Good riddance: the death of online gaming’s monthly subscription model | Ars Technica
Or so says Ars Technica.
Or so says Ars Technica.
-
Hail Guest! We're looking for Community Content Contribuitors to Stratics. If you would like to write articles, fan fiction, do guild or shard event recaps, it's simple. Find out how in this thread: Community Contributions
-
Greetings Guest, Having Login Issues? Check this thread!
-
Hail Guest!, Please take a moment to read this post reminding you all of the importance of Account Security.
-
Hail Guest! Please read the new announcement concerning the upcoming addition to Stratics. You can find the announcement Here!
- Awards
- 1
Great *rolls eyes*.....
Hope UO will NEVER go to that type business model. We have enough idiots running around in the game as it is. All free to play would do is allow the droves of them who are too cheap to pay to log on and aggravate the heck out of those of us who pay. If anything they could jack the price up another $5-10 and cull out some of the lower class rascals we have now. Just my .02 tho.....
Hope UO will NEVER go to that type business model. We have enough idiots running around in the game as it is. All free to play would do is allow the droves of them who are too cheap to pay to log on and aggravate the heck out of those of us who pay. If anything they could jack the price up another $5-10 and cull out some of the lower class rascals we have now. Just my .02 tho.....
Last edited:
Your .02 has been duly noted.
And now for the rest of us: If UO were to go F2P, what would you be willing to purchase from the store in the F2P model?
More of the existing stuff like the Brit Ship? The Forged Metal tool?
New Mounts? More stable slots? More house/bank storage?
And now for the rest of us: If UO were to go F2P, what would you be willing to purchase from the store in the F2P model?
More of the existing stuff like the Brit Ship? The Forged Metal tool?
New Mounts? More stable slots? More house/bank storage?
No, Yes, Yes, No, Yes
Last edited:
I was actually hoping for more suggestions to give the devs more ammo in the argument to go F2P. If there is more variety in the store and more people want to purchase the items then it will be a faster/smoother transition, if it ever happens.
Honestly, I don't think I'd be logging in even if it's F2P. I'm paying every 6 mo, and haven't logged in months. Just doesn't pull me for some reason. Been waiting for something great, but I don't see it. They publish the nice stories, but I've been "lost" for 2 years now.
This game Can't go F2P. It will open the door to all those scripters. Ahh... scripters and cheaters... now I remember why I haven't logged in.
This game Can't go F2P. It will open the door to all those scripters. Ahh... scripters and cheaters... now I remember why I haven't logged in.
J
Joey Porter
Guest
I think they should sell everything in the store short of Pink scrolls and existing accounts.
Set it up like one of the unauthorized vending sites.
Yeah this is what was missing, another F2P thread.
In fact if this is the way the game went, I along with most of the people I've talked to would quit. So I hope you and the rest of the twits who support this idea are prepared to pay a ton of cash every month to keep the game open.
I really have to give the marketing people of the online gaming community credit. They've convinced the dumb sheep of the world that ideas like this are good. It ends up costing the dedicated players more every month, yet here we are with another bozo supporting the idea of paying more for the same game he's already playing.
Nothing. What is the point of having a game where you just buy everything for RL $. That's really stupid and lame.
In fact if this is the way the game went, I along with most of the people I've talked to would quit. So I hope you and the rest of the twits who support this idea are prepared to pay a ton of cash every month to keep the game open.
I really have to give the marketing people of the online gaming community credit. They've convinced the dumb sheep of the world that ideas like this are good. It ends up costing the dedicated players more every month, yet here we are with another bozo supporting the idea of paying more for the same game he's already playing.
Last edited:
Most don't realize that people spend more money on "F2P' games then on subscription based games. Nickel and dime ya to death. No thanks.
Thank you! I'm glad someone else has some common freaking sense.
The reason all these companies are changing to this model is because..... THEY MAKE MORE MONEY.
And where does that money come from............ us!
I really don't understand why people support an idea that's going to cost them more money for less content than they have right now.
