UO Could Go Free to Play

[JC the Builder]

All these MMOs and phone games that you have to pay money to get currency and speed up tasks, those are not fun. But if done correctly, almost nothing would change with how UO is played.

The day before Age of Shadows was released the developers said approximately 48% of game accounts owned a house. Some time after it was said 98% of accounts had a house. So basically every account owns a house.

So all the developers have to do is enable Return to Britannia permanently. Paying accounts are allowed to place and own a house, free accounts do not. Also free accounts would not earn time towards veteran rewards. It is so simple and all the tools already exist since they do the Return to Britannia promotion every year.

This could go a long way to drawing in more casual players and work better at getting veterans to return.

 

[Lythos-]

This could work with one condition. Do not allow free accounts to be friended or co-owned to currently placed housing. This way people couldn't abuse the system by having multiple accounts running out of the same house.

 

[Uriah Heep]

This could work with one condition. Do not allow free accounts to be friended or co-owned to currently placed housing. This way people couldn't abuse the system by having multiple accounts running out of the same house.

LOL I doubt that would be a problem, most people running multiple accounts are doing it FOR the housing, and just playing one account

 

[old gypsy]

I don't know. Some long-term players who are tired of collecting (and storing) stuff and really only remain for the occasional role play might decide to try going houseless for a while. It might be a risky change to the game.

 

[Lythos-]

LOL I doubt that would be a problem, most people running multiple accounts are doing it FOR the housing, and just playing one account

See I'm the exact opposite. I don't collect anything I can't use and I run 2 accounts out of the same house.

 

[NBG]

What if people start to use mule accounts for free storage instead of paying for a house? UO would flat line pretty quick.

 

[old gypsy]

What if people start to use mule accounts for free storage instead of paying for a house? UO would flat line pretty quick.

The storage would be very limited for each non-paying account; but many players running numerous free accounts (presumably with a darn good spreadsheet) could mess up the proposed system considerably.

 

[cazador]

I mean it's just to get a free taste of the game..not to actually enjoy it's full benefit..bank storage could be limited to 25 items 80 in your pack
You can't
-transfer
-use a house(own,friend,coown)
Use any Stygian abyss items(unless you purchase the expansion)
-farm special resources
-recieve any special items from quests

It's basically a trial account that never expires I suggest these additions
-revamp the test center and make that the only working server for ftp accounts
-only allow them in a chat called Free Chat. To avoid good spammers in general/help chats.

..I'm sure I could think of tons more


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[SpyderBite]

Swtor learned their lesson when they tried something similar. The day of the subscription is over. Trrying to coerce people to pay a monthly subscription does not work. There are far too many games that are free to play to compete with.

Money is in an online store. People will not pay a subscription. But the masses seem to have no problem spending millions in an online store to purchase currency, feature and content unlocks and vanity items. Case in point. I can barely stomach the $14/month for a uo account. It is nearly offensive to me due to the age of the game. However, I have no problem dropping $100-$300 in a month in games such as gw2 or neverwinter. And based on other players I interact with in those games, I am on the frugal side of spenders these days.

While ea may be stubborn about abandoning the antiquated subscription system; the fact is in that today's gamers don't want to be billed monthly for a game they may play casually or even hard core anymore.

Its time to think forward rather than resurrecting ideas to get people to pay for air.

 

[Lug]

Limit the free account to:


One char only on each shard and MUST be a newbie char (pay 2.50 for extra slots - still F2p)

Cant transfer (sub accounts only)

Cant use or be friended to any house (sub accounts only)

Restricted to "free account chat" only (sub accounts only)

Can only use one pet at a time with a pet slot max of two. (pay 2.50 for extra slots - still F2p)

Cant use or have any pets with storage like blue beetles or pack animals. (pay 5.00 for pack animals -still F2p)

Cant use ethy mounts (pay 5.00 to use - still free to play)

Has reduced bank box storage to 60 items (pay 10.00 for max bank storage - still F2p)

Skills are capped at 75 (even with jewelry) (pay 10.00 for skill max of 100 - still F2p)

Cant enter fel (sub accounts only)

Cant use SA items, content, or characters (sub accounts only)


Limit free accounts to this and I'm all for free accounts. If not, keep UO pay to play.

