[Proposal] Additional Ultima Online House Code

mis

@Mesanna @System

In the same way that there is 'Ultima Online 7th character space code' or 'Ultima Online bank hosting and storage upgrade code' as an add-on, I propose 'Ultima Online additional house code'.  

The reason for this proposal is for those who for example have their private house and additionally want a store or castle for the guild.  

The code would be only one additional construction per account and not cumulative, being in total 2 constructions.

I would like this proposal to be valued as it may be useful for some people.

McDougle

We already have this code it's called a second subscription 

mis

McDougle said:

We already have this code it's called a second subscription 

It is different, it implies two accounts with subscription, this code would be for 2 constructions in one subscription.  

It's like those players who wanted a 7 character and had to create another account, but with the 7 character slot code it solves that and saves you 2 accounts.

McDougle

mis said:

McDougle said:

We already have this code it's called a second subscription 

It is different, it implies two accounts with subscription, this code would be for 2 constructions in one subscription.  

It's like those players who wanted a 7 character and had to create another account, but with the 7 character slot code it solves that and saves you 2 accounts.

They will never give up the income 

mis

McDougle said:

They will never give up the income 

They do not give up income, it is precisely the opposite, they increase income.

According to your theory that players have two accounts for having 2 builds, there may be cases, but these players keep more than one account for the advantages of a subscription account and they are aware that an Endless Journal account would totally limit their experience, including access to their bank, where they would have everything blocked if they exceed a number of items.

Therefore, players who have 2 or more subscriptions would continue to keep their accounts to avoid limitations and what would happen would be that those who want an additional build would buy this code.

Therefore, revenues would increase in a guaranteed way, not decrease.

JackFlashUk

I currently have 3 fully paid up legal accts so they get great value from me, I would like to be able to buy an extra house code 

I certainly do not need a 4th acct, I will not be paying for one, so as per what the OP is proposing, broadsword will get some extra revenue from me for this code

great suggestion, it will also help to make the lands less barren

depending on cost of course  

link it to the master or main acct so it cannot be used to keep a closed acct house up but benefit a paid subscription acct

mis

JackFlashUk said:

I currently have 3 fully paid up legal accts so they get great value from me, I would like to be able to buy an extra house code 

I certainly do not need a 4th acct, I will not be paying for one, so as per what the OP is proposing, broadsword will get some extra revenue from me for this code

great suggestion, it will also help to make the lands less barren

depending on cost of course  

link it to the master or main acct so it cannot be used to keep a closed acct house up but benefit a paid subscription acct

Thank you for sharing your opinion as an activated multi-account player (with subscription), seeing the proposal as something that would not affect your subscriptions negatively, but on the contrary, depending on the price you would even accept an extra house code.

Of course, this code I propose is valid only for accounts with subscription and not cumulative, which means that it could only be 1 additional build per account being total 2 as limitation (therefore you could not activate this code/add-on more than once in the same account, resulting in 'This add-on is already activated').

EJ accounts cannot build houses, be or be added as a friend in a house (secure disconnection), use house storage or even be the chest with access to all, etc... so this code would not work with EJ.

And if the subscribed account expires with this extra house add-on, after the grace period, if you have 2 buildings, the 2 buildings will be collapsed.

Lord_Frodo

mis said:

@ Mesanna @ System

In the same way that there is 'Ultima Online 7th character space code' or 'Ultima Online bank hosting and storage upgrade code' as an add-on, I propose 'Ultima Online additional house code'.  

The reason for this proposal is for those who for example have their private house and additionally want a store or castle for the guild.  

The code would be only one additional construction per account and not cumulative, being in total 2 constructions.

I would like this proposal to be valued as it may be useful for some people.

UO would lose way to much money from all the house holding accounts.  Forget the 1-4 account holders, look at the accounts like UO Relator and people like that that could shun down half their accounts, that is a lot of money.

JackFlashUk

If there was one  code per master account and make that house unsellable then that would avoid such potential abuse would it not ?  Kinda like increased storage you can only add so many to the accts   I am sure this can be done 

JackFlashUk

Lord_Frodo said:

mis said:

@ Mesanna @ System

In the same way that there is 'Ultima Online 7th character space code' or 'Ultima Online bank hosting and storage upgrade code' as an add-on, I propose 'Ultima Online additional house code'.  

The reason for this proposal is for those who for example have their private house and additionally want a store or castle for the guild.  

The code would be only one additional construction per account and not cumulative, being in total 2 constructions.

I would like this proposal to be valued as it may be useful for some people.

