well what I meant to say is, you surely can't compare candy crush etc to UO, but League of Legends and DOTA aren't UO, either, you know. the only things that truly compare to UO are UO emulated shards, and maybe Shards Online, so far. We'll have to see how they do, because if they give everything UO has to offer--down to housing--UO could finally face some legit competition.
for example for those dont play MOBAs, League/DOTA is just a game where you play as one hardly customizable character whose sole purpose is to PvP or PvM on a per-match basis, accruing very little over a long term as far as reusable gains. it's far different from a collect as you go and keep the best MMORPG model which we have in UO, especially with its housing and bank capacities.
anyway, the way UO markets its game, there is no way a F2P model would be as successful as League. for example, LoL constantly re-renders and upgrades all of its pre-set characters/fighters/champions, as well as the map where you fight, etc., etc. UO has kicked around an idea for high-resolution artwork which has been just an idea for what, five years now? while DOTA just simply made DOTA II.
you can definitely stand back and say, wow, UO has progressed over 15-17 years, but they don't progress fast enough to catch to success of the most successful F2P models. especially with the F2P shards, with edits/customizations that at times exceed what you find in the legit game. and I'm not trying to debate what is better, legit or illegal, because I don't play them, it's just the same tired argument: if they can do it there, why can't the devs do it here.
but ultimately, no, I don't think legit UO needs or will ever need the kind of F2P that third parties shards have. I do think it would be nice to have a F2P PvP server/shard, though, that is a throw back to T2A.