That'd be cool with me as long as there are two categories. One would cover "pay for perks that you can ONLY get with real money" and the other would be "pay for perks that you can obtain for free anyway."

But now you're not talking about free vs. not free. Not you're bringing other factors into it, like enjoyment.

And playing muds isn't a competitive hobby either unless you choose to make it so. Your playstyle is yours.

Ok, you personally don't like it. What's that got to do with anything? If the paintball arena let you play as long as you wanted for free but charged for higher level guns, it's still a free paintball game.

--matt

They -are- free to play. There is nothing in their games that you must pay for in order to get. Nothing is available ONLY if you pay for it. Payment for "perks" is optional, because those "perks" are already available for free.

The only thing I might even consider suggesting is to say exactly that in the listing:

Free to Play; Payment Optional.

I think the analogy of paintball is invalid in this discussion of what's free and what's not. Yes, you can buy pay for perks, such as custom-made weapons, better equipment and such but isn't there a monetary outlay to play anyway? Last time I looked, you couldn't just turn up somewhere and play for free.

With Aetolia, Aardwolf, Achaea, MadROM, Mirkwood, etc. you can turn up and play for free. You can just log in on basic telnet (or a freebie mud client) and play with now capital investment.

From what I know of MadROM and Mirkwood, the IMPs do not accept donations because there is no cost to them for hosting the muds. They cadge server space off academic institutions.

Aardwolf is too big and has too much traffic to live with a free host. Hence it accepts donations so as many people as possible can participate. Aetolia and Achaea are commerical enterprises and must sell stuff within the games to be profitable.

However, this is not to say that Aardwolf, Aetolia and Achaea have no place in this listing. The ranking on TMS is for the most popular mud sites and all three are obviously very popular. And free, more so than paintball or visiting the movies.

I think that maybe a compromise would be to add another option to the Advanced Search on TMC for Pay for Perks That You Can Get In Time Through Normal Gameplay (or accepts donations, or whatever you want to call it). Maybe another one for Commercial Enterprise.

Btw, I quite liked Enola_Phoenix's definition:

You know, if there are people who want to ban all valid interpretations of the word 'free' but their own, let's universally apply that shall we?

So, no claiming you're 'hiring' people anymore unless you're actually hiring them, not just recruiting volunteers.

No claiming that you offer "professional" anything unless you are a professional developer/administrator. (Of course, saying you offer professional-quality <whatever> would be fine.)

I'm not seriously suggesting these, incidentally, though they make more sense than the argument over why 'free' should mean only what a certain, small, segment of site users feel it should mean, despite clearly valid alternative interpretations.
--matt

Yo, the_logos.

On a serious question, why are you so defensive/aggressive against a rhetorical question about what is and is not 'free'? This was mainly bull****tin' between a couple people, and it turned into a major flamewar suddenly.

Edit:: Bleh. Double post. Please remove this one.

I'd imagine it's quite important to a player who is browsing the site to know the difference between "free" and "can-pay-for-perks".  If you don't have money available, or aren't interested in throwing it at a game when free alternatives exist, you're going to want that information before you invent time in a game.  If IRE games are pay-for-perks, and IRE representatives repeatedly point at out that the pay-for-perks model is clearly advertised on their website (*), I don't see what the problem is in openly labeling their games "can-pay-for-perks", and avoiding the contested term "free".  (I've added 'can' to emphasize that you aren't directly forced to pay if you don't mind spending a lot more time and effort than paying customers.)  An incoming player who isn't interested in spending money should know that they will be competing against people who are on a faster track, especially if keeping up with other people (with equal time invested) may involve thousands of US dollars (**).

Summary: Eliminate the word "free" from IRE ads and info, substitute "can-pay-for-perks", everything is clear, Valg is a happy guy.

(*): I happen to disagree there.  I browsed all of the IRE websites, and while it was easy to see that I could buy something called credits, it was incredibly vague about what those credits could do, how important they are, how much time-savings a credit might represent, etc.  That said, I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt and concede that IRE feels like the information presented is sufficient.

(**): Source: .

A flamewar? Not from me. Whom have I flamed?

And one might ask you the same thing. Why are you so interested in defining the word free in your particular way?

