesting since I'm not trolling. They just don't like what the facts show. Obviously one admin felt it's ok to abuse his admin priveleges whenever he feels like it. If this was my site I would remove that admin immediately before he does something extreme.

I think it's probably PsychoMoggieBagpuss that hid my posts or someone from Epic who has admin powers here. :D . All that indicates is that this is not a community site but a promotional site for Unreal Engine games. In other words News and Comments posted by news posters and admins cannot be trusted because they will be 100% biased. They will hide facts and distort truths for the sole purpose of promoting the Unreal Engine games. Perhaps this site is funded by Epic. :)

Or perhaps this site is run by people under the age of 13 :lol:

RaptoR
13th Jul 2005, 04:02 PM
I believe you're confusing us with the FOX News Channel.

In any case... evading a ban is, surprisingly enough, a bannable offence.

:wavey:

Sir_Brizz
13th Jul 2005, 04:08 PM
I already completely and convincingly answered this question and you already know that and want me to continue posting ;). Search my posts that are quoted, or wait t'il the admins unhide/undelete my posts from my original account. Epic had every way of knowing UT2003 was going to flop or fail. Even the local 9 year old that followed the UT2003 leak and the mass exodus during the demo could have predicted that.
Actually, you haven't. You have interjected your own opinion as fact, though. Way to go convincing yourself that you are right. What mass exodus during the demo? I guess you never played it because UT2003 was the second most popular game from the time the demo came out until until the retail game had been out approximately 6 months. Nobody cared about bots being counted until there weren't very many people playing anymore, although I'm sure that now you'll change your story and say that UT2003's numbers were always wrong.
why would Gamespy who has known about the problem for a very long time not fix their site to filter out cheating bots and demo players like www.csports.net did once they found out they were being tricked?
There's quite a few possibilities. They might not care enough, because they realize that player counts don't really mean crap. They might not actually know. And there is always the possibility that they are not wrong.
Why hasn't BeyondUnreal asked them about it, in a formal interview?
What for? We aren't a GameSpy fan site, and Epic drastically changed the way bots were counted in UT2004. Most people don't give a crap about the player numbers as long as they can find an enjoyable game somewhere at some time. I've been able to find games I feel like playing in at any time of day.
Interesting since I'm not trolling. They just don't like what the facts show. Obviously one admin felt it's ok to abuse his admin priveleges whenever he feels like it. If this was my site I would remove that admin immediately before he does something extreme.
You might want to read up on this page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll), troll. Almost all of the admins on BU have been around since before UT came out, and they obviously care more about the community and the series than you do. I wouldn't come to a site that you have any level of control over.
Or perhaps this site is run by people under the age of 13 :lol:
:lol: maybe :lol: idiz :lol: wut :lol: u :lol: gna :lol: do :lol: abt :lol: it?

rhirud
13th Jul 2005, 04:38 PM
What I'm confused about - You've just bought a copy; and instead of playing the game, you seem to be waging a singlehanded crusade against it.

Buy BF2 or counterstrike, and post complaints about those games instead. Because plenty on fora dedicated to those games will agree with you.

The only place where Epic got it wrong was in marketing. The game itself is actually very good.

Just play it.

rulerofNali
13th Jul 2005, 08:02 PM
It's me NaliKing - Don't worry this is my LAST post here!

Raptor I was not banned, I was put on some sort of Global ignore list or my posts were hidden and maybe deleted, because someone got a little nervous about the truth coming out. --Well NOW I have been banned (just learned this when I tried to post) . Perhaps I was banned by someone who thought I was subverting a previous ban, which is not true. I guess this shall be my last post!

The gaming market is a competitive one but cheating this way and getting a hugely public site like Gamespy which does reviews etc... to be an accomplice in it, should not be tolerated. It's no wonder people don't take Gamespy reviews seriously :D


What I'm confused about - You've just bought a copy; and instead of playing the game, you seem to be waging a singlehanded crusade against it.Buy BF2 or counterstrike, and post complaints about those games instead. Because plenty on fora dedicated to those games will agree with you.

Actually he started the thread but he never complained about the game. He complained about that not enough people are playing it to make it worthwhile playing for him. He bought it because he was told it was an online game with tons of players. Since he's disappeared he probably is playing counterstrike


The only place where Epic got it wrong was in marketing. The game itself is actually very good.

UT2003 and UT2004 both had pretty good marketing. Especially UT2003. It would not matter if 20,000 people bought the game or 20 million, because the end result would still have been a mass exodus of players from the Unreal franchise.


I'm still confused why you continue to come here if you hate UT and Epic.

If I hated UT or Epic I certainly would not admit that UT99 was a fine game nor would I have stated what is good about the series in past threads. Those threads are probably hidden or on a global ignore list or deleted, thanks to a renegade admin who trolls these forums.

Remember Epic is not one person, it's a group of people, where probably most of them are honest and hard working individuals. It's too bad the dishonest actions of a few, may taint the whole barrel :D

Goodbye! See you when UT2007 comes out. Hal - if I'm not really banned or you decide to unban me, just post it in this thread so I know ;)

PsychoMoggieBagpuss
14th Jul 2005, 02:55 AM
Yes I admit it. Epic paid me a whole crap load of money to send naliking to coventry because they were threatened by his views that are the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
It was abso-bloody-loutly 100% nothing to do with the fact that I had gotten bored of reading 88 posts of repetitive drivel :D

We indeed do love and worship GSI here.

Thats why we all upped sticks and left, so we could admire them better from a distance.

I shall now drive to work in my new car funded by the Epic Black Ops fund
http://www.zuverkaufen-much.de/images/autobilder/astonmartin_2004/db9.jpg
from where I will attempt to plot on how I will circumvent nalikings vast intellect and superior deduction skills with my mind control ray in an attempt to bring down the bastion of all that is good and honest in this world, that being csports...








[edit]Foiled damn it, he has his tinfoil hat on!

Discord
14th Jul 2005, 03:46 AM
[edit]Foiled damn it, he has his tinfoil hat on!

NOES!!! :eek:

We would've got away with it, too, if it weren't for those meddling kids and their stupid dog...

Well anyway, just to go back to this:

I can't believe that thread got deleted (I actually posted in it).

And now you have a taste of why. ;)

These threads generally draw one honest complaint and any number of raving psychotics with axes to grind. And given that the population of INA has a high percentage of raving psychotics, the mods over there are usually pretty quick with the lock.

Well, thank God that's over anyway. :)

JaFO
14th Jul 2005, 06:10 AM
... Why in 3 years have they not addressed the problem, why would Gamespy who has known about the problem for a very long time not fix their site to filter out cheating bots and demo players like www.csports.net ...
*eh* The UT-series is for all intents and purposes the only multiplayer-game that can have bots on-line.
As a result no stats-processing site didn't even need to know that players could be bots.

Second problem : the bots only use +/- 255 different names (UT had even fewer names as the limit was at 32 bots). Players have thousands of different names. So any stat-site that counts number of players by name will see more humans even *if* Epic decided to show bots on their master-serverlist.
All any stat-site would have to do is simply eliminate all the default botnames from the list of playernames returned by the masterserver.

Third problem : bots don't cheat, players do ...

Fourth problem : bots are players ... so a site quoting stats for the number of *players* should be counting bots as well unless they explicitly stated that players ought to be human-controlled avatars in games.

5th problem :
there's lies, damned lies and then there's statistics
Anyone with even a bit of know-how of statistics knows how easy it is to manipulate the results to show whatever you want them to show. This works for both Epic/Gamespy as well as people inventing conspiracy theories like kingtroll.

btw :
units sold - (number of players on-line) = number of people that could be playing the game off-line or in a lan-environment
Of course that's ignoring the *beeps* that use the warez-version.

Never mind that just because people don't play on-line they aren't aware of the internet and/or the various mods.

Sir_Brizz
14th Jul 2005, 07:43 AM
This is all that's left to say.

rulerofNali
14th Jul 2005, 08:41 AM
eh* The UT-series is for all intents and purposes the only multiplayer-game that can have bots on-line.
As a result no stats-processing site didn't even need to know that players could be bots

Not true. quake 3, counterstrike have bots online and how does that have anything to do with UT99 not counting bots and then suddenly UT2003 counts them. You just reinforced the point that Epic used the ignorance of stat sites, in order to fool them.


Second problem : the bots only use +/- 255 different names (UT had even fewer names as the limit was at 32 bots). Players have thousands of different names. So any stat-site that counts number of players by name will see more humans even *if* Epic decided to show bots on their master-serverlist.
All any stat-site would have to do is simply eliminate all the default botnames from the list of playernames returned by the masterserver.

Once again you just proved my point (even though filtering by botnames is not a solution, and not as good as filtering by 0 ping methods). Filtering is not that difficult and www.csports.net now filters them, gamespy.com refuses to do so probably because they know it will damage UT2004.

Anyway I'm leaving this forum until UT2007 draws closer ....

