why couldnt we do this? (multi house accounts)

[Poo]

a guild mate and friend of mine has a old account.
whenever i think about his account i get so jealous.

its a old grandfathered account that has a castle on Sonoma and then 2 other houses, one on Cat's and one on ATL.

so its a old account.

but i cant help but think just how nice that would be.

now, bear in mind his 2 other houses are smalls houses, mini tower the one is, but wow, could i so use that.

so my question is, since we can BUY storage space.... since we can BUY more characters per account..... why cant be BUY additional housing?

of course have it limited, say like a mini tower is the biggest you could have or something like that.
but in this day and age not too many people play on just one shard anymore.
most people have a 2nd shard they play on, and everyone slips over to siege during server down, ect ect ect.

i know id pay 10-15 bucks per extra house slot.
hell, id probably pay 100 bucks if they let me put a house on every shard!
haha!

hell, limit it to a tent!

or, heres an option, make the Brit Boat none decaying
that way we could live on it with no fear of it decaying and loosing all our stuff, and we could have a forge there and a anvil and a trash barrel.

 

[old gypsy]

I'd seriously consider paying a bit more per month if I could have one very small additional house on the same shard, since I only own one account and don't play other shards.

 

[Salivern_Diago]

I spoke to Jeff about this earlier in the year. He said he would bring the idea of paying an additional subscription per month for an additional house per account. I dont know if this has had any development or not but Jeff does like the idea of it so who knows?

 

[Lady Storm]

Poo
You walk down memory lane is a bit off but I do simpathise with you.

First thing out of Beta anyone character could have many houses.. that was very short lived.

Soon after that the rule was 1 house per character on a given account, no size limit.
(I have one account that had my guilds castle, my personal tower, and 3 smalls 7x7.)

A few years past and the population of UO was growing by leaps and bounds. Players wanted more land for homes... the dev being the dev instead of adding more for the large growing public just opened more shards.. the land cry didnt stop though. They forgot the cry went out because they needed more where they were not some new place. When players didnt quiet down and made things rough the idea hit limit them!!

They made it the one house per shard ruleset, now this made all the accounts like a few of mine Grandfathered due to the fact I had more then one house per. It also came when new house styles were introduced to entice players more. (I think the timing was to pull Grandfathered owners out and kill their holdings) AS the timing was so placed the old timers were stuck.

This quelled the call for new houseing but not as much as the Dev had hoped. They were still being called to make more land for homes..... At this time a very precousious set of accountants had emerged in business and to them.. less was more in more ways than one.
In business, that skilled employee close to pention age, became a money drain and needed to go... hire 2 or more for the price of one close pentioner age. We all know the out come there. The skilled was replaced and the new hire cost them 3x the money to train to fill the shoes of the one fired. This didnt stop the Accountants from pushing this in all fields and so too did they apply it to UO.
The 1 house per account went into effect.... They want new house they pay for it! Genius!! the Board said... Only it didnt work out that way...

Had the Dev done as the players had asked and given them more viable land for homes and not drifted off the UO path with badly constructed publishes way back when. The UO public would not have started the downward spiral. By the time they had put in the 1 house per account rule players has started to drift away in droves. Every game has its ebbs and flows in player population but this change made it very hard on the populas of UO.

Show me one day that someone is not needing storage... or wishes for a bit bigger home to show off their new toys... (you have to admit a 7x7 cant hold much even with the 60% increese. Many gifts just sit in bank or in deed cause in truth they dont have the place to put it)

My post about the 15th Annivesary gift ideas and 15 Rewards gift is based off a wish to return to our roots and give UO the way back from their disaster thinking. Its my wish not ll but I feel it would be good for UO. The slow trickle back to the freedom old player like myself had and end the jealousy. Oh you can make every small have the same lockdown count. that would be a good step forward and just maybe those who need a second house would pick a small that would tuck up next to their other house. Not everyone wants a castle or needs it. But Id like players to have the freedom to plant a needed house if they so choose.

(my little 7x7s I wouldnt trade for the world though I would like the choice to change the look...and storage, well... who couldnt use the storage.)