--matt

The same could be said of any feature in any mud. If you aren't interested in a mud with bards, then you're going to want that information before you invest time in a game.


I'd support a can-pay-for-perks-that-can-be-gotten-for-free-anyway (note the difference) option in the mud summary listings. I would, however, continue to advertise our games as being free, because they are.


Similarly, an incoming player who thinks elves are the lamest thing ever and will not play a mud with elves will want to know that elves are in a mud beforehand. Myself, I hate glaives and want to know whether a mud has glaives before I play it.

I won't be happy as long as you advertise having "balanced classes" then. Balanced for what? Balanced for PvP? Monster bashing? Crafting? Attracting mudsex partners? Political activities? Transportation? Fishing? Growing pipeweed? It's very unclear.

What's on our site is not relevant to a discussion of the semantics of the word 'free.' And while I appreciate you giving us the benefit of the doubt, we don't need it. If we wanted to claim we invented muds (a blatant lie obviously), your only real recourse would be the Federal Trade Commission. Just as Karl rules the tank with an iron fin, we rule our websites with Dreamweaver and shell access.

I encourage anyone who believes we're mis-representing ourselves by claiming we're free to contact the FTC with
. They will side with us, of course, given that it's not a misrepresentation.

--matt

All posts posted by you in this thread, the_logos. Some definite flames, others iffy.


Edit: My deepest apologies, Threshold. For some reason, I had a mental fart and replaced your name with the_logos'.

Valq wrote (in part) You're missing the point, again. It IS free. The perks are free. The entire game is free to play. There are also things you can get in the game (perks) that you CANNOT buy, that you MUST get ONLY through playing. The perks you -can- buy, are also free. You can choose to either get them through playing the game OR by paying for them.

I'll repeat that in case someone else is missing the point (and judging by the last several pages of posts, it seems many are missing it):

Achaea et al are FREE. The "perks" or "neato kewl things" are also FREE. You do not have to pay for them AT ALL if you want to get them. You merely have to play the game and you will eventually get them anyway. There are also other ways to get them, which do not require money OR time invested - such as extra effort within the game to help in various things. You will be rewarded with some things for FREE, those same exact things you would get anyway - for FREE.

Now - what part of FREE do you not understand?

Here's the logical inconsistency I see:

In other threads, I've seen the_logos make the case that Achaea et. al having the money=advancement option as well as the time=advancement option is pure benefit.  It allows for a more diverse playerbase because it can attract both people with lots of time and people who have jobs and less time.

That makes a certain amount of sense to me, actually.  If I were someone with a full-time job who wanted to MUD and be competitive on 10 hours a week, I think I would find that kind of option pretty attractive.

It just doesn't make sense to me that, if you honestly believe the pay-for-perks paradigm is not simply a way to generate income but a good thing in and of itself, you wouldn't want to make it very clear that you are that way.

It's like you're saying pay-for-perks is a great thing, but the way you're being uber-defensive and challenging people to talk to the FTC if they don't like the way you do things, it sure seems like you're ashamed of it.  Regardless of how stupid you at times seem to think some of the other posters are, you have to realize that acting as though from shame (I know, you don't see it that way.  I believe an impartial observer would.) is like blood in the water to sharks.  It only inspires more and more poster frenzy.

By all accounts, you've built a good and unique MUD.  I say, be proud of what it is.  Be proud of all the great things about it -- but being a free MUD in the same sense others are isn't one of those things.  Why pretend to be something you're not when you can shine on your own merits?

Started off by you with this post...

Dulan wrote:
Furthermore, I'm noting that certain MUDs have usurped the definition of 'free' after looking at the listings.


Ok, who? If you tell me you weren't referring to us, and why not tell us who you were referring to? Are we going to continue this game of pretending you're not attacking us?

--matt

Oh, it's definitely both. Having said that, I don't believe there's anything superior about our business model. It's a model. Accepting no money is a model. Pay-for-play is a model. They're all just different, not inferior or superior. They may be inferior or superior for certain people but overall they just...are.


