What EJ should have been...

[The Craftsman]

Instead of the endless journey that ends as soon as storage (or lack of it) becomes an issue, and no incentive other than storage (bank and house) as a reason to subscribe, this is how it should have been done:

> bank storage up to 50
>additional bank storage - add to cart
> Place a house, classic only (but not keep or castle) with 28 day refresh switched on and can only friend or co-own characters on same account - add to cart
> additional house storage - add to cart
> skills only up to 100
> allow the use of power scrolls - add to cart
> access felucca, trammel and lost lands only
> access Malas - add to cart
> access Tokuno - add to cart
> access Eodon - add to cart
> one character only
> additional character slot - add to cart
> 1 million gold - add to cart
> accelerated skill gain - add to cart
> vanity items - add to cart

I’m sure there are more.

Options to spend money through micro transactions for tangible benefits without tying yourself into a subscription model. Incentives to spend when you can or want to. A basic free to play outline that doesn’t hamstring you completely.

This would have worked far better than this EJ nonsense.

 

[Tyrath]

All of that and take the deadest shard and make it a EJ only shard with the only way to get off would be a free transfer token with a sub that is a one way trip. That would be worth making the 3-5 regular shard residents on some shards angry

 

[Lord Frodo]

Instead of the endless journey that ends as soon as storage (or lack of it) becomes an issue, and no incentive other than storage (bank and house) as a reason to subscribe, this is how it should have been done:

> Place a house, classic only (but not keep or castle) with 28 day refresh switched on and can only friend or co-own characters on same account - add to cart

Lots of good ideas except the house one would be abused to the max. Even if it was just 7X7 with ML gives 586 storage, you would still see them everywhere.

 

[Tyrath]

Lots of good ideas except the house one would be abused to the max. Even if it was just 7X7 with ML gives 586 storage, you would still see them everywhere.

That is why a EJ Only Server with no transfers on or off except off with a sub and the transfer being the character and skills only. They would get to experience the game and be among their peers, while having zero impact on sub shards.

 

[The Craftsman]

Lots of good ideas except the house one would be abused to the max. Even if it was just 7X7 with ML gives 586 storage, you would still see them everywhere.

Good. UO was a much better more atmospheric place with more players and houses around. And every one of those new houses would have put money into the coffers. And with decay plenty will also drop. 7x7 only might be an idea but you could scale the cost to house size. Maybe a 14 or 21 day decay rather than 28 would be better. Plus non of them would be borg cubes which is pleasing on the eye. Maybe limit the storage to 125 with additional 125 increments as purchasable items.

 

[Thrakkar]

skills only up to 100

So chars who ate a PS on previously paid accounts are locked out? Or the whole account is locked out?

 

[The Craftsman]

So chars who ate a PS on previously paid accounts are locked out? Or the whole account is locked out?

Neither. You cap them at 100. If they purchase the unlock then you uncap it. They’ll have already eaten the scroll so instant 120. Hell you could even price it lower and have to unlock it per skill, both for returning and new players.

 

[Phantasmagorian]

All EJ needs is some bank storage. Separate shard is a silly idea, sorry. Way too much work amd far less attractive for EJs.

 

[The Craftsman]

All EJ needs is some bank storage. Separate shard is a silly idea, sorry. Way too much work amd far less attractive for EJs.

You’re missing the point. EJ won’t work, even with bank storage. In fact that would just encourage some current sub accounts to shut down. It won’t get people to sub that’s for sure. What was needed was a real F2P model that brought in revenue rather than this half arsed nonsense that is EJ. A new shard isn’t really relevant.

 

[Phantasmagorian]

I suggested better and more modern sub perks. It's a question of drawing up a good plan.

 

[The Craftsman]

I suggested better and more modern sub perks. It's a question of drawing up a good plan.

