[rendekar]

i really consider %100 free games or in other words 'completely free' games (that we all know! which muds rightfully fulfill this description) offers the most fair gaming experience..that description is invaluable for many players but makes no sense at all for many others..well, iam not the type for pay-for-perks games but i have great respect for them.some of them are so popular, have some brilliant special-client support and iam sure have the potential to attract even WOW players.but for many mudders,the game dies instantly if they get in-game benefit with their donations.well, they continue to donate for the game, just they don't want any benefit..

if you work hard with a decent intelligence( with some other factors) in the world you live in, you can get the goods,riches,success whatever quicker than others(like real world in most cases[not all])..(you can't get money from forgotten realms)..that is not my concern what is s/he in real life as soon as s/he keeps doing all the deeds ICly.

i meant this with 'most fair' ..no offence to your mud, just my thoughts.

[cratylus]

Threshold wrote:
I am not jealous of Nodeka. A very good point was raised about the
claim that this mud is 100% free. That is, doubt was raised, the doubt was
reasonable, and it was discussed. I am not certain that jealousy enters into it.

I can tell you that I have no interest at all in getting players. This is
because I don't actually have a mud. The closest thing to an open mud
I run is a demo for my codebase. I gain nothing from getting players
from commercial muds to abandon their games.

I am as ardent an advocate for a clarified listing system as any of
the mud admins who might better fit your stereotype. This is not
because I gain from my position. It is because the position I share with
them has merit.

I'm not sure why you're resorting to claiming some sort of untoward motivation
for supporting a clarified listing. It seems to me you're taking this personally,
perhaps. If so, I don't think it is warranted.

-Crat


[Edit: corrected typo. It's late, I can be forgiven. 24AUG2007 2315]

[Nodeka]

I don't think he was pointing you out, merely for sake of arguement saying that some people only bring issues like this up out of jealousy/some other personal reason.

[Molly]

Does anyone else get a sense of Deja vu here?

Lasher, in case you still wonder, this is what I was referring to.

[the_logos]

So, you're against providing more information for MUD searches? Why? Do you have something to hide? That is, after all, exactly the implication you've leveled at those of us who find adding a handful of revenue gathering options to MUD searches to be insufficiently descriptive?

Or am I misreading your sarcasm? I mean, your MUD, for instance, is run as a hobby. Don't you think some players might want to know that ahead of time? If your motive for wanting revenue gathering options to be added to MUD searches is, as you claim, to help the players by providing more information, then don't you think that players would like to be able to search for MUDs that are specifically run by hobbyists as opposed to professionals? Is it impossible to imagine that some people might want to play only one or the other, for whatever reason? (Perhaps they want to support MUDs as a hobby, perhaps they want an experience that includes full-time staff, etc.)

Or is it that you think that perhaps "hobbyist" doesn't accurately capture what your MUD is about (I happen to agree it doesn't). Imagine feeling that way! Oh wait....

--matt

[Samson]

I would gladly accept Matt's professionals/hobyists checkboxes if it meant we also get accurate labels for the kind of pay-for-perks MUD he runs - and there was some means of enforcing this.

Otherwise I suppose I can throw in a listing for Alsherok and say it's run by professionals. You failed to specify what type of professionals, so I feel the fact that I'm an IT Professional qualifies me to choose that option instead of the hobbyist option. So I'd be a "Professionally run mud that accepts no payments or donations. IE: 100% free." See? It is possible for professionals to run free MUDs!

Of course, my feeling is Matt offered the pair of options up rhetorically because he doesn't like the payment classifications and doesn't want to be trapped by an accurate one for his game. My cynical opinion

Cratylus,

I think your scale could use another "payment optional" definition:

Payments and/or donations accepted but not solicited. No in-game rewards offered.

There are games who will gladly accept offers of cash but aren't actively seeking them out or giving players rewards for doing so. I mean, I'm not about to refuse it if someone logs on to Alsherok and decides I need $50 just because.

[the_logos]

Someone didn't read the thread!

I've already stated that I've dropped objection to Lasher's proposed checkboxes.

I proposed the professional/hobbyist checkboxes because if information is good then surely that's important information.

I'm not sure why you're intentionally misconstruing what I said. If it makes you happy though, say "Run by Professional MUD Admins". Being a professional X does not make you a professional Y. Being a professional IT guy does not make you a professional MUD admin any more than playing pickup football makes you a professional football player.


