[Proposal] Additional Ultima Online House Code

McDougle said:

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

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.

McDougle said:

They will never give up the income 

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

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.

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.

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.

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 

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 ?

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

Victim_Of_Siege said:

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

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)?

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 

Victim_Of_Siege said:

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

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.

McDougle said:

OP means original poster

mis said:

McDougle said:

OP means original poster

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

Pawain said:

What did you think you were being called. 

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.

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)?

JackFlashUk said:

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 said:

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.

Lord_Frodo said:

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.

McDougle said:

Lord_Frodo said:

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.

Once again you fail to read the OP  clearly stated the proposed second house would not be sellable 

Lord_Frodo said:

McDougle said:

Lord_Frodo said:

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.

Once again you fail to read the OP  clearly stated the proposed second house would not be sellable 

Nowhere in the OP does it state that the 2nd house could not be sold.

McDougle said:

Lord_Frodo said:

McDougle said:

Lord_Frodo said:

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.

Once again you fail to read the OP  clearly stated the proposed second house would not be sellable 

Nowhere in the OP does it state that the 2nd house could not be sold.

Once again you failed read I didn't say they stated it in the first post only that they had Cleary stated it..

Barkley said:

I'm coming at it from a different angle. I'd like to have a second house but on a different shard. I like starting new crews from scratch and it would be much easier with a house. Someday I might get another subscription, but I'd be more likely to pay an extra couple of bucks per month for another house on my current sub than to sign up for an entire new sub... but I guess it would earn vet rewards so I'll keep thinking about it. But I've been thinking about it for several years now and haven't done anything about it yet, and probably never will.