-- NaliKing --

rulerofNali
14th Jul 2005, 08:42 AM
Well, thank God that's over anyway

You don't have to thank me :lol:


Yes I admit it. Epic paid me a whole crap load of money to send naliking to coventry because they were threatened by his views that are the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
It was abso-bloody-loutly 100% nothing to do with the fact that I had gotten bored of reading 88 posts of repetitive drivel

I knew it was most likely you who abused his admin priveleges. It was just a matter of deducing which admin had the lowest Intelligent Quotient ;) . If you want to learn how to moderate I suggest you use Hal as an example. He probably does not like me and likes what I have to say even less, but he is not really threatened by it and is willing to carry on a proper discussion. I have less than 90 posts in my entire post history here and you have made thousands of posts. This, combined with your behaviour, is clearly an indication of someone who does not have a life outside the Unreal Game forums and does not live in reality. It's no wonder you see criticism of the game as a personal attack against yourself. The only reason to keep you around here is maybe your avatar :D

You don't here me repeatedly saying the game sucks. Rather I point out evidence which indicates the majority of gamers just don't like these games. There is nothing wrong with repeating the same tune as long as there are people willing to listen. If you don't like it, you don't have to listen. Using your admin priveleges to satisfy your own personal agenda is just plain silly.

Goodbye and Good riddance
-- Naliking :) --

shadow_dragon
14th Jul 2005, 08:46 AM
Hey! Be carefull there Moggie. We would want the truth getting out and making a mess all over the pace now would we.

I seriously thought that guy could've turned round to something sensible eventually. I'm astounded that his paranoid conspiracy theories and his manner of mindlessly repeating his opinions and rewording them as facts and even rewording other people to shoddily piece together and argument, actually got even worse. We all told him right? He could've learnt how to debate properly a dozen times from this thread i think. I think he was lucky to go unbanned so long.

Out of interest were his posts actually hidden? Or was that another conspiracy? I can see 'em just fine. Tragically.

(Edit- Now i've seen him, now for the second time try to get "The last Word" in i'm 99% sure this guy has got to be a [mygot] member, there's just no rational, sane human being who'd behave like this otherwise.)

@ Naliking - We tried to listen to you but didn't have a point and you still don't, you lack all of the evidence that you claim to have because you have none. Simply using words like "undeniable" doesn't make something true. UT2004 IS a popular game, you want to argue, find a different topic you know something about and do it somewhere else, even i'm losing my patience with you now.

Sir_Brizz
14th Jul 2005, 08:48 AM
I have a good idea, let's register multiple accounts, evade bans, and flame the admins, that will get you in good with the community!

PsychoMoggieBagpuss
14th Jul 2005, 10:58 AM
is clearly an indication of someone who does not have a life outside the Unreal Game forums and does not live in reality.
:nag:

Hahahahahahahahahaha

You're so far from the truth it's unbelievable.
Then again that does kind of fit with the rest of your post history so game on. :D
May I also draw your attention to the ToU?

There is nothing wrong with repeating the same tune as long as there are people willing to listen.

See thats the main point isn't it, you post, everyone else posts telling you you're talking bollocks. ;) However through your (rather warped) perspective their views aren't valid as yours is the only one that counts. :lol:
Anyway I'm leaving this forum until UT2007 draws closer ....
You keep saying you're leaving but you keep coming back? Do you need some help finding the door or something :)

Olga
14th Jul 2005, 11:12 AM
PMB, I guess he means every other day, considering that every other day is a day where UT2007 draws closer.

HuggyBear
14th Jul 2005, 12:52 PM
Well, as long as I have a hard time getting a slot on my favorite servers, I'd be hard-pressed to say this game is dead.

Al
14th Jul 2005, 01:21 PM
Without reading through the other 3 pages... why is it that everyone says the UT2004 community is dead? I always see assloads of people on at all times of the day.

Please show me how the community "died".

Sir_Brizz
14th Jul 2005, 02:58 PM
naliking joined every server in the server browser and made everyone leave.

PhatAzz
14th Jul 2005, 03:12 PM
Without reading through the other 3 pages... why is it that everyone says the UT2004 community is dead? I always see assloads of people on at all times of the day.

Please show me how the community "died".

Well according to naliking, you're ass would need to be HUUUGE only to serve the multitude of BOTS that make up the actual community.

Otherwise, that ass would be small and only have humans in it.

Dunno about you, I'm not crazy about assloading.

CyMek
17th Jul 2005, 02:51 PM
Third problem : bots don't cheat, players do ...

LIES!! LIIIIIIEESS!!!

Clearly, you have never played Xan on godlike. :P

JaFO
18th Jul 2005, 04:23 AM
Not true. quake 3, counterstrike have bots online and how does that have anything to do with UT99 not counting bots and then suddenly UT2003 counts them. You just reinforced the point that Epic used the ignorance of stat sites, in order to fool them.

CS has bots on-line ?
I guess you're referring to CS:S or something similar, because if CS had something like bots in Beta 6 they certainly were aimbots and not true bots.

Besides you're only proving my point : bots in all these games were separate entities from players. Therefor it was pretty easy to check for humans.
In UT2kx players and bots are the same thing in the game, except for the fact that bots have a brain controlling their avatars. Since the (stat)servers are not interested in merely counting idiots on-line ...

I'd even argue that because stat-sites need stats to function it is in their own interest to count non-human players, because they can generate far more stats that way. As a result it's Gamespy & CSports that are cheating.


Once again you just proved my point (even though filtering by botnames is not a solution, and not as good as filtering by 0 ping methods). ...
If Epic really wanted to fool stat-sites then they'd made sure bots had non-zero pings as well :rolleyes:
Heck ... they'd probably would have made sure the game could generate an infinite number of names for bots (which is pretty easy as my utility proves).

btw : there are mutators out there that give non-zero pings to bots on servers.
They also make the bots capable of trash-talking to a certain degree.

Besides ... the only reason most people on-line even notice bots is if they are using the server as a chat-room.

I'd also suggest you avoid buying UT2k7 if you hate bots that much, because they'll become even more human-like in the next-generation.

// CyMek
Ok I'll admit ... bots cheat, but they do so to give us poor humans a chance of beating them. Without cheats they'd have godlike aim and situational awareness ...
:p ;)

nicetry
18th Jul 2005, 07:28 AM
If Epic really wanted to fool stat-sites then they'd made sure bots had non-zero pings as well
Heck ... they'd probably would have made sure the game could generate an infinite number of names for bots (which is pretty easy as my utility proves).

It was mentioned earlier as a joke that maybe Epic is now planning this for UT2007. I doubt they would do that because if it was discovered (and it would be discovered), that would be considered fraud and it would reveal their intention to make it look like they have a popular game on their hands. Kind of like the "Hot Coffee" scandal with Rockstar's Grand Theft Auto. Rockstar may have a hard time denying they put in that "porn" scene into the game because it is hidden in the game, but it is in there.

UT2004 is a good game to me, and I don't care if not many people are playing it. Yes, it seems this game is being ignored by most players even though it is a very well known game. That just means people generally don't like it, but that will not stop me from playing it. I will admit that I hate having to spend several minutes trying to find a server not filled with bots. If I wanted to play bots I would be playing offline.

I'm just amazed at how few players this game really has and it is amazing that the number of players is so low, but Epic sure has done a great job into tricking the press into believing this game is one of the most popular online shooters. Ah well I'll still play this game anyways.

Captain Kewl
18th Jul 2005, 08:16 AM
Is it really that difficult to find a server with real people on it?

(I'm genuinely curious -- I don't play online that often...)

hal
18th Jul 2005, 09:04 AM
I'm just amazed at how few players this game really has and it is amazing that the number of players is so low, but Epic sure has done a great job into tricking the press into believing this game is one of the most popular online shooters. Ah well I'll still play this game anyways.

Tricking the press? Are you sure? I've never read a single review that mentioned the huge online numbers and, being involved in the news content of this site, I'm pretty sure I've read through or skimmed about every UT2004 review/preview/article that hit the mainstream.

Again, I think I've made a pretty good case for why the conspiracy scenario is faulty. I have yet to see a good counter-argument.

HuggyBear
18th Jul 2005, 09:20 AM
Is it really that difficult to find a server with real people on it?

(I'm genuinely curious -- I don't play online that often...)

It's not hard at all - there are a ton of people on all the time, any time of the day.

Persefone
18th Jul 2005, 09:25 AM
Servers with stupid mutators, race maps, trial maps, crap maps, Face Deck only, bright skins and so on is which ruined online play.

Sir_Brizz
18th Jul 2005, 11:39 AM
It was mentioned earlier as a joke that maybe Epic is now planning this for UT2007. I doubt they would do that because if it was discovered (and it would be discovered), that would be considered fraud and it would reveal their intention to make it look like they have a popular game on their hands.
I doubt they would ever do that because it would be stupid. Not all game companies are full of idiots that don't know crap.

nicetry
18th Jul 2005, 12:04 PM
Tricking the press? Are you sure? I've never read a single review that mentioned the huge online numbers and, being involved in the news content of this site, I'm pretty sure I've read through or skimmed about every UT2004 review/preview/article that hit the mainstream.

Again, I think I've made a pretty good case for why the conspiracy scenario is faulty. I have yet to see a good counter-argument.
I've grown to like the game even though it's not popular and ya I've seen a few times that a magazine or online websites refers to Ut2004 as the king of first person shooters or is one of the most popular games around. Just from a random google search I can pull up sites with articles that think UT2004 is extremely popular:

http://www.orlandofloridaguide.com/entertainment/games/atari_news_3.htm
http://www.shacknews.com/extras/e3_2005/052005_ut2007_imprs.x
http://www.video-games-survey.com/online_gamers.htm
http://www.gameslave.co.uk/newscomments.cfm/nID/1169.cfm
http://goty.gamespy.com/2004/pc/index8.html
http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/B0001M0HE6/202-1287595-8258210

Here are a couple quotes just from a random search:

“Fan reaction has been over-the-top, demonstrating that the Unreal Tournament franchise is still the King of the Hill for online multiplayer games"

"For a while, the Unreal Tournament series took a bit of a back seat with the release of Battlefield 1942, but UT regained the crown this year in style. If you play multiplayer games at all, your library isn't complete without Unreal Tournament 2004"

"The demo of the game is already one of the most played games online ever, and the full game is likely to beat the demos awesome multiplayer record."

