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

Xorith · 05-28-2005, 03:45 AM

The last few posts have sort of missed the point I think.

To say that someone who pays for a perk in a game has an advantage over other players isn't really true. Each player has the option to also pay for the same perks. The issue comes in with how much can a player afford, and if a player wants to pay or not. I really can't help it if a player doesn't want to pay for any perks, especially if they go into the MUD knowing it's got a pay-for-perk scheme. For me, that's one thing I'm going to make known right at the start. Even so, it boils down to "why play?" if you're unhappy with how the game is run.

No one has an obligation to provide a free MUD. The only restraints on you are with code licenses, and with any agreements you have with your host. Now when talking about the intention of making a system that's somewhat fair all around, as it's been said several times in this thread - that's just not going to happen. Someone isn't going to like it no matter what you do. I also think the predictions are right - that this sort of pay-for-stuff view on online games is going to be the hottest thing on the market, if it isn't already.

Anywho, back to being fair, and all the sports analogies...

If the athletes all had the same spending cap, then honestly it would be fair. Especially in a sports example, because an athlete's skill is what lands them sponsers, and sponsers help increase the budget toward making the athlete better. At some point, it all boils down to sheer skill. I also point out that there's skill in getting the most out of the money one can spend, and that the best gear doesn't make you the best. Put my grandmother in a NASCAR stock car and she's not going to win the Daytona 500. She's probably not even going to drive over 50mph, if that. Why? Because she's not a skilled racecar driver.

As I said before, it doesn't matter how many levels you get, what kind of gear you have, or anything. Eventually it'll come down to skill, and those who have not evenly paid and played won't have any. At that point, who is at the advantage? The person who slugged it out for longer to reach the top level and get the good gear, or the person who just started the game a week ago, and is a thousand dollars poorer?

05-28-2005, 03:45 AM	#34
Xorith Member Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 45	The last few posts have sort of missed the point I think. To say that someone who pays for a perk in a game has an advantage over other players isn't really true. Each player has the option to also pay for the same perks. The issue comes in with how much can a player afford, and if a player wants to pay or not. I really can't help it if a player doesn't want to pay for any perks, especially if they go into the MUD knowing it's got a pay-for-perk scheme. For me, that's one thing I'm going to make known right at the start. Even so, it boils down to "why play?" if you're unhappy with how the game is run. No one has an obligation to provide a free MUD. The only restraints on you are with code licenses, and with any agreements you have with your host. Now when talking about the intention of making a system that's somewhat fair all around, as it's been said several times in this thread - that's just not going to happen. Someone isn't going to like it no matter what you do. I also think the predictions are right - that this sort of pay-for-stuff view on online games is going to be the hottest thing on the market, if it isn't already. Anywho, back to being fair, and all the sports analogies... If the athletes all had the same spending cap, then honestly it would be fair. Especially in a sports example, because an athlete's skill is what lands them sponsers, and sponsers help increase the budget toward making the athlete better. At some point, it all boils down to sheer skill. I also point out that there's skill in getting the most out of the money one can spend, and that the best gear doesn't make you the best. Put my grandmother in a NASCAR stock car and she's not going to win the Daytona 500. She's probably not even going to drive over 50mph, if that. Why? Because she's not a skilled racecar driver. As I said before, it doesn't matter how many levels you get, what kind of gear you have, or anything. Eventually it'll come down to skill, and those who have not evenly paid and played won't have any. At that point, who is at the advantage? The person who slugged it out for longer to reach the top level and get the good gear, or the person who just started the game a week ago, and is a thousand dollars poorer?