The Comments! But who cares. Lets just pretend all is fine

Article:

www.eurogamer.net/articles/2016-02-02-shroud-of-the-avatar-real-money-housing-market


FuzzyDuck

12 hours ago

Each to their own, but fools and their money, etc. Reply+51/55-+wyluzuj

12 hours ago

WTF went wrong in the gaming industry ? :confused: Reply+26/38-+Tricky_Rich

12 hours ago

Maybe I'm just a bit too shallow, but if I were paying that much for in-game property, I'd at least like that property to look absolutely gorgeous. This entire game looks like it escaped into the future from 2004! Reply+57/57-+Bertie

Moderator

Senior Staff Writer, Eurogamer.net

12 hours ago

@tricky_Rich I did talk to Garriott about that because I agree. I mean, the more I look at it, and at some of the new areas they're revealing, it doesn't look that bad, but there isn't the same kind of whimsy that Ultima Online had.



Anyway, what Garriott said was that he had a choice, effectively, between concentrating on how it looked or how it played and he picked the latter. The budget only does so much.



The promising thing is that graphics can always be updated and changed - something he heartily agreed with when I threw it out there. Should the game run on and become very successful, it could like quite different to how you see it now.



I think his decision to go substance > style with the budget he has makes sense. Reply+16/18-+Bertie

Moderator

Senior Staff Writer, Eurogamer.net

12 hours ago

@wyluzuj Did it go wrong? Or did it just change? That's what I can't quite work out here. I mean, yeah, on the face of it it seems bizarre, maybe exploitative, extortionate, whatever. But look into that and it's just a new business model that seems to be working; apparently people are happy paying these amounts, although of course he would say that. I tried to track a few real estate owners down for this article but to no avail.



Still, it makes it a weirdly interesting place. Reply+10/16-+andrewepicaitcheson

12 hours ago

I remember Star War Galaxies having none instanced housing and putting stuff on the walls etc. Oh and all that was part of the game. I am getting really fed up of all this DLC and extra charges. This is just silly. Best of luck to everyone that buys this stuff Reply+6/6-+Meho

12 hours ago

So, will this cause a birth of a second tier economy where assets in the game are resold on ebay etc.? Reply+5/5-+Tricky_Rich

11 hours ago

@bertie That's all very well him saying that, but from what I've seen of the game, the mechanics look pretty clunky as well, particularly the combat. Reply+5/5-+Bertie

Moderator

Senior Staff Writer, Eurogamer.net

11 hours ago

@tricky_Rich You're right. They were only half-implemented when I last played, and even on the phone recently, Garriott sounded kinda unsure whether the idea really works. Nevertheless, again, it's different, and I think it's interesting.



I think like a lot of Shroud stuff, the idea of a launch this summer is more like the idea of an Early Access release this summer. It could be another year on top of that - this is me guessing - before it works well Reply+2/6-+blarty

11 hours ago

So we're implementing elitism in virtual worlds now....how far the game industry has come for it to be able to so accurately model the haves and have nots.... Reply+11/13-+p_nut_uk

11 hours ago

Ultima online... my childhood right there Reply+2/2-+BoredGame

11 hours ago

Yup, people are stupid. Reply+12/12-+spekkeh

Assistant Professor in Game Design, Eindhoven University of Technology

11 hours ago

I think it's deluding yourself that the people who invest $9000 in your game don't want to cash out in some way by selling the deeds in real world money. It might not be money laundering per se, but it feels an awful lot like a ponzi scheme. Reply+19/23-+JAM80

11 hours ago

I've gotta say, I've been tempted to drop for a ship in star citizen, but only because said ship is a very tangible investment into the game. I don't think I could ever bring myself to part with that sort of coin for a simple house though. Does buying a big house or such give you any in game perks? does it generate an income? Anything? Reply-6/12-+Unholy_Witchcraft

11 hours ago

I told my friend how you can buy insanely expensive ships in Space Citizen with real money, he gave me a stare and asked "Would you be that stupid" i was like "Nah, rather spend that money on strippers, at least the tits are real" lol. Reply+1/9-+Unholy_Witchcraft

11 hours ago

@jam80 You are serious? Reply+3/5-+Bertie

Moderator

Senior Staff Writer, Eurogamer.net

11 hours ago

@jam80 You can get by without one. The real bonus is that you get a shopkeeper NPC with it so you can sell all your wares to people. If you were in a crafting guild or crafting organisation with miners and makers and all that kinda stuff, you could make a mint Reply+1/1-+Bertie

