UO Could Go Free to Play

[Lug]

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 skill points is to hinder the many types of bots that will come with f2p. Skill bots, resource bots, heal bots, pvm gold bots all need higher skills to function. By limiting the free accounts skills you are limiting what bots can do. Sure there are bots in UO right now, but at lest they are supporting the game by paying a monthly fee. They way I see it, if you going to bot at lest support the game in the process.

 

[Lythos-]

Limiting skill points is to hinder the many types of bots that will come with f2p. Skill bots, resource bots, heal bots, pvm gold bots all need higher skills to function. By limiting the free accounts skills you are limiting what bots can do. Sure there are bots in UO right now, but at lest they are supporting the game by paying a monthly fee. They way I see it, if you going to bot at lest support the game in the process.

You're making a blind assumption about bots. Every freeshard I've ever played have been more stern against botting than EA when it comes to anything other than working skills. Some of the free shards sell our equal to a mythic token which is what most do since they want to get playing asap. The players that come back would most likely do this (for multiple characters too) which would indeed support the game.

You're concerned with people coming to bot a profit. Reasonable reaction but if the profit margin was there then we'd still be flooded with people, which we are not. Having some form of F2P will attract those that have played in the past and still want to play but no long want to pay for it. The bigger freeshards have hundreds of players. I personally have no idea or input on how to do it but if it would double or triple our population then I'd be rather happy about that.

 

[Lady Michelle]

*opens five accounts for five chars*

I see this free to play for players who do not care to have housing etc etc all they want to do is PvP and live out of their bank boxes.
Players who want housing etc etc will pay for it.
lol so if ya want to open 5 accounts go for it.

 

[popps]

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?

Back in the days, the creation of Trammel saved UO from loosing too many players.

That one may like it or not, there is many UO players who do not want to have anything to do with Felucca facet and ruleset.

Now, where the free2play players limited to Felucca only, I already imagine the problems arising for trades in between players who only play Trammel and free2play players who could not access Trammel, period.

Better not mess with it, IMHO, I think that a better compromise is just opening access to the free2play players to the TEST SERVER and to that ONLY. Want to play on a regular server ? Pay the monthly subscription fee, then......

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.

Well, "if" free2play players were limited to Felucca then their griefing to existing players would be more limited since, because of lesser gear, they could not compete with existing players in fights. I am not sure though how this crash experience would in the end secure many new players to UO in the long run.... And if they are granted access also to Trammel, the risk of having a large inflow of griefers to existing, and monthly paying customers, is very high, IMHO.

Either way, not good solutions, IMHO. The only one compromise that I see possible, as I said, is just opening access to the free2play players to the TEST SERVER and to that ONLY. Want to play on a regular server ? Pay the monthly subscription fee, then......

Being allowed to play on test server can allow all tools to see whether they may or not like to play UO, once that is found out, then if they enjoy playing UO, a monthly subscription would not necessarily be a deterrant, at least as I see it.....

 

[Warpig Inc]

Yes the BS is policed and the TOS is inforced so well now. Think of an in mass influx of F2P players with nothing to loose. Would at least need a bottomless list limit for the chat ignore to start with. Repond and Gargoyle slayers will have to at least count against F2P accounts. They do have 17 years of deaths to catch up on.

 

[Olahorand]

One restriction comes into mind: For FTP-Accounts, if such would come, only allow logging in through the EC. This at least would reduce the abuse of those accounts for IDOC scripting and any other unattended stuff as it stands.

 

[Flagg]

^ I'm betting significant portion of people giving F2P a try are ones with history in UO. Either OSI or Free Shards. This crowd prolly isn't all that eager to have anything to do with EC.
That said, it is a good idea. I'm sure - something - would have to be done to rampart hacking, cheating before implementation of F2P.

 

[The Craftsman]

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....

Dont try to pretend that this situation doesnt already exist in UO. Ive played a lot of MMO's, Many F2P and many P2P. Both types have an eclectic mix of gamers. Both types attract griefers and a-holes. Both types attract good decent people who want to play, have fun and interact with others in a good way.

Having a F2P option and scaled subscriptions would attract players and yes we would get griefers in amongst the good honest players. However this is no different than if UO got its act together, updated the game, advertised the game to the point that it attracted tens of thousands of paying players. Of those tens of thousands of new paying players there would be the same usual portion of griefers and a-holes. UO has them by the handful already.

So ... F2P would simply increase the player base as would updating and advertising the game. The difference is EA would never do the latter, and the former would attract far more players. The only question is do you want UO to be a thriving growing game or a dying game. The current model means it will die. either way it will always have the juvenile griefing a-holes. Dont pretend otherwise.

