It sure do matter, why should some be allowed to pay 3 month only a year for a house, when someone are willing to pay 12 month a year for same house plot. Want to keep your castle, pay 12 month a year or give it up.
-
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!
A fix for the 90 days cycle abuse
- Thread starter TimberWolf
- Start date
- Watchers 11
- Status
They can do it because EA Games says it's allowed.
I understand players who use the feature will fight to keep it, but I would like to see the 90 days rule gone. We do have several ghost houses on Siege, that is only paid 3 times a year and no one use. I rather see active players own this houses.
Some people take breaks from the game, either they get tired of playing so often or maybe they have financial obligations that they have to consider before spending spare money on a game... Should they be punished for this, forced to lose what they've worked towards acquiring ingame? Are you more deserving of that person's possessions simply because you are allowed to spend your money more freely than that person?
Furthermore housing on Siege is far different. I am acquainted with dozens of people who placed castles, keeps and plots on Siege when it opened up recently as an off server for housing, they have active accounts but do not actually play Siege. And as far as active players having houses, as I understand it there isn't actually a shortage of a player being able to obtain house on siege... Unless what you mean is that you're upset about people who have better placements than you, and you're frustrated that they don't use them in a manner that you would prefer?
We'd all like to see active players but really since there isn't much reason to be active I don't think that pissing on current paying customers is a really good idea... trust me no one is crying about not being able to place on any s h ard but Atlantic. .. and I'm willing to bet that 30 or 40% of the homes there that people are crying over are paid accounts but held by folk who actually play on other shards and only have a place on Atlantic to sell crap.
I would not care that much if they was allowed to keep a small house but sure not keep or castle. I could also agree to allow allow each account to have an option to choose to inactive their account for 3 months one time each 24 month.
They are not punished, if you stop paying for your RL house, you will lose it too.
I have the houses I need, 2 castles, one large Tower, 2 large houses and a small one. So no, I don't need more houses.
If players own a castle on Siege and had not used it for years, even when they pay and play on normal shards, I feel they should lose it. There are so many active Siege players who would love to have the spot.
It did not help Siege, that all now are allowed to place a second house on Siege, even when they stop login in to Siege. If house owner account is not logged into Siege for 90 days, let their houses drop.
Your argument is a straw man. But since you brought it up…
If someone, through decisions they made in life, does not have the money for a monthly game subscription, then no they do not deserve it.
I worked hard in school, made good decisions, got an education and ultimately got a job that affords me a considerable disposable income. I do not live above my means, I save and invest money and generally think about my future first.
If I lose my job and can no longer afford to pay for my 7 accounts, reoccurring monthly, then I will turn them off. I will not demand that they stay on because it is some form of punishment if not. That is simply ludicrous.
I don’t quibble about the looting of peoples stuff or any of that. I think that people that are playing the 3 month game are stealing from the game. They are literally biting the hand that feeds them. I would be lying if I said I didn’t chuckle just a bit when I hear of someone’s house falling because they were playing the 3 month thing and failed to activate in time. In these cases I feel the punishment fits the crime.
Merlin
The Enchanter
Moderator
Professional
Governor
Supporter
Stratics Veteran
UNLEASHED
Campaign Patron
Wasn't it you who was telling me "Stupidest. Post. Ever." ? This is an extremely poor excuse to allow someone to keep their stuff.
If they get tired of playing, they don't get to hold onto everything in perpetuity, including potentially a prime time housing plot. If they can't pay for their account anymore, than they lose it or need to make arrangements with in-game friends to keep it active and/or hold onto their stuff. The cost of this game is extremely negligible and if you can't afford a three month subscription (which is even cheaper if you buy it with in-game gold), then you clearly have much bigger concerns to worry about than the stuff in your pixel house.
There is no such thing as a free lunch.
Last edited:
Well if nothing else it is interesting to flush out some of the exploiters 
I assume if a person is dishonest in real life that's a person I certainly wouldn't deal with in game. EA/BS is getting ripped off by this system, 45 days would be plenty of time to catch an error and not enough time to exploit it effectively. Although 30 days might seem more politically correct. THIS IS EA FOLKS! It's ALL about the money. The money they lose on this exploit will shorten the life of the game. It hurts us all. It's money that could be spent on artists, programmers, etc. When we hit that tipping point of profit/loss EA will pull the plug in a heart beat. Pay for one month get 3 free will shorten the life of the game. There's no one with half a mind that doesn't agree with this. Most of the people (by far) would pony up for a full subscription if forced to. BS would make far more than they would lose. People aren't holding onto swamp land in Minoc with these accounts. They're holding onto prime spots like Luna, castles, etc. No one is paying even 3 times a year to hold useless or worthless spots. They would pay if they had to. To assume BS doesn't care cause they aren't getting any more cash out it is childishness. That's pretty insulting. There's 2 types of people in this thread IMHO. Exploiters or people that honestly care about the game and want to see it last for many more years. And here's to the little guy that could score his castle or sweet spot he's always wanted. Here's to the tons of cash this would generate to keep the game strong. It should be time to stop rewarding exploiters and start showing the people that actually keep the servers running in this game some respect. No one will quit when this finally gets addressed. They have a sweet spot they don't want to pay for and don't want to give up. If you force them to actually pay for their house they will.
I assume if a person is dishonest in real life that's a person I certainly wouldn't deal with in game. EA/BS is getting ripped off by this system, 45 days would be plenty of time to catch an error and not enough time to exploit it effectively. Although 30 days might seem more politically correct. THIS IS EA FOLKS! It's ALL about the money. The money they lose on this exploit will shorten the life of the game. It hurts us all. It's money that could be spent on artists, programmers, etc. When we hit that tipping point of profit/loss EA will pull the plug in a heart beat. Pay for one month get 3 free will shorten the life of the game. There's no one with half a mind that doesn't agree with this. Most of the people (by far) would pony up for a full subscription if forced to. BS would make far more than they would lose. People aren't holding onto swamp land in Minoc with these accounts. They're holding onto prime spots like Luna, castles, etc. No one is paying even 3 times a year to hold useless or worthless spots. They would pay if they had to. To assume BS doesn't care cause they aren't getting any more cash out it is childishness. That's pretty insulting. There's 2 types of people in this thread IMHO. Exploiters or people that honestly care about the game and want to see it last for many more years. And here's to the little guy that could score his castle or sweet spot he's always wanted. Here's to the tons of cash this would generate to keep the game strong. It should be time to stop rewarding exploiters and start showing the people that actually keep the servers running in this game some respect. No one will quit when this finally gets addressed. They have a sweet spot they don't want to pay for and don't want to give up. If you force them to actually pay for their house they will.
Last edited:
AND just to show how messed up this system is I find myself in full agreement with TimberWolf and Merlin The odds of this are astronomical!
The odds of this are astronomical! 
Look, frankly this isn't a community issue. At some point, the powers that be decided that it was in their best interest to implement a rule stating that 90 days after an account went inactive was the right time to let the house tied to that account fall. That decision was made in a time where housing was much more in demand, and the player base was considerably larger.
Whether you agree with that decision or not is immaterial in the bigger picture. If you are truly put out by it, write an email or a letter to BS and EA stating your case. Its hilarious to see this group arguing that the player base who uses this loophole is somehow cheating EA out of revenue that would somehow be funneled back into the game. 44 bucks a year is not as good as 130, but better than zero, and the powers that be seem to have already done that math, and come to a similar conclusion.
The real issue that these folks have comes down to either
And again, for the record, I maintain all of my accounts monthly for the last 10+ years, and do NOT use this "loophole"
Whether you agree with that decision or not is immaterial in the bigger picture. If you are truly put out by it, write an email or a letter to BS and EA stating your case. Its hilarious to see this group arguing that the player base who uses this loophole is somehow cheating EA out of revenue that would somehow be funneled back into the game. 44 bucks a year is not as good as 130, but better than zero, and the powers that be seem to have already done that math, and come to a similar conclusion.
The real issue that these folks have comes down to either
- "prime" housing that they perceive (without any verifiable evidence) is being maintained through an "abuse" of rules that were put in place in a calculated and purposeful way.
- a strange moral obligation to EA / BS to "protect" them from their subscribers / player base
And again, for the record, I maintain all of my accounts monthly for the last 10+ years, and do NOT use this "loophole"
Maybe if they'd fix the billing system it wouldn't be such a bad issue, but the billing system is so fubared I hate dealing with it.
My accounts keep changing due dates, going back a day or two each renewal cycle - sometimes renewing five days early. I pay my credit cards off on a set day each month. When they decide to bill five days early then cancel my account five days early it annoys me to where I won't renew for a month. Why? Because I regularly lose 1-5 days of game time due to their fubared billing system.
I've had other times where they claim my card has been declined (it wasn't), I was billed for a month, the month was never applied to the account in question, I had to fight with them for a week over that (so account closed for a week at least) and was told to, and I quote "reverse the charge with your bank" because they showed the card was declined. Did that and had my master account banned. No notice on the ban. No explanation. Just unable to reset my password. Spent three weeks trying to figure that out, trying different computers, different systems, going back and forth on phone support after that time. By the end of that time my account had been down six weeks. They then tell me my account was banned for reversing a charge that I was told to reverse (and that was a fun back and forth between two departments until one of them realized the other banned me despite that group saying they didn't). It took a week to get that reversed, meanwhile another account went inactive during that time due to needing to change.
If the billing system isn't reliable and results in accounts being canceled because of their billing, I don't think it would be fair/right to change the days.
I've had several other times where the card was rejected for no reason and the account had funds available to renew.
Buying Gametime Codes has become unreliable with the new system as well - up to a week for codes to be generated and sent.
If they can fix everything, I'd still say 45 days-60 days to account for anyone who has to deactivate cards and forgets to get everything updated - Let's be honest it happens.
I'll be perfectly honest. Every time they screw up billing for me (like this month they decided to bill on the 4th instead of the 7th), I don't go back into the system to reset things till the next month and then I wait till the 15th since they due date keeps changing backwards.
My accounts keep changing due dates, going back a day or two each renewal cycle - sometimes renewing five days early. I pay my credit cards off on a set day each month. When they decide to bill five days early then cancel my account five days early it annoys me to where I won't renew for a month. Why? Because I regularly lose 1-5 days of game time due to their fubared billing system.
I've had other times where they claim my card has been declined (it wasn't), I was billed for a month, the month was never applied to the account in question, I had to fight with them for a week over that (so account closed for a week at least) and was told to, and I quote "reverse the charge with your bank" because they showed the card was declined. Did that and had my master account banned. No notice on the ban. No explanation. Just unable to reset my password. Spent three weeks trying to figure that out, trying different computers, different systems, going back and forth on phone support after that time. By the end of that time my account had been down six weeks. They then tell me my account was banned for reversing a charge that I was told to reverse (and that was a fun back and forth between two departments until one of them realized the other banned me despite that group saying they didn't). It took a week to get that reversed, meanwhile another account went inactive during that time due to needing to change.
If the billing system isn't reliable and results in accounts being canceled because of their billing, I don't think it would be fair/right to change the days.
I've had several other times where the card was rejected for no reason and the account had funds available to renew.
Buying Gametime Codes has become unreliable with the new system as well - up to a week for codes to be generated and sent.
If they can fix everything, I'd still say 45 days-60 days to account for anyone who has to deactivate cards and forgets to get everything updated - Let's be honest it happens.
I'll be perfectly honest. Every time they screw up billing for me (like this month they decided to bill on the 4th instead of the 7th), I don't go back into the system to reset things till the next month and then I wait till the 15th since they due date keeps changing backwards.
I fully agree with kicking this argument "upstairs". I suggest strongly we all do. It's something I've been considering. I'm not Ernest Hemingway but when I get fired up and take my time with it I can manage to string a few effective sentences together. I firmly believe that the phrases EA and LOSING MONEY will get attention at EA lol. I've got one last EA contact from back in the day. He usually wonders what the hell is this doing in my in box and yells at someone to look into it. Cause in reality EA is usually pretty clueless about what's going on. Last time I wrote him I got a box in the mail with Earth and Beyond mouse pad, poster, and T Shirt. Anyone remember that game? Anyway... So it's not like he discourages me from emailing him
I'm trying to figure out how anyone can think this is not an issue worth discussing. I've come up with only two possible reasons:
1) The person thinks it's fine as is because he/she is utilizing the 90 day system currently.
2) The person already has the house/houses he/she wants in the location he/she wants it/them in.
Now... having come back after a long hiatus, I would like to have the option of placing a house in certain locations. However, I currently cannot because people have houses already there, which is fine, assuming they are paying monthly, as I am. However, if even one of these houses is being kept by someone utilizing the 90 day system, then how could that not be deemed unfair? I'm paying three times as much as that person, and in return I'm forced into a less desirable spot.
Sorry... I've never been a huge fan of the 'save my spot for me' mentality.
1) The person thinks it's fine as is because he/she is utilizing the 90 day system currently.
2) The person already has the house/houses he/she wants in the location he/she wants it/them in.
Now... having come back after a long hiatus, I would like to have the option of placing a house in certain locations. However, I currently cannot because people have houses already there, which is fine, assuming they are paying monthly, as I am. However, if even one of these houses is being kept by someone utilizing the 90 day system, then how could that not be deemed unfair? I'm paying three times as much as that person, and in return I'm forced into a less desirable spot.
Sorry... I've never been a huge fan of the 'save my spot for me' mentality.
SO much this^^^^^
And thanks for reminding me, I just activated my new card yesterday. Time to wade back into the Origin account management cesspool and hope for the best while updating the expiration date...
bad bad assumption and so wrong. i've said it before and i'll say it again. if forced to choose between paying monthly for a house holding account (with undeveloped toons) or closing it down permanently, i'd get rid of the house and close the account permanently. i think alot more people would follow suit. most would ask themselves 'do i really need this house anymore'. my money alone won't hurt the game but factor in others and it might have a negative impact.
and coincidentally, in my case, i am talking about a swamp house. yeah, we need more barren space on the low population shards. btw... thp placed 2 side by side castles in the trammel baja swamps that he's now trying to sell. funny thing is the only offer he's gotten is for 10 mil per castle. what a sad state. and peeps here are wanting to force other players to ante up or drop houses. except for atlantic, the game is already desolate enough.
Last edited:
Then let them drop. Most of the folks out there that do this aren't sitting on swamp land lol. By far most will subscribe up full time to keep their places. I only need one person in 4 to sub up full time to keep their places to break even, to free up spaces for those that deserve them, and to restore some fairness to the game. Your friend hoarding castles to make a buck is exactly the type of thing I want to stop. An extremely poor example for you. An excellent example of exactly what I'm saying is wrong with this. You should shop for a higher class of friends and consider how deeply your hurting the game. This kinda exploit expands the longer it's ignored. The more people that get away with it the more others see they're a sucker not to also. It will fester and get worse the longer it's ignored. Someone has to pay to keep the game running. I don't really appreciate subsidizing your house collection. Why should I pay more to keep the game viable for you? How about you pull your own weight. I'd like that idea much better.
I agree with the OP. As a player who just got back into this game after a 10 yr break, it was difficult to find a house spot on Atlantic. I ended up putting my house behind a HUGE Yew tree. I can't see half my property. I can imagine other new players experiencing the same difficulty of finding a house plot. I would certainly like to upgrade my house and that leaves me with two options. 1) look for and camp IDOC or 2) pony up 50mil+ for a 18x18. Both those options are a huge time investment for a player just starting out. This can potentially drive away new/returning players who dreamed of owning a nice house.
I remember when I used to own a Tower and started a guild. We would hang out in the Tower and practice PvPing on the roof. Now, that seems like a far goal to reach so those memories won't be relived...they will forever be the "good old days"
I remember when I used to own a Tower and started a guild. We would hang out in the Tower and practice PvPing on the roof. Now, that seems like a far goal to reach so those memories won't be relived...they will forever be the "good old days"
this made me laugh. poor thp... i don't even know the guy. i've only seen his posts on the boards about the 2 baja castles which he's having a hard time giving away. and he gets slammed by Capt Lucky. lol.
sorry if i struck a nerve. you play the game your way and i'll play it my way until i finally decide to call it quits for good.
EA havent kept this 90 day system because its right, or fair or just. It makes money. Therefore it isnt going to change any time soon. End of. Its astonishing that some of you expect EA to change this to make the game fairer. Its all about the $$$. EA dont give a **** what you all think is fair or unfair.
I never said I expected anything. Still, that doesn't mean we can't voice our opinions.
I personally have at least 4 accounts that for some reason or another I NEVER receive any notice at all that they are currently not on. It's by some stroke of fate sometimes that I realize usually because I get the message when I try to log in that it is not currently active.
So I understand what can happen. Usually I've figured out that the account isn't paid LONG before a house actually starts to IDOC... but If things changed to 30 days I'm sure that would not be the case. I don't log into ever account I have weekly.... and since a house can fall now in 2 days or less... I would really be upset to find I'd lost a house. Most all my accounts are set to autopay... but since I don't receive notice from a few when they go inactive it is difficult to know.
Many a time the problem is that EA for some stupid reason decides that I live in some foreign country and attempts to bill my card from the Netherlands, Germany or some other random place... which my CC immediately declines. This normally alerts me not through EA games sending me an email but through my CC company blocking my card for 3 or 4 days.
But as others have pointed out sometimes it just randomly doesn't go though because they bill early... and there is no money in the account yet. Again very annoying but without getting an email letting me know this has happened I don't always know to fix it until again I attempt to log in .... which might be today, tomorrow, 3 weeks from now or 2 months down the road. Usually sometime we get gifts and I want to log in all my characters.
I have know people to use the 3 month thing for reasons such as ...... The temporary loss of a job. Loss of a loved one. Having to care for a dying spouse or parent. Being sent to Afghanistan in the service... Being sent anywhere in the service of our Country.... I've known some who are Dr's and such who have taken the opportunity to do relief work in some remote area for 2 or 3 months. There are many things that can cause a financial burden on a person where they might take advantage of the 3 month thing.... some reasons include Cancer... Accident or major injury.... etc....
So while your on your self righteous soapboxes remember that the world is full of people making a difference and unexpected difficulties.... consider yourself lucky that none of these things have happened to you. While yes some cheapskates do abuse the system remember it's there for a reason.... it was started for a reason.... and it should continue for those reasons. Remember we still have troops stationed in foreign countries who may serve for extended periods of time. It would be a shame if they had to lose their UO home and all it's possessions because you want a castle on Atl. Talk about Greed.
So I understand what can happen. Usually I've figured out that the account isn't paid LONG before a house actually starts to IDOC... but If things changed to 30 days I'm sure that would not be the case. I don't log into ever account I have weekly.... and since a house can fall now in 2 days or less... I would really be upset to find I'd lost a house. Most all my accounts are set to autopay... but since I don't receive notice from a few when they go inactive it is difficult to know.
Many a time the problem is that EA for some stupid reason decides that I live in some foreign country and attempts to bill my card from the Netherlands, Germany or some other random place... which my CC immediately declines. This normally alerts me not through EA games sending me an email but through my CC company blocking my card for 3 or 4 days.
But as others have pointed out sometimes it just randomly doesn't go though because they bill early... and there is no money in the account yet. Again very annoying but without getting an email letting me know this has happened I don't always know to fix it until again I attempt to log in .... which might be today, tomorrow, 3 weeks from now or 2 months down the road. Usually sometime we get gifts and I want to log in all my characters.
I have know people to use the 3 month thing for reasons such as ...... The temporary loss of a job. Loss of a loved one. Having to care for a dying spouse or parent. Being sent to Afghanistan in the service... Being sent anywhere in the service of our Country.... I've known some who are Dr's and such who have taken the opportunity to do relief work in some remote area for 2 or 3 months. There are many things that can cause a financial burden on a person where they might take advantage of the 3 month thing.... some reasons include Cancer... Accident or major injury.... etc....
So while your on your self righteous soapboxes remember that the world is full of people making a difference and unexpected difficulties.... consider yourself lucky that none of these things have happened to you. While yes some cheapskates do abuse the system remember it's there for a reason.... it was started for a reason.... and it should continue for those reasons. Remember we still have troops stationed in foreign countries who may serve for extended periods of time. It would be a shame if they had to lose their UO home and all it's possessions because you want a castle on Atl. Talk about Greed.
No of course not. Opinions are good. But there are those who are pushing for a change to a system that is working as intended (from EAs perspective ... the proof is that they have been happy to keep it despite knowing exactly how its used) based on their desire to have more pixels because its 'unfair' that people can keep a house on quarterly payments.
Congratulations on being overly rude and making assumptions about any person that thinks the 90-day system is a bad idea.
Oh... and one other thing. I doubt anyone reading these boards gives a damn about how many accounts you have or your woes on keeping them active. I have one account... one. And that's because I don't want to have to try and keep track of more than one.
For those that use the 90-day system as a cheap way of keeping their crap on the off-chance of maybe possible in the distant future coming back, or for those that do it only to log on when gifts are handed out, something should be done about it.
There is more to be said, but I really should just stop there. As it is, I figure my post will be modded.
One of the main points is EA would make a ton more money by closing this exploit.
Public opinions, from time to time, has brought about change in this game. The proof that you state is nothing but assumption. You have no idea exactly why they keep it the way they do.
All rules that have changed in this game, were at one time different. That is a fact.
Being fair, to me, has merit on it's own
As we both agree we doubt EA cares about being fair. But they should care about the mass of money they are throwing away and will continue to do so as this exploit expands to the masses. Just the massive amount of replies against this idea on this one board gives a clear indication of how much they ARE losing. It would appear everyone and their brother has a hand in "ripping off the man" lol. But in reality they are helping to kill UO and it's community.
Hey it's not anyones fault but your own for continuing to play on a shard that has TOO many people.
I recall when I first started dreaming of owning a castle... took about a week for reality to set in and for me to realize that despite all of Fel and All of Trammel I was "never" going to own any house.. let alone a castle or Keep.... There were NO housing spots... and at the time houses NEVER fell.... they had turned off decay. That's right turned it off shortly after I started. So not only did they not go into decay and fall but there was NO WHERE to place even a tiny 7x7.... this was the way it was for over a year. Did I cry and demand that they turn decay back on? No. I waited.
If you don't like that there is no where to live on the shard you are on then perhaps you should move somewhere that has the room you want. Pretty sure there are plenty of other shards with tons of room that you can actually place a castle.
Don't try to change the cycle just because you can't find a place to live... Honestly the housing is what keeps many people in the game. Keep messing with it and having folk lose what they have been holding onto all this time and they will have no reason to ever come back.
First of all, I don't play on Atlantic. I play on Lake Superior. And, while I've never seen Atlantic status below "medium," I've never seen Lake Superior's online population above "medium." I see tons of houses all over the place, but I see few actual players.
Second, the fact that you would even suggest I move to another shard is laughable, since you are the poster child for "I love my shard, and I won't leave it, no matter what." Don't even go there.
Yes, I understand events outside of the game can wreak havoc on in-game stuff. It sucks. But I would imagine there is a way to still cater to those that have real life issues, while at the same time, deterring the pixel hoarders from skirting the subscription that the regular players pay willingly. Your "all or nothing" mentality is counterproductive to the discussion at hand.
You can stop while you're behind.
OldUO
Adventurer
this can still be done! I came back much like you to find a different UO but I found some friends in game and we pvp (guilded to each other) for fun at their houses much like how you explain owning a tower and pvping with your guild. You dont need to be in fel just guilded or in a alliance.
OldUO
Adventurer
So from what I have read, and as a new"er" player... the dev team has these issues to figure out;
1) Bugs and fixing current in game mechanic (not releasing new ones)
2) Cheating, hacking, duping
3) Housing and Shard Reconciliation
4) IDOC Management
5) Account management and Origin
So why aren't there ever notes or releases in publishes that have anything to do with these top issues?
.. and from the outside looking in, it would appear this @Mesanna has created a player base that only cares about her EM items and shiny colors and hues.
1) Bugs and fixing current in game mechanic (not releasing new ones)
2) Cheating, hacking, duping
3) Housing and Shard Reconciliation
4) IDOC Management
5) Account management and Origin
So why aren't there ever notes or releases in publishes that have anything to do with these top issues?
.. and from the outside looking in, it would appear this @Mesanna has created a player base that only cares about her EM items and shiny colors and hues.
Would they? A lot of folks might just drop houses and consolidate if they closed the loophole and EA loses 4 months revenue per year. If EA thought that changing the rule would increase their income then they damn sure would change it. Also its not an exploit.
Money. Simple as that. You can argue the toss about 'proof' all you like but this is just a blatant source of income to EA. Yes sure rules change, from time to time but EA arent that stupid to throw guaranteed revenue away. They will know exactly how many accounts are on the 90 day shuffle. Its probably way more than we imagine.
Massive amount of replies? Really? How many different posters? Thats laughable. Youre better than that Capt. Its a drop in the ocean compared to how many non playing, non posters that EA are gaining 4 months $$$ from per annum which they would potentially lose if they changed it.Being fair, to me, has merit on it's own
Merlin
The Enchanter
Moderator
Professional
Governor
Supporter
Stratics Veteran
UNLEASHED
Campaign Patron
Yes, count me as one of "those". These boards are here, in part, for the purpose of discussing things we would like to see changed. This falls into that category. And just because it has been working that way for a while doesn't mean it's still a good idea or that it isn't subject to being questioned by the community. And I don't know if any of us are exactly in a position to say it's "working as intended" if this was really only created for Iraq vets, or so the story goes.
Maybe it would change on other non-Atlantic shards, but I think on Atlantic they would end up making more money. People who exploit this loophole (and yes, unless if it isn't clearly defined in the user agreement that you can pay only once every 90 days, then it is a loophole) would be forced to either pay up or give the plots to other people who in all likelihood would pay more regularly for prime time spots. If one fourth of those accounts playing this 'roulette' ended up moving to paying 100% of the time, you would end up with a wash financially. Why should people on Atlantic be able to sit on coveted castles and keeps (or any halfway respectable housing plot) and only pay 25% of the time when someone else would love to have that spot and pay 100% of the time? I think this is a fair question to be raised and not completely outside the realm of possibility that it would someday be changed.
This isn't about 'losing money', it's about the uncertainty of change. Captain Lucky isn't completely off by saying this would potentially bring in more money. It's a matter of whether or not its worth it to take the risk of changing the system.
The one MAJOR point I will concede that has been brought up here is that you can't make any changes to this until the account management homepage is revamped to be more user friendly. The OP's idea of a 'maintenance' type of account isn't a terrible idea (although I'd still personally rather see payment occur full-time), but it isn't even feasible to make that type of change until the account management area is cleaned up first and foremost.
Last edited:
Merlin, that was a well written, eloquent response.
Reading some of the posts in this thread I hear a recurring theme... there is a shortage of land on Atlantic for large houses. What if Atlantic, and only Atlantic, was expanded to accomodate the larger population? I haven't thought this out but just kind of thinking out loud.
Reading some of the posts in this thread I hear a recurring theme... there is a shortage of land on Atlantic for large houses. What if Atlantic, and only Atlantic, was expanded to accomodate the larger population? I haven't thought this out but just kind of thinking out loud.
So lets say that the people that play the 90 day game close their account or consolidate. Someone who is willing to pay a monthly reoccurring rate, lets say on ATL will plant a house at the same location faster then you can do the following math: Thus trading 4 month sub for a 12 month sub....
It does not take a lot of the occurrences above to more than make up for the dead servers where people would not place.
I think the issue becomes a bigger problem as more and more players start to do this on busy shards. Imagine the effect it would have if half of the players owned 3 or more large house plots while only paying 1/3 the monthly subscription. It further prevents new/return players from placing their own large house. 4 months subscription is little in comparison to the money they can make from a new/returning player. I just started up 4 months ago and already I have paid for a subscription, the Abyss and High Seas expansion, Gothic pack, forge metal tools and extra character slot. Even considering a second account...
Right now, obtaining an 18x18 is certainly possible if I save up and buy from a realtor, but if land becomes so scarce that the price of 18x18s become 100mil+, new/returning players might give up on that dream or even give up on the game.
Finally, owning just a single beautifully decorated home can keep player around. It makes quitting that much harder! People are attached to their virtual homes. Right now, if I closed my account for 6+ months, I'm not losing much. I can restart UO later and all my characters will still be there and my valuable items will still be in my bank. I loose my small and undecorated house, no big deal. EA looses a monthly subscriber and active player (which apparently UO needs more of)
On another note, having actual active neighbors is FUN! I can recall in, see my neighbor, say hi. Chit chat. Add each other on ICQ and become friends. The first neighbor I met was super awesome. He owned a castle below my tiny plot and he actually gave me 10mil to help me get started in the game. 10mil wasn't much to him but it helped me more than you can imagine!
Right now, obtaining an 18x18 is certainly possible if I save up and buy from a realtor, but if land becomes so scarce that the price of 18x18s become 100mil+, new/returning players might give up on that dream or even give up on the game.
Finally, owning just a single beautifully decorated home can keep player around. It makes quitting that much harder! People are attached to their virtual homes. Right now, if I closed my account for 6+ months, I'm not losing much. I can restart UO later and all my characters will still be there and my valuable items will still be in my bank. I loose my small and undecorated house, no big deal. EA looses a monthly subscriber and active player (which apparently UO needs more of)
On another note, having actual active neighbors is FUN! I can recall in, see my neighbor, say hi. Chit chat. Add each other on ICQ and become friends. The first neighbor I met was super awesome. He owned a castle below my tiny plot and he actually gave me 10mil to help me get started in the game. 10mil wasn't much to him but it helped me more than you can imagine!
Last edited:
How about instead restore classic house placement rules ( not confused with legacy ) that let you place on uneven terrain. They did away with that in 1998? Would be very easy to implement.
Maybe a solution for the housing crunch on Atlantic is to let every house, no matter its actual size, have the same storage capacity as a castle.
busy shards? you mean busy shard. the only busy shard is atlantic. come to sonoma where you can place keeps all day long and sometimes even a castle. or try balhae or oceania where castle spots are readily available.
i had one of those! it was a 7x7 on ocllo and the only way to enter it was to approach from the side of the steps. i loved that little house.
it would be cool if we had axes that really cut down trees so you could clear the land to place your home. next scene: treeless shards
The solution was proposed many a time about making some way to add storage. Which is why most folk covet a castle/keep in the first place. If they gave us a way to get more storage via the Basement proposal or some other means that doesn't take away from housing spots we currently have I think they would make a killing... Yes some people might even stop doing the shuffle... but really I think selling added storage and not just a piddly 10 or 20% housing storage increase... I'm talking about doubling your storage. People would pay it.... infact some of us I'm willing to bet would even go so far as to pay a couple extra bucks a month to add more storage like that.... I know I would.
a basement would be awesome!
It's the same answer as most people give me... While yes it's a dumb answer..... it is the same answer I am given EVERY time I mention thing. And counter productive or not I don't think that changing the 90 day rule is a good idea. There are many reasons it should stay. Many of which are good reasons. Yes it can and does get abused... but that one time you need it... you'll be VERY glad it's there.
