[Threshold]

No, they are different but not fundamentally different. The fundamental difference is between games that absolutely never accept money in any form, and those who do. Beyond that, the differences are relatively minor.


First, your example is an exaggeration. Second, that difference might be important to some players, but it is nowhere near as important as the more significant difference between taking money in some form or not taking money in any form.


Actually, it lets merchandise sellers get away with saying they don't accept payments, and that is just false.

Furthermore, it is deceptive by making it sound like there is ANY time when money changing hands does not result in "rewards" or "an effect in game" or anything like that. Once money changes hands, the relationship is dramatically changed forever. It is deceptive and naive to claim otherwise.

The participation of what, 10 people? That is hardly a grass roots movement.

The ugly truth finally comes out. You want this change because you want a marketing advantage over Threshold and other games that are free but have pay-for-perks or other optional things. I have been saying this was the motive all along, and people criticized me for making such an accusation. Now we know it was true from the beginning.

Frankly, I don't think games that sell merchandise are any different than games that sell perks. I also don't think buying merchandise never affects gameplay. I am certain that someone in power knows who buys what, and there are times when that affects their decisions or their priorities. It would be hopelessly naive to claim otherwise.

Now that we know the true motive, I think that kills this idea. Now we know that the motive behind this is not educating players, but a handful of mud operators trying to unbalance the marketing playing field in their favor. There couldn't be a WORSE reason for changing something than that.