[Valg]

1) Hardestadt has previously identified himself as CTO for a Rapture-based MUD, which is a license proprietary to IRE. I don't have your org chart or anything, but he seems like at least a business partner to IRE. Such a connection means a vested interest in defending the Pay-for-Perks model. You can nitpick technicalities, but he's not Joe Citizen either. (Nor am I, but I clearly identify my ties in my sig.)

2) In this thread, you're claiming that Pay-for-Perks is superior to a free or subscription system, precisely because it allows a player a way to accelerate their in-game development without spending time playing the game. More options, therefore more enjoyment. My question stands: If Pay-for-Perks is such a superior model, why denote IRE's MUDs as "free", instead of loudly trumpeting them as "Pay-for-Perks"?

[the_logos]

Naah, it's only inherently more difficult on newbies who don't want to spend money. And I'm completely fine with that.

--matt

[Xorith]

[the_logos]

Uh, ok, I guess if I buy/license (actually license, since you don't really buy software) MS Word I'm an employee of Microsoft? That's pretty odd thinking.... Rapture is a piece of software. That's it. Further, Rapture has nothing to do with "pay for perks" or whatever you want to call it any more than C++ has to do with subscriptions in a C++ coded subscription MUD.

Is it so hard to understand that not everybody thinks there is only one right way to do things? Pay-for-perks is superior for some players. Subscriptions are superior for some players. Non-commercial is superior for some players. PK is superior to non-PK for some players. No RP is superior to RP for some players.I don't believe in 'superior' for something as qualitative as a game when applied universally. I believe there is only "superior in person X's view", and person X's view may differ widely from person Y's view.

--matt

[Valg]

I happen to agree. I'm just curious why you don't label your Pay-for-Perks games as such, given how different they are from free ones. As you've stated above, the learning curve is significantly steeper (compared to the free model) for newbies unless they want to spend money. Shouldn't they be aware from the start that it's part of the equation?

[Xorith]

I wanted to quote this, because this is exactly where I disagree.

The major reason I don't go "MUD-hunting" anymore is because I hate being a newbie. No matter what game you go to, unless it's a brand-new one, there are people in the game with an advantage over you. That's the whole point of being a "newbie".

It takes hard work, time, and effort, to get your character up in level and skill. As long as a pay-for-perk system doesn't make the former obsolete, then your argument doesn't have much weight.

I could walk into any free MUD and say the same thing, except replace the $50, with 50 days of play time. If I actually had money to blow on MUDs, no doubt I'd be in a pay for perk, paying for my perks, because I spend so much time outside of MUDs doing things like college, or writing scripts and applications for profit, or even for free.

[the_logos]

Because in the minds of most newbies, 'free' as in 'I'm not going to get kicked out for not paying' is the operative word. Our games are free in every way. It's no different from saying "This apple is free. It's at the end of the block. Go get it. I'd be willing to get it for you from the end of the block for $1 though."

And I didn't say the learning curve is significantly steeper. The learning curve is exactly the same. We don't sell 'knowledge.' A newbie not willing to spend money will just have to spend more time playing the game if he wants to have exactly the same set of skills and items that someone who spent $500 has. Such is life.

--matt

[Xorith]

[Valg]

The difference is that on the pay-for-perks, you're spending the $50 just to keep up with the Joneses- they've been there for a long time, and bear all the fruits of their previously spent money. In order to be "ahead of the pace", you need to outspend all of the money the median player has ever spent on their character.

The model creates an illusion of progress- you spend $50, and your character develops more rapidly than it would if you spent $0. However, you aren't developing any faster than the other players who spent $50. If spending $50 is common, you effectively get nothing besides the ability to play without a handicap. The arms-race mentality drives both competition and profits.

It's also untrue that total time invested is the only variable in catching up on a free game. All mortal characters in Carrion Fields age, and eventually die to old age or violence. (This is true of many games, most notably RPIs, or various business models. I'm not claiming novelty here.) The most veteran players eventually begin anew, without the accumulated skills, equipment, roleplay rewards, or reputation of their previous character. While they have a significant edge in know-how, this is true of all established games. It's still unquestionably better as a new player than a game where you have to compete against veterans who have that edge in know-how and equipment and skills and previously invested RL dollars.

[the_logos]

No it's not. It's better for a certain type of new player, ie those not willing or able to spend money. For those able and willing to spend money, it is not better. I am one of the latter. I won't even play MUDs/MMOs for very long if I can't buy my way out of at least some of the required time investment without breaking the EULA or TOS.

You're also making the assumption that these types of games are inherently competitive for all players. They're not. I know if all I'm interested in is leveling, I don't have to care at all what pace other players are advancing at (especially as I tend to solo, due to time restrictions). What do I care if they have bought their equipment with money and I bought mine with time, or vice-versa? It's the same thing from my point of view. Either way they have the thing and either way it's completely irrelevant to my playing experience.