 

[Flagg]

Yeah, for a very long time I've felt UO could be an excellent F2P game. It already has most mechanics of one in use.

Housing could and perhaps should be the only truly necessary paywall. F2P isn't about making the game as unfun as possible to the freeloaders. It is about making it so fun portion of them - wants - to start paying for it. Only restrictions I'd care to see would have to be ones directly related to minimizing hacking and gold spam.

It'll never happen though. Lack of quality in both Clients. Resources available for dev team will make sure of that. People would bot, hack and exploit their arses off. We'd need a new client that doesn't look awful. We'd need PR push never seen since release day of UO around launch of this imaginary F2P. Muscles things such as these would require withered away long, long time ago.

 

[Fogsbane]

I was hoping someone would be posting a transcript of the recent Pacific Developer Meet and Greet
as it was the first time I remember that the idea wasn't immediately outright dismissed and rejected.


from Pacific MAG 2014Dec03 =

[Crystal] Kharisma says: my last question
[Crystal] Kharisma says: might have been addressed already
[Crystal] Kharisma says: are there plans to make gameplay free but if you own a house then charge
[Crystal] Kharisma says: to bring back some population
Mesanna: I would rather not say because nothing is settled
Mesanna: but we hope to be on steam this coming year
Mesanna: with maybe some changes
[Crystal] Kharisma says: that would be lovely...
[Crystal] Kharisma says: I figure though if there are people on here for free
[Crystal] Kharisma says: soon theyw ill make friends
[Crystal] Kharisma says: and want to stay
[Crystal] Kharisma says: then they will pay for a house!
[Crystal] Kharisma says: because you can't resist!
Mesanna: *nods*
[Crystal] Kharisma says: thank you very much for listening and answering my questions
Mesanna: anytime
Mesanna: thank you
Kyronix : Thank you!
[Crystal] Kharisma says: thank you =)
You see: Kharisma



While the majority of mechanics may exist without requiring changing how UO is played, and housing could be the major feature limit considered for free to play access, I would hope for consideration of some kind of major free-to-play isolation beyond game mechanic limits.


Perhaps via a new shard only for ftp,and that only allowed a one-way off-shard-only transfer option,
could help keep any ftp account abuses limited.

 

[Flagg]

While the majority of mechanics may exist without requiring changing how UO is played, and housing could be the major feature limit considered for free to play access, I would hope for consideration of some kind of major free-to-play isolation beyond game mechanic limits.

Naah, It would only serve to remove the most significant benefit of F2P for existing subscribers; fresh new players. This is why most people wanting to see F2P happen are campaigning for it. It would bring some measure of life to the game. Isolating this life to some peasant server wouldn't do anyone any good.

 

[Lord Gareth]

I wouldnt mind F2P and have no problem continuing to pay to own my houses. I mainly play uo to customize an decorate houses so its no big change for me...just more people to sit and admire my low quality house designs

 

[old gypsy]

I'm still not really sure how I feel about free-to-play. In the past I've always dismissed the idea. However, if it would work... rather than watch UO slowly fade away, I'd probably support the idea if it would truly give the game greatly renewed life and many more players (both old and new).

I do think it would have to be a full-blown free-to-play system to work. Not a hybrid as proposed.

 

[Wenchkin]

F2P needs to be done properly rather than restricting it so much that nobody is going to play casually for more than a week. That's just a trial account marketing ploy. Anyone with half a brain looks at the fees and restriction pages before signing up

UO has competitors these days, so it's not operating in some special isolation. The current pricing structure isn't doing it any favours IMO. Even just lowering the subscription would make a difference. But I don't want to see UO slowly trundle towards a preventable demise, because we can't bring ourselves to imagine another way of funding it.

Wenchy

 

[Lythos-]

I'm still not really sure how I feel about free-to-play. In the past I've always dismissed the idea. However, if it would work... rather than watch UO slowly fade away, I'd probably support the idea if it would truly give the game greatly renewed life and many more players (both old and new).

I do think it would have to be a full-blown free-to-play system to work. Not a hybrid as proposed.

Agreed. There's SO many people on free shards. A lot of those shards have a store as well so there would be a great possibility of a new flood of players.

 

[Lug]

There has to be limits. Mainly to safe guard against exploits, hacks, cheats, and even worse perpetual free loaders.

