Free-2-play fel, pay to enter trammel.

[Thav12]

I think this might work. Sense of danger, pvp, full access to UO, get hooked and turn into a trammie. Perhaps restrict housing to force friendships with paying fel players with a house. I have my houses in fel by the way... Restrict access to champ spawns and end game Pvm to prevent abuse of free accounts.

If trammies are right either nobody will play for free or all turn into paying trammies. I think a lot of people may join just to experience the game and the danger for free. Win win

I admit that I didn't spend hours going over all the implications of this, but I don't think it will hurt the game and it may hook people (back) into the game and increase the fel population. It sort of creates a situation as in 1998, but now you have to pay to escape the reds

 

[Woodsman]

People who don't want to pay for UO and who are all about Fel are already playing on fully customized free/3rd party shards where there is no tram ruleset.

Plus there will never be a sense of danger in Fel again as long as there is item insurance.

People who truly want risk-everything PvP are either playing on free shards that do not have item insurance, or playing EVE Online.

Unfortunately the game industry took one look at what was happening with Fel prior to Tram and decided that 95% of the MMORPGs from there on out would be consensual PvP. Even UO2 was going to be mostly consensual PvP.

To Clarify: I'm not questioning the wisdom of Tram - clearly it was needed since UO peaked after Tram was added and without Tram UO would probably not be around today. I think the implementation was horrible, PvP should be user-toggled, not a "mirrored" facet, but I'm not questioning the need for separating the non-PvPers out.

 

[old gypsy]

That suggestion would be a great way to alienate the majority of UO players. I wouldn't play in Fel even if it was free, and I sure wouldn't consider it reasonable for Fel folks to be given a free ride while requiring the rest of UO subscribers to pay. As far as housing goes, UO doesn't need further restrictions beyond what exist now. This doesn't sound like a "win-win" to me. In addition, offering this to brand new players only would not be likely to bring in enough new blood to make it worth the Devs time to do all the necessary coding to make it possible.

 

[Thav12]

I am not so sure that tenant holds completely true, woodsman. UO currently is niche game. A lot of people have left, and it is clear that the majority of current players wants trammel. It is within this niche that we can experiment. Bringing people back to Fel by delivering this experience for free (and hey, turn item insurrance off for free players as well, if you think that will help) you will get perhaps an influx of new players that run a chance of getting addicted. Remember that of the 75.000 people that left, a lot liked that play style. The current population is not the perfect reflection of the total market for a UO-like game. And before this becomes a tram-fel war thread, I concede immediately that trammel won UO. It may just make sense to then offer that for a premium. I don't see (yet) how it would hurt anybody in the current game to bring some new adventurers to this game. Perhaps some free shard refugees would actually enjoy playing on an EA shard again. And for free, they might as well become a kittens' mouse for the reds that currently live in fel and pay to play. I actually think that the more I think about this, it may work.

As for throwing fel players a bone, I don't see that exactly as negatively as the the previous poster. If you are right, someone who plays for free and invests in their characters, may evolve like you have evolved and may want to protect his assets by paying the premium, hooked and turned into a subscribing member. Win-win.

Have not yet read a convincing reason why it would not be smart to do this.

 

[Thav12]

That suggestion would be a great way to alienate the majority of UO players. I wouldn't play in Fel even if it was free, and I sure wouldn't consider it reasonable for Fel folks to be given a free ride while requiring the rest of UO subscribers to pay. As far as housing goes, UO doesn't need further restrictions beyond what exist now. This doesn't sound like a "win-win" to me. In addition, offering this to brand new players only would not be likely to bring in enough new blood to make it worth the Devs time to do all the necessary coding to make it possible.

I pay to play in fel and tram. I would not feel alienated at all. Why would anyone? You will get 5 more facets, housing, insurrance, champ spawns, bosses and so much more with a subscription... Why would you feel alienated, old gypsy? You basically give the game 90% of players do not want for free, to lure them into the game. No skin of your back. Also no reason to create anything for the devs, no micro payments, nothing. No more than they have to do now, other than restricting access to areas in the game.

 

[Woodsman]

You misunderstood me: I'm saying if you want risk in PvP and Fel of 1998, you have to ditch item insurance for everybody in Fel. There is no sense of danger in PvP as long as at least one party has item insurance.

