In the commercial project I recently started we plan on adopting a hybrid system, which I hope will capture the best of both types of fee paradigms (i.e. pay-to-play vs. pay-for-perks).

The biggest advantage of a PFP system, to my mind, is allowing players to play your game for free - not only does this help amass a userbase by including those who don't necessarily want to shell out money for their gaming experience, but it also gives people a chance to try it out and see how they like it before they put any money down.

With that in mind, our foundation will be a monthly pay-to-play fee - probably somewhere in the neighborhood of $10 USD or so.

Initially I was leaning very heavily towards offering trial periods, like one free month, or somesuch. However, someone, I believe it was KaVir, suggested something pretty interesting. Namely, the possibility of allowing perpetually free play within a limited scope, and only charging players who wish to use the entirety of the game's content/featureset.

Rather like old-school shareware - you can download and play Wolfenstein for free, but to advance past the third level you have to send in your $15 or whatever and register a full copy of the game.

Applied here, it would likely translate into something like the ability to play non-human/outerworld races, access to the space combat/colonization modules in the game, or some other sort of possibility I haven't come across yet.

This wouldn't carry the negative issues of a PFP system because it's more or less a binary arrangement; either the player pays and has access to these "extended" elements, or they don't. Once access is given, they're on a level playing field with everyone else.

On the other hand, it would still allow people to play for free; and if balanced properly, it wouldn't have any effect in terms of giving paying players any real "advantages" over non-paying players, but rather only access to certain parts of the game that are reserved.

Anyway, it's far from fully fleshed out, but that's the general idea. Whether or not it's actually viable, we'll just have to wait and find out. <g>

I like the idea of offering meta-elements in exchange for fees, e.g. restrings, small in-game events (like a wedding), etc.

However, this only works with the model if a) you ensure that the things you're offering have no effect on the game's baseline meritocracy (coded powerlevels, more or less), and b) you completely separate it from in-game valuation.

So, as an example, IMO offering a house for $25 USD or 100k in-game gold wouldn't work. At first glance the alternative setup is a good thing, because you're allowing players who don't want to spend the money a way to obtain the item. What you're really doing, though, is setting up an implicit value structure and ranking system, wherein players with RL money > players without. That is, in a case like this you're basically saying "since you can't pay us X dollars, we're making you pay a penalty of X^Y RL time to achieve the same end." All this will do is serve to create resentment and a sort of quasi-caste system within your playerbase.

Instead, if you are very clear and deliberate with your line-drawing at the outset, I imagine these problems wouldn't arise. That is, if you tell your players that X non-game-affecting service is only available for a fee of Y RL dollars, some players will pay the fee, support your product, and receive the service or item; some won't. But because it has no effect on the relative power levels of those involved, because it doesn't disrupt the balance of power and your basic time-powergain gradient, and because it doesn't devalue in-game effort in favor of RL funding it won't create as much resentment, if any at all.

Incidentally, this is probably why pay-zones wouldn't work... no matter how well-balanced, chances are they will confer SOME sort of in-game power benefit to the people with access to them, and the people with access will then either a) use these things to boost their own power relative to the non-users, or b) sell them to the non-users for exorbitant amounts of in-game cash, creating the devaluation mentioned above.

Things like races or access to restricted game-modes/modules, on the other hand, don't lend themselves to this sort of disruption, since 1) when balanced properly they don't grant the user an advantage over non-paying members, and 2) they can't be alienated from the original purchaser to create the in-game effort vs. RL cash investment clash the model is trying to avoid.

Remember; long-term sorts of games like these are all about player investment, whether it's in terms of RL money or the player's time and effort. In order for them to invest lots of time and effort, they need to trust that you'll protect their investment by ensuring that people with lots of money can't simply leap over them and their hard work with the click of a payment button at the outset; likewise, if you want them to invest money, you'll need to convince them that the product they're purchasing is worth it, both in terms of the quality of the item as well as its exclusivity (i.e. that someone isn't going to be able to pick up the same thing for 50% off a week later, or worse yet, for free).

I had the chance of trying a pay for play game for free *no names mentioned* and I wasn't that impressed.

Oh definitly, the service and presence of staff was better. And really, if one pays for it - it should. Now perhaps if you spend a lot of time on it one would notice the difference, but with 10 hours invested I was not that impressed by the gameworld, the code or the RP I encountered.

Sure, it was all high-quality, but then again it should be since people pay for it - but not that extra dimension that would make it worth pulling up my visa.

So I would definitly vote for a system that generally only made you pay to advance into certain positions or roles that require lots of work for admins, getting your own buildings etc.

Still, it feels ugly to my socialist soul that someone that can dish out 100$ for his castle and guards can be nobleman and someone else can't - but hey it is those people that pay for that the game keeps running and keeps the admins paid (hopefully).

I've gone through three different models for my project, with varying degrees of success.

One-time fee: Back in the beginning, you could play a peasant for free, but paid a one-time fee if you wanted to be higher on the social ladder. The higher in the social strata a player wanted to be, the more it cost. For their investment, they got their own homes/castles and other benefits. This was somewhat successful, but hindered playerbase growth - and this led to inadequate income for the game. So, then we switched to...

Monthly fee: We exempted people who'd been playing the game since it started, but all new players would have to pay a monthly fee. The free-to-play as peasant model still existed and players got 30 days as a trial period. However, this proved to be less successful than the one-time fee. It's possible I did something wrong, but I have a suspicion that in the age of graphical MMORPGs, it's going to be really hard to maintain growth of a monthly subscription base in a text-gaming environment. The monthly fee simply didn't work out for us, reducing income and hindering playerbase growth even further than the first model. So, we evolved to...

Paid enhancements: Basically, for all intents and purposes, the game can be played for free. Whether a player wants to be a peasant or a high-society blueblood, it's free *unless* they want their own private buildings, personalized weapons and heirlooms, fast horses, and extra crafting minutes. In effect, they pay for the time and effort involved in the building projects or the convenience of the horses and crafting minutes. Although this method doesn't carry the certainty of a subscription or a one-time up-front fee, it has (for us) been the most successful model in allowing a balance between income and playerbase growth.

Personally, I rather a pay-for-perks system. In my experience it makes for a more enjoyable experience for me, as I have complete control over how my contributions effect my play, and I have a choice to buy nice new things when I can afford it yet still play when I'm flat broke. I also feel I should mention that you can buy every perk in the game I play with gold, one way or another, and I've done so with several major things my character owns.

Also, I'm going to throw a comment out there that will no doubt illicit some rather angry comments.. but this goes a long way to why I like pay for perks:

I find the top end players on pay-for-perks muds to be more mature and level headed. I assume this is because mostly they're older and more mature.

Now, before a 13 year old uber-mudder indignantly defends all his fellow pubescent kind, I would like to point out that my statement is very general. I have known 13 year old players of great worth and merit, and ones in their mid 30s with the maturity of a half eaten banana. Even with these points taken into account, there is a definate bias towards the older player.

Back on topic, I don't really think having pay zones would work. Having a sense of equality between paying and non-paying customers is important to the success of a healthy playerbase, largely because people expect their potential to be the same as every other player out there. Many often get disenfranchised when they find out that it isn't. Perhaps its just me, but that'd cheese me off. My MUDding past has almost entirely been pay-for-perks, but even when I used to interact with much bigger people than myself I never felt cheaated or sour about the situation.

I assume certain people are suited to certain models, be they free, pay to play or pay for perks. That doesn't make any model more or less correct or applicable.

-H

Check out Runescape. They're one of the biggest MUDs in the world (occasionally breaking 100,000 simultaneous players) and that's the model they use. Free to play. $5/month for extended features.

Free time is a resource just like money.

Read it like this as well:

"That is, in a case like this you're basically saying 'sinc eyou can't spend X hours of free time, we're making you pay a penalty of X^Y real dollars to achieve the same end." All this will do is s create resentment and a sort of quasi-caste system within your playerbase."

I, for instance, quit playing Worlds of Warcraft precisely because of this. I don't look at monster bashing games as a competitive enterprise (what does it matter to me what level someone else is?), but I objected to playing a game that was clearly designed to be oriented towards people with large amounts of free time. No job, no family, no friends? Great! You get to progress faster.

The idea that only one type of resource (free time) should count is one that only holds water with very hardcore gamers (of course, we are all text MUDers here) and that sort of design is one thing holding back MUDs as a whole (ie graphical or text).

Incidentally, I think your supposition about a caste system and creating resentment is a bit off anyway. Check out Habbo Hotel, for instance. 3 million players, using our business model, except that you CAN'T get anything without paying for it (unlike in our model, where you can get anything without paying for it).