 

[Poo]

i remember when they where changing the houses from one per character to one per account.

i remember i had 5 houses, one for each of my guys, all in a row.

a Large L shape on each end with 3 smalls in between.

every day id log in and id have a key ring on me and id run down the line dd clicking the doors to refresh them, haha.

gave them all up for my castle.

had i been thinking back then i would have placed them on 5 different shards.

 

[Malachite El'Ren]

I totally agree Poo, and hi btw yes I am still around! Even though I do have one grandfathered account, it sure would be nice to have the ability of a house on other shards that I play occasionally on my other accts, I would play them more if it were the case... And my son would love to have a house all to his own on another shard since I wont let him change his current sonoma house because of sentimental reasons...

And in UO's current state and lack of population, why not allow it?? Even the busier shards have plenty of room for housing...

 

[EvilPixieWorks]

Yeah… if there wasn’t an extra fee involved, clearly there wouldn’t be a house spot open for anyone. I’d still worry about these big greedy house sellers on bigger shards who like to buy up whole neighborhoods for castles. Not that they are evil… (some)… but it's like “no” doesn’t mean “no” to them sometimes.

I dread any idea that would cost us more money per month… we need to pay less… like with account age, 1$ off a year’s worth. I’d see the greedy staff/EA almost make this idea taste bitter. Like double price accounts for the ability to hold 2 houses. If it was SMALL extra fee… very tempting. Some of us have community based towns to keep up! Cutting back would be very helpful if it saves money.

 

[old gypsy]

I spoke to Jeff about this earlier in the year. He said he would bring the idea of paying an additional subscription per month for an additional house per account. I dont know if this has had any development or not but Jeff does like the idea of it so who knows?

*crosses fingers* I refuse to pay for a second account just to have another house, but I'd spring for up to $5 more a month to have an additional house on the same account if it could be on the same shard I currently play.

 

[MalagAste]

I've said for a long time that I'd personally be willing to pay extra for another house even if it had to be on another shard.

I'd love to have houses on several shards.

I also said it'd be VERY good business to offer a "housing" expansion that would allow you to place another house on another shard.

Or The Ultimate add-on.... to add another house to your current shard.

However I agree the house should be limited to say 10x10 or 12x12 max.

I don't think the 7x7 would be that great but it would be better than nothing...

With so many shards being highly unpopulated it'd be great to have the ability to build a "home away from home" so to speak on another shard.

I could see it being abused in ways but I can at the same time see it building communities in whole new ways.

 

[old gypsy]

I agree, MalagAste... the size of a second house should be limited.

 

[Cerwin Vega]

I like the idea of being able to own more than one house per account but I want it to be a one time fee, They probley think if people can have 2 houses they will shut down second accounts... but maybe they are right.

 

[Snow78]

2 houses sound great

 

[Ezekiel Zane]

There's no reason why all account's couldn't be upgraded to two houses per account.

In all honesty, I see no reason why there even has to be any regulations on size, type or shard either. If they got rid of all the bugged houses there would be enough room for every account to place three or four houses.

I'd be up for a one-time payment to upgrade to multiple houses. We already pay more in monthly subscription fee than we should so no way to that.

 

[EvilPixieWorks]

2 houses per accounts as a limit sounds very fine by me too.

Now... lets find whoever so we can slap them in the back of the head to make this happen.

 

[Sauteed Onion]

Well, I think it would be dandy to have a 2nd house even it's only on a different shard. But, I'll love UO even if I can only have 1 house on 1 shard.. just dream every night for that home away from hom.. OH WHO AM I KIDDIN! Spill the beans man! Gimme my 2nd house right meow!

 

[Warpig Inc]

I like the idea of being able to own more than one house per account but I want it to be a one time fee, They probley think if people can have 2 houses they will shut down second accounts... but maybe they are right.