--matt

[Daedroth]

Lets just say this, no matter how long this goes on, IRE is still a commercial business. Which means that the_logos and his people at IRE are out to get as much money as they can from as many players as they can. Do you think theyd actually want to tell people that their mud is almost futile to play unless you either have as much time as the laziest person in the world or start handing over cash? You tell me...

[Hardestadt]

We have a new Queen of conspiracies! Molly has abdicated her throne, and now we have an heir! Hail Queen Daedroth!

Heh.

If you think that is what corporations are about then I pity you, your world must be a very scary and paranoid one. When you grow up and get a job(hopefully) you'll learn that companies aren't evil by nature, I expect.

Thats not to say there aren't evil companies out there, hehe.

-H

[Hardestadt]

[Hardestadt]

Only if you compare raw newbies only to the very best players/characters in the game. Ultimately, in an established game newbies will never do well against them.

Have you ever tried playing within the model, Valg? No offence, but your arguments make it seem that you have no experience with it, or you're trying your hardest to make it look bad.

-H

[Valg]

Actually, I'm comparing newbies to the average player, which is the whole point. The argument becomes much stronger if you start thinking about how far behind the "top end" players a newbie is in a pay-for-perks system. My point is that they're extra-far-behind the median player, relative to a subscription or free system.

I looked into playing games of that kind (both as a prospective player and as an administrator seeing what ideas were out there), but ultimately the uneven nature of the playing field kept me from spending a dime, and I found a superior product for my tastes that was both free and fair. I think I understand the nature of the business model very well from browsing the discussion boards of games where it is used.

Ultimately, I'm more concerned with what I see as mislabeling, which you touch on in your other post. If the pay-for-perks games labeled themselves accurately, I could really give a crap what business model they used.

[Aeyr]

Funny, this is exactly why I don't play WoW. I don't have the extra time needed to come anywhere close to the median players. Let alone the "top end" ones. (Assuming I actually liked WoW that is. I find it pretty boring.)

Also, thought I'd point out this from your earlier post:
Established 'free' mud player: eq/skills/knowhow/etc + >>> TIME INVESTED <<<
Established 'perk' mud player: eq/skills/knowhow/etc + perks bought

You leave out the key part to the whole argument. Time IS money, man. It just is. You can argue about the relative values of them, but the equivalence is still there.

Now, you're going to say "but what about the person who has both time and money?" Heh, well, I'd say the number of people who are independently wealthy in this world is pretty few. Thankfully too, since they can make life feel pretty unfair sometimes, to say nothing of any game they may choose to play.

[the_logos]

Carrion Fields advertises itself as having "16 balanced classes." I don't buy that for a second. I've never, ever seen a game of any sort that had 16 balanced classes unless they were all just the same class. And balanced for what? Balanced for combat? Balanced for sneaking? Balanced for earning money? What you view as balanced another person may very legitimately not view as balanced. Do you explain any of that instead of just saying 'balanced?' No. Why? Because it'd be silly to. Balanced is a more powerful way of labeling your game than saying "We have 16 classes that are kind of balanced if you're talking about 1 vs 1 combat, but not so balanced in 3 vs 3, and not at all balanced in terms of ability to sneak."

Now I don't actually see any legitimate argument as to how a service that is provided 100% for free isn't free, but my point is, again, that the world is full of different views and different viewpoints. If you want to look at a service that can be played forever for free and say it's not free, that's fine, but you need to accept that this is your viewpoint and that your viewpoint is contrary to how an ordinary person views the word 'free.' What you seem to want to be saying is that our games are not "equally accessible to those who don't pay and those who do pay." I agree on that. Those who don't pay are going to have to spend a lot more time to get the same stuff. But what the heck does being able to be competitive have to do with free? We've never said, "Play the same amount of hours as anyone who has spent real money and you'll be just as powerful." We've said that our games are free, and they are. Go play them. You'll never be charged for playing them. You'll have access to absolutely every single thing in the game, for free, forever. That's free.

Anyway, if you're looking to distinguish your version of free from our version of free, there's nothing stopping you. Pick a new term to use to describe YOUR game, but we're not going to change the way we do things just because you object.

--matt

[the_logos]

I really don't mean any offence by this, but no, you don't understand it very well. You wouldn't have used the chess tournament analogy where the only way to get bishops was to spend $20.

--matt

[KaVir]

And the point Valg is making is that if you could buy your way up, so could they. The median player would be even further ahead of you (while others who invested more money that you would overtake you).

For some people, time is money. But we're talking about muds where money replaces skill, and that's a different thing entirely. I enjoy pitting my skills against other players, but not against their wallets.

[KaVir]

For many pay-for-perks muds his example is pretty much dead-on - in such muds the only way to earn the top equipment is by spending money.