UO would lose way too much money from all the house holding accounts.  Forget the 1-4 account holders, look at the accounts like UO Relator and people like that that could shun down half their accounts, that is a lot of money.

Would that allow players to place houses at plot prices instead of being fleeced by such sellers ? Don’t they have RMT sites for their houses?

if this ensured players didn’t have to spend excess of 1P for an 18x18 in Atlantic I will help them pack for pastures new myself 

just take a look around Atlantic.  How many plots are 4 sale or 4 sell

Inflated prices by one or two who are NOT there for the good of the players I certainly will not miss

with regards to the person you mention, I seem to remember there were a series of YouTube videos showing what a great community champion they are, you ever watch them ?

mis

Lord_Frodo said:

UO would lose way to much money from all the house holding accounts.  Forget the 1-4 account holders, look at the accounts like UO Relator and people like that that could shun down half their accounts, that is a lot of money.

I use translator to communicate and I don't know if the translation doesn't express everything correctly or there's something I don't understand, but I'm surprised, the two players who wrote that, do you pay exclusively a subscription to maintain a build without using the characters of those accounts or are they speculations? I'm amazed.

You are the second user to repeat again that the company would lose money, as if implying that they exclusively pay a subscription to have a build.

Don't those players use the characters on those accounts, the bank, etc...?

I would like to remind you that if one of these players with more than 20 items in their bank, stop paying subscription, when the account becomes EJ in an automated way, the bank is blocked and they can not take out a single item inside.

Not to mention all the limitations of EJ, do you really think that there are players who exclusively pay money for a build without using the account for anything else (special metals, gems, etc...)?

@Lord_Frodo @McDougle with transparency and honesty, are you paying a subscription exclusively for a construction without using the characters and all the benefits that a subscription account implies (as if to imply that you don't care if your account is EJ because you don't use it, you pay exclusively for maintaining a terrain)?

popps

McDougle said:

mis said:

McDougle said:

We already have this code it's called a second subscription 

It is different, it implies two accounts with subscription, this code would be for 2 constructions in one subscription.  

It's like those players who wanted a 7 character and had to create another account, but with the 7 character slot code it solves that and saves you 2 accounts.

They will never give up the income 

It could be looked at it in another way, to my opinion...

Subscriptions are a long term income, for a game as old as Ultima Online and with the competition that there is out there from other games, realistically, how many chances there might be that a relevant number of existing, subscribed players might want to subscribe "additional" accounts in order to accomodate their increased housing needs ?

I hear continuously of UO players with multiple accounts "reducing" the number of their subscribed accounts, not increasing them...

So, one could think, that the realistic chances of existing UO players subscribing "additional" accounts on top of what they have, might be quite slim...

Instead, by permitting a one time purchase of the right to own a second UO house, would be a lot more appealing to existing UO players and would provide to the game a significant additional one time revenue which could help fund an expansion, a revamp of the Classic Client or other Development time used to enhance UO so as to hopefully attract "new" players and their "new" revenues from subscriptions...

Bottom line is, with the current status quo, at least to my opinion, the chances that existing UO players might want to open up new subscribed accounts to increase their housing options look to me very slim and scarce... a few might still do it but the largest majority of the current UO players ?

Conversely, the chances of increasing revenues, even if with a one time purchase, from making available a one time purchase for a second UO home, would be quite high, at least to my opinion.

Better "some" additional one time revenues, perhaps and hopefully even consistent, or no or very scarce additional long term revenues ?

@Mesanna , @Kyronix ?

mis

popps said:

It could be looked at it in another way, to my opinion...

Subscriptions are a long term income, for a game as old as Ultima Online and with the competition that there is out there from other games, realistically, how many chances there might be that a relevant number of existing, subscribed players might want to subscribe "additional" accounts in order to accomodate their increased housing needs ?

I hear continuously of UO players with multiple accounts "reducing" the number of their subscribed accounts, not increasing them...

So, one could think, that the realistic chances of existing UO players subscribing "additional" accounts on top of what they have, might be quite slim...

Instead, by permitting a one time purchase of the right to own a second UO house, would be a lot more appealing to existing UO players and would provide to the game a significant additional one time revenue which could help fund an expansion, a revamp of the Classic Client or other Development time used to enhance UO so as to hopefully attract "new" players and their "new" revenues from subscriptions...

Bottom line is, with the current status quo, at least to my opinion, the chances that existing UO players might want to open up new subscribed accounts to increase their housing options look to me very slim and scarce... a few might still do it but the largest majority of the current UO players ?

Conversely, the chances of increasing revenues, even if with a one time purchase, from making available a one time purchase for a second UO home, would be quite high, at least to my opinion.