Sub perks won’t cut it. Pretty much everyone who wants to play a subscription UO is already playing and paying. I’d wager that player attrition is higher than player recruitment, ie there are more players shutting down accounts than there are opening new ones. The decline has been constant for years now. Turning your crappy 14 day free trial account into a crappy open ended free trial account isn’t going to make people sub.

An alternative was needed and that is a free to play model that is playable, fun, doesn’t try to push you into subscription mode (as I’ve said, those that will subscribe already do) but instead allows you to enhance and improve your game experience as and when you want to through micro transactions (as per my first post). This model works for many games, and many gamers prefer this model and would not only increase UO numbers but provide revenue, which it would seem is more important now than ever as we move closer to the brink. EJ certainly won’t do the latter.

 

[SpyderBite]

Instead of the endless journey that ends as soon as storage (or lack of it) becomes an issue, and no incentive other than storage (bank and house) as a reason to subscribe, this is how it should have been done:

> bank storage up to 50
>additional bank storage - add to cart
> Place a house, classic only (but not keep or castle) with 28 day refresh switched on and can only friend or co-own characters on same account - add to cart
> additional house storage - add to cart
> skills only up to 100
> allow the use of power scrolls - add to cart
> access felucca, trammel and lost lands only
> access Malas - add to cart
> access Tokuno - add to cart
> access Eodon - add to cart
> one character only
> additional character slot - add to cart
> 1 million gold - add to cart
> accelerated skill gain - add to cart
> vanity items - add to cart

I’m sure there are more.

Options to spend money through micro transactions for tangible benefits without tying yourself into a subscription model. Incentives to spend when you can or want to. A basic free to play outline that doesn’t hamstring you completely.

This would have worked far better than this EJ nonsense.

This is pretty much how I envisioned a F2P option for UO. Don't forget bundles.

 

[Phantasmagorian]

Sub perks won’t cut it. Pretty much everyone who wants to play a subscription UO is already playing and paying. I’d wager that player attrition is higher than player recruitment, ie there are more players shutting down accounts than there are opening new ones. The decline has been constant for years now. Turning your crappy 14 day free trial account into a crappy open ended free trial account isn’t going to make people sub.

An alternative was needed and that is a free to play model that is playable, fun, doesn’t try to push you into subscription mode (as I’ve said, those that will subscribe already do) but instead allows you to enhance and improve your game experience as and when you want to through micro transactions (as per my first post). This model works for many games, and many gamers prefer this model and would not only increase UO numbers but provide revenue, which it would seem is more important now than ever as we move closer to the brink. EJ certainly won’t do the latter.

I disagree with your pessimism. And that anyone who wants to sub, is already subbing. I've already met several people who re-subbed. With more modern perks, UO can thrive again. Of course doing a good job squashing bugs, adding low-hanging-fruit quality of life improvements and other such actions will help greatly. What I am saying is not mutually exclusive with your cash shop model. ESO works that way. You either buy packs separately or get ESO plus and het access.

 

[The Craftsman]

I disagree with your pessimism. And that anyone who wants to sub, is already subbing. I've already met several people who re-subbed. With more modern perks, UO can thrive again. Of course doing a good job squashing bugs, adding low-hanging-fruit quality of life improvements and other such actions will help greatly. What I am saying is not mutually exclusive with your cash shop model. ESO works that way. You either buy packs separately or get ESO plus and het access.

It’s not pessimism. It’s realism. Something the UO fanbois seem oblivious to.

I agree with keeping the subs model. Why wouldn’t you. But UO needs to diversify away from that being the sole model as even though it might pick up a few more subs, that won’t be enough. It needs to evolve. EJ doesn’t do that.

 

[Lord Frodo]

It’s not pessimism. It’s realism. Something the UO fanbois seem oblivious to.

I agree with keeping the subs model. Why wouldn’t you. But UO needs to diversify away from that being the sole model as even though it might pick up a few more subs, that won’t be enough. It needs to evolve. EJ doesn’t do that.

And what is funny is that they think that EA is going to give us all these perks without wanting more sub money from us, now that is funny.

