Re: What does "Free" Mean?
 

More muddying of the waters that are black already. I can think of numerous sub options for categories C and D, but why bother, this horse is dead.

Re: The Non-Cold Non-Hard Non-Facts
 

How about you go back and read my post and the post I replied to. Then you can answer that question for yourself. I didn't say ANYTHING like that, and it is absurd and ridiculous for you to act like I did.

Someone asked me why I consider myself an expert on what players want. I posted a reason why I believe I have some expertise on that topic. There are many other people with similar expertise. I made no comments as to anyone else's expertise other than my own.

A little more reading and a little less straw man abuse will go a long way.

Re: The Non-Cold Non-Hard Non-Facts
 

As soon as money changes hands between two people, their relationship is forever altered. It is impossible for the exchange of money to have NO EFFECT on the relationship, and therefore on the game. This has nothing to do with admins being unscrupulous. This is about basic reality and the fact that money changing hands forever alters a relationship between people.

Well, I can't disagree with that. Admins on commercial games do indeed have a much larger and more powerful motivation to keep their players happy. That is one reason the overwhelming majority of gamers prefer commercial games.

Well, you can imagine insults where there are none if you want, but I am just being realistic. Furthermore, this is not a moral issue in any way, shape, or form.

To claim that Person A giving money to Person B does not change their relationship AT ALL is an unsupportable claim. To say that this will have NO EFFECT on their relationship is just naive to the extreme. As soon as money changes hands, the relationship changes and the way people treat each other changes. To argue otherwise is to be completely oblivious to reality and the world around us.

For that matter, things SHOULD change. We are talking about people who give you money (either as a gift, a purchase, or whatever) to keep your MUD running. Are you honestly going to tell me that has no effect on you at all? There is no gratitude for this whatsoever?

But circling around to the original point of the whole thread, a MUD that sells merchandise is no more or less free than a mud that sells swords. In both cases, the operator of the mud is receiving money as a direct consequence of running the mud. They are simply different business models and different ways to monetize their game.

Re: What does "Free" Mean?
 

Both the 4/5 Option system and the 2 Option system also feature a text box area underneath the choices for admins to clarify what applies to their game. A lot of people seem to be missing the text box thing :)

Re: The Non-Cold Non-Hard Non-Facts
 

Oh I'm sure I'd feel somewhat grateful yes. Would I allow it to change the way I treated in the player in game? Not in the slightest. To do so would be to compromise what I would see as my professional work ethic, which in this case would be to ensure all players in the game are held to the same standards/rules.

Now try not to take offense at this commercial-type people, but I'm going to let you in on a personal observation of mine in regards to "free" and games, that I've noticed over the years of MUD and MMO playing:

The only people who think a game is "free" when you have to pay to access some in-game content are the people who run the games and marketing-type people. I'm talking about GAMES, not websites, not museums, but GAMES. I've literally talked to hundreds of MUD and MMO players over the last 18 years or so, and I've yet to meet one that would consider the following a "free" game:

"You can play ThisMUD for FREE!
To progress past level 10 you will need to pay a fee/donation of £50"

You may all continue to argue that your game is free to play because someone can log in and play those first ten levels without paying a penny, but I have never met a MUD or MMO player who wasn't a commercial game admin or had a career in marketing that thought this was a fair description of said type of game.

Pay-for-perks, when said perks can also be earned in-game with an equivalent amount of time, is fine. Restricting access to some of your games content to people who have paid means it is no longer free, it is only PARTLY free. Claiming it is free is a misleading and inaccurate blanket statement.

Just because business says it is so and has the money and clout to change things to their liking, doesn't make it right or even supported by the majority.

Re: The Non-Cold Non-Hard Non-Facts
 

I understand your opinion on this matter; however, I don't share it. Even if I accept the somewhat cynical idea that party A will treat party B differently if they give him/her money, there's still no reason it has to be true for all games.

For example, what if a game accepts donations only anonymously? Let's say that someone might need to know where the money comes from in the case of credit card payments etc., but that person/entity makes no decisions involving the game -- that responsibility is abdicated to a bank or some uninterested third party.

Or, imagine a game running a store that sells game T-Shirts through something like CafePress. They know orders are being placed and they get money from them, but an admin choosing to ban a problem player has no information on who did or didn't buy 50 T-shirts.

Re: The Non-Cold Non-Hard Non-Facts
 

Personally I think these should be listed under the optional donate/pay w/ no in game "results" choice (don't have the actual wording handy).

Ok, let's say I concede this point. I still say it is useful to differentiate between muds that sell swords, levels, access to classes/races/areas versus those than have no tangible benefits but the person donating may be taken more seriously when they offer suggestions. may get some special treatment that doesn't make their character physically more powerful, or simply just get a hug. :)

Your opinion. Mine is that the 4 choice system (w/ text box) is closer to being accurate than the current one or the 2 choice system (which really seems similar to the current one, except most muds will be under the pay option, instead of the free option). NO system is 100% accurate, I just think the 4 choice one is as close as we can get.

Re: The Non-Cold Non-Hard Non-Facts
 

1) The 4/5 box system differentiates between the prototypical MUD-that-refuses-donations and the MUD-that-only-sells-T-shirts, of course. It merely differentiates between those MUDs that do accept money, and as KAVir and others have shown on multiple occasions, it has done so unambiguously for every MUD brought up. No one has provided a counterexample to the clarity of the system, you included.

2) It's relatively easy to find dozens of "I'm looking for a MUD" threads where a player asks for "no in-game perks", including the most recent one. (It's also possible to find players who are OK with pay-for-perks games. My point is about what players explicitly care about.) I wasn't able to locate any threads where a player explicitly ruled out things like an attached CafePress store, however. Given that the search utility is meant to allow players to automate the "I'm looking for a MUD" thread where practical, how do you explain the gap between your prediction (players only care about whether money changes hands) and the empirical data of what players ask for?

3) Any answer to my DragonRealmsPremium vs. Armageddon vs. NewWorlds question above? () Briefly, if you had to lump them into two categories based on financial models, the way a searching player would, what division makes sense to you?