Last edited:
See my post in the other threads about F2P.... I'm all for it if it's done right but our economy is Fudged as it is the LAST thing I want is a bunch of scripters going F2P and mass scripting gold farming, wood and ingots. We have enough of that as is... I based my "idea" on F2P off of putting those who want F2P on other shards..... limiting the amount of crap they can store and move to paid shards and keeping skills lower so they can't farm the higher end woods and ores.
If you don't do something to limit that sort of thing then you may as well just start handing the Script farmers and sale sites a big fat check because that's exactly what will happen.
Last edited:
Sigh... They make more money because 200k people spending an average 5 dollars a month is more than 50k spending an average 13 dollars a month. If UO went free it would still have a subscription option which would give you all content anyway.
Store should be mainly cosmetic stuff and burden easing stuff like it is now (just more of it), with access packs for people who don't pay a sub fee.
Anyway, I don't think that most people asking for F2P want it because they want to spend less money. They want it because UO is a ghost town, and they want to see more players.
Don't allow free accounts access to any facet but fel. Scripting problem solved.
And where do these 200k people come from?
In the article that was posted in the other F2P thread it clearly stated that in order to change a game to the F2P model it:
a) costs money
b) requires advertising to bring in new players.
Given EA's track record when it comes to UO........ I don't see it happening.
At least you and I agree on this, unlike the OP who apparently thinks playing a game involves buying anything and everything available in the game for RL $. That is just dumb and really what is the point of playing A GAME if you want to just buy everything from an online store instead of earning it in the game. Pay to Win?
Last edited:
Somehow the gullible miss that little detail. Apparently the word "Free" shuts down their wits and they can't manage to wonder how the Game Companies pay the bills by offering free games.
They make money, oh gullible ones, because players have to pay money to play the game. It's just not paid all at once anymore. They just spread it out and make you pay it in little amounts that will add up over the month. Can you hear the game company CEO's shouting $$$$"KA-CHING!"$$$$?
oh gosh. I need a super duper sword to keep up with Mr. Mojo! Kaching!
Oh man.. I really need that armor to be able to fight Ms. Pretty! Kaching!
What the heck... it's only a measly 2 bucks to buy that awesome hero! Kaching!
If I didn't buy that purple flashy hookah I'd be dead by now! Kaching!
Crap! I'm being invaded! Buy new troops now and be saved! Kaching!
*this is done with humor but is pretty much accurate*
Oh man.. I really need that armor to be able to fight Ms. Pretty! Kaching!
What the heck... it's only a measly 2 bucks to buy that awesome hero! Kaching!
If I didn't buy that purple flashy hookah I'd be dead by now! Kaching!
Crap! I'm being invaded! Buy new troops now and be saved! Kaching!
*this is done with humor but is pretty much accurate*
The F2P player myths were funny to start with, but now this is just getting silly.
Paying a subscription doesn't deter cheats - UO is full of them.
Paying a subscription doesn't deter potty-mouth brats either - we have those too!
Multiply your sub price a few times and you'll still have both types of players. The thing that deters bad eggs is a company who really manage their game and take action against those accounts. EA Mythic talk about it, they do the odd purge to grab a headline... they even made a spreadsheet. But players do not fear losing *anything* if they cheat or act like a brat. THAT is where the problem lies. The UO community know there is nobody watching them too closely, so they play up like kids when teacher leaves the classroom. If you don't worry you'll lose that account, the subscription cost is irrelevant. UO needs to be managed better, then it won't matter how much or how little we pay for it.
What we have now is a diminishing group of players who are prepared to pay a sub so they can play alongside cheats and brats in UO. And the brats themselves. I want to see vibrant shards with a mix of players again. I want to see houses placed in the currently empty space. I'd like to see cheating tackled properly.
I would love a F2P model because I have little game time to justify the sub any more. F2P would really get me back into UO again because I could play it during those odd days when I do have time. Other games let me have that flexibility which is why I'm frustrated that my favourite - the first online game I played - is stuck into a subscription model. I don't swear, I don't cheat...I just want to play the game I enjoy most without committing to a sub.
Wenchy
Paying a subscription doesn't deter cheats - UO is full of them.
Paying a subscription doesn't deter potty-mouth brats either - we have those too!