You should probably read the whole thread.

Do you not want to be "trapped" by an accurate label of "hobbyist" or "amateur" for your game? They are both accurate labels and yet, perhaps you feel that those terms do not communicate an accurate reflection of the totality of the experience you offer?

--matt

[Hephos]

I have to object a little to a tag "professionals" and "amateurs".

WHAT is going to separate them? Are you a pro if you are the creator of several commercial mmorpgs and a millionaire from it, BUT you have a free mud as well listed here? Are you a pro if you have 10 years of education in computer programming or working in support?

Or are you a pro if you are hired by the mud to sit and answer questions in help channels, and spend your other time working at wall mart?

Well... imo no such classification is really showing much. I would rather see:

[] paid staff
[] unpaid staff

(and even that is pretty bad... are you paid if you get below minimum wages? or are you paid if you get just a silly amount now and then etc etc...)

[Samson]

I intentionally misconstrued what you said ( perhaps this means I understood you loud and clear though ) because I was making a point. I did so sarcastically because I know full well you already know what it means to be pay-for-perks but were deliberately wanting to be classified as free. I think that's just as deceitful as my rhetorical scenario where I classify mine as run by professionals because I'm an IT professional for a living.

BTW, I did read the whole thread.

[the_logos]

So, you mean that there's a large grey area involved in terms of what's likely to be relevant to a player?

That is exactly my point.

--matt

[the_logos]

Pay-for-perks describes a revenue collection method. Free describes the ability to use a product without paying. They are not mutually exclusive. The law agrees with me as demonstrated by the FTC's guidelines on using the word 'free.' Common usage agrees with me as is evidenced by any number of examples from public parks to worlds like Runescape (with far more players than all text MUDs put together) to broadcast television.

Again, what you're are talking about has to do with your conception of 'fair', not whether something is free or not.

Also, I didn't sink to calling you deceitful. I just asked why you are intentionally misconstruing what I said (which you've admitted you were). Why do you need to sink to insults when you disagree with my position? Let's stick to actually arguing based on a chain of reasoning please.

--matt

[prof1515]

Exactly what sort of professionals is a valid question though. Paying someone technically makes them professional, but does that signify any aptitude or certification/qualification in the field you're paying them to do?

My MUD has a professional historian writing the historical background, a professional coder implementing the code changes, and a professional artist implementing the skilled crafts, many of which are artistic in nature. I'd wager that most of the so-called "medieval" MUDs here, including the commercial MUDs, don't have as many aspects of their game staffed by professionals from that field. Additionally, I've offered several of my staff assistance in their research by purchasing materials and resources for them and letting them keep the books, software, etc as compensation for their time and dedication to making the game. In essence, I've paid money to the staff to advance the project. As they're received something for their services, they're now technically professionals. However, that would make Matt's search choices inaccurate as far as differentiating between the types of games he's attempting to classify because my game is nothing like those games to which he's labeled "professional". If anything, the minimum standards for every aspect of my game exceed the maximum standards I've seen on any Viagra* MUD. Hence the term "professional" is entirely inaccurate as a description for such games.

Given the vague nature of the word "professional" and the lack of (m)any more professional of staff on non-hobbyist MUDs than you can technically find on many "hobbyist" MUDs, it would be far more accurate to instead use the following terms as search options:

[ ] Commercial
[ ] Hobbyist

This would be accurate since the Viagra MUDs and the like are indeed commercial, ie operating for the goal of generating revenue, while the hobbyist MUDs are not. Instead of loaded phrases meant to confuse, the difference between the two is made clear by the nature of why they're in operation. The former are operated for the purpose of generating revenue, the latter are run for sake of their art and the enjoyment that doing so brings their staff.

Take care,

Jason

* Viagra MUD is my pet term for "pay-for-perks" games since the motivation for use of both is in many ways the same for many players: making themselves more than they are without the purchased product, be it a pill or a perk.

[the_logos]

It's funny, but if I attempted to dissemble like that about what free means, you'd jump all over me.

Standards have nothing to do with one definition of professional (which I can choose to use just as you can choose to use one definition of the word free). It's whether you're paid to do something or not. If you want to pick, though, we can just change it to "Full-time professional mud admins."

You're going to dance around the meaning of that too and parse it as well as you can, because you don't like the implications that such an overly simplistic description of the care with which you run your game generates.

