Exactly. In the proper F2P model, you don't lose anything by being a paying customer, you get rewarded. In LotRO I've accumulated enough points over time just by keeping my subscription active that I could either buy all the cosmetic stuff I want, get my mount at like level 10 or some very early level I'm not sure, or if I decide to stop being a paying customer, buy access to nearly all of the stuff that I would lose access to. I continue paying just so I won't have to worry about that and I can keep all of my characters and stuff.
-
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!
Should UO be free? Poll.
- Thread starter Penana Car
- Start date
- Watchers 17
W
Woodsman
Guest
Look, you want me to get behind F2P, then push for the trial accounts to have their timers lifted as the f2p option, and I'm all for it. Anything beyond that and we most likely will pay more or suffer in some way. Because F2P is a marketing term for gullible people. EA's version of F2P MMORPG is an unlimited trial. They even call it an unlimited trial with Warhammer, and I looked at SWTOR's page, and it was an unlimited trial.
It's EA. They lay off UO developers when UO is profitable. They are not rational in many ways, and combine that with the fact that they would not do this unless they feel they will get more money out of us.
EA could be making more money with UO than they currently are. They could invest in the things that would keep players around and bring new players in, and they could even do it fairly cheap since UO would probably cover its own costs. If UO has 40,000 subs, it's making millions in profit. Even just a million dollars would get you 10 or 15 new members of the UO team who could help fix things in a more timely manner, improve both clients, ramp up communication with the community, etc.
EA could have hired a half a dozen artists and designers to make more pixel crack for the online store, and those people would have paid for themselves several times over, because it wouldn't take too much new pixel crack to get UO players to open up their wallets. But EA didn't.
How does EA get more money out of UO? It lays off people. We are all paying the same amount we were a year ago, but we've got 5 less developers working on the team. That's how EA makes more money from UO. They are predatory.
Last edited by a moderator:
W
Woodsman
Guest
It scares the **** out of me that Star Wars has done this poorly. They've dropped from 1.7 million in December to less than a million in July. They've already laid off a ton of people. EA's stock is in the dumps, BioWare caught hell over Mass Effect 3 and had to spend who knows how much on a new ending for ME3, and there was Dragon Age 2 which pissed off a lot of people, and EA leadership, not just BioWare, but EA leadership has been out there selling SWTOR like crazy, and it hasn't helped, it's still dropping subs.
The last time UO was in a group where an MMORPG did poorly, UO lost developers. EA has even more money invested in SWTOR than EA did in Warhammer.
I hope that everybody on the UO team is able to keep their jobs, because we can't lose any more.
Not a coincidence that Rich Vogel, a former UO producer/executive, bailed out on SWTOR recently.
The last time UO was in a group where an MMORPG did poorly, UO lost developers. EA has even more money invested in SWTOR than EA did in Warhammer.
I hope that everybody on the UO team is able to keep their jobs, because we can't lose any more.
Not a coincidence that Rich Vogel, a former UO producer/executive, bailed out on SWTOR recently.
Last edited by a moderator:
Unlimited trial would be f2p. Adding more to it like more items to the cash shop or even making it just modular access, and again, it would have absolutely... no effect on current subscribers.
I think they should invest more in new content to be sure. No doubt about that. But even if they do that its not going to get new players, and I would wager that it would have much less of an effect on revenue than something as simple as making the trial account unlimited and putting out "UO is free to play!" ad spams. And once the game population is growing, it WILL be more likely to get new content.
I understand that you seem to think that any f2p system is by nature some kind of predatory scam to trick idiots, but its just not so. I would say all non web based f2p mmos are not especially predatory, DDO and LoTRO EQ2 specifically are not very predatory at all, and all have full access subscription choices. I see no reason why UO would be this way. The team would be the ones deciding how it all works, not some suit.
When they were planning on making UO free to play in the past they hired an old UO hand to develop it. I see no reason why they would feel the need to step in and be controlling in a new attempt.
And as for star wars... guess what? Its going free to play with what sounds pretty much exactly the DDO/LoTRO set up, with regular subscriptions at the current price getting full access and a bonus of free shop currency every month for vanity items.
Its just a fact that f2p increases game traffic. The appearance of the game doesn't matter in the slightest. People are bored and will try free things. That's just how it is.
I think they should invest more in new content to be sure. No doubt about that. But even if they do that its not going to get new players, and I would wager that it would have much less of an effect on revenue than something as simple as making the trial account unlimited and putting out "UO is free to play!" ad spams. And once the game population is growing, it WILL be more likely to get new content.
I understand that you seem to think that any f2p system is by nature some kind of predatory scam to trick idiots, but its just not so. I would say all non web based f2p mmos are not especially predatory, DDO and LoTRO EQ2 specifically are not very predatory at all, and all have full access subscription choices. I see no reason why UO would be this way. The team would be the ones deciding how it all works, not some suit.
When they were planning on making UO free to play in the past they hired an old UO hand to develop it. I see no reason why they would feel the need to step in and be controlling in a new attempt.
And as for star wars... guess what? Its going free to play with what sounds pretty much exactly the DDO/LoTRO set up, with regular subscriptions at the current price getting full access and a bonus of free shop currency every month for vanity items.
Its just a fact that f2p increases game traffic. The appearance of the game doesn't matter in the slightest. People are bored and will try free things. That's just how it is.
D
Druido2
Guest
Dear OP:My answer is no f2p. In addition to this, I will help you move on from UO by takin over your account. After all, you are not using it any more. So PM me the info so that I can start enjoying it.
Last edited by a moderator:
But why? I can't think of a logical reason NOT to do it.
FTP – NO!!!! Don’t make it easier for the scripter!. 
