Top Mud Sites Forum - View Single Post

KaVir · 01-10-2006, 05:50 AM

Note that the bold statements are not quotes, but are my interpretation of the common arguments used on the other thread, followed by my response.

1) It is possible to play for free.

But without access to many parts of the game, and with a far weaker character than those who have invested credits into their character.

Zhiroc provided information based on his experiences playing Aetolia. He pointed out that it takes around 294 credits to max out a skill. In the example he gave, with 8 major skills and 4 mini-skills, it would take him 3528 credits to max them all. Subtract the 166 you get for playing your way up to the top level and that leaves 3362 credits which someone needs to buy, costing $1022 (enough for 7.8 years of subscription costs for Zhiroc's favourite MMORPG).

That's over a thousand dollars per character, and it has to be paid for by the same customers who are being told that the mud is 'free'. Over 95% of that character's skills will have been trained with cash, funded by customers of the mud. Less than 5% of the character's skills will have come from the player working their way up to the maximum level.

For a game which claims PvP and group combat as its most important focus, a player is going to be at a severe disadvantage without credits invested into their character.

2) You can earn credits from lotteries and contests.

But not consistently or repeatedably. You cannot reliably perform these activities to build your character, any more than you could reliably pay your rent by trying to win the lottery.

3) You can earn credits by working for the mud.

You can do the same for most commercial muds, but that doesn't make them 'free'. The advert is targetted at players, not staff, otherwise every mud could advertise itself as 'free' on the basis that the admin don't have to pay to play their own game.

4) You can buy credits/perks with in-game gold.

But only by trading with other players, who in turn have bought those credits with real cash. Those credits still had to be paid for by the players, and it is those players to whom the mud is being advertised as 'free'.

In certain non-IRE muds this option isn't even possible - the perks you buy are non-transferable. In some cases they even have a yearly upkeep cost (you'll lose the super items if you don't pay each year), yet these muds are also listed as 'free'.

5) It might not be "completely free", but you can still play for free.

If the definition of "free" on Top Mud Sites only means "free to play", then surely Threshold would also be free? Sure, you have to pay a one-off $50 registration fee sooner or later, but after that it's just perks. The same with Guild Wars - you have to buy the game in order to play, but after that you don't have to pay any more in order to play. Yet Threshold advertises itself on TMS as 'pay-per-play', while Guild Wars states on its website that it is "priced at a comparable cost to other first-tier PC games" although it has no "subscription fee of any kind".

And what about, say, "The Eternal City" (just as a random example), which also lists itself as free? You can play it for free for 30 days, but after that you have to pay $12.95/month for a Skotos account. Is it 'free' because you don't have to pay anything on top of your Skotos account costs, which gives you access to a load of other thing as well (i.e., it costs nothing if you're already paying for the other Skotos games)? Is it 'free' because you could play at a disadvantage by creating a new account each month? Is it 'free' because you could perform services for other players in return for them paying your monthly fee?

6) But you'll still have your character, even if you stop paying.

This is true for IRE. It is also true for Threshold or Guild Wars, assuming you've already payed the initial cost.

But what about the muds which have a yearly upkeep cost on their items? Sure, you'll keep your character if you stop paying - but you'll lose your super items. And isn't equipment part of your character?

And what about muds with a monthly fee who simply lock (rather than deleting) your account if you stop paying? You might not be able to play until you start paying again, but you'd still have your character, and thus the chance to play again when you wish.

In summary:

The problem is that TMS only differentiates between 'pay-per-play' and 'free'. These alone are obviously far from sufficient to describe the many different payment models out there, and IMO have ended up becoming more of a liability than an advantage - they are simply too misleading. This leaves three options:

1) Leave the listings as they are.

2) Add more payment models to the database.

3) Drop the 'pay-for-play' option entirely, so that the players know that it's their responsibility to check what payment model the mud uses.

I would prefer 2, but that's obviously not going to happen. As such, I think 3 would be the better compromise - it avoids this whole mess, and the players will no longer rely on misleading information. I cannot see any reason for option 1, other than to deliberately mislead potential players.