There are not 75,000 players left either. When I left 4 years ago, there was around that number, but not even close nowadays.

It is within this niche that we can experiment.

I know you want more players, but don't set your sights on such a small number of people. The most fun times in UO were when it was heavily populated. If you want more players, bold steps have to be taken. Experimenting with a small subset of players and appealing to fans of 1998 UO are not enough. It would be a waste of the incredibly limited dev resources to chase after such a small group of players.

When I say bold, I mean bold. I mean once and for all drag UO in the 2010s and get away from the 1990s. There is a reason why the top MMORPGs in North America are not based on 2D pixelated artwork from the 1990s.

UO was revolutionary in 1997 and 15 years later and a fraction of the players we had in the 1990s is not the time for baby steps.

F2p? There are hundreds of free shards out there with rulesets that appeal to people who don't want to pay or who want certain rulesets (such as UO of 1998), plus it's a gimmick used by a lot of companies to con the gullible into thinking they are not going to have to pay. Tinkering with PvP? Not many people outside of UO will notice at this point either, I'm sad to say.

Things need to be done to make people notice UO, and when I say people, I don't mean past players, I mean the gaming community in general, some of whom were in diapers when UO was first being developed.

World of Warcraft sheds more players in a week than UO has. UO could be pulling in so many of those players who try Warcraft and the other MMORPGs and find something lacking, but look at what many of them have grown up with, and they are going to ignore UO as it currently looks right now.

 

[Woodsman]

That really comes across as bagging on your topic/thread - you want more players, and that's something that we all want.

I just think that 2012, the 15th Anniversary, is not the time to be trying to attract small groups of people.

I think if we want a 20th Anniversary, big things have to be done. Playing with PvP or payment models isn't enough, because they aren't true upgrades to UO. They are shuffling the deck chairs around on a certain ship that sank 100 years ago this month.

Something needs to be done to make people go "HOLY **** THEY ARE UPGRADING UO".

 

[Thav12]

You misunderstood me: I'm saying if you want risk in PvP and Fel of 1998, you have to ditch item insurance for everybody in Fel. There is no sense of danger in PvP as long as at least one party has item insurance.

There are not 75,000 players left either. When I left 4 years ago, there was around that number, but not even close nowadays.
I know you want more players, but don't set your sights on such a small number of people. The most fun times in UO were when it was heavily populated. If you want more players, bold steps have to be taken. Experimenting with a small subset of players and appealing to fans of 1998 UO are not enough. It would be a waste of the incredibly limited dev resources to chase after such a small group of players.

When I say bold, I mean bold. I mean once and for all drag UO in the 2010s and get away from the 1990s. There is a reason why the top MMORPGs in North America are not based on 2D pixelated artwork from the 1990s.

UO was revolutionary in 1997 and 15 years later and a fraction of the players we had in the 1990s is not the time for baby steps.

F2p? There are hundreds of free shards out there with rulesets that appeal to people who don't want to pay or who want certain rulesets (such as UO of 1998), plus it's a gimmick used by a lot of companies to con the gullible into thinking they are not going to have to pay. Tinkering with PvP? Not many people outside of UO will notice at this point either, I'm sad to say.

Things need to be done to make people notice UO, and when I say people, I don't mean past players, I mean the gaming community in general, some of whom were in diapers when UO was first being developed.

World of Warcraft sheds more players in a week than UO has. UO could be pulling in so many of those players who try Warcraft and the other MMORPGs and find something lacking, but look at what many of them have grown up with, and they are going to ignore UO as it currently looks right now.

I agree with bold steps that need to be taken.

Couple of things: I stated that 75.000 had left the game since 1997. And a significant subset liked the free for all. The game was broken and led to trammel. this move as I conceded immediately,likely saved UO. but if we can lure back say 25% of 75K, that still doubles the current population. I agree with the graphics/perspective thing you mentioned. That would require a game redesign and a lot of cash and time. My take on use of resources is that my suggestion would cost very little in resources. It may lure freesharders back. Even a few thousand would markedly up the revenue available for the game, if at least some can be converted into paying players. for that and for any future of UO, I agree, we need some sort of advertisement beyond what is happening now (nothing).

