WOW Hit on something here.

[Capt. Lucky]

WOW has a play to level 20 for free promotion going that sounds brilliant. I've done the 2 week trials before in various games and it seems I never got logged in enough to really experience and learn the game. Playing to level 20, logging in when ya want with no rush on time would be a really good way to go. It would need to be adapted to UO but this could work. Like no house ownership.co own, etc. I could see potential for storage abuse if not dealt with etc. But some variation on this could be a great idea. Maybe till one character reaches 600 skill points or something. Perhaps only give them one or 2 characters with a trial account. But anyway it's a really good idea that unfortunately doesn't translate to UO easily. Not sure how trial accounts work these days but a longer time to get hooked on the game I think is a good idea.

 

[Gamer_Goblin]

WOW has a play to level 20 for free promotion going that sound brilliant. I've done the 2 week trials before in various games and it seems I never got logged in enough to really experience and learn the game. Playing to level 20, logging in when ya want with no rush on time would be a really good way to go. It would need to be adapted to UO but this could work. Like no house ownership.co own, etc. I could see potential for storage abuse if not dealt with etc. But some variation on this could be a great idea. Maybe till one character reaches 600 skill points or something. Perhaps only give them one or 2 characters with a trial account. But anyway it's a really good idea that unfortunately doesn't translate to UO easily. Not sure how trial accounts work these days but a longer time to get hooked on the game I think is a good idea.

It's not a promotion... it's been going on for years. Even existing accounts that have let their payments expire can log in on less than level 20 characters. I used it to get every class up to 20 on both factions. You can't log into your mains and you can only have 10 gold. If you have over 10 gold any gold you loot is lost. You can que for instances.

 

[Lord Frodo]

WOW has a play to level 20 for free promotion going that sounds brilliant. I've done the 2 week trials before in various games and it seems I never got logged in enough to really experience and learn the game. Playing to level 20, logging in when ya want with no rush on time would be a really good way to go. It would need to be adapted to UO but this could work. Like no house ownership.co own, etc. I could see potential for storage abuse if not dealt with etc. But some variation on this could be a great idea. Maybe till one character reaches 600 skill points or something. Perhaps only give them one or 2 characters with a trial account. But anyway it's a really good idea that unfortunately doesn't translate to UO easily. Not sure how trial accounts work these days but a longer time to get hooked on the game I think is a good idea.

Just do away with the 2 week time limit and now we have a free to play UO which IMHO would have ZERO adverse effect on UO and give people wanting to try UO the means to look at more than 1 shard.

 

[sablestorm]

Just do away with the 2 week time limit and now we have a free to play UO which IMHO would have ZERO adverse effect on UO and give people wanting to try UO the means to look at more than 1 shard.

ZERO? Players would stop paying for housing and use trial accounts for bank storage rather than paying for houses for storage. You are talking about losing UO revenue which is the way to kill the game rather than save it.

 

[Kirthag]

WoW has really gotten creative with how to get and keep subscriptions.
They originally marketed it as "play WoW free [sic]" and upon signup said you can play free up to level 20. They learned from the cigarette companies - get them "young" and hook'em in for the long term.

They also got it right with the way they can sell time-tokens for gold. Instead of having all these uber-rich people, they created a gold-sink with "time tokens" that can be sold via the AH for gold. That seriously changed the way the game economy is done now - and fixing the price for the time token keeps it from being exploited. WTG Blizzard!

For UO.... there is no leveling, real instancing and such. However, I can see there being a way to entice new players with free accounts in similar ways...

1. No housing for "free" accounts - they cannot own a house, period
2. No access uber-boss instances
3. No ability to useAlacrity Scrolls, Power Scrolls, Masteries or character-boosting tokens even if purchased in-game - develop characters the "hard" way, and then they will want to be more - so they have to pay for an account
4. No shard transfers of character
5. No vet rewards until account is subscribed, then they earn vet-status only for paid time (like how we are now).
6. No access to Online Store goodies - this would be kinda tricky considering the relationship between Broadsword & EA and how the store is done - but IF Broadsword can get the e-commerce done right on their own site, well then, there is no no limit. They can tie purchases directly to the player account which would, in turn, give control over what an account can and cannot purchase. This would take development - but it definitely can be done (I've done it on other ecomm sites).

