Reactivated old accounts.....credit for inactive time.

[Longtooths]

Recently I was able to reactivate my original account with the help of customer service. I was shocked to see that my 200+ month account only had 9 vet rewards and no access to shields. I quickly found out the reason was you only get credit for time when you have an active paid subscription.

The logic is of course, you are incentivized to keep your subscription open even if not playing...ala eve online training. It is a viable business plan and I understand. However I do not like it....

so,.....I would like this changed, ok thanks!

 

[Podolak]

Recently I was able to reactivate my original account with the help of customer service. I was shocked to see that my 200+ month account only had 9 vet rewards and no access to shields. I quickly found out the reason was you only get credit for time when you have an active paid subscription.

The logic is of course, you are incentivized to keep your subscription open even if not playing...ala eve online training. It is a viable business plan and I understand. However I do not like it....

so,.....I would like this changed, ok thanks!

I'd even be willing to pay to get some of my accounts back up to where they should be.

 

[S_S]

Umm, no. Why should you be rewarded for nonplay and nonpay on inactive accts?

 

[Longtooths]

Podolak, I would as well.


S_S, I think that answers your question.

 

[claudia-fjp]

I'd even be willing to pay to get some of my accounts back up to where they should be.

Whoever came up with the shard shields was smart. It keeps people subscribed which brings in more money than selling xfer tokens. Sadly for me I took a 2 year break before shard shields came out and there was no reason to keep the accounts open back then while I wasn't actively playing.

-Shieldless in Seattle
Beta Account.

 

[Longtooths]

Claudia-fjp,

My understanding is that there was a time when reactivated accounts recieved full credit for vets. I wish I have resub my old account back then instead of after they changed it. But so be it, give me the option to pay up to regain my lost age of the account and vet rewards of course.

 

[MalagAste]

As far as I'm concerned you should not be rewarded for not paying and playing....

However if you are willing to pay for the time missed then by all means I think you should be able to pay to age your account.

 

[Longtooths]

Wouldn't it be an incentive to get back a lot of old player base if they were rewarded to resub their accounts. Just about every game gives incentives for the re-subscription of old accounts.....just sayin' Ultima is always looking for ways to get more active subscriptions...

 

[Dot_Warner]

While I can see how being bumped up to the vet year you would be, had you kept paying, for a resub might be a tempting lure, it would also invalidate those who keep their account(s) active.

Even if you back paid for the time you were unsubscribed, it would still be a slap in the face to those who were legitimately there.

These are loyalty rewards afterall, perks to players who have hung in there through the years. Not *just* a "You threw money at us, here have a digital cookie" shiny.

Shard shields are about the only things that are still age-dependant anyway, so make friends with someone who has some and nicely ask them to xfer stuff for you.

 

[Lady Storm]

Ok ladys and gentilmen we have gone down this road reciently and it wasa mess and made bad blood a few times.
Might I suguest you except the time you paid for and let that be it.
As was explained you didnt pay for the time and there fore do not get the reward time.
This was the whole intent of the rewards program to begin with,
WE who have time paid for get credit. If you didnt want to play and stopped paying....
I am so sorry Longtooths for your hopes in this.
Fair is fair.
Your sub to UO stopped and so did your earning of credit time.
To add time to your account when you didnt earn it is unfair to those who did.
Might I suguest a Mod look into this and stop a wild run again on a dead subject?

 

[Podolak]

I don't remember the subject being "dead". If a user is willing to pay to makeup for lost time it seems like a good way to infuse UO with a bit of extra money. One of my accounts hits 200 next month, its only a few months behind. However, my 185 month account is a year behind and some of my other ones a bit further. If I am willing to pay $10 * 12 to bring an account up to par that is $120 that Broadsword could get for doing *drum roll* nothing.

 

[Njjj]

Its the players who keep up their subs that keep the lights on, so that returning players have something to return to. That is worth something. I'm glad the devs still seem to see it that way.

