Should EA offer a Siege only subscription for 2.99 a month?

[Petra Fyde]

I'd rather pay a power up cost and buy an 'additional house', in the same way as we can buy 'additional storage', for our Europa house holding account.

I'm not a 'Siege only' player. I have one char on the shard, a crafter, and though I play her daily I don't want to be restricted to only being a crafter in UO, so I also play a main shard daily where I can be other chars as my mood takes me.

 

[FrejaSP]

Add to that you want to cut your subscription fee by 70-80% and youre a nutcase.

Really, if I could make my account Siege only and know my money would to Siege only, I would do it even if had to pay the same as now.

 

[Duncan McDermott]

I would buy this in a heartbeat. I am in the process now of closing up my Cats house. I have been on Siege for months now and would not think of returning to play on one of the prod shards. Just my opinion but I am really enjoying Siege.

 

[TheScoundrelRico]

I have been on Siege for months now and would not think of returning to play on one of the prod shards.

Yeah, that happens a lot. Welcome home...la

 

[Fink]

How about making the discount based on how many shards you don't ping well to? Oceania's the only real option from where I am; sadly Siege is beyond my reach. I'd love to have a choice of shards & I pay just as much as people who do.

 

[Blesh]

No. Seige gets the same Devs, same events, same everything. the only diff is a ruleset. IF they turned siege into a sandbox and never gave it new content or attention, THEN i could see charging 2.99. Untill then, makes no sense to me.

 

[T_Amon_from_work]

*shakes head*

I know you maybe don't agree ... I'm just tossing out ideas. <shrug>

 

[Lord Kotan]

So we would have an option in our accounts for SP only and would block us from playing other shards? I am wondering if $2.99 X number of SP players would be enough to support the servers there.

Take all severs I don't play on off my list.. I don't wanta pay for them

 

[Omnius]

RoT and the ridiculous cost for 1/6th the options are why I don't play siege.

 

[Lily]

Your thoughts?

After all, it shouldn't cost as much to play Siege should it?

Heck, I'd pay more if they would actually support the shard. That ain't happening though so how about a discount?

I'm serious.

This is silly. You pay for your account, not the shard you play on. You can play on just one shard, or you can play on ALL of the shards. You can play on Siege or Pacific or Baja... or Siege AND Pacific AND Baja. You choose to limit your own play to one shard... they don't make that choice for you. So no, you should pay the same as what I pay for my account, no matter what shard you decide to play on.

lily

 

[Zippididooda]

If I get a free WarHammer sub you can have it. I'll never play another EA game.

Ever.

Love it. Many people I know that loved UO and quit because of EA have this same sentiment. I too will NEVER buy or play an EA game except UO. If UO goes away, then EA will never get another cent of my money or a second of my time. Look up all the good game companies they have bought up and basically trashed over the years.

So, I second that with enthusiasm!

 

[Gildar]

$2.99? Definately not (unless EA magically found a way to make server upkeep much, much cheaper, and lowers the rate for everybody else at least down to $4.00 at the same time.

Siege does get dev attention that is specific to them. Most effort towards improvements on productions shards improves Siege just as much as it does production shards. Most of the other effort towards improving production shards is still a positive shift for Siege.

Only one character? That's a huge part of what makes Siege great in the eyes of Siege players, not a negative.


There might just maybe be enough of an argument to give a 5-10% discount for a Siege-only account... but not much more than that (if even that). I do not believe it is an argument, however, that would be in EA's best interest - it would only be an argument that would would be "most fair" towards players.

Also... if you're sick of paying $13 a month... pay in 6 month intervals and you'll save $3 a month.

 

[FrejaSP]

Siege does get dev attention that is specific to them. Most effort towards improvements on productions shards improves Siege just as much as it does production shards. Most of the other effort towards improving production shards is still a positive shift for Siege.

That's not true, alot made to improve normal shards do ruin Siege. We get far to much code not healty for Siege, we need a Siege dev or two to sort/filter each patch so we only get the parts that will improve our shard.

Only one character? That's a huge part of what makes Siege great in the eyes of Siege players, not a negative.

It was meant to be but mean very little now. Most do have several accounts to get more chars and they will get a house on all this accounts too.
Second, alot do have 20+ soulstones filled with skills so more chars would not hurt anything.

There might just maybe be enough of an argument to give a 5-10% discount for a Siege-only account... but not much more than that (if even that).

I personly would be more happy for more char slots than discount.
I don't really think we need Siege Only accounts but we need Siege to be an options on the shard list for Young players and we need something like 10% of the money from each account with house on Siege to go to dev working on Siege, that be one dev permenent or a small team using x hours on Siege each patch/public/upgrade.

 

[Cysphruo]

you say they aren't supporting it then my vote's yes, shut down siege, your lagging up the other shards.

