[Valg]

Conversely, if the information is out there, why not make it even easier to access? Isn't it part of TMS's mission to assist players in finding the game they want?

Go to IRE's front page. You're correct that there's a link to "Credits", but it's subdivided in with "Corporate", implying it's "Credits as in end of movie" and not "Credits as in a type of currency". I'd bet most first-time shoppers miss that.

Well, surely it is mentioned on their extensive page, right? The only hint is on "Features, where a clan is described as a "purchasable, customizable organization", though it's not clear what kind of currency they mean.

Maybe under ? Well, if you scroll all the way down to the bottom, credits are mentioned as something you can buy or sell, next to wool, coal, and other commodities. Hrm. No mention of RL currency there either!

I could go on, but Achaea has obviously spent some time making this information not obvious up front, which is why they want this site to be complicit and help them keep it not obvious. However, I think this runs counter to this site being a useful resource for finding games to play.

Even if I accept your premise (the information is always easy to find), which I don't, the answer would be "What is the objection to an accurate label, then?" Surely, if it is so obvious, the label is harmless, yes?

[Hadoryu]

The fact that you can pay for something doesn't mean it can't be free. If you get a free XBox, do you expect to get all the accessories for free as well?

And you seem to be saying that free time is.. worthless. The fact that it doesn't translate directly into money doesn't mean you wouldn't be willing to spend money to make more of it. Some people have more money than time, and some people have more time than money. Why are the ones with more time on their hands supposed to be privileged?

KaVir, you're reducing me to quoting myself at this point. Not a good sign.

-
Define 'fully'. There are features on all online games that I won't immediately have access to. I know I won't get to try out remort races unless I invest a considerable amount of time levelling a character to max. To play an IRE game fully, you need what you have to have for every other MUD out there - a commodity to invest, be it time or money. That cash can be invested in your character by someone else in exchange for your money. Credits aren't free by definition, that doesn't mean you can't get them for things other than money from other players. And if we consider that PvP might not actually be your thing, then things are put into a whole different light.

-

-

Nobody said credits are free. They're perks - you don't need them to play the game and enjoy it. You need them if you want to compete at the highest levels of PvP, which is optional. PvP is actualy very fun at the medium and lower levels too. Even then, I reiterate, you CAN get them in the game. No, they're not free ultimately, but you can get them for IG currency from other players.

Not many players get all skills, because most skills are optional. The base-line is the three guild skills, which means that while they're going to take a while to master, aren't quite worth 3000 dollars. You can infact do pretty well with just one or two guild skills in some guilds.

[Hadoryu]

If you're looking to prove that you can avoid finding the information, then that's probably true. You also learn about it within your first minutes of playing, so there's no danger of a player being kept oblivious of that. What labeling it as pay-for-perks would mean is that there will be players turned away before even knowing the first thing about the game - there seems to be a preconception that you can't get anywhere in a pay-for-perks MUD if you don't pay cash, which is of course false.

The only reason this change is being requested in the first place is precisely to achieve that, it seems. Any player will know what the business model is once they enter the game so there's no reason to try and claim that it's for the good of the players.

[KaVir]

Well, how about "in order to reach 5% or more of your skill potential you need cash invested into your character"?

But the point is that credits are not free. You might win them from time to time, but in order to consistently and repeatedly earn them, they require cash. They are a pay-to-play commodity, and the fact that they can be traded among players doesn't change that fact.

Well if you don't like PvP then you're probably not going to be playing a mud "focusing on...most importantly, PvP and Group vs. Group action" in the first place.

But you need them to be competitive, because over 95% of your skills come from them.

It'd be like playing a 100-level mud which required cash to get past level 5. The mud can still be fun up to level 5, but that doesn't change the fact that you're going to be at a severe disadvantage to the other players if your character doesn't have cash pumped into it.

[Hadoryu]

Then how about "in order to reach 5% or more of your skill potential you need cash invested into your character, but you don't have to invest it yourself as other players are more than happy to do it in return for in-game gold"?

It depends on what light you put it in.

The lessons you can gain by just leveling to lvl 20 are enough to be able to get the skills you need to bash(level, whatever) and to enjoy any other part ofthe MUD outside of PvP. PvP is a selling point, yes, but it's not the only selling point. Even then, practice has shown that you can get enough credits to fully participate in PvP by buying them for IG gold.