 

[weins201]

If you are willing to PAY to bring it up to full speed and PAY FULL price sure go for it, but if NOT you didn't pay you don't get rewards deal with it!!!

 

[Podolak]

If you are willing to PAY to bring it up to full speed and PAY FULL price sure go for it, but if NOT you didn't pay you don't get rewards deal with it!!!

Agreed, full price is fine.

 

[Warpig Inc]

Every account has a born on date. Then it has the active months total. I see no reason why a months total could be brought up to the correct max total. Being the max based on the born on date. As long as those month missed are paid for. Anyone that thinks playing the duration for rewards vs paying for the time not counting is just petty

 

[BahamaMama]

I would back pay too! In a heart beat. =)

 

[azmodanb]

Happened to me too heh. But why can ya do.

It sucks of course.

But makes since.. Reward for time played.

But I to would pay for the lost time full price.

Life gets in the way sometimes. For me starting a family and buying a home... Could hardly keep food on the table and had to let my two accounts lapse for a few years.

Regardless .. Of being able to buy time back.. Im happy to be back.

 

[Longtooths]

While I can see how being bumped up to the vet year you would be, had you kept paying, for a resub might be a tempting lure, it would also invalidate those who keep their account(s) active.

Even if you back paid for the time you were unsubscribed, it would still be a slap in the face to those who were legitimately there.

These are loyalty rewards afterall, perks to players who have hung in there through the years. Not *just* a "You threw money at us, here have a digital cookie" shiny.

Shard shields are about the only things that are still age-dependant anyway, so make friends with someone who has some and nicely ask them to xfer stuff for you.

So do not allow old players to come back and pay to catch up and get all that tasty revenue. No no instead let subs continue to go down and let the game ultimately fail....that some solid logic right there. Here in Texas we call that biting off you nose to spite your face.

I don't need to make friends with anyone I have 7 accounts with all shields.

 

[kelmo]

*thinks*

 

[Darius Bloodbain]

Well, I am sorta lookin at this at the perspective of : Lets say someone had an account that they opened originally 180 months ago, which is 15 years. Say the inactivity of the account where someone took off a year here and there added up to say 4 years. if they were charged for the 60 months they missed even at the 6 months gametime rate of 9.99 per month, you are looking at 600.00 just to catch the account time up to the originally created time. I could buy a Whole lot of shard transfer tokens from the origin store for 600.00.
I am sure tho, theres folks that play this game that wouldnt mind dumping that much cash at one time for access to a shard sheild.
I myself dont jump shards or transfer stuff between shards often enough to justify it. but thats me. Everyone is different.

 

[Lady Storm]

Though I am not the "Powers that Be" and the money wouldnt go to Broadsword directly... EA gets it... yeah go figure.
If a person paid in full the full amount to catch up... I cant see any company refusing the $.
Let's face it... though EA has a hell of a time taking subs.. look at prime example: the billing.
And there is the Origin store.... a cluster of inept software if ever I saw one.
Kelmo.... something is smelling like its burning.... jk

 

[Dot_Warner]

So do not allow old players to come back and pay to catch up and get all that tasty revenue. No no instead let subs continue to go down and let the game ultimately fail....that some solid logic right there. Here in Texas we call that biting off you nose to spite your face.

That's SOP for UO though...

The chances that the "extra money" would be reinvested in UO is...well, I think ice cubes have a better chance in Hades. (No, I don't think Broadsword is receiving UO's profits. I'm sure greedy EA still holds the purse strings and gives them a pittance.)

I don't need to make friends with anyone I have 7 accounts with all shields.

Yeah, why make friends in an MMO? Crazy me...

Again, they're LOYALTY rewards, not Pay-To-"Win."

 

[The Zog historian]

Claudia-fjp,

My understanding is that there was a time when reactivated accounts recieved full credit for vets. I wish I have resub my old account back then instead of after they changed it. But so be it, give me the option to pay up to regain my lost age of the account and vet rewards of course.