Making UO a "free-to-play-with-limitations" model would mean some serious low-level tinkering with the code, as well as messing with accounts. Not sure if Broadsword has the resources for such considering how other things presented to subscribers are. A "short list" of things mentioned by the community...

• Shoddy artwork (although the perspective is accurate, the aesthetic is not well accepted)
• Delays in releases
• 24/7 in-game GM support is lacking (what IS the GM schedule?)
• Hiccups with the online store
• Poor Public Relations (no formal announcement of Origin Sales or other promotions )
• Lack of marketing and advertising
• Accessibility to off-line time purchases is dwindling. Gamestop, Walmart and other venues in Hawaii used to carry UO time cards... I understand that stopped a long time ago but could still purchase EA cards. Now EA cards have disappeared throughout the state. Is this the same for other places? This essentially cuts out any kid who would blow his allowance on game time for UO. I see it every time I go to Wally-world. Kids standing there at the video game cards, mulling over Facebook, Blizzard, or XBox cards. Most of them get Blizzard.... think about that for a moment. EA (and thus UO) are missing out on business not having those cards available. Those game-cards were rather popular...
  • Used as christmas, birthday or general gift
  • People who don't have CC - not everyone uses them
  • Guaranteed payment into the Origin Store - a CC might be declined but a pre-paid card never is

Just my opinion...

TLDR: Broadsword & EA needs to look at how Blizzard is doing things - they might learn a thing or two..... or twenty.

 

[Merus]

ZERO? Players would stop paying for housing and use trial accounts for bank storage rather than paying for houses for storage. You are talking about losing UO revenue which is the way to kill the game rather than save it.

This has got to rank right up there with the number of accounts we would lose if tamers had more stable slots.

 

[Gamer_Goblin]

ZERO? Players would stop paying for housing and use trial accounts for bank storage rather than paying for houses for storage. You are talking about losing UO revenue which is the way to kill the game rather than save it.

Limit trial storage too?

 

[Kirthag]

Limit trial storage too?

Actually, if a trail/free account can make 6 characters per shard, that's a whole lotta storage.

add to my list of limitations - max 2 toons on ONE shards, free accounts should not have access to all shards.

ugh...

 

[sablestorm]

This has got to rank right up there with the number of accounts we would lose if tamers had more stable slots.

I can't think of a single time I have heard of someone creating a new account to train up a tamer so they could have access to more pets. First off all, it's a huge investment in time training a tamer up. Second of all, what I hear is tamers lamenting they don't have the stable space to try this pet or that pet so they forget about it and stick with the greater dragon. Housing on the other hand, I know for a fact players have activated new accounts for an additional house and more storage. Sometimes it is because of a loaded IDOC and they need a place to stash everything they mean to grab. Sometimes they are running out of space from their own adventures. Either way, this is revenue for this game we love. Tamers, not so much. Now if they sold a stable storage upgrade, now you're talking about raising money for the game.

 

[sablestorm]

Limit trial storage too?

*nods* The only issue is what happens to established accounts that go inactive. Does their bank drop like houses would? That would have to be sorted out.

 

[Victim of Siege]

*nods* The only issue is what happens to established accounts that go inactive. Does their bank drop like houses would? That would have to be sorted out.

one idea, move everything to a transfer crate and give them the same amount of time to bank what they want to keep, and move the rest.

 

[Necron87]

WoW has really gotten creative with how to get and keep subscriptions.
They originally marketed it as "play WoW free [sic]" and upon signup said you can play free up to level 20. They learned from the cigarette companies - get them "young" and hook'em in for the long term.

