Low online, free2play solution... again

[A Thought Elemental]

What they need is GM tools and traps in the code to detect bots. I wouldn't advise PunkBuster or similar rootkits, but there's a moment when it becomes a needed crutch.

The ways WoW fights this stuff is nothing short of amazing. They watch server-side and client side. When they find a new bot, they will watch all its actions etc, learning about it, maybe even move the botting character to a special world area to see how it reacts. And they develop serverside code to both detect and break the bot's internals, and once that's done, they do a big fat bansweep + patch. They've watched their abusers so hard that they've got automatic banning in place for certain character actions which are typical of abuse (now and then legit players get caught in that net but those are investigated and reversed where warranted). They record all player chat and interactions for possible viewing during later investigations.

It's become so hard to bot and farm in WoW that goldsellers are now getting their gold by hacking player accounts instead. And that's increasingly hard to do due to players owning authenticators these days (despite what you may hear otherwise). I think its mostly new players who get their stuff hacked.

It's involved to do this powerfully - practically a career track of its own if you are the 'dev' working on this stuff - and I am thinking that UO may not have been allocated the manpower to kick ass on this front.

 

[Trebr Drab]

Of course it's got a bunch of newbies. It's newly FREE!
-That doesn't mean they are going to spend money on it. At least for very long.

... why do you assume they wont?

-There's always going to be that initial rush of Cash Shop sales from people who get excited initially. It drops off dramatically unless the entire game is based on RMT. Is that the game you want? Play to make money to pay for the pizza? Watch corporate gamerica demand changes to suit their pocket book?

I dont understand. Its ok for "corporate gamerica" to demand 14 bucks a month from you to play... but making that 14 optional is somehow evil? Some evil game overlords didn't like... decree this new payment model. Like everything else in business someone took a risk, and it worked, so people emulate them. Theres only ONE reason games are going f2p from a subscription model...it works better.

-You don't see either DDO or any other of these traditional RPGs bragging about anything after that initial rush. Why do you suppose not?

DDO was the third most played MMO of 2010. Behind only WOW and Runescape (which is also free) and I have seen no evidence that they are slowing down. It might have something to do with the fact that it fell out of YOUR sphere of attention.

And finally....
-For Gods sake, why the hell am I even posting? I'm done with MMORPGs and really don't care anymore, because the lunatic run to cheap arse games for the pizza and tooth decay crowd has taken over.

I think you have a clear bias against f2p, which is fine, but I don't really get it. Just because a game is f2p doesn't mean that a) they cant also have optional subscriptions so that the ONLY change current players would see is more people to play with, or b) that f2p cant be done well or done poorly... that its ALL done poorly no matter what. That's just blatant prejudice.
Are there bad f2p experiences out there? Of course. Are there good ones? Yes, there very much are.

I think its more a problem of perception that anything.

wutever, I don't care.

[YOUTUBE]_Xm1XErUvXo[/YOUTUBE]

 

[Woodsman]

I still think it's funny that people call it "Free to play" since it's not free to play, it's free to try out. The moment you spend a dollar, it stops being free to play. Extended trial is a more realistic term. "Free to play" was a term created by marketing types to take advantage of gullible people.

UO in its current state is just not going to attract the numbers of people that we as players want - it needs a major graphics overhaul, improved EC, etc.. The current high resolution graphics update that has been started is a start. I won't fire up the 2D/3D debate again although I think it's great that the high resolution graphics are being done in 3D first, because that may lay the groundwork for a 3D system down the road. UO also needs many other things done, although this year has been good in some ways - under Cal and now under Jeff, work is being done on bugs, on fleshing out or reworking existing areas.

There still needs to be a better new user experience, and I have not seen anybody discuss that in a long time. Without a better new user experience, any new players regardless of how they are paying, are going to have a tough time. The heads of BioWare even made a big deal earlier this year about how they realized that the first few hours in a game is going to make or break that game, and I thought that the improved new user experience that Cal announced was the result of that. Dark Age of Camelot got a much improved new user experience, and I thought that UO would be next, but that's obviously not happening..

Ironically, the very things I mentioned above are the kinds of things that could bring old UO players back as well as interest newer players.

That's because UO's problems are not in relation to how people pay for it. If you're in a sinking boat, and you're bailing out water with a 5 gallon bucket and you trade that 5 gallon bucket for 5 1-gallon buckets, you're still bailing water and you're still sinking. We can pay $10-$13 a month in a single transaction or we can break it out into three transactions of $4 a piece, and the problems are still there and we're still paying.