"The Unreal Tournament series is, without question, a big piece of the online FPS gaming puzzle. Trailing behind only the Half-Life series and Call of Duty in monthly numbers, Unreal Tournament has been going strong despite being released over a year ago."

when I mention to my buddies that I don't think the game is going to last long they always site Gamespy numbers.

It's not that difficult to find a server with people on it, but it's time consuming to find one that does not have mostly bots on it, and where I can get a decent ping. There is just way too many bots online but I guess someone has to fill the spaces. I'm wondering if csports also counts demo players. I hope not because that would mean UT2004 retail may not even be in the top 20.

As long as I can find a server I will play UT2004 until the next UT despite what the trolls keep on saying.

hal
18th Jul 2005, 12:28 PM
I've grown to like the game even though it's not popular and ya I've seen a few times that a magazine or online websites refers to Ut2004 as the king of first person shooters or is one of the most popular games around. Just from a random google search I can pull up sites with articles that think UT2004 is extremely popular:

http://www.orlandofloridaguide.com/entertainment/games/atari_news_3.htm
http://www.shacknews.com/extras/e3_2005/052005_ut2007_imprs.x
http://www.video-games-survey.com/online_gamers.htm
http://www.gameslave.co.uk/newscomments.cfm/nID/1169.cfm
http://goty.gamespy.com/2004/pc/index8.html
http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/B0001M0HE6/202-1287595-8258210

The first one is refering to the demo download - which was handcounted by distributing sites. We were asked to count ours and submit them to Atari. So you can count on those numbers.

The Shack UT2007 preview does indeed cite the erroneous numbers.

The third link is a survey of some sort.

The next link is a game-news site quoting Gamespy numbers in an attempt to make a news story. FWIW Voodoo Extreme does this sort of news post (usually weekly). I doubt that it holds much weight in any decision making process. Particularly at this late date.

The next link is a Gamespy GOTY award and it doesn't really mention any online numbers.

The last link is a collection of user reviews at Amazon.com. While I didn't read all 67 of them :D I did scan the first few and only saw mention of the demo download numbers.

All of those quotes that you pulled were from the links that I explained above. I'm not picking on you... just trying to keep things clear.

shadow_dragon
19th Jul 2005, 07:56 AM
Just to cover your specific quotes as Hal has already covered the links.
“Fan reaction has been over-the-top, demonstrating that the Unreal Tournament franchise is still the King of the Hill for online multiplayer games"
That says a lot of people like it and a lot of people have Bought an online Multiplayer game. It does not state any numbers nor does it mention specifically online numbers. It's easy to get that impression but it doesn't say it.

"For a while, the Unreal Tournament series took a bit of a back seat with the release of Battlefield 1942, but UT regained the crown this year in style. If you play multiplayer games at all, your library isn't complete without Unreal Tournament 2004"
Nothing there about online numbers. Again just saying the game is popular.An FPS can be popular without having the hugest online numbers.

"The demo of the game is already one of the most played games online ever, and the full game is likely to beat the demos awesome multiplayer record."
That's the demo and probably true.

"The Unreal Tournament series is, without question, a big piece of the online FPS gaming puzzle. Trailing behind only the Half-Life series and Call of Duty in monthly numbers, Unreal Tournament has been going strong despite being released over a year ago."
Nothing about online numbers.

As i said earlier if this is a debate about UT's popularity as for some reason it's always coming up, then to say it's not popular is just plain naive. I don't think anyone has disagreed that UT(Number) doesn't have the Most online numbers but they will disagree that it doesn't have a lot because, frankly, it does.

JaFO
21st Jul 2005, 04:44 AM
It was mentioned earlier as a joke that maybe Epic is now planning this for UT2007. I doubt they would do that because if it was discovered (and it would be discovered), that would be considered fraud ...

why fraud ?
Most (new) players already have problems telling bots from humans in UT2kx
With the improvements promised by Epic for UT2k7 it will only get worse/better.


... I will admit that I hate having to spend several minutes trying to find a server not filled with bots. If I wanted to play bots I would be playing offline.

I'd rather play with bots on-line, because waiting in a (nearly) empty server is the most boring thing ever. Besides : once enough people join the bots will dissappear anyway.
Then again ... given how players tend to act (accusing people of cheating, acting like idiots and morons) I prefer the company of bots. They at least will play the game instead of using the server as a 3d-chatroom for their gigantic egos.


I'm just amazed at how few players this game really has and it is amazing that the number of players is so low, ...
I'm not that amazed. There simply are millions of choices (not referring to mutators, but other mp-games) out there, while the amount of players with on-line capability hasn't grown fast enough to be able to give more than a few games the kind of on-line numbers that CS has.

In fact I think the real problem is that there is such a huge gap between the #1 mp-game (ie : CS/BF with thousands of servers) and the rest (with a few dozen servers at best). It makes every other mp-game/community look extremely deserted.

Especially if you've become used to being able to pick a server at will in CS it is not a lot of fun to realise that you actually need to wait a while before a server is full enough to play a decent game.

EL BOURIKO
21st Jul 2005, 05:06 AM
why fraud ?
...
Then again ... given how players tend to act (accusing people of cheating, acting like idiots and morons) I prefer the company of bots. They at least will play the game instead of using the server as a 3d-chatroom for their gigantic egos.


good point!
I really hate when people complain because they are fragged in a different way of their playing style. what a lack of respect!!

I mean, if a redeemer is here I just use it, lame or not, and people who complain about it are idiots, they should just grab the big baby instead of whining. At least bots don t cry, they play!

Wowbagger
21st Jul 2005, 05:49 AM
I cant believe this? :D
You guys sound like you PREFER to play with bots?

I buy UT200X for the ONLINE experience with HUMANS not frecking bots.

EL BOURIKO
21st Jul 2005, 06:22 AM
I cant believe this? :D
You guys sound like you PREFER to play with bots?

I buy UT200X for the ONLINE experience with HUMANS not frecking bots.

I prefer to play with bots than with cheaters
I prefer to play with bots than with whining players
I prefer to play with bots than with arrogant people
I prefer to play with bots than with respectless people
... otherwise I prefer to play with most of the rest of the humans.

HuggyBear
21st Jul 2005, 09:09 AM
bots cheat too :(

Sir_Brizz
21st Jul 2005, 11:20 AM
At least you know before you start that they are going to cheat :p

Neuroflare
21st Jul 2005, 12:22 PM
Lots of people dont even play the game online. That was especially true for ut'99. Maybe this would account for a deal of the popularity?

nicetry, there's this little button in the server browser that says filters... where you can "filter" out servers with bots.

nicetry
22nd Jul 2005, 07:11 AM
All of those quotes that you pulled were from the links that I explained above. I'm not picking on you... just trying to keep things clear.

I just quickly grabbed any example from doing a Google :). I don't think magazines and websites have to mention online numbers from Gamespy. All they have to do is peek at Gamespy's falsified numbers and form a conclusion that UT2004 is one of the most played games and since the truth is that UT2004 often doesn't come close to making the top 10, I think that is misleading. csports.net site seems accurate and it is the most comprehensive stat site for games that I have seen.

What I find odd is that Epic can't even manage their own player stats system. Epic's UT2004 stats system has been almost unuseable and out of service for like more than a year, and a decent coder could code a player stat system within a month from scratch. It was way better when a 3rd neutral party managed player stat tracking. I wonder if it is related to Epic generating false player numbers by recoding the game to count bots and demo players, since real player stats might reveal that very few people play this game. Although I don't care that much about my player stats, I just don't trust Epic to maintain any kind of tracking data system, after they would try and cheat their way into fooling everyone that they had a hit game on their hands.

Epic is becoming the Enron of the gaming world. :D

edhe
22nd Jul 2005, 07:53 AM
That's not actually funny.

Israphel
22nd Jul 2005, 08:05 AM
they would try and cheat their way into fooling everyone that they had a hit game on their hands.

I just don't get why you (and the various incarnations of naliking) worry about this so much.
Is it because you think having false player numbers makes Epic an evil corporation? If so, do you think them more evil than the likes of EA?

Is it because you think that by having false player numbers, then it fools;

a) people into buying the game, and
b) reviewers into reviewing it favourably.

Neither of these make sense to me to be perfectly honest. I wonder how many people actuallly buy the game because they think its popular. no doubt you'll tell me that you know "lots" of people who did. Well, whatever, but I know no-one. Buying games because you think it's popular is just plain dumb. You should buy a game because you like it, or because its the kind of game (ie a non-realistic FPS) that you like playing. And besides, assuming there are people who buy games because they think its popular, why would they buy the "4th most popular game" or whatever gamespy has it down as. Surely if popularity was the case they'd go for CS. Marketing a game a "the 4th most popular game" just makes no sense and no-one would bother doing it. I have never ever seen Epic use this kind of marketing ploy, indeed Steve Polge claims that UT2k4 wasn't popular in their opinion....Why would he say that if he's part of an evil conspiracy to pretend it's popular.