They also got it right with the way they can sell time-tokens for gold. Instead of having all these uber-rich people, they created a gold-sink with "time tokens" that can be sold via the AH for gold. That seriously changed the way the game economy is done now - and fixing the price for the time token keeps it from being exploited. WTG Blizzard!

For UO.... there is no leveling, real instancing and such. However, I can see there being a way to entice new players with free accounts in similar ways...

1. No housing for "free" accounts - they cannot own a house, period
2. No access uber-boss instances
3. No ability to useAlacrity Scrolls, Power Scrolls, Masteries or character-boosting tokens even if purchased in-game - develop characters the "hard" way, and then they will want to be more - so they have to pay for an account
4. No shard transfers of character
5. No vet rewards until account is subscribed, then they earn vet-status only for paid time (like how we are now).
6. No access to Online Store goodies - this would be kinda tricky considering the relationship between Broadsword & EA and how the store is done - but IF Broadsword can get the e-commerce done right on their own site, well then, there is no no limit. They can tie purchases directly to the player account which would, in turn, give control over what an account can and cannot purchase. This would take development - but it definitely can be done (I've done it on other ecomm sites).

Making UO a "free-to-play-with-limitations" model would mean some serious low-level tinkering with the code, as well as messing with accounts. Not sure if Broadsword has the resources for such considering how other things presented to subscribers are. A "short list" of things mentioned by the community...

• Shoddy artwork (although the perspective is accurate, the aesthetic is not well accepted)
• Delays in releases
• 24/7 in-game GM support is lacking (what IS the GM schedule?)
• Hiccups with the online store
• Poor Public Relations (no formal announcement of Origin Sales or other promotions )
• Lack of marketing and advertising
• Accessibility to off-line time purchases is dwindling. Gamestop, Walmart and other venues in Hawaii used to carry UO time cards... I understand that stopped a long time ago but could still purchase EA cards. Now EA cards have disappeared throughout the state. Is this the same for other places? This essentially cuts out any kid who would blow his allowance on game time for UO. I see it every time I go to Wally-world. Kids standing there at the video game cards, mulling over Facebook, Blizzard, or XBox cards. Most of them get Blizzard.... think about that for a moment. EA (and thus UO) are missing out on business not having those cards available. Those game-cards were rather popular...
  • Used as christmas, birthday or general gift
  • People who don't have CC - not everyone uses them
  • Guaranteed payment into the Origin Store - a CC might be declined but a pre-paid card never is

Just my opinion...

TLDR: Broadsword & EA needs to look at how Blizzard is doing things - they might learn a thing or two..... or twenty.

I agree with you 10 thousand times- "Broadsword & EA needs to look at how Blizzard is doing things......."

 

[Merus]

I can't think of a single time I have heard of someone creating a new account to train up a tamer so they could have access to more pets. First off all, it's a huge investment in time training a tamer up. Second of all, what I hear is tamers lamenting they don't have the stable space to try this pet or that pet so they forget about it and stick with the greater dragon. Housing on the other hand, I know for a fact players have activated new accounts for an additional house and more storage. Sometimes it is because of a loaded IDOC and they need a place to stash everything they mean to grab. Sometimes they are running out of space from their own adventures. Either way, this is revenue for this game we love. Tamers, not so much. Now if they sold a stable storage upgrade, now you're talking about raising money for the game.

Except that the option to use trial accounts for temporary storage already exists. Those that choose to activate an old account probably find the $13 to be a valid trade off of not having to jump through storage on 7 mule characters.

I will grant that there might be a few folks out there who need permanent storage... and rather than pay for an account every 4 months might use a permanent trail account as storage if the option were available. I believe that number would be fairly small and probably more than offset by the casual gamer who tries UO for a few months and decides it's worth $13 to pay for having a house.

 

[sablestorm]

Except that the option to use trial accounts for temporary storage already exists. Those that choose to activate an old account probably find the $13 to be a valid trade off of not having to jump through storage on 7 mule characters.

