|
For me the purpose of entering a mud is to gain enjoyment from active playing, wherein new opportunities and pathways are opened up by the activity of actually playing. In my opinion this leads to a level playing field, some players may be able to devote more time to the game but the rewards received are always commensurate with their actions within the game. When development is opened up to monetary influence the total development potential of a character is taken away from the game and shared with the real world, it becomes a game of two worlds.
Within a cash free game the potential for character development is strictly governed by a players actions. They do they get, they don’t do they don’t get, the more they do the more they get, the less they do the less they get. Development is strictly tied to the potential opportunities presented by the game. Even role-playing opportunities are affected by the presence of cash bought progression, how could I hope to play a part in high level guild activities if all the current high level guild positions where occupied by players who had bought their positions with IRL currency. I could play my heart out and hope to pass them, but pound to a penny if they have the monetary reserves to attain the position in the first place then they have the resources to maintain it and stave off my valiant gaming efforts. Once IRL cash is introduced into a game it affects every part of the game - not just those associated with skills, equipment, and levels. If I can’t achieve something or attain something then how can I hope to realistically role-play a scenario around the deficient something?
In cash influenced games fair development is severely compromised by the open-ended availability of real life cash resources. The free mud approach is based around a meritocracy model while the cash fuelled mud submits to the doctrines of capitalism. In such a case the game ceases to be a largely secular environment, irrespective of minor IRL tariffs such as internet connectivity and hardware requirements, because it becomes tied to real life factors in a greatly exaggerated fashion.
A situation occurs where the player can use real life circumstances to override the majority of gaming factors. The gross inequality in the real world contaminates the game-play for all involved. This inequality is amplified in games where players are beholden to other players for progression, such as Achaea, a game wherein guild progression is governed by players. I wouldn’t feel as bad if my progression was in the hands of a player that had spent more time actively playing the game than if it where in the hands of someone that happened to earn more money than me in real life. It is hard to engage with a fantasy setting, or consider it a viable gaming challenge between player vs game or player vs player, when your conscience is being pricked by the background scribbling of a pen and the rustling of a cheque book. The IRL overtones are too strong to be denied.
Gaming equality aside, I don’t have a problem with commercial muds, if they choose to widen the gap of inequality within their mud by enlisting outside influences that is their concern - and the concern of their players. If someone wishes to pay 10K for a codebase, while paying continued royalties, possibly submitting any new developments to the parent game, directly competing with the parent game for limited players by virtue of world diversity – which could be usurped by the parent company, then that is their business decision. I personally wouldn’t be comfortable putting my balls so tightly in the grip of a franchise operator, but that’s just me.
My only problems with commercial muds are when they commit copyright theft and when they use their commercial might to increase growth by hogging resources, under the banner of equal provision.
The latter being the way mud sites continue to allocate them free advertising at the visibility expense of free muds, those that frequently contribute to the wider community. It’s a simple equation, increased visibility = more players, more players = more voting and increased visibility in listings = even more players. A vicious circle leaving free muds victim to the monetary might of commercial muds. As the commercial muds gain more visibility they gain more players and the competitive gap between the two widens to a chasm. Without the monetary resources to get the initial ball rolling from paid advertising the majority of free muds are left for dead in the wake this unfair situation.
Such a situation is akin to expecting a charity soup kitchen to compete on equal terms with a commercial restaurant. They may both serve the same quality of food and offer the same extensive menus, but the playing fields both organisations operate in is entirely different. To bundle them together in the competitive arena, with visibility and corresponding growth the prize, is an injustice to the hard work and charitable contributions shown by free muds. I fully support the giving of free advertising opportunities to commercial muds but grouping the two distinct providers together in one listing is a blatant slap in the face to equality, they obviously aren’t equal in the strictest sense of the word.
------------------------------------------------------
Since someone brought it up – on capitalism
I’m an avid supporter of capitalism providing that equality is maintained and a respect for social movements shown. I do not feel that objecting to doctrines and features of capitalism detracts from my support, it only strengthens the integrity of the system. I may support free trade, but I don’t support unfair protectionism, such as developed economies actively using their established position to inhibit the opportunities for growth within developing countries.
Some of my best friends are capitalists, feel free to ask them about it, I'm certain I paid them enough to agree with me on this.
|