 

[Gidge]

Okay. I have a simple solution. As I was reading through more of this just now it occurred to me. If there are those of you who genuinely support Free to Play, start with them fixing the store so more than one item can be bought and the codes work and generally getting more items onto the cart. Get the Account Management System to be so simple and perfect every can use it and not have any complaints.

Honestly if you(they EA/Broadsword) can't even get the structure that would support that venture to work 110% of the time then this whole conversation is a dead debate.

Anyone who tries to come back is hit with horrors, anyone who even recently has tried to buy something has been hit with errors. Don't invite someone to a party and not have music or snacks!

I would imagine that if everything was running smooth, not only would we have more players stay who had returned, or tried to return, but maybe a "free to play" would encourage those who did play to come back and get addicted again.

Some system needs to be set in place first though.

 

[The Craftsman]

Okay. I have a simple solution. As I was reading through more of this just now it occurred to me. If there are those of you who genuinely support Free to Play, start with them fixing the store so more than one item can be bought and the codes work and generally getting more items onto the cart. Get the Account Management System to be so simple and perfect every can use it and not have any complaints.

Agreed, but we shouldnt have to get them to do this. Paying customers have the right to this at a bare minimum. Its called customer service. But EA dont do customer service

 

[Gidge]

But EA dont do customer service

EA, but as I said in the housing post. Please separate Bonnie and the Gang "workers" from the BIG BOSSES "EA".

If all we focus our voice on issues like the whos on the flower, we may just get heard!

 

[Wenchkin]

I've played UO alongside F2P for a while now. Griefing, cheating, trash talking etc are all things I associate with UO, not F2P. The F2P game I play most is active and friendly. It made me realise how 'solo-player' my mindset was in UO. It reminds me how UO used to be. Being openly asked to group up into dungeons, having friendly chats with other crafters while gathering resources... Yep, these F2P players are monsters!

You know what I saw F2Pers talking about this morning? What jobs everyone did when they weren't gaming. Not a single curse word... I was shocked. After UO general chat I forgot how to converse without first insisting I'd had relations with someone else's mother. Apparently "hi!" is enough... *scratches head*

Reading this thread, it actually sounds like some UO players are simply intolerant towards any player they feel isn't good enough. It might be directed towards keeping F2Pers out in this thread, but any influx of new players will bring the same mixture you'll get from F2P. We'll see good and bad players from the Steam launch or any promotion of UO. The payment model won't get you a better class of player. All this drama about the evil F2Pers is fiction based on an entirely pessimistic assessment of players you haven't even met yet.

Wenchy

 

[The Craftsman]

EA, but as I said in the housing post. Please separate Bonnie and the Gang "workers" from the BIG BOSSES "EA".

If all we focus our voice on issues like the whos on the flower, we may just get heard!

They are employed to do a job which they do with limited resources. They are employees and whilst Im sure they have a bit of personal pride in their work they are paid to do what they do. They dont do it for any love of the game. They cant make decisions on the future of UO such as on F2P or housing as these have financial implications both on investment and revenue. I dont class having to email one individual in the hope that they will resolve my problem as customer service. Especially when its not resolving the wider problem and it keeps recurring. Its laughable. Bonnie is the face or the corporation whilst the devs are doing their best with limited resources to keep life support going. I dont suppose that working as a programmer on UO is at the top of anyones list of top jobs. It wont be a shining example on any programmers resumé

 

[The Craftsman]

I've played UO alongside F2P for a while now. Griefing, cheating, trash talking etc are all things I associate with UO, not F2P. The F2P game I play most is active and friendly. It made me realise how 'solo-player' my mindset was in UO. It reminds me how UO used to be. Being openly asked to group up into dungeons, having friendly chats with other crafters while gathering resources... Yep, these F2P players are monsters!

You know what I saw F2Pers talking about this morning? What jobs everyone did when they weren't gaming. Not a single curse word... I was shocked. After UO general chat I forgot how to converse without first insisting I'd had relations with someone else's mother. Apparently "hi!" is enough... *scratches head*

Reading this thread, it actually sounds like some UO players are simply intolerant towards any player they feel isn't good enough. It might be directed towards keeping F2Pers out in this thread, but any influx of new players will bring the same mixture you'll get from F2P. We'll see good and bad players from the Steam launch or any promotion of UO. The payment model won't get you a better class of player. All this drama about the evil F2Pers is fiction based on an entirely pessimistic assessment of players you haven't even met yet.

