1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Greetings Guest!!

    In order to combat SPAM on the forums, all users are required to have a minimum of 2 posts before they can submit links in any post or thread.

    Dismiss Notice

Ultima Online Premier membership

Discussion in 'UHall' started by jaashua, Mar 2, 2011.

  1. jaashua

    jaashua Guest

    I've been an Amazon Prime member for years. I'm also a generous tipper. I'll pay $2 more for an actual Deli sandwich over a $5 sub.

    What's the point? The point is, some of us are willing to pay a small premium for better service and a better product.

    What if UO offered another subscription level? I'm thinking something like a $28 monthly fee. For that fee, you'd get to play on a premier server available only to premier members. This server would have full time dedicated GMs (who would aggressively ban scripters/hackers/griefers, etc) as well as more EM events.

    The other aspect is that premier members of a certain length (3 months or something) would get access to a premier members forum where their voices can be heard a little clearer. The reasoning for that is that premier membership revenue would be split roughly 60/40 or 50/50 between supporting the shard and supplementing the UO dev team as a whole. They may even get an actual partial say, as in a vote, on which the direction the devs funded by the service go.

    The quick math. $15 extra per month per account translates, if you get 2,500 accounts to subscribe, to $450,000. That should be able to bring on a couple programmers/artists in addition to the GM staff.

    Anyway, just throwing the idea out there. Seems like a win-win-win scenario. I don't know how premier members could complain about being able to play on a cleaner shard and gets to offer input for a little more than the cost of a second account. I don't know how non-premier members could complain about other people paying to help make the game as a whole better for everyone. And I don't know how the UO dev team could complain about some extra bucks for some more staff.
     
  2. Annonymous User

    Annonymous User Journeyman
    Stratics Veteran

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2009
    Messages:
    159
    Likes Received:
    0
    I love it, I make enough I would be willing to do $30 or 40 bucks a month if I can transfer my toons to the new server with out resources.... just toons and pets :)


    In fact I think this is the best proposed idea in a long time !!
     
  3. canary

    canary Guest

    I think it would be a disaster, tbh.

    You would have premier accounts that would be screaming at the top of their lungs the INSTANT something wasn't tended to right away. Others would complain that 'EM's have events on hours I work! WAAAH!'. And beyond that the casual player would be even further neglected (if such a thing is possible).

    No, I think most of us 'old timers' saw the AWESOME changes when they instituted a 3 dollar price hike per monthly charge on the promise of better customer service and quality service. And by awesome, I mean none.
     
  4. Woodsman

    Woodsman Guest

    Yes, let's split the player populations up even more than they already are :thumbup:

    And that would change anything how? It's not like the devs are setting around looking for ideas - they don't even have enough resources for what they want to do.
     
  5. Annonymous User

    Annonymous User Journeyman
    Stratics Veteran

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2009
    Messages:
    159
    Likes Received:
    0
    but if you didnt get the QoS you were expecting then just down step your account back from the premie...

    People are always going to complain but whatever, I say screw those people because they are negative and only have negative responses to anything..

    I don't think he is trying to please any select group, just people that have more money and are willing to spend it (optional) for a better uo experience. I still think its an amazing idea /shrug
     
  6. Viquire

    Viquire Crazed Zealot
    Stratics Veteran

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2008
    Messages:
    3,456
    Likes Received:
    507
    Just pay 20 a month for 2 enhancement enhancers. You are already free to contribute just as much as you would like.
     
  7. Annonymous User

    Annonymous User Journeyman
    Stratics Veteran

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2009
    Messages:
    159
    Likes Received:
    0
    Actually I think I am almost done reading posts on stratics because almost all of them are full of nothing but complaints and negative comments twords everyone lol.. This place can really put me in a drab mood...
     
  8. canary

    canary Guest

    Yes, god forbid someone use history and logic as a counter point to the OP's idea.
     
  9. Viquire

    Viquire Crazed Zealot
    Stratics Veteran

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2008
    Messages:
    3,456
    Likes Received:
    507
    I'm just not sure where we got started equating more expensive as necessarily better. Its a fallacy.

    What I can tell you from my part is if the game goes tiered like that, It's going to force me to choose between some things that need to get done regular like, and some things I want to do when I have a chance.
     