 

[Phantasmagorian]

And what is funny is that they think that EA is going to give us all these perks without wanting more sub money from us, now that is funny.

I explained this on the official forums. It doesn't't even need to cost them extra. If it does, but is done right, hen you can get more subs overall and thus more revenue.

 

[TheWolf]

You’re missing the point. EJ won’t work, even with bank storage. In fact that would just encourage some current sub accounts to shut down. It won’t get people to sub that’s for sure. What was needed was a real F2P model that brought in revenue rather than this half arsed nonsense that is EJ. A new shard isn’t really relevant.

What you say is very true. Sadly I don't think broadsword staff is capable of much more than creating new items in game. You ask them for any bug fixes, or updates, and they preach about breaking this holy grail of code UO uses

 

[Phantasmagorian]

What you say is very true. Sadly I don't think broadsword staff is capable of much more than creating new items in game. You ask them for any bug fixes, or updates, and they preach about breaking this holy grail of code UO uses

They just posted news about adding limited bank storage for EJ. And the next publish is going to be a bug/feature publish. I think the speed with which they reacted to the storage issue shows they mean business. I am impressed.

News: NEWS - [UO.Com] Endless Journey & Storage

 

[Lord Frodo]

I explained this on the official forums. It doesn't't even need to cost them extra. If it does, but is done right, hen you can get more subs overall and thus more revenue.

EA sells coins on their site that is used to buy stuff from the in-game UOStore . UO does not control anything sold by EA so how is UO going to give us anything that will not cost EA money. Do you understand that EA owns UO/DAoC, Origin Store and Account Management and there is no place where UO collects any money what so ever. You will not get anything for FREE ever from EA, sorry the truth hurts you and your grand ideas.

 

[Phantasmagorian]

EA sells coins on their site that is used to buy stuff from the in-game UOStore . UO does not control anything sold by EA so how is UO going to give us anything that will not cost EA money. Do you understand that EA owns UO/DAoC, Origin Store and Account Management and there is no place where UO collects any money what so ever. You will not get anything for FREE ever from EA, sorry the truth hurts you and your grand ideas.

Perks don't have to cost extra money. It may very well be that monthly sovereigns is not an option. But that's just one of the perks. What it does to the bottom line depends on the proposition. If you sell 100 subs now for $10 a sub, but by investing $2 per sub you get 300 subs, your bottom line improved - you just went from 1K a month to 2.4k a month. And that's only IF you actually have to invest $ per player, and I don't think they have to in order to create a more attractive list of unique selling points for the subs.

 

[The Craftsman]

Perks don't have to cost extra money. It may very well be that monthly sovereigns is not an option. But that's just one of the perks. What it does to the bottom line depends on the proposition. If you sell 100 subs now for $10 a sub, but by investing $2 per sub you get 300 subs, your bottom line improved - you just went from 1K a month to 2.4k a month. And that's only IF you actually have to invest $ per player, and I don't think they have to in order to create a more attractive list of unique selling points for the subs.

What makes you think EA are investing anything into UO? Changing a few parameters around the 14 day free trial isnt much of an investment. BS have a contract to run the game, for a set cost, whilst the subs go into the EA coffers, and anything over and above BS's sub contract is profit for EA which will go wherever they decide (not UO most likely). Once that profit doesnt cover the BS contract to run the game, kiss goodbye to UO. Bottom line ... there is no investment, nor does there seem to be any appetite from EA to do so. BS dont get a say.

 

[Dot_Warner]

Since sovereigns are free for EA to "produce," giving subscribers a small ~500 sov stipend a month, doesn't actually "cost" them anything. Could they see a dip in people buying sovs? Sure, but people may also be more likely to buy them to reach certain in-game price points quicker (player impatience is a known quantity)

Most subscription games with premium currencies do this already because it generates goodwill. EA is just stuck in the late 20th century and they clearly hate their customers.

