The reason your review was rejected the first time, is because Materia Magica doesn't allow reviews on their game. You would know this buy checking the "info" thing on Materia Magica in the mudlisting, and notice that there exists no link to reviews. You could also check by looking for other reviews on the game, and discover there aren't any.

Games listed in Topmudsites are not obligated to allow reviews on their games, and if they do allow them, there is a link from their info to the review section.

In addition, you posted a duplicate of your review in the Aardwolf review list. Why? Why would you review Materia Magica in the Aardwolf section? Were you just screaming so hysterically to write a review on Materia Magica that you clicked the first game in the alphabetical list?

In the future, please try and look for the rules regarding things like this. If you don't even look for them, then you have no one to blame but yourself for your disappointment.

Oi vey, are they desperate much?

It appears they figured out how to manipulate the URL to add a review anyway. That's just plain ignorant, and my opinion will only give Materia Magica more positive advertisement than anything.

Heheh, well I do agree what the player did was bad. And uhh yeah, what the? If Materia Magica doesn't want reviews, how was it possible for the user to post a review in the first place..? Seems to me this guy is a bit on the over side..but hey people do crazy things.

On the subject the person was speaking about, if what' hes saying is correct, "that you do offer in-game equipment for money (i.e. donation equpiment)" you should probably state in your mud description Commercial but free, instead of "completely free" kind of like what Achaea did right? Just a thought.

-Demiscus

But it is completely free. The donation gifts aren't required for gameplay, you don't have to have them to advance, and if someone feels they absolutely must have one of them, there are plenty of non-monetary ways to get them. That's why they are called "donations" to the game. Achaea's model is different.

Just for clarification: That is exactly the model we use. Everything that can be bought with money can be gotten through gameplay, they're not required, etc.

FYI, I see no reason for Vassago to put "Commercial but free" there if he doesn't want to. We chose to but we're certainly under no obligation to describe it any way other than "free to play."
--matt

I meant that we have a limited number of donation gifts available and you can't donate and get just any item in the game that you want.  We also have an alternate method available of gaining said gifts that does not require money. If this is the same system as yours, my understanding of your contribution system is in error.

From what you're saying it sounds like our system is similar to yours, just with a few differences in the available items and the way we handle the alternate methods of gaining the items.

I'd prefer to see three levels of descriptions:

1) Free. Spending money either isn't possible or gives no benefits inside the game. An example might be a game that accepts voluntary donations, or accepts no money.
2) Quasi-free. Spending money can give a character an in-game advantage. You can, however, play and spend no money.
3) Pay-to-play. You need to pay to access most or all of the game.

Personally, I see a big distinction between the first and second cases. If I'm playing a game like Achaea or Materia Magica for free, I am at a disadvantage to other players- I either have to spend more time to "catch up", or accept that I'll have a slightly less powerful character and live with that.

Right, we also have a limited # of items available for sale and you can't buy any item you want from us. You can also get everything in the game without paying us a dime.

--matt

Similarly, I am at a disadvantage to other players in games (most of them) where your available amount of free time is a huge factor: I don't have a lot of it. Money and time are both resources and the latter is a lot more valuable to me. It was the opposite 10 years ago but there are a lot of people who don't play muds precisely because they're at a disadvantage to people who can play 12 hours a day. Tough to do if you've got a demanding job or have 4 kids to take care of, etc.

Anyway, I don't want to be drawn into a discussion on this as I think we're about 2 posts away from the ranters chiming in with the flames.

--matt

That was most of my point, Jherlen. I like the way Achaea handles it, but I don't like how other games call that business model "Free" with no qualifiers.

IN SUMMARY: (rolls her eyes at the derailers)

It doesn't make a difference what kind of game Materia Magica is. It doesn't matter that it charges, or doesn't charge, or if it pays you to play the freaking game.

It doesn't allow reviews, and the person who posted a review should not have done so, and honored the game's wishes to that end.

Now all y'all, go find one of the DOZENS of threads geared to discussion about pay vs. free vs. hybrid vs. commercial and post there. It doesn't belong in this thread - which is about reviewing games that don't allow reviews.

lol, <3 Jazuela

I agree with Valg, there's a big distinction between "Completely free", and "You can pay to get donation items with real life money".

Personally, I feel they should still put Free but Commercial, as that is exactly what it is..

A completely free game would be a game where there is no money involved at all, there are no items purchasable by money, there is no money involved in the game through any manner. Well, I'm just a small mud owner, so don't bog me down, it's just my 2 cents worth.

-Demiscus

I’ve always been confused by the statement ‘commercial but free’. At best it is a deceitful header akin to ‘we want to have our cake and eat it’. At worst it is paradoxical statement that does little but compound the logical ignorance of those that purport its value. I mean what would people make of advertisements that include phrases such as black but white, or small but large.

Such a statement is a sound bite account of games operational mandate, an indicator of what players can expect of the game. It has been pointed out before that games involving a financial element offer an entirely different framework for game-play than purely free games. And that the financial dependency such a business model imparts is so deeply interwoven into the fabric of the games that it refutes any claims to being free to play that such a game may make.

In relation to the often quoted ‘money and time resources argument’ can we please put this nonsensical wet fish to bed instead of hauling it out of the larder with disturbing frequency.

If player A spends more time actively playing then they may surpass player B who spends less time.

If player A spends money and more time playing than player B who just spends money playing then player A will surpass player B.

Introducing money into the game does not redress the time imbalance because it is still present within the game. Time and money are independent resources that have no direct bearing upon each other. One does not cancel out the other irrevocably. The only thing that introducing money does to a game is add fuel to the fire of game imbalance, by introducing a method of progression that is entirely unrelated to game-play.

The Logos
-------------
On a separate note, I thought you had left these boards Logos, amidst a big hoorah (with the exception of the promotions board). Over the past week the posts to the board had begun to increase in quality and interest, in my opinion the last thing we need is a return of your troll baiting and flame fanning input. Please be a man of your word and demonstrate the courage of your convictions, disappear back into oblivion.

*wild applause for fharron*

Fharron,

Heh, I think the end must be nigh, because I'm about to take the_logos' side... while I don't want to hijack this thread, I did feel a need to briefly address your assertion that the statement "commercial but free" is a logical contradiction.

Strictly speaking, of course, any logician will tell you that it is not - the contradiction would only arise from the statement "commercial and not commercial". Thus, you would need to find a way to equate "free" with "not commercial" in order for your argument to be true.

This is by no means as foregone a conclusion as your post made it sound. While I think that perhaps "commercial but free to play" would be a much clearer statement, it is evident from the definitions of both and that there are many interpretations that, taken in conjunction with different interpretations of the conjoined term, do not form logical contradictions.

To sum it seems a perfectly sensible maxim to me, though like I mentioned above he might want to consider qualifying "free" a bit.

What's deceitful about it?  Your typical radio station could make the same claim: it's a commercial operation, but you can take advantage of it without having to pay for it.  You can do that because somebody else foots the bill -- advertisers in the case of radio, paying customers in the case of a mud with a business model like Achaea's.

While they don't have a direct correlation to one another, I think it is pretty safe to argue that in general, players with more time on their hands have less money to spend/waste on games.  Most 24/7 mudders are students, and most mudders in a position to take the biggest advantage of pay-for-extras schemes are working 40+ hours a week.  It's the hobbyist's curse -- once you can actually afford a hobby, you're usually too busy to spend that much time with it.  Of course you'll always have exceptions to this, no model is going to be perfect.  But, I think models like Achaea's are rather sound in that, generally speaking, they provide the most benefit to those most able to take advantage of them -- people with money but not as much time.