  10. WarderDragon

    WarderDragon Babbling Loonie
    Stratics Veteran Alumni BRPA

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2008
    Messages:
    2,688
    Likes Received:
    69
    Mm. That so?

    Is that not what I am paying $12.99 a month for?
     
  11. ChReuter

    ChReuter Guest

    We should all come up with ways to pay more for what we are supposed to be already receiving!
     
  12. anvira

    anvira Guest

    /signed

    Isnt' THAT the truth
     
  13. Heartseeker

    Heartseeker Guest

    I agree, would be a disaster....

    Besides $28 dollars for UO is laughable.....
     
  14. Annonymous User

    Annonymous User Journeyman
    Stratics Veteran

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2009
    Messages:
    159
    Likes Received:
    0
    Meh, I think you are missing the point. Its not about the cost, its about getting a better service. Yes I know there was a price inc. that didn't amount to anything. You also have to face the fact that there is a lot less people playing this game, so in the end thats less money to go around for different services. If they charged an extra $14 to play on an exclusive shard that had better services, because the extra amount of cash is going into just the things that deal with that shard, I think that would work and be worth it. /shrug..
     
  15. canary

    canary Guest

    I'm just saying that with a subscription fee we currently should expect quality services now. We pay for a 13 year old game the same amount as you might for more polished, newer games.

    There are numerous F2P games out now that have better graphics, larger development teams and better all around customer service.

    The difference is most games are 'amusement park' style games as opposed to 'sandbox' style games. Which UO has currently in its favor.

    Regardless, there should be no excuse for shoddy customer service, ever. Especially when the game is supported by a company as large as EA.
     
  16. Heartseeker

    Heartseeker Guest

    You do realize this is EA your talking about....

    The extra money would most likely go towards a new game they were developing.

    Besides why trust a company that has no service at all?

    There game codes store doesn't even work properly for many....
     
  17. Sevin0oo0

    Sevin0oo0 Guest

    me personally, I'm sick of pie in the sky and fairy tales. It's not gonna get better, no matter how much we Hope it will, or what ideas We come up with to help. Player-Driven - didn't you just see where that got us? players ideas were probably thrown in the trash
     
  18. Annonymous User

    Annonymous User Journeyman
    Stratics Veteran

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2009
    Messages:
    159
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yes that is the truth, but those games attract a much larger customer base. UO will never be at the level those games are subscription wise, because EA will not take the risk of sinking that type of money in to a 13 year old game, that people may or may not come back to. /shrug

    sorry just to expand on my argument fairly quickly. less customers paying the fee = less money to go to development cs etc.. etc... That is really the excuse, and it is fairly valid. They have x amount of dollars to go around, and good man power isn't always cheep.
     
  19. Annonymous User

    Annonymous User Journeyman
    Stratics Veteran

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2009
    Messages:
    159
    Likes Received:
    0

    ^ This. I don't care so much about the fairy tales part, I like to hope :). But as far as reality goes this is dead on.
     
  20. Heartseeker

    Heartseeker Guest

    That is the dilemma...

    Till EA has a better looking client and provides better service, they won't have a very large player base....
     
  21. jaashua

    jaashua Guest

    Wouldn't it be funny if your boss used that line on you the next time you asked for a raise.
     
  22. jaashua

    jaashua Guest

    Obviously there need to be the stipulation that the premium over the regular price is to go solely to UO and to be divided as stated.
     
  23. Woodsman

    Woodsman Guest

    EA would never agree to that. They don't like things that would bind them like that, and that would quickly get it it tossed into the garbage can.

    UO has had layoffs that affect it, directly or indirectly, in the past, and the fact that they were profitable had no impact on that - EA wants to do whatever it wants to do.
     
  24. jaashua

    jaashua Guest

    I thought about that. But I think it's the opposite. People currently paying $13 a month and expecting a publish every week, and all bugs fixed immediately, and the EC textures improved tomorrow, and GMs swarming all over their servers are the unrealistic ones.
    That is a more than fair criticism. I think it's fairly obvious to everybody honest with themselves, however, that the fee, in all likelihood, got absorbed into operating costs as the playerbase continued to slowly decline and demand for more published and booster packs stayed the same. Clearly, there would need to be conditions on this premier membership premium revenue. This is us, the players, becoming, essentially, investors in the game and our only return is the improvement of the game we love.