Finally, it's worth pointing out that the market (largely a grey or black market at this point, since it's usually done in contravention of the Terms of Service) for virtual goods is, according to the best sources available, at -least- a half billion dollar a year market and growing very rapidly. Rapidly enough that Sony recently announced they will be officially supporting user to user RMT (real-money transactions) on some of their Everquest II servers. This year's crop of Asian MUDs at E3 had a huge proportion of them integrating RMT into their games.

--matt

If this is -actually- the problem (and I don't believe it is), then you'd need to stop all transfers of anything between players to stop it. There's no difference between me using OOC money to buy something in a game and me using OOC connections with friends to get stuff from them in-game. For instance, in Worlds of Warcraft, when I was a little noob, an rl friend of mine sent me 5 gold. (that's a HUGE amount to a noob. So much that the game didn't even offer a way for me to reasonably spend that much money at my low level). Why did I get that gold? OOC resources (my friends). Is there any difference between me trading on my OOC friendships vs. my OOC bank account? I'd say not. Both are OOC resources and the result is exactly the same as regards the game.
--matt

My reasoning is a little different. I quit CoH, WoW, etc largely because the Terms of Service wouldn't permit me to purchase things, and I'm not into breaking Terms of Service or End User License agreements. Fundamentally, I don't want to be playing a game that was designed to cater to people with far greater amounts of free time than I have if the only way to advance is to spend those huge amounts of free time. That's too expensive for me, and I don't like the elitism created by it.

--matt

Second most successful actually. Simutronics' playerbase is less than half what it used to be, but they're still a fair shot bigger than we are. Hopefully that'll change, as we're growing, not shrinking.

"Fair" is subjective, and keep in mind that there's no such thing as a "perfect system." There's only a "perfect system for Bob" which will be different from the "perfect system for Jane" and so on. In the end, you provide a game to players and they can vote with their feet and wallets.

--matt

This is ultimately what it comes down to for me. I did some stat gathering recently and found I'd spent over a year in online time on the main games I've played in the last 6 years, which basically means that I've spent at least 1/6 of my time mudding in that time. If I'm going to go to such an extreme, I really appreciate that the realms where I mud are very enjoyable with as few niggles possible, and have a high pace of development and customer service.

-H

I would rather have a pay-to-play system because I really hate pay-to-advance. I feel like in pay-to-advance systems, someone like me will play for free without using the optional investment in my character. However, I notice that I often have a severe disadvantage and all the work I do isn't really getting me anywhere. I don't pay for MUDs in real life, but in this scenario I would pick a pay-to-play MUD because I would be on equal footing as everyone else. Plus, with pay-to-play MUDs, I don't feel like I they are having the illusion of being free like pay-to-advance MUDs have. You know what you are getting into and you're not wasting your time on the free part of it because there is no free part.

That's essentially the way I feel about pay-to-advance MUDs.  People with more money sitting around than me can advance light-years ahead of me, meanwhile me and the rest of the people who don't have all the cash to pay for the really good stuff are left behind.  It essentially creates its own type of elitism, not with free time, but with the amount of money someone has.

I just wanted to mention here,

That's what this discussion is all about. If you haven't yet, make sure you read all the posts. The topic of keeping it fair for players has been discussed by me at length in a few posts.

Basically, I understand your position 100% -- I've been there on several games. However, I never considered it from the opposite perspective, as Matt has given. I can honestly say that if I was in the other person's shoes, I would probably feel just as left behind by people who had tons of free time.

The idea is to try and come up with something that will give everyone a chance, however that's not entirely possible. We can't control a player's playing time or income, so in reality, if someone has neither the time to play, nor the money to pay, they are going to be left behind. At that time though, I honestly think that there's probably more important things going on than a getting on a game. The opposite of that person, the ones who have both time and money, those are the ones who pose the biggest threat to a system like this. They're the ones who can play both sides of the fence, and that's where I feel exceptions need to be made to limit things.

There have been many other revenue schemes that I've seen in the past for MUDs. I've seen advertisements, both in and out of game. I've seen "moral donation" systems, where the idea is just that if you like the game, you'll donate. I've also seen MUDs that tie in with other things that can make revenue, keeping the MUD free. All of these systems rely on either an honor system, or the success of one thing or another. The MUD is never independant, and thus it's far too easy to lose enough revenue to force the place to close down, or cease updates and fire staff.

Advertisments are not reliable. The income from ads isn't much usually, and most agencies that buy ad space require click-through's for the real profit, not just impressioins. The ones who offer profit for impressions usually offer it at such a low rate that it's almost not worth it. Further, depending on where you put your ads, users may use blocking software that may or may not screw up your impressions, and would most definately prevent a potential click-through.

