Love it or hate it, going free-to-play may save this game

[Martyna Zmuir]

I typed "runescape" into Google Images and that one I posted is what I got. It's also what the game looked like last time I saw it years ago. Regardless, that one you posted isn't an actual gameplay screenshot from the looks of it, and I can't find an actual gameplay shot that doesn't look like ass.

Ok, here's an image from their play guide on the website.

Yeah, not that impressive. And have you played it? The game stinks. But it has craploads of players and makes piles of money.

No, its not super modern graphics.. And yes, the play is somewhat basic. (Remember, UO's world is considered daunting and complex by many people.)

Here is an actual gameplay shot, taken about 5 mins ago after I got out of the toutorial. (the image has been reduced in size by more than half)

UO would have to SERIOUSLY revamp the new player experience to explain damn near everything to keep new F2P players from running in fear.

EDIT: So Runescape isn't the hideous beast you showed earlier, and even the second pic you found was rather lacking.. If only UO could be retooled to have a similar 3D engine (but with the slightly superior UO graphics).​

 

[Skrag]

Mostly they need to give newbs stuff they can actually use. Suit with at least straight 50 resists, crapload of regs, and some RUNEBOOKS. I mostly banksit in Haven on Atl and it's always "Okay so you wanna leave Haven and do something? Let me get a book, and a rune to Despise, hold on..."

They should put up an "Adventurer's Guild" in Haven that includes something kinda like the corrupted crystal portal. Something that can teleport them to the entrances of the original dungeons.

If you use the portal and don't already have a "crystal of returning" or whatever you wanna call it, you get one. Using the crystal has a cast time and brings you back to the Adventurer guild.

Then at least newbies can get to dungeons without having to wander around and hope someone tells them runebooks exist.

 

[Cloak&Dagger]

Mostly they need to give newbs stuff they can actually use. Suit with at least straight 50 resists, crapload of regs, and some RUNEBOOKS. I mostly banksit in Haven on Atl and it's always "Okay so you wanna leave Haven and do something? Let me get a book, and a rune to Despise, hold on..."

They should put up an "Adventurer's Guild" in Haven that includes something kinda like the corrupted crystal portal. Something that can teleport them to the entrances of the original dungeons.

If you use the portal and don't already have a "crystal of returning" or whatever you wanna call it, you get one. Using the crystal has a cast time and brings you back to the Adventurer guild.

Then at least newbies can get to dungeons without having to wander around and hope someone tells them runebooks exist.

Addition: Make the dungeon list relative to their skills. Don't want them wandering into Destard when they can barely kill the things in Despise

 

[Skrag]

Or just list them in order of danger and make sure newbies know that. But yeah, even if Runescape looks slightly better than it used to, the fact remains that it's highly successful despite not being very good looking or even a very good game.

 

[Chardonnay]

NOTHING with help UO as long as we have:

A.) Bug after bug after bug after bug being unfixed.
B.) Nonexistent Customer Service
C.) More Expansions like the High Seas one.

 

[Jesusislord]

UO is dead. Nothing will save it.

13 years, no sequel? There can't be a sequel to UO because Richard Garriott no longer works with the Ultima brand.

As far as we know, Richard Garriott has nothing to do with Ultima anymore. You can't have Ultima without Richard Garriot and this has proven time and time again for the past 6 years atleast.

This why Mythic is now involved. And as far as Mythic goes, they obviously have absolutely no idea about anything regarding Ultima and it's lore - and even if they do they take some perverse pleasure in twisting it to their maligned beliefs.

This product is a giant money-farming operation. People log-in, buy gold, and buy buy buy, sell sell sell. It's a vendor game. Put a specially hued blue partially transparent cape on a vendor and see how many 0s you can get behind your 1. Then you sell that gold and buy more gold at a cheaper price.

The events and lore even contribute to this money-farming operation. Players login to the official UO site, see if there's an event, skim over the lore and see what special rewards will be offered to players for participating. If there's no reward, there's a lot of complaints from the 'players' instead.

This product is a joke. The only people who login are those make more money than their subscription costs through playing the only game this product has in it- the money game.

"You can't have f2p cause then they will have more profit than me from my gold-farming accounts that I have to pay for!"
-The UO investor.

 

[Darkcat]

After trying out Lord of the Rings Online I see things a bit different than most of the people posting here..

Perhaps one of the reasons is, that I play on an European shard and both shards in Europe (Drachenfels and Europa) have far less players than we had years ago.
And this now brings me to the point I closed up all my accounts but one - and I'm keeping the last one only because of my ingame friends and because of being guildmistress of the currently number 5 guild in the df vet member ranking (with less than 10 active players.. lol.).

All in all, what i miss most - even more than less item based gaming, more Fel ruleset and all the many other things i would like to have is - players. Lots of players.
Ok, I've got a guild, I've got a big alliance and I can play with others if I like (at least most of the time).
But playing in unusal times of the day (night) makes me feel like beeing alone on the shard.
I miss the time when you were able to sell things at a bank, could help new players (if there appears one you could rather pity him because of the dozens the players trying to help.. must be very confusing. And, if you are new, there is no one in the same state and with whom you could just discover the world).. and.. well just meet players I DON'T know already.

And I think this can't be done with just advertising - not with this oldfashioned graphics and EA not having the slightest intention to create another boxed version for the European stores.

So what is left one can do?
I think free to play could be a great possibility if it's done in the right way:
Leave the subscription possibility to let things stay the same for the ones who wish.
Copy Turbine. Let players earn some kind of points ingame they can spend for whatever they want - char-slots (let them start out with 2), the possibility to own a house, the possibility to ride a horse,.. and of course all kinds of deko stuff. Make earning the points kinda hard and perhaps a bit boring and give players the chance to buy these points.
Like in Lotro existing subscribers should be able to keep things they already have (7 chars, house, etc) but.. well, this is gonna be endless, but have a look at Lotro and how Turbine magaged things.
After seeing this I really think f2p can also be a great opportunity for a game - and be honest, where is the difference between players (with too much free time) farming gold to buy their gtcs ingame and players farming "points"?

Ah.. and have a look at this post (also I would not agree to every idea in the linked blog):
http://vboards.stratics.com/uhall/226527-my-blog-about-making-uo-free-play.html

and especially this blog:
Free-to-Play: the way of the future for MMOs? : Ultima Aiera

 

[Mairut]

I saw this article while skimming the yahoo frontpage, so decided to post it here... I didn't want to start another thread about f2p since this thread is only a few days old.

It mentions EA a few times (Madden NFL).

Watch out: Freemium might be the future of (mobile) gaming - iPhone app article - Phil Hornshaw | Appolicious ™ iPhone and iPad App Directory

Enjoy.

 

[Fayled Dhreams]

I saw this article while skimming the yahoo frontpage, so decided to post it here... I didn't want to start another thread about f2p since this thread is only a few days old.