Multiply your sub price a few times and you'll still have both types of players. The thing that deters bad eggs is a company who really manage their game and take action against those accounts. EA Mythic talk about it, they do the odd purge to grab a headline... they even made a spreadsheet. But players do not fear losing *anything* if they cheat or act like a brat. THAT is where the problem lies. The UO community know there is nobody watching them too closely, so they play up like kids when teacher leaves the classroom. If you don't worry you'll lose that account, the subscription cost is irrelevant. UO needs to be managed better, then it won't matter how much or how little we pay for it.
What we have now is a diminishing group of players who are prepared to pay a sub so they can play alongside cheats and brats in UO. And the brats themselves. I want to see vibrant shards with a mix of players again. I want to see houses placed in the currently empty space. I'd like to see cheating tackled properly.
I would love a F2P model because I have little game time to justify the sub any more. F2P would really get me back into UO again because I could play it during those odd days when I do have time. Other games let me have that flexibility which is why I'm frustrated that my favourite - the first online game I played - is stuck into a subscription model. I don't swear, I don't cheat...I just want to play the game I enjoy most without committing to a sub.
Wenchy
That $13 a month killing you?
Just another person pancakes that they can't play the game for nothing.
So during the times you don't play you wouldn't pay anything, and when you do decide to grace us with your presence you'll pay more than u are now. Meanwhile those of us who do play all the time will be paying more all the time.
Wow, where do I sign up for that?
- Awards
- 1
Aye right mate, get off your high horse.Cool
- Awards
- 1
*response withheld out of respect to ROC and an aversion to high water pressure*
Feel free to pm me.
Let me ask all of those wanting a F2P model. If the following restrictions were in place on any account not paying a monthly subscription would it still be what you want?
No skills over 80.
No home ownership.
No resource gathering of any kind.
Cannot collect, fill or turn in BoDs.
Cannot buy or sell from NPCs or player vendors.
Cannot own a vendor.
No access to any Peerless encounters.
Limited to Trammel facet only (No Fel, Malas, Ter Mur, Illenshar).
Can only be human (No elves, gargolyes or whatever the next race is).
Any current account that stops paying their monthly subscription would instantly have all their houses (including grandfather homes) go into IDOC and drop or be deleted in 5 days.
Chars would instantly be converted to human and any skills over 80 would drop to 80 until a subscription was paid at which time they would return to their previous level.
Vendors owned by the account would be deleted or possibly have their items put into a bankbox.
UO is fairly unique, especially when it comes to housing. UO also has alot of people with multiple accounts holding tons of houses and other items. I get the feeling that alot of F2P proponents are thinking that they can put their extra accounts on autopilot and save themselves tons of money every month. Or they figure they can use a bunch of free acounts to gather resources, bods, etc (possibly through illegal activities) and once again no longer have to pay for all those extra accounts.
So I ask. If any account not paying for a full access subscription had all of the restrictions in place. Would you still be so gung ho about UO going F2P?
No skills over 80.
No home ownership.
No resource gathering of any kind.
Cannot collect, fill or turn in BoDs.
Cannot buy or sell from NPCs or player vendors.
Cannot own a vendor.
No access to any Peerless encounters.
Limited to Trammel facet only (No Fel, Malas, Ter Mur, Illenshar).
Can only be human (No elves, gargolyes or whatever the next race is).
Any current account that stops paying their monthly subscription would instantly have all their houses (including grandfather homes) go into IDOC and drop or be deleted in 5 days.
Chars would instantly be converted to human and any skills over 80 would drop to 80 until a subscription was paid at which time they would return to their previous level.
Vendors owned by the account would be deleted or possibly have their items put into a bankbox.
UO is fairly unique, especially when it comes to housing. UO also has alot of people with multiple accounts holding tons of houses and other items. I get the feeling that alot of F2P proponents are thinking that they can put their extra accounts on autopilot and save themselves tons of money every month. Or they figure they can use a bunch of free acounts to gather resources, bods, etc (possibly through illegal activities) and once again no longer have to pay for all those extra accounts.