Your last statement is absolutely true, could not agree more. I just don't see an affordable solution.

 

[Woodsman]

I agree with the graphics/perspective thing you mentioned. That would require a game redesign and a lot of cash and time.

They are already doing the graphics in 3D, right now. Grimm just built a high resolution animation system for their pipeline. The Enhanced Client is based on the same engine as Elder Scrolls IV, RIFT, Dark Age of Camelot, and Warhammer Online. The bulk of the work, getting 3d versions, is being done right now for the high resolution conversion.

That's what is frustrating about the graphics stuff. They are doing the things needed for a 3D conversion, but then downgrading to 2D low resolution. We can have 3D while maintaining the same perspective we have right now.

It may lure freesharders back.

You would be asking them to give up their current communities and specific rulesets they've become accustomed to. While many play the free shards to avoid paying for UO, many also do so because of certain rulesets that UO does not offer. EA's UO can't compete in that instance, which reduces the amount of people you can attract.

Even a few thousand would markedly up the revenue available for the game, if at least some can be converted into paying players. for that and for any future of UO, I agree, we need some sort of advertisement beyond what is happening now (nothing).

Chasing after a few thousand is not bold enough. There are probably thousands that come back every year regardless of what has happened with UO.

As for advertising, you need something to advertise.

Your last statement is absolutely true, could not agree more. I just don't see an affordable solution.

They have the money. They have the resources - if the UO team helped with SWTOR, why can't they pull in SWTOR people to help with UO? EA is constantly finishing up games, which frees up development resources.

It goes back to my believe that ultimately EA does not care as much about UO as some think. EA could spend a few million to help turn UO around.

Jeff Skalski even said subs were up, although I think it was probably because they had turned on the house timers again, but even so, I didn't see them hiring more people as a result of those increase in subs.

 

[garillo]

With a game being made free to play, there is room for compromise when it comes to things like graphics. Beggars can't be choosers. A recently locked poll suggested, by a noticeable difference, a Fel setting was still desirable. Numbers don't lie.

There is even a new player among us claiming he was drawn in by the appeal of Felucca. Trammies have made it clear they do not wish to play in Fel, but push others to "take advantage of the full range of things UO has to offer" excluding Fel as an option (lol). They do not want it. Why oppose giving potentially new blood to the game something a "majority" does not want? Is this a "if we can't have it no one can" scenario? UO needs drastic changes. This one makes sense, especially with the recent trending of f2p games over the past few years. It could spruce up server populations, leading to many other long term benefits.

I support this thread.

 

[Dan123The123Man]

As nice as it sounds... I don't see Ultima Online lasting much longer it were to go free to play... Look at Shadowbane for example. The game was once monthly and then went free to play until eventually taken down... Aion Online, monthly subscription and now free to play and I wouldn't be surprised if soon taken down. Why would someone put in the effort of improving a game or even keeping the game functional without any kind of insentive. I know they could probly charge players like World of Warcraft does (for mounts, items, ect). Even if they did that though I still don't think it would be enough insentive to go free to play. People will eventually quit buying that crap, or not buy it at all and they wouldn't earn any money. Bad scenario, wishful thinking but ultimately a scenario

I think going free to play, even if it's partial would be like pouring fuel into the fire with an already slow and steady decline in players. What they need to do is start advertising and promoting this game, rather then sitting and waiting for the lights to one day go out.

If anything I would be willing to pay MORE each month ($2 more probly) just to get them to advertise this game in hope to increase the current player base. Seriously, if I can pay for $15 a month playing all these other games then i'd most definatelly pay that much for this game that's been around for what 15 years? Especially if they would in return take the time to promote it so that more people start playing.

 

[Meatbread]

Yeah because the way to get new people to play is to funnel them all into Fel where they will either A) never see another player or B) get cornholed and teabagged on day one.

A recently locked poll suggested, by a noticeable difference, a Fel setting was still desirable.

You mean your terrible "I LOVE FEL BECAUSE I AM AWESOME" versus "I HATE FEL BECAUSE I AM STUPID" poll? Yeah gee that was SURE to sway a neutral observer. You can cry all you want on this forum, but when you're done you're gonna log back into Fel and see no one there.