 

[FrejaSP]

you say they aren't supporting it then my vote's yes, shut down siege, your lagging up the other shards.

Alot immature and selfish posters in this thread

I know your kind.
"You do not play Siege so close it down" or "you do not play Felucca so trammilize it so you can play there."

 

[AncientGeek]

1. You do not have to balance the code between Trammel and Felucca, that make it easier and cheaper to make new updates to the shard.
QUOTE]

You are using shallow reasoning. Seige has its own ruleset (neither fel nor tram) which requires additional development time above and beyond Trammel and Felucca and then additional development time to fix things when they inevitable screw them up. (examples: fixing pbd, changing cbd, making some tonoko hats unblessable only on seige, introducing personal item bless, double coding for items in all story lines and events, and so on and on). If you want to run a ratio of the amount of development time consumded/number of players effected, Seige would come out as a resource hog by virtue of its small population.

In short, Seige doesn't require double coding between fel and tram; it requires triple coding tam/fel/seige and thus in terms of development resources is the least efficent of all the rulesets.

 

[FrejaSP]

1. You do not have to balance the code between Trammel and Felucca, that make it easier and cheaper to make new updates to the shard.

In short, Seige doesn't require double coding between fel and tram; it requires triple coding tam/fel/seige and thus in terms of development resources is the least efficent of all the rulesets.

Only if it have to be code made for normal shards first, most made for normal shards should never hit Siege.

Lets take a new tameable PvM/PvP pet.
On normal shards devs balance it vs upper armor and weapon. This is no use for us, we have to redu that so let normal shards pay for their balancing.

On Siege, we could need the basis code for the new pet, grapich and skills but let us decide how strong it should be.

Same with new armor or weapons, give us the basis code, but let us set the mods and test it for Siege. Every time used to test it for normal shards are a waste of time and money for us, why should we pay for that?

A new patch should be splitted in normal shards code and Siege code when the shared part are done, balancing for normal shards are not a shared part.

I still believe it will be much more simple to balance stuff for Siege than for normal shards as we only have one ruleset.

 

[Vesta]

Should EA offer a Siege only subscription for 2.99 a month?

Does not matter, I still would not play there. I don't like non-con PvP. PvP in UO should be flag based. By that I mean, there should be an option in the player context menu... PvP on or off.

 

[BartofCats]

no to this idea. Im sorry, but we all pay 12.99 (or less) a month now. If your going to say "i want to play only Siege for 2.99" then i want to only play Cats for 2.99. See what im saying? you have the option now to play ANY shard you want, but you choose Siege.

I have news for ya.. I do play Siege, you know what keeps me from not going back consistantly??? Yup, you guessed it, ROT. I go, put in my gains on XXX skill, and log off. Every day. I wont actually PLAY Siege till i think my char is good enough.

 

[Lucius1997]

No, because EA has a hard enough time supporting the whole UO-playing crowd without catering to essentially a "special interest" group. Also, lowering their revenues will only serve to further deteriorate the QoS they provide us.

 

[Budweiser]

Your thoughts?

After all, it shouldn't cost as much to play Siege should it?

Heck, I'd pay more if they would actually support the shard. That ain't happening though so how about a discount?

I'm serious.

Im all for it. As long as you get your own GM's Dev Team etc paid for by your $2.99 per month. The people who pay $12.99 shouldnt have any of their funds routed to sp right? Good luck with that........

 

[gunneroforgin]

Why would you want to pay for Siege? it is FREE with your current subscription to UO.

 

[MoonglowMerchant]

Why would you want to pay for Siege? it is FREE with your current subscription to UO.

I would like to see the money that I pay go to support the shard and systems that I utilize.

For years my subscription fees (the ones that have been re-invested) have gone primarily to fund PvM content and expansions. Some has been applied to crafting. Very, very little has been devoted to PvP (my primary gamestyle) or to Siege Perilous (my shard of choice).

For once, I would like to be rewarded for my loyalty. I'd like to have MY issues worked on. I've paid for everyone else's for long enough.

Since EA does not seem inclined to work on Siege (their excuse is lower population which they largely caused) then stop charging me for PvM/Trammel content.

Lower my subscription rates so that I don't have to pay for that anymore. Alternatively, like so many others, I'll close accounts.

 

[TheScoundrelRico]

Your thoughts?

After all, it shouldn't cost as much to play Siege should it?

Heck, I'd pay more if they would actually support the shard. That ain't happening though so how about a discount?

I'm serious.

Im all for it. As long as you get your own GM's Dev Team etc paid for by your $2.99 per month. The people who pay $12.99 shouldnt have any of their funds routed to sp right? Good luck with that........

Well that should get us the dev staff about 1/4 the size or the current one. Hell, I'd be happy with one dedicated staff member for Siege...la