 

[flappy6]

With this they could make new keep and castle designs to fill up the land, I don't mean custom plots I mean new designs . I don't understand why this hasn't been done ,one of the best things this game has is housing .

 

[Smoot]

if UO had gone to a reasonable, well implemented f2p pricing format 5 years ago there would be triple the players and most likely double the money. EA will ride UO into the ground then ditch it rather than taking the slight risk of possible revenue rather slowly decreasing, stagnant revenue of the few players still on official servers.

 

[flappy6]

Adding new things to fight over in felucca would help also .and I don't mean a stupid artifact sword with worthless mods. The random mod artifacts are the best like the travesty mask. And no useless decor items like a tower of skulls ,at least be able to change the skulls into bones or some other usefull item

 

[Aran]

I don't want UO to go free to play. I don't like the sort of people who play F2P games.

 

[old gypsy]

I don't want UO to go free to play. I don't like the sort of people who play F2P games.

I would imagine the "sort of people" who play free-to-play are not a separate species... certainly as diverse a mix as we have now.

 

[Warpig Inc]

Just make TC shard free to play. With the random wipes and restarts of Test Shards. If they like the game, then they might pay2play main shards. People tend not to respect things they don't pay for. Last thing we need is a bunch of players just being able to log in as a passing fancy.

They want to generate funds. Add more bling items to the store. Add nothing that adds to a players ability to fight or get better loot. Why the 10 free enhancements tool is so wrong being sold in the store.

 

[Gidge]

So if I have an account currently and for some reason my subscription fails to renew due to (insert various reasons here) and since it is free to play and I login and it now thinks that I no longer am deciding to pay and my house instantly falls because I am no longer allowed to have one and the bank arbitrarily deletes X number of items because I am over the 25 amount? No thank you.

If you simply don't want to pay, don't play. Pack up your items and give it a rest. We are hounded unmercifully by the idiots that pay as it is. Can you imagine the griefing by those that have no skin in the game?

I just realized Aran and Warpig Inc. are saying the same thing.

What is the point? To just randomly pop in and tell is how wonderful it use to be ages ago before AOS, back in the day when there was only Fel, blah blah.

What would they have access to everything? So all my accounts would be upgraded for free to have access to all lands now even thought I haven't paid for that? Where DO you draw the line.

How about doing what I suggested, advertise. Run a banner program like so many other games do. It can not be that expensive. have players design the banners. I am sure we'd do it for free! Heck I would!

*whew*

 

[Uriah Heep]

Promoting a crippled version of the game, I don't think, will draw many players, we already have that, the free trial, the RTB, etc. New player come in to F2P to try the game out, has to spend however much time working skills up to even be able to play, they willl get bored pretty quick and move on IMO unless they have access to the things that make UO NOT just another F2P game.

 

[Aran]

I would imagine the "sort of people" who play free-to-play are not a separate species... certainly as diverse a mix as we have now.

Well you'd be wrong.

 

[The Craftsman]

Well you'd be wrong.

Maybe the F2P people dont want to come to a game where the pay to play players have moronic prejudices and a pretentious attitude that because they play a monthly fee then they are better than those that pay micropayments?

 

[The Craftsman]

if UO had gone to a reasonable, well implemented f2p pricing format 5 years ago there would be triple the players and most likely double the money. EA will ride UO into the ground then ditch it rather than taking the slight risk of possible revenue rather slowly decreasing, stagnant revenue of the few players still on official servers.

This. EA could increase the active player base and revenue if they put in a little time and effort to come up with a tiered pricing model from free to full price and everything in between, including micropayments. Its the only way to save the game. They have no interest in doing so however and will continue to simply milk the current players dry whilst offering little in the way of updates or support, while using the profits to fund other ventures. When the subs fall to a level which mean it isnt worth their while they will simply pull the plug. Sad but true.

On a side note its nice that we can once again discuss these things without getting threads locked or bans instigated. These boards are a lot more free flowing, fair, open and interesting since they kicked the old guard mods with their biases and egos. Nice one stratics.

 

[old gypsy]

Well, it's hard to tell if this one will get locked or not at some point...

Addendum: I personally don't object to UO remaining a paid game. I'm just trying to be open to any possibilities that might bring in more players.

 

[Aran]

Maybe the F2P people dont want to come to a game where the pay to play players have moronic prejudices and a pretentious attitude that because they play a monthly fee then they are better than those that pay micropayments?