As for advertising, UO is mentioned in passing every week by at least one or two major gaming websites. People are aware of it. When somebody reads an article about RIFT or World of Warcraft and something about UO is mentioned, many will take a look, but there is not a rush of people downloading the trial every week, because it does not look like a modern or well supported game. Go to UOHerald.com and try to find actual screenshots or video of the gameplay.

Ironically, BioWare could instantly give a huge boost in advertising if it just placed something about UO on the front page of BioWare.com. The amount of people who see it would be enormous.

Ultima lore means nothing to newer players, and so UO would be competing with many of the games listed on Free Online MMORPG and MMO Games List - MMO Hut along with existing subscription MMOs

The only way that UO could ever go "f2p", and that is still not an accurate term, is if the graphics overhaul was finished, if the UO website was improved, if an official UO community was created (official communities are an important part of f2p games), many more bugs were knocked out, if BioWare management showed they actually care about UO, if there was a new player experience, and well there are so many things that would need to be improved it's hard to list them all. The client situation would need to be resolved as well - this two-client system has not worked out, and the classic client is going to frustrate newer MMO players who are used to being able to configure the UI any way they want. Plus the two-client system holds back adding a lot of content, namely because of the 2D system. If you aren't able to add a lot of new content on a regular basis, you're doomed in an f2p environment.

And then there is the whole cluster**** known as Origin.com/uogamecodes.com/accounts.eamythic.com. If you have problems collecting money from your current players, introducing a complex f2p system would make it a thousand times worse.

Talking about so-called f2p is seriously putting the cart before the horse. Actually it's putting a pile of wood in front of the horse and saying that someday it will be a cart.

There are many things that need to be done for UO's future, that would have to be done before f2p could ever enter into the equation. We're not even close to any of them.

 

[Theo_GL]

Free to play shard.

Acts like a normal shard EXCEPT you cannot gain skills over 100/no powerscrolls and 3 character slots.

Once you pay for your subscription - you can copy your characters (with no items) one time to any production shard. You will receive 1m gold on the new shard.

This allows alot of people a fun place to play - and when they are ready for the big time they can transfer over and have a fairly well developed character but have to gather items from scratch. (That way no transfering of autobots scripting on free to play shards.

 

[Uvtha]

I still think it's funny that people call it "Free to play" since it's not free to play, it's free to try out. The moment you spend a dollar, it stops being free to play. Extended trial is a more realistic term. "Free to play" was a term created by marketing types to take advantage of gullible people.

It IS a term to get people to play, but it IS technically accurate. You don't HAVE to pay. Its 100% optional. The game may be limited or even crippled, but you can still play it. It is free to play in some form. As for taking advantage of the gullible, I think its a pretty common pay structure at this juncture and people know that the game runs on micro transaction, so its not really trickery.

UO in its current state is just not going to attract the numbers of people that we as players want - it needs a major graphics overhaul, improved EC, etc.. The current high resolution graphics update that has been started is a start. I won't fire up the 2D/3D debate again although I think it's great that the high resolution graphics are being done in 3D first, because that may lay the groundwork for a 3D system down the road. UO also needs many other things done, although this year has been good in some ways - under Cal and now under Jeff, work is being done on bugs, on fleshing out or reworking existing areas.

Disagree. Look at Runescape. Its 3d but the graphics are horrible and its the second biggest MMO in the world behind only WOW. And I as well covered my opinions on 3d.

There still needs to be a better new user experience, and I have not seen anybody discuss that in a long time. Without a better new user experience, any new players regardless of how they are paying, are going to have a tough time. The heads of BioWare even made a big deal earlier this year about how they realized that the first few hours in a game is going to make or break that game, and I thought that the improved new user experience that Cal announced was the result of that. Dark Age of Camelot got a much improved new user experience, and I thought that UO would be next, but that's obviously not happening..

This, I can absolutely agree with. UO needs both better intro in game, and much much much better documentation out of game (or even in game through the codex of wisdom or what ever).

Ironically, the very things I mentioned above are the kinds of things that could bring old UO players back as well as interest newer players.

Some. Not many. Just like how KR was going to bring in a flood of new and old players. Didn't happen, subs kept dropping.

That's because UO's problems are not in relation to how people pay for it. If you're in a sinking boat, and you're bailing out water with a 5 gallon bucket and you trade that 5 gallon bucket for 5 1-gallon buckets, you're still bailing water and you're still sinking. We can pay $10-$13 a month in a single transaction or we can break it out into three transactions of $4 a piece, and the problems are still there and we're still paying.

