The seal has been broken

[Woodsman]

They never approach these things as a way to grow a team (sadly), but rather as ways for them to capitalize on the playerbase through existing resources. Which wouldn't be bad if their existing resources weren't already spread so thin.

At least some of the devs saw it as a way to add some headcount, you are right though in that it is a money grab. It's a poorly run money grab at that. There is no reason they couldn't fund a handful of dedicated artists out of the stuff sold through UOGC, whose only job was doing stuff like that - churning out more pixel crack whether it was decorations, housing tiles, clothing, whatever. It maybe argued that that doesn't contribute much, but heck, make them spend half the time on pixel crack to sell through UOGC and the other half working on cleaning up/updating other artwork that benefits everybody.

Well, truthfully, the only reason I see housing as the pivotal issue in an F2P model is that if you don't control housing via subscription, you end up with tons of free accounts and no housing space.

I think we agree upon that, at least in part. If you don't control housing via subscription, you find people canceling their full accounts and just using an F2P account plus a house, and housing dries up quickly.

Of course if you control housing through subscriptions, which is the current system that we already have in place, then it is no longer F2P, it's a trial account without any time restrictions and just like a trial count, it can't take advantage of housing.

You have a point though in general about a baseline subscription - a theoretical baseline subscription is only a few dollars less than a full subscription, and if somebody can't figure out whether they'd like to fully play UO after playing on a trial or F2P account after a few weeks/months, then they probably aren't going to move up to any subscription regardless of whether it's an $8 baseline subscription or a $13 full subscription.

After thinking about it and after reading your post and some others, a baseline subscription is useless. If your money problems are such that you can afford an $8 baseline, but not a $13 full (or $10 by the half-year option), then your money problems are serious enough to warrant saving the $8 and playing on a free shard.

Now, I know this is all theorizing, but honestly, I think that at worst, a well executed F2P model for UO would increase players, and you'd see the average subscription rate do no less than stay the same. What I mean by that is that you'd still see an average of everyone paying $13 per month, but instead of say 50k people paying it, you might see UO grow back to 100k, 200k or beyond.

It's not going to grow back to 100k or more because of F2P.

So many people left because of reasons that cannot be fixed by F2P. People getting pissed at UO:R/Tram, people getting pissed at Pub 16/AOS, people getting older, people starting families, people playing UO because it was the only game in town for a few years until an MMORPG came along that suited them, people that followed their friends to other MMORPGs, people that wanted fancier/more modern MMORPGs, the list goes on and on.

That's one of several reasons why I think comparisons to DDO or LOTR are so ********. UO has been around for so much longer, that the majority of reasons for why people left are nowhere close to being the reasons why people were bailing on DDO/LOTR.

It's also one of the reasons why I think that talking about freesharders is pointless when it comes to F2P - those people left because they were pissed at EA for one reason or another, and F2P doesn't revert UO back to a time before whatever decision EA made that pissed them off. A classic shard might, but a classic shard is a completely different topic than F2P, and does not require F2P.

Those people are also playing fully functional versions of UO, and a F2P system is basically asking them to start playing a stripped down version of official UO versus the fully functional version they have on a free shard.

UO is still going to be the same UO and the reasons for why they left UO for free shardsd are still going to exist.

13 years is a long time - as you yourself pointed out, 3 months is considered a long time for console games. During that time, there are just too many reasons for people leaving, that F2P can't even come close to addressing them.

But, as I continually state, this would only ever be possible if UO was modernized, cleaned up, and all aspects of it, including content update, bug fixes, client usage, blah blah blah ad nauseum were handled appropriately first.

This to me is far more important than any talk of F2P, because modernizing UO would actually address some reasons for why people left.

EA would need to address more of the reasons for why people have left, long before they consider an F2P system, because if those reasons aren't addressed, we'll be having the same discussions that we've been having for years.

 

[Woodsman]

That argument still doesn't hold much if any water...

If they made a substantial profit by offering F2P, there was absolutely no reason for them to cover that fact up. None. Companies play this game all the time. When profits are good, they are more than happy to share that information. When they aren't so good, they stop talking about profits and actual sales and instead start talking about revenue and units that were shipped to retailers.

Development Studios are a business, they aren't going to "float" a title that is running a negative profitability very long.