It mentions EA a few times (Madden NFL).

Watch out: Freemium might be the future of (mobile) gaming - iPhone app article - Phil Hornshaw | Appolicious ™ iPhone and iPad App Directory

Enjoy.

Most Excellent addition sirrah or madam as the case maybe ...

Most Excellent indeed

 

[Skrag]

13 years, no sequel? There can't be a sequel to UO because Richard Garriott no longer works with the Ultima brand.

Lineage 2, less successful than Lineage 1.
Everquest 2, flop compared to Everquest 1.
Asheron's Call 2, flopped and shut down while Asheron's Call 1 survives.

MMO sequels are a stupid idea. Nothing like a six-paragraph rant post from someone without the first faint scrap of a clue.

 

[Tina Small]

It would be interesting to learn how well things have worked out for Mythic in terms of bringing in more income and long-term players since they instituted two types of "endlessly free" accounts for Warhammer Online (i.e., the Endless Trial accounts and the Recruit-A-Friend accounts). Warhammer's regular subscription fees are slightly higher than UO's and the various packs you can buy through the EA Store as add-ons mostly cost $9.99, although some are more expensive.

 

[Zosimus]

It would be interesting to learn how well things have worked out for Mythic in terms of bringing in more income and long-term players since they instituted two types of "endlessly free" accounts for Warhammer Online (i.e., the Endless Trial accounts and the Recruit-A-Friend accounts). Warhammer's regular subscription fees are slightly higher than UO's and the various packs you can buy through the EA Store as add-ons mostly cost $9.99, although some are more expensive.

I can tell you from my point of view of what I know about Warhammer Online.

1) Endless free trials were limited to Tier 1. Yes we got alot of returning players and new players. I saw alot of players say in GC on destro side( you cant talk to the opposite side on the server you play) actually subscribe because they enjoyed the game. If anybody has never played warhammer and likes to RvR( pvp in UO) go for a free trial they are fun for the bored days of gaming.

2) The bad side of free trials for the longest time were the gold selling spammers. I had to download an app to automatically block these guys. They spam so much it was a nightmare to see what was being said in advice chat. Mythic put a fix for the free trials where they couldnt talk in advice or GC so the higher tiers couldnt see it. The work around the gold sellers paid for accounts. Create a character, they spam until you paged on them but most times when you would try to page on them they deleted that character. They make a new char and respam. So that was a bust in the end.

The recruit a freinds account was this....

The Realm War continues to rage and the armies of Order and Destruction are always on the lookout for new recruits. Do you know a brave warrior that could bolster the ranks? You could earn exciting in-game rewards and 30 days of free game time when you recruit family and friends to join the battle in Warhammer Online: Age of Reckoning!





Here's how it works:

1. Invite Family and Friends - Players of WAR can send an invitation to family and friends from the Account Center.
2. Earn Rewards - When your recruits becoming paying subscribers, you'll be rewarded with 30 day of game time, plus other exciting in-game rewards.

Rewards

Free Game Time - For every recruit that becomes a paying subscriber, your account will be credited with 30 days of game time.

Loyal Pet - Recruit one subscriber, and your King will present you with a loyal pet from his own kennels to join you on your journeys.

The Imperial Hunting Hound


Warlord's Fell Hound



In-Game Item - Recruit two subscribers, and you will receive a rare magic item to aid in your training of new troops for the war effort.

The Rod of Service
This gift from Karl Franz himself grants a 5% bonus to group experience and renown. In addition, the wielder gains the power to summon realm-mates to their aid.

The Lash of Servitude
This gift from Tchar'zanek himself grants a 5% bonus to group experience and renown. In addition, the wielder gains the power to summon realm-mates to their aid.

Exclusive New Mount - Recruit three subscribers, and you will receive an exclusive new mount, the Enslaved Manticore and the Imperial Griffon.

Imperial Griffon


Enslaved Manticore



* The Chaos Magus will receive a special new disk from the Changer of the Ways for his recruiting efforts.







Program Details

• Players may recruit new players or invite back former players that have been gone for more than sixty (60) days.
• New recruits will need to use the link in their invitation email to create their Recruit-A-Friend free trial.
• Game time and in-game item rewards are only awarded after a recruit becomes a paying subscriber to WAR.
• Recruitment invites can be recalled at anytime, and expire after 30 days.
• Program open to purchasers of the retail game only, and is not available to players in the free trial.

Personally the free trial is worth it just to play the game at the low level. They need to redo tier4 because of the imbalances of levels. Plus they need to fix the 3rd party illegal app kind of like UO issue. Get sick of almost having a guy dead and he starts going up in the air and running away when you cant target him anymore. Hence why I closed my 2 accounts. For free trials its worth trying it out. I still have my free trial open Just havent used it since I closed my 2 paying accounts back in december.

 

[Fayled Dhreams]

It would be interesting to learn how well things have worked out for Mythic in terms of bringing in more income and long-term players since they instituted two types of "endlessly free" accounts for Warhammer Online (i.e., the Endless Trial accounts and the Recruit-A-Friend accounts). Warhammer's regular subscription fees are slightly higher than UO's and the various packs you can buy through the EA Store as add-ons mostly cost $9.99, although some are more expensive.

*ouch*
wish I hadn't gone a looking ... but

In early 2010, EA Mythic was moved completely into the BioWare RPG group within EA.(BiowareMythic)
*sigh*(that wasn't the "ouch")

What I "found" was/is ... and it was of the nature of a paradigm shift.

Thanks Tina, truly {*Fayled takes a knee*}.
I am glad that it was a "good person" that gets the credit/timestamp for the question that caused it.

You did well and correctly in (yet again) asking for some sort of real "certainty" to base opinions on (the books re: past recruitment efforts)
And while we can be fairly certain that such numbers will not EVER be presented ...
The certainty of their absence can be equally well used in/by MY rubric (4) of Catagorical Syllogisms
(that is NOT what I call it ... you could ask anyone that I have >taught it to< ... But you can be as certain in the "absence / chances of meeting" one of them, that that is as close as you'll ever get to "clarity of definition")
*shrugs*

Suffice it to say:
You did well to trust your feelings and instincts to "leave" when you did.

Now I'm off to pull out large sheets of paper and whiteboards and callout for peerage review ...Where is that grandchild of mine ... Alialeah !? ...
Girl!?! where you at? coffee fer Grandad! bring a note pad!!

Fayled Dhreams
Fiat justitia ruat coelum


War does not determine who is right - only who is left. -Bertrand Russell
Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains,
no matter how improbable, must be the truth. - Sherlock Holmes

 

[Fayled Dhreams]

Well ... damn ... that was really odd.