Wenchy

I couldnt agree more with every paragraph you wrote.

 

[old gypsy]

Reading this thread, it actually sounds like some UO players are simply intolerant towards any player they feel isn't good enough. It might be directed towards keeping F2Pers out in this thread, but any influx of new players will bring the same mixture you'll get from F2P. We'll see good and bad players from the Steam launch or any promotion of UO. The payment model won't get you a better class of player. All this drama about the evil F2Pers is fiction based on an entirely pessimistic assessment of players you haven't even met yet.

Wenchy

I'm inclined to agree with that opinion.

 

[Smoot]

One restriction comes into mind: For FTP-Accounts, if such would come, only allow logging in through the EC. This at least would reduce the abuse of those accounts for IDOC scripting and any other unattended stuff as it stands.

all the players i know who would come back if UO were f2p, to check it out, and mess around for a while, maybe stay, would Not play EC. they would want to play what they remembered from the '90s.

 

[The Craftsman]

all the players i know who would come back if UO were f2p, to check it out, and mess around for a while, maybe stay, would Not play EC. they would want to play what they remembered from the '90s.

I think youre right, however the bulk of new players wouldnt come from those that used to play UO. The idea of F2P isnt primarily to bring back ex-players ... its to tap in to the tens possibly hundreds of thousands who have never tried UO but would under a F2P model. Im not saying id prefer a system where the EC was the only F2P option, but if they went down that route it wouldnt put the target audience off.

 

[old gypsy]

I think youre right, however the bulk of new players wouldnt come from those that used to play UO. The idea of F2P isnt primarily to bring back ex-players ... its to tap in to the tens possibly hundreds of thousands who have never tried UO but would under a F2P model. Im not saying id prefer a system where the EC was the only F2P option, but if they went down that route it wouldnt put the target audience off.

Perhaps. But if someone like me (a firm CC fan) wanted to switch to a F2P mode (and spend my dollars on items rather than subscriptions) after so many years of playing, I wouldn't be able to. Under such a client restriction, I would probably rather quit than switch.

 

[The Craftsman]

Perhaps. But if someone like me (a firm CC fan) wanted to switch to a F2P mode (and spend my dollars on items rather than subscriptions) after so many years of playing, I wouldn't be able to. Under such a client restriction, I would probably rather quit than switch.

Likewise. CC for me all the way. You and I are obviously discerning gamers with taste but the EC wouldnt put off the new players who didnt know any better

 

[Smoot]

Likewise. CC for me all the way. You and I are obviously discerning gamers with taste but the EC wouldnt put off the new players who didnt know any better

i dunno, EC in its current state just takes so long to set up. for ftp you want to be able to just jump in and play, i cant really see someone saying "oh whats this game ill try it out" then setting up macros and learning a very complicated / non-intuitive interface for an hour before they can even play.

 

[old gypsy]

Likewise. CC for me all the way. You and I are obviously discerning gamers with taste but the EC wouldnt put off the new players who didnt know any better

It probably wouldn't put off brand-new players, true.

I suppose I'm a rarity among long-term players (since '98) in that (1) I'm not a collector, (2) don't have an overwhelming number of items I couldn't bear to part with, and (3) I would be willing to live out of one large ship if necessary -- although I'd prefer a portable gypsy wagon, of course! I'm a laid-back player and don't log in every day... am primarily interested in a bit of role play when I do. F2P might actually suit me if it was ever implemented... but not if I had to switch to the EC to do it. And truthfully, I'd feel quite disgruntled if I felt I wouldn't have the option just because I wouldn't leave the CC.

 

[old gypsy]

i dunno, EC in its current state just takes so long to set up. for ftp you want to be able to just jump in and play, i cant really see someone saying "oh whats this game ill try it out" then setting up macros and learning a very complicated / non-intuitive interface for an hour before they can even play.

Good point. I hadn't thought about that.

 

[kaio]

Im all in for f2p, but it should be a fair model, and not a super cripped one.
My suggestion is this.

• No Housing
• No Vendors (Can still buy from vendors, just not own any vendors)
• Cant use soulstones.
• Can only access trammel/fel
• Can't use any crafting skills (smith,tailort,imbuing,fletcher,tinkering)
• Can't use lumberjack, mining skill

 

[old gypsy]

Im all in for f2p, but it should be a fair model, and not a super cripped one.
My suggestion is this.

• No Housing
• No Vendors (Can still buy from vendors, just not own any vendors)
• Cant use soulstones.
• Can only access trammel/fel
• Can't use any crafting skills (smith,tailort,imbuing,fletcher,tinkering)
• Can't use lumberjack, mining skill

Quite honestly, with those restrictions, I seriously doubt that very many would stay long. I certainly don't think it would be worth playing, even if it was free.