I will grant that there might be a few folks out there who need permanent storage... and rather than pay for an account every 4 months might use a permanent trail account as storage if the option were available. I believe that number would be fairly small and probably more than offset by the casual gamer who tries UO for a few months and decides it's worth $13 to pay for having a house.

Hmmmm, I can concede that your argument is a possibility. I guess only the EA accounts would know for certain if a change like this were implemented.

 

[old gypsy]

WoW has really gotten creative with how to get and keep subscriptions.
They originally marketed it as "play WoW free [sic]" and upon signup said you can play free up to level 20. They learned from the cigarette companies - get them "young" and hook'em in for the long term.

They also got it right with the way they can sell time-tokens for gold. Instead of having all these uber-rich people, they created a gold-sink with "time tokens" that can be sold via the AH for gold. That seriously changed the way the game economy is done now - and fixing the price for the time token keeps it from being exploited. WTG Blizzard!

For UO.... there is no leveling, real instancing and such. However, I can see there being a way to entice new players with free accounts in similar ways...

1. No housing for "free" accounts - they cannot own a house, period
2. No access uber-boss instances
3. No ability to useAlacrity Scrolls, Power Scrolls, Masteries or character-boosting tokens even if purchased in-game - develop characters the "hard" way, and then they will want to be more - so they have to pay for an account
4. No shard transfers of character
5. No vet rewards until account is subscribed, then they earn vet-status only for paid time (like how we are now).
6. No access to Online Store goodies - this would be kinda tricky considering the relationship between Broadsword & EA and how the store is done - but IF Broadsword can get the e-commerce done right on their own site, well then, there is no no limit. They can tie purchases directly to the player account which would, in turn, give control over what an account can and cannot purchase. This would take development - but it definitely can be done (I've done it on other ecomm sites).

Making UO a "free-to-play-with-limitations" model would mean some serious low-level tinkering with the code, as well as messing with accounts. Not sure if Broadsword has the resources for such considering how other things presented to subscribers are. A "short list" of things mentioned by the community...

• Shoddy artwork (although the perspective is accurate, the aesthetic is not well accepted)
• Delays in releases
• 24/7 in-game GM support is lacking (what IS the GM schedule?)
• Hiccups with the online store
• Poor Public Relations (no formal announcement of Origin Sales or other promotions )
• Lack of marketing and advertising
• Accessibility to off-line time purchases is dwindling. Gamestop, Walmart and other venues in Hawaii used to carry UO time cards... I understand that stopped a long time ago but could still purchase EA cards. Now EA cards have disappeared throughout the state. Is this the same for other places? This essentially cuts out any kid who would blow his allowance on game time for UO. I see it every time I go to Wally-world. Kids standing there at the video game cards, mulling over Facebook, Blizzard, or XBox cards. Most of them get Blizzard.... think about that for a moment. EA (and thus UO) are missing out on business not having those cards available. Those game-cards were rather popular...
  • Used as christmas, birthday or general gift
  • People who don't have CC - not everyone uses them
  • Guaranteed payment into the Origin Store - a CC might be declined but a pre-paid card never is

Just my opinion...

TLDR: Broadsword & EA needs to look at how Blizzard is doing things - they might learn a thing or two..... or twenty.

I think most "free to play" suggestions for UO are too complicated. I think it would make more sense to let a new player have a reasonable period of time to try things out relatively unrestricted other than:

(1) Only one character per free account.
(2) Cannot own a house.
(3) Cannot be friended or co-owned to any house.
(4) Cannot have a vendor at any house.
(5) Cannot buy from the Origin store.
(6) If they don't subscribe by the time their free trial is up, their account goes *poof* and they will have to start over with a new account if they want to try again.

 

[Kirthag]

I think most "free to play" suggestions for UO are too complicated.

ayuh, a lot of tinkering with low-level code... almost a new game....

