Should UO go the LotRO way?

[Merion]

I don't play Lord of the Rings Online but I heard about their new model and I think this is a really good way to go about this and could be adopted for UO.

There you can choose between Free 2 Play or Subscription. If you choose monthly subscription, you get VIP status and pretty much nothing changes. Free2play costs no monthly fee, but you have to pay extra for increased storage, character slots, access to areas and so forth.
See LotRO Model here

I think if it is thought through and implemented well, this could work for UO too.

What do you think?

 

[Uvtha]

There were several other lengthy discussions about this recently, opinions seem pretty mixed.

UO was actually set to go F2P, but then mythic took over, and put the kibosh on it.

 

[Lord Frodo]

There were several other lengthy discussions about this recently, opinions seem pretty mixed.

UO was actually set to go F2P, but then mythic took over, and put the kibosh on it.

Please show me where UO was ever going to be F2P. 12 years and I never heard this from any UO Rep.

I wouldn't mind UO F2P as long as free players COULD NOT HAVE HOUSES, NO VET REWARDS, no power scrolls, no stat scrolls, no factions, no guilds, no arties, restricted to Tram Fel and maybe Malas, no champ spawns or Doom just basic UO with 700 skill points and 100 max in any skill.

 

[Uvtha]

Please show me where UO was ever going to be F2P. 12 years and I never heard this from any UO Rep.

I wouldn't mind UO F2P as long as free players COULD NOT HAVE HOUSES, NO VET REWARDS, no power scrolls, no stat scrolls, no factions, no guilds, no arties, restricted to Tram Fel and maybe Malas, no champ spawns or Doom just basic UO with 700 skill points and 100 max in any skill.

Draconi said it himself in a thread about subs:

You know, it's interesting. Darkscribe wanted to make UO free to play back in the day. We were actually going to announce the decision right when Mythic was acquired by EA. Literally the week before the decision, after we built up the whole Inu plotline, he came back from a meeting with the Mythical folk and we learned that the plan was scuttled.

Its in this post sommwheres

I wish they would have. It would have been a ground breaking move, and the game would most likely be much healthier than it now is. I still hope its an option that is at least "not out of the question".

 

[Ender]

Oh yes, let's have free accounts be basically unable to do anything that regular players do on a daily basis! Great idea!

No owning houses I would agree with, maybe no veteran rewards (although being able to purchase and use them at the right age would be fine). Less character slots would probably be a good idea (more would be buyable). If you really want to restrict their access to 95% of the game, allow them to pay a one-time fee for access to it. That's how LotRO is doing it.

 

[Merion]

Maybe they could be restricted to, say, 7x7 houses and then buy their up in increments like 12x12, 18x18, Keep, Castle?!?

Just an idea - of course, things like that need to be thought through and balanced nicely.

 

[hawkeye_pike]

What I think would work:

Subscriptions stay as they are.
Allow very restricted free access to UO. People should be able to play for free for an unlimited time (free accounts not used for 6 months should be deleted though), with some restrictions to prevent abuse and spam. E.g. limited amount of gold in the possession of the account, not able to build or own houses, no vendors, not able to hold books and runes, access to legacy dungeons only, no rewards, stable slot for only one pet, etc.

The object would be to give players the possibility to explore UO and its game mechanics for free, with the goal to turn them into subscribers once they see how fantastic the game is.

 

[Flutter]

Please no.
Free to play games attract a really lousy playerbase. Anyone who's played any FTP games knows this.

 

[Vexxed]

I have NO IDEA what your poll is about lol.....

 

[TitusPullo]

Please no.
Free to play games attract a really lousy playerbase. Anyone who's played any FTP games knows this.

I completely agree for the most part. However, Dungeons and Dragons online, the first (I think) class A massively multiplayer game to go F2P had quite different results. I was shocked how friendly and helpful their community was when I visited the game.

 

[Storm]

dont ruin a good thing

 

[WarderDragon]

What I think would work:

Subscriptions stay as they are.
Allow very restricted free access to UO. People should be able to play for free for an unlimited time (free accounts not used for 6 months should be deleted though), with some restrictions to prevent abuse and spam. E.g. limited amount of gold in the possession of the account, not able to build or own houses, no vendors, not able to hold books and runes, access to legacy dungeons only, no rewards, stable slot for only one pet, etc.

The object would be to give players the possibility to explore UO and its game mechanics for free, with the goal to turn them into subscribers once they see how fantastic the game is.

I am not in favor of F2P. But if the developers ever decided to go this route I could live with this.