So I ask. If any account not paying for a full access subscription had all of the restrictions in place. Would you still be so gung ho about UO going F2P?
Last edited:
The F2P model only works if there's something there that players are willing to pay for. SW:TOR's big question in going F2P isn't going to be the F2P leap itself, it will be in finding out whether the minimal difference between subscription and non-subscription will be enough to to keep a sustainable paying base.
If they mix restricted areas for subscriptions with micro-transaction cutesy Star Wars stuff, they may do just fine.
It's all a question of whether the price-point and offerings are good enough to keep people playing.
As I've nearly engraved into the Stratics hard drives, the only model in which F2P would work for UO is one where housing required a monthly fee, and unpaid monthly fees would cause the house to become unusable for up to 90 days at which point it would poof. You could even prorate it based on the type/size of house, all the way to subscription level for the larger house sizes including castles, keeps, et cetera. But... F2P isn't a sure-fire thing for UO because it has other issues to be concerned about...
As for the subscription model being dead... I actually think that's hysterical because the ENTIRE GOAL of the F2P model is to convince you to subscribe to the game, and, barring that, buy trinkets from time to time that equal or exceed what the monthly fee would run.
In short, and for the millionth time, the "FREE" in F2P doesn't hold the traditional meaning of free in the overall model. No company is going F2P to provide their games as a free service. They're doing it to make money, which you obviously can't do if the game really is "free to play."
So ding, dong... the industry's found a different way to make money. Big shock, that.
If they mix restricted areas for subscriptions with micro-transaction cutesy Star Wars stuff, they may do just fine.
It's all a question of whether the price-point and offerings are good enough to keep people playing.
As I've nearly engraved into the Stratics hard drives, the only model in which F2P would work for UO is one where housing required a monthly fee, and unpaid monthly fees would cause the house to become unusable for up to 90 days at which point it would poof. You could even prorate it based on the type/size of house, all the way to subscription level for the larger house sizes including castles, keeps, et cetera. But... F2P isn't a sure-fire thing for UO because it has other issues to be concerned about...
As for the subscription model being dead... I actually think that's hysterical because the ENTIRE GOAL of the F2P model is to convince you to subscribe to the game, and, barring that, buy trinkets from time to time that equal or exceed what the monthly fee would run.
In short, and for the millionth time, the "FREE" in F2P doesn't hold the traditional meaning of free in the overall model. No company is going F2P to provide their games as a free service. They're doing it to make money, which you obviously can't do if the game really is "free to play."
So ding, dong... the industry's found a different way to make money. Big shock, that.
True... but if no one buys anything, the supposed F2P game gets shut down. There isn't a company out there that's running their games as a charity to the public.
Well, let's adjust your suggestions so that they would actually fit a more realistic F2P model for UO:
1) Skills could be raised to any level. Restricting skill gain, particularly in UO, would be pointless, as it serves as an artificial cap that would make most of the exciting parts of the game unplayable, thus there'd be no way for a person to judge whether or not the subscription would be worthwhile. So don't bother capping it... it's not the strongest feature of UO anyway.
2) No home ownership: Agreed fully. This is UO's uniqueness in the market, and would be the thing to base the "subscription" model on. But, as I mentioned earlier, you could prorate it based on house size. You could also double-tap this market by offering subscription-level people the opportunity to pay a reduced fee for a second house based on size as well. This, more than anything, is UO's F2P strength.
3) Yep... sadly, resource gathering would have to be removed from the game's F2P model as well, because otherwise you'd have people making real money in a game they've spent nothing on.
4) I agree with you on the BODs; that again provides real resource that could be sold for real money.
5) NPC and player vendors... there's no reason to limit this. Particularly because I agree that an F2P account should not be able to own a vendor. Therefore even if they bought out all the reagents on a vendor, they'd have to stand in game to sell them (yeah, they could trade them to a paid account, but given price protections, I don't think it's much of an issue). This is one that I think would be too limiting to the UO experience to remove.
6) Cannot own a vendor... fully agreed.
7) Peerless, champ spawns, Doom, The Abyss... yes, specific areas could be kept out of the non-subscription model. Some dungeon content would have to be available, but you could even limit to the first couple of levels to give a taste and put the better stuff beneath.