Moderator

Senior Staff Writer, Eurogamer.net

11 hours ago

@blarty This is exactly what I'm fascinated to see first hand when the economy is up and running. I wonder how accurate it will be Reply+1/1-+sadakos_fury

11 hours ago

I read the whole article - and it was interesting - but despite everything this dev says all I could read was GOUGE GOUGE GOUGE. I mean, the point of this whole thing is not to provide entertainment. It's to provide the creators with a massive revenue stream. Why exactly are the prices so high? I get the thing about subscriptions and that's understandable, but thousands of pounds for virtual castles is indefensible. Just because people will pay it doesn't make it right. Reply+10/10-+Dizzy

11 hours ago

This a disgrace. Reply+14/16-+Lord_of_Rage

11 hours ago

@andrewepicaitcheson SWG is the best MMORPG ever and I miss so much my house in Tatooine. FarStar server for the win!!! Reply+1/1-+Bertie

Moderator

Senior Staff Writer, Eurogamer.net

11 hours ago

@sadakos_fury You do get more than a castle for thousands of pounds but generally I agree.



Thing is, there's a tricky line when you factor in crowdfunding, because by pledging for a castle you are ostensibly pledging to support the game rather than simply buying something for yourself. But where IS the line?



Shroud will probably be a better and more ambitious game because of this, and people's virtual investments are likely more valuable because of that.



I did ask Garriott whether the game would have a housing market like this were it published in the old traditional way and he suggested probably not.



I think the issue that bugs me is that this housing market hasn't grown out of the game organically but has been forced upon it. Then again, if it flies, that decision starts to look like wise planning. And people are *choosing* to buy, they're not forced, but would they choose to buy if land was plentiful and they weren't worried others would snap it up? Reply+6/6-+Sendlinger

10 hours ago

The only person who knows if a purchase is value for money is the person doing the buying. Twelve grand to me is laughable, but if you've got the money and the satisfaction the castle gives to you is real then who am I to question? Reply+6/8-+blarty

10 hours ago

@bertie It is an interesting thing to watch and see how it plays out, I'll give you that.







But if the history of games with microtransactions teaches us anything, it should be that we should be very wary when these macrotransactions for games come along..... Reply+2/4-+scuffpuppies

10 hours ago

My wife would cut off my balls if I spent £1000 on virtual property. Fantastic article though; a great morning read. Reply+2/2-+blarty

10 hours ago

@scuffpuppies

My wife would cut off my balls if I spent £100 on virtual property.

On that note....







....the guy who buys a $12000 virtual castle. Reply+3/3-+spekkeh

Assistant Professor in Game Design, Eindhoven University of Technology

10 hours ago

@bertie

Shroud will probably be a better and more ambitious game because of this, and people's virtual investments are likely more valuable because of that.

The problem, I think, is that the virtual investment is not an investment and has no value. You invest in an experience that might be slightly better than the people who only invested $8000, but that seems like the flimsiest of excuses to not be, well, fraudulent? If it's just seed money, it's just seed money (I think investments without ROI in crowdfunding are silly too, but people can do what they want), but then don't draw analogies to housing markets and scarcity. He's creating the expectation of value growth. Don't forget, people *choose* to buy into ponzi schemes too. Reply+8/8-+RoJoel

10 hours ago

@fuzzyduck Indeed Reply0/0-+Mr_Git

10 hours ago

I remember buying my first house deed on UO and there being no where to put it. Word would occasionally get round that a house was deteriorating and there'd just be crowds of people waiting to pounce on the newly formed landmass. Good times. Reply+2/2-+Agente_Silva

10 hours ago

Now look at what you´ve done Mr. Chris Roberts... the non sense has begun... Reply0/0-+I_Am_CatButler

10 hours ago

The reference to gold sellers and the ebay black market kind of reminds me of iTunes' rise to replace Napster.



It sounds like there was already a demand for this kind of thing, this is just developers reacting to that demand, the same could also be said for Steam's item/card marketplace.



The question is to what extent this adoption of what was originally a shady underside to gaming will distort the games themselves as the benefits of what were originally exploitative practices go to developers and publishers rather than the dodgy individuals they were trying to shut down. Reply+2/2-+Bertie

Moderator

Senior Staff Writer, Eurogamer.net

10 hours ago

@spekkeh Yeah I like what you're saying with the "expectation of value" - that's exactly it. It's all very well Garriott signalling back to Ultima Online and those $10,000 eBay Trinsic deals but they were created by players for players - there was no developer profiting from those transactions, for better or worse.