As for fooling reviewers? There is an assumption here that you are smarter than reviewers. That YOU can see that gamespy isn't telling the truth, but dumb old reviewers have never heard of the delphic oracle of truth that it Csports. What you are saying is that reviewers who claim the game is great online are being fooled by fake numbers. That if they were as smart as you and could see that it is merely the 12th or 14th or 251st most played game then there reviews would be different.
Perhaps these reviewers know how many people play it and reviewed it on it's merits as a game (shocking I know), or perhaps they don't just judge popularity as a comparison to CS. Because while UT is a lot less popular than CS or BF, that isn't the same as saying no-body plays it. I've never had a problem finding a server to play on...as far as I'm concerned, that's popular enough.

But the strangest thing is why you think Epic would need to fool people into buying the game. This is a UT2k7 forum, a game that's not out yet, and basically A GAME THAT EPIC DON'T NEED TO MAKE. With the licensing of UE3 to the likes of Microsoft and for PS3 games Epic are absolutely minting it. If UT2k7 sells 22 copies...the engine will still have been a success and they'll have made a truck-load of money...so why on earth would they feel any need to fabricate player numbers. As I've said, I really don't think many people buy a game because it's the 3rd/4th/5th whatever most popular game...they buy it cos it's UT or because they liked the demo (as was my case with UT2k4) or because they've read reviews and thought they should try it. Fabricating player numbers is going to sell how many...a couple thousand more copies (and I'm being generous here...as I said, I can't imagine people buying it for that reason)...Do you think Epic will notice that? Do you think it really matters to them..

Reading the interviews with Steve Polge, and using your head to realise how popular the Unreal Engine 3 is, then ti becomes obvious that Epic are making UT2k7 pretty much for the fans of the series and themselves.

I know a lot of gamers. Many of them don't play UT2k4. They don't play it because it's not their kind of game and prefer the likes of MoH and CoD, it's nothing to do with player numbers. They probably won't play UT2k7 for exactly the same reason, and Epic are no doubt aware of this, aware that their game doesn't suit the prevailing tastes in the market.
Now if they wanted to sell more games, they could slow it down, reduce the crazy movement, get rid of the outrageous weapons...basically make the game a lot simpler, easier to learn and get into....I'm sure they'd sell a lot more games. I'm sure it's popularity would increase.
I'm sure that while attracting new players, it would alienate fans of the series.

But as I said, Epic don't do that. They make the game for the community and they make the game for themselves and they don't need to give a **** about whether it's the 1st or 101st most played game..

With UE3, they really don't need to do anything else.

Sir_Brizz
22nd Jul 2005, 08:38 AM
What I find odd is that Epic can't even manage their own player stats system. Epic's UT2004 stats system has been almost unuseable and out of service for like more than a year, and a decent coder could code a player stat system within a month from scratch. It was way better when a 3rd neutral party managed player stat tracking.
Of course it was "way better whan a 3rd neutral party managed player stat tracking". They could spend 100% of their time on the development and maintenance of such a system. Are you claiming that you or anyone you know could write a stat database that supports potentially millions of unique identifiers without it crashing or hemorraging? If so, please do. I would like to see the proof in the pudding, so to speak.
I wonder if it is related to Epic generating false player numbers by recoding the game to count bots and demo players, since real player stats might reveal that very few people play this game.
Have you read ANY OF THIS THREAD? The game was NEVER "recoded" to count bots! And why wouldn't they include Demo players? They can play on the same servers that Retail players can play on (meaning that I can go join a Demo server if I feel like it, not vice versa). Bots have been counted since the UT2003 Demo came out, and when UT2004 came out it had been "recoded" to NOT count bots as much as it did in 2k3. This argument holds absolutely no water, just as it didn't earlier in the thread.

Wowbagger
22nd Jul 2005, 08:53 AM
Hmm i dont care how or when but counting Bots and even Demo players is atleast, Cheesy Tactics imho.

And it IS remarkable that they after the UT2003 UTStats debacle failed AGAIN with UT2004.

PsychoMoggieBagpuss
22nd Jul 2005, 09:17 AM
Although I don't care that much about my player stats, I just don't trust Epic to maintain any kind of tracking data system, after they would try and cheat their way into fooling everyone that they had a hit game on their hands.

Epic is becoming the Enron of the gaming world. :D

Hey naliking, re-registering under a different name isn't going to make people believe your conspiracy theories :)

Sir_Brizz
22nd Jul 2005, 09:17 AM
I don't agree. (with Wowbagger)

rulerofNali
22nd Jul 2005, 10:01 AM
I'll take the question/post. Don't worry I'm just passing through and I'm not really here. ;)

- Naliking -


I just don't get why you (and the various incarnations of naliking) worry about this so much.
Is it because you think having false player numbers makes Epic an evil corporation? If so, do you think them more evil than the likes of EA?

Is it because you think that by having false player numbers, then it fools;

a) people into buying the game, and
b) reviewers into reviewing it favourably.

Neither of these make sense to me to be perfectly honest......
assuming there are people who buy games because they think its popular, why would they buy the "4th most popular game" or whatever gamespy has it down as.


It's called the cumulative effect. Read my other posts and you have your answer. The consumer doesn't care if your game is rated 1st or 2nd or 3rd, all he cares is if the game is popular or highly rated (ie: 9/10 score in a review), and he will buy it based on that or buy it based on word of mouth. If one highly regarded magazine says the game is hugely popular, then that has a cumulative effect of being passed on from consumer to consumer, and often from magazine to magazine.

Up until now, any really successful game will generate much more than licensing engine deals. I can't speak for the next generation of licensing engines which will certainly bring in a lot of profit for Epic, but presently a good game is where the profits lie.

You think this is a trivial issue, but then what if every other developer started using this dishonest technique WHEN their game became populated mostly by bots. If Epic was an honest developer and other games were cheating, I bet Epic's Mark Rein would point this out in an interview, just as he was so quick to say that the Killzone Playstation 3 video was not really real but that Epic's PS3 demo was ;) .

It's about honesty and fair play and fair competition. It's ok to reinterpret facts to make your game look like a success but it's not ok to blatantly make up false evidence.


so why on earth would they feel any need to fabricate player numbers?

Simple. They don't want people to know the game flopped. No mystery there. :D . A developer wants to be known as a developer that always makes great games and popular ones ... not as the developer that had 4 flops in a row (if you include the xbox titles and Unreal 2). And yes "Flop" is a relative term and a flop for Epic may be considered a success for the developers who made Big Rigs.


I have never ever seen Epic use this kind of marketing ploy, indeed Steve Polge claims that UT2k4 wasn't popular in their opinion....Why would he say that if he's part of an evil conspiracy to pretend it's popular.

Maybe Steve Polge is an honest guy. As i said before "most of them are probably honest and hard working individuals. It's too bad the dishonest actions of a few, may taint the whole barrel :D"


Epic are making UT2k7 pretty much for the fans of the series and themselves.

LOL! If that's the case I hope it's a free download! :lol: :lol:

And Sir_Brizz, the bot counting which appeared in UT2003 and still present in UT2004 was left in to deceive people as to the real player count. I have demonstrated that repeatedly in this thread. Only someone who is extremely naive could believe otherwise. Epic would have denied the bot counting tactic 3 years ago if it was a harmless oversight introduced when it became apparent that no one was playing the game, and they would have corrected it 3 years ago amid all the complaints. If they do explain it one day, I'm sure they will have a good excuse since they have had 3 years to come up with one. :)

- Naliking :) -

rulerofNali
22nd Jul 2005, 10:04 AM
Hey naliking, re-registering under a different name isn't going to make people believe your conspiracy theories :)

If I re-registered then why is is nicetry's account dated long before this thread even began :lol: . I'll post my conspiracy theories as Naliking. Oh don't worry I have no intentions of staying here. Just passing through until UT2007 draws closer.

And WoWbagger seems to understand that these bot counting tactics are cheesy! :D

- naliking :) -

PsychoMoggieBagpuss
22nd Jul 2005, 10:36 AM
I was going by IP addresses ;)

Wowbagger
22nd Jul 2005, 10:56 AM
If I re-registered then why is is nicetry's account dated long before this thread even began :lol: . I'll post my conspiracy theories as Naliking. Oh don't worry I have no intentions of staying here. Just passing through until UT2007 draws closer.

And WoWbagger seems to understand that these bot counting tactics are cheesy! :D

- naliking :) -

Hm yea well, dont expect me to join your fanclub tho ;)

Israphel
22nd Jul 2005, 10:59 AM
I was going by IP addresses ;)

What you mean they're the same person...and infact there's only ONE person who really thinks that UT2k4's player numbers actually matters? :eek:

What a let down...I thought that this was a big issue and that at least 4 people had been fooled by Epics cunning and evil ploy to make us buy a game that in reality no-one...absolutely no-one plays.

rulerofNali
22nd Jul 2005, 11:41 AM
I was going by IP addresses ;)
Sure, if you were going by IP addresses then you would not have used the term re-registered, and you would know it was not me :D, unless by some astronomical coincidence we had the same IP. You would also have to assume the conspiracy that I registered several months ago in anticipation of this thread and in anticipation that I would have to abandon my old naliking account.

You just don't want to believe that people find this bot counting cheating cheesy.

- naliking :) -

[FnG] Torgo
22nd Jul 2005, 12:02 PM
Very simply stated: I have never, ever had difficulty finding people to play a pickup game with.