Yes, youre right. UO's problems are UO's problems, WOW's problems are WOW's problems, and every free games problems is that games problems. Each and every game has issues and problems. The problems in UO are NOT why the subs are low.
Your bucket anaology would be better stated if it was One five gallon bucket or 10,000 1/10 gallon buckets. The thing is that you seem to expect that the player base wont drastically rise. Not to mention there would likely STILL be the current subscription option which I imagine most currently players would choose.

As for advertising, UO is mentioned in passing every week by at least one or two major gaming websites. People are aware of it. When somebody reads an article about RIFT or World of Warcraft and something about UO is mentioned, many will take a look, but there is not a rush of people downloading the trial every week, because it does not look like a modern or well supported game. Go to UOHerald.com and try to find actual screenshots or video of the gameplay.

Ironically, BioWare could instantly give a huge boost in advertising if it just placed something about UO on the front page of BioWare.com. The amount of people who see it would be enormous.

That's not a bad idea, but I doubt it would bring in many players. And honestly I hardly ever see UO mentioned anywhere, unless its like "Holey cow is that still running?" or when they are giving out kudos for longest running games.

Ultima lore means nothing to newer players, and so UO would be competing with many of the games listed on Free Online MMORPG and MMO Games List - MMO Hut along with existing subscription MMOs

It... already is. If it were f2p there would be less of a barrier for it to be played.

The only way that UO could ever go "f2p", and that is still not an accurate term, is if the graphics overhaul was finished, if the UO website was improved, if an official UO community was created (official communities are an important part of f2p games), many more bugs were knocked out, if BioWare management showed they actually care about UO, if there was a new player experience, and well there are so many things that would need to be improved it's hard to list them all. The client situation would need to be resolved as well - this two-client system has not worked out, and the classic client is going to frustrate newer MMO players who are used to being able to configure the UI any way they want. Plus the two-client system holds back adding a lot of content, namely because of the 2D system. If you aren't able to add a lot of new content on a regular basis, you're doomed in an f2p environment.

Again... disagree. People spend money on games like fallen sword or whatever. UO could succeed just fine. Content yes... it does need to keep rolling, no matter where the game is going.

And then there is the whole cluster**** known as Origin.com/uogamecodes.com/accounts.eamythic.com. If you have problems collecting money from your current players, introducing a complex f2p system would make it a thousand times worse.

Yup. It needs to be sorted in general. Things need to be done correctly.

Talking about so-called f2p is seriously putting the cart before the horse. Actually it's putting a pile of wood in front of the horse and saying that someday it will be a cart.

There are many things that need to be done for UO's future, that would have to be done before f2p could ever enter into the equation. We're not even close to any of them.

Disagree. And so did other game designers apparently since they were planning on going f2p before KR came out according to Draconi.

Whoof too many quotes in action here.

 

[Uvtha]

Free to play shard.

Acts like a normal shard EXCEPT you cannot gain skills over 100/no powerscrolls and 3 character slots.

Once you pay for your subscription - you can copy your characters (with no items) one time to any production shard. You will receive 1m gold on the new shard.

This allows alot of people a fun place to play - and when they are ready for the big time they can transfer over and have a fairly well developed character but have to gather items from scratch. (That way no transfering of autobots scripting on free to play shards.

Yeah I was thinking an idea like this would be something you could do for sure.

 

[Shakkara]

Maybe they should just port the 2D client to the iPhone 4.

The game window fits perfectly, and plenty of space left for your skill icons.

 

[Woodsman]

It IS a term to get people to play, but it IS technically accurate. You don't HAVE to pay. Its 100% optional. The game may be limited or even crippled, but you can still play it. It is free to play in some form.

It's free to play a very limited portion of the game. However, UO already has a trial account that has many of the limitations that are kicked around by f2p fans, the only thing missing is that there is a time limit on the existing trial account. Remove the time limit, and you have f2p without a massive coding nightmare. I can point you to the trial restrictions if you're curious.

As for Runescape, although I haven't played in a while, it had advertising that you have to view, and it's involved with Wildtangent, and I will not have anything to do with any game involving Wildtangent. I have not played Runescape since they did the Wildtangent bull****.

Some. Not many. Just like how KR was going to bring in a flood of new and old players. Didn't happen, subs kept dropping.

KR's problems...that's its own thread, but I'd like to think that KR would be handled differently in 2011.

The thing is that you seem to expect that the player base wont drastically rise.

Even if the player base rose, the problems would still exist, and those problems would be a barrier to keeping those players around.

UO is/was profitable. We all agree that UO could use more developers and artists and community relations people. If UO does not get those extra resources when it's currently profitable, there is no guarantee that it would get them under an f2p model and that the profit wouldn't go elsewhere (Star Wars, EA). Without those resources, UO would still be where it's at now, and the things that turn people off to becoming long-time players would still turn them off under f2p.