Two missing parts of my rubric(a guide listing specific criteria for grading or scoring academic papers, projects, or tests )
YouTube - Solving Simultaneous Equations by Elimination Example 1 simultaneous equation example
Zero-knowledge proof - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Are what required me to "go longhand" and call out for objective review.

I have made much (of late) about "logical construction" and how >anything< based on an Fallacious precept ..
generally does not turn out well ...
this remains a truism that , after objective testing/consideration, is actually in some small way "truer".
Mainly because I "re-discovered" / "re-reviewed" the "foundations" *tip o-da-Hat AesSedai* >of MY precepts<(me "logics" if you will)
I avoided the common error of "self confidence" by not selecting any review that maybe "sympathetic".
I farmed the precepts/syllogisms/ conclusions out to ...
hmmmm ... how to say ... persons not inclined to "give me a break" ... grudge bearers perhaps?
(not actual enemies per se ... I am somewhat feared for my past history with such ... and those who "might be" are quite deep in hiding)

I am confident to a high degree that I received an aggressive and honest assessment.
(think of it ... a chance to publicly(in that circle) Prove Fayled Wrong. Booby-traps and sand-bagging will, {as always} prove to be fatal flaws.)

Shades of Hari Seldon ... It is possible for one small (single character size flaw! single signed bit even !! )
One Small Error MAY not only be created ... it MAY disappear into the >software< In An Undiscoverable/Undefinable manner.
Stealth bugs

^^ THAT answered MY question:
Is it possible, given the long history of bugs being present in UO ... that a deeper causal flaw >> may have inadvertently been compiled INTO the base code of UO ...

Such that the UO client will always create bugs ... An RPG in concept ... BUT a bug/meme generating construct in fact.

Perfect in concept, on paper, boot it up and fail. Patch the software in QA, good to go, deploy & fail, return to test bed ... holy crap ... it is intermittent; think its patched ... stress test fail, patch that ... stress test passes ... single shards fail ... wtf? Ha! >new client< .... AAAAAAARGH! bugs ... where the frak can they be coming from?
recent data point.

Rather prescient, now that I look back:
Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains,
no matter how improbable, must be the truth. - Sherlock Holmes

There were actually TWO "problems" that I paradigm shifted on ...
I WAS originally attempting to extract some zero knowledge data about Mythic (*Tips hat to Tina*) ... during variable assignment/definition (my equation was of the same form as the ZK link provides ... more variables and different scales ...custom cut, if you will)
It fell out that independent of hardware, Players and software appeared to overlap, as is easy to see, present day ... they MUST "overlap": the players "play" ON the software.
It was when I was separating the overlap with occams razor, that MY paradigm shift occurred.

War does not determine who is right - only who is left. -Bertrand Russell

hehehe ... you are likely at the same place as what I "discovered" (re-discovered? re-realized? affirmed as axiomatic?)
Some of the "accepted precepts" of the local forums are revealed here to be Fallacies in their nature.
Especially as regards "what players want".
Tastes and fashions change ... yes? ... so too the "bestest" way to waste ones time ...
WOW is the top's of MMORPGs ... at ~~10 millio's ... right?
*ahem*
62 million active users and over 24.6 million "application fans" ... is whom?
*shrugs*
Goes to rebuilding a "basic precept"(without fallacies) as to what might bring peeps back to UO.
On top of (combined with) bug free software ...

My ZK slapped me for a "making a stupid declaration" and my simultaneous equation rated that a 10/10 as an "appropriate response".
And *hand to gods* I caught the faint echo of the universe laughing at my question.

it has already been done
Lord of Ultima - Free MMORTS - Play The Best Web Strategy MMO

Fayled

 

[Coppelia]

(not actual enemies per se ... I am somewhat feared for my past history with such ... and those who "might be" are quite deep in hiding)

More clown tricks please! You're funny!

it has already been done
Lord of Ultima - Free MMORTS - Play The Best Web Strategy MMO

Fayled

Nobody (even YOU) has any idea what was your > point < here. Unfortunately.
However, Lord of Ultima is a fail because ... of its "design" ... or so-called. Meaning ... >>no serious end-game/goal<<


What if (?) you could stop your soliloquies and actually... make a point?

 

[Dicimiie]

This is liable to be a lengthy post. For that, I apologize up front. However, after reading it through, I felt it necessary to throw my two cents out there for those that want to read it.

Anyone that says the Free To Play model wouldn’t work needs to think about the following:

1) People that play UO already pay real money for in-game items. We’ve all seen this. There are people out there willing to shell out money for what they have in game. Sometimes, it’s serious money… or at least it was in the past.

2) Completely disregarding Lord of the Rings Online, Dungeons & Dragons Online and most recently Champions Online, people are willing to buy items for real money on very minimalistic games. Has anyone here played FarmVille on Facebook? There is money exchanging hands all the time for this game. My wife has probably spent $80 for this little application. The graphics are simple. The game play is even more simple. And yet they are making money. In fact, there are several games on Facebook just like this one, all making money, and these games have a very short game play time per day. UO has a much more robust game play style. The graphics, while not stellar, are certainly better than FarmVille. These two points alone should show that UO could make money in this way.

3) The idea of spending my money on things I want rather than investing $15 per month on a game I may or may not play during that month is much more appealing to me. Do I want that flashy blaze mount for $5? Nope. But I would like to buy that cool floor rug for my house, and I’d be willing to shell out that same $5. And I might just buy more stuff.

These are just a few reasons why the F2P model is appealing… at least to me. Now, going about the F2P system becomes a bit more tricky.

1) While I understand the idea of only pay accounts having housing, I have to say that game play is pretty limited with no home. I propose that instead of saying no housing for the free account, why not limit the size of the plot the free account can have to… say… 10x10? The extra storage would certainly be nice, and is almost a necessity with everything UO has to offer.

2) Do away with the vet rewards system for the free-to-play crowd, and instead, have those items be sold for real life cash. I never did like the fact that new accounts couldn’t use the leather dye tub. Want the dye tub? $2. Special dye tub? $3. Ethereal mount? $5. And the list goes on. Of course, the ones already given out to current vets remain the same, and subscribing customers get points to buy ones they don’t already have, so they’re not left out.

3) Sell gold for cash. It’s already being done… why shouldn’t EA make the money instead of the current gold sellers. It never made sense to me that EA never went this route.

4) Rent… yes I said rent… vendor spots in the various towns. There are spots all over the game that aren’t really utilized (That building in Britain just south of the bank that is split up into four rooms comes to mind). Let players rent a spot where they can place their vendor and sell their stuff. $1 per month per spot perhaps.

Again, I’m just touching on these things, since I don’t want to make this too long (probably too late). There are several other ways they could make these micro transactions worthwhile for everyone. I simply don’t see a really negative downside.

 

[copycon]

This is liable to be a lengthy post. For that, I apologize up front. However, after reading it through, I felt it necessary to throw my two cents out there for those that want to read it.

Anyone that says the Free To Play model wouldn’t work needs to think about the following:

1) People that play UO already pay real money for in-game items. We’ve all seen this. There are people out there willing to shell out money for what they have in game. Sometimes, it’s serious money… or at least it was in the past.

2) Completely disregarding Lord of the Rings Online, Dungeons & Dragons Online and most recently Champions Online, people are willing to buy items for real money on very minimalistic games. Has anyone here played FarmVille on Facebook? There is money exchanging hands all the time for this game. My wife has probably spent $80 for this little application. The graphics are simple. The game play is even more simple. And yet they are making money. In fact, there are several games on Facebook just like this one, all making money, and these games have a very short game play time per day. UO has a much more robust game play style. The graphics, while not stellar, are certainly better than FarmVille. These two points alone should show that UO could make money in this way.

3) The idea of spending my money on things I want rather than investing $15 per month on a game I may or may not play during that month is much more appealing to me. Do I want that flashy blaze mount for $5? Nope. But I would like to buy that cool floor rug for my house, and I’d be willing to shell out that same $5. And I might just buy more stuff.

These are just a few reasons why the F2P model is appealing… at least to me. Now, going about the F2P system becomes a bit more tricky.

1) While I understand the idea of only pay accounts having housing, I have to say that game play is pretty limited with no home. I propose that instead of saying no housing for the free account, why not limit the size of the plot the free account can have to… say… 10x10? The extra storage would certainly be nice, and is almost a necessity with everything UO has to offer.

2) Do away with the vet rewards system for the free-to-play crowd, and instead, have those items be sold for real life cash. I never did like the fact that new accounts couldn’t use the leather dye tub. Want the dye tub? $2. Special dye tub? $3. Ethereal mount? $5. And the list goes on. Of course, the ones already given out to current vets remain the same, and subscribing customers get points to buy ones they don’t already have, so they’re not left out.

3) Sell gold for cash. It’s already being done… why shouldn’t EA make the money instead of the current gold sellers. It never made sense to me that EA never went this route.

4) Rent… yes I said rent… vendor spots in the various towns. There are spots all over the game that aren’t really utilized (That building in Britain just south of the bank that is split up into four rooms comes to mind). Let players rent a spot where they can place their vendor and sell their stuff. $1 per month per spot perhaps.

Again, I’m just touching on these things, since I don’t want to make this too long (probably too late). There are several other ways they could make these micro transactions worthwhile for everyone. I simply don’t see a really negative downside.

So, if I were to play devils advocate for a moment. What you are saying is that you would rather be nickle and dimed to "experience everything UO has to offer" rather than pay a subscription fee? That sounds an awful lot like a double edged sword to me.

I am sure that most players who would be initially interested in that type of system would quickly become flustered if they were expected to pay for every new toy that the developers could cook up, let alone the fact that any one of those "pay items" could easily over-power any other item in-game, and then what? Where is the line drawn between fairness and deep pockets?

Also, consider that not every player would even have the ability to afford that type of system (i.e. kids), or the chaos that would result from a player who paid real money for an item and lost that item, or felt that the item wasn't worth the investment.

That is a messy proposition to be sure...

 

[Dicimiie]

So, if I were to play devils advocate for a moment. What you are saying is that you would rather be nickle and dimed to "experience everything UO has to offer" rather than pay a subscription fee? That sounds an awful lot like a double edged sword to me.

For me... this would work just fine. And as I said before, people are doing it for games subpar to UO now, so I don't think I'm alone in this.

I am sure that most players who would be initially interested in that type of system would quickly become flustered if they were expected to pay for every new toy that the developers could cook up, let alone the fact that any one of those "pay items" could easily over-power any other item in-game, and then what? Where is the line drawn between fairness and deep pockets?

I don't believe I ever mentioned weapons, armor or clothing in my list of what they could sell. I was referring to deco items and vet rewards, which would be purchasable as a one-time payment, or in the subscriber's case, through points received by being a subscribing customer. No item with game-changing properties should be purchasable.

Another thing is that this is already being done. It's just not EA collecting the money.

Also, consider that not every player would even have the ability to afford that type of system (i.e. kids), or the chaos that would result from a player who paid real money for an item and lost that item, or felt that the item wasn't worth the investment.

If the child can't afford the $3 for a special dye tub, then they certainly can't afford the $15 a month they're paying now.

As far as the items bought are concerned, let the buyer beware. If its deco, it should be in deed form and blessed. That way, it could be moved if needed, and you wouldn't lose it in case of death.

 

[Evlar]

The problem with UO in its current format, is that rather than remain purely subscription based, or go down the F2P route, EA Games want the best of both worlds.

UO is subscription based, yet has a store where you can buy additional items.

To me, it smacks of nothing more than bleeding what's left of the loyalty of their player base, yet offering absolutely nothing tangible in return, when it comes to customer service of product quality. Add to that, the advent of the "booster" releases...

To go down the well trodden routes that other games and developers (most of those mentioned in this thread) have headed, whilst EA Games continue to own the IP... I simply don't see happening. Time and again, they show ineptitude when it comes to doing either the right thing by their games, or what appears to be the profitable thing, following market trends.

That's why they're in the situation they're in and until things are shaken around from the top down and back up again, nothing will change. If there's such major issues with a flagship MMO game with huge brand name attached to it (Star Wars), that isn't even released yet, then really... what hope has UO got under their (mis)management.

I simply wish that EA would sell the UO IP, wash their hands of it and let a company who is interested in realising its value, have it.

When it comes to Mythic and the developers, here's one to put them on the spot perhaps...

If they had the opportunity to club together as a team, assuming the price was reasonable and they felt they had a good business plan to take it forward... is their faith in the game and its future sufficient enough, that they would consider buying the IP themselves?

 

[Coppelia]

Yes, there should be game-changing* items for sale if they want to make money. Items to skip a part of the game, that's what sells, despite being very wrong ethically, morally, game designly?

And if you believe kids don't have money to spend, you show your limits of your knowledge about F2P. There are always ways to drain the money from the parents, like transactions from surcharged SMS to cash shop currency.
Sure not every kid can do that, but they are still enough to make more money than from subscriptions.



*game-changing is a very discussable term. You can't use it for combat related items only, because games aren't only about combat, UO particularily. In UO it's not even necessarily a main activity. So protecting the combat related gameplay from the cash shop would just split communities and not make money.




PS: I agree with Evlar, EA wants both P2P and F2P shinies, but it only annoys its playerbase and doesn't bring new players. So yes, that's pretty much bleeding what's left.

 

[copycon]

I don't believe I ever mentioned weapons, armor or clothing in my list of what they could sell. I was referring to deco items and vet rewards, which would be purchasable as a one-time payment, or in the subscriber's case, through points received by being a subscribing customer. No item with game-changing properties should be purchasable.

Another thing is that this is already being done. It's just not EA collecting the money.

I believe the goal to this type of system would be to meet or exceed the existing revenue generated by subscription fees. No?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe there is any "real" data to show that simple house decorations or "pixel crack" (for lack of a better word) would do that. I am not familiar with the systems in place elsewhere, but I do know that if I were given the choice, I would not pay for a bush or a rug or any other house decoration. Speaking from my personal opinion, there would need to be something functional and compelling to pay for a particular item beyond what it looks like.

If the child can't afford the $3 for a special dye tub, then they certainly can't afford the $15 a month they're paying now.

As far as the items bought are concerned, let the buyer beware. If its deco, it should be in deed form and blessed. That way, it could be moved if needed, and you wouldn't lose it in case of death.

Remember that explaining a subscription fee (Internet, Cable TV, Cell Phone services etc.) is more socially acceptable than double dipping to buy a new item in game for most. Being 30 and sans children though, I don't really feel that I should be expanding on that any further, but that is what I remember from my childhood.

However, if they were to consider a modified currency system such as the "point" based system that Microsoft and Sony are doing with their online services, I think that could be more reasonable than paying a la carte for in-game items.

 

[Dicimiie]

Yes, there should be game-changing* items for sale if they want to make money. Items to skip a part of the game, that's what sells, despite being very wrong ethically, morally, game designly?

And if you believe kids don't have money to spend, you show your limits of your knowledge about F2P. There are always ways to drain the money from the parents, like transactions from surcharged SMS to cash shop currency.
Sure not every kid can do that, but they are still enough to make more money than from subscriptions.



*game-changing is a very discussable term. You can't use it for combat related items only, because games aren't only about combat, UO particularily. In UO it's not even necessarily a main activity. So protecting the combat related gameplay from the cash shop would just split communities and not make money.

You're right on the "game-changing" items. I should have been more clear and said "combat-changing." I personally don't think it would be a good idea to add combat-changing items into the buyables. That would just lead to the person with the most disposable income having the best gear for PvM and PvP. While PvM doesn't necessarily bother me that much, since I don't care how fast someone else kills a balron, PvP would be severely altered if this became true.

 

[Coppelia]

Welcome to the F2P business, love!
If you want to sell something, there's nothing like an item that's overpowered in PvP.

 

[Dicimiie]

I believe the goal to this type of system would be to meet or exceed the existing revenue generated by subscription fees. No?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe there is any "real" data to show that simple house decorations or "pixel crack" (for lack of a better word) would do that. I am not familiar with the systems in place elsewhere, but I do know that if I were given the choice, I would not pay for a bush or a rug or any other house decoration. Speaking from my personal opinion, there would need to be something functional and compelling to pay for a particular item beyond what it looks like.

Remember that explaining a subscription fee (Internet, Cable TV, Cell Phone services etc.) is more socially acceptable than double dipping to buy a new item in game for most. Being 30 and sans children though, I don't really feel that I should be expanding on that any further, but that is what I remember from my childhood.

However, if they were to consider a modified currency system such as the "point" based system that Microsoft and Sony are doing with their online services, I think that could be more reasonable than paying a la carte for in-game items.

I can tell you that my wife pays real money for FarmVille and that money goes towards various buildings and such. And while certain items make her game play a bit more easy, it's hardly game-breaking.

I think you're assuming that there would be no subscription service available. I think there actually would be. People could opt to keep a subscription running, and they would get points to use towards items that the F2P people have to pay for. Subscibers would also get the perk of being able to have an 18x18 plot, a keep or castle, while F2P Joe can only have a 10x10. Maybe a subscribe account can have seven character slots on a shard, but a F2P can only have 4 or 5.

The F2P model is simply a way for people that don't have a lot of disposable income (and believe me, they're out there) to play a game they might not otherwise try. And if they know that they're not on a timed basis where they have to cram as much game time in as possible, they can relax and actually see all that UO has to offer.

 

[copycon]

Welcome to the F2P business, love!
If you want to sell something, there's nothing like an item that's overpowered in PvP.

Truth.

Players will eat up anything that gives them an unfair advantage.

 

[Arcus]

What if (?) you could stop your soliloquies and actually... make a point?

Good luck with that. Why anyone would choose their ego over clear communication is beyond me.

 

[AtlanteanAngel]

I posted this on the other thread. Seeing the relevance, I'll reproduce here :

I've a proposal. If the Devs allow the *players* to create new areas/dungeons, that will go a long way into making UO dynamic with ever new challenges, and will boost the creativity factor in UO.

How could this be done? Well, someone suggested (ie. this thread) making UO free to play, in a bid to reverse an ever dwindling playerbase population. Sounds good, but for paying customer accounts, there should be paying-accounts-only perks, such as being able to create mini-dungeons in the basement of their homes.

Such mini-dungeons will of course have to be more than 18x18, perhaps the combined land space of nine 18x18s? Players can choose from all kinds of terrains, and all kinds of monsters (but without loot, to abuse scripting/farming). Any treasures (eg. gold, arties, etc) within such player-dungeons will come out of the home owner's own pockets.

There may be technical issues, eg. lag, but such issues are not unsolvable, for instance, adding more dedicated servers for such player-dungeons. And if such a plan successfully implemented could successfully bring in more new, paying customers for UO, it's all worth it.

 

[Dicimiie]

Truth.

Players will eat up anything that gives them an unfair advantage.

While I'm not saying it wouldn't happen, I am saying it shouldn't.

Point still stands. F2P gives people an option not currently given.

 

[Arcus]

I posted this on the other thread. Seeing the relevance, I'll reproduce here :

I've a proposal. If the Devs allow the *players* to create new areas/dungeons, that will go a long way into making UO dynamic with ever new challenges, and will boost the creativity factor in UO.

How could this be done? Well, someone suggested (ie. this thread) making UO free to play, in a bid to reverse an ever dwindling playerbase population. Sounds good, but for paying customer accounts, there should be paying-accounts-only perks, such as being able to create mini-dungeons in the basement of their homes.

Such mini-dungeons will of course have to be more than 18x18, perhaps the combined land space of nine 18x18s? Players can choose from all kinds of terrains, and all kinds of monsters (but without loot, to abuse scripting/farming). Any treasures (eg. gold, arties, etc) within such player-dungeons will come out of the home owner's own pockets.

There may be technical issues, eg. lag, but such issues are not unsolvable, for instance, adding more dedicated servers for such player-dungeons. And if such a plan successfully implemented could successfully bring in more new, paying customers for UO, it's all worth it.

No. Fix bugs first. F2P or pay to play a buggy game = unhappy customers.

 

[Dicimiie]

Here's something to think about...

Last year, WoW introduced a couple of creatures that you could buy. They were $25 each. One was simply a pet that would follow you around. It had no other function. The other was a ridable mount that would adjust as your riding skill increased. These were account pets, meaning that all of your characters current and future had access to these mounts, which is pretty nice. Was it game-breaking? Not really. Did it give anyone a leg up in game? Apart from saving hours to grind out enough gold to buy the mounts, not really.

The day they were introduced, 140,000 of these were sold to players that were already paying the monthly subscription. That was just the first day. 140,000 x $25 is $ 3,500,000. Hardly what I would call chump change. And that was just a combination of two non-game-breaking items.

Just something to think about.

 

[hen]

Here's something to think about...

Last year, WoW introduced a couple of creatures that you could buy. They were $25 each. One was simply a pet that would follow you around. It had no other function. The other was a ridable mount that would adjust as your riding skill increased. These were account pets, meaning that all of your characters current and future had access to these mounts, which is pretty nice. Was it game-breaking? Not really. Did it give anyone a leg up in game? Apart from saving hours to grind out enough gold to buy the mounts, not really.

The day they were introduced, 140,000 of these were sold to players that were already paying the monthly subscription. That was just the first day. 140,000 x $25 is $ 3,500,000. Hardly what I would call chump change. And that was just a combination of two non-game-breaking items.

Just something to think about.

I wonder what that kind of money would do for a village with no water supply or for a community hit by a natural disaster. It's disgusting what people will pish their money away on.

 

[Arcus]

I wonder what that kind of money would do for a village with no water supply or for a community hit by a natural disaster. It's disgusting what people will pish their money away on.

..I assume you play UO....

Yea, sure is! Its amazing what the $14.99 a month would buy. Prolly alot of rice for a village or enough medicine to save a few animals in a pound from being put down before adoption. Pftt its disgusting what people will pish their money away on.


So why not live by your own words and quit UO and give that money away to someone more needy? (waits for incoming flood of " I DO THIS THAT AND THE OTHER FOR BLAH BLAH BLAH")

What a hypocrite.

 

[Skrag]

Pearls before swine. You'll post a well-reasoned F2P argument based on examples from other Western commerical MMO titles, and some sack of crap who doesn't know what LOTRO even is will come up and go "BUT HOW DOES IT MAKE MONEY IF ITS FREE?"

 

[Dicimiie]

Pearls before swine. You'll post a well-reasoned F2P argument based on examples from other Western commerical MMO titles, and some sack of crap who doesn't know what LOTRO even is will come up and go "BUT HOW DOES IT MAKE MONEY IF ITS FREE?"

If you are referring to your previous posts, I'm afraid you tend to shoot yourself in the foot by how you present your ideas. Insults and such tend to make people not want to read through whatever is being typed, even if it makes perfect sense.

If you are referring to the pro-F2P posts in general, some people simply will not listen to reason because they are against an idea for whatever reason and will stick to their opinion no matter what.

 

[Fayled Dhreams]

Io'well ...moot topic remains moot.
Re: Love it or hate it, going free-to-play may save this game.
unresolved, still the stated "maybe".
no clear resolution as to HOW to take it F2P.

give long term payers a "free year Then open to gen pop" ...
initially open f2p to gen pop and allow payers to "opt in" ...
go full on f2p >with no compensation< to prior payers.

weighed against the current status of hard/soft/ware
servers are likely to return to an earlier mode of frequent crashing
as it is not likely that the "new players" won't be trying to find some entertaining hacks.
and remains unknown if the servers can handle Large pop's.

Remains likely that GM's will remain at low count, low perceived helpfulness
due to the likely increase in help requests, re-directed to "knwledge base"
*snicker*

RMT market likely to SPIKE ...
no address on how EA might get a slice
f2p ... buy a house? one time $10 dollar? shouldn't the veteran payers get a slice o'dat?
2dolla a month to keep a grandfathered house grandfathered? put a "new house up" for a one time $10 dolla?

gonna migrate/embed UOgamecodes >into< UO? for ease of access of the f2p to access the buy now options menu?
*>free help<**>buy helpful<*?

As UO has already been "rescued" (Mark Jacobs) UO is >technically< in zombie mode(good as dead/revived by priest/believer)

*shrugs*
go ahead ... TRY f2p ... 'tis the only way of testing the theory

Surely.


(62 million active users = farmville)
Lord of Ultima = ???

I am: Your Fayled Dhreams
Fiat justitia ruat caelum

 

[Tina Small]

I can tell you from my point of view of what I know about Warhammer Online.

1) Endless free trials were limited to Tier 1. Yes we got alot of returning players and new players. I saw alot of players say in GC on destro side( you cant talk to the opposite side on the server you play) actually subscribe because they enjoyed the game. If anybody has never played warhammer and likes to RvR( pvp in UO) go for a free trial they are fun for the bored days of gaming.

2) The bad side of free trials for the longest time were the gold selling spammers. I had to download an app to automatically block these guys. They spam so much it was a nightmare to see what was being said in advice chat. Mythic put a fix for the free trials where they couldnt talk in advice or GC so the higher tiers couldnt see it. The work around the gold sellers paid for accounts. Create a character, they spam until you paged on them but most times when you would try to page on them they deleted that character. They make a new char and respam. So that was a bust in the end.

[Left out here all of the info Zosimus provided on the two "free to play" options.]

Personally the free trial is worth it just to play the game at the low level. They need to redo tier4 because of the imbalances of levels. Plus they need to fix the 3rd party illegal app kind of like UO issue. Get sick of almost having a guy dead and he starts going up in the air and running away when you cant target him anymore. Hence why I closed my 2 accounts. For free trials its worth trying it out. I still have my free trial open Just havent used it since I closed my 2 paying accounts back in december.

Zosimus, thanks for all the info. Do you think the free to play options helped Warhammer or have they just delayed the inevitable? I read another post the other day that said Warhammer may be down to just 10,000 accounts (from over 1,000,000 at release). It sounds like there have been several server mergers but I'm unclear on whether or not players had to pay for character transfers (at $20 per character) in connection with those mergers and whether some characters with skills above a certain level could not and still cannot be transferred. Trying to wade through publish/patch notes on the Warhammer Herald site to figure out what happened and what the current rules are is a painful process.

If you had to guess, Zosimus, do you think if EA/Mythic/Bioware or whatever they call themselves implemented some kind of free to play option for UO, do you think they'd copy what they already did for Warhammer or try something completely different?

Either way, do you think their efforts would be any more successful with UO than they have been with Warhammer or do you think they are currently too far into the hole with what they've spent already on their other MMOs in development (i.e., SWTOR, the Chinese version of UO to be published by NetDragon Websoft, and the "Secret World" MMO they will co-publish with Funcom) to really pay attention to and be successful with a "free to play" campaign for UO and/or DAoC?

 

[Der Rock]

It will change the game forever, there will be no going back.

Once it's FTP, they will have to sell things that are desirable. That takes away from game play. And as they sell these things they will reach saturation points, and they'll have to come up with new things to sell, ever growing the store bought parts of the game. To help counter this, they will have to sell "replenishable" items, things like potions or function in the same way.

As more players come in that accept this sort of thing, and those that don't leave, the game will change more and more to the FTP player's likes. These players will demand store bought colored ponies and everything else.

You can kiss UO as anything like what we know goodbye.

The alternative was to actually make UO better. Now they'll concentrate on selling things for survival. Such a waste. We can lay blame at the feet of Sunsword and others like dear ol' Anthony. Screw them all. There's no place left for players like me.

they could still sell 2x /year a expansion pack for 15$

because : FTP =1000 000 x 15$ is much more then +- 20 000 x GTC

they failed completly in the past

EC client (without modders like pinco and others NOBODY would play the EC)
High Seas also didnt bring back a significant amount of players

UO is still losing players month for month

40€ for 90d gtc is far to much for playing on empty shards

 

[copycon]

they could still sell 2x /year a expansion pack for 15$

because : FTP =1000 000 x 15$ is much more then +- 20 000 x GTC

they failed completly in the past

EC client (without modders like pinco and others NOBODY would play the EC)
High Seas also didnt bring back a significant amount of players

UO is still losing players month for month

40€ for 90d gtc is far to much for playing on empty shards

I believe you've found the reason for the F2P discussion.

 

[Zosimus]

Sorry Tina for the late response. I been violently sick with the flu since sunday night after my Steelers won the AFC Championship. I'm a 100 times better now but still recovering. Let me answer your post and hope I don't miss anything you are asking for.

Do you think the free to play options helped Warhammer or have they just delayed the inevitable?

Yes in my opinion it helped. It brought back some players that had left to experience the new changes without having to pay. That is a big perk because in a subscription model you cant really try the changes out if you are a former player without resubbing again. I did see new players that actually subbed by playing the free trial. When people come across warhammer online and has not played it and see the " play endless free trial " they dont lose anything. Maybe some time of their lives trying it out and not costing them a cent.

It sounds like there have been several server mergers but I'm unclear on whether or not players had to pay for character transfers (at $20 per character) in connection with those mergers and whether some characters with skills above a certain level could not and still cannot be transferred.

Yes they did server mergers. We got free transfers to other servers. You can also copy your character to another server while the other is still on the original. I don't think they charge for char transfers. they discussed it at one time but if I recall thats all it was. Talk.

The only issue if you had to pick a server and had one account that you could only move chars ( like destro chars) you could only move them to servers you had no chars on or destro chars on other servers. Trying not to confuse you but if you had order chars on one server, you could not move the destro chars to that same server.

If you had to guess, Zosimus, do you think if EA/Mythic/Bioware or whatever they call themselves implemented some kind of free to play option for UO, do you think they'd copy what they already did for Warhammer or try something completely different?

War and UO is two different games. EA would have to do something really differerent for UO then what they did with War. I just dont trust the hands that have control over UO atm to know what to do with it. I have my opinions what could be done but my opinions dont have a say in the game.

Either way, do you think their efforts would be any more successful with UO than they have been with Warhammer or do you think they are currently too far into the hole with what they've spent already on their other MMOs in development (i.e., SWTOR, the Chinese version of UO to be published by NetDragon Websoft, and the "Secret World" MMO they will co-publish with Funcom) to really pay attention to and be successful with a "free to play" campaign for UO and/or DAoC?

I think EA goes in headstrong with an idea but never finishes up. UO has paid itself over and over 10 fold. They nickle and dime it now days. I think free to play would help UO with a fresh batch of new players. Not returning players but NEW players. It could bring in more revenue with an item shop but even with the new revenue how much is EA going to "reinvest" back into UO. Would EA still nickle and dime us as they are now or would they really put a team back into place to "work" the game? Who knows.

DaoC probably has the best option to go free to play since its very close to warhammer. So that be the easiest for them.

The issue UO has its not appealing to young players. One, they don't advertise. Two, with games like Pet Petpark, Wizard 101, and some facebook games that focus on younger players you are "tutoring" children into the graphics genre of gaming. Meaning these kids want decent graphics to what they play now days. So that makes UO old and outdated while these games make them ready for WoW in a few years. My 6 year old has played UO but she prefers the better graphical games. She plays/ed Guildwars, Wizard 101, Club penquin, Pet Petpark, facebook games, and on and on.

 

[Zosimus]

Not sure if its will power atm that is keeping me going or the meds I am on but I do have to speak about DaoC.

I am one of the "many" former players of UO that have tried to find that same UO sandbox feel in a game. DaoC in my opinion, is closest I have experienced. DaoC is what made Mythic. They did do something very right when they created DaoC.

Similarities of UO and DaoC. (There are differences even though similar but Im going with the basics)

Both have housing.
Both has mounts.
Both have crafting.
Both have PvP.
Both have PvM
Both have bosses.
Both have quests.
Both had explorable land.
Both have safe and dangerous areas. Tram and Fel in a way.
ATM, Both have dwindling populations


So my statement about Daoc in my other post about Mythic's best option to go free to play is because of the above. Very similar to UO but set up better. They could make an item shop easily. It's the closest to what UO should of went on a direction. I love to RvR ( PvP to UO) and it had a purpose then just camping spawns in UO.

 

[Tina Small]

Not sure if its will power atm that is keeping me going or the meds I am on but I do have to speak about DaoC.

I am one of the "many" former players of UO that have tried to find that same UO sandbox feel in a game. DaoC in my opinion, is closest I have experienced. DaoC is what made Mythic. They did do something very right when they created DaoC.

Similarities of UO and DaoC. (There are differences even though similar but Im going with the basics)

Both have housing.
Both has mounts.
Both have crafting.
Both have PvP.
Both have PvM
Both have bosses.
Both have quests.
Both had explorable land.
Both have safe and dangerous areas. Tram and Fel in a way.
ATM, Both have dwindling populations


So my statement about Daoc in my other post about Mythic's best option to go free to play is because of the above. Very similar to UO but set up better. They could make an item shop easily. It's the closest to what UO should of went on a direction. I love to RvR ( PvP to UO) and it had a purpose then just camping spawns in UO.

Ever wondered if it would work for Mythic to try to combine UO and DAoC and what the end result might look like?

 

[Fayled Dhreams]

Ever wondered if it would work for Mythic to try to combine UO and DAoC and what the end result might look like?

A "marriage"?

now that might work ... UO shards reformed and merged to Realms ... charge F2P
Dark Age of Ultimate Camelot ...

regardless of any prenup's

They will rise or fall together
Joint bank account ... mythic "no RMT rules"(enforced)
Pay for buffs/privileges out of f2p status, run through mythic broker services (Mythic gets the cash cut)
account tagged access to forums ... easy to backtrace to "trial class trolls"

might work nice hypothetical

 

[Zosimus]

Ever wondered if it would work for Mythic to try to combine UO and DAoC and what the end result might look like?