Nunchuk_Skillz
22nd Jul 2005, 12:24 PM
LOL! You guys are still beating the crap out of the dead horse.... In fact, I'd say you've moved on to humping the dead moose. :p hehe

Selerox
22nd Jul 2005, 12:47 PM
I'd say you've moved on to humping the dead moose. :p hehe

Don't knock it til you've tried it.

hal
22nd Jul 2005, 01:29 PM
Oh don't worry I have no intentions of staying here. Just passing through until UT2007 draws closer.

And WoWbagger seems to understand that these bot counting tactics are cheesy! :D

- naliking :) -

Don't let us keep you hanging around here in the slums then. :o

No, I think just about everyone understands that a portion of the bots are counted on Gamespy's stats. We just don't happen to agree with you on the reasons why and have made a much better case than you have.

You're advancing some of these theories as though they are fact, yet many of them just don't hold up under scrutiny. They flat-out don't make sense.

To nicetry:

I agree that the CSports numbers appear to be more accurate. I don't think that matters a whole lot to anyone though. Like i said, the majority of those reviews/previews you cited were refering to the number of demo downloads.

I agree the stats have been totally problematic. I seem to remember UT's stats being up and down, though not as much as the UT200x series. That needs to be solved, especially since Epic seems to be keen on adding a lot of extra online functionality to the UT2007 GUI.

Wowbagger
22nd Jul 2005, 01:37 PM
That needs to be solved, especially since Epic seems to be keen on adding a lot of extra online functionality to the UT2007 GUI.

Exactly!
It seems theres some nice stuff being added to the stats whats worrying me is that they promised a much better stats with UT2004 and it still sucked.

BF2 has a very nice and working stats and they had over 370000 accounts 2 weeks ago when i checked.
Im not sure if theyre using Gamespy for that tho but i know for sure that i would like Epic to handle it themselves if possible.

rulerofNali
22nd Jul 2005, 02:17 PM
Don't let us keep you hanging around here in the slums then. :)

No, I think just about everyone understands that a portion of the bots are counted on Gamespy's stats. We just don't happen to agree with you on the reasons why and have made a much better case than you have.

You're advancing some of these theories as though they are fact, yet many of them just don't hold up under scrutiny. They flat-out don't make sense.

Actually all my theories hold up under scrutiny. They contain motive, opportunity, awareness and action, backed up by real world data. I never said my theories were facts but they are logically more than likely what happened, and it's the conclusion that an Objective observer would come to. Plus it can NEVER be denied that bots and perhaps demo players have been used in order to give the appearance that UT2004 is hanging with the big boys like Battlefield 2, Wolfenstein , Call Of Duty, CounterStrike, and even the likes of Quake 3 .

But I think we can bring this all to a close by advocating that they remove this Bot counting as players feature from UT2007. Your site has Epic's Ear, so let them know that you don't want this feature. Let the game stand on its own merit. Is this not something we can all agree on? :)

And that is my final word on this subject...hopefully.

- naliking :) -

Sir_Brizz
22nd Jul 2005, 03:29 PM
Some of us just don't give a **** and never will.

I don't know about you, you seem VERY preoccupied with the stats. I, and everyone I know, almost never look at Gamespy stats. I have looked on there maybe 4 times since UT99 came out. I REALLY don't care if it's in UT2007 or not, I'll still play it. I'll buy it because I love UT and I'm sure I'll love the next one, not because Gamespy says that 400,000 people are playing two months before release. :p

hal
22nd Jul 2005, 03:48 PM
Actually all my theories hold up under scrutiny. They contain motive, opportunity, awareness and action, backed up by real world data. I never said my theories were facts but they are logically more than likely what happened, and it's the conclusion that an Objective observer would come to. Plus it can NEVER be denied that bots and perhaps demo players have been used in order to give the appearance that UT2004 is hanging with the big boys like Battlefield 2, Wolfenstein , Call Of Duty, CounterStrike, and even the likes of Quake 3 .

But I think we can bring this all to a close by advocating that they remove this Bot counting as players feature from UT2007. Your site has Epic's Ear, so let them know that you don't want this feature. Let the game stand on its own merit. Is this not something we can all agree on? :)

And that is my final word on this subject...hopefully.

- naliking :) -

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree about the merits of your arguments. But I think most people that read your arguments and then the questions and comments that I've posed about them would have to agree that your assertions are purely speculation.

I'm all in favor of removing the bot counting regardless of the reason that it is there. So, I can at least agree with you on that point. :tup:

Wowbagger
22nd Jul 2005, 04:30 PM
Some of us just don't give a **** and never will.

I don't know about you, you seem VERY preoccupied with the stats. I, and everyone I know, almost never look at Gamespy stats. I have looked on there maybe 4 times since UT99 came out. I REALLY don't care if it's in UT2007 or not, I'll still play it. I'll buy it because I love UT and I'm sure I'll love the next one, not because Gamespy says that 400,000 people are playing two months before release. :p

I agree 100% 400000 or 4000 it doesnt matter but what matters is when you cant find a good game on a server running standard maps/settings.

I started up UT2004 to checkout Spoondogs excellent map and took this screenshot.
It looks basically the same as 6 months ago when i quit playing UT.

http://w1.161.telia.com/~u16111558/ctf_servers.jpg

Now it IS important to realise that UT will never get as many servers and players like CS, CS:S or BF2 (something i really hate to admit) but thats ok as long as theres enough people and servers running on normal settings/maps.(and for me, full CB ladders and cups)

And i hope Epic, if theyre gonna run official servers again, do it with the full game and all maps (and why not some of the excellent maps the MSUC has/will brought us?)

Not like they did with UT2004, running Demoservers.

Peregrine
22nd Jul 2005, 04:46 PM
Now do a screenshot with STANDARD SERVERS checked.


...Depressing...

Sir_Brizz
22nd Jul 2005, 05:14 PM
some mutators that are not on the whitelist are not necessarily gameplay breaking.

JaFO
23rd Jul 2005, 04:26 PM
...
But I think we can bring this all to a close by advocating that they remove this Bot counting as players feature from UT2007. ...
And I still say that asking them to remove bot-counts is futile as it would require additional coding as well as extra execution time.

Instead of merely returning player-count it would have to check to see if each player was a bot.
It would have to recheck again if a player was removed since a player that leaves is automagically replaced by a bot (provided playercount < minimum playercount) ...

Compared to simply counting players and recounting them as soon as anyone really leaves the server that is quite a bit of code that could be used for better things (like more efficient net-code).

EL BOURIKO
25th Jul 2005, 06:17 AM
bots cheat too :(

indeed... that s right too. but they don t destroy your stats and they do that to challenge you, not to destroy your fun.

rulerofNali
1st Aug 2005, 06:17 PM
And I still say that asking them to remove bot-counts is futile as it would require additional coding as well as extra execution time.

Instead of merely returning player-count it would have to check to see if each player was a bot.
It would have to recheck again if a player was removed since a player that leaves is automagically replaced by a bot (provided playercount < minimum playercount) ...

Compared to simply counting players and recounting them as soon as anyone really leaves the server that is quite a bit of code that could be used for better things (like more efficient net-code).

A person new at coding could code that fix in several minutes. You increase the count when a player enters a game and you decrease it when he leaves a game. When a bot enters a game you don't increase the count and when the bot leaves you don't decrease the count. In fact a coder would easily be able to code it so that you don't even have to do any external comparisons to check to see whether it's a bot or a person, provided Epic did their C++/unreal script programming part properly :D. So the overhead is minimal at best, even if you resort to the comparison method.

For a query you just have to return the current total and certainly do not need to do any additional calculations/recalculations or recounting at any time. There would be no noticeable difference in performance. The only difference is that for UT2004, people would immediately notice that only a tiny amount of people actually play this game. For UT2007 it might actually help the game.

It's a trivial issue and one that is easily removed as easily as it was added. ;) .

Sir_Brizz
2nd Aug 2005, 10:02 AM
A person new at coding could code that fix in several minutes. You increase the count when a player enters a game and you decrease it when he leaves a game. When a bot enters a game you don't increase the count and when the bot leaves you don't decrease the count. In fact a coder would easily be able to code it so that you don't even have to do any external comparisons to check to see whether it's a bot or a person, provided Epic did their C++/unreal script programming part properly :D. So the overhead is minimal at best, even if you resort to the comparison method.

For a query you just have to return the current total and certainly do not need to do any additional calculations/recalculations or recounting at any time. There would be no noticeable difference in performance. The only difference is that for UT2004, people would immediately notice that only a tiny amount of people actually play this game. For UT2007 it might actually help the game.

It's a trivial issue and one that is easily removed as easily as it was added. ;) .
Whatever happened to you not posting here anymore? We were so glad.

So where is your backup? Have you written something you can show us, since it's so simple to do that anyone could do it?

Swerto
2nd Aug 2005, 10:32 AM
WOAH WOAH WOAH....

All I have to say is 2k4 devestated community????? 2k4 wasn't as good as 99 but it still was better than 2k3!!!

And 2k7 better be good!!!!! that conquest game mode looks kind of sketchy

Sir_Brizz
2nd Aug 2005, 10:58 AM
Your sig is too large, by the way.

Taleweaver
2nd Aug 2005, 12:03 PM
Whatever happened to you not posting here anymore? We were so glad.

So where is your backup? Have you written something you can show us, since it's so simple to do that anyone could do it?
Better yet: show it to gamespy. And while you're at it, ask for a big compensation for the amount of complaining you had to do to show everyone that their stats were wrong.

