Top Mud Sites Forum Return to TopMudSites.com
Go Back   Top Mud Sites Forum > MUD Players and General Discussion > Tavern of the Blue Hand
Click here to Register

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 05-26-2005, 12:17 AM   #1
Xorith
Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 45
Xorith is on a distinguished road
Unhappy

Xorith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-2005, 02:08 AM   #2
Traithe
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Name: Kite
Posts: 131
Traithe is on a distinguished road
In the commercial project I recently started we plan on adopting a hybrid system, which I hope will capture the best of both types of fee paradigms (i.e. pay-to-play vs. pay-for-perks).

The biggest advantage of a PFP system, to my mind, is allowing players to play your game for free - not only does this help amass a userbase by including those who don't necessarily want to shell out money for their gaming experience, but it also gives people a chance to try it out and see how they like it before they put any money down.

With that in mind, our foundation will be a monthly pay-to-play fee - probably somewhere in the neighborhood of $10 USD or so.

Initially I was leaning very heavily towards offering trial periods, like one free month, or somesuch. However, someone, I believe it was KaVir, suggested something pretty interesting. Namely, the possibility of allowing perpetually free play within a limited scope, and only charging players who wish to use the entirety of the game's content/featureset.

Rather like old-school shareware - you can download and play Wolfenstein for free, but to advance past the third level you have to send in your $15 or whatever and register a full copy of the game.

Applied here, it would likely translate into something like the ability to play non-human/outerworld races, access to the space combat/colonization modules in the game, or some other sort of possibility I haven't come across yet.

This wouldn't carry the negative issues of a PFP system because it's more or less a binary arrangement; either the player pays and has access to these "extended" elements, or they don't. Once access is given, they're on a level playing field with everyone else.

On the other hand, it would still allow people to play for free; and if balanced properly, it wouldn't have any effect in terms of giving paying players any real "advantages" over non-paying players, but rather only access to certain parts of the game that are reserved.

Anyway, it's far from fully fleshed out, but that's the general idea. Whether or not it's actually viable, we'll just have to wait and find out. <g>
Traithe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-2005, 02:48 AM   #3
Hephos
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Sweden
Home MUD: www.sharune.com
Posts: 359
Hephos is on a distinguished road
Hephos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-2005, 03:18 AM   #4
Xorith
Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 45
Xorith is on a distinguished road
Xorith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-2005, 06:36 AM   #5
Traithe
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Name: Kite
Posts: 131
Traithe is on a distinguished road
I like the idea of offering meta-elements in exchange for fees, e.g. restrings, small in-game events (like a wedding), etc.

However, this only works with the model if a) you ensure that the things you're offering have no effect on the game's baseline meritocracy (coded powerlevels, more or less), and b) you completely separate it from in-game valuation.

So, as an example, IMO offering a house for $25 USD or 100k in-game gold wouldn't work. At first glance the alternative setup is a good thing, because you're allowing players who don't want to spend the money a way to obtain the item. What you're really doing, though, is setting up an implicit value structure and ranking system, wherein players with RL money > players without. That is, in a case like this you're basically saying "since you can't pay us X dollars, we're making you pay a penalty of X^Y RL time to achieve the same end." All this will do is serve to create resentment and a sort of quasi-caste system within your playerbase.

Instead, if you are very clear and deliberate with your line-drawing at the outset, I imagine these problems wouldn't arise. That is, if you tell your players that X non-game-affecting service is only available for a fee of Y RL dollars, some players will pay the fee, support your product, and receive the service or item; some won't. But because it has no effect on the relative power levels of those involved, because it doesn't disrupt the balance of power and your basic time-powergain gradient, and because it doesn't devalue in-game effort in favor of RL funding it won't create as much resentment, if any at all.

Incidentally, this is probably why pay-zones wouldn't work... no matter how well-balanced, chances are they will confer SOME sort of in-game power benefit to the people with access to them, and the people with access will then either a) use these things to boost their own power relative to the non-users, or b) sell them to the non-users for exorbitant amounts of in-game cash, creating the devaluation mentioned above.

Things like races or access to restricted game-modes/modules, on the other hand, don't lend themselves to this sort of disruption, since 1) when balanced properly they don't grant the user an advantage over non-paying members, and 2) they can't be alienated from the original purchaser to create the in-game effort vs. RL cash investment clash the model is trying to avoid.

Remember; long-term sorts of games like these are all about player investment, whether it's in terms of RL money or the player's time and effort. In order for them to invest lots of time and effort, they need to trust that you'll protect their investment by ensuring that people with lots of money can't simply leap over them and their hard work with the click of a payment button at the outset; likewise, if you want them to invest money, you'll need to convince them that the product they're purchasing is worth it, both in terms of the quality of the item as well as its exclusivity (i.e. that someone isn't going to be able to pick up the same thing for 50% off a week later, or worse yet, for free).
Traithe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-2005, 06:43 AM   #6
Singer
New Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 17
Singer is on a distinguished road
I had the chance of trying a pay for play game for free *no names mentioned* and I wasn't that impressed.