Account status wasn't tracked in UO's early months, at least not for monthly age to be determined easily. I can only imagine the difficulties in someone in Billing trying to code something, and a Developer properly unable to get access to billing information. Thus when vet rewards were first introduced, it was apparently most cost-effective to treat all accounts created before a certain date (sometime in 1998) as if they had always been open. It was also a relatively short period of time that any account could have been inactive, not the potential years you're talking about.

 

[Lady Storm]

Hind sight is 20/20.
Had any known of the rewards being created or the way the game still lives on would things be different?
Can you imagine just a few dollars and you can fix all you missed out on in life....
Hell if we can go back in time let me go back and change a few things... then you would be arguing with my husband and I... (he died in 93) He would have loved this...
But baby you cant go back in time... not even to fix that which means more then the silly pixels on this screen.
It's a nice thought to offer to pay for time you missed out on... and I guess if it went to UO's upkeep I'd even say go for it...
But I know better.
EA might think ok give us the money and then we be like that other game and they would pull the plug.
No I dont put it past EA to do just that...

I understand and wish you had kept playing the game... or at the very least paid for the account so you would have the favored reward.
It's understandable to want things to be different, not everything is that simple.
Life is not fair.
I dont begrudge you the shields..... but I do stand on the side of earning them.
Throwing cash at the game just so you can have what many earned.... it dont feel right for some reason.
I am truly sorry hunny but on this I say no.
Except my appology for this answer, its how I see the fairness being upheld.

 

[popps]

I'd even be willing to pay to get some of my accounts back up to where they should be.

In such case, a possible fix without offending those players who did kepts their accounts as active could be paying the subscription fee due for whatever number of months of active age one wants to gain....

Subscription fee is 9.99$ per month ? Want to get a year active age ? Then pay up 9.99$ x 12 = 119.88$ and get 1 year more of active age all at once !!

I am good with it, more resources for Ultima Online !

As long as no discount is offered as in comparison to those players who DID pay their full subscription fees to gain their active account age, I have no problem with it......

 

[popps]

That's SOP for UO though...

The chances that the "extra money" would be reinvested in UO is...well, I think ice cubes have a better chance in Hades. (No, I don't think Broadsword is receiving UO's profits. I'm sure greedy EA still holds the purse strings and gives them a pittance.)

Well, as a loyal and long time Ultima Online player I would like to know how much of UO's revenues gets actually reinvested into the game and how much goes elsewhere.

If I am not happy with the share of the revenues that UO generates which go back INTO the game that I play, I do NOT want to keep funding the game I play not for the enhancements it needs or that I would want it to have but instead to have them spent on some other game or anything else.....

So, I'd like someone to tell me what percentage of the money I pay in monthly subscriptions and codes I purchase actually DOES go back into the game I want to play because, if I find out that this percentage is too low, I could decide to stop funding something else with MY money....

I think that as customers we should be entitled the right to know how much of the money we spend on Ultima Online actually goes back INTO UO......

 

[Jerec KTM]

Recently I was able to reactivate my original account with the help of customer service. I was shocked to see that my 200+ month account only had 9 vet rewards and no access to shields. I quickly found out the reason was you only get credit for time when you have an active paid subscription.

The logic is of course, you are incentivized to keep your subscription open even if not playing...ala eve online training. It is a viable business plan and I understand. However I do not like it....

so,.....I would like this changed, ok thanks!

So do not allow old players to come back and pay to catch up and get all that tasty revenue. No no instead let subs continue to go down and let the game ultimately fail....that some solid logic right there. Here in Texas we call that biting off you nose to spite your face.

I don't need to make friends with anyone I have 7 accounts with all shields.

....you already have seven accounts with shields but didn't understand that when you turned on a long inactive one that you would not receive monthly credit for months not paid...