Honor-bound donation systems were a great thing when a MUD was small, and the playerbase faithful. Let's face it though, the majority of the people playing free MUDs either can't afford pay to play ones, or rarely think twice about clicking "donate". Added to the fact that the donations often don't add up to the overall cost of operation, this system is again unreliable. It's nice to offer, just so you can get some assistance and still keep your MUD free, but if you plan on trying to do anything - like hire professionals or expand your operations later - it falls way too short.

MUDs that use alternate means of revenue, such as selling T-Shirts, or even comic books and such that go on about the story line usually only last as long as the fad surrounding its products lasts. It costs money to put out those items, and unless you keep new products rolling out every so often, your sales may stagnate to the point where you're making no money. Perhaps you're actually putting out products in real life stores? That works well until, as I said, the fad dies down. If you can't keep new products rolling, or if people lose interest, the MUD will fall with the rest of the company (or choose a different means of revenue).

This brings us to what we're discussing here. By charging the people who play your game, for either access or perks, means the MUD is supporting itself. As long as the playerbase stays interested (and the perks stay interesting), you'll have revenue. If your playerbase leaves you, well then I think it's time to pack it up, or come out with something new and correct your previous errors.

That's all from me for now. Please remember that this discussion is about when "free" just isn't possible. It's not really an option unless you have the funds to throw away, when you want to professionally develop a MUD.

Why do you assume "more money" means they will fly past you?

What if the whole idea was that tons of free time or tons of free money were both ways to get ahead?

I had read an   that said that Wow had come up with a scheme to level the playing field for people who couldn't spend as much time as others on the game. Essentially, you get a boost of experience gain if you have been logged off for a period of time.

Do they not have this feature or is it a sincere, but ultimately vain attempt to level things a little?

Yes you get a little boost in the exp gain. Lets say you been off for a whole week doing RL job or similar, you will then have a boost in exp for approximately the next level you work to get. So it will give you almost double exp for a whole level... not sure if thats really correct, but it works something like that.

Obviously it depends on your perspective; different strokes for different folks. My personal view is that the mud is a game, and advancement should reflect your efforts within that game, much like in any other contest or test of ability.

Allowing players to purchase their advancement is, for me, comparible with a martial arts club that allows people to buy sashes instead of earning them, or a University that allows students to buy reference books that can be used during the exam, or a marathon where people are allowed to buy taxi-rides along the way. True, someone who works full-time isn't going to be able to spend as much time learning kung-fu as someone who is unemployed, nor will they have as much time to study as a full-time student, or as much time to keep fit as a professional runner. But for me, it undermines the whole purpose of those exercises. Of course I'm sure there are people who would be more than happy to buy a degree or a black-sash, but as I said, different strokes for different folks.

IMO the worst form of pay-for-perks is the one in which money is the only realistic way to earn certain competitive edges. At this extreme, cash becomes more valuable than time, and the more cash you spend the better you're going to be.

Somewhat less offensive would be a pay-for-perks where time is just as valuable as money. This breaks down if it doesn't handle players who have both, of course, but you could get around that (for example, only allowing the players to purchase the equivilent of X hours playing time each day, where X is the difference between how much time they actually played and how much time a 'serious' player could put in).

The least offensive pay-for-perks model in my eyes would be a method where cash could be used to compensate for lost time. For example, a 'super-exp mode' which allowed you to earn double exp for X hours (once again where X is the difference between how much time you'd actually played and how much time a 'serious' player could have put in). This method would prevent people from simply 'buying' their advancement, as they'd still have to earn exp just like everyone else, but it would still allow them to catch up with those who had put in a lot more hours.

You've mentioned time and money, but there is also a third major factor (unless the game is poorly designed), and that's player skill. The first pay-for-perks model I outlined makes money more valuable than skill, and I think that's the part I really dislike the most. The second pay-for-perks model I outlined allows you to progress without the need for skill. But the third model only replaces time - you still need exactly the same amount of skill to play, it just lets you get there faster.

So rather than just talking about money vs time, I think you also need to decide what sort of role player skill is going to take.

As I said in my post, we've tried to make it so skill can beat bought perks and those who have done something like spending a lot of time getting their levels up.

I actually forgot about WoW's system of having experience bonuses after being logged off, I remember reading about that a while back. I liked the idea of that at the time, as I've always felt their strength was the the ability to allow casual gamers to play happily alongside powergamers.