Let's hope

 

[popps]

I don't want UO to go free to play. I don't like the sort of people who play F2P games.

I think so too.

Have UO go free to play to have a bunch of players playing for free but annoying the game play of those UO players who actually spend money for their montly fee subscriptions ? NO THANKS !!

As a UO player, I do not feel the need to see the game attract new players at any and all costs, even to the extreme to letting them play for free just to have them "show up in UO".... if anyone wants to play UO, they can already.... just pay for the subscription fee and come play.....

And free to play is not free at all, at least not if one really wants to play competitively. That level of game play can exceed a monthly subscription fee cost, so what is the sense of it ?? Just to open the gates to the game to a bunch of not paying players who might want to get their fun by griefing UO monthly subscription paying players ? NO THANKS, YET ONCE AGAIN !!

 

[Smoot]

I think so too.

Have UO go free to play to have a bunch of players playing for free but annoying the game play of those UO players who actually spend money for their montly fee subscriptions ? NO THANKS !!

As a UO player, I do not feel the need to see the game attract new players at any and all costs, even to the extreme to letting them play for free just to have them "show up in UO".... if anyone wants to play UO, they can already.... just pay for the subscription fee and come play.....

And free to play is not free at all, at least not if one really wants to play competitively. That level of game play can exceed a monthly subscription fee cost, so what is the sense of it ?? Just to open the gates to the game to a bunch of not paying players who might want to get their fun by griefing UO monthly subscription paying players ? NO THANKS, YET ONCE AGAIN !!

so because you dont get along with the 14 - 18 year old crowd that could pump much needed live into the game youd rather see a slow death?

and of course free to play isnt "free" it might bring in 100 players to check out the game, 1 of which actually stays and makes a home here. I dunno about you but i would glady see an influx of players looking for fun that might acutally populate some of the shards again, even if the majority of them probably will just be passing thru.

 

[Lug]

so because you dont get along with the 14 - 18 year old crowd that could pump much needed live into the game youd rather see a slow death?

Ok now I'm totally against the idea of F2p! lol

 

[popps]

Just make TC shard free to play. With the random wipes and restarts of Test Shards. If they like the game, then they might pay2play main shards. People tend not to respect things they don't pay for. Last thing we need is a bunch of players just being able to log in as a passing fancy.

This is a compromise I might possibly agree with, as long as the "free to play" would be STRICTLY limited to the Test Server AND THAT ONE SERVER ONLY.

To play on any other server the monthly subscription fee should be a non-discussable requirement, period.

They want to generate funds. Add more bling items to the store. Add nothing that adds to a players ability to fight or get better loot. Why the 10 free enhancements tool is so wrong being sold in the store.

Agreed here, also.

Add more items to the store to generate more revenues or simply bring back on the list of purchaseable codes items which were purchaseable in the past. For example, there used to be an item code that was purchaseable, the Smuggler's Edge code http://www.uoguide.com/Smuggler's_Edge, then it vanished from the list of purchaseable codes.
I wanted to buy it, and from time to time I read of other players who may have wanted to buy one but not being the code available for purchase, it is not possible and this becomes lost revenues for UO.

 

[Aran]

so because you dont get along with the 14 - 18 year old crowd that could pump much needed live into the game youd rather see a slow death?

Yes

 

[Smoot]

Ok now I'm totally against the idea of F2p! lol

lol yes i guess no need to razzle up the geriatric home Let us and UO DIE IN PEACE!

 

[old gypsy]

lol yes i guess no need to razzle up the geriatric home Let us and UO DIE IN PEACE!

*cough*

 

[popps]

so because you dont get along with the 14 - 18 year old crowd that could pump much needed live into the game youd rather see a slow death?

Add life into the game for what ? At the risk of annoying and griefing the game play of many of those UO customers who actually pay a subscription fee to play?

Add life into the game for what ? To have new players to sell to the UO pixels that I may have accumulated in my bank secures and boxes to ?

No thanks, not at the expense of my game play.........

I'd rather way, but WAY prefer not to have a bunch of griefing non paying players to come bug paying players and have my secures/bank boxes explode with the UO pixels I may have accumulated rather then the other way around.

