Top Mud Sites Forum - View Single Post - Pay-to-Play vs. Pay-to-Advance

Traithe · 05-26-2005, 06:36 AM

I like the idea of offering meta-elements in exchange for fees, e.g. restrings, small in-game events (like a wedding), etc.

However, this only works with the model if a) you ensure that the things you're offering have no effect on the game's baseline meritocracy (coded powerlevels, more or less), and b) you completely separate it from in-game valuation.

So, as an example, IMO offering a house for $25 USD or 100k in-game gold wouldn't work. At first glance the alternative setup is a good thing, because you're allowing players who don't want to spend the money a way to obtain the item. What you're really doing, though, is setting up an implicit value structure and ranking system, wherein players with RL money > players without. That is, in a case like this you're basically saying "since you can't pay us X dollars, we're making you pay a penalty of X^Y RL time to achieve the same end." All this will do is serve to create resentment and a sort of quasi-caste system within your playerbase.

Instead, if you are very clear and deliberate with your line-drawing at the outset, I imagine these problems wouldn't arise. That is, if you tell your players that X non-game-affecting service is only available for a fee of Y RL dollars, some players will pay the fee, support your product, and receive the service or item; some won't. But because it has no effect on the relative power levels of those involved, because it doesn't disrupt the balance of power and your basic time-powergain gradient, and because it doesn't devalue in-game effort in favor of RL funding it won't create as much resentment, if any at all.

Incidentally, this is probably why pay-zones wouldn't work... no matter how well-balanced, chances are they will confer SOME sort of in-game power benefit to the people with access to them, and the people with access will then either a) use these things to boost their own power relative to the non-users, or b) sell them to the non-users for exorbitant amounts of in-game cash, creating the devaluation mentioned above.

Things like races or access to restricted game-modes/modules, on the other hand, don't lend themselves to this sort of disruption, since 1) when balanced properly they don't grant the user an advantage over non-paying members, and 2) they can't be alienated from the original purchaser to create the in-game effort vs. RL cash investment clash the model is trying to avoid.

Remember; long-term sorts of games like these are all about player investment, whether it's in terms of RL money or the player's time and effort. In order for them to invest lots of time and effort, they need to trust that you'll protect their investment by ensuring that people with lots of money can't simply leap over them and their hard work with the click of a payment button at the outset; likewise, if you want them to invest money, you'll need to convince them that the product they're purchasing is worth it, both in terms of the quality of the item as well as its exclusivity (i.e. that someone isn't going to be able to pick up the same thing for 50% off a week later, or worse yet, for free).

05-26-2005, 06:36 AM	#5
Traithe Member Join Date: Jan 2003 Name: Kite Posts: 131	I like the idea of offering meta-elements in exchange for fees, e.g. restrings, small in-game events (like a wedding), etc. However, this only works with the model if a) you ensure that the things you're offering have no effect on the game's baseline meritocracy (coded powerlevels, more or less), and b) you completely separate it from in-game valuation. So, as an example, IMO offering a house for $25 USD or 100k in-game gold wouldn't work. At first glance the alternative setup is a good thing, because you're allowing players who don't want to spend the money a way to obtain the item. What you're really doing, though, is setting up an implicit value structure and ranking system, wherein players with RL money > players without. That is, in a case like this you're basically saying "since you can't pay us X dollars, we're making you pay a penalty of X^Y RL time to achieve the same end." All this will do is serve to create resentment and a sort of quasi-caste system within your playerbase. Instead, if you are very clear and deliberate with your line-drawing at the outset, I imagine these problems wouldn't arise. That is, if you tell your players that X non-game-affecting service is only available for a fee of Y RL dollars, some players will pay the fee, support your product, and receive the service or item; some won't. But because it has no effect on the relative power levels of those involved, because it doesn't disrupt the balance of power and your basic time-powergain gradient, and because it doesn't devalue in-game effort in favor of RL funding it won't create as much resentment, if any at all. Incidentally, this is probably why pay-zones wouldn't work... no matter how well-balanced, chances are they will confer SOME sort of in-game power benefit to the people with access to them, and the people with access will then either a) use these things to boost their own power relative to the non-users, or b) sell them to the non-users for exorbitant amounts of in-game cash, creating the devaluation mentioned above. Things like races or access to restricted game-modes/modules, on the other hand, don't lend themselves to this sort of disruption, since 1) when balanced properly they don't grant the user an advantage over non-paying members, and 2) they can't be alienated from the original purchaser to create the in-game effort vs. RL cash investment clash the model is trying to avoid. Remember; long-term sorts of games like these are all about player investment, whether it's in terms of RL money or the player's time and effort. In order for them to invest lots of time and effort, they need to trust that you'll protect their investment by ensuring that people with lots of money can't simply leap over them and their hard work with the click of a payment button at the outset; likewise, if you want them to invest money, you'll need to convince them that the product they're purchasing is worth it, both in terms of the quality of the item as well as its exclusivity (i.e. that someone isn't going to be able to pick up the same thing for 50% off a week later, or worse yet, for free).