[Traveler]

Fact: If you purchased any credits from the Credit Market or from a Guild or Commune sale to achieve your stats or artifacts someone BOUGHT those credits with real money.

You may not have payed but somebody did.

[Wedric]

Incorrect - a number of those credits were not from players but won through events.

Edit: Bleh, reread what you said. You are correct, yes. It's 3:15am >_> I'm going to bed before I hurt myself.

[Traveler]

Incorrect - 'a number' does not equal all. If you purchased credits in-game someone at some point paid real money for some of those credits.

[The_Disciple]

I don't know, I think there's definitely a big segment of the market that prefers this model... witness the markets that grow up around games like Diablo. Some people prefer being able to pay to get ahead, and some people like to know that they're playing a commercial game.

It's the reluctance to be clear and go after the segment of the market that prefers that kind of game that has always puzzled me.

[Valg]

I totally agree here. It's not the style of game I'd want to play, but you'll never see me post "Ban pay-for-perks! Universal free love and MUDs!"

I think both of these are valid:
1) Some players would prefer the stability and order implied by a game run by a business, as opposed to a group of volunteers. Other people prefer the community engendered by the (often cozier) volunteer environment.
2) Some people prefer a game where you can pay to get ahead. (A valid critique of this system is that it presents a tilted playing field where it is difficult to compete without spending.) Other people prefer a competition where only in-game achievements determine success. (A valid critique of this system is that it often favors players who can play a lot.)

Matt has made both of these points in his other posts, without acknowledging that they contradict his stance on search options. This controversy would evaporate if the IRE games would honestly label themselves as may-pay-for-perks games. Then, everyone knows what they're getting, and no one has a valid criticism of anyone's business model.

If you honestly believe that players prefer the stability of a company and the dual-path advancement of RL money or time, why not shout it from the top of the mountain?

[Baram]

Inncorrect - Some of those credits could have been won through bardic/artisanal contests, events, given out to all players as a bonus(Lusternia did this at the end of open beta), gained through being a guide, gained by being a mortal coder, gained by being a mortal builder... and more ways than I can think of. Not all credits, though probably the majority, sold from player to player have been gained via cash.

[Baram]

[quote= (Valg @ Mar. 18 2006,00:00)]Except... they have accurately labeled themselves as "free to play" which they are. Had they said "free" or "100% free" then I would agree with you. As they have not done this, and have accurately labeled themselves as they are, then I and many others will not agree.

[Traveler]

Thanks for agreeing with me.



Obviously I was correct as you agreed with me in your own statement.

[Valg]

What is the difference between "Free to play" and "Free"? If a new person browses the site, why would they read those as anything other than synonyms? Heck, I've been here a while and it's the first time I've seen someone claim those are different. Smoke and mirrors?

How could that be more clear than "Free" vs. "May-pay-for-perks"?

[CircuitConcepts]

I'm surprised I bothered to post here, simply because all the comments bashing IRE, and its products, are, as Matt said, lame attempts at flaming the product. Heaven forbid you find a product made by a person on this world, that you disagree with.

Here's my question, and why I want to take my keyboard to the back of my cat's head, if you hate it so much, why do you flame it? Matt's train of thought will never be:

Hrm, these people, that DON'T play my game don't like my system, that so many other people use. It's an industry standard, and most of my customers are completely content. I better change it! These people that don't even put time in it, and just flame it have to be right. They write so many posts that always say the same things, how can it be false?

So... shut up? Please? He won't change it because you whine. You're not even in the player base. When you join it, and have been playing for 2 years please come back.

I have purchased from IRE 5 times, in the past years. I have spent roughly $200. I'm a pretty low spender. I have some characters that have never even seen my credits. That's okay. Most of us are fine with it, most of the time. Because even though paying can make the game a bit more enjoyable, you can play fine without them. Yes, it's true as far as PvP, PK, combat, etc. goes the purchases do make it easier, you can go head to head without them. I don't need them to be in charge of a city-state, and they don't really help. These MUDs don't revolve around the use of credits, they revolve around roleplaying. That is what gets you somewhere.

Whoever said that Matt started the flaming could probably use a lashing.

[Traveler]

I have played IRE games for at least 2 years.

For what? Telling the truth.

[jono]

The truth is, that everyone who pays money for credits does it intentionally, and they -want- to spend their money. Anyone who doesn't want to spend money on the IRE muds don't have to.