    Picture what happens when the premier membership revenue gets a few artists on the EC right away and the results are stunning. UO playerbase starts increasing and there is more dev money. Everybody benefits from that...premier members and not.
     
  25. canary

    canary Guest

    Do you really think that?

    Or have people been asking for small things like the updated KR/EC male paperdoll for about three years now? Or customized keeps/ castles? Or to finish SA tile sets that still remain incomplete? Or sections of SA still not finished? Or the EC which is in perpetual beta?

    Heck, we were told months ago that arenas were going to be on TC, were pushed back due to High Seas, and were just told it is actually NOT finished, after all. And let's not forget that boosters were created in order NOT to push back other things on their plate.

    This is just the tip of the iceberg. I highly doubt anyone expects a publish every week. There are things, however, that have no been touched in forever and people are simply tired of having to ask again... and again... and again.
     
  26. jaashua

    jaashua Guest

    Ya, and you know what, you can come to Stratics and complain and beat your head against a wall or you can quit.

    Personally, I'm not happy with either of those two options so I came up with an alternative. One that has people paying a premium fee that helps make the game overall better for all players.......yet people have actually still managed to find a way to complain about that.
     
  27. jaashua

    jaashua Guest

    It's like somebody with half a million dollars calling EA and offering it to them for free, so long as they put it all towards UO. They're going to snub their nose at the offer? The reality is, this money was never there and never would have been there without the stipulation.

    Although, I can see EA hiring a few developers with the money and then firing three old ones to get around the stipulation and still manage to pocket the money. :) Doh. Obviously, it can't be as simple as that, but that's the gist of it.
     
  28. Warpig Inc

    Warpig Inc Babbling Loonie
    Stratics Veteran

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2008
    Messages:
    2,416
    Likes Received:
    397
    I don't think paying 3x as much will get you better service. They dropped the ball when they had more then 4x the player base paying. And as someone said until EA stops mixing the money gains will fail. Good money says they are learning nothing from the UO fail.

    As soon as they pull the plug the players need to come together and buy UO. Make it the gaming worlds first Green Bay Packers. Designers and developers come online listing their plans. Then ingame every active account polls the current list. Hall becomes the compass for OUR minions to know our desires. Site accounts for every red cent viewed by active members. And we can then decide on marketing and advert funding. And if one of our exclusive highly paid devs,bean counter or design team steps on it, they are voted off the island. Sure anyone in the field would go for current pay for only having to be good on one subject matter. Think a private school's teachers are just as good as public schools?

    As long as EA is in charge no successful game will get what's put into it, equal what comes out of payers pockets.
     
  29. WildWobble

    WildWobble Sage
    Stratics Veteran

    Joined:
    May 21, 2008
    Messages:
    596
    Likes Received:
    15
    Bad idea. Would ruin the game 1st you would get the few who will migrate to this service and then the shards populations would become lower and more would realise the game has died and just cancel their sub's if 1 person heads to premium 1/2 others will quite the game since they would rather spend 15 bucks on another mmorpg with a real player base and soon the only server is premium and then it becomes the same as things are now and you are just paying more for less...
     
  30. Yalp

    Yalp Guest

    Personally, If anything, I'm already giving EA TOO much of my money. In fact I intend to reduce the amount I give them now by 1/3rd.

    Is the OP on the EA staff and floating ideas on how they can get more customer money while expending less of their own resources, time and money so that the owners/shareholders can maximize their profit?
     
  31. hawkeye_pike

    hawkeye_pike Babbling Loonie
    Stratics Veteran

    Joined:
    May 15, 2008
    Messages:
    2,466
    Likes Received:
    11
    I wouldn't pay one cent more for a game with such outdated graphics.
     
  32. Taylor

    Taylor Former Stratics CEO (2011-2014)
    Professional VIP Stratics Veteran Supporter Alumni Campaign Benefactor Alumni

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2008
    Messages:
    8,023
    Likes Received:
    1,714
    I like the concept, in theory, but I have some apprehensions about how it would play out practically. Even if the devs proposed something like this, there would be no guarantee that the customer service department would deliver. I'm not too optimistic that they would.
     