There is a little bookstore chain here in the United States called "Borders", and they haven't made a profit since 2006. They are currently in the news - they just filed for bankruptcy.

Businesses keep going all the time even when parts (or all in Borders' case) don't make a profit. When you sink a lot of money into a game like DDO/LOTR, a lot of companies are reluctant to write it off without making a last ditch effort to salvage it. The same thing happens with movies all the time - while some studios will pull a poorly-performing movie, others will go on an advertising blitz, hoping that it will pay off.

If Star Wars doesn't work for EA, you can bet they will sink more money into it - they aren't simply going to yank the plug and walk away on such a recent and massive investment. It's why they are keeping Warhammer going while they work out what to do.

F2P incurs little or no additional cost beyond initial development costs that a game already does not incur on Subscription based Titles. F2P or Subscription once the system is in place the development costs going forward from release of it's model are going to be pretty much the same.

F2P changes or adds to how money is collected from players.

F2P does not address most of the numerous reasons for why many people have left UO.

F2P does not address people who got bored or pissed over things like Tram, Pub 16, AOS, the client problems, EA's reluctance to seriously update UO with modern graphics, people getting older, changing tastes etc., etc.

If you don't address some of the reasons why people have actually left over the years, then the problems you have now are still going to exist, regardless of how money is collected from players.

 

[Santa Claus]

F2P does not adress people who already tried it.
F2P is an incentive for people to try the game.

You know the biggest hurdle to gain customers is a fixed fee. Why try a game if you have to pay a monthly fee anyway most people think.

Every business needs new customers. Fail to do that and the business declines and fails in the end.

Other possibility though would be to raise fees to $20 and hand out some free stuff with it.
Risky but might work too. Gains could offset the losses too, depending on the addiction grade of the customers.

 

[Woodsman]

Do you think that if they tried the trial account, that they couldn't figure out within 2 weeks whether or not they would want to upgrade to a full subscription, and if so, what would you change with the trial to improve that?

 

[Mongbat137]

The subscription MMO model is fine and healthy. Multiple subscription games converting to F2P and then boasting double, triple, quintuple income means nothing. The CEO of EA bragging about how awesome "freemium" is at conferences means nothing.

Every subscription MMO of the last five years has flopped, but only because every one of them was bad. None of them would have made any more money as F2P games. Except the ones that did convert to F2P and tripled their money. But those don't count for some reason.

Uh huh. You have fun with your little opinion there, dinosaur. I'll enjoy watching the real world pass you by.

 

[Woodsman]

The CEO and other top executives of EA also stated in their last financial call that they are going to focus EA on ""fewer, better, bigger" titles, and UO does not fit into that scheme, especially when you look at EA's upcoming releases - it appears they are already fully invested in the "fewer, better, bigger" plan. I would be more concerned about what EA executives say to investors on their financial calls than what they say at any conferences, because those financial calls with investors lay out the actual plans that EA are going with.

The bigger problem with any talk of F2P or subscription schemes is that UO is not in a position to really bring in a lot of new players, no matter what scheme is in place.

If UO were a boat, it'd have a small leak in it, and we'd have a 5-gallon bucket that has "subscriptions" printed on it that we were using to bail the water.

F2P fans would be suggesting that we use three 2-gallon buckets to bail the water out instead.

Both sides would be arguing over who was bailing the water faster, but neither side addresses why the water is actually there in the first place.

Meanwhile the SS Star Wars is lurking over the horizon, with the ability to easily drag UO and DAOC down with it if it sinks. I'd feel a whole lot better about the Star Wars thing if the hole in the SS Ultima Online was patched up with a strong commitment for the future and powered by modern graphics/artwork.

 

[RaDian FlGith]

And at the same time we see a strong urging from a portion of UO's player base for a Classic Shard, one that would be stagnate simply because of it's definition. And honestly the F2P games I'm involved with don't do much more than UO in terms of content update, what they do though is focus more on balanced player experience, and eradication of bugs.

Well, look, as far as a Classic Shard goes, the realistic advocates of a Classic Shard know that they'd never be happy with a bug-free Classic Shard, that they would, indeed, expect content updates. Those advocates have, in fact, said they just want to see UO develop from a different point and move forward in a different manner that more closely resembles the Classic Shard play experience. And, in a more perfect UO world, that'd be a wonderful option.