This could be partail right thinking. Players with multiple accounts have them for extra storage. Instead of paying more for another house, how about sub accounts based on number of active full accounts. For every two linked active accounts a sub account could be attached to them. A sub account that has one character slot and limited housing size. Could even go further and have a sub account attached to more then just two linked accounts. Still only one character slot but the more linked account the bigger the attached sub account's house size could be. Having a leveling system to the number of linked accounts to an attached sub account. Sub account housing placement menu would be unique to subs. Preconstrutions that have unique housing tiles to make them stand out as a sub account home. Anything done to get a sub account banned flags all the linked accounts from being linked to produce a sub account ever again. Anybody with a few or more accounts should know how to keep there nose clean by now, so no slack.

We all know that when UO is down to 2000 active players there will be more then 5000 open accounts. So drive for more funds should be the reward of having more active open accounts. Not just some additioal fee. There are so many templates even one fully upgraded account doesn't cover it. Want to know another huge nail in the UO coffin? Soulstones. Accounting team should of hung the dev as soon as they came up with this ideal. If at all they should of been account bound and 5 per account.

 

[Ezekiel Zane]

I'm curious to know how many players have an additional account solely for storage. I have four main accounts that are for the characters I've developed on them and for playing with family members. Yes each one has a house but that's not the reason I maintain them.

 

[Ezekiel Zane]

Want to know another huge nail in the UO coffin? Soulstones. If at all they should of been account bound and 5 per account.

Soulstones are account bound. Always have been.

 

[EvilPixieWorks]

We all know that when UO is down to 2000 active players there will be more then 5000 open accounts.

Wow... so I guess this totaly fruitless way of premoting UO these last few years is really working after all. I always knew it was insane to put even a game card on the retail shelf were everyone can see it.

 

[old gypsy]

I like the idea of being able to own more than one house per account but I want it to be a one time fee, They probley think if people can have 2 houses they will shut down second accounts... but maybe they are right.

I think the best way to implement the idea is (1) make it completely optional to upgrade the account at a higher subscription fee, and (2) only allow one small additional house per upgraded account.

I don't believe a one-time fee would be appropriate for addttional housing. If players want a max-size second house, they can still have that with no restrictions by keeping their second account open. If players were allowed two 18x18's on just one account, you can bet a lot of second & third acounts would be closed.

If ever implemented, this needs to be something that will encourage players to keep their accounts... and use their small additional house for playing on another shard or on their home shard to facilitate roleplaying or for limited storage, etc.

 

[Ezekiel Zane]

If players were allowed two 18x18's on just one account, you can bet a lot of second & third acounts would be closed..

I completely disagree. I believe most people would simply expand. I do pay for four accounts full-time. I'd love to have 8 houses.

 

[Omnius]

I completely disagree. I believe most people would simply expand. I do pay for four accounts full-time. I'd love to have 8 houses.

I would cut my accounts in half within a week.

 

[old gypsy]

I completely disagree. I believe most people would simply expand. I do pay for four accounts full-time. I'd love to have 8 houses.

I have no doubt there are other players who feel the same way you do. I just believe there are many more who, if they could have two large houses on just one account, would be glad to stop paying for accounts they opened for baisically storage.

I wouldn't think EA would want to do anything that might tempt multiple account holders to drop any of their accounts. Two 18 x 18 homes on one account would certainly have that affect on some. That's why I beileve a second house, if allowed, should be rather small.

I don't know how to make a poll, but it might be interesting to ask players:
Would you drop one or more of your accounts if you could have two 18 x 18 homes on your main account?

 

[Mirt]

Maybe if it were on another shard for half the price of another account that could work out. I am not sure how many would close accounts with that change per say.

 

[old gypsy]

Maybe if it were on another shard for half the price of another account that could work out. I am not sure how many would close accounts with that change per say.

That sounds rather like what I posted previously:

I think the best way to implement the idea is (1) make it completely optional to upgrade the account at a higher subscription fee, and (2) only allow one small additional house per upgraded account.

...If players want a max-size second house, they can still have that with no restrictions by keeping their second account open. If players were allowed two 18x18's on just one account, you can bet a lot of second & third acounts would be closed.

If ever implemented, this needs to be something that will encourage players to keep their accounts... and use their small additional house for playing on another shard or on their home shard to facilitate roleplaying or for limited storage, etc.

 

[Mirt]

Your right I am essentially agreeing with you Gypsy.

 

[old gypsy]

Your right I am essentially agreeing with you Gypsy.

I figured we were both on the same page. Just wanted to clarify & verify.

 

[Jade of Sonoma]

If players were allowed two 18x18's on just one account, you can bet a lot of second & third acounts would be closed..

I completely disagree. I believe most people would simply expand. I do pay for four accounts full-time. I'd love to have 8 houses.

I CANCELLED 8 accounts after 60% storage was added to each of my main four accounts with two accounts each holding castles and two accounts with Keeps. The Extra Storage I paid for gave me the equivilent storage of another small house without taking up any more land.

Yikes! If you give me one more house on my remaining 16 accounts, it doubles my storage in my remaining 16 accounts, allowing me to close another 8 accounts and still be able to keep the best items saved over 14 years on the 8 remaining accounts. Then, Clean-up Brit will help me to shut down two or three more after tossing out junk!

THEREFORE: UO has already given players various methods of expanding storage in homes by 20% increments. Albeit you have to pay extra for that 7th slot plus 20% storage increase, and another payment for the High Seas Booster with another 20% storage, but those are one time payments and do make a considerable increase in storage to any building. Let's hope the "building code" allows more storage and that they are able to expand the storage again in some manor fit for purchase or rewards.

IMO - What this game needs isn't more housing. It needs to increase the importance of player-made crafts. Eg: Prolific gardeners used to be kept extremely happily occupied. I know because for years, in ONE Classic Marble House on the North Western Tip of Arctic Island my Lady of the Gardens operated a thriving Garden Shop with over 27 vendors, - - a vendor for each type of plant.. and now ? ZERO. Sorry .. off topic again.

.

 

[Njjj]

I have only one house holder account. Even though out holds an 18x18, id shut it down if allowed to place second house per acct, no matter how small it is. I just don't need so many lockdowns on second shard. I think this would be true for many that have houses on secondary shards. It will add up to less subscription revenue, that won't be compensated for by one time fees since it's not a consumable item.

 

[Theo_GL]

For every 1 Jade there are 100 people who would pay for the extra house and not close an account.

I'd pay for 2 extra houses for $10 and not close any accounts.

Jade is an outlier and outside 3 standard deviations.

There is no reason for 20 houses worth of stuff. You keep too much junk. I know you just assumed accounts of guildies that quit.

Please devs consider extra housing. If I lose my houses on other shards - no way I pay for more accounts to get more houses - I just consider stopping playing. I don't want to be limited to one shard with a house. This game is hard to play out of a bank box. Not impossible - but not fun at all.

 

[old gypsy]

Any of the following possibilities (all of which can be seen in-game) would be highly unlikely to result in people closing any of their current accounts.

The option to have:
(a) A second house no larger than 7x7 (on any shard), or
(b) A livable tent/campsite (on any shard), or
(c) A livable gypsy wagon/campsite (on any shard}.

The minimal storage with the foregoing options wouldn't have subscribers rushing to shut down their additional accounts; but I'd expect many single-account players might be willing to pay just a few more dollars for their subscription in exchange for the additional small living quarters described. I know I would.

 

[MalagAste]

Any of the following possibilities (all of which can be seen in-game) would be highly unlikely to result in people closing any of their current accounts.

The option to have:
(a) A second house no larger than 7x7 (on any shard), or
(b) A livable tent/campsite (on any shard), or
(c) A livable gypsy wagon/campsite (on any shard}.

The minimal storage with the foregoing options wouldn't have subscribers rushing to shut down their additional accounts; but I'd expect many single-account players might be willing to pay just a few more dollars for their subscription in exchange for the additional small living quarters described. I know I would.

I would NOT pay extra for a tiny little 7x7... for a 12x12 or 10x10 I'd pay... but not 7x7.

And I wouldn't close any accounts if I could have a second house either.

 

[RaDian FlGith]

Lady Storm, you missed an interim step in housing...

When housing was first implemented, it was true that you could have any number of houses on your account.

At some point after that, it became five houses per account (one per character) per server.