  33. Gilmour

    Gilmour Certifiable
    Stratics Veteran Stratics Legend

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2003
    Messages:
    1,848
    Likes Received:
    283
    bad idea, this the path of the dark side.. Umm i mean, the "Freemium games".. that offers free games but if you actually want to do what you want you gotta not only be premium member subscription but also pay micro fees for items or even currencies, making them more expensive than subgames.

    there was a recent article from a recognised developers fora recently, try google it !

    also uo is expensive enough for the product we get, there by not said its not worth what we pay, because it is. i have 4 accounts still after all =)
     
  34. No, absolutely not. If someone is providing poor service I don't offer them even more money to improve. I tell them to get up to normal standards or I stop paying and if possible have my money refunded.

    A proper idea is to offer a discounted membership. For $5 less a month you get limited GM support/no phone support/no afterhours support/etc. That way more people are inclined to spend to take advantage. This is essentially what "Free to Play" is.
     
  35. G.v.P

    G.v.P Stratics Legend
    Stratics Veteran Stratics Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2004
    Messages:
    9,644
    Likes Received:
    831
    Thing about UO is it isn't WoW. An idea like making a $28 shard would be laughed at by everyone in the world of gaming, if UO isn't being laughed at enough as it is. I mean, I like UO enough, but come on. About 1,000 people wanted a Classic Shard and didn't get it. You think the less than 10 people who have voiced their opinion on agreeing with this OP are going to get EA to support the idea? Let alone 2,500 people wanting to pay $15 more a month? rofl...I think if you're willing to pay $15 more a month to get better service then you're playing, rather, you're SUPPORTING, the wrong game.
     
  36. jaashua

    jaashua Guest

    A large percentage of UO players already pay extra because they have multiple accounts. How many also subscribe to other MMOs? $15 a month for a markedly different experience isn't laughable.

    From what I heard, the classic shard was shot down mostly because there could be no clear definition of what a classic shard would mean.
     
  37. jaashua

    jaashua Guest

    If you're dealing with McDonald's then, yes, by all means leave in a huff never to return and go to Burger King instead.

    UO isn't at that level. It's more like a great BBQ joint behind the strip mall that only takes cash. You can picket the store and threaten to never eat there again because they don't have a 24-hour drive thru and a $1 menu but that's not going to change anything.
     
  38. G.v.P

    G.v.P Stratics Legend
    Stratics Veteran Stratics Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2004
    Messages:
    9,644
    Likes Received:
    831
    It just isn't a realistic idea. A person with three accounts will keep three accounts, not close two of them to play a $28 shard. Hell, you want to see what a $28 shard would be like? Play Origin. No one is there. That's what it would be like.

    If EA wants money, UO will sell more items at UOGameCodes. Probably takes an artist under an hour to design a new graphic that will eventually sell for $4.99. Beats having to hire at least four new GMs, train them, then hire someone to manage and moderate an in-house message board (which would, consequently, alienate the larger portion of the UO subscriber base, as others have already noted in this thread).

    Laughable, I say! :p
     
  39. Zosimus

    Zosimus Grand Inquisitor
    Stratics Veteran Alumni Stratics Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2004
    Messages:
    4,370
    Likes Received:
    720
    EA upped the fees years ago on UO and their reasoning was for better customer service. Well that didnt happen. It went down hill. GM's? they disapeared over time to canned responses.

    So your asking for double the fee for a premiere account? Not logical or feasible. How fair would that be to all players that even have mutiple accounts and have been paying for years for the supposedly better services that never happened.

    A new classic FS opened up last month and when you sign in, on average numbers on that shard are about 1900 players. There is revenue that EA and UO in general is missing out. Plus add the other FS out there with there population still a loss for UO and EA. They did not think it was feasible or logical for classic players so thats a loss of income not coming in.

    Even though your idea is with good intentions it would not be fair to all players of UO that some get a special treatment because they pay more. So a new player gets one account and pays the premiere fee. A vet on a regular shard that has 5 accounts and is paying more then the one account new player. So its fair with your idea, for a less paying customer to get all the perks of service versus the guy paying more is not logical.

    The game is old and outdated graphics and definetly not worth $28 to $30 a month. There would have to be an iron clad TOS agreement with no loopholes for a player to even agree to that and the money paid would be GUARANTEED to go back into UO for that premiere shard. Not some other game project. EA does what it wants. It doesnt do anything about FS, scripters, or gold sellers. You think they would care about a TOS when they dont even enforce the one they have in UO now? The money would go into another project or their pockets.

