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.
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:hal said:
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:
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.
nicetry said:
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
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
is ironing his panties!
Just to cover your specific quotes as Hal has already covered the links.
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.
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.nicetry said:
Nothing there about online numbers. Again just saying the game is popular.An FPS can be popular without having the hugest online numbers.nicetry said:
That's the demo and probably true.nicetry said:
Nothing about online numbers.nicetry said:
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.
why fraud ?nicetry said:
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'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 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.
JaFO said:
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!
I cant believe this?
You guys sound like you PREFER to play with bots?
I buy UT200X for the ONLINE experience with HUMANS not frecking bots.
You guys sound like you PREFER to play with bots?
I buy UT200X for the ONLINE experience with HUMANS not frecking bots.
Wowbagger said:I cant believe this?
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.
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, there's this little button in the server browser that says filters... where you can "filter" out servers with bots.
I just quickly grabbed any example from doing a Googlehal said:
. 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.
nicetry said:
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.
Last edited:
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.nicetry said:
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.
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.
And it IS remarkable that they after the UT2003 UTStats debacle failed AGAIN with UT2004.
nicetry said: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.
Hey naliking, re-registering under a different name isn't going to make people believe your conspiracy theories
I'll take the question/post. Don't worry I'm just passing through and I'm not really here.
- Naliking -
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.
. 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.
"
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 -
- Naliking -
Israphel said:
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.
Simple. They don't want people to know the game flopped. No mystery there.Israphel said:
. 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.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 barrelIsraphel said:
" LOL! If that's the case I hope it's a free download!Israphel said:
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
-PsychoMoggieBagpuss said: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
. 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!
- naliking
-
Last edited: