Will EA protect Ultima as a brand?

[In Flames]

I was wondering, since the court ruling against people running WoW emulation servers, if EA had any inclination to go after those who are running UO Emulation? However, Since getting an answer from a dev or anything similar seems unlikely I would like to ask the community at large what they think such a move as closing down the emulation sector would do for the Ultima brand?

Also, many games are surviving on a F2P model, and while UO's recent releases seem to be heading towards the micro transaction model, do you think this is a sustainable model given the quality of work?

Would it be a more sustainable model if EA went after the emulators?

Just thought I'd see what I could do to stir up some good conversation.
Oh, and welcome back me. ^^
(apologies if my post seems a bit disheveled, my mind is a little on the fried side after not having a chance to sleep)

 

[Trebr Drab]

I don't think they'll close down the free shards, unless there's a direct reason to do so. If they ever go FtP, I think they might strongly consider it then.

Games going to the FtP model is a desperation move. The game isn't making it with a subscription, so they try that model. On paper it seems to make sense. But I think it's a self defeating course of action, because I think most gamers want a fair playing ground. And FtP leads to PtW (Pay-to-Win). Players start to see the costs of potions and fast advancements add up, and realize that it can cost them more than a subscription model.

Even these cash shop sales for additional content are self defeating. What happens when it keeps adding up and new players see how much it's going to cost them to get up to date? Sure, the games will try to consolidate as much as they can, but they'll be limited by their need to keep the cash flowing.

MMOs are getting to be a mess with all this. It's better to stay strictly a subscription, and make the game better. Good enough to attract players on the game's merits rather than play these cash grab games.

 

[NuSair]

Personally, I'd like to see them shutdown the freeshards.

 

[Mapper]

I'd like to know the percentage of freeshard players who would pay for UO if they were shut down.

Bet it's very small.

 

[Spiritless]

I'd like to know the percentage of freeshard players who would pay for UO if they were shut down.

Bet it's very small.

Truth.

A large percentage of people play freeshards because many of them emulate different rulesets of days gone by, which EA refuse to operate officially. There's literally no "legal" alternative for those players, most of which certainly aren't interested in playing the current UO as that's the reason they seek freeshards in the first place.

 

[Capn Kranky]

I'd like to know the percentage of freeshard players who would pay for UO if they were shut down.

Bet it's very small.

^ this.

EA performance in reducing exploits, executing releases without major damage to other functions that do work, lack of attention to bugs/issues until years after introduction, sub-standard in-game Customer Service ... and more ... has led to many preferring FS because of the more intense drive to correct issues.

I'm not saying the FS are any better or worse than EA but there are a lot of happy UO players "out there" as compared to "in here".

And I'm one ... I hang here hoping EA starts to think properly.

 

[dukarlo]

Theres probably quite a few more people playing free shards than EA shards. Why? Because todays EA UO really isnt UO at all. Its simply a clueless corporations idea of what UO should be. EA simply tries to copy every other game out there that has a healthy playerbase. problem with that is, the players that play those games play the game because thats what attracted them to those games and those game do those things well. EA use to be a virtual world. Thats what attracted people to UO. UO is hardly that anymore. Now its simply either namby pamby land or first person shooter land. There simply isnt the element that combined all the players together anymore. Theyve basicly been seperating the player base over and over since Trammel came out giving UO an empty feel. What I liked about old UO was logging in and seeing other players the moment I logged in. Whether it was to have a smyth make me some gear, a poisoner poison my sword, a random player to help watch my back while hunting liches, a nieghbor to shoot the breeze with, another thief standing on the corner in Bucs, or some player that just wants to fight, or someone to pk or a pk that shows up to try to pk me. For the most part all those things are long gone.

 

[THP]

EA is a lot more likely just to close UO..if it aint mking money...sooo u lot bette keep your fingers crossed e get at least one more year at it...hopefully longer...

 

[Trebr Drab]

Theres probably quite a few more people playing free shards than EA shards. Why? Because todays EA UO really isnt UO at all. Its simply a clueless corporations idea of what UO should be. EA simply tries to copy every other game out there that has a healthy playerbase. problem with that is, the players that play those games play the game because thats what attracted them to those games and those game do those things well. EA use to be a virtual world. Thats what attracted people to UO. UO is hardly that anymore. Now its simply either namby pamby land or first person shooter land. There simply isnt the element that combined all the players together anymore. Theyve basicly been seperating the player base over and over since Trammel came out giving UO an empty feel. What I liked about old UO was logging in and seeing other players the moment I logged in. Whether it was to have a smyth make me some gear, a poisoner poison my sword, a random player to help watch my back while hunting liches, a nieghbor to shoot the breeze with, another thief standing on the corner in Bucs, or some player that just wants to fight, or someone to pk or a pk that shows up to try to pk me. For the most part all those things are long gone.

I'd like to correct this part.

"Its simply a clueless corporations idea of what UO should be."​

It should say..."Its simply a clueless corporations idea of what a game should be."

 

[Experimental]

Oh, and welcome back me. ^^

Welcome Back!

 

[In Flames]

Games going to the FtP model is a desperation move.

This is a common misconception. Many many MANY games go F2P because it's just a more sound business model of getting people in the door. Hell, that's the entire basis of facebook gaming. I've been playing F2P games for years and have dumped plenty of money in ones I think have been worth it (Gunz, League of Legends, etc.).

 

[In Flames]

I'd like to know the percentage of freeshard players who would pay for UO if they were shut down.

Bet it's very small.

I'd be willing to bet it's bigger than you might think.

 

[In Flames]

EA is a lot more likely just to close UO..if it aint mking money...sooo u lot bette keep your fingers crossed e get at least one more year at it...hopefully longer...

EA would be crazy to close UO before trying a new business model. Especially with the first game to be inducted into the GDC Hall of Fame.

More likely what would happen is they would sell UO off to a different company. Hell, if I had the cash to buy it I would. I have spent enough of my life playing this game to feel it a worth endeavor.

 

[In Flames]

Welcome Back!

Thank you ^^

 

[Zosimus]

This is a common misconception. Many many MANY games go F2P because it's just a more sound business model of getting people in the door. Hell, that's the entire basis of facebook gaming. I've been playing F2P games for years and have dumped plenty of money in ones I think have been worth it (Gunz, League of Legends, etc.).

Excellent point and totally agrees

I will pay for a game that keeps me interested but once I lose interest I quit. I have bought items from cash shops from many F2P games. I have Guild Wars and all of its campaigns. No monthly fee. If I want to buy items from there cash shop, I will and they are very reasonably priced and well worth it. If I get bored of GW's I play something else but I always have it if I want to go back and play it again without having to worry to renew my subscription and never lose any of my stuff .

I do have to say the B2P model GW's have and what they offer is better then what UO P2P plus micro transactions has. Nobody should have to pay for a graphics update long over due and be charges as a mini expansion. Items for pvp and pvm that has actual everyday use (including new decoration) in a game and very reasonably priced may be the path UO needs to take. The planters are a prime example where some said they would of just bought that as an item only.

 

[Trebr Drab]

This is a common misconception. Many many MANY games go F2P because it's just a more sound business model of getting people in the door. Hell, that's the entire basis of facebook gaming. I've been playing F2P games for years and have dumped plenty of money in ones I think have been worth it (Gunz, League of Legends, etc.).

Excellent point and totally agrees

I will pay for a game that keeps me interested but once I lose interest I quit. I have bought items from cash shops from many F2P games. I have Guild Wars and all of its campaigns. No monthly fee. If I want to buy items from there cash shop, I will and they are very reasonably priced and well worth it. If I get bored of GW's I play something else but I always have it if I want to go back and play it again without having to worry to renew my subscription and never lose any of my stuff .

I do have to say the B2P model GW's have and what they offer is better then what UO P2P plus micro transactions has. Nobody should have to pay for a graphics update long over due and be charges as a mini expansion. Items for pvp and pvm that has actual everyday use (including new decoration) in a game and very reasonably priced may be the path UO needs to take. The planters are a prime example where some said they would of just bought that as an item only.

It's early yet on the FtP model, in the scope of things. I don't believe it will last for anything other than simplistic (much lower budget) FaceBook sorts of games where deeper experiences are unheard of.

 

[Zosimus]

It's early yet on the FtP model, in the scope of things. I don't believe it will last for anything other than simplistic (much lower budget) FaceBook sorts of games where deeper experiences are unheard of.

There are quite a few that has been F2P almost as long as UO. Now some of these games are based out of Korea and may have hit the states in it's later years but when you have DarkEden similar with UO old 2d graphics and came out in 1997 it kind of hard to say its still early. Rappelz has been out for a few years and I play that from time to time and they have a good size following with tons of players in the game. Better graphics and always pvp going on. Quite a few F2P has some years under there belt. The model works it just depends on the game and the devs that support the game. Not all games make it but many have and still thriving so far.

 

[In Flames]

It's early yet on the FtP model, in the scope of things. I don't believe it will last for anything other than simplistic (much lower budget) FaceBook sorts of games where deeper experiences are unheard of.

Another misconception.
Runescape has been free to play since 2001
MapleStory has been free to play since 2002
Gunz: The Duel while not an MMO has been free to play since 2003.
Helbreath started as pay to play in 1999 but became Free to play and is still going.
and there are literally 100's if not thousands or tens of thousands of free to play games out there.

I think, if this was a model that didn't have legs, then these games would be long gone.

 

[Fayled Dhreams]

(d) Official Service. Ultima Online has been designed by Electronic Arts for play only on the Service. The Software is licensed to you for play on the Service only. Electronic Arts does not grant you a license to use the Software for any other purpose. You agree to play Ultima Online only on the Service and not through any other means. You further agree not to create or provide any other means through which Ultima Online may be played by others - for example, through server emulators. You may not reverse engineer, decompile or disassemble the Software, including any proprietary communications protocol used by the Software. You acknowledge that you do not have the right to create, publish, distribute, create derivative works from or use any software programs, utilities, applications, emulators or tools derived from or created for Ultima Online unless specifically authorized in writing by Electronic Arts.

The >could< enforce their TOS
Would only need to tap the top two or three pirate shards

the "word" would spread like wild fire ... especially after the first likely action (of enforcement) taken against any one pirate ...

Sieze all their gear ... for evidence ...
that alone would kill the actioned shards ... the rest?
*pfffffPOOFF* !
error 404 site too long in responding ... forever.

Wouldn't actually cost that much either ...
EA Legal could sub-contract a contingency fee lawyer
"begin with targeted "cease and desist" letters of intent to select top shards"
ya get to keep what you kill ...(and they will technically be volunteering AS targets ... if they want to argue ... well ... then ya can go after their monies (ain't like they were smart enough to figure out a shield for an illegal enterprise ... LLC-LLP))

*dusts hands*

EA won't though ... isn't in their business "heart"
which is selling software ...
NOT enforcing the DMCA

that is someone elses job ... DOH!

 

[MalagAste]

Sometimes I would love to see all the free shards shut down....

But then I think.... Hum... but what will "I" do when UO is no more????? Without free shards I would have nothing to play...

 

[Omnius]

Truth.

A large percentage of people play freeshards because many of them emulate different rulesets of days gone by, which EA refuse to operate officially. There's literally no "legal" alternative for those players, most of which certainly aren't interested in playing the current UO as that's the reason they seek freeshards in the first place.

Truth, almost a third of all the thieves I played with for years are currently still playing UO, albeit on free shards with a classic ruleset.

 

[Martyna Zmuir]

EA would first have to respect Ultima as a brand before it could ever hope to truly "protect" it.

 

[GalenKnighthawke]

I'd be really surprised if there was ever any legal doubt that EA could go after the free shards.

I can't think of the legal pretext for them to not be able to do so.

With the WoW case, which I'd neither heard of until now nor bothered to investigate nor care about, I bet the judge laughed and congratulated whomever had to argue such a ridiculous thing on how "creative" he was.

That's a sly judicial insult, to say someone's argument is "creative." Personally some of the most creative things I've ever read in my life are certain judges' decisions, but that's neither here nor there.

At any rate.....Going after the free shards involves EA spending money on UO, which EA has never liked or understood, and to protect the Ultima brand name, which is something EA has never liked or understood. Setting up a website, which they have done recently, isn't in the same league as far as expenses as far as I know.

The money they have spent on UO or on Ultima lately has been for basic maintenance. New servers, because they are cheaper to run and the older ones will break down sooner or later. Servers that are geographically appropriate, etc.

To a degree they seem willing to spend money to put up new content but, judging by the comparatively minimal content we're being asked to pay for, my guess is that EA insisted on a direct return on investment, which isn't a good sign, because the MMO business model isn't about direct return on investment, it's about long-term, which is something EA has never shown any signs of understanding.

Unless they can be persuaded that people returning from free shards would make up for the legal fees (and even if it's just writing a few letters and filing some paperwork, and even if they only use in-house counsel, it's still fees) from shutting them down?

Then I wouldn't bet on it.

If Cal E-mailed someone to ask that, they would laugh and then go back to twiddling thumbs waiting for the stupid Star Wars game to be ready.

-Galen's player

 

[Trebr Drab]

It's early yet on the FtP model, in the scope of things. I don't believe it will last for anything other than simplistic (much lower budget) FaceBook sorts of games where deeper experiences are unheard of.

Another misconception.
Runescape has been free to play since 2001
MapleStory has been free to play since 2002
Gunz: The Duel while not an MMO has been free to play since 2003.
Helbreath started as pay to play in 1999 but became Free to play and is still going.
and there are literally 100's if not thousands or tens of thousands of free to play games out there.

I think, if this was a model that didn't have legs, then these games would be long gone.

Like I said, it's still early yet "in the scope of things."

I don't want to get into it, there's too many possibilities that could be working behind the scenes on any of them. There's lots of business plans that allow for fast growth without ever achieving an ability to ever be profitable. And I hate to be cryptic and all. But in a few years we'll all know how things shake out anyways.

If, by some chance, you guys are right and ftP is profitable long term, then that spells very bad news for players like me. We won't be around anymore, if that's the case. There won't be a place for us in MMORPGs, anywhere.
But that's good news for you guys and gals and your type of gamer, I'm sure.

 

[In Flames]

Like I said, it's still early yet "in the scope of things."If, by some chance, you guys are right and ftP is profitable long term, then that spells very bad news for players like me. We won't be around anymore, if that's the case. There won't be a place for us in MMORPGs, anywhere.
But that's good news for you guys and gals and your type of gamer, I'm sure.

Care to explain this take on the subject? Why would it be bad for you?

 

[Woodsman]

Truth.

A large percentage of people play freeshards because many of them emulate different rulesets of days gone by, which EA refuse to operate officially. There's literally no "legal" alternative for those players, most of which certainly aren't interested in playing the current UO as that's the reason they seek freeshards in the first place.

Exactly. People aren't leaving for any freeshards because they can't afford a measly $10 a month to play the official UO, they are leaving because they want to capture a certain moment in UO's history or EA has pissed them off in some way.

One thing about free shards, they illustrate the difficulty in defining what a "classic" shard would be, because there are a lot of free shards covering a lot of points in UO's history and more than a few have been described as "classic" UO.

 

[Woodsman]

Also, many games are surviving on a F2P model, and while UO's recent releases seem to be heading towards the micro transaction model, do you think this is a sustainable model given the quality of work?

UO is $10 a month. UO's problem is not one of cost - if you can't afford $10 a month, you have much bigger things to be worrying about than MMOs.

UO's recent releases - High Seas, theme packs, and a still-unfinished Stygian Abyss are more indicative of a development team that is too small and a company that gave up on trying to get new players and focused on getting more money from current players. If they had kept the Stygian Abyss team instead of laying a bunch off, Stygian Abyss would be finished or further along than it is, High Seas would have been much better received, and we'd probably be looking at another expansion.

UO's biggest problem is a lack of support from EA and that the graphics that still feel like something out of the 1990s. The majority of potential players are simply not going to give it a chance because of the graphics. MMO players these days are simply too used to high resolution graphics, and UO cannot escape that.

With the new Nintendo console that was announced today, even Nintendo realized that there comes a point where graphics have to be bumped up. I'm hoping that UO's updated graphics are coming along. I'd feel better if I saw some kind of screenshots being released or heard about EA hiring more people to work on UO.

Like JC The Builder said, UO should have a live team, an expansion team, and a support team. Instead we have one small team doing everything, with team members wearing multiple hats.

 

[Trebr Drab]

Like I said, it's still early yet "in the scope of things."If, by some chance, you guys are right and ftP is profitable long term, then that spells very bad news for players like me. We won't be around anymore, if that's the case. There won't be a place for us in MMORPGs, anywhere.
But that's good news for you guys and gals and your type of gamer, I'm sure.

Care to explain this take on the subject? Why would it be bad for you?

Well, you'll play an MMO that's a side scroller. You'll shell out money for it too.
You'll play an MMO that has Point and Click Pathfinding movement.
You'll play an MMO that's PtW.
You'll dig into MMO's that are FtP because they lack enough quality to ask for a subscription.
None of these things are what I am after in my MMORPG experience. They in fact harm my experience if they are in my game. Enough so that I won't play them. Even if they are "free". I'm looking for a deeper, more quality experience, and I'm willing to pay for that with a subscription.

But if there's enough people like you from the truly massive numbers out there, and since it cost a LOT less to make games for people like you, the entire industry will make games for people like you and people like me will be left out in the cold.

And Facebook is opening the door for games made for people like you.

Add to that what seems to be the fact that most game developers (by far) only know how to make Single Player games and drop that experience into an MMORPG, and don't seem to have a clue about how to make a truly massive social structure for a MMORPG, and it only makes the situation worse for players like me who want a world and not just a game.

Things don't look good for people like me.

Unless someone, somewhere, recognizes that there are also masses like me, that there's a huge pile of money to be made from us, and can figure out the deeper social aspects that can make a "world" come alive. Like UO used to be, and isn't anymore. But there are deeper problems that come with that, and UO also had those when it used to be a world. They are solvable, but that's where most developers hit the wall. And the costs of making such a game are where most investors hit the wall.

Yet....the rewards of success would be tremendous. Many gamers who played WoW have started asking for "more". But no one is offering it yet. Will someone ever? Who knows.

Garriott might.

I had hopes for Curt Schilling with Copernicus, but looking at their boards shows a common problem with MMOs. They are overrun with hardcore gamers who want more of the level grinding end game raidz. Most gamers are not hardcore like this, and don't spend their time on boards of games that aren't even released yet. These masses are not represented. Only the far fewer numbers of the hardcore are. And that can be very misleading if the developer doesn't see this and know deep down that they want to make something else.

 

[Gilmour]

just remove the time limit on trial, and we set.

maybe code an effective skill cap in case you have subbed and gone beyond, but then downgrade again..

 

[Trebr Drab]

just remove the time limit on trial, and we set.

maybe code an effective skill cap in case you have subbed and gone beyond, but then downgrade again..

So, FtP?

 

[Gilmour]

am happy you edited your post, from what i recieved in reply notification.
cause that was so wrong to quote me with that reply hehe..

unlimted time trial.. rather

 

[Jhym]

They obviously haven't been concerned enough to take out all the free shards, so I'd say they are content with the status quo.

I see no reason for them to in any case, as they are technically free advertising as well as sand boxes for the developers to watch. If one or more of them became hugely popular AND they started charging significantly (if they ARE charging EA probably would have done something about them by now) then they will want to examine why they are popular and see if it something they can use.

I suspect they look at many of them in the way quake and half life servers were viewed. No real threat to revenues unless a new meme or playable mechanism comes to light, in which case they would either blatantly copy it or buy it( I think they don't want to deal with litigation, it costs a lot, the people they'd sue normally don't have that much money in any case, and the negative look they'd get from the internet community would hurt other games much more.)


... oh, and by the way, anyone who thinks they don't know about depth and breadth of use is pretty much kidding themselves. They just have to monitor activity to specific ip addresses to see how busy they are, and the shards have to put the addresses out in order for players to play them. So...

 

[Trebr Drab]

am happy you edited your post, from what i recieved in reply notification.
cause that was so wrong to quote me with that reply hehe..

unlimted time trial.. rather

Well, it was unfair to an extent. How's the donations coming?

 

[Gilmour]

Well, it was unfair to an extent. How's the donations coming?

none so far

and do remember we dont show ads either.

but thanks for asking..

 

[In Flames]

Well, you'll play an MMO that's a side scroller. You'll shell out money for it too.
You'll play an MMO that has Point and Click Pathfinding movement.
You'll play an MMO that's PtW.
You'll dig into MMO's that are FtP because they lack enough quality to ask for a subscription.
None of these things are what I am after in my MMORPG experience. They in fact harm my experience if they are in my game. Enough so that I won't play them. Even if they are "free". I'm looking for a deeper, more quality experience, and I'm willing to pay for that with a subscription.

But if there's enough people like you from the truly massive numbers out there, and since it cost a LOT less to make games for people like you, the entire industry will make games for people like you and people like me will be left out in the cold.

And Facebook is opening the door for games made for people like you.

Add to that what seems to be the fact that most game developers (by far) only know how to make Single Player games and drop that experience into an MMORPG, and don't seem to have a clue about how to make a truly massive social structure for a MMORPG, and it only makes the situation worse for players like me who want a world and not just a game.

Things don't look good for people like me.

Unless someone, somewhere, recognizes that there are also masses like me, that there's a huge pile of money to be made from us, and can figure out the deeper social aspects that can make a "world" come alive. Like UO used to be, and isn't anymore. But there are deeper problems that come with that, and UO also had those when it used to be a world. They are solvable, but that's where most developers hit the wall. And the costs of making such a game are where most investors hit the wall.

Yet....the rewards of success would be tremendous. Many gamers who played WoW have started asking for "more". But no one is offering it yet. Will someone ever? Who knows.

Garriott might.

I had hopes for Curt Schilling with Copernicus, but looking at their boards shows a common problem with MMOs. They are overrun with hardcore gamers who want more of the level grinding end game raidz. Most gamers are not hardcore like this, and don't spend their time on boards of games that aren't even released yet. These masses are not represented. Only the far fewer numbers of the hardcore are. And that can be very misleading if the developer doesn't see this and know deep down that they want to make something else.

People like me? You have made a judgement about the type of person I am because I ask a question about how UO might end up, and that I defend free to play as a business model?

Your in general terms thinking is exactly what is wrong with this industry as a whole. You're saying ftp can't work for more in depth games because that's how they support facebook apps and cheesy games? You aren't seeing the possibilities because your view is trapped inside a box of the way things are, and not how things can be.

UO could EASILY exist on a Freemium model, and attract all sorts of new players with free limited access. Just require premium accounts for the benefits of LRC, or housing, or any number of things.

And for the record, I am the kind of gamer who likes things good quality for low prices. I only pay premium prices for things I KNOW I will love (most recently Portal 2). I don't play facebook games because none of them have enough game for me. And I've played enough MMO's in my day to know that the only one I can play is UO, that is until something comes along that changes all the rules.

 

[In Flames]

They obviously haven't been concerned enough to take out all the free shards, so I'd say they are content with the status quo.

I see no reason for them to in any case, as they are technically free advertising as well as sand boxes for the developers to watch. If one or more of them became hugely popular AND they started charging significantly (if they ARE charging EA probably would have done something about them by now) then they will want to examine why they are popular and see if it something they can use.

I suspect they look at many of them in the way quake and half life servers were viewed. No real threat to revenues unless a new meme or playable mechanism comes to light, in which case they would either blatantly copy it or buy it( I think they don't want to deal with litigation, it costs a lot, the people they'd sue normally don't have that much money in any case, and the negative look they'd get from the internet community would hurt other games much more.)

If you read about the case that blizzard won, there was mention of donations where the players would receive goods for their donation. The court ruled that this was buying & selling and with that the business running the server was sued, and shutdown. Many of the UO servers out there do something similar, giving in game goods to donators and such. EA has lawyers that get paid to take care of this very sort of problem. It wouldn't be much in the way of a hassle for them to send out a cease & desist order to these groups citing the Blizzard case as grounds, which would likely scare most of the owners of these servers into backing down.

 

[Nexus]

Honestly I don't think they can shut the majority of them down. 10 -12 years of ignoring them could be looked at as implied consent in court. You can only let something go for so long before you deal with it, after that not as much you can do about it.

As to a F2P model? I think this might be the best route to take against Emulators. Like others have said many games have switched to F2P many of them with higher sub numbers than UO has ever had prior to this change. DDO and LOTRO come to mind easily, they increased revenues by going a Freemium Route. The bulk of subbies stayed subbies, while the new F2P people pay here and there for what they want, all without dramatically increasing cost of maintaining the game.

 

[Fayled Dhreams]

Honestly I don't think they can shut the majority of them down. 10 -12 years of ignoring them could be looked at as implied consent in court. You can only let something go for so long before you deal with it, after that not as much you can do about it.

As to a F2P model? I think this might be the best route to take against Emulators. Like others have said many games have switched to F2P many of them with higher sub numbers than UO has ever had prior to this change. DDO and LOTRO come to mind easily, they increased revenues by going a Freemium Route. The bulk of subbies stayed subbies, while the new F2P people pay here and there for what they want, all without dramatically increasing cost of maintaining the game.

/false ...
*sigh*

11. General Provisions.
You may not use, copy, modify, sublicense, rent, sell, assign or transfer the rights or obligations granted to you in this Agreement, except as expressly provided in this Agreement. Any assignment in violation of this Agreement is void, except that you may transfer your Account to another person provided that person accepts the terms of this Service Agreement. If any provision of this Agreement is held to be unenforceable for any reason, such provision shall be reformed only to the extent necessary to make it enforceable, and such decision shall not affect the enforceability of: (i) such provision under other circumstances, or (ii) the remaining provisions hereof under all circumstances. Electronic Arts' failure to enforce at any time any of the provisions of this Agreement shall in no way be construed to be a present or future waiver of such provisions, nor in any way affect the right of any party to enforce each and every such provision thereafter. The express waiver by Electronic Arts of any provision, condition or requirement of this Agreement shall not constitute a waiver of any future obligation to comply with such provision, condition or requirement. Notwithstanding anything else in this Agreement, no default, delay or failure to perform on the part of Electronic Arts shall be considered a breach of this Agreement if such default, delay or failure to perform is shown to be due to causes beyond the reasonable control of Electronic Arts.

I guess you forgot what you read and agreed to ...
Ignorance is NO DEFENSE
ie. .... I guess you forgot that too ..

 

[Fayled Dhreams]

my oh my oh my
EA Takedown Orders Sent to Ultima IV Servers Preceding 2011 Reboot - SlashGear

told ya! HA!

 

[Experimental]

my oh my oh my
EA Takedown Orders Sent to Ultima IV Servers Preceding 2011 Reboot - SlashGear

told ya! HA!

Ultima 4 & EA: Corrections and Clarifications | Ultima Aiera

 

[Raptor85]

Do any of the freeshards push patches to the client? Not sure of any that do. The freeshard software is completely custom, it uses 0 code from EA's UO servers (nobody has ever had that but EA). Reverse engineering the UO protocol, though it was done far before the specific act (there was NO law against anything of the sort then either, but to use today's laws...), is protected by section 103(f) of the DMCA. So long as the freeshards don't actually redistribute the client or parts of the client they're in pretty clear waters, nothing EA can do about it (as it should be). EA would however be fully within their rights to ban anyone going to the freeshards from playing on the OSI servers.

Though, even if they couldn't win the case, what companies like EA and Blizzard generally do is push the case anyways, knowing that they can afford the hundreds of thousands of dollars in lawyer fees, but the person they're suing cant....they generally can force a takedown as means of settling out of court (but if fought, it could cost EA millions for knowingly bringing an invalid lawsuit)

It should be noted to, that if the freeshards were gone, there probably wouldn't BE an OSI uo anymore, our playerbase is SMALL, tiny compared to the freeshards, and a good portion of the current playerbase are players who started on freeshards or returned from freeshards to play on the OSI shards again. (generally a wave of people comes back to try out new expansions)

 

[Nexus]

/false ...
*sigh*
I guess you forgot what you read and agreed to ...
Ignorance is NO DEFENSE
ie. .... I guess you forgot that too ..

Just because someone sticks it in a EULA doesn't make it legally binding...

EULA's are contracts, contracts that only provide rights for the issuing party can and have been deemed non-binding in court. Couple of reasons an EULA could be deemed a Contract of Adhesion for this are...

A) The EULA isn't presented prior to opening the Box, ie. You don't know what you are getting into until you've purchased it.

B) No Proof of Agreement, ie. They can't tell if you physically agreed or if your cat stepped on the Enter Key. Have someone build you a PC and install your software? There ya go...

C) They are not agreements between people of equal standing. Companies like EA have massive resources you don't.

Now there have been a few high profile cases about this, most notable Bragg vs Linden Lab.... Couple things came out of that.

An EULA can be considered a minimal contract forcing a company to possibly have to defend itself in a court where state laws are unfavorable to it's case for one of the above reasons...
The Limited Liability Clause included in most games EULA are unenforcable, depending on the judge, or state, this could void the entire thing.

I haven't forgotten anything, I just knew more... Laws are interperted differently in different states, and countries. Not to mention the DCMA wasn't inacted until after most of the Eumlators used today were already in existance basically grandfathering them.

 

[longshanks]

i often wondered what the brand would fetch if it was spun off by ea.

Does anyone have the details of what garriott or whoever owned it sold it for originally. its probably worth less now due to the lower subscription base.

 

[Uvtha]

If, by some chance, you guys are right and ftP is profitable long term, then that spells very bad news for players like me. We won't be around anymore, if that's the case. There won't be a place for us in MMORPGs, anywhere.
But that's good news for you guys and gals and your type of gamer, I'm sure.

Why? Why do you assume that you can't get a good gaming experience ala carte? Especially since most large scale free to play mmos (like EQ2, D&D online, and Lotro) all still have a subscription option.

Just because a game is ft2 doesn't mean its not worth playing. But if you want to stubbornly believe that, you had better prepare to not play mmos anymore, because that IS the way they are going.

 

[Nexus]

Why? Why do you assume that you can't get a good gaming experience ala carte? Especially since most large scale free to play mmos (like EQ2, D&D online, and Lotro) all still have a subscription option.

Just because a game is ft2 doesn't mean its not worth playing. But if you want to stubbornly believe that, you had better prepare to not play mmos anymore, because that IS the way they are going.

This is pretty much true, even with LOTRO you still have to purchase the expansions one way or the other, either bit by bit for 3x the cost, or all at once.

But you can spend about $300 and get 90% of what subbies get and never pay again til the next expansion.

 

[galefan2004]

MMOs are getting to be a mess with all this. It's better to stay strictly a subscription, and make the game better. Good enough to attract players on the game's merits rather than play these cash grab games.

In order to argue that free to play doesn't work, you would have to argue that IPod and IPad don't work. I mean, you pay $300-$500 up front for such devices, and you can't use them to do anything unless you are willing to pay for all of the additional content (aps and music).

It works along the same basis. People don't care as much when they get what they pay for. It is a lot easier to see a new shiny pixelated item and spend money on it then it is to see the lack of server maintenance and fresh content that you pay for every month.

I support free to play for all, and for most games that have tried it it has completely helped the game in terms of subscriptions and sales.

 

[Squeax]

It's early yet on the FtP model, in the scope of things. I don't believe it will last for anything other than simplistic (much lower budget) FaceBook sorts of games where deeper experiences are unheard of.

I bet you think this horseless carriage thing is a fad too.

Lord of the Rings and D&D Online went F2P and reported huge increases in revenue. Everquest 2 introduced an F2P model ages ago, and now Age of Conan is jumping on the bandwagon. Pretty sure WW2 Online is as well.

Five years from now there will hardly be any 'subscribe or GTFO' games left.

 

[Lady Storm]

Well EA has over the years taken quite a few free shards down legaly.

Now if your willing to give the names of these top illegal sites an the addy for them to Cal in a pm I bet you you will see those sites gone very quickly.
And no they pay that legal team they keep in house so i dont see a need for hiring anyone else.
I'd love to see all the "FREE SHARDS" gone. The players who should be here like the rest of us. To get things changed you need the mouths who want it in the game not off on some free shard thumbing their nose at EA. That dont change things.

 

[Woodsman]

Now if your willing to give the names of these top illegal sites an the addy for them to Cal in a pm I bet you you will see those sites gone very quickly.

Cal could spend 5 minutes on Google and get the top 3rd party shards, or rather EA Legal could get an intern to spend 5 minutes on Google and get them, since it would probably not be handled by Cal anyways.

It's not an issue of them not having time to look those shards up. As a matter of fact Cal said they looked at the free shards when they were considering a classic shard last year, so they are aware of them.

I'd love to see all the "FREE SHARDS" gone. The players who should be here like the rest of us. To get things changed you need the mouths who want it in the game not off on some free shard thumbing their nose at EA. That dont change things.

You assume that the free sharders would come back to UO. That's a huge assumption, since many of them play those shards because as far as they are concerned, UO died when Renaissance or AOS came about, or UO does not offer the kind of RPing or PvP they want. They have an idea of what UO should be or what they want it to be, and the only way they can get that is through a free shard.

They play those free shards for a reason, and removing those free shards would not bring many of them back to EA's UO.

EA's UO does not offer what they want, otherwise they would be here. EA's UO is only $10 a month. People leave the official UO for a variety of reasons that usually have nothing to do with cost, and free shards take advantage of some of those reasons. Nobody is running away from UO because $10 a month costs too much - if $10 a month is too much to somebody, then they have bigger problems that should be addressed before they spend time on MMOs. Instead those free shards offer certain rulesets or certain RPing or PvP options that they are simply not going to get with EA's UO.

Free shards rank really far down the scale of problems for UO. UO's biggest problem is bringing in new players and keeping them and nothing comes close. The devs are trying to do just that, and it's frustrating that we don't see any visible sign of that. Once we start seeing some screen shots or some patches for the EC, I think it will shake things up.

 

[In Flames]

Free shards rank really far down the scale of problems for UO. UO's biggest problem is bringing in new players and keeping them and nothing comes close. The devs are trying to do just that, and it's frustrating that we don't see any visible sign of that. Once we start seeing some screen shots or some patches for the EC, I think it will shake things up.

I agree with what you say the problem is (new blood), but I really don't think that your answers to UO's problem can help overcome it.

First I think that the EC is NOT our savior, but rather a harbinger of slow agonizing death, much as I believed UO3D to be. It divides our player base, and the development team which I believe both are already thin to begin with.

Actually, you know what? I was going to DL the EC client all over again and make a few comparisons in this post, but the patcher just crashed 3 times trying to DL the client. lol It's not worth the headache. It's just bad.