 

[old gypsy]

Guess I'm old-fashion, but I tend to struggle with the idea that if you offer enough money you can always buy anything... even loyalty points.

Passing thought: Is this UO or Washington, D.C.?

 

[Podolak]

Storm,

I would never begrudge you your opinion, we are all entitled to them especially on a public forum. I may not agree with your point of view but I wouldn't want you to apologize for it either.

 

[Obsidian]

Well, I am sorta lookin at this at the perspective of : Lets say someone had an account that they opened originally 180 months ago, which is 15 years. Say the inactivity of the account where someone took off a year here and there added up to say 4 years. if they were charged for the 60 months they missed even at the 6 months gametime rate of 9.99 per month, you are looking at 600.00 just to catch the account time up to the originally created time. I could buy a Whole lot of shard transfer tokens from the origin store for 600.00.
I am sure tho, theres folks that play this game that wouldnt mind dumping that much cash at one time for access to a shard sheild.
I myself dont jump shards or transfer stuff between shards often enough to justify it. but thats me. Everyone is different.

I would gladly pay the suggested rate to get my primary account to 14 years. I had it inactive for several years and am just hitting the 147 month point. Roughly $600 ($9.99 per month) is reasonable to me and would be good income for the game.

 

[Longtooths]

Hind sight is 20/20.Had any known of the rewards being created or the way the game still lives on would things be different?Can you imagine just a few dollars and you can fix all you missed out on in life....Hell if we can go back in time let me go back and change a few things... then you would be arguing with my husband and I... (he died in 93) He would have loved this...But baby you cant go back in time... not even to fix that which means more then the silly pixels on this screen.It's a nice thought to offer to pay for time you missed out on... and I guess if it went to UO's upkeep I'd even say go for it...But I know better.

EA might think ok give us the money and then we be like that other game and they would pull the plug.No I dont put it past EA to do just that...


I understand and wish you had kept playing the game... or at the very least paid for the account so you would have the favored reward.It's understandable to want things to be different, not everything is that simple.
Life is not fair.I dont begrudge you the shields..... but I do stand on the side of earning them.Throwing cash at the game just so you can have what many earned.... it dont feel right for some reason.I am truly sorry hunny but on this I say no.Except my appology for this answer, its how I see the fairness being upheld.

First, I am sorry for your loss. But, equating UO to real life … seriously? You are talking in emotions and fairness. I am suggesting an untapped revenue stream for a company. Your No vote is recorded.

....you already have seven accounts with shields but didn't understand that when you turned on a long inactive one that you would not receive monthly credit for months not paid...

Yes, which part don’t you understand?

Guess I'm old-fashion, but I tend to struggle with the idea that if you offer enough money you can always buy anything... even loyalty points. Passing thought: Is this UO or Washington, D.C.?

You must have a very difficult time indeed, in game and out…might not like it, but that is the way of the world my friend.

 

[Mac]

Well, if this was something you really wanted to do, then we first have to be on a level playing field. I think the first thing that needs to happen is to make adjustments to all of the accts that only paid once every 3-4 months as a way to hold on to account items. Once their acct ages are adjusted for all those months/years of non-payment, then if folks want to update their accts to bring the acct age up to sync with their born date, allow it. Of course with that adjustment, if that acct had already received rewards/items, then they wouldn't be eligible again. As I have been told in a different thread about housing, thinking UO billing could handle something like this without screwing it up is ludicrous.

But, lets not lie to ourselves and others. I love how some folks wanna talk about how it would be good for UO, how the money would be good for UO, how it would create a larger player base.......be real, the majority of folks willing to pay the back payments are only wanting something (rewards/items) that others have paid for (monthly fees) but since they are coming back to UO and just happen to be flush at this point, they are willing to pay. Wouldn't it just be more economical, with less chance of a billing screw up, to try to convince the powers that be to put items up for sale in the store?

 

[azmodanb]

Being that shard tokens are the only thing worth keeping your account active forever.. It would he another slap so to speak in the face of people that were able to keep them up.. Mine SHOULD be max age but again I stopped paying. I had rl duties.

Would i like to be able to catch up? Yep.

Do i accept my actions in rl... Yep.

Im fine with waiting till my two accounts reach shield age in a year ... Yep..

Will UO be around then ... I hope.

 

[Longtooths]

Well, if this was something you really wanted to do, then we first have to be on a level playing field. I think the first thing that needs to happen is to make adjustments to all of the accts that only paid once every 3-4 months as a way to hold on to account items. Once their acct ages are adjusted for all those months/years of non-payment, then if folks want to update their accts to bring the acct age up to sync with their born date, allow it. Of course with that adjustment, if that acct had already received rewards/items, then they wouldn't be eligible again. As I have been told in a different thread about housing, thinking UO billing could handle something like this without screwing it up is ludicrous.

I lol at this...I agree that it is ludicrous to think the billing would go off without a hitch.

But, lets not lie to ourselves and others. I love how some folks wanna talk about how it would be good for UO, how the money would be good for UO, how it would create a larger player base.......be real, the majority of folks willing to pay the back payments are only wanting something (rewards/items) that others have paid for (monthly fees) but since they are coming back to UO and just happen to be flush at this point, they are willing to pay. Wouldn't it just be more economical, with less chance of a billing screw up, to try to convince the powers that be to put items up for sale in the store?

I'm fine with this as well.

I just want my shields..and I am willing to pay for them, either by paying my subscription up to current, or purchasing them from a store. However, I have an account with shields already. If you offer me the store option I will just add the shields to the existing shield account and shut down my old account subscription. Which means UO/EA/Broadsword looses out on a sub....just sayin'

More than I want my shields, I want UO to not just survive, but thrive again. I know it sounds like a long shot, but until I am proven that it cant happen i will keep suggesting ideas that I can to increase revenue/playerbase and survivability of the game we all love. I will even sacrifice my sense of fair to make this happen for the better good of the entire community....Wish more people thought like that...just sayin'

 

[popps]

Wouldn't it just be more economical, with less chance of a billing screw up, to try to convince the powers that be to put items up for sale in the store?

No.
The Veteran Rewards program needs to be fair to those players who have been loyal customers over the years AND providing steady resources to the game which made it possible for Ultima Online to keep going and exist still today.

If Ultima Online has not been closed for good and the Shards servers' shut off it is also BECAUSE OF VETERAN PLAYERS WHO HAVE BEEN STEADILY AND CONTINUOUSLY PLAYING THEIR MONTHLY SUBSCRIPTIONS.

They have steadily, continuosly, repeatedly provided, month by month, year by year, those monthly subscriptions which have made it possible for the powers that be to "see" that the game had a steady and loyal player base continuing to support the game and thus the game deserved to be kept going....

Thanking to these Veteran Players, Ultima Online is still here today, stronger in its depth and playability and with an enormous amount of things to do for those OTHER players wanting to come back to play it or to play it for the first time....

I want NO ECONOMICAL solution to Veteran active Account Age but (eventually) having to pay whatever comes up by multiplying the monthly fee by the number of months, or years one would want to update the active age.
Want to update the active age of the account for 1 year ? Pay up at least 9.99$ x 12 months = 119.88$ .

Of course, even if this was to be made possible, this "purchased" active account age update should never make it possible to age an Account in excees to its physical age. That is, only an account that was registered in 1997 should be capable of being updated its active account age to an active account age of 17 Years, not certainly an account which was initially registered only in 2014......

Anything cheaper then that, IMHO, would be yet another slap in the face of those players who did help Ultima Online to keep going thanking to their loyalty and continuously paid monthly subscriptions over the years.

I said another slap in the face of Veteran UO players, because I consider a wrong change of the Veteran Rules the one that was done to stop at 15 Years the age for claiming any top new Veteran reward and I hope sincerely that it will be reversed bringing things as they were before.