It is in that sense, that IRE is a free to play mud.

Think about it - if you can only play a game AFTER spending money on the game, that'll mean that the game is most definitely NOT a free to play game. (eg, WoW, Eve online, etc)

As we have said, many, many times, you don't have to pay to play Aetolia, and even so, you can still get as much out of aetolia as those who put lots of money in their character.

[Baram]

You said: "If you purchased credits in-game someone at some point paid real money for some of those credits."

Someone at some point may have paid real money for some of those credits, but not always.

Either way, no point in argueing over wording, we both seem to understand two points. 1. Most credits come from the spending of money and 2. Not all credits come from money, there are other ways.

And for a shamless plug, Ilyrias will use something similar (though more IC) to credits, but will offer more ways for players to gain them without spending money.

[Protoss]

Interesting, nearly 20 pages of spiel regarding a MUD's advertisement policy (if you count the other thread).

I still don't see the confusion between "Free to Play" vs "Free". If people just take the meaning at hand and not read into it anymore then this would be quite simple. "Free to Play" meaning being able to play for free and "Free" meaning just that, being free. Everyone on these forums seem to be interjecting there own perceptions and ideologies into the meaning of "Free to Play". There's really no other perspective you can logically take. Advertising as "Free to Play" does not hinder a company to use optional payment methods so long as customers can continue to play the game for free.

It's simple really. I just think you are purposely complicating a concept that is really easy to grasp.

[Lanthum]

Oh they certainly are!

I mean, Traveler is the only one so far that I have seen who complains or attacks IRE's advertising model and claims to have played IRE games for at least a few years.  (And why exactly are you mad Traveler?  Do you feel duped or lied to?  I mean, c'mon - you should have been able to figure things out before 2+ years of playing and you could have stopped at anytime! )

All the other folks constantly whining hide behind a pretense of protecting all these poor unsuspecting list users who must get fooled into playing a game they think is free.  It would be interesting to see exactly how many of these posters bashing IRE's advertising have honestly been tricked by it into playing one of their games without realizing the game wasn't free.

[Traveler]

I never once wrote that I was mad. I never once complained either nor did I attack IRE‘s games themselves.

What is so completely amusing in a very sad way is the complete inability to be objective by many people in these threads. With the exception of Prof has anyone in these threads attacked IRE's actual games or made personal insults directed towards IRE or its staff? The answer is no. In these threads has anyone from IRE (or an IRE player) attacked another MUDs actual game or made personal attacks? The answer is yes in the person of Matt himself.

I am curious Lanthum as to why you feel a need to assign ulterior motives to those who disagree with IRE? Why must the defense of one game involve the slander of another or the people who play it? If you actually feel like taking the time to read my posts, you will notice that anytime I direct  any negative attention towards someone, it is when they lead off their post with an attack.

Anyone who presents their point of view in a discussion with an insult or an attack has no desire to convince others of the 'rightness' of their position. They seek either to 'flame' or they are responding in kind to someone who 'flamed' them. How many times have you personally managed to change a persons mind by hitting them upside the head with a verbal rock. The only time negative reinforcement works in a debate is when enough people complain that it reaches a critical point. Even then if you manage to alter a person's view on an issue they are still likely to have a poor impression of your methodology.

Just because I play or have played IRE games does not mean I have to be a mindless drone marching in lock step formation with them. Call me a socialist but I do not buy into the propaganda that what is good for the company is good for the employees. Or in this case what is good for one MUD is good for the entire MUD community.  I'm more of a ground up then a top down kind of guy. I believe if you improve the community then you improve the MUDs.

IRE's refusal to label themselves as Pay-for-Perk is disingenuous. It is obvious from playing their games that many people have no issue paying for credits. As others have stated they find the Pay-For-Perk system to be a positive aspect. If this is so then why hide it? Why label the games of Free-to-Play? Why call the currency systems credits when such a label could be easily mistaken for copy right information? Why not plainly reveal that the games have a Pay-for-Perk system until one has already created a character and started playing. Why not reveal the exact number of credits required to maximize a character's skills in-game? Why try and prevent the posting of charts that would reveal this information? Why discourage the posting of at what level in a skill set a certain ability is achieved? Why disallow the posting of reviews for the games on MUD traffic sites? Why slander the people who find IRE disingenuous for all the reasons/questions stated above?

