Y
Yewish News
Guest
Why do they not change the subscription model so it's free to play and you just pay the £10 for house ownership etc? Was this discussed at the last Townhall?
-
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!
Free to Play
- Thread starter Yewish News
- Start date
- Watchers 0
G
Guest
Guest
Maybe someday.
G
Guest
Guest
No thank you.
I
imported_lord richard
Guest
Hey, maybe we could all get a tax write off...virtual property taxes.
I
imported_Spiritless
Guest
Engage brain and think for a little.
Those playing on a free-to-play basis would get into the game and realize things like houses are basically required, therefore be more likely to subscribe. This creates a subscription from a person that may not have been likely to subscribe before playing otherwise.
That's how it works in theory anyway.
Those playing on a free-to-play basis would get into the game and realize things like houses are basically required, therefore be more likely to subscribe. This creates a subscription from a person that may not have been likely to subscribe before playing otherwise.
That's how it works in theory anyway.
G
Guest
Guest
there's to many confounding factors which would lead to this idea creating a significant amount of lost revenue for EA which would result in UO being cancelled.
Remove brain from fantasy land and come back to reality.
Making the game free without houses means players will create 20 accounts so they don't need a house. They just store the stuff on their free characters.
So EA makes no money on UO and calls the whole thing off.
Making the game free without houses means players will create 20 accounts so they don't need a house. They just store the stuff on their free characters.
So EA makes no money on UO and calls the whole thing off.
G
Guest
Guest
While I agree with the concept of a free to play system being ideal for UO's future, I disgree with the idea of restricting a free account.
You continue running a subscription service but provide non-balance affecting bonuses to paying for that subscription, think along the lines of veteran rewards but with more scope.
With an improved micro transaction system for instant lower cost purchases the game would more than cover the current income it achieves because the effective playerbase that would take advantage of them is much much larger.
It results in a play experience that UO was supposed to provide, which we all know is highly addictive and more importantly fun.
The declining playerbase is a vicious circle, for every person who leaves it increases the odds of another player leaving because they rely on player interaction for their fun. Which is the core of the game. Without other players would you be playing?
The reverse is also true however, for every new player the chance of a current player staying increases.
People can poo-poo the idea all they want, but it's proven to work and is a very profitable system as more and more people are starting to realize.
I doubt it'll happen anytime soon, if at all, but if it were to happen, I'd be confident in it's success, more so than a new client that took 2 years of development time.
You continue running a subscription service but provide non-balance affecting bonuses to paying for that subscription, think along the lines of veteran rewards but with more scope.
With an improved micro transaction system for instant lower cost purchases the game would more than cover the current income it achieves because the effective playerbase that would take advantage of them is much much larger.
It results in a play experience that UO was supposed to provide, which we all know is highly addictive and more importantly fun.
The declining playerbase is a vicious circle, for every person who leaves it increases the odds of another player leaving because they rely on player interaction for their fun. Which is the core of the game. Without other players would you be playing?
The reverse is also true however, for every new player the chance of a current player staying increases.
People can poo-poo the idea all they want, but it's proven to work and is a very profitable system as more and more people are starting to realize.
I doubt it'll happen anytime soon, if at all, but if it were to happen, I'd be confident in it's success, more so than a new client that took 2 years of development time.
G
Guest
Guest
*has hard time not taking this thread way OT with a reply about political systems*
No to making UO free to play, yet anyway. In the distant future maybe, but for the moment UO is a healthy game with a good subscription base, making it profitable. There is no reason for EA to make it free at this stage, in fact they have every reason not to considering they have recently made a new client, and are developing SA to be released 'soon.' Once SA is released UO's subs will increase (probably quite a bit), thus more $$$ for EA.
No to making UO free to play, yet anyway. In the distant future maybe, but for the moment UO is a healthy game with a good subscription base, making it profitable. There is no reason for EA to make it free at this stage, in fact they have every reason not to considering they have recently made a new client, and are developing SA to be released 'soon.' Once SA is released UO's subs will increase (probably quite a bit), thus more $$$ for EA.
G
Guest
Guest
<blockquote><hr>
Remove brain from fantasy land and come back to reality.
Making the game free without houses means players will create 20 accounts so they don't need a house. They just store the stuff on their free characters.
So EA makes no money on UO and calls the whole thing off.