Better "some" additional one time revenues, perhaps and hopefully even consistent, or no or very scarce additional long term revenues ?

@ Mesanna , @ Kyronix ?

Thank you, I welcome reasoned and substantiated comments.

I leave an open question:

Are there any players reading the forum who honestly and transparently, only have a subscription to maintain their terrains without using characters or bank their active accounts?

I don't want rumors, I heard there is a player, they say there is a player who pays subscription for terrain, etc... I want first person, real experiences.

I am going to submit this proposal to the company and I want honesty, not rumor speculation or legends of players paying per subscription to maintain terrain without using anything else from their accounts.

Victim_Of_Siege

It's been asked for before in many ways (Link to just one of the threads below) the Teams stance on this appears to be (and likely to remain) That if you want a second home, open a second account. A lot of us do it now and if they added this i would buy it and close half my accounts and they'd gain the $50,$100, whatever it is charge once, and lose the ~$120 dollars a year on the other half. I just don't see that happening. But hey, here's to wishing.



https://forum.uo.com/discussion/10211/additional-house-on-other-shard/p1

mis

Victim_Of_Siege said:

It's been asked for before in many ways (Link to just one of the threads below) the Teams stance on this appears to be (and likely to remain) That if you want a second home, open a second account. A lot of us do it now and if they added this i would buy it and close half my accounts and they'd gain the $50,$100, whatever it is charge once, and lose the ~$120 dollars a year on the other half. I just don't see that happening. But hey, here's to wishing.



https://forum.uo.com/discussion/10211/additional-house-on-other-shard/p1

Hi, I have seen the link and it is similar but not the same.  

I am interested in your case, as I understood from the translator, that you would buy the addon but half of the accounts with subscription you would stop paying, that is, you would let them become EJ accounts.

I appreciate honesty to this question: 

@Victim_Of_Siege ; do you exclusively pay for keeping the terrain without using the characters and banks of that half of the accounts with subscription? 

Victim_Of_Siege

If they added a code for a second home on the account, i would close half my accounts, yes. 

mis

Victim_Of_Siege said:

If they added a code for a second home on the account, i would close half my accounts, yes. 

I understood about closing but you leave me surprised.  

Are you really not using any characters or the bank from that half of accounts with subscription?   

If you don't want to answer that's fine, but I'm surprised.

McDougle

mis said:

Lord_Frodo said:

UO would lose way to much money from all the house holding accounts.  Forget the 1-4 account holders, look at the accounts like UO Relator and people like that that could shun down half their accounts, that is a lot of money.

I use translator to communicate and I don't know if the translation doesn't express everything correctly or there's something I don't understand, but I'm surprised, the two players who wrote that, do you pay exclusively a subscription to maintain a build without using the characters of those accounts or are they speculations? I'm amazed.

You are the second user to repeat again that the company would lose money, as if implying that they exclusively pay a subscription to have a build.

Don't those players use the characters on those accounts, the bank, etc...?

I would like to remind you that if one of these players with more than 20 items in their bank, stop paying subscription, when the account becomes EJ in an automated way, the bank is blocked and they can not take out a single item inside.

Not to mention all the limitations of EJ, do you really think that there are players who exclusively pay money for a build without using the account for anything else (special metals, gems, etc...)?

@ Lord_Frodo @ McDougle with transparency and honesty, are you paying a subscription exclusively for a construction without using the characters and all the benefits that a subscription account implies (as if to imply that you don't care if your account is EJ because you don't use it, you pay exclusively for maintaining a terrain)?

Yes multiple people have multiple accounts just for house they would of course pay once to add another house rather than pay for years. Why do you think even empty shards are full of houses mainly keeps and castle 

mis

McDougle said:

Yes multiple people have multiple accounts just for house they would of course pay once to add another house rather than pay for years. Why do you think even empty shards are full of houses mainly keeps and castle 

It's a possibility, of course, but I was trying to get someone in that situation to share in first person such an experience.  

To see how many players are in that situation of not using anything, just paying to maintain their land and so this could be valued at the level of income.

JackFlashUk

As mentioned above I would add this 

the code can be used to place a house

you CANNOT  use it to offload another house

you cannot trade the plot or sell it to others 

all ways to abuse game mechanics blocked 

it is a bonus to a paid acct. One per master acct 

Victim_Of_Siege

All i use my additional accounts for is the extra house.

mis

Victim_Of_Siege said:

All i use my additional accounts for is the extra house.

@Victim_Of_Siege ; thanks for your response

Merlin

This would ultimately hurt subscription revenue, so it would never be implemented. 