Someone else made a good point here and said, "I don't think I want to be a part of a world like that." That struck me. I mean, I've been looking so much at it that it seems normal to me now, but going to the game's Add-On Store still puts me off. All those things for sale... I can't imagine now how it looks to a first-timer there.



That's the danger, I suppose, that spending like this becomes normalised for the people playing the game. Reply+10/10-+sadakos_fury

10 hours ago

@bertie I agree with you that the housing market part of the game feels like a forced afterthought. My question is - why are prices so high? Why not go up in £10 increments? If the answer is, 'Because people are willing to pay it', then that's pretty telling of the motivation here.

Of course what people do with their money is none of my business, but this has a whiff of exploitation around it.

Nice article though - more of this please! Reply+3/3-+Bertie

Moderator

Senior Staff Writer, Eurogamer.net

10 hours ago

@sadakos_fury Thank you



On the "forced afterthought" comment: I think the housing market is the opposite. To me it was clear from day one with this game that housing was front and centre of what would be on offer. It was one of the first systems talked about and implemented. In many ways all the other stuff comes second to it.



I see what you're saying about the increments - there is a large gap. Would the other side of that argument be that there's limited space and it might all sell out too readily if it were much cheaper. That said, it would be much more palatable if it was much cheaper Reply+2/2-+I_Am_CatButler

10 hours ago

@sadakos_fury I'd imagine the prices are set based on what they witnessed in UO ($10k ebay listings).



If the initial sales of plots didn't reflect the "real" prices people were willing to pay it would just give rise to another ebay based secondary market. Of course that may come about anyway as players try to cash out. Reply+2/2-+ TheEarlOfZinger

10 hours ago

Some mothers do 'ave 'em. Reply+1/1-+ubiquitousuk

10 hours ago

"Real Estate is the most precious material of the game. We don't want to swamp the world with new territory, with new lots, that suddenly those lots people paid a lot of money for are worthless"



Sounds surprisingly similar to Tory rhetoric on the real housing market. Those who missed the boat be damned. Reply+5/5-+sadakos_fury

10 hours ago

@bertie @i_Am_CatButler This whole thing is just so bizarre to me. I don't think I'll ever fully understand why people are so into it. But I get funny looks from people who see the Donkey Kong cabinet in the corner of my living room, so who am I to judge. I have the keys to get my 10p's back out though! Reply+5/5-+Agente_Silva

10 hours ago

Low-scoring comment hidden. Showwobbly_Bob

10 hours ago

We are fucked, aren't we? You would like to think that people would reject being seen as nothing more than cash cows and developers did what they did out of love and passion first and money second. But stories like this show how this is a bit of a fantasy. We are so fucked. Reply+5/7-+bad09

10 hours ago

You do have to wonder if all this ridiculous pricing lark in games like this or Star Citizen are more marketing to gain press rather than idiots just giving huge amounts of money away for absolutely fuck all.



Can't EG track down some of these weirdos who allegedly find it perfectly normal to spend 1000s in unfinished videogames and see if there genuinely are people out there this stupid? Reply+3/3-+I_Am_CatButler

10 hours ago

@sadakos_fury yeah, it's definitely not for me either.



There's a sad irony that the spiritual successor to Ultima, a series that built so much of its lore around virtues, is now embracing cold hard capitalism in this way.



Edit: Used to love the quirky old Ultima games, even if they had enough game breaking bugs to make Bethesda blush. Reply+5/5-+Shinything

10 hours ago

A fan that tries to sell the game for Portalarium is how this article reads. Maybe you haven't paid attention, but property values rose in UO due to a shortage. SotA originally planned a shortage, but there is no shortage in the game.



There is tons of property, IF you want to rent a plot in a Player Owned Town, that could kick you out at any time, for no reason at all.



The game is full of broken promises, not delivering on original promises, and taking a major shift in focus to make money. It is beyond scope creep. The original game has morphed into a cash grab with no substance. Gameplay is pathetic.



It is well past a year from the original release promise, primarily due to catering to whales requesting more housing, and finally Player Owned Towns.