So if your board with the game.
Then come over to siege, and play the game the way it was meant to be played.
Put the challenge back in the game. Free will not make it fun to play.. But harder will!
So if your board with the game.
Then come over to siege, and play the game the way it was meant to be played.
Put the challenge back in the game. Free will not make it fun to play.. But harder will!
I might as well chime in since I'm here.. 
F2P could be good for UO. Item Store is the way to do it. I know most things can be Crafted by players and in theory it would reduce Social Interaction to sell through Item Store but really now, WHAT Interaction? What Society/Community?
If I could have every single Item/Resource/Armour/ETC through such a Store, including perhaps a system for Housing and other ways to warp to End-Game from Day 1 I'd go for it- Even after losing my 10+Yrs Account(Not sure if I did yet), or at the very least my House and Items for which I had spent quite a lot. As a PVPr it would take nothing off the "Interaction" bit, it would in fact allow me to get back on track with all the people I knew since before I left UO and PVP with them.
To tell you the Truth, if they did such a thing with an Official Game Store then 3rd Parties would be obsolete as well. And even WITH a Sub, I'd still give them my $$(Support UO AND get my Pixel Crack.. AND be on par with my Guildies still playing). F2P at this point would not further harm UO IMHO.
:EDIT:
Increase Cheating? LOL? From what I hear, that is still going strong even now, after so long! Nope. It won't get worse!
F2P could be good for UO. Item Store is the way to do it. I know most things can be Crafted by players and in theory it would reduce Social Interaction to sell through Item Store but really now, WHAT Interaction? What Society/Community? If I could have every single Item/Resource/Armour/ETC through such a Store, including perhaps a system for Housing and other ways to warp to End-Game from Day 1 I'd go for it- Even after losing my 10+Yrs Account(Not sure if I did yet), or at the very least my House and Items for which I had spent quite a lot. As a PVPr it would take nothing off the "Interaction" bit, it would in fact allow me to get back on track with all the people I knew since before I left UO and PVP with them.
To tell you the Truth, if they did such a thing with an Official Game Store then 3rd Parties would be obsolete as well. And even WITH a Sub, I'd still give them my $$(Support UO AND get my Pixel Crack.. AND be on par with my Guildies still playing). F2P at this point would not further harm UO IMHO.
:EDIT:
Increase Cheating? LOL? From what I hear, that is still going strong even now, after so long! Nope. It won't get worse!
Last edited:
And this will do WHAT? Most PC games now are completely digital and you really only buy games in places like gamestop now (who rarely sells PC games) unless it's for a console.. I am sure it's cheaper to market a game buy letting everyone just download the game client online than trying to sell a box on the store shelves, you don't need a disc to install the game or to play it, so what good does a box do?
I agree though that the price of UO needs to be CUT in half, I have recently de-activated two accounts and I am leaving one active, I will try and close that one in the future as well.. I do 6 month subs, a horrendous price if you don't plan on playing UO very much, I decided it wasn't worth it, I wanted to focus on real life as well as play other games on the market..
The current population of the game though does need addressed and I doubt we will ever see an expansion or mini-booster ever again.. UO doesn't cost much to keep the servers up, at all, our monthly fee is basically their paycheck.. Also, I know one issue brought up in the past was with housing if it went F2P, how would you prevent UO from being filled up with unused houses? Easy solution, bring back house refreshing on F2P accounts, so if their house is always in decay and they would need to hop on to visit it.. So a subscription fee would still come in handy here, but A LOT of player would come back to UO under a part F2P/Sub model, those of us who are still hardcore about our homes and the benefits we have would still be a subscription fee, all we want is more players, but they shouldn't be like trial accounts, F2P users will BUY stuff off of the EA store due to that $13 a month they are saving.. . SWTOR is about to go free 2 play and it will be interesting to see how it turns out, if it succeeds, I imagine other games will follow..
This as I just said in a post.. No upkeep is being spent on UO at all.. I think EA looks at UO as a training ground for it's game developers and that's where our money is going.. The servers are not costing very much, I believe they are just milking UO as long as they can... If any money was being spent on UO then we wouldn't have a piss poor website with a broken MYUO and we would have had more mini-boosters right now, if it was costing a lot of money to keep the servers up then UO would have already closed down a very long time ago, so it's like I said, it wouldn't matter if the game was free 2 play or not.. They are just milking it, it's a little bit of extra cash for them..
Age of Conan, Lord of the Rings Online, DDO, Champions Online, Fallen Earth, APB:Reloaded, etc.. All these MMO's were ones that were dying very, very quickly (APB did get shot down) when they were using subs, at first they were succeeding, due to a large part of the MMO's being brand new games... Each game is now succeeding TWICE as much under a free 2 play model, APB was literally shut down and got brought back by a different company and they are doing very well, Fallen Earth was close to going bye bye.. Lord of the Rings had to open servers back up because so many players were coming in..
Here..
This game, right here has more players than UO, it's free 2 play.. It's like a damn nintendo game, but the only reason people play it is because they can it doesn't cost very much upkeep, just like UO..
Realm of the Mad God
I doubt ANYONE would play Realm of the Mad God though if it had subs, I wouldn't.. And yes, I have spent a little bit of money on the item mall, but it was nothing super expensive, I spent maybe like $10 total on points to buy a few things.. I don't play it often... But the game has FAR more players than UO does..
Here is a independent game called LINKREALMS, currently its in open beta, but at the same time it's a game that is out, it's free 2 play, you have to SUB if you want a HOUSE, but you have access to everything, bank storage, skills, content, all of it.. It's not "Trial accounts" the only thing you spend money on is a monthly fee for your realm, which isn't that much..
