Many people desperately want more players in UO and so are looking for all kinds of ways to bring in new players to UO, and "Free to play" gets tossed around a lot. There are other threads in this very subforum that discuss whether or not "Free to play" is actually free, how it could be accomplished, etc., but this about the concerns that many have and why many resist it, just so that F2P advocates understand where they are coming from. #1 It's EA, there is a very real chance they could botch it in any number of ways. Once it's converted, there isn't much of a chance of backing out of it, and if EA botches it and the revenue drops, UO will be canceled. Not that things are going well right now - most of us outside of Atlantic and one or two of the Asian shards know that things are not going well, otherwise people wouldn't be pushing so hard for things like f2p to get more players in, but the decline is gradual. A botched conversion could drop revenue in short order, just as many got fed up with/screwed over by the account migration. Regardless of which side of the f2p debate you fall upon, all of us know that EA is not a charity, and a botched conversion that pisses off or confuses players would push UO that much closer to cancellation. #2 Many current UO players are afraid EA will end up charging them more by breaking everything up. This is a really major issue - what if EA decides that if you have a castle or keep or whatever, that you are going to be charged a hefty premium, even if you subscribe? It is EA after all. You think somebody who pays attention to revenue and spreadsheets is going to care or understand somebody who has had a castle or keep or whatever for 10 years? #3 The UO team is not big enough to doing an F2P conversion outside of lifting the time limit on trial accounts. This is a major issue, given all of the layoffs and key personnel changes over the past year. It's what has kept Asheron's Call on a subscription model as well - Turbine has even said this. #4 EA will do it half-assed. This kind of ties into #1. Right now, UO is a subscription game with a cash shop, and EA does the cash shop really half-assed. We all know they could be making much more money off of UO players if they would have some designers and artist cranking out new things in the cash shop, but they don't do it. #5 EA doesn't support UO properly now, while it's profitable, and they don't even try to make it more profitable (See #4), why would they support it more under F2P or why would UO see more resources? This is another big concern. What if EA bumped up UO revenue, but UO players didn't see it (in the form of larger UO team, more content, more fixes/upgrades). Yes, if it brought more players, that would be nice, but how much good does it do if EA increases revenue by $2 million or something, and all of that just went to pay for more non-UO stuff? People already feel ripped off that we are paying what we were a year or two ago, yet we have fewer developers and less content being added (and gone are the days of expansions, boosters, and now theme packs). #6 Most opponents to F2P don't realize that F2P MMORPGs under EA really just means a stripped down trial account. Both Warhammer Online and Star Wars: The Old Republic have F2P options that are just trial account (Warhammer even calls their F2P system a trial account) and the system is made to force you into subscribing if you want to seriously play. If you would take the time to show F2P opponents that EA doesn't do F2P like other companies, that it's just basically the trial account without a time limit, you might win more support. #7 Some F2P games focus their content/F2P options on the small amount that pays most of the money or for things that are above and beyond subscribers. What happens if the dev team focuses on the cash shop and cranking out $5 or $10 vanity items instead of content for all/most players (or at least those who pay a monthly subscription). It's a very real possibility given how small the dev team is these days. These are just some of the concerns that opponents to F2P have, and it's good to at least talk about these concerns and see them in one place, rather than mixed in with debates over whether or not it's just marketing taking advantage of people, etc.