I currently hold 80 accounts, but only have playable characters on seven of them. The rest of the accounts are for house holding. All accounts are fully paid - no games with the 90 day inactive rule.  This suggestion by the OP would allow me to close forty accounts and pay a one time fee to avoid paying recurring subscriptions.  At $65 per 6 month code, it would be an annual revenue decrease of $5200.  Not a smart suggestion.  Even though it would save me money, it would hurt the game.

mis

Merlin said:

This would ultimately hurt subscription revenue, so it would never be implemented. 

I currently hold 80 accounts, but only have playable characters on seven of them. The rest of the accounts are for house holding. All accounts are fully paid - no games with the 90 day inactive rule.  This suggestion by the OP would allow me to close forty accounts and pay a one time fee to avoid paying recurring subscriptions.  At $65 per 6 month code, it would be an annual revenue decrease of $5200.  Not a smart suggestion.  Even though it would save me money, it would hurt the game.

@Merlin Thanks for sharing your experience, it's amazing the number of accounts with subscription, in humor, it looks like you make money with this.

I already sent this afternoon the proposal to the company, so they will value and study if it is beneficial or not.

In situations like yours, where you say that it would allow you to close 40 accounts, it is the company who must evaluate this type of situation, if it is in their interest that users close their passive accounts, passive in the sense that they are land conservation accounts and not for playing.

This study and evaluation should be done internally by the company.

NOTE: It is the second user that says 'This suggestion of the OP', I want to clarify that I am a user like you, I am not Operator or similar, if you refer to that, I do not know how it originated but in case of that confusion, clarify that I am a user like you and in any message sent by me I indicate otherwise (I use translator and there are translations that I do not understand well, excuse any confusing or erroneous expression).

McDougle

OP means original poster

mis

McDougle said:

OP means original poster

*^_^* hahaha thanks for clarifying, I didn't know that.

As it is a different language and remembering that when I used to connect to IRC, the Operator of a channel was called OP, I got confused thinking that it referred to an Operator.

Pawain

mis said:

McDougle said:

OP means original poster

*^_^* hahaha thanks for clarifying, I didn't know that.

What did you think you were being called. 

mis

Pawain said:

What did you think you were being called. 

I thought it referred to something like 'The OP's (Operator's) suggestion' and I was amazed, thinking, what confusion.

Without understanding how or where that could have come from, I was amused.

Oreogl

Merlin said:

This would ultimately hurt subscription revenue, so it would never be implemented. 

I currently hold 80 accounts, but only have playable characters on seven of them. The rest of the accounts are for house holding. All accounts are fully paid - no games with the 90 day inactive rule.  This suggestion by the OP would allow me to close forty accounts and pay a one time fee to avoid paying recurring subscriptions.  At $65 per 6 month code, it would be an annual revenue decrease of $5200.  Not a smart suggestion.  Even though it would save me money, it would hurt the game.

What do you do with 80 houses?

Penderrin

I would also close several accounts. I only use them to keep houses on different shards. I only skill up characters on one account. I don't even bother filling the rosters on house holder accounts for receiving holiday gifts. I don't have time to collect. I just want a base of operations for my main account.

Lord_Frodo

mis said:

Lord_Frodo said:

UO would lose way to much money from all the house holding accounts.  Forget the 1-4 account holders, look at the accounts like UO Relator and people like that that could shun down half their accounts, that is a lot of money.

I use translator to communicate and I don't know if the translation doesn't express everything correctly or there's something I don't understand, but I'm surprised, the two players who wrote that, do you pay exclusively a subscription to maintain a build without using the characters of those accounts or are they speculations? I'm amazed.

You are the second user to repeat again that the company would lose money, as if implying that they exclusively pay a subscription to have a build.

Don't those players use the characters on those accounts, the bank, etc...?

I would like to remind you that if one of these players with more than 20 items in their bank, stop paying subscription, when the account becomes EJ in an automated way, the bank is blocked and they can not take out a single item inside.

Not to mention all the limitations of EJ, do you really think that there are players who exclusively pay money for a build without using the account for anything else (special metals, gems, etc...)?

@ Lord_Frodo @ McDougle with transparency and honesty, are you paying a subscription exclusively for a construction without using the characters and all the benefits that a subscription account implies (as if to imply that you don't care if your account is EJ because you don't use it, you pay exclusively for maintaining a terrain)?

We are talking about people that sell houses in UO and other sites.  They have many house holding accounts that do nothing but hold a house and with your idea they could close 1/2 of those accounts so EA/BS/UO would lose that income.