As far as the F2P games you play that aren't adding anything, just focusing on balance and bug fixes, they won't be around long. No one's going to play the same thing over and over and over and over without any additions, and certainly, if the game is "free" and offers nothing new to sell to you, they aren't even in the "F2P" model.

You're pretty much comparing oranges with orangutans there.

 

[RaDian FlGith]

Of course if you control housing through subscriptions, which is the current system that we already have in place, then it is no longer F2P, it's a trial account without any time restrictions and just like a trial count, it can't take advantage of housing.

Well, except, really, we control the entire game through subscriptions. There isn't a "free" model. Trial accounts are a taste of the game, not something you could play indefinitely. A true F2P game doesn't give you a trial, they actually give you enough to get you into permanent gameplay mindset, and then tries to sell you stuff to make your experience more enjoyable.

After thinking about it and after reading your post and some others, a baseline subscription is useless. If your money problems are such that you can afford an $8 baseline, but not a $13 full (or $10 by the half-year option), then your money problems are serious enough to warrant saving the $8 and playing on a free shard.

It's not really about being able to afford a subscription. It's more about whether or not you could, by virtue of reducing the "subscription rate," actually increase the money that comes into the revenue stream.

It's not going to grow back to 100k or more because of F2P.

By itself, no. But that's why I specified "well executed," and have made other caveats about how the game would have to be fixed before an F2P model could even be considered. I'll be completely honest here, there's no way that UO could even consider going F2P without EA writing a huge check to Mythic, saying, "Increase the size of your development team," and pouring some serious money into the game before relaunching it in an F2P environment.

Trouble is, given things like UO:KR, the EC, and UO:HS, EA's probably unlikely to bankroll anymore UO experiments. It would be nice if they would, but honestly, my hope isn't exactly soaring on that.

So many people left because of reasons that cannot be fixed by F2P. People getting pissed at UO:R/Tram, people getting pissed at Pub 16/AOS, people getting older, people starting families, people playing UO because it was the only game in town for a few years until an MMORPG came along that suited them, people that followed their friends to other MMORPGs, people that wanted fancier/more modern MMORPGs, the list goes on and on.

Well, okay, we can conjecture ad nauseum about why people left... factually, we know that UO:R brought in more people than it lost, sure, some left over AoS, and yeah, the game is old. All of these things could be addressed in the form of updating and bringing the game back up to speed.

That's one of several reasons why I think comparisons to DDO or LOTR are so ********. UO has been around for so much longer, that the majority of reasons for why people left are nowhere close to being the reasons why people were bailing on DDO/LOTR.

Well, here's the thing... UO has been around for 13 years, and while I suspect that if LotR continues to be well executed, it'll be around for awhile, I don't see DDO as a long-lasting title. It would have been had they chosen Dragonlance or Forgotten Realms. Instead, they chose Eberron. Silly, silly idea for a long-lasting MMO... and the experience... well... I'll just say that I don't see it lasting.

But on the counterpoint of all of this, UO's not dead yet, and with a modern client (remember, client and server technology are different, and you can always update a client with little to no interference in server function... you just, you know, sort of have to do it better than it's been done for UO), some serious bug fixing, some streamlining, a REAL new player experience and so forth, UO could be brought back into competition with some of the more contemporary MMOs. It would never become a WoW killer, but if UO suddenly got 250k or more subscribers, would EA continue to invest in it? Absolutely.

It's also one of the reasons why I think that talking about freesharders is pointless when it comes to F2P - those people left because they were pissed at EA for one reason or another, and F2P doesn't revert UO back to a time before whatever decision EA made that pissed them off. A classic shard might, but a classic shard is a completely different topic than F2P, and does not require F2P.

Just go investigate the whole freeshard set. Even amongst free shards, the Classic ruleset, or even the pre-AoS ruleset isn't dominant. Truly, it's dominated by people who (1) wanted to try to develop something different using UO as a base, people who just don't feel like paying for UO, people who want to develop their own game worlds using UO's engine, and so forth. Freesharders aren't going to come pouring back by the droves, no, but on the other hand, I think some would return to the right environment.

Those people are also playing fully functional versions of UO, and a F2P system is basically asking them to start playing a stripped down version of official UO versus the fully functional version they have on a free shard.