Credits aren't required to play - they're a perk.

[Valg]

Are you saying it's for the good of the players to keep them in the dark about the economic realities of the game until they've invested time playing?

Why shouldn't TMS just state it, clearly, up front? I know why IRE doesn't want that (they like their deceptive advertising to be as effective as possible), but why should TMS not provide accurate labeling up front?

[Hadoryu]

A lot of people won't try the game at all, based on preconceptions. I don't think that's a service to the players at all.

As for 'keeping people in the dark with advertising', can you claim to have all non-attractive traits of your MUD in your ad? You're not being 'deceptive', are you?

[Spoke]

I invite you to visit a Carrion Fields , in it you will find a free game that compares itself with the $50 latest game in the computer store shelves to encourage players to pledge money for covering the running costs of the MUD. It also clearly states that for 10 years a convination of IMM and players has contributed to keep the MUD running (by pledging money to a free game they enjoy). There are options to buy game-design RL items and also another to buy character sheets that appear in the MUD forums (a resource widely used by players that I would guess would let you have bragging rights for your success with previous characters).

A more direct quote goes like which is pretty much the reality for any game good enough to have a numerous player base that would not be posibly held in a free server (and probably no game with 10 yrs history has been always on a free server either).

Now, my question is, if it is totally okay for this specific game to claim to be free, 100% free and free to play, yet they do require monetary support from the player base and they do request this monetary support (as per their wording in the above link); why cannot a game that can be effectibly played for free, without money investment on an specific character but that requires someone else (among the player base) to spend money (in this case on themselves) be called free to play?

Would you be willing to accept the idea that both types of MUDs would then fall into the cathegory of "not free" then? what would be a free game with a high quality then? that run by a multi-millionaire who puts all the money by himself, covers bandwidth costs, etc and gets all the job done by himself or via pledged time of IMM staff? If you are willing to accept this then go ahead, label those games described above differently, it wont change anything because all the first page and many beyond will be of either type anyway.

[Anitra]

PinkFloyd @ Jan. 09 2006,01:24
The obvious answer to that is that neither of the games you mention label themselves as 'FREE TO PLAY' in their listing blurbs, like  the IRE games do.

Spoke @ Jan. 09 2006,11:35
The obvious difference there is that you don't get any IN-GAME benefits for donating in Carrion Fields.

Is that really so hard to grasp? It has been pointed out over and over in this thread.

[KaVir]

Carrion Fields: Sells out-of-game things for real-life cash. Exactly 0% of a character's skills, power, etc, comes from real-life cash; the amount you spend has no bearing on your character.

IRE muds: Sells in-game things for real-life cash. Over 95% of a maxed character's skills require the expenditure of real-life cash. Numerous other things are only available with the expenditure of real-life cash.

Is the difference really that hard for you to see?

[Spoke]

I have never argued there is no difference between the two games, in fact, it is obvious that IRE games are comercial while Carrion Fields is not. Now, obvious parts taken aside, let me say this: If starting tomorrow none of Carrion Fields players donated anything (no charity whatsoever), then they would be left with selling their real life products, Carrion Fields themed stuff, and the character sheets (although character sheets could be argued at best borderline RL), so, then Carrion Fields would become a "free-for-costumers-and-friends" game?

If a player can get or not in-game advantage has no bearing on the labeling a game "free to play". That is what you fail to understand, that is what you keep avoiding, that is what you keep ignoring page after page after page. What this discussion was about was about the appropriateness of IRE MUDs labeling their games "free to play", and what I argue (using your own arguments and comparisions) is that they have as much right to label themselves free to play as Carrion Fields does.

So, again, I am not a blind idiot who cannot realize there are differences between the games I compared above, but those differences have no bearing in this subject anyway.

Choosing to attach the "no-in-game-benefits" condition to the word free is an arbitrary decision, and by no means one that has to be adopted by anybody else if they do not want. So, read again, check what the discussion is about, read the arguments and bring forth something new or discuss with arguments rather than with arbitrary definitions made up on the spot, why the points brought up by others are wrong.

[PinkFloyd]

No. I think it has been pointed out numerous times that TMS's purpose has been to act as a traffic exchange site and nothing more. The burden of finding out whether a MUD is commercial or not lies on the customer to find it out and the MUD to make the information easy to access.