 

[garillo]

With a working store and a good range of items to market, there is plenty of room to pick up the difference in subscriptions. The recent stock market supports this, and while it may have failed among other titles of a similar genre, do we not continue to tell ourselves how unique this game is because it has withstood so much? Get out of the gated community mindset, UO in current state is a trailer park.

I would go as for to say leave champion spawns to the free to players. Let them farm and gear up. However, do not allow the placement of houses or admission to the Trammel Rulesets.

I refuse to pay anymore than I already am, and still consider month by month if I want to call it. There's a huge side that wishes I had never returned, so that me and old UO could have left and always stayed friends rather than me have to see it in its current state. Advertising a game that has refused to honor their own ToS via the removal of exploits and hacks/3rd party programs is a huge waste of money and resoruces. It's asking to be made fun of. End game content, other than pvp, is a medial task that is soloable. Populations are very low. The lack of AI is made up for by piling mountains of trash mobs into small areas and giving them giant healthbars. There is no friends list, or universal UI. The role I've chosen for my characters is not represented by the main sites (lifeline of ideas) moderations, so I already find myself paying to cater to those who cannot accept Fel is fun for people other than themselves. Why would I want to pay more for this? At least share it with a group of people before it dies out (because it will in, there are very very few new players joining us) instead of clinging to it til the grave. They may bring the element back to the game most people miss the most. Other people.

 

[Dan123The123Man]

So after reading what you just said, what would you suggest? Don't advertise/promote the game and expect the devs and employees who apparently aren't being paid ENOUGH (based on current game situation and player base) to keep the game on life support forever?

 

[garillo]

Yeah because the way to get new people to play is to funnel them all into Fel where they will either A) never see another player or B) get cornholed and teabagged on day one.



You mean your terrible "I LOVE FEL BECAUSE I AM AWESOME" versus "I HATE FEL BECAUSE I AM STUPID" poll? Yeah gee that was SURE to sway a neutral observer. You can cry all you want on this forum, but when you're done you're gonna log back into Fel and see no one there.

Because you think the poll was "terrible" does not mean others did not. Even with the "I did not vote because" posts it wouldn't have made up the difference in the polls. It doesn't change the VAST difference in area restrictions assigned to players based on their choice of playstyle. People could not accept their complaints were based off unconsentual deaths handed out by other players and I had worded it as close to the line as I could, but it was the bare truth that people "were tired of dying" to other players/groups.

I'm not gonna start a discussion on that, because it was previously censored, I mean moderated, for a reason. It has already been proven that I am outnumbered here, as PvPers tend to click their buttons but have learned to keep their mouth shut.

 

[Viper09]

Beggars can't be choosers. A recently locked poll suggested, by a noticeable difference, a Fel setting was still desirable. Numbers don't lie.

They don't lie but they are highly questionable in biased polls. And no offense, but that poll was completely biased, probably to the point where people even refused to vote. I know I refused to vote because of it.

 

[garillo]

So after reading what you just said, what would you suggest? Don't advertise/promote the game and expect the devs and employees who apparently aren't being paid ENOUGH (based on current game situation and player base) to keep the game on life support forever?

They've kind of cornered the game into a "Go Big or go die a slow death"

I support making the fel aspect free to play. Pay if you want to place a house or enter trammel. Fix the store so it has a range of non-competitvely advantageous items, like dyes and typical tram stuff. People apparently go wild for that stuff here, go ahead and assign it a cash value or a 3rd party site will.

One outcome could be a huge jump in population, but not subscriptions. This could be made up for with money gained through a functioning store.

Another could be a huge jump in population AND subscriptions. The store at this point is icing on the cake.

The last scenario is that people truly have moved on and UO gets hit with a meteor made out of shark juggling philosoraptors (huehue) who eat all of the food we have in our fridges.

Two of the three still have population advantages.

 

[garillo]

They don't lie but they are highly questionable in biased polls. And no offense, but that poll was completely biased, probably to the point where people even refused to vote. I know I refused to vote because of it.

I believe "to catch some unknowing player in a bad spot to pk or steal from" was your response. "No, I am tired of dying" was the appropriate answer, it's just the cleancut version.