That's not a bad idea, but I doubt it would bring in many players. And honestly I hardly ever see UO mentioned anywhere, unless its like "Holey cow is that still running?" or when they are giving out kudos for longest running games.

I see UO mentioned a few times a week on major gaming sites. As for BioWare.com, it would take 5 minutes to put up a little banner and it's free to do. They advertise for Warhammer on there, and that's probably doing worse than UO.

It... already is. If it were f2p there would be less of a barrier for it to be played.

My point, not clearly made, is that the things that pulled many of us to UO - the first mainstream MMORPG or the original Ultima lore, are things that no longer matter. You have to look at UO through the eyes of a teenager or twenty something that thinks Richard Garriott is that guy that went into space. They would take one look at UO's website, Google to find some screenshots since you can't really find out anything about the gameplay on the UO website, and then bail on it.

There are just too many things that UO needs worked on before it could ever be considered to have a change in payment models, and as players, we don't really pressure them on those things. Only a few of us seem to think there needs to be an official community, only a few of us care about how crummy the UO website is, and outside of an occasional post on the new player experience thread, not much concern is shown about the new player experience, etc.

If you don't work on the things that get the players comfortably into the game (new player experience, official community, website that actually helps), and then work on the things that keep them in the game, they just aren't going to become vets.

When the Origin migration was done, they said they migrated 2.6 million accounts. UO never got above 250,000 even when it didn't have much competition. We can point to EverQuest, EVE Online, Star Wars Galaxies, Warcraft, and Dark Age of Camelot as having an impact on UO in the mid 2000s, but the issues that existed back then that kept UO from competing in 2004-2005 are the same issues in 2011, only possibly worse in a way.

If EA/BioWare won't properly support UO in 2011 under the existing subscription model, there is no reason to think that would change under an f2p model. We're down to one or two community people that we share with two other MMORPGs and an arena game. We've got a website that is a shadow of itself. We're still having client arguments.

Adding more players is important, but actually keeping those players is the bigger issue. We have so much to offer people who get tired of the theme park MMOs, but EA/BioWare do not see it that way.

 

[Uvtha]

I'll just say I agree there are things that need to be done first, and that would be part of the transition plan that one would expect a dev team of some would formulate.

Most of the things that NEED be done first are logistical primarily and new player info secondly. That would be part of the process.

From there I see no problem that keeps UO as it is from being a viable and enjoyable game even with any limitations you might impose, that would both draw in players, and increase revenue.

 

[Coppelia]

Free to play shard.

Acts like a normal shard EXCEPT you cannot gain skills over 100/no powerscrolls and 3 character slots.

Once you pay for your subscription - you can copy your characters (with no items) one time to any production shard. You will receive 1m gold on the new shard.

This allows alot of people a fun place to play - and when they are ready for the big time they can transfer over and have a fairly well developed character but have to gather items from scratch. (That way no transfering of autobots scripting on free to play shards.

The limitation of 3 character slots is interresting, the rest is thought as a long-time subscriber who's reluctant to accept freeloaders as the new majority of players.
It's not a F2P model there, that's a trial server. We need a real F2P offer. Basically no cap at 100 skill points because you want to sell character templates, alacrity scrolls, etc. And no split of the population. If there's still a subscription, that should be a cheaper one with slight advantages but not something that disgusts freeloaders seeing there's to much difference between paying and not paying. It must be more subtle. You must incitate them to pay, not urge them.

 

[SirZ]

Gamasutra - News - DC Universe Online Sees 1M Registrations In First Free-To-Play Week

 

[Woodsman]

Registrations aren't important - they migrated over 2.6 million UO accounts during the new account migration stuff, and I bet many of those were trials.

What's important is how many of those 1 million registrations can be converted to paying customers.

 

[A Thought Elemental]

Gamasutra - News - DC Universe Online Sees 1M Registrations In First Free-To-Play Week

kso. 1 mill more registrations cause they went F2p.

UO would see 1 mill new registrations, too!

900,000 of them would be the mule accounts for the gold sellers / farmers / what-have-you.

the remaining 100,000... well i donno but I guess they would be like... from somewhere.

 

[Thav12]

I agree with Woodsman in this thread.

N=1 test means nothing, but.... I played several F2P games when (temporarily) bored with UO, and indeed did not pay a dime for them. I also did not continue playing those games.The F2P model does nothing good for UO if people don't stay. Could you convert the current UO to a micro-transaction nightmare, I am sure you can. Can you do that while maintaining and perhaps gaining overall revenue? I am not so sure...