The reason the "Credits" link is subdivided into the corporate section of the menu is simple, purchasing credits is part of their corporate department and would most sensibly be displaced there. I mean that makes sense no?

Furthermore, if you are going to grumble that consumers might misunderstand the meaning of "credits", it's in the consumers best interest to click that link and find out what information is stored in there. When you sign a contract to take out a loan, it is in your best interest to read the contract thoroughly, or have someone well-versed in such matters go over it with you and explain its parts. If you just sign on the dotted line without bothering to read the contract, and along the way something happens on your loan that you didn't think would happen, well then guess what it's your fault for not checking the contract out.

The information is easy to find. You even went to the IRE website and found their credits page with ease. Each of the four IRE games had a credits link at the homepage of their website. Threshold RPG and Inferno also list themselves as Pay-Per-Play on the features section of their respective listings on this very site. No one is trying to hide anything.

And again, labeling of MUD's are not necessary because the information is out there! Harmless? I think so, but I would not know how certain MUD administrators would feel about it. But even if it is harmless it doesn't change the fact that it is needless.

[PinkFloyd]

As far as I'm concerned the IRE games are free to play. I can play as much as I want without having to plop a dime on any one of the four games.

[KaVir]

Yes, it does. It's really simple: if there are no costs for the players, then the mud can be legitimately advertised to those players as 'free' - because it is indeed 'free' for those people.

If the game does have costs for the players, then it is not 'free' for players, and shouldn't be advertised as such. The fact that some players can pay for others has no bearing on this - any more than a pub could advertise its beer as 'free' on the basis that some people buy drinks for their friends.

[KaVir]

As long as you don't mind having a character with less than 5% of the skill potential that a paying player has, sure.

Hey, I can play Gemstone IV for free, too! As long as I create a new account every month, that is. Perhaps they should advertise themselves as 'free' too.

[PinkFloyd]

Right. But the game is still free to play, and IRE is not misrepresenting themselves by labeling their games as such. I can play an unlimited amount of time without having to play, which in essence is the meaning of free to play. Remember, they are not labeling themselves as a free MUD, but one that is free to play. There is a difference.

Come on, that is a ridiculous example. In that case why not call all the pay-to-play MUD's free too then? Sure, Threshold RPG is now free because I can create another character after administration freezes my account for non-payment.

[Atyreus]

[Valg]

This is accurate. You can buy all the T-shirts you like, but it doesn't do your character a bit of good. The only thing that has to do with the MUD is it uses the same logo.

It doesn't impact gameplay in the slightest. We're a roleplay-required game, and part of that is is avoiding situations like:

Frick: Where did you get that amazing sword? It's better than anything I've ever seen in this world?
Frack: I... uh... it... uh ... floated down from the heavens above? Did I mention no one can steal it from me?
Frick: You look beefier too. I've been working out all day, and yet you have somehow put on 40 pounds of muscle sitting on the guild couch.
Frack: I .... uh... divine favor? Yeah, divine favor. If you'll excuse me, I just ...uhh... inherited 100,000 gold coins. Yeah, inherited. That's the ticket.

We also pride ourselves on delivering interesting PvP action, and our players like the fact that when they log into Carrion Fields, they play the same game their opponent does. 100% of what your character has, your character earned through skill. Not 5%.

This is a fundamentally different approach to game design. It changes every aspect of competition with other players, as well as the challenge of competition against the game itself. We resent other games stealing the word "free" from it.

And, we advertise it accurately. No perks. Just free. Lots of games are like that. Others aren't. All we're asking is that TMS label everyone accordingly.

[Valg]

In light of that theory, could you explain Adam's decision to exclude Medievia from the ranking list for pressuring their players too aggressively to add traffic to his site? Heck, why have forums at all, if it is a "traffic exchange and nothing more"?

One reason the site can generate traffic is precisely because it is a useful resource. Making it a more useful resource would help traffic. Allowing people to use it deceptively is not good for the long-term health of the site.

I know Matt and Threshold like the "just traffic" theory, and it's how they treat the forums, but it's pretty clear from Adam's posts and the text on this site that he wants it to be a resource to players as well.

[Spoke]

If this is so, then you should agree with me that games like Carrion Fields and dozens of others, where player money is needed for the continuity and survival of the game are not free, and should not be advertise themselves as free. They are as free as a the pub that advertise its beer as 'free' on the basis that some people of those who come in donate enough money when they are requested while they are inside.