WOW's f2p content is just marketing speak for an extended trial that any halfway-intelligent player can quickly max out and be forced into paying to go any further.
The value Blizzard saw in their free-to-play content has to do with going after long term customers. Most peple who have ever played WoW didn't make it past level 20 anyway. This is still going to be the case with their free-to-play content. However, those who do sign up for the monthly subscription are much more likely to stay subscribed for a longer term than the ones who never got to level 20.
The UO trial is two weeks.
WoW had a 2 week trial available long before making it free-to-play content. Where did you think UO's trial idea came from?
Regardless of who was first, the point is that both games have a trial - one has a fixed time, the other a level cap, and both are free. WoW is just a little more savvy on the marketing, but ultimately if you want to actually play WoW you are going to pay money, just as you will with UO.
If they want something similar for UO, all they have to do is remove the time limit on the trial. I can dig up a list of trial restrictions if you'd like, but they are eerily similar to things you would expect under a so-called "free to play" system.
You're getting closer. But this may be an incorrect solution. But to be fair, it's an incorrect one that some of the other games are doing also. Showing players what they are missing out on can work sometimes, at least in the short term. And that is what the UO trial tries to accomplish. However, the long term subscribers are what EA wants. they want people signing up for 6-month subscriptions rather than 3-month or one month. A better solution might something that was recommended in the tweet above. Set a skill and stat cap at place right at the point where enough time has been invested in the game that people who reach it want to continue and let them take as much time as needed to reach that point. For example, don't let any skill be taken above 85. But again, it might work better if they let players take as much time as they need getting there rather than limiting them to just 2 weeks.
Therein lies the rub: What has EA done in the past year for UO, Camelot, and Warhammer that indicates that they are interested in growing those three games or gaining more long term subscribers for them?
Well they did give Warhammer an endless trial. That should be viewed as good news, rather than negatively. An endless trial is now the industry standard. But it needs to be done right as I said above. Enough time in character development has to be included in the free-to-play content to get people on board for the long term subscriptions. Just bringing them in for 2 weeks to show them what they are missing out on is now an outdated model.
I think that was done because Warhammer is in bad shape. They keep having to merge servers because Warhammer relies heavily on PvP, well it is PvP-based, and they just went through another round of mergers in the last few months just to keep PvP viable.
I understand the concerns for planning, the website, the graphics, etc. Those could be used for bringing in new players, sure. But I'd wager to say adding free-to-play content that gets people invested in the game long term outdoes any of those things. Look at the current playerbase. How many of them have subscribed long term because of the website? Or the graphics? Most people who have been subscribed this long are staying subscribed because they have invested so much into the game. That's the point of creating a free-to-play endless trial, to get people invested enough to want to continue playing long term. But sometimes you just have to give people a long enough amount of time to get there. For WoW, level 20 is that mark. They want people to get to level 20, in fact they are counting on it and are giving people as much time as they need to get there. Where could that point be for UO? How about instead of trying to get a better looking website or graphics they just focus on getting people in the game! If nothing else, having free-to-play content gives them an excuse for a crappy website and graphics (heh). It's like test driving a vehicle, the point isn't to get them looking at the vehicle, it's to get them inside it. The free trial should no longer be about what a person isn't getting, but what they do get, and to get them invested enough to want more. That's why free-to-play content works. Jeff saying they won't do it still should raise a red flag now, because it has become an industry standard.
What do you think they'll do?
He said gender/race/name.
The choice has already been made, as seen in Jeff's tweet. They have no plans to add any free-to-play content for now. Was it really his choice though? Maybe, but I'm sure it's also EA's choice. EA hasn't bought into free-to-play yet, as can be seen with SWTOR. But look who is buying into it: Blizzard, Trion, SOE. Sure, the games are different, but the business model can still be used in a game like UO, and would probably be very beneficial. It's concerning that EA, as usual, is choosing their own path on this rather than adapting.
What exactly is the big risk? Losing current subscribers because some new players who don't receive nearly as much as them are playing the same game? Yeah right. You or anyone else won't be driven out by that. That's silly. You've been around this long already, they already have you in, paying. You've probably invested over a decade in the game already. They aren't going to lose you over something like this, will they?
They might. They might lose many over a bunch of free players... Have you really thought this through?