[/ QUOTE ]
Touche!
Remove brain from fantasy land and come back to reality.
Making the game free without houses means players will create 20 accounts so they don't need a house. They just store the stuff on their free characters.
So EA makes no money on UO and calls the whole thing off.
[/ QUOTE ]
Touche!
F
Fayled Dhreams
Guest
<blockquote><hr>
Remove brain from fantasy land and come back to reality.
Making the game free without houses means players will create 20 accounts so they don't need a house. They just store the stuff on their free characters.
So EA makes no money on UO and calls the whole thing off.
[/ QUOTE ]
and that would be "a" problem JUST with the "legit" players ...
gonna need to see the possible small chance what the "non-legit" would do
Doh!
/tears and crumples the "petition" up
Remove brain from fantasy land and come back to reality.
Making the game free without houses means players will create 20 accounts so they don't need a house. They just store the stuff on their free characters.
So EA makes no money on UO and calls the whole thing off.
[/ QUOTE ]
gonna need to see the possible small chance what the "non-legit" would do
Doh!
/tears and crumples the "petition" up
I
imported_Spiritless
Guest
<blockquote><hr>
Remove brain from fantasy land and come back to reality.
Making the game free without houses means players will create 20 accounts so they don't need a house. They just store the stuff on their free characters.
[/ QUOTE ]
I'd wager the number of people who even attempted to do this would be minimal. It'd just be way too much effort and hassle for most people; especially if bank storage was severely reduced for free accounts.
Case study: Runescape. They offer a F2P (Free To Play) and a P2P (Pay To Play) service. F2P accounts have many restrictions; they can only access a section of the map rather than the entire thing, etc. There are various restrictions on items too; F2P accounts cannot use or obtain certain items.
All in all, that system works. The game is a grindfest and gameplay, imo, just outright sucks. However, they have a significantly higher number of subscribers than UO, controlling roughly 6.9% share of the overall market.
The principle of the free accounts is that they give people easy access to the game without any commitment. Once they play, they make friends with people, get into the game and the idea behind the F2P model is to get free subscribers to turn into paying subscribers using the carrot on a stick method. In Runescape's case, I'd say this works. The offset of paying for the number of freeloaders to subscribers ratio is significant enough for the model to be viable financially.
Now, I'm playing devil's advocate slightly here because I personally wouldn't want to see a F2P system in UO. The other aspect of the equation is the type of player that free play breeds. The RS community's average age has to be incredibly low teens and maybe even pre-teen. Walk around any town there and you'll see the type of behaviour and conversation that goes on and, frankly, any adult of average intelligence would realize they probably don't want to continue playing there too much longer. I'd certainly not want this to happen to UO; I personally think the requirement of a credit card for a start filters out a lot of people I'd rather not be interacting with in my spare time.
Your assumptions about the financial viability of the model are just incorrect though. RS is doing fine and has been expanding since inception. Managementtoday.com reported that Jagex posted profits going from £2.7m (~$5.4m) to £10.2m (~$20.2m) in the 2005-2006 fiscal year.
I probably don't think UO has the mechanics present in its current state to produce significant allure to make people want to subscribe as readily as RS, however. That opinion is subjective though I guess; there's an argument for both sides of the fence on this issue and admittedly UO does have elements that people can get into which may create subscribers.
On another note, we could talk until the cows came home about this subject and people can make points and counter-points until they're blue in the face. Fact is, EA aren't going to be embracing F2P any time soon with UO. No member of the management/director team would be willing to roll the dice with this and it'd take a significant amount of time to code in provisions for restricted, free accounts which would certainly be a requirement of the system should it be seriously considered. It isn't happening, but maybe fun to discuss.
Take care.
Remove brain from fantasy land and come back to reality.
Making the game free without houses means players will create 20 accounts so they don't need a house. They just store the stuff on their free characters.
[/ QUOTE ]
I'd wager the number of people who even attempted to do this would be minimal. It'd just be way too much effort and hassle for most people; especially if bank storage was severely reduced for free accounts.
Case study: Runescape. They offer a F2P (Free To Play) and a P2P (Pay To Play) service. F2P accounts have many restrictions; they can only access a section of the map rather than the entire thing, etc. There are various restrictions on items too; F2P accounts cannot use or obtain certain items.