8) No reason to make it no other facets, truthfully... since they can't place houses, I don't think restricting facets is necessary. Now the argument might be that the servers would be overburdened with "free" PvPers, and if that is a fear, then maybe create a mini-subscription that say offers access to Felucca for $4.99 a month or something lesser to help keep bandwidth lower due to PvP but which would still have other restrictions in place. After all, ala carte is the key to the F2P market.
9) Races... bleh... I have to be honest, I don't see a reason to restrict that. I'm confused why EQ chose that model, because while I thought about checking it out again, the race restrictions actually turned me away from the game. I think if a race is available in the game it should be playable. I truly don't see that as a viable choice to force people to make.
10) Accounts that stop paying do not have their houses go IDOC... keep that model as it is with one exception. The house becomes useless. The plot is set to "Restricted" (yes, takes some programming, but essentially "Restricted" means no one is allowed in, it acts like a private house, but to everyone except OSI personnel), cannot be entered, nothing on it can be opened or accessed or added to, and so on. The 90-day safety net is important, particularly for actual subscribers, but allowing the houses to be used while in that 90-day net is unnecessary -- thus they should be made useless.
11) Vendors owned by subscribers who stop paying have their vendors put into voidspace (removed from the game world and put into a vendor box), much as you say. I wouldn't outright delete the stuff, but put the same 90-day timer on it. Fail to pay within 90 days and the vendor and its stuff is removed from the game. If you do pay, you can access the vendor's items and have say 14 days to clear out the vendor storage before it vanishes. Definitely control would be needed of some form.
I know it's not much different from what you suggest, but an F2P model has to have a fairly open world for the experience. It's convincing them to pay for the extra stuff that's important. You might even restrict the use of any crafting skills at all for use in crafting (ie: you could still use inscription as the bonus for magery, but couldn't actually inscribe) without being a paying customer.
But I think the framework is doable... but would require some retooling of server/client code and they'd have to fine-tooth-comb it for exploits, and have a no-forgiveness ban policy for anyone caught exploiting say placing a house while not a subscriber and so forth.
W
Woodsman
Guest
If you're paying $13 a month now, under F2P you'll be paying that or more. It's happened to me with other MMORPGs that went F2P. I believe that if UO went F2P, that those of us who wanted houses, wanted more than say 50 items in our bankboxes, wanted to be able to use mounts, wanted to use anything outside of Tram, wanted to mine colored ore or chop colored wood, would be paying the full subscription.
If F2P were the solution, I'd be all for it.
But EA has made the decision not to even go after new players - Jeff decided to focus on ex-players. It's debatable whether that would work under F2P because under F2P, ex-players would probably just subscribe because they already know UO and don't want a stripped down F2P experience, and if they were willing to subscribe under F2P, they'd be willing to subscribe now.
The clearest look at how an F2P UO would be is Star Wars: The Old Republic - Subscription vs Free. SWTOR follows Warhammer Online - a limitless trial account, only SWTOR pretends it's free, whereas WAR calls it a trial.
If SWTOR and WAR have similar models, then chances are that UO would follow SWTOR and WAR - EA is not going to concoct a special F2P model for UO.
F2P ain't doing WAR any good, they are almost out of servers to merge now.
W
Woodsman
Guest
If you could go back to whoever originated the term, I guarantee it came out of marketing.
Yes, FTP is a marketing term, most people who play "free" games know that already. There will always be people who misunderstand this because UO is all they really know. However, in case no one has realized it yet UO's current business model is a lot like many FTP ones. Microtransactions are a big part of many FTP models. It's already here folks, they've got us paying for subscriptions and microtransactions. And a FTP model for UO would still include subscriptions, in fact it would essentially still BE a subscription model because it's a long term plan. It would just include endless free content that is not currently offered which would get more people started on the game.
Last edited:
I totally agree with your changes and fully admit to giving a very harsh version of F2P because I really wonder how many of the F2P proponents are thinking that they can profit from this by having no sub fees on all their extra accounts and still get to keep everything they currently have.