THIS game (fallen sword)... f2p... has more players than UO. One of probably dozens of really low tech games that have a TON of players. Why? Its f2p. That is the only reason.
UO is a far better game than any of these crap games you can find. F2p would bring in a lot of players.
I rest my case.
There isn't that much players "yet" but it has been gaining a lot lately.. There are more and more players everyday..
Graphically, it dominates UO, it plays/feels exactly like UO and has a lot of inspiration from it... It lacks content though and the animations could be improved greatly, they work on it day in and day out, the game improves every time it gets a patch and more content is added as well.. I play free at the moment, so I don't have my own realm (which you need if you want a house.) having a house though in Linkrealms isn't that necessary though, it is a lot like having a house in UO, but that is the only difference.. There isn't any restrictions besides that when you play Linkrealms as a free game..
It only has 3 developers..
Last edited:
W
Woodsman
Guest
I said some other things that were rather abrupt about f2p, and I should back off a bit, and explain my thinking more clearly, and your post got me to thinking about them, although this isn't directed at you.
If they were to lift the time restriction on the trial UO accounts and call that "f2p", I'm all for it. If it gets people in, fine, call it whatever they want. I'm opposed to it if they had to do any serious amount of work to implement anything beyond lifting the time restriction for two reasons, the first being that the UO team is not big enough, and they would have to stop development on everything else.
The second reason, and your post is what made me think of this, and this is the bigger reason for me, is that there would be real returns over the long run. An increase in players does nothing if EA isn't willing to support or do some serious work on UO. It just means UO might have another extra year or two. It doesn't setup UO to be around in 5 years.
Let me give an example of what I mean. In July or August of last year, Frank Gibeau, the head of EA Games, who is over BioWare, which is over Mythic, which is over the UO team, said that UO was "widely profitable". Not long after, Eugene Evans, the guy who is over Mythic, which is over the UO team, said he was proud to be running the studio that produced UO.
What happened in those 9-12 months after they said those things? UO lost up to 9 members of the dev team, and only 3-4 have been replaced. If EA is not willing to support UO when it's "widely profitable" and instead gets rid of team members, then there is no doubt in my mind that EA will treat UO just the same under an f2p system.
W
Woodsman
Guest
Maybe I should just say the problem is not with f2p, it's with EA and EA has not shown any commitment to UO in years.
Stygian Abyss is why I'll never, ever, return to a UO where they expect me to pay them ever again. Well, that and the absolute mishandling of TWO (three if you count Third Dawn!) new clients which both have failed to capture even half of the playerbase and the most recent is still plagued with problems that have existed since day one of it's launch.
Stygian Abyss might have been a financial success for them, I don't know, but the gaping holes in the overworld where things should have been finished are painfully obvious. To expect me to buy booster packs like High Seas when things like that are still looking at me right in the face -- it'd be a challenge to make me even want to come back for free.
Honestly, it kind of echoes Age of Shadows how the only interesting thing available was the dungeon included in the expansion and the professions added. The difference I guess being that Age of Shadows was met with such a different problem in that it completely turned the game upside down, I guess not many (myself included) noticed nor cared about details like that.
I'm voting no on the game to going free-to-play, but not because I think subscribing is a good idea, but because I'd rather not see it dragged through the mud any more like some childhood doll that I once loved.
Stygian Abyss might have been a financial success for them, I don't know, but the gaping holes in the overworld where things should have been finished are painfully obvious. To expect me to buy booster packs like High Seas when things like that are still looking at me right in the face -- it'd be a challenge to make me even want to come back for free.
Honestly, it kind of echoes Age of Shadows how the only interesting thing available was the dungeon included in the expansion and the professions added. The difference I guess being that Age of Shadows was met with such a different problem in that it completely turned the game upside down, I guess not many (myself included) noticed nor cared about details like that.
I'm voting no on the game to going free-to-play, but not because I think subscribing is a good idea, but because I'd rather not see it dragged through the mud any more like some childhood doll that I once loved.
Last edited:
I've said this before and I'll say it again. I'm all for them making UO F2P.... IF (and this is a BIG IF) they do it right.
F2P should be on a separate servers. Something designed to give folk the real "feel" of the game. Paid subscribers can make a character there but NOT put housing or anything there just help newbs. It would have a limited Fel... and limits. But it would be HEAVY on teaching. It would be the "New player" experience. Everything they do would come with a new player type experience monologue.
It would be not possible to have more gold than 1 Million.
Housing would be very limited to only 8x8. This allows them to get the "idea" of design and deco without allowing them too much. Though a house plot should cost more.
Keep the limit to 1 boat, giving the feel of the sea but only allow them to have the regular boats.
The lands would be Trammel and Fel (Adding Malas perhaps "if" they run out of land for housing).
Fel would be limited and not have Factions though it would have information of Factions.
There would be a 3 character limit and a limit of one account per IP.
Stacks of anything would be limited to 1k.
Banks would hold only 50 items, as well as backpacks.
Skills would be limited to 70. (This keeps Scripters from trying to use F2P characters to bring high end resources into paid servers cheaply) No high level ingots or boards or leather can be obtained on the F2P servers)
No powerscrolls, no T-Maps over level 3.
No fishing quests.
No Arties.
No Elves or Gargoyles. (Though they could see some if "Paid" Subscribers used them. Paid subscribers wanting to help there would be able to use Gargoyles and Elves)
No BoD's or BoD Rewards, or just limited to Iron and Cloth. With very limited rewards.
Purchase of items would be allowed... they would get some gifts and things for playing for a long time but not like Paid UO.