No, I'm saying pay-for-perks offers something for some people that subscription and free games do not. That's not really debatable. I've played games with all three of those business models myself and have enjoyed something about all of them. The most recent mud I played was City of Heroes, which is subscription based. I tell you, I was dying to be able to pay for perks as I just did not have the time to grind my way through the levels to the higher end content. No doubt other people would prefer not to have that option available though, just like some prefer roleplaying over hack n' slash or vice versa. They're just choices, but there are a lot of people who seem to associate 'good' and 'evil' with business models.  

Yeah, you're definitely seeing it wrong. I don't mind discussions about our games of any kind going on though. I figure if people are going to attack us, we'll just accept the extra traffic it brings. Why do you think Medievia has a lot of players? Because it gets slammed a lot. There really is almost no such thing as bad press, especially to a small online business.

Thanks! Yes, I am proud of all our muds. However, we ARE free, and whether it's exactly the same free as others is not really the point. As Jazuela pointed out (and she's not one of our players), we are, in every way, completely free. In no way are you ever required to pay money for -anything-. You have the option. Frankly, I think that option exists in nearly all muds. I suspect if I offered 50k to the head admin of <pick your mud> with a signed contract never to reveal the nature of the transaction, I could buy just about anything I wanted in that game. I know some people will object and say, "Oh, not me!" but I'll leave it up to the readers to believe that or not. $50,000. You'd take it. How about a billion? It's a ridiculous example obviously, but if there is -any- price at which things are for sale, openly or privately, then you have a pay-for-perks situation. And realistically, for 99% of hobbyist mud admins, it wouldn't take 50k to buy a single thing. I'm sure $500 would get me some gold or a sword or whatever. ####, I did it myself once on a mud called ZombieMud way back in 1993 or so. (I was the player buying something secretly from the admin).

If they wish to distinguish themselves in some way, they're free to use a more descriptive term. It's also worth noting that the loudest voices calling for this are the same people who attack us whenever possible. Another reason not to care. The line the Michael Bolton character has in Office Space about his name comes to mind, though more in the, "Why should I change? They're the ones with the problem." sense.
--matt

Reading this thread carefully, you are claiming that KaVir attacks you whenever possible now, the_logos?

After your last post, do you mean -your- definition of free, or whose definition of free, the_logos?

Kindly define 'free' to be used in that context. So far, you haven't offered a definition, and hence, nothing constructive can be addressed.

He does it a lot, yes. He's not as blatant about it most of the time as a couple others are though.

Are you going to answer my question about which muds you were referring to or dodge the question, yet again?

My definition of free in this context (there are many different meanings of the word 'free' after all, depending on the context) is that it doesn't cost any money. That describes Achaea, Aetolia, Imperian, Aardwolf, Carrion Fields, Armaggedon, and so on.

Just go read Jazuela's post on the top of this page. If you still don't understand, ask again.

--matt

Okay.

So we are using a definition that allows for the administration gaining money for anything short of subscriptions as free?

Then to the best of my knowledge, there are no places usurping free.

However, if you mean your other free, then I can name a good dozen places that are usurping free just off the front page likely.

My definition? Let's see...

From rumors, current information I have and whatnot..

The MUD that I was originally poking at, Nodeka, was based on some stuff I've heard repeatedly.

Aardwolf, Achaea and Imperian. Icesus possibly.

Dunno about any but Achaea and Imperian for sure, however, as it's just hearsay/rumors of money being charged for services rendered. Achaea and Imperian more or less proved themselves in this thread, however.

Noted, the_logos.

Just hearsay and rumors, bud.

Furthermore, you'll note that I used -my- definition of free, and explicitly stated it as such.

I believe my specific wording was, "Any in-game benefits that can be bought via money"?

Do I get to question your reading comprehension in an ad hominem personal attack/logical fallacy now? C'mon, it'll be fun! .... Or something.

the_logos: Posted: Aug. 24 2004,00:41
There he goes again, broadly insulting the community.

Just because HE wouldn’t hesitate doing an unethical - or even illegal - act and because he once found another Mud Administrator that is as crooked as himself, does this give him the right to insult everybody on the list?

It’s funny how people who lack ethics and moral completely themselves often like to assume that the rest of the world is the same as they are. I don’t really know why. It cannot be to ease their conscience, since they obviously haven’t got any. So it must be because they think they can get some benefit from it.