I think one of the reason UO stands out as a Sandbox success is because it was new. It was, for all intense and purposes, the first.

Yes, there were MMO's before it. Even graphical ones. But not with it's level of graphics, options, and open platform (IE: everyone, on all ISP's could play it. Where as before GenieNet members could only play GenieNet games. AOL members would only play AOL games, etc).

And players flocked to it going, "What's this? This is new. This is different."
No one really had anything to compare it too. And, on the few things you COULD compare it to in other games, it won.

But today's gamers are far more demanding. We've seen it before. We've done it before.

20 years I've been MUD'ing and MMO'ing. Do you have any idea how hard it is to make something "new" for me where I don't go, "1991... X game had this same feature."?

It's hard. I know a lot of games.
And today, MUCH more then yesterday, I "know what I like."

Before I was willing to  go, "This is exciting, what's this do? And that??"
Today I go, "I know what all this does... what else do you have for me? Impress me."

Sandbox games don't impress today's gamers. We've been in open worlds before. We've built empires, and developed chars.... now what? What's next?

In the old days we didn't know bad game design, because we hadn't seen good game design yet.

Today, we've seen GREAT game design, and HORRIBLE game design. And we have a measure stick in our heads.

Sandbox games need to be more then just "an open world".
Just like a themepark game can't be a EQ clone and think we'll be impressed.

UO is consdered one of the greats because it was the right game, in the right time.

Re-release UO today. Classic old school 1997 rules. With super modern graphics.... and the game will not succeed.
In theory... would be the most played, most awesome MMO in history.... but in reality, that game would fail in 2010.

The past 4 OB's I was in all required yo uto have some type of purchase in place to play.

That's fine, it's almost normal.

Go to GameStop or somewhere, and put $5 down on the game. That holds the game for you, and you get your beta key.

If the game sucks, don't go back... you spent 5 bucks.

If you like it, go back and pay the rest and get the CD.

But other posters are right. There's a lot of promotional sites that prior to a game's launch will offer free OB keys.

It's not like it takes a lot of effort to get one.

And even if you don't.... $5 isn't exactly game breaking. You'll spend $5 today on crap you won't be able to remember you spent it on in 12 hours.

An extra beer at the bar. Some munchies at a convienence store, whatever. It's not exactly bank breaking.

And if it is, then me thinks instead of playing betas you should be doing something about your financial situation.

What you're experiencing sucks. And it isn't fair. But it's also required.

No, 18 doesn't automatically mean maturity. But guild leaders NEED a benchmark of SOME kind.

We have to have them.

I have to know that if a raid, or a fight, or something runs long, my main healer isn't going to be forced to bed by his mom.

But here's my advice. If you like a guild. Group with them first. Several times. Let your gameplay speak for itself. Let the guild members tell their leadership "Hey, this guy's good, we want him."

One of the most revered members of my clan is 14. And it's not just his respectfull nature that makes him valuable. It's his excellent gameplay. His lack of ego, his willingness to push and learn and his wit in conversation.

But we'd have lost out on him as a member if he simply went to the forum and app'd and said, "I'm 14". He'd have been flat out denied. But he PuG'd with us for about 3 weeks. But the time we found out his age, his age was meaningless to us. He was the "exception to the rule". And there's many out there. But there's far more that aren't. And that's the problem.

For every 1 of you, there's 1000 kids your age that rage quit, jump guilds, act disrespectfully, and are general teenage tools.

And finally what the other poster said was also true. When Vent turns to off colored language, or sex, or drinking, or whatever.
It's important for any guild leadership to not have to worry about minors in the group.

I'm eager to see what SOE does with The Agency.

They undoubtedly have theri own model based off facts and figures.

And it'll be tweaked slightly from that which has been seen before, no doubt.

Unfortunately, you really didn’t read my posts in their entirety. Which, granted, they are long. But before commenting you should be sure to fully understand the message and intent.

If you had read carefully you’d have found out that disposable income is hardly an issue.

I’m a very lucky person. I make a lot of money, with comparatively few expenses.

And my friends are all in the same boat. We are painfully addicted to MMO’s, and we have jobs that pay very well.

As a result, I’m the example of the last person you’d want square off against in a Cash Shop model game.

I have the spare money to simply outspend my competition.

PKing people, controlling castles, controlling dungeons, etc are very easy when you drop 120 dollars a month on a game.

But, I like to win. And so do my friends. We like to be among the elite in games. Like we say, “Any game with playing, is worth winning.” :)

We’ll spend what it takes to control a server. Even if it means it’s “no fun” to someone else because of our play style, then we’re okay with that.

And there’s dozens of people like us (and yes, we all tend to find each other on MMOs, you know the type that clan that’s “all jerks”, or that clan that’s “all no-life power gamers”).

Those types of players all find each other.

I’ll spend whatever it takes to be the strongest.

But I don’t WANT to.

I have played subscription based games my whole life.