 

[Phantasmagorian]

Since sovereigns are free for EA to "produce," giving subscribers a small ~500 sov stipend a month, doesn't actually "cost" them anything. Could they see a dip in people buying sovs? Sure, but people may also be more likely to buy them to reach certain in-game price points quicker (player impatience is a known quantity)

Most subscription games with premium currencies do this already because it generates goodwill. EA is just stuck in the late 20th century and they clearly hate their customers.

It's all about price/proposition elasticity. Has to be analyzed and tested. Note that EA Access gives you 10% off in the EA store, and that includes sovereigns, UO content, etc.

 

[Phantasmagorian]

What makes you think EA are investing anything into UO? Changing a few parameters around the 14 day free trial isnt much of an investment. BS have a contract to run the game, for a set cost, whilst the subs go into the EA coffers, and anything over and above BS's sub contract is profit for EA which will go wherever they decide (not UO most likely). Once that profit doesnt cover the BS contract to run the game, kiss goodbye to UO. Bottom line ... there is no investment, nor does there seem to be any appetite from EA to do so. BS dont get a say.

You're making assumptions about what's in the contract between EA and BS. We don't exactly know. What can assumed, however, is that BS now has the freedom to make UO f2p as they did and to fine-tune the f2p/subscribe package. And I think we can safely assume that if it performs well, EA will be happy and BS can get more freedom to...make EA more money. And we don't know if BS isn't paid a %, based on UO's performance. I'm pretty sure that a thriving UO would benefit everyone (EA, BS and the players).

 

[Lord Frodo]

It's all about price/proposition elasticity. Has to be analyzed and tested. Note that EA Access gives you 10% off in the EA store, and that includes sovereigns, UO content, etc.

And that is something you have to pay for, LOL.

 

[Lord Frodo]

Since sovereigns are free for EA to "produce," giving subscribers a small ~500 sov stipend a month, doesn't actually "cost" them anything. Could they see a dip in people buying sovs? Sure, but people may also be more likely to buy them to reach certain in-game price points quicker (player impatience is a known quantity)

Most subscription games with premium currencies do this already because it generates goodwill. EA is just stuck in the late 20th century and they clearly hate their customers.

500 Tokens is $5 so now we are paying $5 a month for a 6mo sub, aint gonna happen.

 

[Phantasmagorian]

500 Tokens is $5 so now we are paying $5 a month for a 6mo sub, aint gonna happen.

It doesn't actually cost them $5. If it increases subscriptions substantially and doesn't significantly cannibalize cash shop purchases, it's actually profit. And other MMOs have demonstrated it's very feasible. One of the tricks is to have plenty in the cash shop to buy on top of getting XXX per month as a subscriber.

 

[Lord Frodo]

You're making assumptions about what's in the contract between EA and BS. We don't exactly know. What can assumed, however, is that BS now has the freedom to make UO f2p as they did and to fine-tune the f2p/subscribe package. And I think we can safely assume that if it performs well, EA will be happy and BS can get more freedom to...make EA more money. And we don't know if BS isn't paid a %, based on UO's performance. I'm pretty sure that a thriving UO would benefit everyone (EA, BS and the players).

Assume, LOL. How about BS asked permission from EA to do this and EA said NP but we better see an increase in revenue. How long have you played UO to not understand that EA does nothing that EA can't profit off and please don't give us that 100 sub stuff.

 

[GarthGrey]

It's all about price/proposition elasticity. Has to be analyzed and tested. Note that EA Access gives you 10% off in the EA store, and that includes sovereigns, UO content, etc.

Show me a screen shot of the last time EA ran a 10%off that included UO items..I'm not saying they haven't done it, but we all know it's been a while since they did on the items that actually matter to people.

 

[Lord Frodo]

It doesn't actually cost them $5. If it increases subscriptions substantially and doesn't significantly cannibalize cash shop purchases, it's actually profit. And other MMOs have demonstrated it's very feasible. One of the tricks is to have plenty in the cash shop to buy on top of getting XXX per month as a subscriber.

