[the_logos]

Having never played Medievia, I couldn't say. Unless they're charging to play, they're not pay-to-play though. Seems fairly obvious.

--matt

[Scorpcrys]

Just asked for some clarifacation. As you may note, i asked, "is that what you're talking about?" As I have been a player for 2 years and have heard about neither of these things.

I know it's advertising. I even said it was "effective" advertising, so i don't know where you're coming up with this idea that i think it's not.

I seem "invested"? Why? because i ask questions? I'm simply making inquires so you're a little less VAGUE about your claims of Simutronics. And some of your info is just incorrect. Sorry ta inform you, but when you are vague and say things that are not true (ie. Rolling Stone), people are gonna ask questions. Don't misinterpret questions as an obsession over the topic.

Oh and Melissa stated they Simutonics does do a good amount of marketing and advertising. And i'm certainly not going to argue with her. I can only say that i don't see much of their marketing/advertising. And Mr. the_logos, i think you should let Simu tell the facts about their own company. They don't need you to do it for them. Not to be harsh in any way, but it'll help stop all this misunderstanding.

[MelissaMeyer]

I'm not really sure that this discussion is going anywhere.

Those MUDs which are pay-to-play are comfortable with telling people that we are pay-to-play.  (It would be silly to try to "fool" people about such a thing.)

Those MUDs where pay-to-play is an option but not required have no problem in telling people that.  (Once again, it would be silly to hide that fact, they'd never get donations.)

So what's the issue here?

Melissa Meyer
Producer, GemStone III

[the_logos]

Really? It's right on the front of their webpage () , though I can see where you'd head straight to the web page for the particular game you play of theirs.


I wasn't referring to you actually. As for the Rolling Stone thing, I was just passing along what I had been told (I did make sure to distinguish between that and the other marketing deals that I could personally confirm, in my post) by an ex-player of theirs. Either he was wrong, or I was mis-remembering what he had told me.


Well, possibly so, but I was just going along with the mores of the community, which seem to dictate that it's ok to talk about games that aren't yours. I see other people doing it all the time. If this isn't ok in this community, that's fine, but please don't jump on just me for doing it. I've seen a couple people give out info about Achaea, both false and true.

--matt

[Molly]

Sorry, KaVir, with one exception I don’t buy any of your examples. (Another viewpoint to this is, that quite a few of the muds that accept ‘donations’ in return for gaming advantages do it to conceal the fact that they are really breaking the Diku licence).

Your example 1 and 2 are both equally cheesy. The fact that the mud owner gets the money in example 2, does not make it the least bit less cheesy, actually more so, since it makes it seem like the mud owner not only accepts but encourages that type of bad gaming behaviour. If we expect some fair play and moral from our players, we should start by setting up an example ourselves.

The second example, about the web designer, is where I agree. If someone spends a lot of time and efforts working to actually improve the mud, they should get some reward for this. That’s why we pay our builders a gold token for each 50 room zone they complete, a currency that can be used to buy certain features within the mud, like personalised equipment or crash-proof houses. I believe most muds have a similar system of reward.

The example where players earn a 5% exp bonus by clicking on a link, might sound harmless in theory. In praxis however, since not all muds can or want to do the same, it disrupts the numbers of a voting list, and is consequently unfair to those that don’t practice the same system. (On a side note, I think the entire idea about voting for ‘the best mud’ is a dumb one, since the vote numbers have little to do with the actual quality, and it also seems to lead to all sorts of cheating and unethical behaviour, but that’s another story).

As for the last example with the poor student Buffo and the rich jerk Biffo, I am all on Buffo’s side. If you want to be good at something you usually have to invest time. Buffo probably knows that, because you cannot get a college degree either, without investing time. So why should some rich jerk be able to just sail in and buy the advantages? Do you REALLY think that is fair?

Let’s take another example: Occasionally I get some junk mail, which offers me University Diplomas if I pay some money. No studies or exams required. Just pay some money into some unscrupulous person’s pocket, and they’ll set me up with something bogus, that apparently looks good enough to fool the world. Would you think that was okey too? And I wonder what Buffo, the poor College student struggling with her exams would think about it…

[Jazuela]

Molly, the only way it would be "unfair" to other listings, would be if there was some inherent value of being #1 on the list.

There isn't. And therefore the fairness of it is irrelevent.

[KaVir]

So the mud owner should not be able to profit from their own work, but the players should?

But they've not earned their bonuses within the game - they've earned them through putting time and effort into something outside of the game. That time and effort has benefitted the game, certainly - but how is that any different from someone putting their time and effort into earning money at work, then giving that money to the mud owner for advertising? We have:

Scenario 1: Mr X spends 10 hours of his time working outside of the mud (creating some webpage stuff for the mud) which helps promote the mud (the website looks better) and thus gets an in-game reward for it, and:

Scenario 2: Mr Y spends 10 hours of his time working outside of the mud (flipping burgers) which helps promote the mud (he gives the money he earns to the mud owner who spends it on advertising banners) and thus gets an in-game reward for it.

What it is that makes scenario 1 okay, but scenario 2 cheesy?

I'm not talking about a voting system, just about pure website hits. The players give the mud-related website hits, and the banner on the mud-related website directs potential new players to the mud.

I know some people who have built their own (real life) homes, but most people buy them. Do you think that is fair? I know some people who pay large amounts of money to study at expensive language schools, and thus learn faster than those who try to learn from watching TV and the like - do you think that is fair? I know many people who build their own computers from parts, despite the fact that most people pay extra to have them pre-built and pre-installed - do you think that is fair? Money and time are both commodities, and they have different value to different people. You think it's unfair that some "rich jerk" can just come in any buy the advantages - but there are other people who think it's unfair that some "slack student" or "unemployed bum" can shoot ahead just because they can spend all their free time playing the mud. I don't like the idea of having to pay in order to compete with other players - but equally, I don't like the idea of having to have no social life in order to compete with other players.

I'm not talking about giving you a University Diploma - I'm talking about letting you pay extra for a better (and faster) education. Or do you think it's unfair that rich people can go to private school?

[truthfulthomas]

On muds, however, this usually plays out the way promotions in fast food restaurants do. You walk into your average burger joint, and the person wearing the "Assistant Manager" pin isn't necessarily the smartest, most skilled, most dedicated, most managerial person behind the counter. He or she is simply the only one who's stuck the job out for month after month while others have moved on (many on to more meaningful work in all likelihood). I see no reason why it should be considered inherently any more unfair for someone who has the money to spend on a piece of gear or some experience to do so, than to simply reward those people who have zero life outside of the game. Investing time in a mud is not like investing time in, say, law school. On most muds, particularly those where gear and levels amount to anything, any moron can become the uberchar simply by virtue of blowing off homework/family life/job and powergaming 24/7. In such games, why not allow those who have lives and who attend to their responsibilities to be able to compensate monetarily for what they lack in time?

[the_logos]

Well, there is an advantage to being #1: You get the most traffic, generally speaking. But then, you sent the most traffic here, so it all seems fair.

--matt

[Molly]

IF the mudowner coded his mud from scratch and didn't just change the code a bit to conceal the fact that he is violating the Diku Licence, sure he should be able to profit from his own work. But then he could do it in an upfront way, charging everybody to play, which would make it a fair game for all that could afford it. (Most likely that would rule out the poor college student with no life, that you all worry so much about too, because he gets too successful at the game).

Again, I have no problem with P2P as long at it is clearly stated, and as long as it gives everybody equal chances. What I do have a problem with is paying for extra benefits, and for two reasons:
1. It's simply not fair play.
2. It's a trick that some unscrupolous mud owners use to disguise the fact that they are P2P and that way
a) lure more players into their game
b) conceal that they are actually breaking the Diku licence by charging money for their game.

I am talking about ethics and moral and fair play here, is that really so hard to understand? Since some people obviously don't get my point, let me try two very simple examples:

Scenario 1:
Boffo spends 3 years training hard to become a good 100 meters runner.
Biffo does not have the time and inclination to do this, because he has a 'real life'.
But Biffo has a rich father, and the owner of the sports-ground needs money to repair the boys' locker room. So Biffo's father donates 10000 $ to this very worthy cause.