Although I am a definite optimist when it comes to UO, I do wonder why everyone thinks that there are these elusive people out there that are willing and waiting to pay large sums of cash to play UO (again). I am not so sure. Of course I want everyone to love my game as much as I do, and I wish I could convert all of WoW and Runescape players to UO players (again), I just don't think there are that many people that can get into UO, and stay. This has little to do with the client. I prefer the EC big time, but don't really see any difference in terms of game play or attraction of the game after the first 5 hrs (or weeks) of game play. Then it just becomes a GUI to play the game, and I like the EC GUI the best.

I do think and agree with some on these forums that a change in hardware venue or true accessibility may change the number of people willing to play this game. Through a facebook client, an ipad app, or some other mobile venue, you could get a whole new set of people into UO, a group of people that does not want to sit behind a desk, a desktop PC screen and rot in a chair, like we have for up to 14 years now. In that sense, I think that development of a low tech new client, java based or something, is probably more profitable than a fancy new 3D client... And micro charges / f2p seems to be a logical step when entering that realm.

 

[THP]

the biggest trouble with free to play..or even the best thing about free to play would be people would stick around paying once per 90 days to keep there castles,keeps etc and use the free to play just to keep an eye out on the decay status....deffo gonna get abused this way...so i guess NO

 

[Hellstorm]

Ok existing accounts unable to go FTP...

Only new accounts should have a FTP option, no housing, limited number of characters, and no skills above GM, no using powerscrolls... if you want to pvp with the big kids, you have to cough up the 12 bucks.

and limited access to the game beyond classic landmass...

But yeah I am waiting for the Chinese client... I hear we get to play panda bears!

 

[garillo]

I believe combining low population servers may be a more viable approach

 

[R Traveler]

There is could be load balance for free players. Like each shard have initial cap of free players, say 100. Each logged in payed account extends cap by one.

So less populated shards will have income of free players, booted from more populated shards. Each shard can't be overpopulated by free players.

In case you want guaranteed login to desired shard you must subscribe for game.

 

[A Thought Elemental]

Ok existing accounts unable to go FTP...

Only new accounts should have a FTP option, no housing, limited number of characters, and no skills above GM, no using powerscrolls... if you want to pvp with the big kids, you have to cough up the 12 bucks.

and limited access to the game beyond classic landmass...

But yeah I am waiting for the Chinese client... I hear we get to play panda bears!

I think some ppl are a tad naive... which is good in its own way!

Ppl don't seem to understand how these accounts would be utilized by the abusers of this game.

It's not about who eats powerscrolls, it's about what's used to script gold-gathering / resource-farming / and help move and store gold (gold in this game is practically untraceable because gold exists as world-droppable items).

Now that the abuse of buddy codes has been ripped out by the roots, I'm not surprised to see new requests for things like this.

To whoever wants this service in order to empower their abuse and farming: you can bite me...

 

[Woodsman]

I believe combining low population servers may be a more viable approach

Are you just wanting to drive thousands of existing players away from UO?

There is already a mechanism for those on low-population servers to move to higher population servers if they want more people around.

If you start merging shards, a lot of people are going to lose prime housing spots, and if you **** with peoples' houses, they will just walk away. It is the surest way to create an ex-UO player. You don't **** with player housing, you just don't.

 

[RL'S pker]

Make it free to play, with no restriction.

To get their money pop out more expansions, and charge $$$ for em'.

They also could make money if they decided to sell all the items in the game for cash. I know most of us have seen those sites that sell tokens,arties, rewards,resources for money. Why doesn't UO? I know i don't trust those sites with my credit card info, but I would be willing to trust an official UO store.

 

[temu]

Merge the shards I say! Merge them and let's play a populated game again!

 

[Coppelia]

Make it free to play, with no restriction.

To get their money pop out more expansions, and charge $$$ for em'.

They also could make money if they decided to sell all the items in the game for cash. I know most of us have seen those sites that sell tokens,arties, rewards,resources for money. Why doesn't UO? I know i don't trust those sites with my credit card info, but I would be willing to trust an official UO store.

I believe it's the best model for UO. Again, restricted F2P accounts wouldn't attract players as much. F2P customers are often turned off by restrictions that shout "in fact you still have to pay!"

And yeah, more players mean more potential cheaters! OMG let's stop creating games! That's awkward. It's devs' responsability to get rid of cheaters. And those farming by hand, well, blame their customers. Blame Markeedragon etc. But even if they are playing for the wrong reason, they shouldn't obsess you.
We shouldn't refuse more players just because there'll be more cheaters too. And those who are tossing those 90% of cheaters figures should consult. There are ways to come in term with your paranoia and not let it eat your life.