    If they came up with a UO2 and was similar in graphics, view and style to most modern games out there but, still had UO skills and system I would pay $15 a month.

    EA is focusing on SWTOR atm and UO is not even on their radar. If it becomes a flop what happens to all their mmo games they carry? If it becomes a huge success what happens to all their mmo games they carry? It could go either way, good or bad for the rest of their titles either way depending on one's game success or failure. Scary thought.

    I would focus my attention on the current game and what you would like to see done better. Like new players, bug fixes, ingame economy, uses for lands that have been forgotten, better quest system, PvP fixes and a reason to PvP then just yew gate and champ spawns.
     
  40. jaashua

    jaashua Guest

    True, but that fee hike brought it in line with most other games out there. I know it never went where they said it would, but imagine how worse off the game would be without those extra funds.
    As far as I'm concerned, those players are getting their money worth. If they weren't, they wouldn't have paid.
    But are people playing that server instead of playing UO or are they playing it because it's free? The raw numbers don't tell you that. I doubt many people who are into free shards have any interest in paying to play regardless.
    Getting special treatment for paying more is the definition of fair.

    As far as somebody with 5x accounts, they are using 5x the resources as somebody with 1 account and that's why they're paying 5x as much. A premier account uses 1x resources and costs 2x the money. The premier player certainly is not getting off easy.
    Agreed. The game is not worth that. But I think there would be enough of us interested in paying a small premium as sort of investors. Our return isn't shares or money, it's 1) watching the game we love develop faster into something comparable to 2011 products, and 2) having a voice in the direction the developers financed by the extra funds go. The hightened GM support is the immediate incentive.
    Absolutely. I proposed that they put a team on drastically revamping the graphics and then release that expansion/booster pack as UO2.
    Don't get me started. I wince just thinking about all the layers of beaurocracy over at EAMythicBiowareUO.
    That's just it. There's no shortage of good ideas. There's just a lack of develop time. That's clear from the HoC if it wasn't before. My suggestion so far is the only one to address that in a way that doesn't negatively affect anybody.
     
  41. jaashua

    jaashua Guest

    That's why there's incentive with developer interaction and GM support. I think you'd be surprised how well it would do. Just for fun, they could do a group buy thing and wait to launch it until they have 2,000 sign ups. ;)
    Bah.
     
  42. Woodsman

    Woodsman Guest

    You are better off taking the hypothetical money you are talking about, investing it in EA stock, and then trying to go through the investor channels. You will get more attention that way.

    If you want the game you love to develop into something comparable to 2011 products, that means new players, artwork and improved EC, which apparently is happening without your plan.

    If you were able to push this through, that means that developers/GMs/EMs would have to be hired.

    You would have to bring those developers/GMs/EMs completely up to speed on everything. EVERYTHING. That means that existing UO team members would have to take a lot of time out of their schedule to bring those new developers/GMs/EMs up to speed.

    You can't just put an ad on Monster.com and instantly hire people who are completely up to speed.

    So now you've set UO back a bit as the strained resources are strained even further to train up these new employees. Current UO players are going to be incredibly pissed that the already-strained dev team is strained even more so these premium players can have their EMs or whatever brought up to speed.

    That also means that current UO players are now paying for developers/etc. that are training up the premium EMs or whatever, so they are going to be doubly pissed.

    That's on top of the fact that one more shard is liable to scatter the playerbase even more, which is going to make players even more unhappy and divide the playerbase even further.

    You are better off getting your hypothetical 2,500 players to open up brand new accounts and doing so with six-month game codes, and to have all 2,500 players send in emails to the UO devs/etc. saying that you are doing this as a sign that you believe in UO and want UO in general to be advanced and to please consider these 2,500 new accounts that are paid up for six months as an investment in that future UO. You would get a lot of attention. Whether EA would do anything more than take that money and plug it into Star Wars is up in the air. It would have to be made clear that if no visible progress is made, all 2,500 of those accounts will be canceled at the end of six months.
     