When they decide to "buy" UO then they would be allowed to transfer to the "Paid" servers. However transfer would be limited to 1k resources and 1 million gold max and only what you can fit in your pack and bankbox. NO pack animals or anything else. When transferring to the paid shards they would get the option to "redo" their characters, 1 time only option allowing them to choose another race, name, sex but still keep their old skills.
This would make it highly unprofitable for scriptors, as well as give people a way to get a taste and feel of the game before deciding to take it further... and start paying.
F2P should be on a separate servers. Something designed to give folk the real "feel" of the game. Paid subscribers can make a character there but NOT put housing or anything there just help newbs. It would have a limited Fel... and limits. But it would be HEAVY on teaching. It would be the "New player" experience. Everything they do would come with a new player type experience monologue.
It would be not possible to have more gold than 1 Million.
Housing would be very limited to only 8x8. This allows them to get the "idea" of design and deco without allowing them too much. Though a house plot should cost more.
Keep the limit to 1 boat, giving the feel of the sea but only allow them to have the regular boats.
The lands would be Trammel and Fel (Adding Malas perhaps "if" they run out of land for housing).
Fel would be limited and not have Factions though it would have information of Factions.
There would be a 3 character limit and a limit of one account per IP.
Stacks of anything would be limited to 1k.
Banks would hold only 50 items, as well as backpacks.
Skills would be limited to 70. (This keeps Scripters from trying to use F2P characters to bring high end resources into paid servers cheaply) No high level ingots or boards or leather can be obtained on the F2P servers)
No powerscrolls, no T-Maps over level 3.
No fishing quests.
No Arties.
No Elves or Gargoyles. (Though they could see some if "Paid" Subscribers used them. Paid subscribers wanting to help there would be able to use Gargoyles and Elves)
No BoD's or BoD Rewards, or just limited to Iron and Cloth. With very limited rewards.
Purchase of items would be allowed... they would get some gifts and things for playing for a long time but not like Paid UO.
When they decide to "buy" UO then they would be allowed to transfer to the "Paid" servers. However transfer would be limited to 1k resources and 1 million gold max and only what you can fit in your pack and bankbox. NO pack animals or anything else. When transferring to the paid shards they would get the option to "redo" their characters, 1 time only option allowing them to choose another race, name, sex but still keep their old skills.
This would make it highly unprofitable for scriptors, as well as give people a way to get a taste and feel of the game before deciding to take it further... and start paying.
Last edited:
Im not sure what the gamestop is like at your hood man... the ones out here have a good selection of PC games.. so does the target.. the walmart.. the bestbuy..
What do they all have in common? Boxes of WOW on the shelves.
Face it man, not everybody (hardly anybody) is download only.
A box on the shelves adds players. PERIOD.
Last edited:
Well guess my hood is like Velvathos. Gamestop has a tiny pc section, the 3 walmarts have a pc section but they are small. Closest Target has a decent PC selction so thats about it in my area. Yes plenty of WoW which is the most popular game on the shelves.
GW2 is digital download and already over a million pre-orderd copies sold since April so digital download works.
F2P in UO? I used to think it would be the best way to go but as the current community is against it I dont think it will work.
Diablo III - Cost $60. Free to play after that. Over 200 hours invested and enjoying every minute of it.
Blizzard is making money off a real money auction house and game expansion packs. UO should have done the same. The way gear is handled and the Auction House (gold and real) allows you to find what you need quickly and sell what you have to others. Why doesn't UO have this after 15 years in business. Oops.
The monthly subscription just allows people to question why they pay for playing the game each month. Don't make them question it and have them pay for expansion content/gear. The more addiction the better for the game. The resubscribing just allows people to take a check each time as to whether it is worth it or not.
UO is about community and as the community falters so does the game. Its not well geared to be a one player game. A vibrant community keeps people comming to the game. A dead game prevents people from joining.
Good....go back there and leave my UO alone.
Never ceases to amaze me when people claim this other game is so great and better than UO, but yet keep coming back here to complain.
Seriously if it's so great then just go away.
Actually he didn't say he is not playing UO in that post. He just "compared" Diablo III model" to the "UO model." Unless I am missing it or you already have the knowledge he does not play UO I will apologize.
Just remember this is a "discussion" and nothing may ever come of it.
To add some spice to this topic let me add an article that was done a month ago over at Massively. A very good read I may add.
The Game Archaeologist: Will classic MMOs survive without free-to-play?
by Justin Olivettion Jun 19th 2012 6:00PM
It's amazing to me how quickly the industry has shifted to where we don't just welcome free-to-play as a business model in MMOs -- we downright expect it. Take a look in the comments of any new MMO that dares to launch with a subscription-only model: People will be tripping over each other in an attempt to predict just when said game will break down and admit that it needs F2P. Whether or not BioWare's admission that it's looking into F2P for Star Wars: The Old Republic surprised you or not, it's a sign that no game is immune to the allure, dollar signs, and downright necessity of the popularity and flexibility of this model.
I think this brings a pressing question to bear in the field of classic MMOs: Will they survive without free-to-play? It's a pretty important question for a few reasons. One, a surprising majority of remaining sub-only MMOs are older ones; two, people now expect free in games they try; and three, players aren't exactly flocking to classic MMOs anyway.
This week I want to explore the conundrum that these games are in and why some players may have blinders on when it comes to the fate of their favorite games.
The question of converting
For what it's worth, I don't think that anybody from studios that run these classic titles has his head in the sand regarding this issue. Free-to-play is pretty much impossible to ignore at this point. But these devs have a problem: Their games were structured around and have run for years with a subscription-only business model, and conversion would cost both money and time on behalf of the company.
