Top Mud Sites Forum - View Single Post

Atyreus · 01-18-2006, 07:57 PM

Yes. But, then, that was the whole freaking point of Matt's use of those words to begin with. Reading comprehension seems to have taken a break from this thread.

If "free to play" is such an objective phrase, then why do so many people here seem so intent on devising alternative or more limited meanings for it?

Also, if I understand Matt correctly, the issue isn't the objectivity of "pay-for-perks"; his objection to such a labeling is that it doesn't fully reflect his business model. And the fact is, whether or not you think that buying credits with in-game money is still pay-for-perks because someone somewhere had to pay for them, a game with such a system is distinctly different from a game in which similar perks can ONLY be purchased with real-world cash. It's not unreasonable for someone to argue against a system which doesn't draw such a distinction, particularly if they feel it will disadvantage their game.

I think any system worth having would have to go beyond the one you describe. The biggest problem with any list of categories will be that it will only work until some game comes along that doesn't quite fit into any of the categories or which fits in a way that might be unexpected or unintended by the particular category scheme.

Maybe, if you feel it is really necessary to provide information about a game's business model (or lack thereof), you should consider a field which would allow the mud owners to describe their business model in their own words. It's not as neat and tidy as a category chosen from a drop-down list, but it would probably be more meaningful and informative for anyone actually interested in knowing such things.

This argument seems to come up about every six to twelve months, but I've yet to see any evidence that there's any signicant number of visitors to this site who are really clamoring for a change. That doesn't mean I'm opposed to a change; I'm just skeptical that it'd really make much of a difference in the overall scheme of things .

01-18-2006, 07:57 PM	#164
Atyreus Member Join Date: Feb 2003 Home MUD: The Dreaming City Posts: 60	Yes. But, then, that was the whole freaking point of Matt's use of those words to begin with. Reading comprehension seems to have taken a break from this thread. If "free to play" is such an objective phrase, then why do so many people here seem so intent on devising alternative or more limited meanings for it? Also, if I understand Matt correctly, the issue isn't the objectivity of "pay-for-perks"; his objection to such a labeling is that it doesn't fully reflect his business model. And the fact is, whether or not you think that buying credits with in-game money is still pay-for-perks because someone somewhere had to pay for them, a game with such a system is distinctly different from a game in which similar perks can ONLY be purchased with real-world cash. It's not unreasonable for someone to argue against a system which doesn't draw such a distinction, particularly if they feel it will disadvantage their game. I think any system worth having would have to go beyond the one you describe. The biggest problem with any list of categories will be that it will only work until some game comes along that doesn't quite fit into any of the categories or which fits in a way that might be unexpected or unintended by the particular category scheme. Maybe, if you feel it is really necessary to provide information about a game's business model (or lack thereof), you should consider a field which would allow the mud owners to describe their business model in their own words. It's not as neat and tidy as a category chosen from a drop-down list, but it would probably be more meaningful and informative for anyone actually interested in knowing such things. This argument seems to come up about every six to twelve months, but I've yet to see any evidence that there's any signicant number of visitors to this site who are really clamoring for a change. That doesn't mean I'm opposed to a change; I'm just skeptical that it'd really make much of a difference in the overall scheme of things .