UT2004's devastated community and UT2007's future
- Thread starter raveno
- Start date
-
Two Factor Authentication is now available on BeyondUnreal Forums. To configure it, visit your Profile and look for the "Two Step Verification" option on the left side. We can send codes via email (may be slower) or you can set up any TOTP Authenticator app on your phone (Authy, Google Authenticator, etc) to deliver codes. It is highly recommended that you configure this to keep your account safe.
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.Sir_Brizz said:
This thread just won't die
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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.WORF said:
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.WORF said:
( I already covered the Engine licensing $$$ issue earlier and right now a hit game will still bring in much more $$$ than licensing. )WORF said:
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
. 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
-
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.rulerofNali said:
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.
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.
Enjoy your narrow view of the situation. Forgive me if I don't share it.
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.
You're still living in 2001.
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.
I would praise any inidication that people are excited about an upcoming product. That doesn't mean it was meant to be online-only.
None of which hold water.
And similarly debunked.
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.
It was not implemented. It was always there. Get your facts right.
Except it doesn't. Again, there's no basis in truth for this.
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.
All two of them?
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.
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?
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.
Last edited:
Nailed more than once possibly...
I don't meant to say something that might attract the morons screaming "backseat moderator", but wasn't that guy banned?
I don't meant to say something that might attract the morons screaming "backseat moderator", but wasn't that guy banned?
Selerox said:
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!
Or you just don't play the game at allWORF said:
. 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 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.WORF said:
Actually one of the main considerations modders often use in deciding what game to mod for is popularity. What planet are you living onWORF said:
? 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
Yeah, but be honest, how many games sell 3 million copies? NOT VERY MANY 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.
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.
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 .....
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 -
.....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 dealsWORF said:
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!WORF said:
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
-
rulerofNali said:
Finally!
You said something that I can wholeheartedly agree with.
I need a drink
Don't let the door hit you in the butt on the way out.rulerofNali said: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
What do you think I've been talking about all this time?
You said the implemented it in a patch to inflate low numbers, and that is clearly false.
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.
Putting "evidence" in quotes is about the only thing in this sentence that has any basis in reality.
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.
W0RF said:
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
Last edited:
Not to mention that the online stats (even those provided by CSports) are nothing to be ashamed of imho.
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.rulerofNali said: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
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.
Attachments
Last edited by a moderator:
BlackDragon323
Free Citizen of the World
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=-
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=-
...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.
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.
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
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
baby, try Quake 3 