THEN it became one house per account period. However, anyone who had more than one house had them grandfathered in, but placing a new house meant that you lost the grandfathering of all the rest of your houses.

The maximum any account has associated with it though is 5 per shard, and I have to think that number is very few these days. I myself have 2 on my main. An old tower since changed to a 16x14 customizable with an L-shaped.

 

[RaDian FlGith]

And I wouldn't close any accounts if I could have a second house either.

Ditto. If I had extra houses, I'd definitely simply double the number of houses I presently have.

But yeah, if I have to pay for extra housing, it had better be somewhere between 10x10 and 12x12 minimum, or no dice on the buying.

(Ironically, I'd be fine with a couple of 7x7's so I could place guard towers.)

However, another suggestion I have is that if I pay for additional housing, then my first house, regardless of size, should have max 18x18 storage. Keep the same number of lockdowns (as I get that's a reasonable function of size), but increase the secures for the primary house in a paid second house scenario as well.

 

[old gypsy]

I would NOT pay extra for a tiny little 7x7... for a 12x12 or 10x10 I'd pay... but not 7x7.

And I wouldn't close any accounts if I could have a second house either.

Of course. I anticipate that multiple-account holders would not be as interested in the option as someone who only has one account. Those who aren't interested would continue paying their present subscription rate just as they do now.

However, I believe those who have chosen to maintain just one account might find the idea attractive, and it would put a few more dollars in EA's pockets each month without losing the people who typically run multiple accounts with large houses. Seems like a fair situation for all involved.

 

[Jade of Sonoma]

For every 1 Jade there are 100 people who would pay for the extra house and not close an account.

I'd pay for 2 extra houses for $10 and not close any accounts.

Jade is an outlier and outside 3 standard deviations.

There is no reason for 20 houses worth of stuff. You keep too much junk. I know you just assumed accounts of guildies that quit.

Please devs consider extra housing. If I lose my houses on other shards - no way I pay for more accounts to get more houses - I just consider stopping playing. I don't want to be limited to one shard with a house. This game is hard to play out of a bank box. Not impossible - but not fun at all.

What makes you say that? Sorry you feel that way. I won't take offense because you don't know me. But you have made me feel I should say something in self defence, even if you don't want to know: Watch out. I feel another coming on ..
1) I've never belonged to any guild except my own (OWL). I play solo. I have operated vendors who sold to many players in many guilds, but no one, expecially any guild, ever helped set me up with anything I needed. Poor internet connections made a paying victim out of me in UO until Trammel.
3) My junk isn't what you think. I had three accounts after three years and at the start of AOS I opened a new account so I could have a house in Trammel. Much later, I found and placed houses on land where the possibility existed of having a Castle one day. My Accounts have supported UO for years. My houses are only semi- full, but all items in them are self-earned, not from IDOCS, not purchased for real US$ from outside websites, nor handed to me by other players except on rare occasions, and everything I own is from numerous past events, rewards, my craftspeople, player craftspeople, gifts, champ spawns, pvm, years of work growing plants and storing tons of unstackable plants and unstackable seeds, plant resources, potions, etc not to mention bods, scribe resources, blacksmith resources, and being careful about throwing away gift items, ranger outfits, vet rewards collected for fourteen years of playing UO during during which time I have been blessed with a good reputation and many good friends, few of whom have ever asked me for anything, other than to be a good friend, being as independent themselves as I. Those are the players I hold dear and continue to hold accounts for on occasion, with hopes they will return; Whoops I forgot to mention collecting PUMPKINS and this year's masks and and .. all that fills up chests. So, In the past few years, after paying for accounts with houses in spots where it would be possible to have a castle, it finally happened on June of 2009. Anyway, having played for too many years with so little, I guess I am making up for it now.


BACK ON TOPIC:

I don't agree with adding a second house on the same shard to an account that already has a house on it.

I can understand players needing more storage. I can understand players wanting another house on another shard.

It would be nice to be able to go to other shards and place a house but, if house owners who play mostly on their favorite Home-Shard forget about their extra houses on other shards, don't use them regularly or end up abandoning them altogether, again those houses are blocking others from placing.

