|
Unless I'm seriously misreading the poll, only the first 2 suggest that the rankings should be segregated or annotated in any way. The next 3 refer only to the profile which is displayed when you bring up the information on the mud listing (and the last one of those suggests leaving things the way they currently are, with "pay to play" as a boolean option).
"No" there shouldn't be any distinction between pay-to-play and free muds in the front-page mud rankings themselves, "no" there shouldn't be any pay-to-play option listed anywhere (ie it should be removed from the profile completely), or "no" the existing approach shouldn't be changed?
There is already a "pay to play" option in the mud profiles, as I mentioned before. At the moment, those muds on which you don't HAVE to pay are misrepresented - some of them specify "pay to play" and some do not, but neither option is entire accurate. I personally think it would benefit all parties if the entry could be more specific. This doesn't mean the front-page rankings have to be modified in any way - but it does mean that players can check out in advance whether or not it's going to cost them anything (just as they can check out in advance what codebase it is, what features it has, how many regular players there are, and so on).
Even when purchasing a regular computer game, I'm sure you'd rather know in advance whether or not it had a monthly charge, and what other expenses (eg additional software or hardware upgrades) it might require - just as you'd want to know whether it supported multiplayer over the internet, whether it was real-time or turn-based, whether it was based upon an existing engine (and if so, which), etc.
Some people agree with having a "$" icon and some people disagree with it - but is there actually anyone who objects to having more options listed in the mud profiles than just "pay to play" or "free"? If so, I'd be interested to hear why.
|