[Daedroth]

Just to drag this out a little more, combined with buying credits, and the neocredits theyll gain from just gaining the first few levels, that makes them as powerful as well, MORE powerful than someone who has put in about four of five days worth of play, compared to the two or three hours credit buyers use.

[Hardestadt]

Think about what you're saying.

Do you honestly expect someone who is paying for a perk to be on par with someone who hasn't?

Isn't it a bit silly to expect instant parity between two players when one has paid and the other has not?

The people on this board have a completely different viewpoint to what I have observed amongst those players who don't buy anything on the IRE games. They're generally not jealous, happy to play at their own pace and are a major part of the community. The people who do pay are happy to have them around, because even if it is possible to view them as 'freeloaders' they make a valuable contribution to the game through their very presence.

The attitude has changed through time. 6 years ago 'credit whore' was a phrase you occasionally heard, which has long disappeared from use. 3-4 years ago you might hear 'artie whore' if someone was exceptionally loaded with artifacts and beat someone.

The point is:

People who play and don't buy perks don't expect to be on parity with those who do. They can, and very commonly do achieve the same level of character skill as those who 'buy' their way, and *gasp* they have fun while doing it.

-Nothing- is fair when it comes to a new player joining a mud. If you join a free one, there will be players who have years of practice, maxed out skills and levels, the best equipment and encyclopedic knowledge of the game. On a pay for perks mud, you can catch up to these people quicker if you want to pay for it, but you'll still be lacking in experience and knowledge when it comes down to it.

I seriously don't see why people are trying to place an expectation of fairness on others, when the same lack of fairness occurs on their own realms.

-H

[Valg]

On a pay-for-perks MUD, the existing players will still have every thing you outline above (practice, skills, equipment, know-how).  The difference between that and a subscription or free MUD is that they can also have additional perks which they bought.  The gap is larger, not smaller.

Now, a new player can try to make up that gap by spending more than the average established player has already spent in their entire careers.  However, new players will be more conservative with money, not less.  They don't know what perks to buy, where the best value is, or how to best exploit what they buy.  They'll thusly get less out of each dollar that an experienced player would, meaning they're falling even further behind even if they spend at the same rate as the average player.  Again, the gap is larger, not smaller.

[Blade]

Xorith:

Just curious if you have ever played Threshold? Perfect example of a mud not to play if pay to advance is not you thing. I can't stand it for that reason. It claims to be an rp intense mud when you can't even join a church to rp unless you have given so much money. Gah, its such a long story of why that is a horrible mud for paying for what you recieve.

[Ilkidarios]

You're talking about Threshold RPG, right? Well, I guess there aren't any churches in Threshold Mush so it's kind of a stupid question. At least, I don't THINK there are any churches in Threshold Mush.

[Daedroth]

[Xorith]

[Xorith]

[KaVir]

Well the only real arguments I've heard for the pay-for-perks model is that some people don't have enough free time to fairly compete with those who have lots of time. If that were the real reason people wanted it, then allowing them to pay for faster exp-gain to compensate for unplayed time (like the example I gave earlier in the thread) would give them everything they required.

However there are always people who will do anything to get ahead. Just as some people will abuse bugs to get an advantage, so there are people who are more than happy to buy something that puts them ahead of everyone else, particularly for competitive activities such as PK, and even more so when the player lacks the skill to compete fairly. Once one person does this, it forces other players to do the same or fall behind - at which point the play goes on to buy something else in order to maintain their advantage.

Such a scenario is still boolean though - either you've got the turbo controller, or you haven't. That's more comparible with the "optional pay-to-play" model.

However pay-for-perks is not boolean, and that's what causes a lot of the problems with undermining playing skill. The more you pay, the better you get - rather than the console equivient, it's more like playing one of those arcade games where every coin you stick in the slot gives you a boost; that little fat kid might be a poor player, but if he's got a pocket full of quarters he's eventually going to grind you down. Is that your idea of fun? It's not mine.