 

[TitusPullo]

I am not in favor of F2P. But if the developers ever decided to go this route I could live with this.

If they opened up new F2P servers and gave everyone the option to continue as they were before, what's the downfall? It seems like a huge positive for everyone involved. More cash means better development for the paid accounts on their regular servers and for the F2P servers..

 

[Arcus]

Please no.
Free to play games attract a really lousy playerbase. Anyone who's played any FTP games knows this.

^^^ THIS ^^^

No need to say anything more. The hurdle of having to get a parent's credit card to play weeds out sooooo many issues. Thats just the start of it.

 

[Arcus]

If they opened up new F2P servers and gave everyone the option to continue as they were before, what's the downfall? It seems like a huge positive for everyone involved. More cash means better development for the paid accounts on their regular servers and for the F2P servers..

How does my $14.99 a month subscription going to $0.00 per month = more money??

 

[Rainforest]

I have played both P2P and F2P online games, both models earn profit through different mechanism. You will be surprised that so many ppl are willing to spend real $ to purchase various "extra feature" in game, eg. house deco, custom, mount, weapon etc but all these come with a limited time frame, which means u need to keep spending $ if u want to look good.

Looking at the UO's current state, i would say this is a viable method to generate more income, as well as getting more new players. Of course, keep those F2P acc to basic stuff, may be only 1-2 char per acc, no housing, no vet rewards etc... but F2P players should have the same capability to compete in game as well.

 

[Aurelius]

Voted no, keep subs, and since the request was to explain why..

It isn't a casual game. Attempting to draw in casual players for 'free' is not going to work when they look at the complexity of the game, are baffled by the massive learning curve, and can go to other, easier and more familiar (and for many people, better looking and more polished) free to play mmos out there.

All you would be likely to get is a rush of people going 'meh, it's free' why not...' who leave a few days later for something they prefer.

Keep the subs model, hold on to the long term players by actually fixing what's wrong, occasionally publicise that the game exists. Most of all hammer into whatever passes for brains in the lunatics of accounts and marketing it isn't now, never was, and never will be anything like as financially rewarding as WoW and such, and to settle for a decent regular profit and stop daydreaming about impossible fantasies. Then you'll have a good solid game for years to come. All FTP would do is overload servers and comms with a ton of people who were realistically never going to stay....

 

[Taylor]

For full access, I prefer the subscription model. I want to have a very clear bottom line for access to absolutely everything. Also, I like that I can earn items/gold/skills/scrolls/etc. without paying extra.

That said, a limited-access, EA-supported free-to-play shard could bring in a lot of players. Once these players get hooked, they might choose to sign up for a subscription. I could get behind an idea like this.

 

[Llewen]

"Free to Play" ends out being more expensive in the long run for players who love the MMO in question. It's great for casual players who want to just dabble, but for anyone who wants to really get into the game, "f2p" becomes a money sink.

It's a horrible idea, and games like EVE and WoW show that it isn't the only successful MMO business model out there. It is quite simply, a fad in the industry right now, and my guess is that in the long run it isn't going to be anywhere near as successful for MMO publishers in general as it is for some right now.

 

[Merion]

The way I see it, if you allow F2P then it shouldn't be as crippled as a trial account. Maybe to begin with, but a F2P Player should be able to compete with a VIP (Subscription) Player - but it should cost him! Probably more than if he payed a subscription, so luring him into a subscription if he wants to stay.

And even if 95% of the F2P Player leave after a short while or never buy anything, those 5% who stay and invest some cash could make up for the slow but steady decline of subscription.

Plus, even the people who only test it for a short while will help the cause as the will get the word out there, that UO is still out there. Too often if you read about UO, it sounds as if it was a thing of the past that shutdown years ago, not that it is still a living game.

*steps from soapbox*

 

[Llewen]

I should perhaps restate my position. I don't have any problem with a tiered subscription system with what ammounts to an extended "free trial" as the bottom tier. As long as the restrictions are well thought out and the "free" tier can't be abused, and as long as the tier that allows full access isn't more expensive than the current subscription is.

I also absolutely do not want to see more in game items being sold on the UO Game Codes store. In game items should be earned through game play. I honestly don't have a problem with items and gold sold for real $$ as long as they were earned in game, and honestly, but I have no interest in a game where how successful you are depends solely on how much money you are willing to throw at the game.

If UO ever becomes like that, and it is dangerously close to that now, I will be closing my accounts.