All of these sort of threads would disappear if IRE acted like a part of the community (which they actively choose be a part of by posting here) instead acting like they were doing something wrong and trying to hide it. After all, if someone like me thinks IRE is being disingenuous yet still finds their games worth playing, is there really a need to act in such a manner?

[prof1515]

Actually, I probably wouldn't have bothered with the post had Matt not begun his attacks on others for pointing out the irony of his contradictory postings. He likes to claim some sort of professional status, yet as is quite obvious, he's as unprofessional as they come. So, my philosophy with him is that if he's going to dish it out, he's going to get it right back.

Excellent questions that warrant an answer. I doubt you'll get one, at least not one that isn't a veiled insult or the usual spin-doctoring about "but we are free". :-/

Later,

Jason

[prof1515]

I have tried out the IRE games at least a total of 10 times (Achaea four times, Aetolia twice, Imperian three times, and Lusternia only once...found that one the best of the four actually) since 2000, possibly more times though those are all I recall and have notes regarding. Each time, my opinion of the games has gone down because each time I've tried them, I've tried far more other games and seen far more features on other (genuinely-free) MUDs which put the IRE games to shame (along with 99% of the other MUDs out there). One doesn't need to play a game for two years to learn it's not up to the standards set by others. If anything, my opinion of nearly, if not every, MUD I've ever played has gone down over the course of time. Two hours or two years, the same is likely to have applied to the IRE games as well.

And all the loyal IRE players who constantly whine because others question the integrity of those games because of hte dishonest advertising and because of the reprehensible behavior of Matt on these forums....

It's not about being "tricked into playing", it's about the constant claims that one can succeed without paying and the impression IRE gives that this is somehow anything but as rare as winning the lottery. As for what would be interesting to see, it would be far more interesting to see some figures regarding IRE about what it really takes to succeed on one of their games. How much money it takes to make a character competitive? How many players use credits and how many don't and the differences between their status? What's the ratio of players who've succeeded without paying compared to those who have? I doubt we'll ever see this information because it would show their "free to play" claims are not completely honest.

Couple this dishonesty with Matt's abusive behavior and you have more than enough reasons that most of the TMS community finds him as pleasant as chewing on steel wool. And so long as he keeps lying and posting abusive comments while claiming to be some sort of victim, you can expect people will continue to consider him a horse's ass.

Take care,

Jason

[Protoss]

I don't see IRE not labeling themselves as Pay-For-Perk disingenious mainly because the site administrator does not require it. Yes, it certainly is more of an accurate representation than Free-To-Play, but as long as whatever description they use remains truthful to their policies then they are in the right to use it. And yes Free-To-Play, if you take the meaning literally and objectively, remains truthful to their payment options (play unlimited without having to pay if you wish).

So now why don't they advertise themselves as Pay-For-Perks rather than Free-To-Play. Simply because they can attract a lot more people to their MUD's under this label than they could ever do by using Pay-For-Perks. Admit it, people are turned off by the word "Pay". They would be more than likely to skip the MUD. And quite frankly your average Joe Blow would probably not understand that a Pay-For-Perks system does not necessarily mean you MUST pay. That's why they go for Free-To-Play. It suggest that they can play for free as long as they want and also leaving the door open for an optional payment to be put in placed. This way potential customers are not scared by the dreaded "P" word.

It's that simple.

[Rhadamanthus]

In the nine years I've played various MU* style games, I've never heard the term pay-for-perks used by a commercial game of any stripe. It seems to be a "folksonomic" category created here at TMS.

I've also only heard pay-to-play applied to games like KE-9's "Inferno," where you actually have to pay to even play the game. Conversely, you can play an IRE game for as long as you'd like without paying a penny; when I played Achaea, I'd accumulated roughly 50 days of playing time, which took nearly a year, before I bought any credits, and I made an informed decision to buy them.

Yes, you can buy 'perks' in an IRE game, and they're rather nice to have. IRE doesn't hide the fact that you can buy perks, nor does it hide the fact that it's a commercial entity. I realize this post is only more spitting in the wind and it's likely to engender more venom.


IRE isn't perfect, and while I would certainly like to see IRE become more transparent about the way it operates, especially to its paying customers, the charges of dishonesty appear to be motivated out of jealousy rather than any fact about IRE's advertising practices.

I don't particularly like IRE, as a company, but that has nothing to do with whether or not IRE advertises deceptively.