01-10-2006, 05:50 AM	#7
KaVir Legend Join Date: Apr 2002 Name: Richard Home MUD: God Wars II Posts: 2,052	Note that the bold statements are not quotes, but are my interpretation of the common arguments used on the other thread, followed by my response. 1) It is possible to play for free. But without access to many parts of the game, and with a far weaker character than those who have invested credits into their character. Zhiroc provided information based on his experiences playing Aetolia. He pointed out that it takes around 294 credits to max out a skill. In the example he gave, with 8 major skills and 4 mini-skills, it would take him 3528 credits to max them all. Subtract the 166 you get for playing your way up to the top level and that leaves 3362 credits which someone needs to buy, costing $1022 (enough for 7.8 years of subscription costs for Zhiroc's favourite MMORPG). That's over a thousand dollars per character, and it has to be paid for by the same customers who are being told that the mud is 'free'. Over 95% of that character's skills will have been trained with cash, funded by customers of the mud. Less than 5% of the character's skills will have come from the player working their way up to the maximum level. For a game which claims PvP and group combat as its most important focus, a player is going to be at a severe disadvantage without credits invested into their character. 2) You can earn credits from lotteries and contests. But not consistently or repeatedably. You cannot reliably perform these activities to build your character, any more than you could reliably pay your rent by trying to win the lottery. 3) You can earn credits by working for the mud. You can do the same for most commercial muds, but that doesn't make them 'free'. The advert is targetted at players, not staff, otherwise every mud could advertise itself as 'free' on the basis that the admin don't have to pay to play their own game. 4) You can buy credits/perks with in-game gold. But only by trading with other players, who in turn have bought those credits with real cash. Those credits still had to be paid for by the players, and it is those players to whom the mud is being advertised as 'free'. In certain non-IRE muds this option isn't even possible - the perks you buy are non-transferable. In some cases they even have a yearly upkeep cost (you'll lose the super items if you don't pay each year), yet these muds are also listed as 'free'. *5) It might not be "completely free", but you can still play* for free.** If the definition of "free" on Top Mud Sites only means "free to play", then surely Threshold would also be free? Sure, you have to pay a one-off $50 registration fee sooner or later, but after that it's just perks. The same with Guild Wars - you have to buy the game in order to play, but after that you don't have to pay any more in order to play. Yet Threshold advertises itself on TMS as 'pay-per-play', while Guild Wars states on its website that it is "priced at a comparable cost to other first-tier PC games" although it has no "subscription fee of any kind". And what about, say, "The Eternal City" (just as a random example), which also lists itself as free? You can play it for free for 30 days, but after that you have to pay $12.95/month for a Skotos account. Is it 'free' because you don't have to pay anything on top of your Skotos account costs, which gives you access to a load of other thing as well (i.e., it costs nothing if you're already paying for the other Skotos games)? Is it 'free' because you could play at a disadvantage by creating a new account each month? Is it 'free' because you could perform services for other players in return for them paying your monthly fee? 6) But you'll still have your character, even if you stop paying. This is true for IRE. It is also true for Threshold or Guild Wars, assuming you've already payed the initial cost. But what about the muds which have a yearly upkeep cost on their items? Sure, you'll keep your character if you stop paying - but you'll lose your super items. And isn't equipment part of your character? And what about muds with a monthly fee who simply lock (rather than deleting) your account if you stop paying? You might not be able to play until you start paying again, but you'd still have your character, and thus the chance to play again when you wish. In summary: The problem is that TMS only differentiates between 'pay-per-play' and 'free'. These alone are obviously far from sufficient to describe the many different payment models out there, and IMO have ended up becoming more of a liability than an advantage - they are simply too misleading. This leaves three options: 1) Leave the listings as they are. 2) Add more payment models to the database. 3) Drop the 'pay-for-play' option entirely, so that the players know that it's their responsibility to check what payment model the mud uses. I would prefer 2, but that's obviously not going to happen. As such, I think 3 would be the better compromise - it avoids this whole mess, and the players will no longer rely on misleading information. I cannot see any reason for option 1, other than to deliberately mislead potential players.