I'm no business expert, but I think the bottom line has to be whether or not it would be financially worth it to do so. Adopting a straight free-to-play or a hybrid model isn't like changing a line of code; there's a ton to do to make it happen, from deciding how it'll be structured to marketing it to getting into the game's code all over the place. Some studios may glance enviously at F2P and wish they could do it, but the team is too small, the dollars stretched too tight, and the suits are too unwilling to make the leap.
The question of possibility
Turbine's an interesting case study for this topic. Dungeons and Dragons Online was a substantial risk for the studio, as converting a sub-only title to a F2P model hadn't really been done before quite the same way before. Yet without it, DDO would've most likely died, and so it was a gamble to either cut losses or try for something greater. Turbine made out on this like a bandit, and Lord of the Rings Online followed shortly thereafter.
Yet despite how fully Turbine embraced F2P, it didn't bother with Asheron's Call, the patriarch of the studio. How come? When I asked Turbine about this back in 2010, I was told that the game is too complex and old to adapt. AC was examined and found lacking as a F2P candidate, and subscription-only it will remain.
On the flip side, you have Sony Online Entertainment, which converted EverQuest earlier this year to F2P and is about to do the same for Vanguard. Vanguard, the game that has to have a player population down in the double digits, is being given new life as a F2P title. What gives? What makes these games worthy of the procedure?
While the bottom line with SOE is financial, I see that studio as more willing to prop up its smaller titles in exchange for a diverse library (which is pretty much its strongest suit these days). The studio had already established its F2P adaptation process and structure, so shifting it over to these older games wasn't like starting from scratch. Plus, it's not like every old game was thrust into F2P; EverQuest Online Adventures was axed because its population was far too small to justify it and the system it ran on was nearing obsoletion.
The question of the future
Of course, I hear some of you right now: "Leave my game alone! We don't need F2P; we're doing just fine!"
Are you, though?
Let me ask you this: What is drawing new players to your classic MMO of choice? Word of mouth and the occasional curiosity-seeker only goes so far, and most of these titles are far past the days of releasing expansions for additional publicity and profit. So what's bringing new players in? The answer is, of course, nothing. And when you have very little in terms of influx but a statistical surety of outgoing players, the population and revenue is going to continually slide downhill, leaving little hope for the game's future.
I'm not trying to be mean here. You all know that I root for these titles like crazy (after all, why else would I write this column?), but facts are facts. Without anything pulling new players -- and their revenue -- into the games, these MMOs are living on borrowed time, even moreso than other games. It's just a hard sell to ask a new player to plunk down a subscription fee for an older game.
I understand that there's some reluctance to embrace a new business model. Your game's small, tight-knit community is one of the things you love best about it. You feel protective of it and don't want to see a bunch of slack-jawed tourists stampede in. But if making that move will give your title a fighting chance to live a lot longer, isn't it worth some adjustment on your part?
Free-to-play conversions can be an exciting time for older MMOs. It gives them a burst of high profile in the media (just ask EverQuest), and if the established community is welcoming, it can be a blast to show all of these new souls what makes this game so lovable. Plus, there's something energetic about seeing servers and chat channels fill up with fresh blood. Seeing the game through a newbie's perspective can often revitalize your own interest.
If we want to see these games endure, they're going to need to adapt, and the community is going to need to adapt alongside of it.
When not clawing his eyes out at the atrocious state of general chat channels, Justin "Syp" Olivetti pulls out his history textbook for a lecture or two on the good ol' days of MMOs in The Game Archaeologist. You can contact him via email at [email protected] or through his gaming blog, Bio Break.
While free to play would be an idea (assuming, that a free account cannot place a house and the house hold by accounts with expired subscription payments would have the same decay cycle as before), this would mainly support current players. Sure I would like to see some of my former accounts alive and usable from time to time, and it would be easier for old friends to take a look in without bothering with that confusing EA master ID stuff.
But there would have to be some consideration to avoid people creating too many trial accounts using the backpacks and bank boxes as additional storage.
And it would not get much fresh blood into the game.
Another idea would be a kind of universal subscription for a block of EA online games, which also allows to access UO.
*Salute*
Olahorand
But there would have to be some consideration to avoid people creating too many trial accounts using the backpacks and bank boxes as additional storage.
And it would not get much fresh blood into the game.
Another idea would be a kind of universal subscription for a block of EA online games, which also allows to access UO.
*Salute*
Olahorand
You don't need to apologize either way because whether he plays or not is irrelevant. It doesn't change my point which is....If that other game is so great and UO sucks.....go away.
I think I speak for most people who are wary of F2P. How I've seen it work is people who are either trying out a game or only play occasionally think it's great cause they don't pay a dime. Sure they have an abridged version of the game, but since you're average younger gamer these days has the attention span of a knat, they don't care. They probably won't be around in a couple years and in the mean time they can pass some time between complaining about the old people who are ruining their lives and watching reality tv.
Meanwhile the dedicated players, most of whom were playing before the game changed to F2P, end up getting nickel and dimed to death. I can see it now:
Me: I want to go to Despise Fel and do a champ
System message: "Please authorize a $1.00 charge to your CC in order to access this dungeon"
Me: No I already paid my subscription this month and that's all you're getting.
System message: "We're not running a charity here and since we've got 50,000 people using our servers for free, we've gotta make it up somewhere"
Me: Yeah I think I'm done with this game.
Sure change the game to F2P. But the moment this game ends up costing me more than I'm paying now, or the amount of content I'm allowed to access is reduced unless I pay more. Well that's the moment I call it quits.
--Yeah it worries me, especially since we know how EA has been lately. The fact that they started adding items into the game that can only be gotten with RL $$..... the above scenario is not to farfetched.