 

[The Craftsman]

Im all in for f2p, but it should be a fair model, and not a super cripped one.
My suggestion is this.

• No Housing
• No Vendors (Can still buy from vendors, just not own any vendors)
• Cant use soulstones.
• Can only access trammel/fel
• Can't use any crafting skills (smith,tailort,imbuing,fletcher,tinkering)
• Can't use lumberjack, mining skill

Id agree with the first 4 points. I think crafting is a draw for players though so cant see how F2P would be sucessful if you had crafting/gathering restrictions.

Add in:

• Cannot use powerscrolls or stat scrolls (thereby limiting skills to GM)
• Can only use the F2P chat channel
• Can purchase access to other lands for a one of payment

Im sure there are other restrictions that may be required as well as ones that could be unlocked for a one off payment. There are endless opportunities both for income and allowing the game to grow rather than die.

 

[old gypsy]

I'm starting to rethink the entire premise, and having second thoughts about how on earth it could work. We have a persistent group of long-term players who have accumulated untold numbers of valuables, items and houses over the years. This combined wealth has created a very inflated economy. These players have also developed, over a considerable length of time, many characters with an astounding array of skills.

How does UO invite in brand-new players by offering free play, while greatly restricting their ability to participate fully in a game that requires an extensive time investment just to learn how to play? Most people have busy lives and only so much time to devote to an online game, and a game as complex as UO has become is not something a player can learn in a few hours or days. They might stick around if they can fully participate, but I doubt too many will invest the time if many of the restrictions proposed so far are laid on them.

I think I'm returning to square-one -- I think we need to either (1) pay to play, or (2) play for free and just pay for housing or new shiny pixels as they're made available. Now I shall depart to find my aspirin...

 

[Flagg]

How does UO invite in brand-new players by offering free play, while greatly restricting their ability to participate fully in a game that requires an extensive time investment just to learn how to play? Most people have busy lives and only so much time to devote to an online game, and a game as complex as UO has become is not something a player can learn in a few hours or days. They might stick around if they can fully participate, but I doubt too many will invest the time if many of the restrictions proposed so far are laid on them.

Largely remove gaining skills as a factor. Keep crafting and select few utility skills as something you have to grind. Besides that, just give everybody either free or cheap access to any and all GM or even 120 skills. Specially ones that are PvP oriented. Do something about the gear cap while at it. Mostly, it takes paragon level creature of habit with 120 skill in Nostalgy to roll a new char and have fun while leveling about.

When Elder Scrolls Online or Wildstar or some such goes F2P, they target people who have never tried the game before. When UO goes F2P, they'd target old vets and vast, vast, vaast crowds of non-OSI.

 

[Aran]

Besides that, just give everybody either free or cheap access to any and all GM or even 120 skills. Specially ones that are PvP oriented.

We have that, it's called Test Center.

 

[popps]

So ... F2P would simply increase the player base as would updating and advertising the game. The difference is EA would never do the latter, and the former would attract far more players. The only question is do you want UO to be a thriving growing game or a dying game. The current model means it will die. either way it will always have the juvenile griefing a-holes. Dont pretend otherwise.

I am not sure that free to play will be a good thing for UO.....

Over the years, I have learned that too often quantity and quality do not get along well...... on the contrary, if quality is wanted then more then often if it better not to target high numbers but stay low..... like, quality and quantity do not mix up well..... unfortunately....

So the real question is whether we want UO to be a quality game, with less players but better ones or more players but which rid the game of problems like hacking, griefing, botting, scripting and so on.....

I may well be wrong, but personally, I tend to think that paying to play brings more interest in the game for which one is paying for to play, like it brings in more carefull players and less careless ones......... so to speak, a higher quality UO with less players but of better attitude towards the game....

At least, that is my opinion.

 

[Lug]

You're making a blind assumption about bots. Every freeshard I've ever played have been more stern against botting than EA when it comes to anything other than working skills. Some of the free shards sell our equal to a mythic token which is what most do since they want to get playing asap. The players that come back would most likely do this (for multiple characters too) which would indeed support the game..

You're smoking crack to think returning players that come back to UO will "most likely do this (buy a mythic token)" over simply downloading a script to train skills - talk about making blind assumptions. Downloading scripts to train skills, especially in the pvp circles, is the NORM. It has been for YEARS. You might try to convince the good people here are stratics other wise of that but you and I know differently. Limiting skills on f2p accounts is the ONLY way to combat bots. They can not function with 75 skill in (insert skill). You wont see spawn bots working a spawn with 75 skill I can tell you that much. Same goes for resource bots. Gold bots will be limited to very low end spawn with a limit of 75 skill.