Frequently-crashing, altered versions of UO in most cases, but they're probably happy with what they're playing. Make no mistake, if EA wanted to ever drive those folks back to UO, they'd have to go after the freeshard market. That would have its own double-edged ramifications though.

UO is still going to be the same UO and the reasons for why they left UO for free shardsd are still going to exist.

True. Which is why UO needs to start being innovative again. Yeah, the freesharders might take the ideas and implement them into their own versions, but that would take time. If UO was suddenly back on the cutting edge of its own development instead of lagging years behind what people have managed to do in their spare time, it might be a different equation.

13 years is a long time - as you yourself pointed out, 3 months is considered a long time for console games. During that time, there are just too many reasons for people leaving, that F2P can't even come close to addressing them.

F2P wouldn't be simply about bringing old customers back, though, if EA put out a quality revamp of UO (by quality, I mean not the KR/EC mistakes of recent years, but quality, finished products), they could certainly draw old customers back to see what it was all about, and if it was well done and quality, some might even stay. However, a modernization and streamlining of UO's interfaces and client COULD bring new players. Earlier in this thread someone showed some of the F2P stuff going on that for some reason they didn't consider to be "modern" graphics... and yet, those graphics are far above what either client presently produces. A good looking, easy to understand UO would certainly be more appealing to even new players.

And while on the one hand, I don't believe that EA/Mythic is capable of doing this, I think in the right hands, UO -- without wiping servers and starting everyone anew -- could have a rebirth that WOULD attract new players and new revenue. I just don't think that EA/Mythic has the understanding or drive to accomplish it.

This to me is far more important than any talk of F2P, because modernizing UO would actually address some reasons for why people left.

Not really... I'd say very few people ever left UO over the graphics. Stagnancy or sudden, wide-swathing rules changes, yes. Buggy releases that took forever to fix, a much larger yes. However, I think fixes, content, AND a modern client would be a nice package to "sell" to old customers and new ones alike.

EA would need to address more of the reasons for why people have left, long before they consider an F2P system, because if those reasons aren't addressed, we'll be having the same discussions that we've been having for years.

Well, like I say, I don't think EA will ever have the foresight (much less the hindsight) to figure out how to do this right, so this is all theoretical banter at present.

 

[Restroom Cowboy]

L.O.R.D. wasn't free to play - somebody (BBS sysop) had to pay Seth Robinson a license for it to run on the BBS.

It was popular though, and there were some pretty cool things done with it, both free and paid.

Free to play...not free to serve.

Yeah...good simple game. Kept you coming back for me.

 

[RaDian FlGith]

The subscription MMO model is fine and healthy. Multiple subscription games converting to F2P and then boasting double, triple, quintuple income means nothing. The CEO of EA bragging about how awesome "freemium" is at conferences means nothing.

Okay, first off, there is plenty of proof in the world that the subscription-based model is doing just fine. Are there reasons to consider F2P over subscription-based? Absolutely. Is one of those reasons "because the CEO of EA has suddenly picked up pompoms and is extolling its virtues?" Absolutely not. I mean, come on, EVERY EA MMO OF THE PAST 13 YEARS, with the exception of Ultima Online, HAS FAILED. If you believe those failures are because of the subscription models, you're sort of in the dark on the real reasons.

Every subscription MMO of the last five years has flopped, but only because every one of them was bad. None of them would have made any more money as F2P games. Except the ones that did convert to F2P and tripled their money. But those don't count for some reason.

Well, since you have some strange insight into this, please, give me the figures that show that DDO and LotR are doing as well today as they were within a month of going F2P.

Uh huh. You have fun with your little opinion there, dinosaur. I'll enjoy watching the real world pass you by.

Yes, yes... I forgot... you clearly have knowledge that none of the rest of the world has. And, you know what's more ironic? I've spent several posts here stating how and why the F2P market does work and could work with regard to UO.

The idea you can't seem to grasp is that the subscription model isn't going to make or break a game. It is, in fact, about the gameplay experience and where that game lies within the genre that it fits into. If someone else were to release a game almost identical to World of Warcraft and make it F2P, it still wouldn't do as well as WoW unless the team behind it had the standards of quality and execution that Blizzard has. You can point and laugh and call me a dinosaur all you want, it won't change the basic truth of the issue.