Say that Ultima Online reaches its 20th Year of Age, will a 20 years Veteran player of UO be the same as a 15 Years Veteran player ? I do not think so just like I do not think that a 20 Years Veteran player might be the same as a 19 years or 18 years or 17 years or 16 years..... Yet, as the rule was changed, players who maintained their accounts for even a large difference of years (like for example 20 vs. 15 years of active account age) will be entitled to just claim the same veteran gifts..... Not fair at all, IMHO.

I think this change was a wrong one and the powers that be should really reverse it and bring things as they were with gifts added every year for the top Veteran Age and also for the years below it.

It has been the Veteran UO players who have kept paying for their accounts who have made it possible for Ultima Online not to die.
So, I find it VERY unfortunate that the Developers or whomever is in charge to make these decisions (Mesanna?) might listen to the majority of players who did NOT keep their account as active all the time versus that minority of players who DID keep their account as active all the time over these 17 years and going.....

Please change BACK the rule and make it as it was, lifting the 15 years CAP for new top Age gifts.
We need to go back to 17th Years accounts being the only eligible to claim a 17th Year Veteran Age gift and NOT have 15 Years account active age be eligible to claim the same as 16, 17 and so forth Age Accounts.
The current system is NOT fair towards UO Veteran Players who supported the game for the longest by NEVER stopping their monthly account active age.

 

[Jerec KTM]

Yes, which part don’t you understand?

That one might have been a little over your head...

 

[Longtooths]

That one might have been a little over your head...

please enlighten me so I may also appreciate your witty banter.

 

[Aran]

My account isn't even showing as "old" as it should and it's never been closed for a long stretch, maybe five months total since 2000, and I'm showing less than 13 years. I think accounts that are incorrectly aged need to be sorted out before anything else changes.

 

[Lady Storm]

Longtooths I can understand your want... and to simply explain my analagy is this:
20/20 hind sight...
Meaning
IF we could go back in time you would have kept your accounts active?
Thats like asking me if I wanted to go back and make a change in my life.
Sure now that we know what to do and all.
Is it fair?
If it were possible that the funds would go strictly into UO for game support and keeping the game going(this means EA cant cut funding ether as this money is not to replace paychecks so they dont have to...) many of us would be all for it.
We all know that wont happen... the 17 year history of EA having the purse strings of UO is a laundry list of other games and projects outside UO, our game has paid for with its subs.
We funded alot of non UO related things, One item we got back second hand after the other game had fully used it to dust..(Servers) that was many years ago.... but still our funds over the years gave the investors their due and milked us dry and not for our games upkeep.
So you see IF the funds went to support UO directly... and not in some shell game or project EA would siphen off the money for.
I'd be all for it.
But I know better... EA cant be trusted to do this...
But now to the point.
I do not see the Dev going for any of this...
EA on the other hand to get a biger yeld out of this game and not pay it forward.... oh yeah they would.
Business is business.. money greases all wheels and plams...

 

[Mac]

Well Longtooths, I tend to agree with the statement, " I want UO to not just survive, but thrive again." Damn wouldn't that be a great thing. I don't really care one way or the other about the paying to sync dates. I don't think, like popps, that it would be fair, but if it brought players, I wouldn't mind too much, at least not enough to leave. I played the first 6 years or so, and then left, checked in about once a year, and about 5 months ago, after I retired, got involved in playing regularly again, so I'm one of those who would benefit from paying to sync acct age and acct birth. My acct is now just over 7 yrs old. Even if it was offered, I can't imagine doing it though. Like I said, I kinda think it's unfair, which means I might not do it, but I'm not gonna make the decision for any other players as to what's fair for them, as long as it doesn't screw with my fun. If it's offered, I'm sure others will take advantage of it and pay up their accts, receive their rewards and then move forward.......to each their own. Kinda what the game is about don't cha know.