The reason why we don't have more bots is because of the subscripting fee - It is a deterrent for these little wieners. F2p will only attract more of these ding-a-lings if limits and safe guards aren't put in place.

As for f2p stealing people from the free shards - keep dreaming. If you ever played on a free shard you'll know a lot those people will never come back to EA owned UO shards. Never.

 

[Uriah Heep]

@popps ;

The quality vs Quantity argument doesn't really hold up in this case. The cold hard facts are you have a dev team of 4...yes, those in the video were all of them. UO is what it is, what you see is all you're ever gonna have (other than maybe a trinket pub once in a while).

And F2P won't change that either, I don't think. It might populate a few shards a little bit, but I think the F2P'ers will move on, it will just be a churn of leaving and coming, with no real appreciable "healthy" increase in population. So you have to ask yourselves, do you want all that dev time and support (quit laughing!) time going into making that changeover to F2P, or would you rather a bit of advertise what we have and take a shot at some real, meaningful bug fixes, not fluff stuff.

It's all just this redneck's opinion, nothing to back it up except gut feeling and history...

 

[old gypsy]

@popps ;

The quality vs Quantity argument doesn't really hold up in this case. The cold hard facts are you have a dev team of 4...yes, those in the video were all of them. UO is what it is, what you see is all you're ever gonna have (other than maybe a trinket pub once in a while).

And F2P won't change that either, I don't think. It might populate a few shards a little bit, but I think the F2P'ers will move on, it will just be a churn of leaving and coming, with no real appreciable "healthy" increase in population. So you have to ask yourselves, do you want all that dev time and support (quit laughing!) time going into making that changeover to F2P, or would you rather a bit of advertise what we have and take a shot at some real, meaningful bug fixes, not fluff stuff.

It's all just this redneck's opinion, nothing to back it up except gut feeling and history...

All our collective speculations are probably moot anyway. I don't think we'll ever see an expansion of the Dev team - aka skeleton crew.

 

[Lythos-]

You're smoking crack to think returning players that come back to UO will "most likely do this (buy a mythic token)" over simply downloading a script to train skills - talk about making blind assumptions. Downloading scripts to train skills, especially in the pvp circles, is the NORM. It has been for YEARS. You might try to convince the good people here are stratics other wise of that but you and I know differently. Limiting skills on f2p accounts is the ONLY way to combat bots. They can not function with 75 skill in (insert skill). You wont see spawn bots working a spawn with 75 skill I can tell you that much. Same goes for resource bots. Gold bots will be limited to very low end spawn with a limit of 75 skill.

The reason why we don't have more bots is because of the subscripting fee - It is a deterrent for these little wieners. F2p will only attract more of these ding-a-lings if limits and safe guards aren't put in place.

As for f2p stealing people from the free shards - keep dreaming. If you ever played on a free shard you'll know a lot those people will never come back to EA owned UO shards. Never.

Only PvP circles? I'm not sure what magical land you play in but scripting is used more in Tram than by pvpers. If you still want to debate that then head over to the site and see for yourself what scripts are available. Macroing skills is widely used by players of both facets.

Yes, I'm established on a few freeshards and I've bought the skills even though I was allowed to script the skill just to save time and be able to play immediately. If there wasn't a market for ready skills they wouldn't be available.

Back on topic, nobody is going to play at that big of a disadvantage. No new player, no old player. You might as well just advertise for other games. The whole idea of F2P is to 1: compete with the game market and 2: to attract players old and new. There's more chance at luring an old player back than a new one.

It would be worth a shot to gain any kind of population and like I said before I'm not sure how it could be done. I do know what you suggested is down right ludicrous to leave players in a perma noobie state.

 

[Lug]

Your right it would be ludicrous to leave players in a perma noobie state. Go to post #10 of this thread. its thrown together in less then a few minutes so it was a very rough draft (im not going to waste my time updating it as it is clear it isn't a very popular idea. Everyone wants FREE UO - I got it).

There are a few ways for a players f2p account to get skills bumped up to 100. A one time payment of 10 dollars. the account is still free to play. Want full 120, then become a monthly subscriber to the game. Its nota game breaker in my eyes.

Its free to play, you just have to pay a little money to get full access. To me that little cost might keep some of the riffraff out. The point of f2p is for EA/BS to make some money that could be used to sustain or maybe even improve the game.