In return the owner of the sportsground gives Biffo a head start of 10 m on Boffo in all 100 m races.

Do you think THAT is fair?

Scenario 2:
The manager of a TV store finds out that some of the employees steal the goods and sell it for a very good price to a fencer. Instead of reporting them to the police, he decides to do the same thing, to put some nice tax-free money into his own pocket, whilst also pocketing the insurance money.

Do you think THAT is fair?

----
As for the players selling top equip to each other, there are some ways of dealing with that problem, but that's another story.

[KaVir]

It means that you'd have to have money, and have no life, in order to compete with the other players. People with no money, and people without lots of free time, would both lose out.

Why is it "not fair"? If Bubba has no life while Boffo works long hours, is it "fair" that Bubba can advance five times as quickly?

Imagine a system whereby the mud stores how many hours you've played (and how much exp you've earned) at the end of each week. Assuming you have played at least 5 hours in the previous week, you are able to "purchase" additional hours at the rate of 1 mud credit per hour, up to a maximum of 20 - and each such hour purchased grants you the average exp earned over the time you have played. Alternatively, perhaps the credit allows you to earn double exp for one hour in the current week.

Either way, you couldn't simply "buy" yourself a powerful character - you'd still have to put time and effort into it. You still wouldn't be quite on par with those who had lots of time to spend, because you could never pump yourself beyond the equivilent of 20 hours, but it would be a reasonable compromise. It would also mean that those who put more time into the mud would not lose out, and someone who had both time and money would not have any particular advantage. In short, money would allow you to compensate for time, but you'd still have to demonstrate just as much skill and ability in order to get anywhere.

Why would that be "unfair"?

Obviously it should be done up front, and it should not go against any licenses - that goes without saying, and I've never implied otherwise.

Your analogies do not address the matter at hand. You've also failed to point out what the difference is between the scenarios I mentioned earlier. You've said that this is okay:

Mr X spends 10 hours of his time working outside of the mud (creating some webpage stuff for the mud) which helps promote the mud (the website looks better) and thus gets an in-game reward for it.

But that this is unethical:

Mr Y spends 10 hours of his time working outside of the mud (flipping burgers) which helps promote the mud (he gives the money he earns to the mud owner who spends it on advertising banners) and thus gets an in-game reward for it.

I'm still waiting to hear why you think that.

[Maggie]

I wonder if all businesses should work that way.  My son works for 3M and gets an hourly wage.  If he works in a department outside his own, they still give him his regular pay; however, they don't pay him if he skips work and takes friends shopping - even if they buy a lot of 3M products which helps the company out.

Does it seem fair for him to receive the same benefits for giving money in that way as those who actually work for the company?

[KaVir]

Your son has time but wants money. The company he works for has money but wants time (man hours). If your son gives the company time, the company will give him money. If he doesn't give them time, they won't give him money. In other words, time and money are both commodities which different parties assign different values to. So yes, it works the same way in business.

[Molly]

*sigh*
I am getting rather tired of this discussion, since it doesn't look like you are even trying to grasp what i am saying. But I'll have one more try at explaining.

The difference between your two scenarios should be rather obvious. Mr X spends 10 hours working ACTIVELY on the mud and IMPROVING it (not promoting it), even if it is formally outside the game Port. Mr Y spends the same time doing something totally unrelated. That's where I draw the line, whether the time is spent on the mud or not.

I don't really care if Mr Y spends the time flipping burgers or playing golf or having sex with his girlfriend, what matters in this case is that he does NOT spend it on the mud. And I don't care if he earns the money he uses for the donation flipping burgers or working as a brain surgeon or just got it from his pa. I still don't think that buying in-game benefits for RL money is a good idea.

But if it makes you happier, I don't really like the scenario with Mr X either, it's on the borderline of what's acceptable. In our mud we 'pay' our Builders with either a gold token (= questpoints) or an imm char, for completing a 100 room zone. Building a 100 room zone, with the quality standards we have, means at least 100 hours active work, and that time is spent within the mud. So far we haven't 'paid' anybody either for designing the website, or updating it. So I guess that in our case the requisition is 100 hours of work spent WITHIN the mud.