 

[Zuckuss]

WoW has really gotten creative with how to get and keep subscriptions.
They originally marketed it as "play WoW free [sic]" and upon signup said you can play free up to level 20. They learned from the cigarette companies - get them "young" and hook'em in for the long term.

They also got it right with the way they can sell time-tokens for gold. Instead of having all these uber-rich people, they created a gold-sink with "time tokens" that can be sold via the AH for gold. That seriously changed the way the game economy is done now - and fixing the price for the time token keeps it from being exploited. WTG Blizzard!

For UO.... there is no leveling, real instancing and such. However, I can see there being a way to entice new players with free accounts in similar ways...

1. No housing for "free" accounts - they cannot own a house, period
2. No access uber-boss instances
3. No ability to useAlacrity Scrolls, Power Scrolls, Masteries or character-boosting tokens even if purchased in-game - develop characters the "hard" way, and then they will want to be more - so they have to pay for an account
4. No shard transfers of character
5. No vet rewards until account is subscribed, then they earn vet-status only for paid time (like how we are now).
6. No access to Online Store goodies - this would be kinda tricky considering the relationship between Broadsword & EA and how the store is done - but IF Broadsword can get the e-commerce done right on their own site, well then, there is no no limit. They can tie purchases directly to the player account which would, in turn, give control over what an account can and cannot purchase. This would take development - but it definitely can be done (I've done it on other ecomm sites).

Making UO a "free-to-play-with-limitations" model would mean some serious low-level tinkering with the code, as well as messing with accounts. Not sure if Broadsword has the resources for such considering how other things presented to subscribers are. A "short list" of things mentioned by the community...

• Shoddy artwork (although the perspective is accurate, the aesthetic is not well accepted)
• Delays in releases
• 24/7 in-game GM support is lacking (what IS the GM schedule?)
• Hiccups with the online store
• Poor Public Relations (no formal announcement of Origin Sales or other promotions )
• Lack of marketing and advertising
• Accessibility to off-line time purchases is dwindling. Gamestop, Walmart and other venues in Hawaii used to carry UO time cards... I understand that stopped a long time ago but could still purchase EA cards. Now EA cards have disappeared throughout the state. Is this the same for other places? This essentially cuts out any kid who would blow his allowance on game time for UO. I see it every time I go to Wally-world. Kids standing there at the video game cards, mulling over Facebook, Blizzard, or XBox cards. Most of them get Blizzard.... think about that for a moment. EA (and thus UO) are missing out on business not having those cards available. Those game-cards were rather popular...
  • Used as christmas, birthday or general gift
  • People who don't have CC - not everyone uses them
  • Guaranteed payment into the Origin Store - a CC might be declined but a pre-paid card never is

Just my opinion...

TLDR: Broadsword & EA needs to look at how Blizzard is doing things - they might learn a thing or two..... or twenty.

Add: Cannot pick up items off the ground unless the item has been on the ground for at least 5 minutes.

 

[Merlin]

Leave everything as is.

 

[sablestorm]

Leave everything as is.

It probably will remain as it is for the most part. I mean, next the Devs are busy with Time of Legends and anything unexpected which might crop up. After that, I imagine they'll be busy with Steam and the requirements necessary for that.

 

[Capt. Lucky]

Leave everything as is.

Cause that's been working SO well! lol

 

[CovenantX]

WOW has a play to level 20 for free promotion going that sounds brilliant.

Once you get established you could essentially play most of the game for free (I believe you still need to purchase all the expansions for it)

They also have an auction house you're able to buy game-time that is directly applied to your account upon purchase (it's not a physical item), the price is determined by Gold/Cash conversion rate. These Tokens appear on the auction house, and when players purchase them (irl) they're sold in-game, so essentially Blizzard is selling WoW-Gold.
It's a safe way to trade game-time for in-game gold since there is no middle-man.

Also, if you have enough gold for game-time you can actually re-activate your WoW account via battle.net at the going rate as well, which is kinda cool, (I wonder if UO will eventually be doing something similar to this?) with the new gold conversion, it may be possible.

I was thinking about re-activating my wow account, but with UO's expansion coming soon I'll probably be playing UO .

 

[Gamer_Goblin]

WoW has really gotten creative with how to get and keep subscriptions.
They originally marketed it as "play WoW free [sic]" and upon signup said you can play free up to level 20. They learned from the cigarette companies - get them "young" and hook'em in for the long term.

They also got it right with the way they can sell time-tokens for gold. Instead of having all these uber-rich people, they created a gold-sink with "time tokens" that can be sold via the AH for gold. That seriously changed the way the game economy is done now - and fixing the price for the time token keeps it from being exploited. WTG Blizzard!

It's not a gold sink at all. You buy the token with cash, it goes on the auction house, and someone pays for it with gold. The gold just changes hands. Blizzard doesn't even take a percentage. And RE: the price being influenced and changing, when you buy the token the price you get for it is always the same. So if the market goes down and someone buys the token for gold. Blizzard is actually creating the gold difference. So in essence... it's the opposite.

People aren't going out and buying tokens for real cash for others to buy with gold that is completely lost to the nethers.

 

[Thrakkar]

Easy.

Limit overall skill cap to 500.
Limit individual skill cap to 80.
Limit individual stat cap to 80.
Limit overall stat cap to 175.
Limit max bank item count to 25.
Limit char slots to 3.
Change 14 days trial period to infinite.
Already existing trial acc restrictions still apply.

Voila, trial account.

 

[The Craftsman]

Leave everything as is.

Great. Leave everything as it is and watch the games continual decline until there is no UO to play. Why on earth would we want to do something that might breathe life and new players into the game?

 

[Merlin]

Great. Leave everything as it is and watch the games continual decline until there is no UO to play. Why on earth would we want to do something that might breathe life and new players into the game?

Keeping everything the same is just as valid of an opinion as those calling for uprooting the entire trial account system.

IMHO, I haven't seen any suggestions here that will bring new players into the game. If anything, some of the suggestions would likely hurt sub numbers.

Additionally, I don't think the current set up for trial accounts contributes to the 'continual decline' of UO or should be a priority for the developers to address.

 

[Caelyr]

Keeping everything the same is just as valid of an opinion as those calling for uprooting the entire trial account system.

Not sure an opinion can be said to be valid without having offered evidence of its claims; the notion that your opinion is valid, is itself an opinion.

Additionally, I don't think the current set up for trial accounts contributes to the 'continual decline' of UO or should be a priority for the developers to address.

The devs themselves have expressed that changes need to be made before presenting UO to a modern audience, which - it is important to note - many of the current subscribers are not. While I understand the inclination towards comfort and nostalgia is a strong one, it's important to allow change to occur in a way that is beneficial. Curtly opposing all forms without offering a satisfactory alternative is not constructive.

Nostalgia is no doubt a main selling point of UO, but I believe the game can be made to be more friendly to users new and old. Also, nostalgia doesn't have to come at the exclusion of novelty and good design. At the moment, the learning curve is so steep, the new user experience so weak, and information about the game's many complex systems so scattered and unintuitive, that you'd be lucky to see a modern gamer install the game, let alone make it through the trial and consider subscription.

I would be interested to see you argue for "keeping everything as it is", but am concerned it may be yet another manifestation of that knee-jerk reaction to change which has nailed UO to the floor for years. I resent that we might have to wait for an entire generation of players to die out before we see UO get the resuscitation it's clearly, desperately needed for years.

 

[Capt. Lucky]

Not sure an opinion can be said to be valid without having offered evidence of its claims; the notion that your opinion is valid, is itself an opinion.


The devs themselves have expressed that changes need to be made before presenting UO to a modern audience, which - it is important to note - many of the current subscribers are not. While I understand the inclination towards comfort and nostalgia is a strong one, it's important to allow change to occur in a way that is beneficial. Curtly opposing all forms without offering a satisfactory alternative is not constructive.