 

[Flagg]

We have that, it's called Test Center.

and it is called Test Center for a reason. I'm sure we both can think of like five million reasons why idea of coming to UO focusing heavily on playing and PvPing on TEST CENTER out of all places sounds ridiculous and irrational to potential new/returning player. That is, to people who aren't already so deep in UO that they have already begun carving their own niche playstyle around something or another.

 

[The Craftsman]

We have that, it's called Test Center.

Really? You do understand the premise of F2P dont you? Its to generate additional revenue through micropayments rather than the subscription model. Players are hardly going to spend cash on items or account upgrades that will get wiped are they. The whole point of F2P isnt to just allow tens of thousands of new players to run around for free, its to get them buying into the game through micropayments hopefully to the point where they want a house and pay for a full account. This game needs players to survive.

There is always the option of opening a new shard (or a few regionally) where F2P players can play. Restrict them only to F2P shards and keep production shards as they are. Also give P2P players the option to play these shards too (starting anew, no transfers) ... Im sure many would relish a new start and a shard with a large population to interact with, There would be countless opportunities for setting up shops (the F2P population cant place houses), RP, guilds etc

Another option would be to trial it onto a few low population shards such as Origin, Oceana, Drach, Airang to try to breath some new life into them.

 

[kaio]

Id agree with the first 4 points. I think crafting is a draw for players though so cant see how F2P would be sucessful if you had crafting/gathering restrictions.

Add in:

• Cannot use powerscrolls or stat scrolls (thereby limiting skills to GM)
• Can only use the F2P chat channel
• Can purchase access to other lands for a one of payment

Im sure there are other restrictions that may be required as well as ones that could be unlocked for a one off payment. There are endless opportunities both for income and allowing the game to grow rather than die.

Expansion packs pursuades should open for new land masses, thats a good idea

The Reason why i dont want crafting/resource gathering avaiable in the f2p model is to reduce the impact on the economy.
By all means lets have no skill restrictions.
Let people train all the skills they want, let people pvp.
Lets bring UO back to live.

 

[FrejaSP]

Limit the free account to:

I have a few comments to your ideas. I would like it to work both for inactive accounts as well as new F2P accounts.

- One char only on each shard and MUST be a newbie char (pay 2.50 for extra slots - still F2p)
If account go inactive, they get to choose what slot to keep active, it will take 30 days to changes active slot. Extra slots can activates 2.50 for a month

- Cant transfer (sub accounts only)
Agree

- Cant use or be friended to any house (sub accounts only)
I don't mind friending as the use a paid accounts storage. But can't access houses on inactive accounts, no one should be able to access a house on an inactive account other than maybe the first 2 weeks it is inactive. It should give a warning to friends, that it will go inactive in x days.

- Restricted to "free account chat" only (sub accounts only)
As long sub accounts can use the free chat too, Allow sub account to be in 2 chat at same time

- Can only use one pet at a time with a pet slot max of two. (pay 2.50 for extra slots - still F2p)
Seem ok to me. Can only access 2 stable slot

- Cant use or have any pets with storage like blue beetles or pack animals. (pay 5.00 for pack animals -still F2p)
I think pack horse/llama should be ok as they can't logout with them loaded. If they loss connection, pack animal will go wild after 15 min

- Cant use ethy mounts (pay 5.00 to use - still free to play)
Agree, same with dye tubs from Vet rewards and vet rewards that gives resources.

- Has reduced bank box storage to 60 items (pay 10.00 for max bank storage - still F2p)
This won't work as the account may be an inactive account but if they do have more than 125 items in bank, they have to remove some to get down to 125 items before they can add to piles.

- Skills are capped at 75 (even with jewelry) (pay 10.00 for skill max of 100 - still F2p)
Won't work for inactive accounts, rather make it so any skill points past 100 will be ignoreret = no bonus for them and they can't use soulstones, eat power scrolls, stats, pink or blue scrolls. all stars past 100 will also be ignored

- Cant enter fel (sub accounts only)
Let them enter Fel, Malas and Ilshenar, no other lands, we do have returning PvP players too

- Cant use SA items, content, or characters (sub accounts only)
I would say, can't use item insurance, that will limit them

 

[old gypsy]

- One char only on each shard and MUST be a newbie char (pay 2.50 for extra slots - still F2p)
If account go inactive, they get to choose what slot to keep active, it will take 30 days to changes active slot. Extra slots can activates 2.50 for a month.

I like that sort of limit, although I'd only allow one or two extra slots max. (I've always thought we had too many character slots.)