EA is not forging their own path. They are being methodical as usual. You have to put aside how crappy they treat the Mythic games. As much contempt as EA has for us and we have for EA, EA is pretty on the ball as far as the gaming industry.
Have other games lost their loyal fans over it? The good thing about letting others go first is you get to observe what happens to them. Trion and SOE didn't take long to copy the business model. Talking about big risks is just silly at this point. UO has undergone bigger changes in it's life and you're all still here. The game doesn't change with free-to-play content. Most of you have been around when the population was much higher than it is now haven't you? Been there, done that. All the free-to-play content does is get more people into the SAME GAME you are all playing now (which has had more people in the past anyways) and try to get them to sign up for long term subscriptions, just like the current playerbase does.
If they botch it, yes, they could lose veteran players. If people lose their houses or feel like they are having to pay more to keep their houses/stuff under f2p, yeah, people will leave.
What's so delicate about it? I mean obviously the stratics community is so emotionally attached that people are now talking about the prices of houses raising or being taken away altogether, which is just fearful speculation. Other MMO's have developed FTP content for their games that they are now benefiting from, to think UO can't do the same is probably wrong, but it's not something we'll be finding out anytime soon.
This.
People are incredibly emotionally attached to certain things in UO, things that other MMOs don't have. UO has survived because of that.
People are incredibly attached to certain things in WoW, Rift, Everquest, things that other MMOs don't have. WoW, Rift, Everquest has survived because of that.
Everquest is doing it. A new business model for a 13+ year old product that appears to be making money under its current model. Guess what? If they can do it, so can UO. It all comes down to how it's designed, yes. But thinking it can't be done without it being a huge risk is looking at it the wrong way because that wouldn't be the point. FTP content would only be done if it can help grow the game and not otherwise. The team hasn't figured out a way to do that yet (obviously). But when they were looking into it how far along did they get before the discussion ended?
This is just moot. All of the games have veteran players and examples that counteract this. There is a Galenknighthawk for each one of them to say this same thing. You'll get agreement here because it's the UO fanbase reading it. I've played UO since 1998, and have played both WoW and Rift. They all have items and things in them that try to connect people emotionally.
Trammel was put in place because of Everquest. By your "huge risk" logic, wasn't putting trammel in a huge risk? I already know you'll say no since the results are already seen. On that same token putting in FTP content wouldn't be a huge risk either, because you're just following the industry (just like trammel) who has already gone ahead of you and done it.
UO already has micro transactions for premium items. That is going to continue to be developed regardless of whether or not there is FTP content.
Do you have proof for this actual collaboration that BioWare is working on? Because all I see is the same **** a group of you have been quoting from the bottom of NetDragon quarterly reports, and the same taglines from those quarterly reports really haven't changed in over a year and a half.
The problem is that it's all too easy for a greedy EA executive to turn it into a pay-to-win scenario where they start doing micro-transactions for items that you truly feel you need or for us to end up paying more than we currently pay.
The method of payment isn't what changes, it's what is made available to the general public that does. The key here is keeping the subscribed users content and even using them to help market the subscriptions. The problem is that there needs to be a long term goal in mind with the FTP content model. If EA is already thinking shutdown as you are implying, then yeah this is all pointless, which is why it should raise a red flag when Jeff says it's not in the plans.
Tina you forgot to add this link - Christopher Ondrus | LinkedIn
Wow! Where did all that hostility come from? I tried to word my post as blandly as I could. Even included those magic words, "If it ever gets off the ground...."
I don't know what to tell you about EA's collaboration with NetDragon. Dungeon Keeper Online is alive and kicking and receiving updates on almost a daily basis (http://dk.91.com/list/gx.shtml). It has both EA's and NetDragon's names plastered on the game's official website and promotional videos.
It wasn't meant to sound that hostile, it's just the same stuff for a year and a half now, and it seems that there is even less reason to believe it since their UO web presence has shrunk over the last 6 months instead of increasing. Plus, it's not really a collaboration, it's more about licensing. Collaboration implies employees working together. Ondrus is most likely the EA guy who signs off on the licensed stuff.
). A lot has changed for Ultima since 2009. I'm telling you stuff you already know, but after the NetDragon agreement was signed, UO employees were laid off, and NetDragon didn't rush out to hire them, and then BioWare took over UO last year and started a "Ultima Franchise".
I'm All for it, Where do I Sign?