Last edited:
WOW! I mean that literally.
I do understand what your saying but I may disagree on how you classify the "average younger gamer" but that will not bring in the new blood that UO needs. Lets leave the name calling out of it. I understand you are standing up in what you believe in what is best for UO by your reasoning. That is great and I am cool with it. There are many that would agreee with you. The vote percentage above tells that tale.
There are others that do disagree and think UO should go to F2P. We also have to remember that not all players post on forums either. They are to busy playing the game not thinking of this stuff. UO going F2P would be complicated to say the least but it could if EA decided it.
What I can add is from that article above I will quote below.
I do understand what your saying but I may disagree on how you classify the "average younger gamer" but that will not bring in the new blood that UO needs. Lets leave the name calling out of it. I understand you are standing up in what you believe in what is best for UO by your reasoning. That is great and I am cool with it. There are many that would agreee with you. The vote percentage above tells that tale.
There are others that do disagree and think UO should go to F2P. We also have to remember that not all players post on forums either. They are to busy playing the game not thinking of this stuff. UO going F2P would be complicated to say the least but it could if EA decided it.
What I can add is from that article above I will quote below.
Last edited:
Why would you assume this? Especially when almost literally every piece of evidence is diametrically opposed to your contention. The MAIN draw of switching to F2P is the influx of new players. Clearly, quite very clearly, it works in that capacity. I see no reason UO would break the trend.
There is no reason to believe this. Every major (read non web based) game that has gone f2p still has a regular subscription that not only allows you access to all content, but usually comes with monthly free currency to spend at the cash shop. That is what it sounds like TOR is getting set up, so its likely that UO would follow a similar path.
It really probably wouldn't effect a subscriber in the slightest, other than the fact that there would be many more people to play with.
Last edited:
Exactly.
J
Joey Porter
Guest
Cannot say that I agree with this, pretty broad brush you are using there.
Currently my favorite person to game with in our clan is 13 year old. Very mature, very diverse count and TONS of time to play. He also tells all his friends about UO and tries to get them to play as well. Bet he could if there was a F2P option.
Last edited by a moderator:
That's been my experience with my son and my numerous relatives. They change which game they're playing at least once a month.
That's great.......how long has he been playing?
J
Joey Porter
Guest
4 years.
His uncle let him have one of his subs when he was 9 and he took over the main account about a year ago.
I know that is probably an exception to the rule but if F2P brings in 10 kids his age and a few turn out to be good players then that is a few more good players then we had before.
I am with you though, if you start charging me extra to access current in game content then I am out. I have no problem paying real life money for extras though.
Last edited by a moderator:
FTP for trial accounts may seem fine but no where has it been addressed, or asked. What about existing accounts under the FTP model. Say a player wants to return after taking a break and see whats up. What happens when he tries to log in? What about all the people who currently flip flop accounts to maintain houses every couple of months how would this affect those accounts. until that is answered than I would have to say no to FTP.
Then why would anyone do anything more than re-up every 3 mths. If i have a house, the major incentive to keep a monthly subscription is not there. as I see it the money and subscriptions lost versus the abuse of the system. have 3 accounts, each with a house, stagger the renewals so each month you pay on one account for the month. 3 houses for the price of one account. If they make the houses decay as soon as someone from the account logs in on a unpaid account how many are lost from people maintaining houses every 3 mths?
cant see this as a win for EA and UO.
don't worry everyone is lol and maybe things will continue ceasing to amaze you when "your" game ceases to exist...
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
P
puzzleagent
Guest
Quoting this cause it seems many feel that they will be paying more to play for being a subscribed player. I have similar experience with DC Universe Online. I continued my subscription and end up with getting more benefits. And for this last 4 months I am not subscribed, I went down to "premium" and I could buy the DLC's individually cause I had tons of station cash accumulated for being subscribed member. I bought all the DLCs and many cosmetic stuff etc. Now I am playing it for free and if I do subscribe again, I'll have access to all content and wont pay a dime more than monthly cost.
I still have active subscriptions to UO and would drop them if it weren't for 10 years of junk I have collected worth billions. If I get around to packing it up/selling it I will let my subscriptions go. I rarely log into UO much anymore.
I am simply voicing my opinion on F2P for UO which I think, done right, could be what would save this game. It needs more players and I don't think anyone could argue that UO has been getting 'new players' over the past year or two.
It is also this militant attitude that drives away new players. I've never seen more ornery people in one game.
The few left that still play, or the scores of vets that would return? If EA was smart, they'd make the right decision.And I'd quit if it went FTP.
Gee.. I wonder which one of us EA cares about pleasing. The player that currently hands them money every month, or some random person on a forum asking to play their game for free.
I would love to make a return, I am a 10 year plus vet. I just havent wanted to spend the money. I wouldnt mind paying 5 a month, I dont think free is the answer.
Yo want to come back but the game isnt worth 13$ a month?? or if you gt a 6month pass its 10$ a month cost...
Gee give up a single trip to the fast food joint of your choice and you got the cost of a month or more in that alone..............
There is so much to exchange in the place of your sub to UO its not funny...
If you smoke... 2 packs worth... gee your lungs will thank you for the respit... Drink? ok give up a few beers... its worth it.
UO is 30 days of activitys with people you know and some you dont....
Gee give up a single trip to the fast food joint of your choice and you got the cost of a month or more in that alone..............
There is so much to exchange in the place of your sub to UO its not funny...
If you smoke... 2 packs worth... gee your lungs will thank you for the respit... Drink? ok give up a few beers... its worth it.
UO is 30 days of activitys with people you know and some you dont....