 

[Warpig Inc]

Makes no difference. Sub or F2P. Wont matter either model if more players are brought in or a sucker store for F2P players can get SWAG. Any greater ammount of funds generated will be treated as it always has. They will only spend X ammount on UO and all the extra funds gets tossed at other projects not UO related. That excess being 10K or 10mil they treat the game as a tech device. No matter how well a game does, EA gives no reach arounds. Reason UO is in the state it is in now. They didn't feed the UO monster as it grew and gave it a proper brush down and bath once in a while.

Make sure everyone plays the lottery. The first of us that wins buys out EA for UOs rights.

For the EC makes my eyes cross and my mind explodes. By a new gen TV flatscreen about 32" or greater. Use the VGA cable link. You'll have the huge playing area with all the classic graininess. The choppy action of old dial up play with older less game friendly computer systems. But have all the bells and whistles of EC without the squinting , where the hell that drop in my back, Assist is down again life. Need to replace CC and EC with POV version of UO. Game would be better with a true sneak attact from behind.

 

[old gypsy]

*checks lotto numbers*

 

[popps]

Makes no difference. Sub or F2P. Wont matter either model if more players are brought in or a sucker store for F2P players can get SWAG. Any greater ammount of funds generated will be treated as it always has. They will only spend X ammount on UO and all the extra funds gets tossed at other projects not UO related. That excess being 10K or 10mil they treat the game as a tech device. No matter how well a game does, EA gives no reach arounds. Reason UO is in the state it is in now. They didn't feed the UO monster as it grew and gave it a proper brush down and bath once in a while.

I wonder, how much of the revenues it has generated in its life, have actually gone back into development investments for UO and also, how much of the revenues that Ultima Online currently generates, actually go back into the game through development investment.

I mean, how much would a new expansion cost to be developed ? Perhaps, who knows, if more of the revenues that UO generates were re-invested into the game there would be enough funds to develop a new expansion even with the current revenues that UO generates ?

Because a new expansion, I guess, would attract monthly subscription paying new players....

 

[old gypsy]

I wonder, how much of the revenues it has generated in its life, have actually gone back into development investments for UO and also, how much of the revenues that Ultima Online currently generates, actually go back into the game through development investment....

I've wondered about that. But then a mental image of giving blood usually pops up, and I remember that the blood mobile never gives it back.

 

[The Craftsman]

I wonder, how much of the revenues it has generated in its life, have actually gone back into development investments for UO and also, how much of the revenues that Ultima Online currently generates, actually go back into the game through development investment.

I mean, how much would a new expansion cost to be developed ? Perhaps, who knows, if more of the revenues that UO generates were re-invested into the game there would be enough funds to develop a new expansion even with the current revenues that UO generates ?

Because a new expansion, I guess, would attract monthly subscription paying new players....

Well this is the problem isnt it. EA made a decision some years ago to just let UO wither on the vine. They keep a skeleton staff of devs allocated to the game to keep it ticking over and running. Customer service is close to zero. They will have a subscription number flagged that when the numbers drop to that level then they pull the plug. That may be a few years yet as UO, even with the subs as low as they are now must make enough profit to pay the skeleton staaff and have cash left over which they redirect into other projects. There is no investment back into UO. Hell, the fact that account management is such a nightmare and the EA store is bugged as hell tells you everything. Sometimes you cant even give EA money for UO! If they had any serios intentions for UO then these two things would have been fixed long ago and be simple to use and actually work. All of the time.

This is one of the reasons why we will never see expansion packs like we used to. The player base is too small. If EA were to invest money into additional resources to produce a worthwhile expansion then would they sell enough expansion packs to cover the cost? Possibly but maybe not enough to make it profitable to a level where its worthwhile.

There are only two solutions that I can see, both of which would mean EA reversing their decision on the future of UO. The first would be to allocate additional resources to the game and provide updates and customer service. they would also need to market the game aggresively. This would undoubtedly bring in some new players but in my opinion no amount of updates or marketing is ever going to bring in sufficient numbers to allow the game to grow to the levels it needs to. There simply isnt the appetite to pay a monthly subscription for a game as old as this, with this graphics engine and on top of that expect your paying customers to fork out more cash for expansions. This route will just not bring in the player numbers UO needs to make it a thriving game.