Being (apparently) one of the few supporters of the F2P model for UO, I don't believe that at all, and in fact, I don't think any one else that supports the idea thinks this. We aren't idiots. We know what the F2P model is and how it works. If UO had a free to play model I would still have a paid subscription, which I am fully sure it would still offer.
Honestly I am getting really tired of these posts, because people bring up the same arguments most of which are histrionic doomsday prophecy, despite that its a proven fact that F2P has not only saved, but revitalized dozens of previously subscription only games, and is something that is becoming more and more common.
So, I think I'm done talking about this. Regardless of how any of us feel, the odds are that its coming as the game loses more player over the years, so my advice is to come to terms with it.
Last edited:
As I've said in the many threads about this topic
If you are correct and UO changes to a F2P model, the moment I end up paying more than I currently am in order to access the same amount of content I have enjoyed for 10+ years, is the moment I give EA the middle finger and walk away. As a dedicated long time player I am not going to pick up the tab so a bunch of freeloaders can occasionally log into a slightly abridged version of UO without paying a cent.
Last edited:
Or be even more disatisied once it happens and leave.
At least there would be no need to pack up a house or two full of stuff in this case.
W
Woodsman
Guest
I think a lot more people would support it if they were sure it would bring in more revenue and if that revenue would be invested into UO. As it stands, EA doesn't treat UO right under a subscription model, and most people don't think that would change if UO brought in more revenue, it would just be more money EA can siphon off somewhere else.
There is also a very real danger that EA would somehow botch it, and if UO loses money/becomes unprofitable, then it's goodbye EA UO and hello free shards. Once you get way into one of these things, you can't just easily back out.
I am for it if they took the current trial accounts and lifted the time restrictions and kept everything else in place. Anything else and they simply don't have the development resources, and they risk altering the game in ways nobody can predict.
W
Woodsman
Guest
This is from another thread, but it's appropriate here:
What happens if castle owners found themselves paying $15 or $20?
Exactly. LOTRO and DDO, with both I felt I HAD to subscribe, because if I did the content any other way, it quickly added up, and SWTOR is clearly focused on getting people to subscribe.
Thats one way of coming to terms. If you wont play a f2p mmo, expect to have an mmo free future, because they are all going that way.
<shrugs> There's always standalone games of which I've a variety of old ones, and can always put the money I would be forking out in F2P costs into upgrading my computer and buying new games provided my laptop won't handle them.
Or there are also free-shards should I need a UO fix now and then. It would be a UO:Ren free-shard too.
I'm sure that's a major factor. I think too in further analysis that having a PvP subscription (access to Felucca) would be necessary just to keep the shards from being overrun by the [please bear with me as I try not to chuckle] hundreds of thousands of PvPers from the free shards. Now, while I'm mocking the actual number, I do think that the free shard influx might be an issue in an F2P solution, and while I'm sure someone will pipe up to extoll the virtue of having thousands of free-playing PvPers, all I see is bandwidth being paid for by other people paying for it... not that I'm against PvP, but if it truly would be that big of a draw, it would need a value assigned to it, if only to cover the expense of that portion of the game.
But yeah, I agree with you... I think some people see the F in F2P and think, "Look at all the stuff I'd no longer have to pay for," and for any F2P model to work for UO, that'd be exactly the stuff they'd have to charge for.
I don't want to cast any particular stones, but while I think it's fair to say you and those you know DO know how the model is, there are PLENTY of people -- on this forum as well as out in the general gameplaying world -- who do not understand the F2P model, and who are completely shocked that a "free" game charges for anything. And sadly, many of them are above teenage years.
[EDIT...] And actually, as I think about it, the article that started this whole thread is evidence of the lack of understanding the F2P model. Even reporters for the industry, if that's what we want to call some of these punctuation-challenged over-glorified bloggers (but I digress), have issue with understanding the concept. If they don't get it, trust that the general public has different expectations as well.
Of course, that's the beauty of F2P... it blindsides you and hopefully (from the company's point of view) you're suddenly paying more into the game each month than an actual subscription would have run in the first place.