This is something I really appreciate these days because I'm so busy at work and working on Lusternia. In the past I would spend hours playing RPGs like Baldur's Gate and more recently things like Fable, but I just don't have the time anymore and when I've dealt with a stressful situation at work or while being an admin I just want to wind down, so I'll shove Halo 2 in my xbox and blast away.

I do think casual gamers should be able to have a great time on games, but at the same time I don't think hardcore gamers should be punished in any way for putting a lot of effort into the game. It's all a question of getting the balance right between your players that play 6 hours a week and your players that play 40 hours a week. We have plenty of both.

I think in any MUD worth charging for, player skill should be playing a major role. The one reason I completely dislike the "EQ-Ebay" thing is because I've played with people who buy their way through the game. They don't know the game, and because of how EQ is set up, they can get away with it. Even if you don't buy a ready-made level 70, 700AA point, Anguish/DoN geared toon... you can still pay for platinum (in-game money), and pretty much "twink" your character out with some of the more rare, but very valuable items that don't discriminate based on level.

You can then pay people with in-game money to "power-level" you. In short, by the time you arrive to level 70, the only skill you have is how to hide behind the Druid that's power-levelling your rear, and how to click "Buy It Now" on your favorite game-item buying service.

I really do think that player-skill is what makes some pay-to-advance schemes work. It doesn't matter how much money you spend on your character, that won't teach you how to play it well. In a good system though, this can't be the only check and balance. Hence why we've discussed limitations, and why I still feel some sort of playtime-based limitation is a valid solution. Also, in considering a more binary way of doing this, you're completely removing the chance of someone without money enough to pay from keeping up. Yes, this means the playing field is more level, when you consider that everyone who's over XX level is a paying subscriber, however it removes the choice that I'd like customers to have.

This brings back the idea of going with something that can adapt to the situation. KaVir's exp-bonus idea is a great idea actually, as it's a perk, but you can't do anything with it without playing the game. Yes, someone will advance more quickly while using it, but only for a period of time nearly equal with that player's offline time.

A more comparable example would be going to your local amusement park, going in, and then being charged for individual rides. Is that somehow "unfair?" You seem to be looking at MUDs as inherently competitive experiences. They are competitive for some people. They are not competitive for others. These are entertainment experiences for most people, not a way to validate yourself .

In terms of competitive activities, what about all the money Lance Armstrong spends trying to gain an edge via superior equipment. Is that unfair? Does that diminish his achievement? How about Valentino Rossi (best motorcycle racer ever)? His team spends tens of millions trying to eek out an extra half a horsepower for his bike. Is that unfair? How about pro sports? Why do you think the Yankees do so well? It's cause they can and do spend more money than small market teams.

Now, you might argue that none of the above is fair. That's fine. I'd argue that people generally don't care. In nearly EVERY professional competitive endeavour, people buy advantages, and hundreds of millions of fans the world around tune in with bated breath anyway. That, to me, says that this mythical 'fairness' is a chimera, which I believe is only of concern to a narrow segment of the population.

Besides, unless you completely eliminate all asymmetrical item trading, you cannot stop people from obtaining things using out-of-game resources, like friends. I don't know any sane developers that want to tell people, "You can't get help from your friends." Why should those who are friends OR free time rich have an advantage over those who are money rich? I see literally no fundamental difference between your rl friend helping you out and your rl bank account helping you out.

I mean, don't get me wrong. I don't care what kind of business model people put in games. I don't care if they charge blondes double and let wheel-chair bound parapalegics with Hispanic surnames use a Sword of UberLeetness on full moon nights. I don't actually understand anyone getting upset about any of it, since you can just not play the game. I don't play games that require character apps, for instance, as that's my personal preference, but I wouldn't call it "offensive" to ask for character apps.

--matt

Typical ignorant, sloppy games journalism. What is it about games that makes writers feel like they can write about them without having a clue.

Yes, WoW has that kind of system, as Brody pointed out. But is it particularly effective? Not really. Does it "level the playing field?" I'm not even sure what that means, but I'm thinking not. The bonus you get is nice, but you really have to play infrequently to get that bonus, and there's no way that said bonus would actually allow you to have a prayer of keeping up with your frequently-playing friends.