Nostalgia is no doubt a main selling point of UO, but I believe the game can be made to be more friendly to users new and old. Also, nostalgia doesn't have to come at the exclusion of novelty and good design. At the moment, the learning curve is so steep, the new user experience so weak, and information about the game's many complex systems so scattered and unintuitive, that you'd be lucky to see a modern gamer install the game, let alone make it through the trial and consider subscription.

I would be interested to see you argue for "keeping everything as it is", but am concerned it may be yet another manifestation of that knee-jerk reaction to change which has nailed UO to the floor for years. I resent that we might have to wait for an entire generation of players to die out before we see UO get the resuscitation it's clearly, desperately needed for years.

It's all pretty simple. If I like or present an idea Merlin hates it, lol. I'm use to it I'm not sure what the opposite of "bros" is, but it's something like that, lol.

 

[Merlin]

Not sure an opinion can be said to be valid without having offered evidence of its claims; the notion that your opinion is valid, is itself an opinion.

Jibberish. Evidence of it's claims? I posted one sentence: Leave everything as is. What evidence of claims am I expected to post, professor? Do you want full references?

Curtly opposing all forms without offering a satisfactory alternative is not constructive.

Pure non-sense.

Just because I opposed ideas doesn't mean I have to propose one myself. As I previously noted, I basically have said the status quo is fine and to keep things as is. If it ain't broke... don't fix it. And I don't happen to view the current status of trial accounts as broke.

It is not a requirement what-so-ever that you have to offer some alternative proposal. Also, I did not quote anyone in this thread and rip apart their ideas or criticize any individual here.

PS. Where is your proposal?

Nostalgia is no doubt a main selling point of UO, but I believe the game can be made to be more friendly to users new and old. Also, nostalgia doesn't have to come at the exclusion of novelty and good design. At the moment, the learning curve is so steep, the new user experience so weak, and information about the game's many complex systems so scattered and unintuitive, that you'd be lucky to see a modern gamer install the game, let alone make it through the trial and consider subscription.

What does this have to do with anything I have said? You make a fair generalized point, but I see no proposal here either. Change for the sake of change isn't something to champion, IMHO.

I would be interested to see you argue for "keeping everything as it is", but am concerned it may be yet another manifestation of that knee-jerk reaction to change which has nailed UO to the floor for years. I resent that we might have to wait for an entire generation of players to die out before we see UO get the resuscitation it's clearly, desperately needed for years.

I would be interested to see a change proposal worth debating. Currently, I have not. Until then, I have no need to defend the status quo as there is no superior alternative.

It's all pretty simple. If I like or present an idea Merlin hates it, lol. I'm use to it I'm not sure what the opposite of "bros" is, but it's something like that, lol.

Has nothing to do with you.

 

[Capt. Lucky]

Jibberish. Evidence of it's claims? I posted one sentence: Leave everything as is. What evidence of claims am I expected to post, professor? Do you want full references?


Pure non-sense.

Just because I opposed ideas doesn't mean I have to propose one myself. As I previously noted, I basically have said the status quo is fine and to keep things as is. If it ain't broke... don't fix it. And I don't happen to view the current status of trial accounts as broke.

It is not a requirement what-so-ever that you have to offer some alternative proposal. Also, I did not quote anyone in this thread and rip apart their ideas or criticize any individual here.

PS. Where is your proposal?


What does this have to do with anything I have said? You make a fair generalized point, but I see no proposal here either. Change for the sake of change isn't something to champion, IMHO.


I would be interested to see a change proposal worth debating. Currently, I have not. Until then, I have no need to defend the status quo as there is no superior alternative.


Has nothing to do with you.

We did agree once. So never say never!

 

[Caelyr]

Jibberish. Evidence of it's claims? I posted one sentence: Leave everything as is. What evidence of claims am I expected to post, professor? Do you want full references?