***I do however stand by my statements about being on a level playing field when it comes to ANY of the billing aspects of UO***

 

[claudia-fjp]

Longtooths I can understand your want... and to simply explain my analagy is this:
20/20 hind sight...
Meaning
IF we could go back in time you would have kept your accounts active?
Thats like asking me if I wanted to go back and make a change in my life.
Sure now that we know what to do and all.
Is it fair?

Apples and oranges. Your analogy doesn't really apply or hold up. Say the thing you wanted to change was the fact you bought a black car 5 years ago instead of a red one. Well, you can either PAY to paint the thing red or buy a red one instead. People make changes all the time based on hindsight. People sentenced to death years ago are released from jail on new evidence. People BUY old accounts all the time simply for the account age. Is it fair? Sure, because anyone could do it, and in the end we would have paid the exact same amount as you yet we didn't get to play for that amount of time.

 

[old gypsy]

You must have a very difficult time indeed, in game and out…might not like it, but that is the way of the world my friend.

Not so difficult, really.

I understand how the world works... even accept it... but I will always reserve the right to disagree with it.

 

[Lady Storm]

Claudia-fjp sweety no its applesause.
The fact is I did pay for most of my accounts till now, the owners before me on some I cant comment on their payments as I had no involvement in it.
But the fact is I paid on them every month.
From the day I got them they were under my control.
Same as with the other players who want this, you had control of your accounts and billing and could have done as we did.
But you didnt.
Some of you have good reason and I will grant you that 90 % of the reasons are sound.
It dosnt change the fact that you didnt spend that time and money as we did.
To you it is so easy to jump ahead of new accounts players... is it fair?
Ok think on this.
In that case as you point out I should hand a College the fee for a 4 year degree and recieve in the mail a doctorate in the field of my choice.
I pay them the money, so why cant I get that degree with out cracking a book or taking a test?
See thats not fair ether.
Same as this.
As I said further down in that post was IF I knew that UO would get the whole of the money for the game upkeep and services excluding EA's grubby paws out of it or them reducing the moeny they now put in UO to this date by any means including pay for the Dev. then ok. I would be all for it.
But we all know if that kind of funds passed EA's paws it would go into anything but UO.
Just because you cn do it does not make it right.
I dont blame anyone who has an older account that lost out on the months they oped out of play/pay for wanting the same as those of us who did.
I just dont like the idea they can cheat because they can out talk or give the cash to buy it.

 

[The Zog historian]

To be fair, LS, it's already the case that not all UO revenue goes back into the game. By definition, at minimum EA's shareholders want to see profits, and it's common for entertainment companies to use funds from a relatively successful portion of the business to prop up or expand another portion.

I have no problem with a "catch up" program, and even if every penny never went back into UO, EA would see it as another source of revenue and delay pulling the plug.

 

[claudia-fjp]

It dosnt change the fact that you didnt spend that time and money as we did.

In the case of veteran rewards time=money. You don't get different vet rewards for actively PLAYING the game. A lot of people don't actively play but still age their accounts. All some of us are asking for is the chance to catch up for those years where content was lacking, house decay was turned off, and there were no shard shields keeping us paying. In the end we spend the same amount of $$$ if we are allowed to pay for back time. Who cares if we logged in or not? Taking issue with those of us who still after all these years do play UO seems like crusading against yourself when you're always lamenting those that have left and not come back. It wouldn't effect your game in any way shape or form and it would make a lot of old time players happy. Think of how many of us quit to play WoW or some other MMO for a time only to come back to UO. Are these really the people you want to speak out against?

As for the added revenue it doesn't matter where it ends up really. You should be behind this regardless because this is how the conversation at EA goes.

Accountant: We just had an increase of 5% in UO revenue, thanks to the Vet Reward Catch Up Program.
EA Suit: Good, glad we didn't mothball it with those other games recently. Guess we'll keep it going.