Again, gosh, imagine feeling that way....

--matt

[Molly]

What sarcasm?
I think my post was pretty straightforward.
Unless of course you are referring to the quotes I used?

[Newworlds]

I seriously boggle at the concern over games that are free, games that have a paying system, and most of all advertisements on TMS. Come on people, is it truly that hard to just go and play ten or twenty muds that "look" like the type of mud you enjoy and find out for yourself if the value for the product is there? That is what "test driving" is all about. The issue over who says they are 100% free, 20% free, or cost your first born to play is irrellevant, because no matter what you put in your mud bio, the truth is only found when you actually play the game and decide if it is what you want whether it be free or not.

And on the ad note: Why in the world would anyone care who advertises or who does not on this site? The simple fact that we signature our posts here is advertisement. The fact that we talk about our muds or other muds is advertisement. Have a little respect for the Forums here, the people who post here and the people who pay to keep this place running.

I have played at least 5 of the games on the top forty list here and a few not on the list at all. And every one of them have things of value in them, but like I said a page or two ago, games that have a paid staff can offer a certain level of consideration to the players that in many cases can not be offered from games with a volunteer administration and staff--You get what you pay for.

It is up to you to decide what you want in a mud. That's all.

[Xerihae]

Yep. Everyone in the world has time. Not everyone in the world has money. Time is the great equaliser!

It depends how certain of those effect the playing field of a game. In a FPS for example, better hardware and faster internet connection is the thing that gives people an advantage, which is one reason if I'm going to play a FPS online I prefer it to be one of the older ones that most people are likely to have the machines/connections to run. As for third-party gold/item sales, I don't support it and I'll continue not to support it. The reasons for and against this sort of thing have been thrashed out many times however, so I won't go into detail.

Now is my view of it because I'm wrong, or is it because over the years the media and commercial enterprises have gradually changed what people view as "free"? Another point that can be argued both ways. Oh, and I'm not out for any marketing advantage.

As for the examples:

ESPN - Not a competitive game.

Smithsonian - Not a competitive game.

KoL - If it proves an advantage over other players, then I'm against it.

PC Gamer - That's down to their perceptions, and whilst I'm sure it's an advantage for those games that make their money by allowing pay-for-perks it still, in my mind, doesn't necessarily make it right. You've probably noticed by now that I'm very wary about the media in general.

As for the last bit, I'm not bitter about paying money for a game. If a game charges a monthly fee and I like it, I'll pay. What I want and expect from a multi-player game is a level playing field for all involved, not one that's distorted depending on how much money you have because games/companies are often only interested in how much cash they can get from players.

Not my intention, or my goal. I think perhaps you are assigning motives to me based on why other people might have argued the point in the past. The one thing I will say is that good marketing is as you describe, but is often done by companies (and I'm not accusing you or any commercial MUD owner on here of this) by exploiting weaknesses and loopholes in rules. The people who try to close these loopholes are immediately labelled as reactionary and misguided by said companies, whose interest lies solely in keeping their advantage. Hence lobbyist groups etc.

Your definition of professional appears to be based solely on whether the staff are paid to run the game or not. Just because someone is paid for running a game doesn't necessarily mean that game is any better than one where the staff aren't paid. I'll agree there's a better chance, but it's by no means a foregone conclusion. However, when people at large see the terms "hobbyist" and "professional" this is exactly the impression they get when they're unfamiliar with the MUD world. It's misleading and unnecessary. I would, however, go along with "Paid staff" and "unpaid staff" or somesuch.

Well said, as long as the MUD isn't defining itself in a misleading way which I'm sure you agree with. Our disagreement just comes in definition of terms.

[Xerihae]

I would be willing to argue that your view of online games is in the minority there. Multi-player games are almost always a competitive arena, whether it's PvP or who has the best gear. The people that play these games solely to explore them are somewhat rare.

I may never know whether Creosote is better because he spent money, but at least if the admins of a game do not support third-party selling and actively do what they can to minimise it's effects, I can feel as if what can be done, is being done. I suppose then yes, what the admin says is more important than what's going on. I want to know that the people running the game I'm playing, commercial or not, are as interested in providing a level playing field as I am.

[cratylus]

matt/sarapis/the_logos/whatever wrote:
Personally I couldn't care less if this gets added, if
this is what people want. And this is what is so important,
and why (I presume) Lasher takes the payment stuff seriously.