How do you figure that it does not cost them $5 in revenue? If you give away something that is worth $5 it doesn't magically become worth less.

 

[Phantasmagorian]

Show me a screen shot of the last time EA ran a 10%off that included UO items..I'm not saying they haven't done it, but we all know it's been a while since they did on the items that actually matter to people.

I have EA Access and thus 10% off in the store.

 

[MalagAste]

Since sovereigns are free for EA to "produce," giving subscribers a small ~500 sov stipend a month, doesn't actually "cost" them anything. Could they see a dip in people buying sovs? Sure, but people may also be more likely to buy them to reach certain in-game price points quicker (player impatience is a known quantity)

Most subscription games with premium currencies do this already because it generates goodwill. EA is just stuck in the late 20th century and they clearly hate their customers.

While I like this I think it would be more beneficial to them to do a thing like if you sub continuously for 3 months you get ~200 sov to encourage people to keep paying not do the Roulette if you will with accounts. This would be enough to be "nice" for people that do keep their subscription paid and not too much that folk might still actually buy more sovereigns.

 

[Phantasmagorian]

How do you figure that it does not cost them $5 in revenue? If you give away something that is worth $5 it doesn't magically become worth less.

It's about the bottom line. It's not as linear and simple as you think. It doesn't actually cost them to give away virtual currency. Hence my comment about cannibalizing. Giving players 500 sovereigns a month can actually have the effect that overall they will sell more sovereigns than they did when they didn't give subscribers anything a month and get way more subscribers... in the end, increasing profits. $5 is what we pay if buy 500 sovereigns, not what it costs to give them to us. If adding them means 10% fewer sales of sovereigns, but 3x the amount of subs.. it's good move. Again, adding sovereigns to the sub perks may or may not be a good idea. That needs to be analyzed.

 

[Dot_Warner]

500 Tokens is $5 so now we are paying $5 a month for a 6mo sub, aint gonna happen.

Then do it for every 3 months continuously subbed. That way it will screw over the 3-month housing roulette people at the same time.

Regardless, my point is that other MMOs realize that giving a little premium currency away for "free" benefits them in the long run. EA is just myopic and greedy.

I bought a lifetime sub to STO when it was on sale for like $100 5 years ago. I get 500 zen a month. It's clearly beneficial to Perfect World to lose out on 'a little bit of cash' to generate a bit of goodwill. They know that players will still buy shuttlefulls of zen so they can get the latest pixelcrack ship, costumes and keys.

BS just needs to massively up their store offerings (which they're about to do in a minor way, based on the art files).

 

[Lord Frodo]

I have EA Access and thus 10% off in the store.

And how much does EA Access cost per month

 

[Lord Frodo]

It's about the bottom line. It's not as linear and simple as you think. It doesn't actually cost them to give away virtual currency. Hence my comment about cannibalizing. Giving players 500 sovereigns a month can actually have the effect that overall they will sell more sovereigns than they did when they didn't give subscribers anything a month and get way more subscribers... in the end, increasing profits. $5 is what we pay if buy 500 sovereigns, not what it costs to give them to us. If adding them means 10% fewer sales of sovereigns, but 3x the amount of subs.. it's good move. Again, adding sovereigns to the sub perks may or may not be a good idea. That needs to be analyzed.

Are you serious, where do you come up with this %300 increase in subs all the time? Please let us all use your rose colored glasses.

 

[Phantasmagorian]

Oh lord, it's an example. No offense, I don't have rhe energy to keep explaining this.

 

[petemage]

BS have a contract to run the game, for a set cost, whilst the subs go into the EA coffers, and anything over and above BS's sub contract is profit for EA which will go wherever they decide (not UO most likely).

Would also explain why BS seems to have little interest in putting some real cash cows into their store or making EJ an success.