Really, I was more curious to know what it was you thought you were doing when you made your first post in this thread. That kind of short statement cuts into the discussion, offering nothing, disrupting the exchange of ideas. It was (deliberately?) provocative.

Pure non-sense.

You could have omitted that and saved face.

Just because I opposed ideas doesn't mean I have to propose one myself. As I previously noted, I basically have said the status quo is fine and to keep things as is. If it ain't broke... don't fix it. And I don't happen to view the current status of trial accounts as broke.

It is not a requirement what-so-ever that you have to offer some alternative proposal. Also, I did not quote anyone in this thread and rip apart their ideas or criticize any individual here.

I agree, and that is not what I was trying to communicate.

PS. Where is your proposal?

It is not a requirement what-so-ever that you have to offer some alternative proposal.

What does this have to do with anything I have said? You make a fair generalized point, but I see no proposal here either. Change for the sake of change isn't something to champion, IMHO.

It is not a requirement what-so-ever that you have to offer some alternative proposal.

I did, in fact, propose informally that change is allowed to happen, but didn't want to expand the post to consider what may or may not be "broken", or make a case for change, as the replies in the thread show that other users consider it important, or even necessary, and it would have been a rather lengthy post in response to someone I wasn't sure I could engage.

Change for the sake of change is not what is being advocated here; a problem has been identified - you may have missed it - explicitly, it's that people who may be interested in the game are offered a two-week trial, in which they would have to jump through so many hoops just to reach the core gaming experience that they're often bored out of the game, and don't return. Without established players intercepting and engaging them, and speeding up their progress, many new players simply don't stick around after the trial.

I would be interested to see a change proposal worth debating. Currently, I have not. Until then, I have no need to defend the status quo as there is no superior alternative.

Man, it's getting dusty in here. I don't think your imperious tone is a help here. Could be wrong. Just saying.
Okay, here's an idea: maintaining the status quo requires effort, but promotes entropy. I'm curious to know what the 'online players' stat looks like charted on a graph over the years. My bet would be far fewer people play UO than during its peak, and that the number of active players has decreased over time. I would also bet that the number of active players will continue to decline if we maintain the status quo, releasing expansions for an ever-dwindling playerbase who find themselves spread further and further apart in an ever-growing world. This is normal, it's to be expected; UO has lived a far longer life than any of MMORPG's that followed it, but it's still subject to entropy. Business as usual.

I guess what I'm really trying to say is that change is inevitable - it's a cliché for a reason - but why should we settle with continuing to make this corpse dance? Why shouldn't we discuss what we believe could be improved, and how? Why shouldn't we make the game more accessible to new players?

 

[Kirthag]

idea:
make a new UO with features similar to the modern mmo
keep 4 shards (including SP) as "classic" UO - but put it into a maintenance-mode only with all new development going to the new UO.

oh wait.... already happening. nevermind.

 

[Caelyr]

idea:
make a new UO with features similar to the modern mmo
keep 4 shards (including SP) as "classic" UO - but put it into a maintenance-mode only with all new development going to the new UO.

oh wait.... already happening. nevermind.

It is?

 

[Kirthag]

It is?

Aye, but is not allowed to be spoken of. shhhhhh!

 

[azmodanb]

I hate to say it but nothing is going to save UO... Nothing. Its going to have a slow decline till EA does not make any money and turns it off.

I love UO and still have multiple active accounts. But nothing is going to make it huge ever again.

 

[old gypsy]

I hate to say it but nothing is going to save UO... Nothing. Its going to have a slow decline till EA does not make any money and turns it off.

I love UO and still have multiple active accounts. But nothing is going to make it huge ever again.

That reminds me of the natural process called aging. Try as one might to circumvent it, the process always wins. I'm almost 70 - would love to be young again - but all the health foods, exercise, vitamins and plastic surgeons in the world won't make it happen. But at least in UO, it's easier to pretend...