Top Mud Sites Forum - View Single Post

Zhiroc · 01-16-2006, 01:45 PM

It's really hard to come up with an analogy that works here, because the IRE games have a fairly complex scheme that seems rather unique.

Like I said elsewhere, I can fly airplanes for free by earning miles using credit-cards and frequenting non-airline vendors. In fact, I do this enough to earn the equivalent of at least one if not two flights per year. Anyone want to suggest to the airlines that they should advertise as "free to fly"?

No? OK maybe the analogy is bad. But the essence is that "truth" is not necessarily enough in my eyes--if someone is being "deceptively true" it gets me on my soapbox (maybe that's why I enjoy subscribing to Consumer Reports, because it is not always possible for the consumer to do the research to tell the difference).

So, here is my case that the IRE games are being "deceptively true."

1) They list themselves with the tag "Free to Play", without describing what that means. Given that "free" has a much different meaning to most of the MU*s on the site, this at least warrants one of those dreaded asterisks you see on ads.

2) They refuse player reviews, making it harder for prospective players to read independent opinions about the game, which in this case would likely be about the fee structure.

3) Their web site and their in-game help give you no clue that you will need to get credits for over 90% of the lessons you need to play the game at your character's potential. This is done by never stating how many lessons are required to get to the various skill levels, and by not even allowing a character to see how many lessons they've spent (meaning laborious OOC tracking is needed to figure it out by yourself).

4) They offer a newbie credit bonus, giving you about 30-40% extra lessons on your first credit purchase within 21 days. OK, this is somewhat iffy as "deceptive", but given #1-3 above and the "21-day" requirement, this can be viewed as an attempt to rope someone into spending money quickly before they actually figure out the system and decide to walk away.

As far as I'm concerned, fixing #2 and #3 would put the entire "ethical" question to rest. While I still would like to see some better classification systems on this site, at least the tools are there for someone to do their own evaluation. And please, before anyone says, "You could always ask other players", the point is that you don't know what you don't know. In an XP-levelling MUD, does anybody think they'd think to question an unstated requirement that OOC credits are needed to advance skillsets?

OK, now if you want me to discuss the meaning of "free", I'll simply ask: what percentage of players at level 50 and above have never bought credits? If the answer is 20%, or heck, even 10 or 15%, I'll relent and say it has practical free option.

The most straightforward way of getting credits without money is the credit market. If the answer to the previous paragraph is that there aren't that many really trying to play free, I would question the ability of the market to provide credits at a in-game gold cost that free players could tolerate, if more tried. I'm curious what would happen to the market if 10 or even 5 players started characters with the intent to play "free". It seems like there are usually only between 300-400 credits available this way. To trans 8 skills plus a smattering of mini-skills takes on the order of 2400 credits or 200 credits per month if you wanted to do it in a year. I'm not sure that's realistic as I haven't tried to play at that level. Can the market support a demand of say 1000 credits/month? And if so, what would the price be?

01-16-2006, 01:45 PM	#113
Zhiroc Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 92	It's really hard to come up with an analogy that works here, because the IRE games have a fairly complex scheme that seems rather unique. Like I said elsewhere, I can fly airplanes for free by earning miles using credit-cards and frequenting non-airline vendors. In fact, I do this enough to earn the equivalent of at least one if not two flights per year. Anyone want to suggest to the airlines that they should advertise as "free to fly"? No? OK maybe the analogy is bad. But the essence is that "truth" is not necessarily enough in my eyes--if someone is being "deceptively true" it gets me on my soapbox (maybe that's why I enjoy subscribing to Consumer Reports, because it is not always possible for the consumer to do the research to tell the difference). So, here is my case that the IRE games are being "deceptively true." 1) They list themselves with the tag "Free to Play", without describing what that means. Given that "free" has a much different meaning to most of the MUs on the site, this at least warrants one of those dreaded asterisks you see on ads. 2) They refuse player reviews, making it harder for prospective players to read independent opinions about the game, which in this case would likely be about the fee structure. 3) Their web site and their in-game help give you no clue that you will need to get credits for over 90% of the lessons you need to play the game at your character's potential. This is done by never stating how many lessons are required to get to the various skill levels, and by not even allowing a character to see how many lessons they've spent (meaning laborious OOC tracking is needed to figure it out by yourself). 4) They offer a newbie credit bonus, giving you about 30-40% extra lessons on your first credit purchase within 21 days. OK, this is somewhat iffy as "deceptive", but given #1-3 above and the "21-day" requirement, this can be viewed as an attempt to rope someone into spending money quickly before they actually figure out the system and decide to walk away. As far as I'm concerned, fixing #2 and #3 would put the entire "ethical" question to rest. While I still would like to see some better classification systems on this site, at least the tools are there for someone to do their own evaluation. And please, before anyone says, "You could always ask other players", the point is that you don't know what you don't know. In an XP-levelling MUD, does anybody think they'd think to question an unstated* requirement that OOC credits are needed to advance skillsets? OK, now if you want me to discuss the meaning of "free", I'll simply ask: what percentage of players at level 50 and above have never bought credits? If the answer is 20%, or heck, even 10 or 15%, I'll relent and say it has practical free option. The most straightforward way of getting credits without money is the credit market. If the answer to the previous paragraph is that there aren't that many really trying to play free, I would question the ability of the market to provide credits at a in-game gold cost that free players could tolerate, if more tried. I'm curious what would happen to the market if 10 or even 5 players started characters with the intent to play "free". It seems like there are usually only between 300-400 credits available this way. To trans 8 skills plus a smattering of mini-skills takes on the order of 2400 credits or 200 credits per month if you wanted to do it in a year. I'm not sure that's realistic as I haven't tried to play at that level. Can the market support a demand of say 1000 credits/month? And if so, what would the price be?