And, I want to stress, what we 'pay' is still not really game advantages, it just allows you to get a few things that add to your 'status', and possibly make life a bit easier, but which are far from necessary to reach a top spot on the mud. The exact same things can also be achieved in several different ways within the mud.

And now that I hopefully cleared up this point, perhaps you'd grace the community with your opinion about my scenario with the two 100 m runners, which I think EXACTLY addresses the matter at hand: Should you be able to buy game advantages for money?

Is the scenario fair? Unfair? Motivations?

[Sylvado]

The only issue is disclosure.

The host of a MUD has the right to structure it as they please. They should disclose any policies that grant in game awards for outside activities.

[the_logos]

Funny, that's -exactly- how Achaea works. You pay to get things that make your life easier, but none are necessary to reach a top spot, whether that top spot be a guildmaster, head of a religious order, leader of a city-state, top person in terms of xp, top explorer, etc.

Every single thing you can purchase with real money in Achaea can be gotten via other methods, without exception, and spending real-life money can't really help you at all with the stuff that we view as most important in the game: the politics.

--matt

[Molly]

Excuse me, but that is NOT -exactly- how Achaea works. I guess you must have missed my main point. This discussion was about paying real MONEY, $, for those extras, and that is something I am very much against. Notice the little '  ' around the word 'pay' in my post? And notice the words 'purchase with real money' in your own? Get the difference?

But then again, I don't think you actually missed that. You just saw an opportunity for another of your ... shall we call it 'inventive'? ...  advertisements.

I'd thank you not to twist my words into something that suits your purposes, but is very far from the intentions with my post. I take offense to the implication that my mud has anything in common with a mud that uses some of the most unethical means of advertising that I've yet come across on the net.

It's muds like yours that give the P2P a bad name.

[the_logos]

Currency is simply a way to represent value that is convenient and almost universally accepted. Everything in your MUD that a player wants has real-world value, just like currency. You're paying people with things that have real value, just like if I gave you a stereo for doing something instead of actual cash. Further, time is worth money (at least the time of everyone I know is), and there exists an exchange rate such that they are equivalent (it's called a wage in employment markets).

You make your people pay for things with real value with their time, which also has real value. I don't see a fundamental difference.

--matt

....

I....

I....

Back, many many moons ago, when I used to play Diablo 2...

I once bought Griswold's Heart on Ebay. I paid $3 for it. I was working 2 jobs, full-time and half-time, a girlfriend, and going to school full-time.

It's not something I'm very proud of, but I was weak.

I'm sorry everyone, but I really needed the triple socket for my Paladin.

....

*shew* I'm glad I got that of my chest.


[No mockery intended, just trying to lighten the mood a little bit since I don't see anyone shaking their hands and "agreeing to disagree" on interpretation.]

[Molly]

Mihaily, I guess, even if you yourself are unable to see how ridiculous the above statements are, everybody else will.

Time is money only when you work for wages or a fee, not when you lie on the beach or play Monopoly - or play a mud. (Unless of course if the mud is pay-to-play and charging per minute, then time becomes money in a negative way of speaking).

Monopoly money or mud currency does not in any way equal RL money, as I am sure you'll find out, if you try to use it in a RL shop.

There is a vast difference between rewarding people for their work on the mud with mud currency, and charging RL life money for certain items or features within the mud.

I guess that twisted reasoning like yours is only what was to be expected from a person who could launch something as ridiculous and unethical at that advertising campaign some time ago on the Mud Connector.

I am also starting to think that the bad welcome the P2P newcomers got on this site might be due to people like you. Perhaps the community wrongly assumed that all P2P administrators act as unethically as you - which is obviously not the fact.

It's interesting, that among all the P2P muds, you seem to be about the only one that denies charging money, although you obviously do. It's also interesting that you seem to be about the only one of the P2P muds that is vocally against adding a $ icon to the listing. All the others say thay have nothing against it. But then again, the others don't use cheesy tricks to disguise the fact that they are P2P.