[Sinuhe]

[Hardestadt]

[Hardestadt]

Ok, here are a few more:

* You can play for free in a commercial quality realm if you like.
* You can buy a small amount of credits once and gain a significant bonus in skills, and enjoy that bonus into perpituity. The money paid is invested directly into character improvement, instead of the alternative where typically only time spent grinding is applied.
* The system is more lenient to social players, who can quite happily explore, quest, bash, RP and trade without paying a cent.
* If you're broke for a few months, you can quite happily play worry free. This isn't true for a subscription based system.
* Your level of purchase is completely voluntary, starting from $20 on IRE games, and even lower on some others.

It works for a very large number of people.

-H

[Valg]

But above, the_logos (correctly) points out that it is a commonly-used model in the industry.  It's easily defined, and distinct from "Free" and "Flat Fee" services.  It doesn't only target the company you work for-- Materia Magica and other games use similar models, and they have nothing to do with IRE.

Why the resistance to an honest label?  If it's such a freedom to be able to invest cash instead of time, why not advertise it loud and proud?

[the_logos]

Of course that's the way it works. The player who is time-rich but cash poor has to spend the resource he has (time).

[the_logos]

Apparently you seem to be repeatedly misunderstanding this, so let me explain again. In many pay-for-perks MUDs, everything is obtainable, completely for free. I'll repeat that: Everything is obtainable completely for free. The players who don't pay have the opportunity to get -anything- simply by putting in time. Huh. Sounds a lot like most MUDs where time is the major factor, doesn't it?


--matt

[the_logos]

Sure, and that's your right. Other people don't think it's worth the money to get equal with those who bought success with time. The same thing will have different value to different individuals.

--matt

[the_logos]

Nobody. But then, few things on MUDs are actually free. They generally require an expenditure of time, and for many people, time is quite valuable. I'd still be playing City of Heroes if the game let me throw some extra money its way to speed up my progress. My time is worth more than the enjoyment I got progressing at the slow pace I did (due to not being able to play very much).

There is nothing stopping you from making more money, but good luck creating more time.

--matt

[the_logos]

No, the only real argument is that some consumers want it, and thus it is worth providing to them. There's an 800 million+ annual market in virtual item trading, and ALL of the biggest MUDs have it going on extensively. Where do you think that 800+ million comes from? Players. Players who want to be able to buy virtual stuff. That is the justification.

--mat

[the_logos]

I think you missed the point. The point is that it is standard to say a game is free if you can play it for free.

Hardestat doesn't work for us last time I checked.

Because it's a stronger freedom to be able to play for free in a commercial game, which is precisely what players can do in our games.

--matt

[Valg]

Apparently, you seem to be repeatedly misunderstanding me, so I'll explain again:

New player: Enters with nothing.
Free MUD established player: Has edge in practice, skills, equipment, know-how.
Pay-for-perks MUD established player: Has edge in practice, skills, equipment, know-how, and previously invested money.

The pay-for-perks scheme means the new player has to invest an amount of money (equal to that spent by the average established player) to reduce the gap to the same magnitude encountered in a free game.

This remains true even if your MUD has an implicit rate of dollars-to-time conversion, as you claim IRE does. Example, using arbitrary numbers:

Starting conditions:
1) Average player on Free MUD: 100 hours of experience.
2) Average player on Pay-for-Perks MUD: 100 hours of experience, plus $50 invested.

The new player, in order to be "even" on the Pay-For-Perks MUD cannot do so by only spending 100 hours of play. They either have to spend some combination of:

1) 100 hours and $50, or
2) (100 + X) hours, where X is the amount of hours needed to accumulate perks equivalent to what $50 gets you.

You repeatedly point out that the new player can accelerate their development by spending money, but repeatedly ignore that everyone else has access to that same acceleration (and has had that access for longer), which only means that new players are starting behind faster-moving established players.

No matter how you frame it, a game where (experience + money) determines rate of progress is inherently more difficult on newbies.