This thread just won't die :(

W0RF
2nd Aug 2005, 12:19 PM
Wow, all the drama!

Epic does not consider their success by the number of people that Lamespy or Csports or your mom are counting online, they are considering it from the number of boxes that leave the shelf. That's also a good indicator of offline popularity. If there's only about 300,000 unique identifiers online in the course of a given month, but your game has sold 1.5 million copies (made-up numbers), it stands to reason there might be one or two people not playing online. Plus, UTGirl or whatever (apologies for forgetting your name!) made an excellent point: there are other ways to play offline besides the single-player ladder. Like LANNING for instance? :rolleyes:

Anyway, Epic has no reason to fudge their playerstats because they are not basing their success on the popularity of the UT series. That was cemented when the original UT became the juggernaut it was. Have you (naliking and all your wacky clones) paid attention to how many different companies are licensing the Unreal Engine now? Both 2 and 3? Especially for the next-gen consoles coming out next year? With the licensing fees ALONE, Epic will be diving into their profits like Scrooge and his money bin until their grandchildren are too old to walk.

http://www.americanroyalarts.com/library/dl139.jpg

So tell me again why it's critically important for Lamespy stats to be artificially high? Epic is high on the hog with the success of their ENGINE, and will continue to focus on making the best game they know how to make, and while they want their quality to be recognized, selling a thousand or a million copies isn't going to make or break them. And whatever you might think of its "demise" and "devestation", the fact remains that UT2004 is an awesome GAME.

Another reason that player numbers are way down, is a nice big number. 10 billion. The video game industry did $10 billion in sales each of the last two years. It's up something like 61% since 1997. Tons of people are playing video games. More importantly, tons of people are playing TONS OF VIDEO GAMES. Across several different formats (PC / arcade / console / handheld). So the pool of players is spread out over a much wider area (especially now that on top of the absurd number of FPS and RTS games online, now we have MMOs to waste our time on). Significant numbers in ANY game are going to be a rare commodity.

Part of the huge success of UT at the time was the fact that they were a big fish in a small pond. Games who try to achieve or maintain such a status today will flame out spectacularly. Your best bet is to carve out your niche and take your piece of that huge pie. Epic's move of focus to their engine was a great BUSINESS MOVE, one permitted by their past success, and one that kept them alive and relevant while tons of other game companies are folding like a house of cards. That's not ass-kissing, that's just the facts of the business.

When you start looking at all the different aspects of running a business in an industry like this, not only does the manipulation of Lamespy stats seem implausible, it seems like a huge waste of time over a trivial outcome.

rulerofNali
2nd Aug 2005, 03:52 PM
Another reason that player numbers are way down, is a nice big number. 10 billion. The video game industry did $10 billion in sales each of the last two years. It's up something like 61% since 1997. Tons of people are playing video games. More importantly, tons of people are playing TONS OF VIDEO GAMES. Across several different formats (PC / arcade / console / handheld).

So what? The number of PC gamers has increased dramatically, and so has the number of people with high speed connections. New games with higher system requirements, with buggy code have come out and blow UT2004 away in terms of player numbers, so this argument does not explain why there was a huge rapid decline in UT2003 and UT2004 player numbers. Even before the likes of BF1942. In fact UT2003 had almost no competition when it came out.


Epic does not consider their success by the number of people that Lamespy or Csports or your mom are counting online, they are considering it from the number of boxes that leave the shelf. That's also a good indicator of offline popularity.

No it is not an indicator of offline popularity as far as UT2003 and UT2004 are concerned. See my other posts as I already explained why this is a false notion, especially when it comes to UT2003 and UT2004. UT2003-UT2004 horrid online numbers will reflect what is happening offline for reasons I explained earlier. Also judging from past NPD sales reports, I don't think UT2004 has sold all that well. UT2004 is an online game they will judge it's long term success based on online player numbers.


Anyway, Epic has no reason to fudge their playerstats because they are not basing their success on the popularity of the UT series. That was cemented when the original UT became the juggernaut it was. Have you (naliking and all your wacky clones) paid attention to how many different companies are licensing the Unreal Engine now? Both 2 and 3? Especially for the next-gen consoles coming out next year? With the licensing fees ALONE, Epic will be diving into their profits like Scrooge and his money bin until their grandchildren are too old to walk.

( I already covered the Engine licensing $$$ issue earlier and right now a hit game will still bring in much more $$$ than licensing. )

UT99 was a success in terms of popularity, the sequels were not, and UT99 was certainly no juggernaut but it was good stuff. Look at Id Software who pratically invented the FPS genre as we know today,and their reputaion as a developer took a nose dive after Doom 3. Epic has had at least 3 problematic / unpopular Unreal/UT games in a row :D . Game Industry is a tough business.

Epic definitely uses the Unreal series to judge their success as a Game maker. Their entire reputation is pretty much centered on Unreal games. UT2003 and UT2004 were meant to be played online and it's these false player numbers that often keep UT in the "news", when online and print publications talk about what games are popular. Remember Epic / Atari made such a HUGE deal about UT2003 demo downloads and UT2004 downloads and initial online player numbers.

There are plenty of reasons and motives as to why they would "fudge their player stats". I'm not going to rehash these motives since they are all laid out within the pages of this thread. I don't want to get into an argument as I am done arguing and the evidence is there for everyone to see. UT99 allowed bots online but did not count them as players, and UT2003 and UT2004 engines do count bots as players and it was implemented at a "convenient" time. It's there to fool everybody, not just Gamespy.

It really looks bad when a highly touted and pulblicized game gets hailed as being extremely popular and amazing by online sites like Gamespy and the real truth shows that UT2004 is not even as popular as Soldier of Fortune 2 or Jedi Knight : Jedi Academy.

Gamespy shows UT2004 in 3rd - 5th most popular online game when the truth is it hovers around 16th position :) . How is this fair to people that buy online games based on popularity or modders that want to mod for a popular game? Shouldn't they know the truth if they base their decision on popularity. And Taleweaver, why would I complain to Gamespy when they have posted in the atari forums a couple years back concerning the issue, but will not rectify it perhaps because it would probably hurt their relationship with Epic and their sponsors.

Counting bots and showing them as players just annoys the small remaining existing player base and it is actually hurting the UT series. So even if you agree with me or not, Do you really want to see this bot counting as player tactic implemented in UT2007? If UT2007 does not become popular, bots showing as players, will just make it even harder for the few people online to find other players quickly. Is that what you want?

- naliKing :) -

W0RF
2nd Aug 2005, 04:12 PM
New games with higher system requirements, with buggy code have come out and blow UT2004 away in terms of player numbers, so this argument does not explain why there was a huge rapid decline in UT2003 and UT2004 player numbers. Even before the likes of BF1942. In fact UT2003 had almost no competition when it came out.
No competition in terms of FPS games, but that's not indicative of all online games. Tell me you've never heard of Everquest and I'll tell you that you're a damned liar. You're also still ignoring the fact that consoles are now going online.
No it is not an indicator of offline popularity as far as UT2003 and UT2004 are concerned.
Name one other thing that people do with a game that they buy and do not play online. There's only two ways you can play a game, online and offline. This isn't rocket science.
UT2003-UT2004 horrid online numbers will reflect what is happening offline for reasons I explained earlier.
No, they will NOT reflect what is happening offline, because the reasons for liking or disliking one or the other are not always the same. Online players are not particularly concerned with bot performance, and offline players don't have to put up with n00bs, retards and a-holes clogging up their game space.
UT2004 is an online game they will judge it's long term success based on online player numbers.
Enjoy your narrow view of the situation. Forgive me if I don't share it.
( I already covered the Engine licensing $$$ issue earlier and right now a hit game will still bring in much more $$$ than licensing. )
One game will. One time. But the success of that game also has to cover the losses from all the other games from the same company that bomb. It's not all gravy.
Epic definitely uses the Unreal series to judge their success as a Game maker. Their entire reputation is pretty much centered on Unreal games.
You're still living in 2001.
UT2003 and UT2004 were meant to be played online and it's these false player numbers that often keep UT in the "news", when online and print publications talk about what games are popular.
If they were meant to be played online, there would not have been such a great investment in AI. Your arguments make no sense in light of the facts. Also, I think if you browse our news articles, you'll find there's not a lot of pimping of online numbers in the articles we cover, and in many interviews I can recall off the top of my head, just the opposite is true.
Remember Epic / Atari made such a HUGE deal about UT2003 demo downloads and UT2004 downloads and initial online player numbers.
I would praise any inidication that people are excited about an upcoming product. That doesn't mean it was meant to be online-only.
There are plenty of reasons and motives as to why they would "fudge their player stats".
None of which hold water.
I'm not going to rehash these motives since they are all laid out within the pages of this thread.
And similarly debunked.
I don't want to get into an argument as I am done arguing and the evidence is there for everyone to see.
Is this the seventh time you've left the boards now. It's okay if you don't come back. You don't have to.
UT2003 and UT2004 engines do count bots as players and it was implemented at a "convenient" time.
It was not implemented. It was always there. Get your facts right.
It's there to fool everybody, not just Gamespy.
Except it doesn't. Again, there's no basis in truth for this.
It really looks bad when a highly touted and pulblicized game gets hailed as being extremely popular and amazing by online sites like Gamespy and the real truth shows that UT2004 is not even as popular as Soldier of Fortune 2 or Jedi Knight : Jedi Academy.
I assume by "the real truth" you must mean csports. Taking a glance at it, I'd say being #14 out of 8 bajillion games is not a bad standing. If UT2004 is a dismal failure by your accounts, I'd hate to see the terms you use to describe BF: Vietnam, RTCW, Halo, RS3, FarCry, Battlefront, etc.
How is this fair to people that buy online games based on popularity
All two of them?
modders that want to mod for a popular game?
If popularity means more to modders than accessibility, cooperation with the developer or ease of use, then quite frankly, I could care less what game that person would want to mod for.
Counting bots and showing them as players just annoys the small remaining existing player base and it is actually hurting the UT series.
You seem to be the only one around here who thinks it's such a damaging factor. I bought the game cause I wanted the game. I play the game because I love the game. Am I supposed to care about online numbers? Why do you to such a great extent?
If UT2007 does not become popular, bots showing as players, will just make it even harder for the few people online to find other players quickly.
No it won't, when empty servers don't count bots, and when you can click on any server and get a complete list of the LIVE PLAYERS ON THE SERVER.