Spending money isn’t a problem. But I don’t need to outspend my competition.

I’m always in “End-Game” guilds. Or top ranked PvP guilds, etc. I play hard, I play smart. I want to access all the content just like everyone else.

It’s more satisfying for me.

When YOU have exactly 100% of the opportunities I do, and I still win, there’s no excuses.

In a Cash Shop model game it’s always “I couldn’t stop him, his gear was too good, he’s a loser that spent 100 dollars a month on his character.”

There’s no respect in that.

When my last PvP video came out on my last subscription based based, I would get 10 players a day joining my server as lvl 1’s just to message me going “Dude, that was sick, just watched your video…”.

I’ll gladly pay my 15 dollars, I’ll gladly pay my 20 dollars. But give me 100% of the content, and 100% of the chances as everyone else. That way, the people on top have earned it, not paid for it.

And you are wrong about Rappelz. Many of the items had timers.

Including, certain pots.

And access to the Village was also a 30 day timer.

The mounts were 30 day timers.

The tents were 1 week or 30 day timers.

And if you read my report on the money. For those items ALONE you’re spending more then 20 dollars/month. Now, factor in the other cash shop items, like capes, and armor, and helms, that you will out grow because you keep leveling, and they can’t keep up with your level. Month to month you'll EASILY out level your gear requireing you to spend money on more armor, more helms, more cloaks, etc. Sure, you can sell them in game for in game money, but unless you turn around and ebay that in game money you’re still losing real life cash.

Also, let me break it down this way.

In Rappelz, $1=100gold (called rupees)

But if you cheat and go to a Chinese farmer gold buying site then 1,000,000rupees= $.04

That’s right. 4 cents for 1 MILLION if you cheat.

Or 100 for 1 dollar if you’re legit.

Hmmmmmm…….

And mind you, just those items I listed, minus all items are the “power” items. If you maintain those items month to month, you’ll out level everyone, and have access to greater equipment (the mount’s a nicety, but in PvP, it’s essential).

My only point is this:

Ego aside, personal feelings aside.

SOE is a major company. They’re wealthy and want to be wealthier. Just like all of us.

If they can nickel and dime their players to get more money, they will.

So ask yourself if a Cash Shop model is good for MMOs, or good for the companies that produce them?

Players will play good games, that’s just the rule.

Look at FPS games.

100% of every FPS game on the planet is hacked 24 hours BEFORE it’s released to stores (off demo’s and such).

You *WILL* enter into multi-player FPS games with cheaters.

Aimbots, wall hacks, etc.

They can’t be stopped, and it WILL happen.

And yet…. Players buy the games. They buy already knowing this fact. They buy knowing the gaming companies aren’t doing enough/anything to stop it.

But just because a title is successful, ask yourself, by whose definition is it “successful”? The game maker, or the players?

If 100% of all MMOs became Cash Shop games tomorrow. Players would play.

Hell, *I* would play.

But I’d long for better days where you’re strong because of your ability, not because you dropped 150 bucks this month on your character.

Some people might LOVE this model. But give me a subscriptio based game ANY day.

I want all the content, and all the access to items, just like you.

Only people who pay extra for that new gun, new sword, new dungeon is just lame.

You are right, my view is one-sided (i know what i like) :), and it's true that it would be remiss of me to not give other points that don't reflect my personal opinion as well.

First, I suppose I should provide some insight into the reviewer ;)
As a 30 year old with a very well paying job money certainly isn't an issue.
Like everyone else I want to pay as little as possible for products I purchase, but in reality, for a quality game that blows me away, 30, 40 dollars a month isn't a big deal.
I'm one of those fools that spends more then that on a haircut every 3 weeks.
And when I played F2P games I DID utilize the cash shops (reluctantly), because it was the only way to stay competitive. And being competitive an in MMO is my trademark ;)

So my views aren't one generated by someone who can't "afford" to stay competitive in a F2P game.
If anything, I'd be that jerk with all the bought uber gear that (for a game like The Agency), you can't shoot through the body armor of and can one shot you because of the strength of my bought gun, etc.

So with that said.
Yes, F2P *does* have it's place.
For those individuals that use MMOs for more or less a 3d chat room, it is, of course, ideal.
I have several friends in this position. To them, an MMO is a place to catch up with friends, and yes, even game a little. They're not trying to save the world, they're trying to collect goblin ears for a NPC. That's what they enjoy. They're trying to gather the ingredients to cook a special recipe.
And paying $15 for essentially chatting, and killing rats 3 times a week is, admittedly, a little harsh.
And for that player F2P is perfect.
Because you don't need super weapons to kill rats (or, in the case of The Agency, I gess, rough up hobos:) )

And SOE has not OFFICIALLY said that their game would be F2P. They said, from what I understand, that it was a model they were looking into, and considering, because they feel it's the future of MMOs.
Personally, i go to bed praying to my walking upright god that it is not. As at a personal level, I feel it's a horrible system.
But regardless, F2P is built off marketing metrics.
Again SOE, NCSoft, etc, are very large, very wealthy companies. Who are always looking to increase the bottom line.
They will create models that are beneficial to their profit margin. And if they have years of study showing that a F2P game generates MORE money then a subscription game, then that's what they will do.