Lord Nabin
High Council Sage - Greater Sosaria
Professional
Supporter
Stratics Veteran
Stratics Legend
UNLEASHED
Glorious Lord
*Wanders back in from the forest*
Can't imagine why this was brought up again
*Swats fly and heads back into the forest. Looks back and tips a nod to a good old glass of Moonglow Red"
Can't imagine why this was brought up again
*Swats fly and heads back into the forest. Looks back and tips a nod to a good old glass of Moonglow Red"
You might missed the fact that lots of veterans are back and on the way to be on this game. The reason is way easy to understand : UO can be everything . And so many fancy shiny and "brilliant mmorpgs EPIC FAILED already....even if loats of $ were spent.
No interaction you said ? You're totally wrong. Lack on exciting on expansion ? Again, you're totally wrong , High Seas is so way fun IF you like fishing etc. I think you don't like the game and this explain ..
It's just you won't love this game so, for that, no need to ask it to bee free, not paying for the game won't makes you love it. Just pick another mmorpg (eg) SwTor where you can have loads of fun ( laughs ) or you can have a massive and deep social part ( laughs more ) and so on.
Character transfer exist since...but hey, are you really talking about uo ?
Last but not least you wrote :
"There is no appeal for me to pay for this game. I haven't done so since 2010 after nearly 13 years of subscription. Moved on. And so I won't."
Sorry but...why you opened this thread for ?
Just my 2 penneys
Everyone wishing uo as free2play do realize that if it would happen, many of the features in uo would be unique to subscribers right? like housing.. a f2p model would be not much greater features than the trial is today, which is pretty restrictive.
Only real possibility uo has of going f2p is just removing the time limit of trial.. and convert accounts to trial accounts when not being paid (with all that includes).
In the words of a wise man.. "no such thing as free", meaning that we might have to pay more for the same privileges which everyone now takes for granted if it goes f2p.
The real problem with uo is they cant do shard merges like other games, mainly cause of housing. This is the problem.. and until they figure out some ingenious way to get to the root of that problem we will have some shards with not so high pop, f2p or not
Only real possibility uo has of going f2p is just removing the time limit of trial.. and convert accounts to trial accounts when not being paid (with all that includes).
In the words of a wise man.. "no such thing as free", meaning that we might have to pay more for the same privileges which everyone now takes for granted if it goes f2p.
The real problem with uo is they cant do shard merges like other games, mainly cause of housing. This is the problem.. and until they figure out some ingenious way to get to the root of that problem we will have some shards with not so high pop, f2p or not
This is a hard one... I think we'd have more players if the game was free. However, if the game was made free the we'd probably have no gm's at that point... We pay 12.99 a month now, and hardly have any support what so ever. So yeah like I said this is a really hard choice.
For years I have told people its hell to get my daughter in law to understand why much less play in UO......
Well that has changed...
All thanks to her Facebook account and bordom, you see she plays Farmville2... Sorry for giving a name but its important to this end.
She has now become what can be called a "gamer in training".
The more important thing is she now see's the value of UO style games vs F2P.
Now dont get me wrong I have sat there and watched her struggle to make level after level in that cute little farm game..
Why?
Evey other item that lets you build up the coins and points to get there cost you $
Oh its in farm bucks but hey why quibble over a few of them?? 40 here 20 there 12 there adds up...
100 farm bucks is not alot of rl cash but if you need 100 here and a 100 there every time they have new items pop up for the farm and all that it adds up!
And every few days a new event comes around and there goes new items and things to make you gain faster that cost $$ in farm bucks..
Get the drift.......?
If you went in for just the farm items like trees and special plant seeds....sound fermiliar..
You would end up spending about 100 to 200 real life cash to get just the first 2 months worth of these goodies... yes I added them up on a calculator..
I for one will never pancake about how much UO cost me again after adding up the F2P again!!
So.............. my answer still stands and its with a big toe right on this threads neck...
HELL NO.
The next person who even mentions F2P as an alteritive for UO I will personally boot in the tail and send you to your room....
While it might be profitable for EA.. We my friends would be fleeced of every spare copper in our pockets!
Dont tell me you would be willing to pay it for things you want... as those things will add up fast.. *shudders*
Just the first 3 months of play in her game would run you the cost of an intire year of UO at 13$ a month.
There is one down side to F2P also.. the game company who produces her game has been loosing hundreds of thousands of players in the last 6 months. Her game boasted over 1.5 million players and as it stands now they are under 950 thousand most days... and at what I would consider peek playing time it is under 500k...
Well that has changed...
All thanks to her Facebook account and bordom, you see she plays Farmville2... Sorry for giving a name but its important to this end.
She has now become what can be called a "gamer in training".
The more important thing is she now see's the value of UO style games vs F2P.
Now dont get me wrong I have sat there and watched her struggle to make level after level in that cute little farm game..
Why?
Evey other item that lets you build up the coins and points to get there cost you $
Oh its in farm bucks but hey why quibble over a few of them?? 40 here 20 there 12 there adds up...
100 farm bucks is not alot of rl cash but if you need 100 here and a 100 there every time they have new items pop up for the farm and all that it adds up!
And every few days a new event comes around and there goes new items and things to make you gain faster that cost $$ in farm bucks..
Get the drift.......?
If you went in for just the farm items like trees and special plant seeds....sound fermiliar..
You would end up spending about 100 to 200 real life cash to get just the first 2 months worth of these goodies... yes I added them up on a calculator..
I for one will never pancake about how much UO cost me again after adding up the F2P again!!
So.............. my answer still stands and its with a big toe right on this threads neck...
HELL NO.
The next person who even mentions F2P as an alteritive for UO I will personally boot in the tail and send you to your room....