Playing on one shard has always been more than enough for me to play.

Additional Housing has already been discussed at length in the other thread about giving housing-additions as 15 Year Vet Rewards.


My suggestions still stand:

UO could continue to offer 20% increments of storage as rewards, gifts, or have it so that players can purchase extra storage. As in their offer of 7 character slots and 20% extra storage and High Seas Booster.

Ask players to pay $10 for the additional storage instead of combining it with something else to make it more expensive. Many players can't afford to keep paying out huge sums of money to stay in the game. I would pay extra for extra storage and drop more accounts which would give other players those spaces for housing.

Additional housing could be sold by UO to those who are seriously wishing to play on other shards without having to open a new account.

 

[Poo]

Any of the following possibilities (all of which can be seen in-game) would be highly unlikely to result in people closing any of their current accounts.

The option to have:
(a) A second house no larger than 7x7 (on any shard), or
(b) A livable tent/campsite (on any shard), or
(c) A livable gypsy wagon/campsite (on any shard}.

The minimal storage with the foregoing options wouldn't have subscribers rushing to shut down their additional accounts; but I'd expect many single-account players might be willing to pay just a few more dollars for their subscription in exchange for the additional small living quarters described. I know I would.

ya know what, again i think we should go with tents.
why?
cause if ya get more then 3 tents together they should AUTOMATICALLY get a wagon and a fire pit and a small forge and anvil, hahahahha, a gypsy community!!!!

god i love it!

"no no, we dont go west of minoc anymore..... not since the gypsy's from sonoma and napa moved in..... strange things happen there after dark!"

 

[Striga]

2 houses sound great

Aye 2 for one acc; if u wanna place both in one shard or one in the first and second in a new shard will be a good choice

 

[old gypsy]

ya know what, again i think we should go with tents.
why?
cause if ya get more then 3 tents together they should AUTOMATICALLY get a wagon and a fire pit and a small forge and anvil, hahahahha, a gypsy community!!!!

god i love it!

"no no, we dont go west of minoc anymore..... not since the gypsy's from sonoma and napa moved in..... strange things happen there after dark!"

LOL! You'd have new player-run communities popping up in the strangest places! Don't know how practical that would be, Poo, but I have to say it's creative.

 

[Mook Chessy]

The funny thing is if they did allow a second home @ 7x7 within one year the same people would be here asking to make it larger.

Really people...


Fact is uo is dead and there is room for all the houses anyone would want to place, why they dont allow the placement is beyond me. Hell, Siege had/has (I left year ago) open spots inside Luna walls!

 

[EvilPixieWorks]

Granted... if this were to come to pass... it would sure save trouble for some of us town owners with smaller buildings.

However... it would be totally FOOLISH to put limitations to say second houses can't be bigger then small ones. Or to say they have to be on different shards. Some of us have no interest in taking up house space on shards we don’t play. Why not put a rule about this only working for people with direct connection to town areas? That would cover me... a few others interested, but not be fair to others.

 

[old gypsy]

Granted... if this were to come to pass... it would sure save trouble for some of us town owners with smaller buildings.

Yes, but it would primarily benefit the role-playing community. How many players would like to role-play a particular character and do it convincingly? The extra small house option would enable the roleplay character to join a player-run town without jeopardizing the account's main house, where storage is a primary consideration for most players.

However... it would be totally FOOLISH to put limitations to say second houses can't be bigger then small ones.

Not at all. I don't think any of us want to see people closing accounts. If there was no size restriction on a second house, EA would likely lose quite a few subscriptions; but with a truly small second house, that is unlikely to happen.

Or to say they have to be on different shards. Some of us have no interest in taking up house space on shards we don’t play.

The option should permit the account holder to place on whichever shard they wish to play, including their home shard.

Why not put a rule about this only working for people with direct connection to town areas? That would cover me... a few others interested, but not be fair to others

What would be the point in that? Placement should be based on existing parameters for house placement.

 

[EvilPixieWorks]

Yes, but...

I love when people pick apart every line of a simple post.