Oh definitly, the service and presence of staff was better. And really, if one pays for it - it should. Now perhaps if you spend a lot of time on it one would notice the difference, but with 10 hours invested I was not that impressed by the gameworld, the code or the RP I encountered.

Sure, it was all high-quality, but then again it should be since people pay for it - but not that extra dimension that would make it worth pulling up my visa.

So I would definitly vote for a system that generally only made you pay to advance into certain positions or roles that require lots of work for admins, getting your own buildings etc.

Still, it feels ugly to my socialist soul that someone that can dish out 100$ for his castle and guards can be nobleman and someone else can't - but hey it is those people that pay for that the game keeps running and keeps the admins paid (hopefully).
Singer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-2005, 08:58 AM   #7
Brody
Legend
 
Brody's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: North Carolina
Home MUD: OtherSpace
Posts: 1,599
Brody will become famous soon enoughBrody will become famous soon enough
Send a message via Skype™ to Brody
Smile

I've gone through three different models for my project, with varying degrees of success.

One-time fee: Back in the beginning, you could play a peasant for free, but paid a one-time fee if you wanted to be higher on the social ladder. The higher in the social strata a player wanted to be, the more it cost. For their investment, they got their own homes/castles and other benefits. This was somewhat successful, but hindered playerbase growth - and this led to inadequate income for the game. So, then we switched to...

Monthly fee: We exempted people who'd been playing the game since it started, but all new players would have to pay a monthly fee. The free-to-play as peasant model still existed and players got 30 days as a trial period. However, this proved to be less successful than the one-time fee. It's possible I did something wrong, but I have a suspicion that in the age of graphical MMORPGs, it's going to be really hard to maintain growth of a monthly subscription base in a text-gaming environment. The monthly fee simply didn't work out for us, reducing income and hindering playerbase growth even further than the first model. So, we evolved to...

Paid enhancements: Basically, for all intents and purposes, the game can be played for free. Whether a player wants to be a peasant or a high-society blueblood, it's free *unless* they want their own private buildings, personalized weapons and heirlooms, fast horses, and extra crafting minutes. In effect, they pay for the time and effort involved in the building projects or the convenience of the horses and crafting minutes. Although this method doesn't carry the certainty of a subscription or a one-time up-front fee, it has (for us) been the most successful model in allowing a balance between income and playerbase growth.
Brody is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-2005, 09:14 AM   #8
Hardestadt
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 84
Hardestadt is on a distinguished road
Personally, I rather a pay-for-perks system. In my experience it makes for a more enjoyable experience for me, as I have complete control over how my contributions effect my play, and I have a choice to buy nice new things when I can afford it yet still play when I'm flat broke. I also feel I should mention that you can buy every perk in the game I play with gold, one way or another, and I've done so with several major things my character owns.

Also, I'm going to throw a comment out there that will no doubt illicit some rather angry comments.. but this goes a long way to why I like pay for perks:

I find the top end players on pay-for-perks muds to be more mature and level headed. I assume this is because mostly they're older and more mature.

Now, before a 13 year old uber-mudder indignantly defends all his fellow pubescent kind, I would like to point out that my statement is very general. I have known 13 year old players of great worth and merit, and ones in their mid 30s with the maturity of a half eaten banana. Even with these points taken into account, there is a definate bias towards the older player.

Back on topic, I don't really think having pay zones would work. Having a sense of equality between paying and non-paying customers is important to the success of a healthy playerbase, largely because people expect their potential to be the same as every other player out there. Many often get disenfranchised when they find out that it isn't. Perhaps its just me, but that'd cheese me off. My MUDding past has almost entirely been pay-for-perks, but even when I used to interact with much bigger people than myself I never felt cheaated or sour about the situation.

I assume certain people are suited to certain models, be they free, pay to play or pay for perks. That doesn't make any model more or less correct or applicable.

-H
Hardestadt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-2005, 01:07 PM   #9
the_logos
Legend
 
the_logos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Mill Valley, California
Posts: 2,305
the_logos will become famous soon enough
Check out Runescape. They're one of the biggest MUDs in the world (occasionally breaking 100,000 simultaneous players) and that's the model they use. Free to play. $5/month for extended features.
the_logos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-2005, 01:19 PM   #10
the_logos
Legend
 
the_logos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Mill Valley, California
Posts: 2,305
the_logos will become famous soon enough
Free time is a resource just like money.

Read it like this as well:

"That is, in a case like this you're basically saying 'sinc eyou can't spend X hours of free time, we're making you pay a penalty of X^Y real dollars to achieve the same end." All this will do is s create resentment and a sort of quasi-caste system within your playerbase."

I, for instance, quit playing Worlds of Warcraft precisely because of this. I don't look at monster bashing games as a competitive enterprise (what does it matter to me what level someone else is?), but I objected to playing a game that was clearly designed to be oriented towards people with large amounts of free time. No job, no family, no friends? Great! You get to progress faster.

The idea that only one type of resource (free time) should count is one that only holds water with very hardcore gamers (of course, we are all text MUDers here) and that sort of design is one thing holding back MUDs as a whole (ie graphical or text).