I do not feel compelled to have to have new players to sell my UO pixels to. Not when this might have a high risk to hurt my gameplay.

and of course free to play isnt "free" it might bring in 100 players to check out the game, 1 of which actually stays and makes a home here. I dunno about you but i would glady see an influx of players looking for fun that might acutally populate some of the shards again, even if the majority of them probably will just be passing thru.

To this purpose, then the idea to make the TEST SERVER (and that one server ONLY) free to play might suffice.
If they try that out and like it, then they can well pay for a monthly subscription to play on regular servers.

 

[old gypsy]

I guess I understand someone worrying about others interfering with their game play... bothered me a lot back in '98, '99, etc. - when UO had so many active players.

 

[popps]

I guess I understand someone worrying about others interfering with their game play... bothered me a lot back in '98, '99, etc. - when UO had so many active players.

Just imagine, how high the odds would be if the griefers could come to UO at will and grief the monthly subscription fee paying players, for free, thanking to UO going (wrongly, IMHO) free to play....

 

[Aran]

Just imagine, how high the odds would be if the griefers could come to UO at will and grief the monthly subscription fee paying players, for free, thanking to UO going (wrongly, IMHO) free to play....

I guess, to be fair, there are plenty of people who pay a monthly fee and actively grief the elderly denizens of UO as it is.

 

[popps]

I guess, to be fair, there are plenty of people who pay a monthly fee and actively grief the elderly denizens of UO as it is.

Indeed, but my concern is that if UO went free to play, the problem would get way, but WAAAY worse......... NO THANKS.

 

[old gypsy]

I sense that my attempt at a bit of subtle humor was not quite successful. Goodnight all.

 

[Smoot]

GET OFF MY LAWN

 

[Mirt]

I think it would be a great idea to allow full free to play as long as they cannot have houses. Getting more players in would boost the economy and add folks to interact with. Yes some people might drop a house but I for one would be willing to pay a higher subscription fee if there was a healthy player base. That being said I do think that having some facet limitations might be a good idea. Maybe limiting insurance and limiting all f2p accounts to fel would be a good idea. It would give them a free crash course in the early beginnings of the game and place the population back in the game that made fel successful. Houses mean a lot to most players so I suspect very few accounts would leave and if the new f2p folks are in fel how many people would give up their houses and move there to friend and co-own them?

A healthier player base in the end would make the game more fun for all of us, and any of those worried those that pay a subscription would be like lords to the f2p peasants. Back in the day I remember people would pay rent to house owners for a chest and a place to log out, it might be fun to bring that back.

 

[azmodanb]

Im all for it if done right. IE limit to no housing.. no vendor.. no vet rewards..

Limited bank boxes and char amounts won't stop anything.. when you can just make another char.

Limiting skill points .. why? No one will bother. 75.0 80. 90. GM? where is the cut off.. most "core" skills are worthless if not 120. GM is not what It used to be.

Limiting to TC .. im not a fan. Who cares of they bring life to a dead or dying shard.

Griefers ¿??? they never bothered me.. i play UO because you can grief.. you can do things in game you can't in others. Even though the UO of now is very babied down compared to the freedom it once had.

In my opinion just removing housing.. and vendors.. and adding an in game and or beefing up the online store would probably bring alot of money to the game.

Longer UO is around the longer I get to play it. Change is good if thought out.. of course my answer to the previous question....

Would I rather see UO slowly die out.. OR??

My answer is OR.. as long as its discussed.. and thought out. and not just tossed out there.. on a whim.

Hope everyone is having a great new year!

 

[old gypsy]

GET OFF MY LAWN

*quickly packs up sleeping bag, grabs dentures from Smoot's water barrel... skulks off to find another spot to sleep*

 

[Lug]

GET OFF MY LAWN

*plays on smoots lawn* Weeeeeeee!

 

[Lady Michelle]

What if people start to use mule accounts for free storage instead of paying for a house? UO would flat line pretty quick.

simple counts like return to brit if open for free permanently will only be allowed to access the first character on the account only. Other characters will be there you will be locked out with no access til the account is payed for in full with a subscription of your choice.

 

[azmodanb]

simple counts like return to brit if open for free permanently will only be allowed to access the first character on the account only. Other characters will be there you will be locked out with no access til the account is payed for in full with a subscription of your choice.

*opens five accounts for five chars*