For one... if EA wants more people taking up new subscriptions, they need to put the game on the retail shelf, because this faceless idea they have for promoting the game isn't working. As I keep saying, a simple game card would save producing boxes and CDs and yet still attract the attention of a passing shopper.

Odds are there will never come a time where we will have an idea so cool as this for us who hold 2-10+ accounts and pay every single month to keep our community assets alive. There is no loyalty or reward of us, any of us, who are old vets in good standing.

To put insane restrictions to say for 5$ extra month, you can have a 7x7 house some place else? It's not worth the money for far more of us then those who would actually go for it. Any time the staff sits down and talks over additions to the game, they have to keep in mind the bottom line of how many (what %) will WANT the upgrade and extra expense. If they wont give us account age discounts, that would show amazing loyalty to vets... then this idea would sure make up for it... but without extreme limits. Keep raising the price for different levels of this same idea? Why not just keep things as they are, save the programming, keep your extra collections of characters and collect all the gifts every time they come around. There is no temptation for the majority of us and the idea is lost.

Also don’t forget, these times... in real life, are getting dark for many of us. Anything to keep players active and accounts open... people playing, I’d say is a good idea.

 

[old gypsy]

I love when people pick apart every line of a simple post.

Sorry, but I wasn't picking anything apart. I addressed your points in order. I apologize if that offended you.

Also don’t forget, these times... in real life, are getting dark for many of us. Anything to keep players active and accounts open... people playing, I’d say is a good idea.

Agreed. That's precisely what I've been saying.

 

[Zosimus]

I completely disagree. I believe most people would simply expand. I do pay for four accounts full-time. I'd love to have 8 houses.

Most of my accounts would be closed since its more a storage issue with me if they allowed this.


As one already stated they would have to up the subscription fee to add houses to an account. EA could justify it be the loss of revenue. Why wouldn't they. Go through a drive thru at Mickey D's and notice now they charge for sauces and condiments to make up for losses and costs on their end.

Also it should be restricted to another shard because like the Atlantic shard, housing is tight and it would not be fair to a huge populated shard.

 

[Thrakkar]

Well, if it's just for secure trading between two chars on a foreign shard, I'd rather like a bank box shared by all chars on that shard and account. Make it with a capacity of a maximum of 10 or 20 items, I don't care. Would be sufficient enough...

 

[Mirt]

I believe that the idea for this would be that those people that want to get a house on another shard can for a lower price then opening another account, or could add a tent/gypsy camp for again around half the cost of an entire account each month. I believe that we were all talking about this being optional so if it wasn't something that interested you then you wouldn't have to upgrade to it. This would actually make a really nice booster pack too for the tents and gypsy camp if you ask me.

 

[old gypsy]

I believe that the idea for this would be that those people that want to get a house on another shard can for a lower price then opening another account, or could add a tent/gypsy camp for again around half the cost of an entire account each month. I believe that we were all talking about this being optional so if it wasn't something that interested you then you wouldn't have to upgrade to it. This would actually make a really nice booster pack too for the tents and gypsy camp if you ask me.

You've summed it up nicely, Mirt. Yes, the idea was to make it completely optional, and certainly not something that would provide the immense extra storage available to those who choose to pay for additional accounts.

 

[MalagAste]

I don't know about costing them money and folk dropping accounts...

I think there are FAR more people who want a second house but aren't willing to pay for a second account just to have one.

I think most the people like me who have multiple accounts would still keep multiple accounts AND add more houses.

Most of us with a great bunch of accounts have them because of our addiction to UO in general... including character building.

And house deco and design.

Just my thoughts on that.

 

[EvilPixieWorks]

I think there are FAR more people who want a second house but aren't willing to pay for a second account just to have one.

What bugs me a lot right now... I know some people who arn't in touch the best they can be right now who are all screwed up with the new account managment system that is confusing and stupid. They may loose houses they want to keep and had fully wished to pay for.

However... I have seen some who pay for 1 month, fail to auto pay the next, not paying the next... just to save money on second accounts that are used for vendors or storage. I don't know about you guys, but seeing an idoc warning pop up on my house or a friend's house makes my blood run cold. Can't stand it. I prefer not risking anything.