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

KaVir · 06-04-2005, 08:31 AM

So there are many different things which can only be achieved with credits, and the only way to systematically bring those credits into circulation is with real-life money (either spending RL money yourself, or getting the credits from someone else who has spent RL money).

You're arguing that such an approach is free because players can get credits from other players - but somewhere, someone had to have bought those credits to start with. I can go into my local pub and quite often a friend will offer to buy me a beer - and I've seen people get completely drunk without spending a cent - but that doesn't mean the beer is free! If all muds used that definition of 'free', then they'd all list themselves as free. I could play Gemstone IV without spending a cent, for example, if my gf offered to foot the bill.

Now you could argue that some parts of IRE (such as the basic game) is free, and in that I would agree - but it's not true to say the full game is free. In order to access the full range of features you need to have credits, and the only way to systematically earn credits is with real-life money (even if you're getting another player to buy them).

And now that I think about it, it seems that Valg's original chess analogy fits IRE as well, with just a minor addition: You can play for free without bishops, pay $20 to play with bishops - or get someone else to pay $20 for you, so that you can play with bishops. Although having read Daedroth's posts, perhaps it might be better to say you can play for free with a king and 8 pawns, and pay (or get someone else to pay) for all of the other extra pieces...

06-04-2005, 08:31 AM	#120
KaVir Legend Join Date: Apr 2002 Name: Richard Home MUD: God Wars II Posts: 2,052	So there are many different things which can only be achieved with credits, and the only way to systematically bring those credits into circulation is with real-life money (either spending RL money yourself, or getting the credits from someone else who has spent RL money). You're arguing that such an approach is free because players can get credits from other players - but somewhere, someone had to have bought those credits to start with. I can go into my local pub and quite often a friend will offer to buy me a beer - and I've seen people get completely drunk without spending a cent - but that doesn't mean the beer is free! If all muds used that definition of 'free', then they'd all list themselves as free. I could play Gemstone IV without spending a cent, for example, if my gf offered to foot the bill. Now you could argue that some parts of IRE (such as the basic game) is free, and in that I would agree - but it's not true to say the full game is free. In order to access the full range of features you need to have credits, and the only way to systematically earn credits is with real-life money (even if you're getting another player to buy them). And now that I think about it, it seems that Valg's original chess analogy fits IRE as well, with just a minor addition: You can play for free without bishops, pay $20 to play with bishops - or get someone else to pay $20 for you, so that you can play with bishops. Although having read Daedroth's posts, perhaps it might be better to say you can play for free with a king and 8 pawns, and pay (or get someone else to pay) for all of the other extra pieces...