No, that's not comparible. Amusement park rides are not competitive activities. A mud with strong gameplay aspects (particularly those of a PvP nature) are competitive activities. Some people might not care about those competitive aspects, but the same is also true of running a race or earning martial arts grades - some people just do them for fun, but for many others it's a competitive activity, and allowing people to buy their progress will reduce the value of skill.

If he raced against people who had no budget, yes, that would be unfair. If he entered races where all the other contestants were hobby motorcycle racers, do you think the other contestants would consider his races fairly won through skill? Or do you think they'd feel that his tens-of-millions-budget had bought him an advantage they couldn't compete against?

You can stop them obtaining most things though, and there are many ways to restrict players from taking advantage of overpowered items that they've received from friends - plus, such equipment is always going to be something that is available to other players as well, while I was specifically referring to muds where "money is the only realistic way to earn certain competitive edges" (in other words, equipment which only money can buy). However a mud which cannot stop people from becoming overly powerful through shared equipment has a serious design flaw - and even if they want to sell super-equipment, a flaw like this is going to make a hole in their profits, as players can simply get nearly as good gear from their powerful friends.

But internal character advancement (as opposed to things like equipment) is another thing entirely. I don't know of any muds which allow players to give their friends levels, exp or skill-boosts - yet many pay-for-perks muds allow precisely these sort of things. It is one thing to argue that players with insufficient time should be able to compensate for it with money, but when players can purchase advancement outright like this you're also allowing money to replace playing skill.

I've no plans to run any sort of payment model in God Wars II, but I am working on a number of completely player-skill-based advancement options. Much like the typical pay-for-perks approach, except that money is replaced with skill, this 'play-for-perks' model allows skilled players to progress faster than grinders, and also unlocks options for skilled players which no amount of pure grinding can achieve. If someone has something you can't get, you can't blame it on them having more time or money than you, only on being a better player.

The last few posts have sort of missed the point I think.

To say that someone who pays for a perk in a game has an advantage over other players isn't really true. Each player has the option to also pay for the same perks. The issue comes in with how much can a player afford, and if a player wants to pay or not. I really can't help it if a player doesn't want to pay for any perks, especially if they go into the MUD knowing it's got a pay-for-perk scheme. For me, that's one thing I'm going to make known right at the start. Even so, it boils down to "why play?" if you're unhappy with how the game is run.

No one has an obligation to provide a free MUD. The only restraints on you are with code licenses, and with any agreements you have with your host. Now when talking about the intention of making a system that's somewhat fair all around, as it's been said several times in this thread - that's just not going to happen. Someone isn't going to like it no matter what you do. I also think the predictions are right - that this sort of pay-for-stuff view on online games is going to be the hottest thing on the market, if it isn't already.

Anywho, back to being fair, and all the sports analogies...

If the athletes all had the same spending cap, then honestly it would be fair. Especially in a sports example, because an athlete's skill is what lands them sponsers, and sponsers help increase the budget toward making the athlete better. At some point, it all boils down to sheer skill. I also point out that there's skill in getting the most out of the money one can spend, and that the best gear doesn't make you the best. Put my grandmother in a NASCAR stock car and she's not going to win the Daytona 500. She's probably not even going to drive over 50mph, if that. Why? Because she's not a skilled racecar driver.

As I said before, it doesn't matter how many levels you get, what kind of gear you have, or anything. Eventually it'll come down to skill, and those who have not evenly paid and played won't have any. At that point, who is at the advantage? The person who slugged it out for longer to reach the top level and get the good gear, or the person who just started the game a week ago, and is a thousand dollars poorer?

Ok... lets try this again. Hopefully firefox won't crash before I submit it this time.

I personally prefer the PFP system over PTP. I've been a long time IRE player, and now code for Lusternia. Over the years I have made characters on 3 out of 4 of their games, and some I spent money on, some I haven't. Regardless of the money, I enjoyed all of them, and all of them raised to about the same level. My last mortal actually rose in levels and skills(just looking at the things you could buy, not RP related things) farther than any other, and I spent FAR less RL money on that one than on any other.

Another advantage I see, mainly from a business side, is someone(like I did) may play for months and not want to spent money(or have it). Months later, they may decide to spent some, but if you were on a PTP mud they may have left after the free time period was up, and you as a business never would have gotten that sale.

On a side note, Lusternia's highest level character, and has almost all her skills maxed out, has done it all IG without spending RL money. For players, expecially younger ones who can't afford to pay, seeing things like that really makes them want to continue playing. As I stated above, those people may later decide to spend money, which is ofcourse the goal for commercial muds.