The release of this game in July is final wipe but they are changing all the terms the industry uses, not calling this launch even though we all know it is. It's an unfinished product, and will be unfinished.



I could go on, but thanks, but no thanks. Reply+4/4-+RPMcMurphy

10 hours ago

It's ironic that people like Garriot and Roberts who both worked at EA are the ones using this ludicrous cash model while trying to peddle how their cash model is going to save pc gaming... Reply+3/5-+Simatron3000

10 hours ago

@bad09 i think its crazy how many donations some twitch gamers get from individuals. Summit1g's top lifetime donator has given him $8,000! I can't imagine how much that would be for some of the league/dota guys. Reply0/2-+atothewest

10 hours ago

This isn't a side of gaming I want anything to do with tbh. Reply+5/7-+JAM80

9 hours ago

@bertie



Ahh, that makes more sense. I can see the benefit of said house, and the point of paying more for a better positioned lot now.



Reread the article and I guess I kinda missed the point the first time through. I've never played that type of game before. Reply0/0-+JAM80

9 hours ago

@unholy_Witchcraft



I was yes. I realise now that my comment was uneducated in the context of this game. It's not really the type of thing I get into normally.



The closest thing to a MMO I've played would be star citizen or elite dangerous. Reply0/0-+Acrid

9 hours ago

I guess supply really does create its own demand. Reply+2/2-+jabberwocky

9 hours ago

Shrubbery's you say?



Reply+10/10-+PlugMonkey

9 hours ago

@bertie



apparently people are happy paying these amounts, although of course he would say that.

I don't see how anyone could be unhappy paying these amounts and still do it. It's not like London rent prices where people have no choice. Here folks have nothing but choice.



There's just no possible way to foist a $12,000 virtual castle on a reluctant and unhappy customer. Reply+2/2-+Fenbops

9 hours ago

Fuck that. Reply+4/4-+PlugMonkey

9 hours ago

@bad09



Absolutely. It's 99.9% marketing gimmick. Reply0/2-+adamjorgensen

8 hours ago

This game has Mixed reviews on Steam and a lot of the most recent ones are negative. No thanks. Reply+2/2-+boot93

8 hours ago

Compared to this, Battlefront's season pass is as cheap as chips. Reply+3/3-+Mindstorm

8 hours ago

Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair! Reply0/0-+Arsecake_Baker

8 hours ago

This only confirms the old adage!



There's a sucker born every minute! Reply+2/2-+cyberpunk_sprite

8 hours ago

@bad09

Can't EG track down some of these weirdos who allegedly find it perfectly normal to spend 1000s in unfinished videogames and see if there genuinely are people out there this stupid?

Not in the territory of thousands, but I do own 3 Star Citizen ships.



Quite happy with my purchases. Reply-2/2-+ToadRage

8 hours ago

What a load of old shit. Reply+2/2-+7M7

8 hours ago

The key issue for me isn't what this game does in and of itself, its the impact it could have on the wider industry: EA paved the way for online passes; 2K ushered in the ubiquitous Season Pass. And now micro-transactions have found their way into every major game I can think of.



MMOs have had micro-transactions and real-world money changing hands for virtual stuff for years. But then games like Ultima Online existed in an era where it wasn't obligatory to have an online component in every game.



Perhaps in an age where online is everywhere, its inevitable that all games will become more and more monetised. The people who are accustomed to games with gold farming and the like probably won't see what the problem is.



But it concerns me, because its not why I play games, and it never has been. Until this last generation or so, games were something I played on my own or with friends in the same room. They were complete experiences for a one-off payment and by-and-large, they worked perfectly out of the box. How many games can boast of that these days?



How long will it be before all games feature £1000 add-ons with the straw man argument that "they're not essential and nobody's forcing you to buy them" wheeled out every time we complain?



Of course they'll never price themselves out of the market. There'll always be the option not to pay; that's what makes these business models so pernicious. "Its all about offering choice" they'll say.



But what is cost to the central premise of playing games: to be rewarded for skill and progress? Why should someone with £12000 sat lying around have the opportunity to enjoy a game differently to someone who paid £40? When did the free market economy become a model for good game design?



Sadly, it seems there are more than enough people who don't care about such matters. We've all but accepted DLC and Season Passes, and even micro-transactions are slowly getting their way. Like it or not (and its probably obvious that I don't) it seems all but inevitable that the industry will continue to push more and more in this direction.