Incidentally, I think your supposition about a caste system and creating resentment is a bit off anyway. Check out Habbo Hotel, for instance. 3 million players, using our business model, except that you CAN'T get anything without paying for it (unlike in our model, where you can get anything without paying for it).

Finally, it's worth pointing out that the market (largely a grey or black market at this point, since it's usually done in contravention of the Terms of Service) for virtual goods is, according to the best sources available, at -least- a half billion dollar a year market and growing very rapidly. Rapidly enough that Sony recently announced they will be officially supporting user to user RMT (real-money transactions) on some of their Everquest II servers. This year's crop of Asian MUDs at E3 had a huge proportion of them integrating RMT into their games.

--matt
the_logos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-2005, 01:24 PM   #11
the_logos
Legend
 
the_logos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Mill Valley, California
Posts: 2,305
the_logos will become famous soon enough
If this is -actually- the problem (and I don't believe it is), then you'd need to stop all transfers of anything between players to stop it. There's no difference between me using OOC money to buy something in a game and me using OOC connections with friends to get stuff from them in-game. For instance, in Worlds of Warcraft, when I was a little noob, an rl friend of mine sent me 5 gold. (that's a HUGE amount to a noob. So much that the game didn't even offer a way for me to reasonably spend that much money at my low level). Why did I get that gold? OOC resources (my friends). Is there any difference between me trading on my OOC friendships vs. my OOC bank account? I'd say not. Both are OOC resources and the result is exactly the same as regards the game.
--matt
the_logos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-2005, 01:27 PM   #12
the_logos
Legend
 
the_logos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Mill Valley, California
Posts: 2,305
the_logos will become famous soon enough
My reasoning is a little different. I quit CoH, WoW, etc largely because the Terms of Service wouldn't permit me to purchase things, and I'm not into breaking Terms of Service or End User License agreements. Fundamentally, I don't want to be playing a game that was designed to cater to people with far greater amounts of free time than I have if the only way to advance is to spend those huge amounts of free time. That's too expensive for me, and I don't like the elitism created by it.

--matt
the_logos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-2005, 02:48 PM   #13
Xorith
Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 45
Xorith is on a distinguished road
Xorith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-2005, 03:00 PM   #14
Xorith
Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 45
Xorith is on a distinguished road
Xorith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-2005, 03:01 PM   #15
the_logos
Legend
 
the_logos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Mill Valley, California
Posts: 2,305
the_logos will become famous soon enough
Second most successful actually. Simutronics' playerbase is less than half what it used to be, but they're still a fair shot bigger than we are. Hopefully that'll change, as we're growing, not shrinking.

"Fair" is subjective, and keep in mind that there's no such thing as a "perfect system." There's only a "perfect system for Bob" which will be different from the "perfect system for Jane" and so on. In the end, you provide a game to players and they can vote with their feet and wallets.

--matt
the_logos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-2005, 03:20 PM   #16
Lisaera
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 34
Lisaera is on a distinguished road
Lisaera is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-2005, 06:57 PM   #17
Xorith
Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 45
Xorith is on a distinguished road
Xorith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-2005, 07:50 PM   #18
Hardestadt
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 84
Hardestadt is on a distinguished road
This is ultimately what it comes down to for me. I did some stat gathering recently and found I'd spent over a year in online time on the main games I've played in the last 6 years, which basically means that I've spent at least 1/6 of my time mudding in that time. If I'm going to go to such an extreme, I really appreciate that the realms where I mud are very enjoyable with as few niggles possible, and have a high pace of development and customer service.

-H
Hardestadt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-2005, 08:07 PM   #19
Xorith
Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 45
Xorith is on a distinguished road
Xorith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2005, 12:03 AM   #20
Ilkidarios
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Name: Lamont
Location: Tallahassee, Florida
Posts: 436
Ilkidarios is on a distinguished road
I would rather have a pay-to-play system because I really hate pay-to-advance. I feel like in pay-to-advance systems, someone like me will play for free without using the optional investment in my character. However, I notice that I often have a severe disadvantage and all the work I do isn't really getting me anywhere. I don't pay for MUDs in real life, but in this scenario I would pick a pay-to-play MUD because I would be on equal footing as everyone else. Plus, with pay-to-play MUDs, I don't feel like I they are having the illusion of being free like pay-to-advance MUDs have. You know what you are getting into and you're not wasting your time on the free part of it because there is no free part.
Ilkidarios is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools


Pay-to-Play vs. Pay-to-Advance - Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
NEW MUD, COME PLAY vendetta Advertising for Players 0 07-23-2006 03:20 PM
Come Play With Us TTTGames-Robert Advertising for Players 5 10-27-2005 10:32 PM
looking for a mud I used to play... surfdaddy Advertising for Players 0 07-28-2005 11:57 AM
Looking to Play?? Myra Advertising for Players 0 09-06-2002 11:48 PM
I think this mud is really fun to play Alley Advertising for Players 0 08-24-2002 01:27 AM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:40 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Style based on a design by Essilor
Copyright Top Mud Sites.com 2022