Top Mud Sites Forum - View Single Post

Atyreus · 06-11-2003, 08:44 AM

Hrrm. The point of the thread is whether or not a more detailed system of categorization is needed for pay-to-whatever muds. Pointing out that I feel I would benefit more from other arguably useless categories would seem to pretty much sum up my opinion on the usefulness of such a system.

Certainly. I don't recall suggesting otherwise. I don't question that such a system could be (largely) objective. I do suspect that no matter what scheme was imposed, there would be members of the TMS community who would feel that their particular commercial scheme wasn't adequately or fairly addressed by that system.

The problem isn't that you can't base a system on verifiable information about how a mud goes about making money from its playerbase. The problem is that there will be disagreements between the way certain mud administrators and certain players interpret the ramifications of some muds' payment schemes (after all not all of them are as clear-cut as X amount of money gives you Y weeks of access). For example, a game may list itself as being free but offering in-game benefits in exchange for donations/payments. But then along comes mildly disgruntled ex-player who complains that, in fact, it is effectively impossible to play without purchasing a goodly amount of these in-game benefits, and that the mud therefore not being quite upfront about its payment scheme. It may not be so easy to verify such a claim either. Is mildly disgruntled ex-player right in his analysis or is the reason that he is now an ex-player due not to his lack of in-game benefits, but rather to his own inability to master the game? Are other players who have mastered the game doing so because of the benefits, or is their willingness to invest in more benefits a product of their satisfaction with a game they were already mastering and therefore happy with?

Ultimately, though, I think the worth of such a system is how much it would benefit those who would primarily make use of it: the people willing to shell out money to play a mud. Like most of my fellow cubicle slaves, I now have more money than time to work with when it comes to investing in hobbies. In my case, and I assume I'm far from alone in this, whether or not I have to pay to either play or just compete effectively in a mud is less of a concern than a whole number of other issues when it comes to choosing a mud. For me, and I would assume for many in my position, the issue isn't payment as much as it would be the value of my dollar in any particular game. But this happens to be the one thing that is not covered in any payment categorization scheme I've seen suggested yet.

I would consider whether a mud provides purchaseable in-game benefits less of an issue than whether or not such benefits created too drastic an imbalance between those willing to shell out thousands for their hobby and those with more moderate tastes. I would consider whether a mud provides purchaseable knowledge (maps, lists, etc.) less of an issue than whether or not such knowledge was worth its cost and what effect such knowledge or lack thereof had on the playability of the game. But, here we get back into the realm of subjectivity. These just aren't the sorts of things even a more detailed categorization scheme is really likely to help me with.

Overall, my impression has generally been that there are more people are concerned with whether a mud charges or not than there are with the particular scheme a mud uses to try and turn a profit. Indeed, in the past, threads on this issue seem to be initiated more out of some sense of a need for some sort of financial disclosure for commercial muds than to provide a system that would actually be helpful to those willing to pay-to-play. If you are the sort who doesn't believe in paying to play, the only distinction that is really useful is whether or not you will actually have to pay, something which is fairly well handled already. At least I have no trouble distinguishing the muds on TMS that require payment in one form or another from those that don't. This is perhaps one of the reasons I am puzzled by the suggestion that there is really any need to provide any more specific information, particularly since the only truly useful information involved, the actual cost for access and benefits is something that, under any of the proposed schemes I've seen, I would still have to go to the mud or the mud's website to uncover.

As for donation muds, or muds that provide purely non-game perks (coffee mugs, t-shirts, and such) in exchange for cash, why distinguish these as separate from free play muds at all? Are there really people who, when looking for a mud, say, "Gee, I was going to try Mud X, but I just found out that they accept donations! Bugger that!"? I suppose it might be an issue if the mud's donation scheme were a violation of the license of the codebase it was using, but then the listings for any muds engaging in such dodgy practices would probably be questionable anyways.

06-11-2003, 08:44 AM	#7
Atyreus Member Join Date: Feb 2003 Home MUD: The Dreaming City Posts: 60	Hrrm. The point of the thread is whether or not a more detailed system of categorization is needed for pay-to-whatever muds. Pointing out that I feel I would benefit more from other arguably useless categories would seem to pretty much sum up my opinion on the usefulness of such a system. Certainly. I don't recall suggesting otherwise. I don't question that such a system could be (largely) objective. I do suspect that no matter what scheme was imposed, there would be members of the TMS community who would feel that their particular commercial scheme wasn't adequately or fairly addressed by that system. The problem isn't that you can't base a system on verifiable information about how a mud goes about making money from its playerbase. The problem is that there will be disagreements between the way certain mud administrators and certain players interpret the ramifications of some muds' payment schemes (after all not all of them are as clear-cut as X amount of money gives you Y weeks of access). For example, a game may list itself as being free but offering in-game benefits in exchange for donations/payments. But then along comes mildly disgruntled ex-player who complains that, in fact, it is effectively impossible to play without purchasing a goodly amount of these in-game benefits, and that the mud therefore not being quite upfront about its payment scheme. It may not be so easy to verify such a claim either. Is mildly disgruntled ex-player right in his analysis or is the reason that he is now an ex-player due not to his lack of in-game benefits, but rather to his own inability to master the game? Are other players who have mastered the game doing so because of the benefits, or is their willingness to invest in more benefits a product of their satisfaction with a game they were already mastering and therefore happy with? Ultimately, though, I think the worth of such a system is how much it would benefit those who would primarily make use of it: the people willing to shell out money to play a mud. Like most of my fellow cubicle slaves, I now have more money than time to work with when it comes to investing in hobbies. In my case, and I assume I'm far from alone in this, whether or not I have to pay to either play or just compete effectively in a mud is less of a concern than a whole number of other issues when it comes to choosing a mud. For me, and I would assume for many in my position, the issue isn't payment as much as it would be the value of my dollar in any particular game. But this happens to be the one thing that is not covered in any payment categorization scheme I've seen suggested yet. I would consider whether a mud provides purchaseable in-game benefits less of an issue than whether or not such benefits created too drastic an imbalance between those willing to shell out thousands for their hobby and those with more moderate tastes. I would consider whether a mud provides purchaseable knowledge (maps, lists, etc.) less of an issue than whether or not such knowledge was worth its cost and what effect such knowledge or lack thereof had on the playability of the game. But, here we get back into the realm of subjectivity. These just aren't the sorts of things even a more detailed categorization scheme is really likely to help me with. Overall, my impression has generally been that there are more people are concerned with whether a mud charges or not than there are with the particular scheme a mud uses to try and turn a profit. Indeed, in the past, threads on this issue seem to be initiated more out of some sense of a need for some sort of financial disclosure for commercial muds than to provide a system that would actually be helpful to those willing to pay-to-play. If you are the sort who doesn't believe in paying to play, the only distinction that is really useful is whether or not you will actually have to pay, something which is fairly well handled already. At least I have no trouble distinguishing the muds on TMS that require payment in one form or another from those that don't. This is perhaps one of the reasons I am puzzled by the suggestion that there is really any need to provide any more specific information, particularly since the only truly useful information involved, the actual cost for access and benefits is something that, under any of the proposed schemes I've seen, I would still have to go to the mud or the mud's website to uncover. As for donation muds, or muds that provide purely non-game perks (coffee mugs, t-shirts, and such) in exchange for cash, why distinguish these as separate from free play muds at all? Are there really people who, when looking for a mud, say, "Gee, I was going to try Mud X, but I just found out that they accept donations! Bugger that!"? I suppose it might be an issue if the mud's donation scheme were a violation of the license of the codebase it was using, but then the listings for any muds engaging in such dodgy practices would probably be questionable anyways.