£12000 sports cars in GTA Online? Honestly, I wouldn't put it past them... Reply+4/4-+Shinything

8 hours ago

@7m7 True that. It might set an industry standard, that other companies want to emulate, to make more money. But not a standard most gamers are going to be attracted by. Reply+1/1-+Seafort

7 hours ago

I backed this game on kickstarter but I'm getting the feeling that this isn't the game for me now.



I've been reading about Shrouds ludicrous house prices since the game went into Early Access on steam on November 2014.



I have hardly played the game as people were buying up all the housing plots and selling them at stupid prices for real money since day 1.



It's not the type of game I want to be apart of. It feels like a real estate simulator than a RPG.



All to their own but keep me out of it. Reply+3/3-+ronorra

7 hours ago

Well done Richard Garriot, those insane virtual prices made damn sure that all my interest in your game just evaporated. Reply+2/2-+IronSoldier

7 hours ago

...The first answer I half expect: Chris Roberts of Star Citizen fame helped him along. It's not surprising given the similarities between buying spaceships with real money and buying houses with real money.

Meaning what, precisely? That he observed what Roberts has done with Star Citizen and sought to mimick it or that Roberts directly assisted/advised him? Reply-1/1-+ubergine

7 hours ago

I wonder if there is any kind of game to go with this collassal serving of wank. Reply+1/1-+Zerobob

7 hours ago

No wonder real-world house prices and rents are so ridiculous if people are willing to pay this much for a virtual property, which is only as good as the game engine it's been built in (not very good in this case). Reply0/0-+AlexHadz

7 hours ago

Never imagined I'd be depressed by the state of the industry from an article on Richard Garriott of all people. Reply+3/3-+spindle9988

7 hours ago

Who the fuck would spend thousands on a virtual space. Absolute dicks Reply+2/4-+LittleRiver

7 hours ago

I wish I had a great idea to fleece the mentally weak in this world too! Reply+5/5-+wilesy

7 hours ago

I would love to find out about the fine print to all this (more for when this comes to the games that I actually play, when I have to buy a team and stadium in FIFA for example) as to what happens when the service is down.

If I pay $15 a month for a subscription and the service is down for a month I would expect a refund. If I buy a castle for $12000 and the servers are down for a month, nothing happens to said castle but I don't have access to it and also my revenue stream which I've bought for this has been cut off. It's akin to buying a shop in a mall and then the owners of the mall locking the doors for a month.

Could I sue for the games maker for denying me access to my legal property, could I sue for loss of earnings?

If my internet provider has issues, can I sue them for loss of earnings etc.? I know this is massively far fetched but questions that, for me, needs to be answered. Reply+3/3-+SvennoJ

6 hours ago

@spindle9988 It's nothing new. Second life has plenty of stories of people shelling out big for virtual space. And it's still going, available for OR as well. Reply0/0-+chucklepie

6 hours ago

For those unfamiliar with the game or topic, it might be useful if you included a description of the game and mechanics in the article... Reply+1/1-+SweetMrGibs

5 hours ago

We an agree or disagree all we like chaps, but at the end of the day, if people are willing to buy virtual houses, ships, etc... it will continue to escalate. We all buy things so we can enjoy them, and if people intend to invest a lot of time in this game, and it gives them pleasure, so be it.



Side note: Perhaps the term "Virtualistic" will replace the term "Martialistic" in the future? Reply+1/1-+ziggy_played_guitar

5 hours ago

"We think we've sold property now that is no worse than the subscription fees of the past."



That's total bs. Subscription fees were equal to all players, not a segregationist game design.

Also, the condescending tone of the article is in itself interesting, since it's Garriott. Put Sony or even more MS (we all still remember the anti-Xbox One manifestos) doing these kind of stunts and the tone would be different. I bet. Reply+4/4-+Midian

4 hours ago

DISCLAIMER: I haven't played SotA for a while, a great deal has probably changed since I did (they are making lots of progress judging by the patch notes etc) so take what I say next with the required amount of salt.



I backed this on the Kickstarter, because it was a "spiritual successor" to Ultima. The fact that there was an option to play it as a spiritual successor to Ultima Online (two VERY different games) was a bonus of sorts. The dev progress since backing has all been about the "UO" side, not the "U" and that makes me...not angry, just very disappointed. Anyway, as development has continued, we are seeing more of the story/game mechanics nailed down and I am cautiously optimistic I'll get the game I backed. Eventually.