While it might be profitable for EA.. We my friends would be fleeced of every spare copper in our pockets!
Dont tell me you would be willing to pay it for things you want... as those things will add up fast.. *shudders*
Just the first 3 months of play in her game would run you the cost of an intire year of UO at 13$ a month.
There is one down side to F2P also.. the game company who produces her game has been loosing hundreds of thousands of players in the last 6 months. Her game boasted over 1.5 million players and as it stands now they are under 950 thousand most days... and at what I would consider peek playing time it is under 500k...
Comparing farmville to UO is impossible. It's nothing like UO and nothing like most F2P games. Even with you numbers of players in farmville are right, that would make UO player base a single rain drop to their rain storm.
UO should go F2P because it's already on life support. Losing devs and community people. Less people posting on the forums, and the age of UO players are not getting any younger. The thing is UO is free. Many player ran shards out there on the intraweb.
Look you can attack and knock other games for being F2P but in the end they do have higher player populations. We know the issue isn't money since your discussion is focused on how much more players spend on those games versus UO subscription fee. So in that reality the problem must be UO itself and not the paying model that f2p games have or UO since UO should be cheaper by your post
So where is this so called 60k +population UO has? Oh I see the post where people say I saw a newb the other day or the game is getting new players more and more. Funny how I read posts like.... well it's summer and the popultaion will drop, or school is starting and players wont be around much, or it's the holidays and people are spending time with the families, I got a butt itch and have to take time off UO to buy some butt cream ( I had to add some humor to it). Sounds more like excuses or ways to make a person feel better in a false sense of reality that the game just doesn't have the numbers.
The game is still has pulse and hopefully it will last for a long time but time will tell.
I would suggest to buy more accounts and not worry about the f2p models and subscription models. That is what keeps UO alive.
UO should go F2P because it's already on life support. Losing devs and community people. Less people posting on the forums, and the age of UO players are not getting any younger. The thing is UO is free. Many player ran shards out there on the intraweb.
Look you can attack and knock other games for being F2P but in the end they do have higher player populations. We know the issue isn't money since your discussion is focused on how much more players spend on those games versus UO subscription fee. So in that reality the problem must be UO itself and not the paying model that f2p games have or UO since UO should be cheaper by your post
So where is this so called 60k +population UO has? Oh I see the post where people say I saw a newb the other day or the game is getting new players more and more. Funny how I read posts like.... well it's summer and the popultaion will drop, or school is starting and players wont be around much, or it's the holidays and people are spending time with the families, I got a butt itch and have to take time off UO to buy some butt cream ( I had to add some humor to it). Sounds more like excuses or ways to make a person feel better in a false sense of reality that the game just doesn't have the numbers.
The game is still has pulse and hopefully it will last for a long time but time will tell.
I would suggest to buy more accounts and not worry about the f2p models and subscription models. That is what keeps UO alive.
Zosimus your not getting my point ...
UO cant go f2p it would kill it for sure..
Its not that farmville is anything like UO, or that its population is so much more even on a slow day....
The major point is this:
F2P will milk your wallet and give you less.. what what is touted as FREE.
I saw with my own eyes that they made it very hard if you didnt spend to gain the higher ranks... and even tempted you with tid bits to lure you to spend rl cash.
I had trouble with my son when young to understand that 5 $ here and 10$ there adds up quickly.
Perhaps if I put it into UO terms you might become enlightened faster......
Imagine this:
You get UO free evey month... (for this to happen you give up a few things paid customers get)
you cant have more then 75 items in your bank box and may not be co owned to a house or own a home.
You may not use any etherial mount or vet reward .. this includes dye tubs.
You may only go to the main lands Trammel and Fel , but any other land are going to cost you per area.
you may not attend Champ spawns...
Now to do these things you must pay a fee to access it.
Imagine doing this for each of your characters.. paying a fee to get what a full paid customer gets with a 12.99 a month charge
Cant you see we would be nickled and dimed to death.
EA could in essence very easly drain its players away in just such a senerio...
I for one would not put it past their accountaints to make up hidious ways to drain us dry...
UO cant go f2p it would kill it for sure..
Its not that farmville is anything like UO, or that its population is so much more even on a slow day....
The major point is this:
F2P will milk your wallet and give you less.. what what is touted as FREE.
I saw with my own eyes that they made it very hard if you didnt spend to gain the higher ranks... and even tempted you with tid bits to lure you to spend rl cash.
I had trouble with my son when young to understand that 5 $ here and 10$ there adds up quickly.
Perhaps if I put it into UO terms you might become enlightened faster......
Imagine this:
You get UO free evey month... (for this to happen you give up a few things paid customers get)
you cant have more then 75 items in your bank box and may not be co owned to a house or own a home.
You may not use any etherial mount or vet reward .. this includes dye tubs.
You may only go to the main lands Trammel and Fel , but any other land are going to cost you per area.
you may not attend Champ spawns...
Now to do these things you must pay a fee to access it.
Imagine doing this for each of your characters.. paying a fee to get what a full paid customer gets with a 12.99 a month charge
Cant you see we would be nickled and dimed to death.
EA could in essence very easly drain its players away in just such a senerio...
I for one would not put it past their accountaints to make up hidious ways to drain us dry...
Last edited:
I understand the comparison Storm. They can't just let us play the entire game for free, the devs can't work for free, this is their job, and EA wouldn't allow it. They would need to alter the game in such a way as to keep getting money from us. Maybe they will charge people for entering dungeons, maybe we will only be able to play in one facet, each additional facet costs money. Housing would likely range in cost depending on the size...the list could go on and on.
Last edited: