Apply F2P to UO using the LOTRO model, and the following changes are possible:
* 400% increase in active players would raise the total active playerbase by 5 times, equaling 300,000 players, well above UO's peak.
* 300% increase in concurrent players. Assume right now there are roughly 20-100 players playing concurrently on a server. On the largest shards that figure might reach 250. Each shard would effectively quadruple the number of players online, enriching the world and making it more fun to play in
* 52% of players would purchase premium items (UO's already been selling things for years in the very difficult to use web store. Imagine a menu in the game that handled it all instantly, safely, and securely!)
* UO's yearly revenue could be expect to at least double to $18.7 million a year.
The thing is, you're presuming there would be a 400% increase in active players. If we're talking about a number that's "well above UO's peak," that's a lofty goal based on the way the game currently looks, behaves, and introduces people to the game (I know you touch on this later, just responding in general here).
Also, 52% of players purchasing premium items? I could see that happening, as long as the premium items were worth purchasing, were released on a regular basis (ie: you should probably have something new added each month), and if -- like LOTRO -- some were quest areas, the questing would have to be worthwhile (something that I believe the current High Seas model goes starkly against).
What producer wouldn't want to see their revenue double overnight? =)
I think, unfortunately, you're presuming it's a viable option.
Unfortunately, I don't believe it would work.
First, and foremost, in order for F2P to work without deluging the one feature of UO that makes it fairly unique, they'd have to charge for housing. They'd have to make that charge significant enough to keep people from taking advantage of it. That pretty well means they'd be stuck at or close to the $12.99/month model anyway. After all, if they don't charge for housing, how do you prevent someone from just opening up 20 accounts and placing 20 houses and blocking off an entire area all for themselves?
And if they don't charge for housing, then it becomes ludicrous. People open multiple accounts, place multiple houses, make their own neighborhoods, and don't have to spend a dime to do so. You can't even make it "place a small house for free," because someone would just place 20 houses.
Sure, there are ways to make it inconvenient to do so (ie: you have to log into the game each day with the placing character or each week, but then you make in inconvenient to own a house, which isn't a good idea).
If you look at how modern F2P games deal with these micro-transactions, you'll see it's not about selling uber-gear or pvp-overpowering items. It's about making the daily grind less grindy, character customization, and accessing content faster.
Okay, but here's a couple of issues with that. UO doesn't have anything worth modeling along those lines, and they already have enough problem spitting out expansions that are buggy beyond belief and untested and untried. They'd have to take some SERIOUS steps in a positive QA direction.
But above that, let's say free gets you to play, and you can have a free bank box, no house (or maybe a virtual house?... I'm afraid to wonder how they'd implement that), and get up to 100 skill level (have to pay to apply a power scroll, or you can buy power scrolls? Who knows). But to do specific dungeons, you'd have to buy access. Say $10 for access to Deceit. Well, who would want to pay for access to Deceit?
It's interesting and right now I work in the F2P market, so obviously I'm a proponent of the strategy as long as it's done right. You make the game free, you keep it free, and all the current content remains free forever.
Given EA's history of developing UO, do you see this as feasible? I don't.
Don't get me wrong though, UO would still need major work. A new player experience that smooths the initial transition, fix the broken content, fix the bugs, and deal with the housing situation (what if you could pay to have more houses?)
Yeah, they'd have to fix a whole lot, and then find a way to make people want to pay for X, Y, and Z. And housing? No... as I said before, you'd have to charge for ALL housing or there simply wouldn't be any housing left anywhere again -- especially if we're discussing increasing the playerbase 300%.
Regardless, UO would ALSO need a modern client that didn't look like complete crap -- just tossing it on a web-based client wouldn't work either (and I hope UO never goes that route anyway). The reason people are willing to buy stuff for games that are F2P is because they're addictive, and typically offer a good graphic experience. Now, I know games like Farmville make a killing, but, again, UO would need a SERIOUS revamp to do it.
I'm also curious... there was a forthcoming announcement at one point about UO going F2P and then it didn't happen... what model was the game going to follow? At the point in time just before the KR client... I have to say, I don't see the game as having been in a state to pull it off.
My other issue with F2P right now is that they'd have to spend the next couple of years getting it set up so that it was worth doing. If they just rushed it like they did High Seas and Stygian Abyss... well... it could just as easily be the final nail into the game's coffin. There'd be a sudden influx, and then as more and more systems failed, were buggy, or incomplete -- and these would likely be PAID sections of the game -- people would stop paying, and all that would be left would be the free players. What do you do at that point when the revenue just isn't there?
There's so much more than just tossing LOTRO's F2P model onto UO and praying for it. Of course, I think you get that... just sort of voicing my thoughts on it too.