  43. See you completely misinterpreted my statement. I didn't threaten anyone nor say I would leave in a huff. I said I'd just stop paying. Let's use your McDonalds example:

    I pay for a big mac and receive a sloppy meal. I open the bag and find my chips are completely burnt and half of my burger is hanging out the side. I walk up to the counter in a polite manner and inform them I'm not happy with the standards of my meal and show the person. Why so civil? Because it's probably a one off accident or the burger WAS fine when it was placed in the bag and later came apart in transit. Either way, accident.

    They fix it but this time I'm given the same burnt chips and this time the burger is burnt beyond recognition as well. I now inform them I want a refund since it's clear they cannot provide the service they advertise. I go home. Done.

    There is no picketing, or threatening. When someone asks for a refund that doesn't mean they have to petition it and act like a jerk.

    Same case here. I have no problem with support for UO right now. If I did, I'd send an e-mail and ask for assistance and state my difficulty attaining it (this is where phone calls are great). If I still find that I'm not getting the support my subscription fee entitles me too.. I'm out of here.
     
  44. jaashua

    jaashua Guest

    I heard nothing at all mentioned about new players during the HoC. I asked multiple times in the chat channel about how they plan to add new players. Instead they took the question about reptalons. And artwork and EC improvements are happening, but, given there was no discussion whatsoever about attracting new players, I'm guessing it's at the same level as other technical improvements....i.e. we'd like to and plan to find some time eventually.
    There are probably decent odds that there are a few quality former developers who could use the job. Maybe the same with the GMs, though that's certainly a less of a concern.
    Don't stop there. I'm sure it could also lead to further instability in the Middle East and/or the Mets winning the World Series. Extra resources have a tendency to really frustrate people.
    These 2,500 players need something for their money. Is they wanted a second account they'd have it by now. This isn't a donation. There need to be immediate incentives. A private dev board and hightened GM presence is it. That alone may not quite cover the price, but the difference is made up with the satisfaction that you're helping the game and the more rapid pace of technical development.
     
  45. jaashua

    jaashua Guest

    If you have no problem with the current level of support for UO; then you should think my idea is great. You keep paying your current standard rate...perfectly content. Meanwhile, people who want a higher level of service than you want, are paying for it and a good chunk of that extra money is going to make the game you play better faster.
     
  46. Woodsman

    Woodsman Guest

    New artwork and EC improvements will bring in people who would otherwise ignore UO. You yourself said it was important to make it comparable to something you'd find in 2011 and that is very important when talking about new players. A 20 year old is not going to give an Atari 2600 much of a chance, nor are they going to give UO a chance. It's not helped by the current new player experience - getting them to look past the graphics, many just won't be hooked unless you can show them beyond what the current experience is.

    Those players do exist. More players quit WoW every quarter than play UO. We just need to rope them in and they won't come to UO with things as they currently are. Start bringing those players in, and we start down a really good path for UO.
    There has been so much done over the years, that you simply cannot pick up former developers and plug them in. They will have to be brought up to speed, which means taking time away from the current UO devs, which is a concern. You can't brush away any concern that takes away time from the current devs, not as thinly stretched as they are.

    You also can't count on former devs to want to flock back - they are usually former for a reason, and if they've got a decent job, they aren't going to take the chance of becoming an ex-EA employee a second time around - plenty were laid off for no reason other than EA wanted a smaller team or because EA had problems elsewhere in the company. You'd have to pay them pretty well to bring them back into EA. That reduces the amount of money available. Most of the ex-UO devs do not live in Virginia either, and good luck on getting them to move from Texas or California to there. It gets pretty expensive if you want to cover their moving costs.

    You've already lost then, because they aren't going to be able to get up to speed as fast as you'd like. You can't simply launch a brand new shard, and have a whole new team devoted just to that shard within a few weeks.

    What are you are asking for is something that would take several months to put together. What you want is a free shard with a responsive staff that can be up and running within weeks.
     
  47. Ox AO

    Ox AO Grand Poobah
    Stratics Veteran Stratics Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2003
    Messages:
    6,430
    Likes Received:
    197
    you are on the right track but we don't need a new server.

    Those that pay the premium services get a new menu and a dedicated GM that does what is requested by those players within reason:

    1. Deticaed GM(s) for the primium service the GM would know which shard you are calling from.

    2. Depending on how much you pay the more land you rent which you an put in buildings, docks and lakes. With full control of building on that land as with custom housing.