 

[Trebr Drab]

If they go to a FtP model of any kind, the game's development will start to turn towards that. Especially with EA execs calling the final shots.

I recognize the business aspects involved and that it would do wonders for that end. That's why I fear it. I think they will go that way, unless they make radical changes that work to the existing game first. I don't have faith that that will happen. I think UO is doomed to fall into the FtP system and gear towards that, changing UO even farther away from it's original design than what they've already done. I really hope I'm wrong, and that they are going to announce several key things I think would work. But all my hopes in the past have never happened exactly because of guys like Darkscribe.

And think about this. Just about every failing game is going to FtP. How much business to take from this is out there? Can UO, as is, compete with LoTRO? With the others? My point is that UO needs to make some big changes, some big advances, and to be truly different. This won't do that. It's sweeping the problems under the rug and hoping the rug looks good enough, and it doesn't. If UO wants to continue with this level grind through items game system, they can't compete with other, newer, level grinds that come in full 3D. Hell, most new level grinds are having trouble competing with the greatest level grind as is, and so they are jumping on this FtP sham thinking it will save them. Temporary solution. Like watering down the beer because you're running low instead of ordering more beer.

Of course, Uo plays good on low end systems. The 3rd world folks who got their free laptops will be happy for that.

 

[Mapper]

How does my $14.99 a month subscription going to $0.00 per month = more money??

People who don't want to pay 15 dollars a month will join a F2P server, Some may stick to free, Others, And I think quite a lot! Will pay for the odd thing, Housing, more skill cap, All these micro transactions UO wouldn't have had in the first place = More money.

 

[Arcus]

People who don't want to pay 15 dollars a month will join a F2P server, Some may stick to free, Others, And I think quite a lot! Will pay for the odd thing, Housing, more skill cap, All these micro transactions UO wouldn't have had in the first place = More money.

Ok I get what you are saying ; they will have the existing servers with paying subs and open up F2P servers with micro transactions.

 

[lucitus]

No i like the way how it is now.

Think of it is free, then more and more idiots not really interested in this game comming in and the problem is the Devs are forced to create items which are destroying the balance which has been created over years!

No i pay for UO! And iam proud to pay for it, because it gives me soo much for only a few dollars in month.

Maybe we can consider if EA is selling gamecodes for gold, but this is only a slight idea.

 

[SirZ]

Please no.
Free to play games attract a really lousy playerbase

+

You're absolutely right!

With subscription we have a strong players community. Free 2 play trolls will destroy it.

 

[Nexus]

I don't play Lord of the Rings Online but I heard about their new model and I think this is a really good way to go about this and could be adopted for UO.

There you can choose between Free 2 Play or Subscription. If you choose monthly subscription, you get VIP status and pretty much nothing changes. Free2play costs no monthly fee, but you have to pay extra for increased storage, character slots, access to areas and so forth.
See LotRO Model here

I think if it is thought through and implemented well, this could work for UO too.

What do you think?

I've been playing the F2P Beta for LotRO and since the NDA was lifted I'll reply to this....

Their model works, but there are a lot of things in the game that you don't See in that Chart that effects F2P players because you see a brief summary in their Model, not the whole deal...

There are things you WILL have to buy just to be able to enjoy the game, which is by design, while The players aren't restricted from housing the currency restrictions limits their options of houses horribly, your ability to sell items is restricted horribly as F2P you cannot trade gold to any other player, use the in game Auction system (which replaces Vendors). Progressing your character becomes the worst grind of any game I've played past lvl 25 or so, because once you finish questing in the first 2 areas of the game you have to purchase all content outside The "Epic" Storyline events, it would be like being able to build a character in UO but not allowed to enter any dungeon, champ spawn, or peerless without purchasing them 1 by 1. The game uses the "Global/Regional/Private" type chat system many games use, and unless you receive a message from another player first you cannot send a private message to them. Character development is restricted, while you can reach cap level, you cannot apply all attributes (Traits that give buffs while equipped) available to a character without purchasing slots after the first or second depending on the type of trait. Skirmishes (sort of like Raids) are limited without purchasing access to them separate so don't count on excellent equipment unless you can craft it or get lucky and find it on the auction house which you can buy from just not sell, since you know you can't buy it from other players since you can't trade currency. You can't even ride a horse without purchasing the skill first...then you have to buy the mount either in game or from the store.

If you only want 1-2 characters LotRO's model is good, you can purchase up the things you want for those characters and have pretty much full access to everything but it's cheaper to pay $30 ever 3 months build characters and decide which one's you want to keep in the end...