Of course it is - otherwise there would be no reason for them to buy the perks.

Only if they have the money. And the point is that only by paying can they alleviate that advantage. This could start a form of arms race which could become far more expensive than any pay-to-play mud.

Well fair enough, as long as the players know in advance what they're letting themselves in for I don't think anyone would complain.

However you started this thread asking what people thought of pay-to-play vs pay-for-perks, and it's from that perspective that I'm explaining my opinion. Of course you can run your mud any way you please, but personally I wouldn't play a mud that allowed people to overcome my skill with their wallet.

Indeed it would, and that would be the equivilent of a pay-to-play mud which had a fixed cost. However what I'm talking about here is the pay-for-perks model, where the more you spend the better you become.

No, but put her against a marathon runner who's on foot and she's going to win. Do you think the athlete would enjoy competing against her? Do you think he'd congratulate her on her skill?

You're mixing up money with playing skill - they're not related. With most pay-for-perks models money provides an extra boost against those relying on skill, but it's not an indicator of skill in its own right. Someone who relies almost entirely on money is obviously going to be far less skilled than the person who relies purely on skill, but that money is going to allow them to offset or overcome that lack of skill (just like your grandmother when drives past the professional runner in her car).

As I said before, you need to decide what role you want skill to play. I'm not judging you, just giving the suggestions you asked for - what sort of role do you want money to play in relation to time and skill? Should money be the primary factor, allowing newbies to overcome even the most skilled of players if they pay enough? Or should money and playing skill be of approximately equal value? Or should money just give a small edge, only allowing you to defeat those who are slightly more skilled than you? Or should money not affect skill at all, only allowing people to compensate for time?

I think I missed where anything in the world is fair, personally. You get out of things what you put into them.

The comparison between payment models and kung fu for me would be similar to being plugged into the matrix and having the skill 'uploaded'. Someone who has trained it up slowly and is more used to it will definately be better, thats for sure.

I know kung fu... whoa..

Another bonus of pay for perks systems is that there is hardly ever a level playing field in muds unless you are a founding player of the mud. Everyone who has been there before you has more experience, more time to gain items and levels, more political power, etc. This is another thing that I personally find frustrating, mainly as being someone who is more than a 9-5er I cannot compete with the oft unemployed hardcore mudders of any non pay-for-perks realm I want to play.

Even if I do get on on day one, I'm doomed to fall behind in fairly short order.

-H

Similar to the approach Traithe is taking for his new game then? That could work, although as I've said before, my personal reference (as it's opinions you're asking for) would be something that didn't replace (or remove the need for) player skill. Examples might include unlocking extra character options (giving pay-to-play people more variety rather than more power), out-of-game bonuses (email forwarding, additional character slots, custom client, etc), or even allowing them to advance faster (requiring less playing time, but just as much playing skill).

While I wish only success for Traithe and others who hope to positively modify the pay-for-play systems, I'm not sure how any implementation where payment affects access to any subsystem of the game or metagame can effectively solve the fundamental disadvantages of PFP.

If you give a player access to a race other than human, then that means they have access to any power that makes the race distinguishable from humans. You might as well allow them to purchase a weapon they could not otherwise obtain. If there is no advantage to playing that race over playing a human, then the system is unfortunately more pay-for-cognitive-dissonance than pay-for-play.

There may be an even greater impact on gameplay if players must pay to access a particular zone of the game, unless there is no way to transfer the rewards of that zone back to the free areas. If the latter is true, then once more the net value added is zero -- or less, since the paying player will feel they've been wasting their time.

Suppose you only offered one service: players can store an extra description of their character that only they can view, and only when offline. The only thing that makes this service worth paying for is that it takes slightly less time to store the description there then putting it on a person website or saving it as a Word document. How can this possibly affect the gameplay of other players? Well, as the logos said, time is a resource, and one that we all know has an affect on gameplay. Even one second taken out of your day is one second less to plan out one's gameplay actions, whether you do that planning in the game or out of the game.

There is little point in trying to distinguish between game and metagame. If they can be effectively separated, then at least one of them is not worth considering in the first place.

Well, remember; the thing that distinguishes my conceptual model from most PFP applications is its binary nature.

Either you pay monthly and have access to all of the extended content, or you don't. It isn't a matter of paying and receiving an X increase in power, where each player can pay and receive these increases as many times as desired.