    3. Pay even more you can get your own NPC to work some of the lands fully costomized so he can defend and do routine activities. For example: set a recording for him to do non skilled work. Say you need reagents set a recording to buy items at the store you need and he loads up your bank acount with those reagents bought from the store.
     
  48. G.v.P

    G.v.P Stratics Legend
    Stratics Veteran Stratics Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2004
    Messages:
    9,644
    Likes Received:
    831
    Haha that would be interesting ;P I forget the website but I know what you mean
     
  49. Zosimus

    Zosimus Grand Inquisitor
    Stratics Veteran Alumni Stratics Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2004
    Messages:
    4,370
    Likes Received:
    720
    That fee hike was for a service that they failed in the end to truly provide. It was EA decision so I dont fault Bioware for it. I dont need to imagine how it would of been without those extra funds because it happened with a fee increase anyway.

    There is no guarantees in life beside death and taxes. The point above this quote proves that EA will take your money with promises. Then in the end they dont fulfill those promises and still took your money. If you get burned by any company or product you buy you sure are not going to go back to them and give them more money.

    Some may play because its free, some play because they liked the time era and its simple and not complicated. Some play because they didnt like UO becoming item based. Math is used in all aspects of everyday life. Todays UO is no simple math test. Players want to come and play the game and kill stuff. Not have to do a math test just to get a character totally right for all their needs in a game. Thats why this formula ---> items > skills <--- rings true in todays UO. What I guess and what you guess isnt right or wrong about FS players. We dont know what those players would do or not. We are just guessing in our opinions of what we think.


    I disagree with this. The player that is paying for 5 accounts is paying more. The player paying for one account is paying less even though they are a premiere account.

    Formula example.. 5 regular accounts total is greater then, less than or equal to 1 premier account. The answer would be 64.95 > 30.00

    You want tons of players or there be no game. You cant justify because a player has an x amount accounts is using up more resources. Thats what keeps UO alive. How is having an x amount accounts using up resources? The mutiple account holders is what funds UO more then one account even paid 2x the amount for one. I'm not saying single account holders dont help fund UO but even 2X the price still wont compare to players like one that has 53 accounts. I think her name is Lady Storm so correct me if I am wrong on the name.

    I am glad you agree with my previous point. Your voice would be heard better by EA if you invested that extra money into their stocks and become a stockholder. Investing more of your own money into a game you are not heard by the EA execs. You may see improvements here and there but your still paying into it. You buy stocks and you dont like what they are doing you can sell it off. May lose some of your money or even gain some extra but in that way my voice is heard. I may have a say because I am an investor. Paying extra for an account will not guarantee anything. Im just a customer in their eyes at that point.

    I agree with you on this. I get crap for making weird anaolgies sometimes but here goes one...

    You put some dirty dishes in the sink and put ho****er and dishwashing liquid to soak over night. Wake up the next day go to work then come home. That dishwater is dirty, cold and no suds left. Do you take the dishes out and rinse them and put them away? Do you add some new water and dishwashing liquid and then clean them? Do you drain the bad water then add new water to clean them right then and there?

    This is UO in a nutshell. Do you add new items/content to the existing items/content and continue to fix current and past issues, or do you just continue to add items/content them in existing items/content and do nothing or do you start with a fersh game with new fresh ideas, fresh graphics, and rebuild the game and call it UO2?

    LOL. I agree totally


    It may not affect anybody at all. What you are saying is no different then what we classic sharders were asking. They said no to a classic shard, they have no solution to deal with siege problems, and they will say no to a premier shard. UO days of big budgets are in the past.

    Its a good idea you have but has many ways to be argued. When UO competes against F2P games with better graphics, B2P games with better graphics, P2P with better graphics its hard for UO. Graphics dont make a game but content does. They dont advertise UO and you sure are not going to get a new player in the mmo market now days play a 90's graphic game. It just dont work like that. Kids are playing games online that will be future MMO players and UO just isnt graphically appealing to them.
     
  50. Referring to that Mc Donalds example again:

    They give me another meal as poor as before. I don't turn around and offer them MORE money to fix it. It's quite clear in this case that UO's support levels have dropped. Why should we offer them more to fix it?

    The only time I'd want to offer them money is when I ask them to exceed our expectations. Let's say for example support is from 9-5 each day for our subscription. Some could offer to pay extra for support outside of trade hours.