They tried. The KR client was the DaoC graphics client.

 

[Zosimus]

[youtube]oB7flS_1XaE&NR=1[/youtube]

 

[Zosimus]

I been busy the past couple months ( My new offices being built and all this snow has delayed them ) so I dont get much time to play some of the games I like to play. I havent took time to play Rappelz but I was checking my email and found this. The offer is over and expired but still pretty cool they knew I wasnt active for a while. Now its a F2P game and I was like "oh well" missed out but tried to lure me back to playing with free pixels lol.

Now UO should do some type of promotions if they wanted to lure back inactive players or unsubbed players once in a while.

 

[canary]

With the insane amount of silence from any Mythic employees, and the statement that the WAR producer is off doing some project related to WAR and can't take time to post a producer's letter, I'm going to venture a guess our games are scrambling to start the path to F2P.

 

[Prince Caspian]

I was here for the beta. And I still believe I will be here on the last day of Ultima Online. I'm here for the long haul.

But I don't think Free Play would stop the decline of Ultima Online. In fact, I don't think anything really can stop it, or even slow it. As I see it, there are three major issues going on here that will prevent UO from ever really being popular again.

#1 - Dread Lord Days Reputation. Funny when you think the Dread Lord Days, for all its infamous history, was a mere fraction of this game's history. In fact, it was at its worst for a year, maybe two. However, a LOT of people left Ultima Online because it was a very, very bully-friendly atmosphere, where established players could (and did) run roughshod over the newbies with an ill-conceived "everyone can attack everyone" PvP system. Fact of the matter is, people who left Ultima Online because they were disgusted or tired of being victimized are very, very unlikely to ever give this game another go, or convince anyone else to try it.

#2 - Age. Ultima Online is old. There's no getting around that. Not only that, but it's isometric FRPG, a format most everyone these days see as passe. There have been many cool twists and events in this game to spark life back into it, but the fact of the matter is, it is a ten year old game. Furthermore, I think UO was really built with players like me in mind -- ie people who are familiar with the rich UO mythology. But this target groups is now in our mid to late 30s. We're hardly the prime MMORPG demographic, and I don't think many kids (16-25) would see the appeal of such a dusty old legacy.

#3 - Alternatives. There's so many other MMORPGs out there. Back in the day, Ultima Online was largely the only game in town for fully-animated persistent MMORPGs. Now we have so many choices, to suit any other genre. Why would the kids of today want to hitch their star on yesteryear's model when there are many other exciting alternatives out there that are much newer and much more innovative?

But on the other hand, since the week after we went live with UO, people have been predicting the plug being pulled by the end of the month. And people have been saying that for... oh, over a decade...

 

[Fink]

Trash the whole game and start over, true to the lore. Throw out all the characters and servers and items.

Get back to the Virtues actually being a code of conduct, and influencing your experience. It's the core of Ultima and really the only part of it that sets it apart from all the many other medieval/fantasy MMOs.

 

[Roland of Atlantic]

It's been said before, the new player experience sucks. I was here for beta, and played until 2001, took close to a decade off, and came back 13 months ago. When I did, I went with the enhanced client, and I'm glad I did. Sure, it has a few bugs, but I'll take those bugs in stride for all the things that I found out the hard way, over time that I could do that CC players couldn't. When I started it up, I was thinking "10 years pass and this is the best they could do with graphics?" It struck me as strange until more recently, when I discovered the real reason that the game still looks this way. It's because of the resist-all-change-and-threaten-to-quit stodgy players that pancake about anything they do to try to improve the game. That, and the way they like to release additions to the game in a bugged and nearly unplayable form, and sloooooowly bring them up to a playable form over the course of months (WTF, I have been shooting this pirate ship for an hour now!).

For the first point, for every person that has been playing for years that I try to introduce to the EC, every one of them gives me the "I've been playing this game for years, sonny" line about how they never even tried the new client because they like the game exactly the way it is, and furthermore, will quit if they are forced to change to any extent. What I say, bring this game out of the 90's and LET THEM QUIT or this game will die, because for someone that starts this game that doesnt know any of the lore of Ultima or never played any of the games that were the ancestors of this game, it looks like crap.

Step back from yourself and look at the game from a new player's perspective. Go download one of the other games out there, and download the EC client and start playing them both like a new player (put yourself in your son's shoes). Tell me which one you would choose without knowing anything about the depth of play and lore of UO.

Without getting the mark of approval from new players (who are mostly at least 10 years younger than us and have played games with faaaaaaar better graphics) this game will slowly lose it's player base until they pull the plug, and with that, the whole lore of ultima that we know and love will end. In beta I remember not being able to log in because the entire atlantic shard was FULL, and most of the others were packed too. Now, the only shard that has a decent player base is atlantic. That is why the game is dying, because they are catering almost exclusively to the wishes of the existing clients, and keeping the game the same. By keeping it the same, we have no chance to attract new players, who are taking things at face value and dismissing it for the graphics before understanding how deep and involving the game is.

Then there is the whole thing with releasing additions and expansions in alpha super-bugged version before they work like they should, and letting us blunder through them and do their beta testing for them and discover their errors and not having a full experience because of it. The enhanced client was one of those. It was so bugged that most of the players that DID actually try it couldn't even function enough to have a rewarding playing experience and scrapped it before they got a chance to understand it or the devs brought it up to a playable standard. Like Pavlov's dogs, we learn to associate a particular event with an inevitable conclusion. If A, then B. If you do this, that will happen. If you try the new client or expansion, you will have a bad playing experience.

That's how you create a whole player base of people who don't want anything to change, by repeatedly disappointing them. If they spent more time making sure the latest thing was truly up to par, they would eventually break that disappointment cycle, but it's getting too late for that now. What could work is trashing the classic and the enhanced clients in one fel swoop and replacing it with something that still had the feel and perspective of what we have come to know and love, but had every single graphic completely redone to modern standards.

UO would lose a lot of customers that day, but replace them all within a month and double it's player base very quickly as people that currently play games with good graphics but horribly shallow gameplay came to understand the depth of play that UO offers. Those of us who stayed would expect to keep our belongings and our houses (which would surely need to be redone due to everything being different) and perhaps be treated to 6 months of free play for the inconvenience of having our world turned upside down...

That would take some guts and money for EA to pull off, but if they truly put in the money and talent to make it happen, they (and we by extension) would truly reap great rewards.

Let the flaming and nay-saying BEGIN!

 

[Skrag]

I'm tired of EA horking out some garbage client and then a bunch of cheerleaders telling us we had better use it or else. I didn't care for it with Third Dawn and I don't care for it now. The EC is a joke.