Perhaps it's Time

[DerekL]

You obviously never played D&D
Actually, in 1974 the entire D&D game came in a little box with a couple of soft-cover manuals. The game has evolved tremendously over the years. From the original 'basic' set, to Advanced D&D, to 2nd edition to 3rd edition to 4th edition, Tons of books have been published over the years. Monster manuals, maps, player manuals, dungeon master manuals etc.. Countless dungeon modules have been created over the decades as well. Not to mention the ability of DM's and players to create their own dungeons.

Yes, I have played D&D (What on earth would make you think I haven't?) - and that tremendous evolution is _exactly my point_. It's not the same today as it was when I started playing in 1980, let alone when it originally came out in 1974. There's new character classes, new races, new systems, deep changes to existing systems, etc... etc... Original D&D is virtually unplayable by modern standards, as there's simply too much missing that has become de facto standard in RPG's since it was published. (Under the gloss of fantasy, it's DNA as a medieval miniature figures wargame shows clearly. They're still there too, though deeply buried and virtually invisible to the casual eye, even today.)

Chess on the other hand has remained more or less stable for two centuries (and the first and still recognizable and playable codification dates to the 13th century), and the codified international game is nearing it's century mark. The rules of chess evolve slowly in response to evolutions in gameplay. The rules of D&D evolve in response to gameplay, the whims of the developers, fashion, market forces, and whenever the publisher needs an infusion of cash - as do those of UO. (And they must do so in order to compete in the marketplace - a battle chess doesn't even bother to try and fight (because it appeals to a different demographic) and one which UO is slowly and seemingly irreversibly losing.)

Instability and the constant need to appease the market and maintain cash flow does not bode well for longevity.

 

[Uvtha]

No..... No F2P. There is a reason when I go to basball games I buy the $80 tickets and not the $10 tickets.

Well I think the idea is that as of now there are no 10 dollar tickets, just 80 dollar ones, and while you might not like the cheap seats there might be a whole fleet of people passing by the stadium who think "I'm bored. Tickets are only 10 dollars? Well, why not watch a game.."

Any good f2p setting would have the option to leave the game exactly the way it is now for people who have subscriptions.

 

[Uvtha]

The reason free to play works is because in all games that use it, your experience is scripted and on rails. The game is set up in such a way that everyone has more or less the same progression, the same experience, and goes through the same path. Content is gated or locked behind level and gear checks. The developers optimize the progression curve towards monetization, they deliberately get the players addicted first with a lot of free content but as they progress down the carefully laid out path they are funneled into a situation where forced to pay increasing amounts of money to progress at a reasonable pace.

I am sure there are f2p games that are more like UO than are like WOW. It would just take more time to think about setting it up, because it would be more than just setting a level cap or something.

Game designers, armed with spreadsheets and metrics carefully craft and adjust the experience so that a maximum amount of people get addicted and a maximum amount of users converts to paying user and that each paying user pays the maximum amount of money. It's not about a great game experience, it's about making the best mousetrap that churns out the highest ARPU (average revenue per user).

Sure free to play can increase revenue. But if you want to do it 'right' (and you know how EA is!) the insidious cost that it comes with is way, way higher than the monthly subscription fee we're all paying now. Because for F2P to be succesful, the paying users will have to pay a multitude of their current subscription money to make up for all the non-paying users. Average revenue per paying user (ARPPU) of F2P games often averages will over $25 per month. And if you're not at least an average paying user, you'll be a third rank citizen and a fun endgame will be something that will be out of your reach, forever.

I'm seeing it like D&D online where there are free accounts and still subs accounts so nothing changes for people who want to subscribe.

Also, to get money from F2P games, all the players must actively play and be addicted. Why would UO want that, when they can just get bags full of money from people that don't play, but only pay to maintain their houses? From a developer's perspective, the best player is a player that doesn't play, but still pays.

I agree that most f2p set up are pretty terrible just milking players in absurd ways, but not all of them are, nor need they be. It is a fair point about EA though, I will give you that.

 

[Uvtha]

And since that was "all you were going to say about it (I bet it is...)," I'll let you carry on before you make yourself look any worse.

Yes clearly, I'm the one making myself look bad.

 

[DerekL]

I'm seeing it like D&D online where there are free accounts and still subs accounts so nothing changes for people who want to subscribe.

That can backfire too... in CoX it produced a deep social divide between the two tiers. This wasn't helped by the dev's decision to not allow free players access to the global or zone chat, so the only way they had to communicate beyond tells and local chat was... the help channel. Which became hopelessly mired in "looking for group", "for sale/buy", etc... type messages. (They later reversed this decision, but by that time the damage to the game's social fabric was done.) But the real divide, the real problem, was between the "haves" (long term players and subscribers who had access to everything) and the "have not's" (F2P players, frequently none of which had access to the whole enchilada). More than once a group would break up because some players wanted to do one thing that only subscribers could while others, who couldn't do those things, wanted to do something else. (This again, was made worse because the subscribers had access to new content, while F2P didn't unless they paid. Some many F2P players just played old content - which the long time subscribers were generally bored to tears with.) The same problem extended to some extent to gear and supergroups (guilds) - many F2P players felt left out and left behind without paying for access to those.