All in all, that system works. The game is a grindfest and gameplay, imo, just outright sucks. However, they have a significantly higher number of subscribers than UO, controlling roughly 6.9% share of the overall market.
The principle of the free accounts is that they give people easy access to the game without any commitment. Once they play, they make friends with people, get into the game and the idea behind the F2P model is to get free subscribers to turn into paying subscribers using the carrot on a stick method. In Runescape's case, I'd say this works. The offset of paying for the number of freeloaders to subscribers ratio is significant enough for the model to be viable financially.
Now, I'm playing devil's advocate slightly here because I personally wouldn't want to see a F2P system in UO. The other aspect of the equation is the type of player that free play breeds. The RS community's average age has to be incredibly low teens and maybe even pre-teen. Walk around any town there and you'll see the type of behaviour and conversation that goes on and, frankly, any adult of average intelligence would realize they probably don't want to continue playing there too much longer. I'd certainly not want this to happen to UO; I personally think the requirement of a credit card for a start filters out a lot of people I'd rather not be interacting with in my spare time.
Your assumptions about the financial viability of the model are just incorrect though. RS is doing fine and has been expanding since inception. Managementtoday.com reported that Jagex posted profits going from £2.7m (~$5.4m) to £10.2m (~$20.2m) in the 2005-2006 fiscal year.
I probably don't think UO has the mechanics present in its current state to produce significant allure to make people want to subscribe as readily as RS, however. That opinion is subjective though I guess; there's an argument for both sides of the fence on this issue and admittedly UO does have elements that people can get into which may create subscribers.
On another note, we could talk until the cows came home about this subject and people can make points and counter-points until they're blue in the face. Fact is, EA aren't going to be embracing F2P any time soon with UO. No member of the management/director team would be willing to roll the dice with this and it'd take a significant amount of time to code in provisions for restricted, free accounts which would certainly be a requirement of the system should it be seriously considered. It isn't happening, but maybe fun to discuss.
Take care.
I
imported_Spiritless
Guest
<blockquote><hr>
Communism seemed to be a fantastic "Theory", as well.
Not so much, when you actually involved Human Beings...
[/ QUOTE ]
Works fine in Cuba, unless you listen to US propaganda that is.
Communism seemed to be a fantastic "Theory", as well.
Not so much, when you actually involved Human Beings...
[/ QUOTE ]
Works fine in Cuba, unless you listen to US propaganda that is.
G
Guest
Guest
Maybe it real needs to be looked into.
How could it be any worse than people abusing free trial accounts now?
Seems it might be able to generate more subscriptions. And are not more paying players something the enitre community wants? More players = more money = longer UO stays profitable = longer the servers stay on.
How could it be any worse than people abusing free trial accounts now?
Seems it might be able to generate more subscriptions. And are not more paying players something the enitre community wants? More players = more money = longer UO stays profitable = longer the servers stay on.
I
imported_Vyrquenox
Guest
sheesh it is a decent idea, just restrict free players to no house ownership a smaller bank box and access only to the legacy dungeons and trammel cities. they pretty much do this anyway with the free accounts but if you give someone enough time to want to do something else they will start to pay. About a million online games pull this trick. You get to see what the game is and make friends and eventually you will pay. Even if it is some 17 year old who can't pay at least he's around talking to people and providing a player character for them to encourage. Nobody in their right mind who is already paying would stop paying and nobody that would have already started and paid will not pay, you just have more of a chance to get people hooked if their little free account sticks around permanently, as there is more time for them to get attached to their character and have a time occur when they are bored and boot it back up, even if it took six months to get them to pay they can't do anything competitive in the game, nobody is being cheated, and you get an extra shot at their money. Can't see the illogic of this, unless you are really just ultimately worried about people making the thousand accounts to hold some piddly crap in their tiny (i mean like 1/20 the size) bank box.
technically i agree with noxin more, but I doubt that would not just make people whine and complain. I tried to provide more of a compromise that actually might sink into EA people's dinosaur brains. (mythic excluded of course
)
technically i agree with noxin more, but I doubt that would not just make people whine and complain. I tried to provide more of a compromise that actually might sink into EA people's dinosaur brains. (mythic excluded of course
B
Babble
Guest
Doubt they do it, though UO could profit from it if they thought about it.
If people are afraid about bank boxes then don't give those free accounts one?
