|
I think we're in agreement on most of those definitions. (I don't think how staff treats players is well-correlated with the business model. Some admins on commercial games (Vryce comes to mind) routinely treat their players as children. I'm among the hardasses on my own game's staff, and I'd never make the threats and insults he routinely throws around.)
My major concern is that the pay-for-perks crowd often calls themselves "free" instead of "pay-for-perks". I'm not fond of playing a game of that sort, since I feel it ruins competitive balance, but you and others prefer it for various reasons. The_logos frequently makes a case that the pay-for-perks model is superior because it allows player flexibility as far as how to get ahead, as one example.
My major objection is that IRE in particular, and pay-for-perks games in general, go well out of their way to pass themselves off as "free". But as you mention, "free" really should be a separate designation.
I don't see a need for multiple lists. I think it would be confusing and arbitrary. However, I think a simple labeling system (color-coding MUD names, or icons next to the names, for example) would promote transparency to someone who is browsing. A player like you who wants pay-for-perks can find that readily. A player like me who wants either free or pay-to-play can find that as well.
What's the objection to something like that?
|