Because sadly, even those players who START a F2P game saying "oh, I'm casual, I'll just do this for fun, whatever I get from NPC vendors, or quests will suit me just fine."

Sure, they *say* this, but fast forward 2 months and you suddenly see them with a flowing cape, or a new mount, or a glowing sword. And they go "oh, it was only one purchase". Which, unless the individual has remarkable dicipline, usually turns into more. Everyone like sthe cool stuff.

What DID worry me about The Agency was the mention by SOE that they might introduce a payment method to access content. That concerned me a little. And I believe that would be new in the F2P scale.
Making quests, or map zones, etc only accessible if you pay money is a little off-putting for me personally.
Because I am an explorer in game. I do like to "see it all".

It's one thing to play in a modern day real world scenerio like The Agency, it's another to pull out a credit card and use real money to buy a virtual plane ticket to fly to a part of the game. ;)

Again, these are personal fears and concerns being raised by an individual where 2008 marks my 19th year of online gaming (almost exclusively MMO with a year or two of FPS throw in).
From nearly being decapitated by my father for a $700 phone bill when I was a teenager because games were $1/hr to play (opps!), to subscription based games that demanded a credit card. To games that accepted paypal, to "cash shop" games. I've seen the gambit of the evolution to MMO payment.
And cash shop games just worry me. An undiciplined player can find themselves without rent or food one month because they HAD to upgrade their char, which, is bad. To the players that see a GREAT game (like I believe The Agency could be) who simply stop playing because they refuse to spend 60 dollars a month and everywhere they go they get killed by players that will spend the money.
In a game where there's a kill or be killed FPS quality to it, like The Agency, it may ("may" being the key word here) come down to not only the strong, but the rich as well.

I woud hope people reject this model.

I know, it SOUNDS good. But before you attach yourself to the word "free" too much, do some research and realize what this means.

At the crux, SOE is a corporation. And they have an interest in capitalism and making money. As rightly they should. So lets review this F2P model.

It was proposed, and used, by the korean gaming companies. And quickly adopted by Taiwan, and China.
They did this after a careful study of their player base and they learned that if you make a game for 20 dollars/month, people won't pay it.
But, if you make it "free", and introduce a "cash shop" where people buy armor, or mounts, etc. Then the AVERAGE player will pay between 30 and 35 dollars PER MONTH.

This is a documentd business model finding that now governs the asian gaming market.

I have played several of these free games.
They are many things, but in the best interest of the gamer, they are not.

I'm sure many of you enjoyed WoW for a time. Or EVE, or UO, or even EQ.
I'm sure you enjoyed getting your sword, or your mount, or whatever.
In a F2P model, that goes away. THings have timers.
You like that mount? Well, its' only good for 30 days, and you have to spend real cash, to buy another one.
They build the timers on a weekly, or monthly basis. If you wish you keep your character as strong this money as last, you WILL spend the same, or perhaps even more money.
And do you think when they say "micro-transactions" they mean pennies?

I'd advise you to check out gpotato website. It is the broker for one of these free to play games.
$50 dollars gets you 5000 credits or "gpots" as they're called. 
Sounds like a lot doesn't it?
Until you find that a helm runs you 1200, a cape runs you 900, etc.
You're paying 10 dollars (real money) for 1 armor item.

And I know what you're thinking, "The in game drops, quest items, in game money NPC vendors sell items. I'll just use them."
Until you start a stat comparison.
Research the cash shop items of Sword of the New World, Rappelz, 2Moons, Silk Road, etc. Research the power difference between the in game drop/quest/vendor items verses the power of "cash shop" items, that you buy with real money.
It's no comparison.

I have watched players in game actually brag that they "built this guy for only 135 dollars".
Mind you, that was said in a game that had only been open for 4 months, and he wasn't top level.

In a subscription game, at 15 dollars, that same 4 months would have run 60 bucks.
And he had a long way  of "building" to go.

These models benefit those willing to sacrafice everything for the game, and the comapnies producing them.

A subscription based system puts everyone on the same field, enjoying the same things, same content, and same opportunities.

I think The Agency is a great idea.
But i for one would definately shy away from the game if it's "free to play" model.
I've played now 6 game swith this model, and none have been enjoyable. Those investing the most, control the game. 
It becomes less about skill, and more about real world money.

I'm extremely disappointed in Sony for considering this model.
We are not Taiwan.
We are not China.
We are not Korea.
North America and Europe are a distinct gaming culture, and I think if nothing else, World of Warcraft's massive subscription base. Ultima Online's enduring popularity, and even the success of EQ and EQ2 show that our culture enjoys the subscription base. We like a fair playing field, not one you "buy".