Sir_Brizz
2nd Aug 2005, 04:16 PM
Unreal Engine 2 Licensing Terms

Representing years of development and powering numerous best-selling titles on multiple platforms, the Unreal Engine 2 technology is available for license on a per-platform basis. Three platforms are available: PC, Xbox, and PlayStation2.

A PC platform license is only required if you intend to ship a retail PC game. If you are developing a console-only title, you may freely use the PC code for development, testing and for its back-end game-server components (for multiplayer games). Note that a PC license includes the right to ship your game on all personal computer operating systems, including Windows, Linux, and MacOS X; by paying once for the PC platform license you may ship on any or all of these operating systems at no additional cost.

The following licensing plans available for Unreal Engine 2:

Royalty-Bearing License - For retail console & PC products

A non-refundable, non-recoupable license fee is due on execution of the agreement. The cost is US $350,000 for one of the available Unreal Engine 2 platforms, plus US $50,000 for each additional platform. A royalty of 3% is due on all revenue from the game, calculated on the wholesale price of the product minus (for console SKUs) console manufacturer fees. In the case of massive-multiplayer online games, the royalty is also due on the additional forms of revenue including subscriptions and advertisements.

Royalty-Free License - For any products

A non-refundable, non-recoupable license fee paid on execution of agreement: US $750,000 for one of the available platforms, plus US $100,000 for each additional platform. No royalty is due on any revenue from the product.

Custom License Terms - For non-traditional products

The Unreal Engine has been used in the development of many non-traditional products, ranging from mass-market educational games to custom training applications and the non-retail America's Army game developed by the U.S. Department of Defense. For custom applications that only require script access (rather than full C++ source), and only require redistribution to a small set of clients, the Runtime Edition is available and may be more suitable than a full Unreal Engine license. Where full source code and support or widespread redistribution are required, please contact licensing@epicgames.com to discuss custom license terms.
They make at least a million dollars from each license AT LEAST.

But we've already gone over this and you don't care about facts, so why bother?

Selerox
2nd Aug 2005, 04:30 PM
I don't meant to say something that might attract the morons screaming "backseat moderator", but wasn't that guy banned?

Discord
2nd Aug 2005, 04:38 PM
I don't meant to say something that might attract the morons screaming "backseat moderator", but wasn't that guy banned?

Yep. But you should've seen enough Hollywood movies by now to know that you can't stop a man on a mission.

Take off every NaliKing for Great Justice!

rulerofNali
2nd Aug 2005, 05:14 PM
There's only two ways you can play a game, online and offline. This isn't rocket science.

Or you just don't play the game at all :D . I have a few games I bought where I never even finished the single-player and never touched the multiplayer if it had one.


I would praise any inidication that people are excited about an upcoming product. That doesn't mean it was meant to be online-only.

I never said anything about online only exclcusively. After UT99 and Quake 2, both Quake 3 and UT2003 came to be recognized as mainly games that were meant to be played online.


If popularity means more to modders than accessibility, cooperation with the developer or ease of use, then quite frankly, I could care less what game that person would want to mod for.

Actually one of the main considerations modders often use in deciding what game to mod for is popularity. What planet are you living on :D ? If a game is not popular, chances are the mod will not reach a large audience, and may not be played at all.

What you need to do is to read through the thread, as all your arguments have been addressed in earlier posts I have made. I look at things from the casual gamer's point of view, and casual gamers make up the bulk of gamers. Casual gamers buy games very often based on popularity or perception of popularity.

Sir Brizz I don't know why you posted that licensing agreement since it supports what I said about the current state of Engine licensing. A hit pc game sells around say 2-3+ million copies and a hit console game sells much more. So if Epic licenses 20 games over a 2 year period and they each magically net Epic 1 million dollars each, then that is $20 million. Whereas 1 pc game that sells 3 million copies in 2 years would yield $40 million - $100 million after expenses. Then if you consider a game like Halo2 or Grand Theft Auto then that figure would rise exponentially perhaps. This is just an estimate of course :)

Selerox and Discord, what exactly is wrong with having a friendly discussion, one which may benefit the UT series in the long run. Anyway lucky, for you I will be without access to a pc for a while so I won't be able to post after this. Thanks for having a friendly discussion ;)

W0RF
2nd Aug 2005, 10:19 PM
Yeah, but be honest, how many games sell 3 million copies? NOT VERY MANY (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best_selling_video_games) The original UT only sold 4 million. And Epic is not just licensing games, they are licensing entire companies to turn out multiple games, including games for the next-gen consoles. So there's a revolving door of income there, not just the initial one-year orgy of sales, then a massive dropoff as people move on to the Next Big Thing.
What you need to do is to read through the thread, as all your arguments have been addressed in earlier posts I have made.
Addressed very poorly, I should add. You haven't made your case very well at all, I don't know how many people have to tell you how wrong you are before you realize your critical thinking skills aren't being exercised very well here.

rulerofNali
3rd Aug 2005, 05:21 AM
I managed to get quick access to a pc terminal, so here's a quick reply before I continue on my travels to where I will not be able to post from :) .....


And Epic is not just licensing games, they are licensing entire companies to turn out multiple games, including games for the next-gen consoles

I was not referring to next generation licensing, I was referring to current generation licensing. If you read through the thread you would know that I said that next generation licensing has the potential to net Epic big profits. From what I have seen and have heard through the grapevine, Unreal Engine 3 is not the best looking engine out there but they seem to have the best marketing; plus the Renderware engine belongs to publisher EA now, which is probably one of the main reason UE3 is getting so many licensing deals :D


Addressed very poorly, I should add. You haven't made your case very well at all, I don't know how many people have to tell you how wrong you are before you realize your critical thinking skills aren't being exercised very well here.

The people who claim I'm wrong, have yet to show proof that I'm wrong, and cannot show such proof, because Epic is the only one who can deny the allegations and they have had 3 years to come up with a good excuse. But they cannot deny the evidence that has been out there for the past couple of years -- ie: UT2003 and UT2004 engines/games generate false player numbers!

If you think my arguments are poor, then you either have not read through this thread or must lack the basic comprehension skills necessary to form a plausible, objective conclusion based on the "evidence". I'm not saying you lack intelligence, but something is definitely missing ... My conclusions are not popular among Unreal fanboys because they show the Unreal franchise in a bad light, and reveals the use of perhaps fradulent means to make their games seem much more popular than they are.

You don't have to agree with my conclusions or theories, but if you can't see the undeniable plausibility of what has been presented then you lack basic logic skills of an objective observer. It's hard to deny that Epic have intentionally used false player numbers to their advantage, reagardless of how this whole debacle started.

The one thing we have in common is that we hope UT2007 will turn out ok and will be able to compete honestly against the competition, without having to fabricate player numbers. Although calling the game "Unreal Tournament 2007" could be a marketing disaster. They should reconsider that name.

- naliking :) -

Israphel
3rd Aug 2005, 05:57 AM
Although calling the game "Unreal Tournament 2007" could be a marketing disaster. They should reconsider that name.


Finally!

You said something that I can wholeheartedly agree with.

I need a drink

W0RF
3rd Aug 2005, 06:07 AM
I managed to get quick access to a pc terminal, so here's a quick reply before I continue on my travels to where I will not be able to post from :) .....
Don't let the door hit you in the butt on the way out.
I was not referring to next generation licensing, I was referring to current generation licensing. If you read through the thread you would know that I said that next generation licensing has the potential to net Epic big profits.
What do you think I've been talking about all this time?
The people who claim I'm wrong, have yet to show proof that I'm wrong, and cannot show such proof, because Epic is the only one who can deny the allegations and they have had 3 years to come up with a good excuse.
You said the implemented it in a patch to inflate low numbers, and that is clearly false.
But they cannot deny the evidence that has been out there for the past couple of years -- ie: UT2003 and UT2004 engines/games generate false player numbers!
I acknowledge that the total number of players listed online is not reflective of the number of real-life players, but I absolutely don't accept the idea that it's somehow a hidden trick, or in any way done with malice.
If you think my arguments are poor, then you either have not read through this thread or must lack the basic comprehension skills necessary to form a plausible, objective conclusion based on the "evidence".
Putting "evidence" in quotes is about the only thing in this sentence that has any basis in reality.
You don't have to agree with my conclusions or theories, but if you can't see the undeniable plausibility of what has been presented then you lack basic logic skills of an objective observer.
I can see the POTENTIAL plausibility, but like everyone else here, I reject the notion based on the fact that you are cherry-picking your facts.