 

[Dan123The123Man]

And how do you suppose they would profit from this store when lately it seems like the things they sell in their current store people obtain a LOT cheaper from other players in game (this is putting money aka GOLD in players pockets, not the employees who keep the game running *won't use the word functioning here for obvious reasons hehe*)? How is this goign to put money in their pockets when someone can turn around and get the same item CHEAPER from another player in-game? Subscriptions and keeping a monthly bill is a guaranteed way for them to get cash in their pockets. There will be people who don't agree but pay because they enjoy the game and those who don't agree with that and quit. But what i'm saying is by removing the monthly subscription that's like taking a "CHANCE" at making more money. Kind of like playing the lottery and hoping for a win. Or in the case that you suggested, hope they get a sale so they can pay the power bill? lol

I just don't think it would be a smart investment because like I said above, as is a player can buy the same items that they sell in their store from other players in game at a much cheaper cost.

 

[Viper09]

I believe "to catch some unknowing player in a bad spot to pk or steal from" was your response. "No, I am tired of dying" was the appropriate answer, it's just the cleancut version.

Yes that was from my post, and no, that wouldn't have been my vote. But that's completely irrelevant to my point. A highly biased poll is a poor choice for data to stand behind, if it causes people to avoid voting you can't rely on the posts to fill in the blanks, especially if its you picking their answers for them. While some don't vote but do reply, others will avoid it all together.

 

[Meatbread]

They don't lie but they are highly questionable in biased polls. And no offense, but that poll was completely biased, probably to the point where people even refused to vote. I know I refused to vote because of it.

The dude HAS to be a troll.

 

[T-Hunt]

You want to trow Fel a bone ?
Here you go, fast and simple.
Let Seige have more then 1 char per account.
But even that would not help.
Most of these Tram runed UO post are from trolls who have nothing beter to do..
And are the ones why Tram was added because they forced , tormented players to a point were the Devs had to add tram or UO would have died..
Now Petra will lock this with all the other Fel /Tam arguements.

 

[Petra Fyde]

Actually, I think that's an accurate assessment of the poll in question. Most people avoided it, I didn't vote on it myself.

Is there any merit to this discussion of an unworkable idea? or should I just lock it?

 

[Rupert Avery]

Well my view is Jeff more than once has said that going F2P is not as simple as people think.. he didn't go into why.. but I accept his answer that we won't be going F2P any time in the near future... and so yes Idea's for it because you never know maybe one day they do are good, their is no use debating if it should happen or not.

 

[garillo]

It will take some work on their part to develop the decor items, new store items, maintain the store, customer service, etc. You would want to allow the free to play players to level to max and gear up to further influence the purchasing of items like forge tools. If people who refuse Fel do not approve of such actions, they can always boycott bringing a nice piece to a player in fel. Either way, a f2p population would have minimal effect on them seeing as they would never cross paths unless for trade. EA will have to make an effort to up their game. Perhaps if they see how much they are actually losing from loosely regulating exploits in the game to players able to duplicate items and services, they will start to enforce things. There are a lot of specifics that would have to be worked out and agreed upon. The idea, however, is in the right direction.

 

[Winker]

You cant pay me to play in tram, who in their right mind wants to PvM anyway? I have 2 accounts which for the most part never set foot in tram. So they would lose both my subscriptions if they went F2P in fel

 

[garillo]

What deems f2p as an "unworkable" idea? Should I turn my back while some sand is kicked over the line that separates moderation from biased censorship? I know you trammies like your choke hold on all ideas voiced here, but all I see here are comments from people like meatbread instigating things further and not being removed per post. The others are making an effort to talk it through. None of the recommendations you all have made in the past X amount of years have made a drastic change to positively influence populations, otherwise we wouldn't be scrapping for such ideas, so why not add your two cents into explaining why it wouldn't work (other than JEFF K SAID...) or what would be needed to make it work? At least we are trying. It'll get better responses and feedback (STREETCRED) if you can actually contribute instead of just coming in, without removing from the noncontributing posts that are violating the very RoC we all have read (no trolls), and threatening to shut down the entire thread.

 

[Rupert Avery]

Idea's are great! don't get me wrong! But threads asking for f2p in my humble opinion are pointless because it has been stated it won't happen. I don't know their reasons as to why not! But I think they are the ones technically best to make that call. We cant tell them something would work we have no idea the implications behind such things from their point of view.