The downside of the F2P market (for the companies, not the players) is that it requires constant content, because if you don't (1) keep it fresh, people leave, and (2) don't offer enough new content or trinkets to purchase, people won't purchase.
But... done right, F2P works well. People should be bloody happy WoW isn't F2P, because they're creative enough to cause people to spend much more than $14.99/month.
Last edited:
Truthfully, I don't see that working. I think the max level they could expect would be the present subscription model. Without tossing a TON more into UO to make it worthwhile before initiating such a price jump, I don't see it happening. Now, conversely, enough reason, yeah, maybe. I think they'd have to grandfather existing subscribers though. Not a big deal though.
Yep.
Taylor
Former Stratics CEO (2011-2014)
VIP
Alumni
Supporter
Stratics Veteran
Stratics Legend
UNLEASHED
Campaign Benefactor
Payment model does not influence my game selection. I will play the ones that I enjoy, regardless of whether they require subscription, downloadable content, or microtransactions.
I will say that the F2P title Combat Arms is my primary game at the moment. In the past two years, I've spent an average of 12.5 times more per month than I have paid for my UO account. It's a little scary how quickly it adds up. Careful what you wish for. A subscription--even DLC--would have been cheaper by a wide margin.
I will say that the F2P title Combat Arms is my primary game at the moment. In the past two years, I've spent an average of 12.5 times more per month than I have paid for my UO account. It's a little scary how quickly it adds up. Careful what you wish for. A subscription--even DLC--would have been cheaper by a wide margin.
Last edited:
Someone explain to me what it is were paying for these days? The right to login? Is that where it's at?
It's not like were getting new content or upgrades, bug fixes, high resolution graphics etc.
I don't mind paying if things are being done to improve the game but that doesn't appear to be the case.
It's like Tina Small said we're paying for a service yet where is the service?
I've always been against free to play because I had hopes for UO and believed there was the possibility for growth, upgrades and more content.
Right now my stance is if there not going to do anything then yeah make it free.
I'd rather pay and see the game progress in a positive manner but paying and seeing nothing happen to improve the game gets me scratching my head.
It's not like were getting new content or upgrades, bug fixes, high resolution graphics etc.
I don't mind paying if things are being done to improve the game but that doesn't appear to be the case.
It's like Tina Small said we're paying for a service yet where is the service?
I've always been against free to play because I had hopes for UO and believed there was the possibility for growth, upgrades and more content.
Right now my stance is if there not going to do anything then yeah make it free.
I'd rather pay and see the game progress in a positive manner but paying and seeing nothing happen to improve the game gets me scratching my head.
Last edited:
For the millionth time..... IT'S NOT FREE.
Do you and the rest of the F2P fans really think that if UO went F2P that you suddenly wouldn't have to pay to play UO? What kind of company stays in business by giving their product away for free?????????
The reality, as many have said, is F2P typically ends up costing you more.
Sheesh.... yeah EA's going to stop charging you money and just let you play for nothing....... I cannot believe how many of you have bought in to the marketing and media hype that these gaming companies are selling you when it comes to the F2P model. F2P is just another buzzword companies use to sell the unsuspecting public their BS. Just like every company claims to be "green" when in reality most of them haven't changed a damn thing. They're still printing out 5 million softcopies a year, using gas and oil as much as ever, etc. But slap the words "We're a Green Company" on their letterhead and logo and suddenly they're some enviromentally conscious company that's
concerned about our future, when really they'd burn down every last rainforest if it increased their profit margin by 5%.
Last edited:
W
Woodsman
Guest
I think we are getting the high resolution graphics. Maybe a single client. But that's probably about it. Too many key layoffs and too much silence.
I am sure there are people who don't get it, because there are some really shockingly ignorant people running around the webs, but I think most "gamers" know and understand the model. Its been around long enough, and been prevalent enough for people to be fully familiar with it. Anyway, if people being so shocked and appalled by micro-transactions was so wide spread then I would imagine F2P would be a colossal failure, which it's not.
Oh... really? It's creativity that keeps wow going eh? I had no idea.
For the millionth time.... WE KNOW. Good lord.
And technically it -IS- free to play, just not free full access.