Israphel
3rd Aug 2005, 06:31 AM
facts.

I've actually only seen naliking present one fact in this entire thread...that Gamespy numbers are false.
Everything else is his supposition backed up by the rock hard logic of "everybody knows".

I consider myself a casual gamer (I only own six games ffs) and have never been remotely interested in how popular a game is. As long as there are servers, well that's just fine for me.
I'm also amused by his assertation about modders and reviewers all being conned by Gamespy stats. Reviewers only reviewed it favourably because they thought it was more popular than it is, modders only mod for it because they believe it has more players than it actually does.

This is all supposition, I see no facts here. What I do see is a HUGE assumption that Naliking is smarter than these reviewers and modders. That they are all too dumb and taken in by Gamespy to know that UT2k4 is only the 12/13/14th whatever most played game. An assumption that that these reviewers wouldn't have rated it so highly had they known the evil truth, that these modders wouldn't mod for it if they knew that infact no-one plays UT2k4.

An assumption that Naliking is the only one who sees all, who sees the naked truth and can add it all up to conclude that Epic= evil.

A more likely conclusion seems to me to be that these reviewers, these modders, like pretty much everyone in this thread including myself and friends of mine who are also gamers, know that Gamespy stats are rubbish, know how popular UT2k4 is, and simply don't give a damn because they judge a game on its merits rather than online stats..
...Online stats which you have yet to prove have any significance to anyone other than yourself.

Have a nice holiday, relax and try to get the conspiracy theories out of your system

W0RF
3rd Aug 2005, 07:46 AM
Not to mention that the online stats (even those provided by CSports) are nothing to be ashamed of imho.

Sir_Brizz
3rd Aug 2005, 09:16 AM
Sir Brizz I don't know why you posted that licensing agreement since it supports what I said about the current state of Engine licensing. A hit pc game sells around say 2-3+ million copies and a hit console game sells much more. So if Epic licenses 20 games over a 2 year period and they each magically net Epic 1 million dollars each, then that is $20 million. Whereas 1 pc game that sells 3 million copies in 2 years would yield $40 million - $100 million after expenses. Then if you consider a game like Halo2 or Grand Theft Auto then that figure would rise exponentially perhaps. This is just an estimate of course :)
Did you read any of it? That's Unreal Engine 2 licensing. That means every deal they make OFF OF THEIR OLD ENGINE nets them AT LEAST a million dollars (and if they go off royalties on a game like Splinter Cell [which had 3 games made off of the license], a half a fortune more). This is ALL PROFIT. There are no manufacturing fees, publisher's fees, console fees, etc. All of it goes straight into Epic's bank account. With a game they make in house, it is unlikely that they are making more than 25-40% profit, which if you think about it, isn't much money. Most of Epic's licensing deals in recent history has been on UE3, which they don't even have a public licensing structure for yet, so we don't have a clue how much money they are raking in from it. We can be sure, however, that they are raking in alot of it from MANY different directions. Webzen alone has clearly licensed several copies of the engine. If we're talking about licensing, let's talk about ALL of their licensing, not just one generation of it. It's pretty obvious that Epic isn't hurting for money, and, if they had the desire, I see no reason they couldn't move right into making publishing deals for small companies. I simply don't think they have any interest in that part of the market.

As for Halo2, how much money do you REALLY think Bungie saw from that game? Probably hardly any. Microsoft got it, their PUBLISHER. Same with GTA, Take2 likely made more off of it than Rockstar did. If you really worked in the industry you would know wages are relatively low regardless of whether your game is an instant-hit or a bombshell.

As for your mods argument, see the attachment. Even if we go by the 80/20 rule, there are likely AT LEAST 45 ACTIVE mods. That is quite a high number for ANY game. Even if only half of those were active (90/10'ing it which usually doesn't reflect real results), 22 mods is a buttload of mods for any one game.

So once again all you have is your opinioins based on other opinions that have no basis in fact or likelihood. We'd appreciate it if you'd come back with something TANGIBLE next time.

BlackDragon323
12th Aug 2005, 02:39 PM
I read thru some of the beginning pages of this thread, but thought I'd post my opinion:

I love UT2k4 and the Unreal series in general. I played Quake , it was "ok". Go on a Friday or Saturday night on to either Q3, UT,UT2k4,D3....and you'll find more numbers in the Unreal series of games more so than Q3 or Doom3. It's a fact, all you have to do is look.


But what I really wanted to say was that if the Unreal community had something like Quakecon to look forward to every year, I personally think that the Unreal community (both the UT die hards and the UT2xxx fans) would be brought together a lot better. That is the one thing that I think the Quake/Doom community has over us: they have an yearly event to look forward to that acts as a giant LAN and opportunity to meet the makers of your favorite game, give feedback directly to them, meet the people you have been playing with and just generally have a great time together.

If we had something like that, I bet that our communities wouldn't be so divided over which version is better, who has more players, etc.

Maybe when UT2k7 comes out some kind of Unreal yearly event can be organized (we still have time!). Even if there isn't I will still continue to enjoy UT, UT2k4 and UT2k7 regardless.

Peace,
-=JAJ=-

Peregrine
12th Aug 2005, 05:02 PM
...must not re...ply....

Aw hell....
This is STILL going on just 'cuz this guy says Epic is inflating thier numbers?!?! And you all continue to argue with him? Cease and desist. Who cares?
It ain't worth it.

Only one point I want to make. Crazydude says "online player #'sb determine a games success". Bulls***. ONE THING and ONE THING only determines a games success....

HOW MUCH MONEY DID IT MAKE?!?!

True you won't get as many mods/muts for a low online count game...but if that game made the company $3 mill.....it's a freaking success.

Slyrr77
13th Aug 2005, 04:39 PM
The main reason I don't do much random on-line match joining is that there are so MANY dang mods out there that you can't join a non-standard server without having to downloads tons of useless junk.

By the time I finish getting all the packages, skins, maps, models, .u files and other custom garbage which glut every UT200X server, I get too impatient and just cancel out.

Plus, it seems that even servers that have the SAME mods running make you download the same stuff when you switch between them. I can't count the number of times that a server has forced me to download "RPG" mod files, even though I already have the mod installed myself! It's as if someone who got the mod changed a couple lines in the script files or something, forcing everybody to download HIS custom version.

A long time ago, I ticked 'standard servers only' and left it that way. Just so I wouldn't have to endure all that. While I love the ability to modify games (I do player models), and appreciate how easy EPIC made it to mod this game, it has simply gotten out of control to the point where you can't just casually surf the game/internet browsers and join any map you want. You just can't.

And why would you want to play on line, if you know that when you join you're going to have to run off for a snack or something while you download at least 15 minutes worth of useless junk for each and every server you try to join?

Hopefully they'll fix this in UT2007. Everyone loves a good mod - but everyone is just going too custom-crazy with this game. What happened to good ol' solid gametypes? That's why halflife and counterstrike are beating the pants off everyone else - you don't have to worry about being denied when you try to join, because you don't have such and such files, or have to spend ages waiting for this and that to download.

Slyrr

PersefoneBrother
13th Aug 2005, 04:52 PM
UT 2004 is :instagib: baby, try Quake 3 :rockon:

Sir_Brizz
13th Aug 2005, 11:47 PM
No.

http://www.aunaocio.com/personal/8/7/Rubbargon/imagenes/album/unbancdkey3oq.jpg





I think the reason we don't have UCon is because 1) Epic works. and 2) the Unreal community has always been a bit more mature than any other community and organizing transcontinental events is harder for people that have jobs/lives/families.

Kantham
13th Aug 2005, 11:52 PM
He isn't banned yet?

1337
14th Aug 2005, 12:21 AM
Don't try forcing people to pay for servers and not be able to put whatever they want on it. There are plenty vanilla non-IG TDM and CTF servers with only antitcc and/or utcomp packages required to d/l. Atari or epic or somebody hosted several vanilla servers without mapvote, but you just might not see a lot of people in them. If there was a larger number of active players that wanted vanilla servers, there would be more active vanilla servers.

I'm pretty sure the "only display standard server" box is checked by default.

There are plenty vanilla servers out there, just no one is playing in them, because there is a lack of players that like playing ut2004 default settings, that also play very frequently, enough to keep a server active. Inorder for a server to keep active, there needs to be a core group of players that go to it often to lure other players into the server. Servers with specific settings generate a core group of players that solely go to that server.

But there are still lots of servers out there that are vanilla, except for TCC or utcomp that are very active, the reason being that they're quality servers that have little lag or p/l or are more exclusive to a type of player that plays frequently.

The only way a newcomer is going to find a crowded vanilla game of ut2004 is in a demo server. The regulars that go to demo servers are there because the demo server is crowded, either that or they don't have the retail version. :D

Don't try forcing certain settings down the throats of people that pay for there own servers.(had to say again :-])

If they were to do anything to make it easier for people to play vanilla games, they should just make more advanced server browser settings. Don't be a tyrant. Spoiled ut followers wont stand for that. :D

Stop whining

Capt.Toilet
14th Aug 2005, 01:06 AM
The above post = :lol: with the arnold quote

As for this whole shim sham of a thread, yeah its crap that the figures are as low as they are, but there is a remedy for everything. Stay here and post, get to know everyone, and do the same thing with Atari's hooligans, then will find people to play with and hopefully have a good time at that. Like Worfy said, its not rocket science.