|
It's not on a mysterious page. It's only on a mysterious page to those who participate in the discussion without bothering to read the thread first.
From page 4:
I also have a problem with labeling just as "pay-for-perks" unless it includes more detail. For instance, to more completely (but still not completely) describe our revenue model, I believe the following information would need to be included:
1. Free to play.
2. Option of paying to gain in-game things.
3. All things that may be paid for may be instead obtained via either skill, luck, or greater time investment.
I have no problem to categorizing ourselves as the above. That's what we are. If that selection of options were available in the database, I'm totally fine with that. I'm not fine, regardless, with being asked to market any specific feature of our game on the front page, as I don't believe that the option of pay-for-perks is proveable, at all, as being more important to players than a host of other options (such as the level of customer service, whether it's a PK mud, whether it's an RP enforced mud, etc etc etc)
Couldn't agree more. The FTC agrees with us. Common practice agrees with us (as illustrated by Google's acceptance of free as we use it). Makes me wonder why other people insist on nitpicking.
Totally agree. That's why I support our use of the word free. It is the commonly used meaning, as supported, again, by the body in charge of regulating commerce (and this is, after all, a commercial site) in the United States.
You're telling me Armaggedon's website isn't affiliated with Armaggedon the MUD? That's absurd. Of course it's affiliated with the MUD. It is the official website of the MUD.
--matt
|