For UO to run on Micro Transactions.......

F2P would have to have the following
Limit on gold per Account
Housing Restrictions
Mount Restrictions
No drops of Power Scrolls over 110 or ability to use
No Trans Scroll Drops or ability to use
Skill Restrictions.. Maybe only "Basic" templates and not the ability to make Hybrid templates.
Trade Restrictions
Storage Restrictions
Character Restrictions
Equipment Restrictions (Maybe only able to wear Store Bought Character Bound Artifacts for example)

All of those would require some method to remove them from a store, along with exclusive items that everyone subscription or not would want to purchase. Maybe sub based accounts have access to purchase enhanced artifacts like the one's Factions have on a Per Character Basis.

 

[R Traveler]

Maybe they could be restricted to, say, 7x7 houses and then buy their up in increments like 12x12, 18x18, Keep, Castle?!?

Just an idea - of course, things like that need to be thought through and balanced nicely.

Token for 1-2 store classic only houses, must be manually refreshed, no customization and no trading.

Anyway, NO

 

[Silverbird]

There wre so many ppl abusing trial accounts for really a long time. To prevent them to go back to their old buisiness you would need to restrict F2P-accs to the limitations of todays trial-accounts.

 

[lucitus]

There wre so many ppl abusing trial accounts for really a long time. To prevent them to go back to their old buisiness you would need to restrict F2P-accs to the limitations of todays trial-accounts.

Yeah i would say you cannot do it like the LoTro way maybe like the EQ 2 way with different shards, i cannot say how this will affect our wonderfull community, so i say no to this!

 

[MalagAste]

My feelings are if they did do a Free to Play which I am totally for, it should be on it's own separate shard.

They should build a "free shard" that has all the "bare bones" but only allows say 2 story size housing no castles, no keeps and no towers.

If you want to move beyond that you would need to upgrade and transfer to a "paid" shard.

But the "free" shard would not allow you to take items or anything but your character when you transfer. You would not get any "gifts" like the paid shards do. So at X-Mas and the anniversaries you wouldn't get anything special, there would be no powerscrolls, no SoT's no Alacrity scrolls... just New Havens bonus that's it.

This would allow folk to get a feel for the game, get into learning all about it and test out most stuff but would NOT flood other shards with ill gotten gains from say hordes of bots mining and lumberjacking and such on free shards then transferring to paid shards to reap the rewards.

And folk who get attached to their characters can still keep them.

Just a thought.

 

[Evlar]

I don't see a problem if the F2P shards are seperate.

On the F2P shards, they can sell whatever, however they want.

If a player later decides they want to subscribe, they can do so and transfer their character(s) to one of the production shards, with obvious restrictions on any content they bring with them.

Keeps everyone happy.

 

[Zalan]

F2P really draws in the crowd you don`t want to play with.

 

[AesSedai]

F2P really draws in the crowd you don`t want to play with.

- And that's about my thoughts on that subject.

 

[canary]

I think I'd possibly see some friends on here from time to time I havent seen in YEARS... so I would welcome a f2p model.

 

[TitusPullo]

F2P really draws in the crowd you don`t want to play with.

Following the EQ2 F2P model, you don't force your existing player base to play with the F2P folks unless they specifically choose to do so by opting out of their monthly subscription fee by transferring to the F2P *only* servers.

 

[Trebr Drab]

2 FtP games going down.

Earth Eternal is up for auction and otherwise will close as soon as their hosting provider pulls the plug for non-payment.

Cronicles of Spellborn will be closed at the end of this month.

 

[canary]

Cronicles of Spellborn will be closed at the end of this month.

Well, it is a BEAUTIFUL looking game, but they really should have called it 'Chronicles of the Stillborn', because it never really found its footing.

 

[Uvtha]

+

You're absolutely right!

With subscription we have a strong players community. Free 2 play trolls will destroy it.

I don't think this is necessarily true, and its quite possible to keep tabs on, and cut down the obnoxious. And when you say something like "trolls" it seems like you mean message boards. Thats easy to stop by reinstating the old UO.com boards and only let full subscribers use it.

If its done right, and its not THAT hard to figure out, it can be nothing but good. There are a ton of ways to do it, and more over there are a ton of ways that wouldn't effect how we play our game at all as it is now, except there would be more people around to play with.

Most web based f2p games are complete jokes. In other words they exist ONLY to make money, and the developers could care less who gets mad, and its no wonder they have annoying player bases, no one tries to keep them in check.

 

[Phineas le Monge]

Limit F2P access to Felucca only...