If people are afraid about bank boxes then don't give those free accounts one?
G
Guest
Guest
<blockquote><hr>
Communism seemed to be a fantastic "Theory", as well.
Not so much, when you actually involved Human Beings...
[/ QUOTE ]
You act as if there aren't hoards of free, pay for bonuses games out there making scads of money that aren't 1/10 the game UO is.
I would love for them to try it, but I think at this stage it might be a bad idea, but don't act like its not a viable method.
Communism seemed to be a fantastic "Theory", as well.
Not so much, when you actually involved Human Beings...
[/ QUOTE ]
You act as if there aren't hoards of free, pay for bonuses games out there making scads of money that aren't 1/10 the game UO is.
I would love for them to try it, but I think at this stage it might be a bad idea, but don't act like its not a viable method.
IN THEORY, I have a football play I created that would kill any defense that had no idea it was coming. In theory, even if they did know it was coming, they still would not be able to counter it because they are forced to pull in their players to prevent a dead out QB sneak or a long pass. In theory, it should work. But, on the field........
Babble I know you made a joke and I have no idea at all of how to even begin the comprehension of it, lol.
G
Guest
Guest
I don't think it was a joke, I think that she was just echoing my statement that the free to play/perks for pay mmorpg system isn't just a theory, its proven effective, and that it's growing as the main method for a lot of eastern online games.
However I think that without the game being designed with that payment style in mind from its inception it would be pretty hard to make it work right.
However I think that without the game being designed with that payment style in mind from its inception it would be pretty hard to make it work right.
B
Babble
Guest
Sony Online Entertainment (known for Everquest, Everquest 2, and other games) design a free to play MMORPG called 'The Agency'.
Anarchy Online is free to play now and has some form of ingame advertisment.
There are some articles out there actually proclaiming that pay to play is dieing (wow is the big exception), and it is sensible as everyone then can decide what to spend on a game leaving you with a lot bigger playerbase.
Anarchy Online is free to play now and has some form of ingame advertisment.
There are some articles out there actually proclaiming that pay to play is dieing (wow is the big exception), and it is sensible as everyone then can decide what to spend on a game leaving you with a lot bigger playerbase.
G
Guest
Guest
You mean, like, how, with my second account, I pay only once every three months just so my second house does not fall ... I can do that with my real account, too? Just pay every three months so my house does not fall? Or will that mean that my house will BE there for three months but I cannot USE it? Heheh, that would suck. Hi, house! I sure miss you. Hee.
And what does this other person mean, 20 accounts for storage? Yeah, right. Unlikely. "Hmm, now what account has which character what has what I am looking for? Darn it!!" Fun.
Free To Play - Pay To Prosper.
It could work. EAMythic is already experimenting with expanding their microtransaction lineup at UOGameCodes.com ...
Make it a limited promotional offer. Click a certain advertisement, and get a special-flagged account that is free forever with three restrictions: The 'entitlement' level is ONLY "LBR" (Tram, Fel, Ilsh, only, and so on); not being able to own, co-own, or be friend of any housing; and if you pay once, you lose the special 'free crippled account' status forever.
And what does this other person mean, 20 accounts for storage? Yeah, right. Unlikely. "Hmm, now what account has which character what has what I am looking for? Darn it!!" Fun.
Free To Play - Pay To Prosper.
It could work. EAMythic is already experimenting with expanding their microtransaction lineup at UOGameCodes.com ...
Make it a limited promotional offer. Click a certain advertisement, and get a special-flagged account that is free forever with three restrictions: The 'entitlement' level is ONLY "LBR" (Tram, Fel, Ilsh, only, and so on); not being able to own, co-own, or be friend of any housing; and if you pay once, you lose the special 'free crippled account' status forever.
F
Fayled Dhreams
Guest
<blockquote><hr>
And what does this other person mean, 20 accounts for storage? Yeah, right. Unlikely. "Hmm, now what account has which character what has what I am looking for? Darn it!!" Fun.
[/ QUOTE ]
And if they (FtP) can pick up items ...
Free gold, artie, dupe storage ...
Doh!
And what does this other person mean, 20 accounts for storage? Yeah, right. Unlikely. "Hmm, now what account has which character what has what I am looking for? Darn it!!" Fun.
[/ QUOTE ]
Free gold, artie, dupe storage ...
Doh!