Playing these pre-alpha builds and walking around the areas in which players can build their houses is, and I'm being as kind and polite as I can be, fucking horrific. A town or city in an RPG like Skyrim or Dragon's Dogma has a sense of place, of history, of evolving over time into a place inhabited by actual people. The towns in SotA look like a clown car crashed into the Unity asset store and no one cleaned up the mess - it looks like total shit, and is completely immersion breaking. A "Sims" city built by an asshole.



So if I want to play it as a "Vagabond", playing through the story co-op with friends, I will end up in these Themepark "ye Olde Worlde" shitfests ruining the atmosphere of what appears to be an interesting virtual world. I think one of the RPS writers described an MMO as "an RPG that is ruined by all the other assholes playing it" and that has never been truer than with this game.



TL;DR : I backed this game at the Kickstarter without understanding what Lord British's end game was, which means I am an "Enabler" for this fuckwittery - And I'm so very sorry.



(yes, I can, and will play this game Single player offline - but I did want to play it co-op) Reply+3/3-+MeiLondon

4 hours ago

'Shroud of the Avatar charges rent.'



It's amazing how quickly a single sentence can ensure you never play a game. I already pay rent so why would I want to pay it again in something I'm apparently playing for fun? Even without real money involved that just sounds like it would be an annoyance at best. Reply+4/4-+TekMerc

4 hours ago

Video gaming 2016. Reply0/0-+Hadji_Murad

3 hours ago

i think i'll save my ducats for my wife and future children. Reply+4/4-+mannyYearsAgo

2 hours ago

It's amazing what people will buy.



Problem is, why bother with innovative, quality products when this kind of crap is easy to make and sells by the bucket load.



Hope Elon Musk can save us.I really want a flying electric car that has solar panels and can land on its back wheels. Reply0/0-+smelltheglove

2 hours ago

@blarty Ha! You reckon that guy's married? Reply0/0-+WrathPhoenix

2 hours ago

If I may comment. I am a backer of shroud of the avatar. I know many people who put in several hundred and even several thousand to the game. I own a player owned town, though i bought in when they were priced much lower.



The combat and other mechanics are coming along nicely and much less clunky than any release before. I also know that Chris (Technical director) is working overtime in the last few weeks and next few months on improving the combat, graphics and performance on many levels.



That isnt why I am commenting, however. I am commenting because I just wanted to say that many of us pledged up to what we did for NO OTHER REASON but to support the games development because the developers have inspired a lot of confidence in many of us - and we know that we are their sole source of income. I would hazard a guess that 80% of the people that play actively and have pledged higher than the initial buy in have done it to help support the game or get some of the pre alpha backing perks before they go away... not necessarily for housing. After july, all this extra stuff in the pldges will go away and well just be left with the basic 45 dollar buy in and the addon store.



I am head of a player own town and alliance where a vast majority of our players are basic 45 dollar pledge people. Almost all of which are home owners not via money from our bank accounts... but by buying the houses with gold in game So that is something to keep in mind when we start comparing the "need" to spend money on the game. Reply-2/4-+WrathPhoenix

2 hours ago

@meilondon Its actually not that bad. Right now the amount it charges in rent you can basically make on accident... and you can pay ahead rent as much as 4 months. (IE, rent for a town lot is like 200 gold a day) Reply0/0-+Radiofloyd

1 hour ago

Not to be corny, but I had such a blast following the kickstarter campaign for this back in April 2013. They had live dev hangouts every day where they engaged with the community. The hangouts were great fun, particularly in the final days and hours of the campaign and I think everybody felt that they really got to know the team members. I pledged $80 (Royal Artisan tier) and even if the game doesn't turn out to be to my tastes, I don't regret spending the money, because for that month I was fully immersed in the campaign and had a great laugh following them (when I had plenty of other stressful shit going on).



I haven't checked in with the game since the first couple of test releases but this interesting article is a timely reminder. I'll probably check in when they do the final wipe in July. Reply0/0-+mietha

1 hour ago

No way in hell I would ever play a game that charges rent, especially not from Garriott. I played UO the day it was released. It was a horrible train wreck and I have no clue how it has existed this long. It wasn't worth playing when it was the only MMO out there. As soon as EQ arrived, it should have died and been forgotten. This sounds far more like a way to give Richard Garriott more money than a game. Reply0/0-+SearchFunction

10 minutes ago