I don't know about most folk but I can say that if I lost certain houses due to some stupid F up with the billing that cost me those things that I treasure... I'm fairly sure that would be the straw that breaks this camels back and I would NEVER return. I've been pushed very close to that point in the past and thanks to some very wonderful folk in the RP community on GLs and old friends I managed to get back into game... but since then many of those folk are no longer here... I highly doubt I'd be convinced to stick around again. And I know I'm not alone on that.... I know some folk who have lost housing due to stupid mix-ups in billing.... They haven't ever been able to return... and I don't blame them.
I've proposed the idea on many occasions...
It would be something you can place in your house like the current Teleporters..... It would have various graphics to chose from including some sort of teleporter(not like the current ones)..... a "hatch door", a hole with a ladder sticking up from it.... etc.... and like a teleporter it would take you to some subserver where there is nothing but black around your "plot" which would be the footprint size of a castle..... 32x32 you'd have ONE level and it would hold as much as a castle and your upgrades so if you have the 60% it would apply to your Basement as much as it does your house. It would have different walls and such and be much like a "dungeon".... you can custom design it anyway you like with those which would also include shackles on walls and things like that so you could build your own dungeon like area... also would be neat if they could include the treasure piles as some of the deco tiles.... And would have a teleporter spot back to your home. You could set the same access settings as you can for the rest of your house to it... so only guildies or friends or whatever could go there. Or you could have it open to the public.... Private houses would have private basements and if they are on a different sub server it shouldn't add any LAG.
Anyway it was something I came up with long time ago... but it's a dream of mine.
Are you outta your $%^&&* mind?
Their gonna lose revenue....BIG TIME!
And the fact that we have players like yourself referring to this as a loophole, explot, "free lunch", or taking advantage of is absolutely hilarious.
I'm going to venture to guess that most of the users who rotate are HARDCORE UO players that have multiple accounts, and have been playing for years. They may being paying for 1-2 accounts full time, and toggling other accounts.
So while your there crying foul paying your 1 $12.99 monthly subscription fee. Others who make use of the 90 day cycle could be paying their 1-2+ accounts all year around, and carrying a few rotating accounts because they're diehard UO addicts.
You get it...there putting more in pot to keep this game going then you are. You have no idea of knowing...
I have 5 accounts...last month I shut down 4 because I'm fed up with neglect to many aspects of UO.
I have a ton of ****. I have no desire right now to go through my 17+ years of **** to see what I want to store where. So I'm gonna probably re-up in 90 days, and then decide if I want to wait another 90 days.
I can guarantee you if the change the rules on this there not going to be getting any money from me come March.
Here's another thing to think about....
I have 1 Castle on my main account on Sonoma (still active). I have 2 houses on Atlantic (Neither prime locations), and I have 2 houses on a deserted shard that I like to play on when I don't want to be bothered.
They change the 90 day rule....I got news for you...no one is going to be placing houses on that deserted shard where I have my two houses to replace the revenue.
This thread is absolultey crazy. I really don't like spending my personal time posting on stratics, however I still do and always will care about this game no matter who or how they're running it...which is why I'm going to post my long winded 2 cents..
And just to add, as a 17 year veteran. I really don't care if I lose all my ****. I'd like to keep it, I earned it but I'm not going to be hurting by any means. I have enough gold banked away and gear on my 35 character X 3 shards I play on (plus pack beetles).
My point is this..while I don't care if I lose all my ****. I do still care about the game, and watching the game lose revenue will be the death knell for UO which is why I'm taking to the time to chime in this thread.
Those of you who think UO is somehow going to increase their revenue stream are off your %^&^&&& rockers, and not only that, it's playing with fire as this game needs all the revenue it can get.
And we could just close the thread on this sentence alone.
44>0
Last edited:
So lets say that the people that play the 90 day game close their account or consolidate. Someone who is willing to pay a monthly reoccurring rate, lets say on ATL will plant a house at the same location faster then you can do the following math: Thus trading 4 month sub for a 12 month sub....
It does not take a lot of the occurrences above to more than make up for the dead servers where people would not place.
Q: You know who has numbers to quantify all of our opinions and assertions? A: EA / BS.
Everyone else has an "opinion" based on "observation" and "speculation".
When EA / BS asks for you opinion on the matter, be ready to share. If you feel strongly about this argument one way or the other, please proactively craft a well written email to the powers that be explaining your stance.
Everyone else has an "opinion" based on "observation" and "speculation".
When EA / BS asks for you opinion on the matter, be ready to share. If you feel strongly about this argument one way or the other, please proactively craft a well written email to the powers that be explaining your stance.
- Status