|
You're not alone by a long shot. In my opinion, "pay-for-perks" ends up being de facto pay-to-play in an environment where competition is stressed, which encompasses nearly all MUDs. It is quite different from a true "free" MUD like the one I represent, and infringes on advertising when someone uses the term "free" to mean something very different than "money has no impact whatsoever on the game".
I'm much more fond of the subscription-type model. (A flat fee is paid for access to the game for a certain time period. I believe Threshold uses this, among others.) It's up front, and still results in a level playing field inside the game. In other words, your success or failure is still a function of your skill, and not your credit card. I would play a game of this sort if I thought it was the best one out there.
Returning to the original point of the topic, Achaea shouldn't be surprised if they advertise themselves as "free", and people are confused when allegations arise, like the ones Kimberly inconherently vomited forth. While I'm aware that it's unquestionably legal to charge someone money for a virtual credit, then revoke the impact of that (in accordance with the EULA they agreed to) at the opinion of other players in the game, it is something that would make be very hesitant to invest funds in that manner. And I'd be doubly confused by the amounts changing hands after I saw the word "Free" popping up, if I wasn't already familiar with the model in question.
|