If the thought of a new account doing it bothers you then have it based on account creation date. You can only age it to the appropriate age and no more.

P.S. Add me to the list of people you shouldn't call Sweety.

 

[Aran]

Relax honey

 

[MissEcho]

Account status wasn't tracked in UO's early months, at least not for monthly age to be determined easily. I can only imagine the difficulties in someone in Billing trying to code something, and a Developer properly unable to get access to billing information. Thus when vet rewards were first introduced, it was apparently most cost-effective to treat all accounts created before a certain date (sometime in 1998) as if they had always been open. It was also a relatively short period of time that any account could have been inactive, not the potential years you're talking about.

Incorrect, my friend opened an account in 1997 and played a couple months, then left and did not return until 2003, their account had aged nearly 6 yrs when they returned. There are a LOT of so called vets that have shard shields that have played less time than I have due to this.

 

[Lady Storm]

Oi
Aran dear..... dont get the kitty mad. She has claws and bites.
Claudia-fjp Sweety...
It matters to those of us who did pay and play.
To allow the payment for non time served in game would degrade the game for the rest of us who were loyal and stayed.
There would not be a UO here now if not for us.
Had we all done what you and others did by walking away and not supporting the game.
UO would have been long dead and this conversation would be moot.
I have come to wonder if the Shard Shields option in the rewards menu was removed would you still feel the same?
This is boiling down again to the argument over shard shields "we deserve them now" movement.
The ones who sit there and cry "I'll pay you" for them to go on the Origin store.
This is a new angle if so, I can see the links but the end will be the same outcome.
Nice try.
You have succeeded in chnaging my mind sugar.
No way in hells bells will I sit here and not point out that fact.
Rewards are just that as the Dev have said, they were earned by honest play/pay of UO.
To this I'd say whats next?
The next group to pander the Dev will be new accounts yelling no fair and demand the same for their money input?

There was something long ago MissEcho I am not sure the date or what it intailed.
There was an ajustment to some files for UO concerning Age advancement and the system not working.
In the end the Dev of that time advanced account ages because of some sort of info loss.
Now I am not saying this was your friends case.
I also remember there was rare cases of bugs in the accounts themselves.
I do know of a person who quit back in the first year and came back after 2004.
Their account had not stopped aging.
Also one in the opposite case, it didnt age.. and did not allow for the characters to gain in skill.

 

[Acid Rain]

Shard shields are fine the way they are, leave them alone. Don't try to invent your own truths by making it sound like you've supported UO all these years from the start with all your +7 accounts because you haven't. Some of us know more about you then you suspect. Most of your accounts you purchased from other players that quit the game, yes even the ones that you currently have shard shields on. You use your purchased accounts for their shard shields to move items shard to shard as a means of making IRL money off the game.

Apparently UO/EA doesn't care about this kind of thing so you absolutely have the right to do this but don't try to twist your desires into a "this is better for the game/community/etc,... blah blah" pile of steaming $%!#. This is better for you and your cronies to make IRL money off a game most subs simply enjoy playing. I'm done here and hopefully if any official EA/UO Reps read this thread they'll also see through the BS.

Side note: I'm not saying everyone fits this category (Podolak) but Longtooths sure does. I will not be returning to this thread, nothing said here is worth the time.

 

[The Zog historian]

Incorrect, my friend opened an account in 1997 and played a couple months, then left and did not return until 2003, their account had aged nearly 6 yrs when they returned. There are a LOT of so called vets that have shard shields that have played less time than I have due to this.

You misunderstand what I'm talking about. Your friend experienced a billing error on UO's part, which is anomalous and unintentional. I'm clarifying what Longtooths' "reactivated accounts recieved full credit for vets" actually was. If a player in UO's earliest months had gone inactive, there was no easy way for the Devs to determine when or for how long any accounts had been inactive. So The Powers That Be decided that the purpose of vet rewards, all accounts would be presumed to have been active during the time of the old billing system (not a very long time anyway).