AFAIK, CoX (seven years old at the time) is the only well established MMO (as opposed to a hail mary play by a middling or non contender to remain viable) which has tried to bolt F2P onto an existing subscriber base... and for a variety of reasons, it didn't really work.

 

[Uvtha]

That can backfire too... in CoX it produced a deep social divide between the two tiers. This wasn't helped by the dev's decision to not allow free players access to the global or zone chat, so the only way they had to communicate beyond tells and local chat was... the help channel. Which became hopelessly mired in "looking for group", "for sale/buy", etc... type messages. (They later reversed this decision, but by that time the damage to the game's social fabric was done.) But the real divide, the real problem, was between the "haves" (long term players and subscribers who had access to everything) and the "have not's" (F2P players, frequently none of which had access to the whole enchilada). More than once a group would break up because some players wanted to do one thing that only subscribers could while others, who couldn't do those things, wanted to do something else. (This again, was made worse because the subscribers had access to new content, while F2P didn't unless they paid. Some many F2P players just played old content - which the long time subscribers were generally bored to tears with.) The same problem extended to some extent to gear and supergroups (guilds) - many F2P players felt left out and left behind without paying for access to those.

AFAIK, CoX (seven years old at the time) is the only well established MMO (as opposed to a hail mary play by a middling or non contender to remain viable) which has tried to bolt F2P onto an existing subscriber base... and for a variety of reasons, it didn't really work.

Yeah... that's a valid concern. It would suck to be friends with someone who didn't have access to a group hunt location. It would take a lot of work to strike a good balance. General chat wise, I think general chat is just a giant minefield in any form. Its hard to keep spammers and pests from ruining it for everyone else.

 

[DerekL]

General chat wise, I think general chat is just a giant minefield in any form. Its hard to keep spammers and pests from ruining it for everyone else.

CoX had both an "ignore" and an "ignore spammer" function, the latter both ignoring them and flagging them for GM attention (sufficient "ignore spammer" in a short period of time could also IIRC result in an automated temporary channel ban for the account). There was also the social convention that when the channel did get bad, folks would post to the channel reminding people that those functions were available. Mostly it seemed to work well enough. When "ignore spammer" was added, RMT spam dropped a thousandfold.

 

[Zosimus]

Tera just annonced they are going F2P. I posted it on another thread here on Stratics.


The only issue is when you are seeing games with healthier and larger populations heading into the F2P market and keeping UO in a subscription market still doesn't make sense.

 

[Gameboy]

I think it will be news when WoW goes free to play My favorite free to play game is Lord Of The Rings Online. I got a lifetime account well before it went free to play. I get free points every month.

 

[Zosimus]

With them still boasting over 8 million plus players I highly doubt it. You sure talk alot about WoW when you can post it

 

[Gameboy]

I do talk about WoW a lot maybe more then I should. I played for about 8 years and I use it to compare things. UO being completely different I probably should not do that so much.

 

[Zosimus]

Sorry bro. No ill will intentions were meant in my post. I was just teasing.


It's ok to talk about other games models and all. basically the point of thsi thread when many games are heading towards the free-to-play model. Most will not understand it's not just trying to get more money out of the consumer to spend on that particular company game but it also gives players all around the world a chance to try their game and may play it. Does it guarantee that they will sepnd a dime on that game at all? No.

I will use GW2 B2P model as an example. I have 2 accounts. Cost me $120 bones. I have spent on 4 gem cards at $15 bones a piece ($60 total) since the game has been active on one account. The other account I use in -game gold to buy gems. That acount my daughter plays and when she wants something I turn in the gold and buy those items. So far i have turned in roughly 47 gold to buy items from the gem store for her. This includes charcter slots as an example.

Now NCsoft has said over 2 million units of GW2 was sold at an average of $70 bones because they had 3 different versions of the game to be bought. Thats $140,000,000.00 they made off the original purchase. Now lets just say 100k players spend a rough average of $15 dollars a month. Just those 100k players out of the 2 million. Thats 1.5 million they make a month. Now thats all me guesstimating but Arenanet makes money off expansions as they did in GW1. Thats how they make that kind of money. They already added a mini expansions and we are about to get another expansion free. It's already been leaked that we will get another expansion in 2013 so the buzz is end of summer.

 

[Luvmylace]

sick to death of this topic over and over

 

[DerekL]

sick to death of this topic over and over

So don't read or post then.

 

[Good Grief]

But why? Other than the fact that it attracts a dozen off topic posts by people who don't even want to discuss the topic.

Because much like the classic shard topics that used to plague the forums....... once the Devs come out and say NO we're not doing this = end of story.