Then theres the F2P option. This is the only thing that will attract players to UO in the numbers required to make the game profitable enough that EA would invest back into the game. Dont underestimate the micropayments MMO market. There are F2P games out there with ten times the number of regular players as UO a large portion of which are prepared to fork out money on a monthly basis through micropayments. Enough so that these games are extremely profitable to the point where the companies involved invest money back in and produce free expansions and updates that at times put UO's expansions to shame. The customer service is also there. UO could go down this route and bring (paying) players into the game which is whats needed on two levels, both of which are the two things an MMO needs, firstly to bring in revenue and secondly to have a thriving player base. The two are of course intrinsically linked.

F2P, if done right, would work and save UO from a slow death. Seperate F2P shards would be a start. There are a plethora of things that could be sold as micropayments to generate income and this model has been proved to work with many games thriving using this model. This would of course as I stated earlier require EA to do a U-turn about UO's future which sadly I dont think will ever happen. They will just let it wither on the vine until they close it down.

 

[Aran]

If it ever truly comes down to F2P or pull the plug, I'll pull the plug myself

 

[The Craftsman]

If it ever truly comes down to F2P or pull the plug, I'll pull the plug myself

We can only hope ...

 

[sablestorm]

What if free to play accounts were stuck in Felucca? It would populate the pvp facet for all those pvpers and anyone trying to take advantages of free accounts for scripting would be subject to being killed by other players. Possibly make insurance be a benefit of having a paid account. Make a Felucca only general chat channel that free accounts are restricted to and ask EMs to do one Fel Event per month, so they can get a taste of events but most events will remain as they are. Keep trial accounts as they are, but warn them once the trial runs out, they will be teleported to and stuck in Felucca like all other free accounts.

The lure to pay for the game is to visit other facets, for housing, and for the safety of the Trammel ruleset.

 

[sablestorm]

Limiting skill points is to hinder the many types of bots that will come with f2p. Skill bots, resource bots, heal bots, pvm gold bots all need higher skills to function. By limiting the free accounts skills you are limiting what bots can do. Sure there are bots in UO right now, but at lest they are supporting the game by paying a monthly fee. They way I see it, if you going to bot at lest support the game in the process.

Problems is, what happens to paying players who have to go inactive for a stretch? Do those characters lose skill and have to be worked up again?

 

[Uriah Heep]

Grandfather in all existing subscriptions. F2P'ers have to buy a token to get skill cap raised, bank box increased, etc. Once done, from either source, make it permanent.

 

[Lug]

I have a few comments to your ideas. I would like it to work both for inactive accounts as well as new F2P accounts.

- One char only on each shard and MUST be a newbie char (pay 2.50 for extra slots - still F2p)
If account go inactive, they get to choose what slot to keep active, it will take 30 days to changes active slot. Extra slots can activates 2.50 for a month

- Cant transfer (sub accounts only)
Agree

- Cant use or be friended to any house (sub accounts only)
I don't mind friending as the use a paid accounts storage. But can't access houses on inactive accounts, no one should be able to access a house on an inactive account other than maybe the first 2 weeks it is inactive. It should give a warning to friends, that it will go inactive in x days.

- Restricted to "free account chat" only (sub accounts only)
As long sub accounts can use the free chat too, Allow sub account to be in 2 chat at same time

- Can only use one pet at a time with a pet slot max of two. (pay 2.50 for extra slots - still F2p)
Seem ok to me. Can only access 2 stable slot

- Cant use or have any pets with storage like blue beetles or pack animals. (pay 5.00 for pack animals -still F2p)
I think pack horse/llama should be ok as they can't logout with them loaded. If they loss connection, pack animal will go wild after 15 min

- Cant use ethy mounts (pay 5.00 to use - still free to play)
Agree, same with dye tubs from Vet rewards and vet rewards that gives resources.

- Has reduced bank box storage to 60 items (pay 10.00 for max bank storage - still F2p)
This won't work as the account may be an inactive account but if they do have more than 125 items in bank, they have to remove some to get down to 125 items before they can add to piles.

- Skills are capped at 75 (even with jewelry) (pay 10.00 for skill max of 100 - still F2p)
Won't work for inactive accounts, rather make it so any skill points past 100 will be ignoreret = no bonus for them and they can't use soulstones, eat power scrolls, stats, pink or blue scrolls. all stars past 100 will also be ignored

- Cant enter fel (sub accounts only)
Let them enter Fel, Malas and Ilshenar, no other lands, we do have returning PvP players too

- Cant use SA items, content, or characters (sub accounts only)
I would say, can't use item insurance, that will limit them

I was just brainstorming. Feel free to add/subtract anything you see fit. The more comments on the subject of f2p and other peoples ideas the better as far as I see it. Maybe IF UO does go F2p it wont be a complete cluster.