I myself Have often thought why not just make the Trial period infinite... keeping ALL the same restrictions it has. and only allowing upgrades if they subscribe. But again this will not happen for the foreseeable future.

 

[Woodsman]

Well my view is Jeff more than once has said that going F2P is not as simple as people think.. he didn't go into why..

UO would be competing with free shards, and some of the free shards are..impressive.

I wish we could get the transcript from this ex-BioWare developer about the F2P lecture he gave:

The Emotions Free-to-Play Games Prey on to Get Players to Pay

 

[Petra Fyde]

I haven't said that F2P is unworkable, just this idea of how to implement it.

 

[Dan123The123Man]

Garillo, you seem pretty set on this store and F2P idea... So incase you accidentally scrolled past what I said:

"""

And how do you suppose they would profit from this store when lately it seems like the things they sell in their current store people obtain a LOT cheaper from other players in game (this is putting money aka GOLD in players pockets, not the employees who keep the game running *won't use the word functioning here for obvious reasons hehe*)? How is this goign to put money in their pockets when someone can turn around and get the same item CHEAPER from another player in-game? Subscriptions and keeping a monthly bill is a guaranteed way for them to get cash in their pockets. There will be people who don't agree but pay because they enjoy the game and those who don't agree with that and quit. But what i'm saying is by removing the monthly subscription that's like taking a "CHANCE" at making more money. Kind of like playing the lottery and hoping for a win. Or in the case that you suggested, hope they get a sale so they can pay the power bill? lol

I just don't think it would be a smart investment because like I said above, as is a player can buy the same items that they sell in their store from other players in game at a much cheaper cost.

"""

Another reason why the store more then likely wouldn't be profitable is because they tend to sell things way over price compared to what players can get the same items for in-game from other players.

As for what you said above:

"None of the recommendations you all have made in the past X amount of years have made a drastic change to positively influence populations,"

I did mention that they should advertise and promote the game more, but your reply didn't sound like you were all for that so now i'm confused?

 

[virtualhabitat]

Perhaps restrict housing to force friendships with paying fel players with a house.

Yup, that about sums it up. Everyone knows your very best friends are the ones you can't refuse -or else!

 

[weins201]

Perhaps you should have spent at least 20 minutes thinking about it since you have just made it so all the Fel benifits all the sudden become free? Wow nice idea.

Was there a poll on this ? is so

NO, Lame idea

 

[Warpig Inc]

Another could be a huge jump in population AND subscriptions.

Being you'd be the scripters bestest buddy. f2p fel with no skill cap and a shack in the boondocks. Sure the subs would rise and number players logged in. Be none the extras be shopping at the store. Insurance is the major hurdle to turn back the waaayyyyyyy back machine.

Right now I pay $40 a month fopr 4 subs. I'd rather pay $69 dollars for 3 subs for our own active UO only GM staff with little faster content output. Little late to stick the finger in the dike trick. It is not the get new players in easy peasy but get past players back. And for them to know the "fool me thrice" is not even remotely possible. Gaming likes is way past UOs geting a 15 year old hooked and starting new accounts for their kids 12 - 14 years later. Need to catch the eye of the 15 year old that played 14 years ago to come back and open more accounts for their kids. And they need to know they wont lose face in front heir kids. Been enough in the UO past with past workers adding to UO with their extensive Chess game coding experience. All about balance making one happy, one pissed and the other feeling ignored. Just wait your turn and see the UO teeter totter has never been broken.

 

[GalenKnighthawke]

It is an amazingly bad idea to create an option to allow brand new players to witness and enter into the very lifestyle that nearly killed the game years ago and necessitated Trammel to begin with. It is a total reversal of the concept of free-to-play, which allows the most-casual players access only to the most-casual content. This exposes them right away to the most-intense content then lets them in essence bribe their way into a game that's playable.

Imagine the bad publicity we had before Trammel, now imagine that being about ten-fold.

I find it difficult to believe that this idea was even seriously proposed.

-Galen's player

 

[Petra Fyde]

I find it difficult to believe that this idea was even seriously proposed.

-Galen's player

me too. Time to end it I think.