 

[Uvtha]

Because much like the classic shard topics that used to plague the forums....... once the Devs come out and say NO we're not doing this = end of story.

Why must it stop being talked about? Considering the fact that UO was actually planning to go f2p at once point (before the KR debacle), its just an interesting thing to try and sort out. That's the only reason I want to talk about it. I don't expect it to happen. At least not until numbers drop to a drastic low, but they might just close the game at that point. Who knows.

I personally am not that interested in classic client discussion, mainly because I don't think it would be as much fun as people think it would be, and so when those posts come up, I just ignore them, and go on reading other topics.

I don't see why people feel the need to come and comment SIMPLY that they don't have an interest in the discussion, or that they think that the topic is stupid. I mean obviously you are free to do so, but what's the point? How are you being bothered by it? What do you get out of urging people to stop talking about something that interests them?

It's not like the board is cluttered up with these posts or anything. There's like one every two months. What's the big deal.

 

[Orgional Farimir]

Well I think the idea is that as of now there are no 10 dollar tickets, just 80 dollar ones, and while you might not like the cheap seats there might be a whole fleet of people passing by the stadium who think "I'm bored. Tickets are only 10 dollars? Well, why not watch a game.."

Any good f2p setting would have the option to leave the game exactly the way it is now for people who have subscriptions.

Sadly the majority of the people who buy the $10 tickets are the people who are piss drunk before the game starts and thinks 2+2=93.

I am not saying UO should have a "country club" mentality, but just like I tell me wife, "If something is on clearance there is a reason for it."

 

[Gameboy]

Not to give EA any ideas but I would pay 15$ a month for UO. I feel it just as good or better then any other mmorpg.

 

[Uvtha]

Sadly the majority of the people who buy the $10 tickets are the people who are piss drunk before the game starts and thinks 2+2=93.

I am not saying UO should have a "country club" mentality, but just like I tell me wife, "If something is on clearance there is a reason for it."

We may be in danger of stretching the metaphor here, but if it were for those 10 dollar seats... there probably wouldn't be any 90 dollar ones.

I don't think anyone is saying that f2p is a better experience than subscription, just that its better at growing a player base, especially for games with a niche market, like UO. And again, if you are already a subscriber, just like in the baseball metaphor you would have seats behind home plate, your experience wouldn't be changes at all other than the fact that there will just be more people around for you to interact with, and not all of them or even most of them will necessarily be obnoxious.

 

[Zosimus]

Eh the debate always go both ways. Some want it while others dont. I can see both sides and as we already know it wont happen for a while at least. I alreaqdy stated my opinion on the matter but as most threads go when this topic comes up some are not happy to discuss it in a constructive way.


So I leave you with this

 

[Leather Lucy]

I don't know if it's been mentioned yet, but Everquest 1 is enjoying a revival of sorts currently. They went free to play recently and there's tonnes of old/new players knocking around. Someone said the other night they hadn't seen so many people in a certain area (Butcherblock Mountains for anyone who knows the game) in years. I imagined it being akin to me recalling into Brit and seeing a pile of people milling around the bank, would feel great. Doesn't look like they've changed the graphics much over the years, but the game is very much the same (cruel and punishing hehe). 'Looks crap but still plays great.' is was my husband said. Ultima always was the better game as far as 'playability' was concerned (IMO) and if Everquest can do it, I'm sure Ultima can.

 

[Wenchkin]

With me it's about value for money and having flexibility with when you can play. It doesn't have to be free, I'm more than happy to pay a sub if that's how it goes. Or pay a weekly one. But at the current level it just doesn't feel like great value compared to the other subs and games I can have all together for *less* each month.

F2P models that are restricted in the wrong ways are worse than no F2P at all. It gives the impression that the game publisher things their users are so stupid they'd think they were getting a great F2P deal when it was actually a trial. Effectively con players into getting hooked on your game and annoy them with restrictions till they subscribe. The savvy among us look at small print before anything else though

Thing is, we can moan that these threads keep coming up and I know EA don't seem at all interested in making UO F2P. But there is a big bad world full of competition now. Mobile and tablet games are everywhere. Cross platform indie games keep me very well entertained even on Linux. UO was such a huge part of my life for years, I met my fella while I played it. I have a lot of sentimental investment in the game yet even so I play very rarely now. Specifically because I have found a good supply of better value gaming. As more players get tablets or find those indie games, it's not going to help UO's population. I want to see more players steadily opening new accounts in UO and a thriving community. It's not about wanting it all for nothing, but UO is such a great game and it feels like it's being held back. I'd love to login and find UO on my tablet's app store. Though I'd be back to playing till 4am if I could play in bed We can't pretend UO is protected in a bubble from the rest of the gaming world. Instead we should be embracing it, not just with new games in the franchise. Cross-platform, competitive pricing, improved support and revamped and improved content like we're getting now. I'd love to see that for UO, to see it suddenly land in app stores and a bunch of curious newbies land in Haven to begin their addiction.

Wenchy