Wanting specifics on mud payment isn't the petulant
sulking of one person. It's the general consensus of
people who do not run commercial muds (AFAICT), which
is the vast majority of the mudding community.

The difference between the "who's in charge" spec and
the "payment type" spec is that yours is just you,
trying to make a point. The other is something
people have been talking about, debating and asking
for years, and Lasher represents the hope that maybe
the community's preferences will trump your
commercial interests.

It sounds to me like it's all over but for the
screaming, and I do hope you simmer down soon,
because regardless of my personal opinion of you,
you are a leader in the community and your
tantrums are betraying a lack of sportsmanship
and an excess of petty spite that we can all
do without.

-Crat

[Threshold]

I am not "resorting" to anything. I honestly believe that is the motivation for some of the people who get on this crusade every 6-12 months. Perhaps I am wrong about their motivation - it is always tough to gauge such a thing.

But I think it is pretty clear from the tone of their posts and from the stances they take on other issues. These are the same types of folks who are against anything that treats professional muds equally. They continually support and suggest changes that artificially and arbitrarily give advantages and placement priorities to games that didn't earn it by sending traffic. If there is any opportunity to slam a professional mud or to personally attack the operator of a professional mud, these are the people who will seize the opportunity with great fervor.

The reason I believe there has to be some kind of ulterior motive such as this is because the reasoning behind this argument makes no sense. The definition of "free" they seem to require just doesn't make any sense, and is not how the word is used in everyday life. The examples are numerous - including many already given in this thread.

In other words, in absence of a rational reason for a given behavior, one can logically assume there is an emotional or self-serving motivation for the irrational behavior.

[cratylus]

Ok, I can see how it makes sense to try to determine unspoken
motivations if you really do think that.

Let me clarify my position on commercial muds existing: I think
it is awesome, and they represent the future and salvation of
mudding in general. I support people running commercial muds
not just on a "it's legal so it's ok" level, but on a "they
are doing positive things for my hobby" level.

So this:
Is not me. And yet I support a position you feel
doesn't make sense. Let me try to explain where my
position comes from.

I started mudding on an old LP mud called Darker Realms,
which by virtue of being "original LP" was non-commercial.
I didn't know anything about licenses or such stuff before,
I was just a player enjoying a free game.

Other muds I learned of and occasionally visited were the
same. They never asked for money, and when folks did
pitch in to buy RAM or whatever, they did it for a specific
reason that directly benefited everyone, not just them,
and it was not required. There was no mechanism for unlocking
anything with money.

*That*, in my mind, is free.

We can say that the United States Code declares "free"
to mean this, or that the FSF declares "free" to mean
that. There are all sorts of ways to talk about "free".

In my opinion, a free mud is *not* about "you can play up to
a point but then you have to pay", and it is *not* about
"everything is free unless you want the sword of a thousand
truths, you have to pay for that".

In your mind, such *options* are voluntary and do not
make the mud non-free. In my mind, such options represent
the intrusion of real world economics into the game
world, and most decidedly move the mud off the "free"
category.

After all, let's compare Darker Realms with a made-up
example. Let's say Dollar Realms gives you complete
access to every part of the game for free (if you
can manage to get to it), but only lets you advance
past 1st level if you pay a subscription fee.

By some marketing definitions of "free", Dollar Realms
is a free mud. If so, then what is Darker Realms?
DoublePlusFree?

My point is that "free" in a mud marketing context
apparently means something different to you and to me,
and this is not limited to us two. I think that as
a newbie mudder, if I saw Dollar Realms listed as
a free mud and then tried it and *then* found out
about the money requirements, I'd feel deceived.

It may be that Dollar Reams admins really and honestly
and truly think it is a free mud, but I sure would have
felt lied to, and I don't think I would be alone, and
that is why I think "free" in mud advertising is
insufficiently descriptive.

I'm not trying to undermine anyone's revenue, I'm
not trying to rob good people of their business. Commercial
muds are a plus for the community and bully for them.
I'm just asking that the advertising take into account
that for lots of people "free mud" doesn't mean
"oh, btw, you *do* have to pay for X, Y, or Z."

I do understand that you think my position is so
mistaken as to lack rationality. I disagree with you,
but I am extending you the courtesy of assuming
a good faith belief in what you are saying. I
hope for the same courtesy in return.

-Crat