So, in a sense, it lowers the monetary barrier to effective competition, since in this model you only need to pay the monthly fee, whereas in the more liberalized PFP model you need to pay as much as other players (some with a great deal more disposable income than others, I imagine) are paying in order to effectively compete with them.

It's a given that paying members will in some ways have advantages that non-paying members don't; the moment you allow non-paying members to play in however limited a scope, this will happen, unless, as you said, you make your fee-required content not worth paying for.

The primary difference between the two models to my mind lies in the difficulty of surmounting the barrier of effective competition between paying customers noted above.

There were two major factors in the system I suggested on Traithe's forums which would result in a more balanced playing field than the typical play-for-perks model:

1) Payment is boolean - either you're paying, or you're not - thus getting away from the arms-race mentality of "the more you pay, the better you become".

2) Pay-to-play options would expand your options outwards rather than upwards (i.e., you'd gain more options rather than more power).

To compare it to the weapon purchasing example you gave, it would be like saying that anyone can use swords, shields and crossbows, but only paying customers can use the other weapons - while at the same time stressing that all weapons are designed to be equally balanced against each other. The paying player would have the advantage of variety and flexibility, but would be no more powerful than the non-paying player.

Well, in actuallity, all the teams spend money regardless. so thats essentially pay to play, not pay for perks... and also, what does rl friendships have to do with the difference between pay to play and pay for perks? im also adding more to this than originally planned... I am an avid player of most IRE games, and i dont approve of the pay for perks route. While i would not pay to play those games, the way they use their credit system is outrageous! while they limit the amount of credits convertible per day, it is completely unbalanced vs paying your time. on lusternia right now, i believe it costs 4k ic gold to buy ONE credit, which doesnt help much, while 4k takes a little bit to acquire. meanwhile, you may pay around 70$ US to net you a good 200 credits. that would make you have more might than an average player. making a complete newbie, AKA a grandma in a nascar able to easily beat a marathon runner. i rest my case...

It's a factor, yes, but one which can be replaced by money to a greater or lesser extent.  Each advantage a player buys is something they didn't need skill to earn, and each advantage that can't also be earned through playing is something that gives them yet another edge over those relying on skill.

My mud places an extremely high emphasis on player skill, yet most players would get torn apart by an iron golem - despite the fact that its 'tactics' consist of nothing more than throwing one clumsy punch after another.  Why would they lose?  Because it's so strong and tough that it can win through brute force.

Taken to the extreme, a pay-for-perks model could end up like that - a player with practically no skill who can mow their way through most other players using brute force to overcome their skill.

Some pay-for-perks muds use automated combat systems (which primarily uses character skill) combined with powerful equipment that can only be purchased with money.  At this point, money becomes more important than skill, and players who don't pay simply cannot compete with those who do.

But if they have mana which is boosted through purchased items which a non-paying player cannot have, then they don't need to be as skilled at making use of their spells - and will also be better than someone of the same skill level who doesn't have perks.

You seem to be pretty keen on the pay-for-perks method, but you still need to decide how much value you want skill to have in relation to money.  If players can buy advantages outright then they're also going to bypass some of the need for skill - and if those advantages are things which can only be purchased, then they're going to be buying themselves an edge over those who rely on skill.

As you can see from this thread, there are some people who like to be able to compensate for their lack of skill, and others who prefer a level playing field.  You can't please both though.

That is an excellent point.

Then that gives you two viable options. Have you considered that these options are not mutually exclusive?

On top of allowing limited-content access anytime to anyone, you could also allow free, limited-time access to all content. This offer could be taken advantage of as many times as a player wishes, but with an upfront warning that each character created via this offer will eventually be deactivated unless the player subscribes to your service.

This could also be part of a rewards program; extensions could be earned for non-subscription characters. Thus, a player who contributes enough to your mud in defined ways could have access to all content without ever getting a subscription.

Except that everyone who pays would have access to exactly the same weapons, so they'd all be on equal footing.

If it's possible to buy things which cannot be earned for free, then obviously such things would detract from the skill element (the exact amount varying from implementation to implementation). If such advantages were negligible then players would be unlikely to buy them, rendering such a payment system ineffective.

Alright, i know alot of people who use the very same package that i mentioned before, 70$ US for 200 creds... Now, lets say my character is in a decent standing at level 50, i have seen level 25 characters, with more might and higher than me. i have interacted with these characters, and they all usually reply that they have bought credits... and im talking they have double my might percentage, if you know what i mean.

Daedroth, eh? You must play The Elder Scrolls III: Morrowind if I'm not mistaken.