 

[Lord Frodo]

Oh lord, it's an example. No offense, I don't have rhe energy to keep explaining this.

You are the one throwing out these magic numbers not us and you get all butt hurt when called on it, LOL

 

[Fridgster]

So.... about this storage thing. Anyone that has an active account should realize that they now have unlimited storage.

 

[Lord Frodo]

So.... about this storage thing. Anyone that has an active account should realize that they now have unlimited storage.

You can have the same thing just being an EJ account, you would just have to open more of them. If you really need 125 back pack and 125 bank, if that much, then you truly are a pack rat.

 

[Phantasmagorian]

You are the one throwing out these magic numbers not us and you get all butt hurt when called on it, LOL

They are fictive numbers to explain how it's about the bottom line. You are either incapable of distinguishing between examples of mechanisms of price/value proposition elasticity, or trolling.

 

[Fridgster]

You can have the same thing just being an EJ account, you would just have to open more of them. If you really need 125 back pack and 125 bank, if that much, then you truly are a pack rat.

You could invest in two accounts for a month each. Then make six characters named armor, weapons, ect ect. You now have ~1400 storage. Added bonus is that if the character has young status it autologs no matter where the toon is. You get 40 hours of that .

 

[Lord Frodo]

They are fictive numbers to explain how it's about the bottom line. You are either incapable of distinguishing between examples of mechanisms of price/value proposition elasticity, or trolling.

I guess it is a good thing that you do not draw up business plans for a living, you would be broke with such imaginary numbers but I will agree you do have one vivid imagination.

 

[Phantasmagorian]

You're just trolling.

 

[Tyrath]

LOL I like RuneScapes way of doing it.

I guess it is a good thing that you do not draw up business plans for a living, you would be broke with such imaginary numbers but I will agree you do have one vivid imagination.

Have been thinking pretty much the same thing

 

[petemage]

It's about the bottom line. It's not as linear and simple as you think. It doesn't actually cost them to give away virtual currency. Hence my comment about cannibalizing. Giving players 500 sovereigns a month can actually have the effect that overall they will sell more sovereigns than they did when they didn't give subscribers anything a month and get way more subscribers... in the end, increasing profits. $5 is what we pay if buy 500 sovereigns, not what it costs to give them to us. If adding them means 10% fewer sales of sovereigns, but 3x the amount of subs.. it's good move. Again, adding sovereigns to the sub perks may or may not be a good idea. That needs to be analyzed.

I don't know why many here have a hard time understanding this.

Retail does it like this for ages. They sell some products at a loss because they know customers will buy other stuff too that will put them at a net win revenue wise. But if they didn't sell that one thing at a good price / with some loss, the customer wouldn't have entered the shop at all.

In UO it wouldn't even cost them anything. It's like free to generate some random sovereigns each month.

It's such an old hat, yet in UO you have to explain every detail about marketing/sales 101. Maybe someone can help me what this is called in english. We over here call it "mixed calculation" and it's nothing remotely new.

Now waiting for Frodo to tell me *he* never buys any extra in a store so the whole academia has ever been so wrong...

 

[The Craftsman]

You're just trolling.

And youre doing the exact opposite ... fanboi-ing

 

[Phantasmagorian]

And youre doing the exact opposite ... fanboi-ing

The opposite of trolling would be adhering to proper netiquette. Yes, thank you - I try. I'm also going to try to stop wasting energy on responding to negative and uninformed comments.

 

[grimiz]

I don't know why many here have a hard time understanding this.

In UO it wouldn't even cost them anything. It's like free to generate some random sovereigns each month.

I'm not an accountant, but I believe the outstanding sovereigns have to be "on the books" somehow since they have some intrinsic value. SOE ran into something similar several years ago in Everquest 2 with their in-game marketplace cash and they made a lengthy post about it on their site.

So when you are giving these sovereigns away you're actually incurring... something (not debt exactly)... hey, I said I wasn't an accountant.