[DonathinFrye]

I'll make this a long one, even for me, in an effort to openly show that these arguments you support of Matt's are both empty and stilted. I decided to look up the words professional and amateur in the dictionary myself, so that I could make a point that did not involve selective quoting(Matt's favorite weapon of choice)


As you can see, a professional can also be someone who is a 'skilled practitioner' or an expert. This definition does not require them to make profit off of their trade, showing the stiltedness of Matt's using it as an example. (Don't selectively quote that, Matt, wait for my summary point below) Many 100% Free MUDs are ran by "professional staff" - staff that act professionally and with expert MUDing skill.

As you can see, amateur can also have nothing to do with money. Infact, by certain usages of this definition, one could be amateur even if one made a profit off of their trade. One could assume that there are for-profit MUDs out there that are amateur, as some staff either abuse players or break laws.


My point? You cannot use your stilted and selectively quoting analogy to argue with devising objective phrases to put MUDs into for an improving listing at TMS. You cannot compare the above terms to one of the terms I threw out, which was "free-to-play, pay-for-perks". My term is specific and without contradicting meanings to its potential usage on this site.

I've quoted all of the definitions of free that involve payment and money, since that is the phrase we are arguing about. 'Without Charge'.

This one is fairly straightforward also. The relevant definitions to MUDing are bolded, so that we can stay on task.

IRE is, indeed, "No Charge" to "Occupy one's self with recreation" or "take part in the game". IRE is, by definition, "Free-to-Play". So we go on.

Alright, so we seperate the more useful definitions of "to pay" with bolding, leaving the rest there so you can see I am not selectively quoting. Paying appears to(gasp) infer that one often-times gives money in exchange for goods or services.

There we go - a little less commonly used word, but one can see that the only version of 'perk' that my phrase could be used for is the bolded noun above. This word is used to example a real job, and not a game - however, 'incidental benefits' describes the 'perk' we've been using as well, so the definition is still completely valid, and there is not another that contradicts it(as 'professional' and 'amateur' contradict themselves, making them unreliable objective phrases).

So again, it -is- true that IRE is "Free-to-Play", or "No Charge" to "Occupy one's self with recreation" or "take part in the game".

However, now we can also see that IRE games also require that you "give money in exchange for goods and services rendered", where those services are "incidental benefits". They do indeed require that you "Pay-for-Perks". You cannot argue that you can get the same perks without paying, because without a "perk" market, bought by cold hard cash, there would not be ways to barter for it. In reality, ingame bartering for credits is nothing more than selling ingame gold/items for the money that pays IRE for credits. Credits are not renewable or re-usable, so it is really an ooc trade for cash-to-ingame items/gold.

----

Was this message necessary? No. It is extremely long, and rather ridiculous. I hope it goes to show that the words 'professional' and 'amateur' should never be used when comparing MUDs or Admins based on profit-only reasons. It also goes to show that the phrase "Free-to-Play, Pay-for-Perks" is an objective phrase whose goal is to map out specifically what one can expect from an IRE game - you can play for free, but payment must be made to receive some of the ingame perks. Other games that fall into other classifications would likewise need other terms, and I suggested a couple back on Page 9(that only one person responded to, I believe).

Summary: Matt. Continue to try to twist words and skirt around arguments so that you can stay in this thread without admitting that you only care about TMS possibly making this positive change because you are afraid it might affect(on a small level) your incoming player flux. Just be aware that our arguments will continue to remind people here of the topic at hand, and that it is unlikely that anyone not from IRE will come to support your side of the argument.

Which leads me back to asking one more time if Syno would be willing to make a comment on any of this. A multi-thread argument 50some pages long deserves at least a glimpse into the owner's thoughts - preferrably a glimpse that came from him and not an ambitious business-man who shows little concern for the rest of the MUDing Community.

[Almondine War]

Why in the hell is this thread 16 pages long?

I'm a fairly late bloomer in this topic, and I will admit that I didn't exactly read every single word between pages 3-15, however, I am going to add my own opinion none-the-less:

Matt-- if someone keeps asking you a question over and over which would have a simple answer, you could a.) not reply, or b.) provide direction as to WHAT mysterious page your answer appeared on, or c.) answer it again anyway as a curtesy and a show of good faith.

I would think it would be MUCH better to stop nit-picking over the tiniest detail of what these general, every-day words mean. The average MUDer, in -my- opinion, puts about as much effort into contemplating the PRECISE meaning of the word 'free' as he does in the PRECISE molecular structure of his chair at any given moment.

Businesses should worry about their legal obligations on their own turf, and realize that while in an open community, they should go with general public consensus (or, at the very least, do not try to indirectly tote or draw attention to having more power over the community than the average player does, who, of all things, MAKES UP the community).

In this particular instance: go with the generally accepted definition for commonly-used terms/phrases, if anything else for the sake of SIMPLICITY and UNDERSTANDING.

Be, for the moment, the computer illiterate new MUDer looking to find his first game. He goes to a search engine, and looks at his options:

Pay to Play. Instantly, this says, "Oh, I have to have to pay a fee to play the game." He immediately thinks of Everquest as a reference.

Pay for Perks. This one stirs around in his mind a little, but normally, he will come to the quick conclusion that this means, "Oh, I can play for free, but if I want special privileges or cool items, I'll have to pay for them." It really does not get any simpler than that -- those three words are highly descriptive.

Free to Play. "Oh, okay," he thinks, "this one doesn't have any in-game perks for me to buy, and doesn't require me to pay a fee to start playing. Again, self-explainatory."


For me, whenever I've heard of NONCOMMERCIAL games, I think of those games whose servers are paid for out of pocket. The administrators do NOT get any sort of payment for their work and service to the community through their MUD.

Armageddon MUD would be considered NONCOMMERCIAL.

Armageddon's WEBSITE has links to fan merchandise, and this could be considered commercial, but it is not actually affiliated with the MUD.

COMMERCIAL games are those where the servers are self-supported, i.e, there is revenue coming into -the game- from somewhere through players to keep it afloat.

Using this logic, both 'play for perks' and 'pay to play' muds could be considered commercial, even if they are not owned by some great big corporate.


All that said...

I still support the addition of 'pay for perks' and 'free to play/totally free' to the MUD search, and for the list to divided into more categories to ease the one-sided competition among commercial entities and noncommercial ones. Of course, among the commercials, it could be further divided into pay-for-perks or pay-to-play.

MudConnector's SEARCH is, by far, the most powerful among the three great Forums (MudConnector, MudMagic, and TMS) that I use. TMS's is too weak to waste my time on.

[Valg]

I'll add that if preconceived notions are predicted to be problematic, this is largely mitigated by having those phrases linked to more exhaustive definitions. For example, "Pay for Perks" would link to text that explains that it describes optional payments, etc. (This is also why I prefer "May Pay for Perks", as a semantic aside.)

This way, if there's any concern over what is "generally accepted", a player can check it, and it applies uniformly from game to game. As long as you stay at TMS, whenever you see that phrase in a game's bio, you know it means the same thing. That makes the search engine, as you mention, a lot more powerful.

[Atyreus]

Yes. But, then, that was the whole freaking point of Matt's use of those words to begin with.  Reading comprehension seems to have taken a break from this thread.

If "free to play" is such an objective phrase, then why do so many people here seem so intent on devising alternative or more limited meanings for it?

Also, if I understand Matt correctly, the issue isn't the objectivity of "pay-for-perks"; his objection to such a labeling is that it doesn't fully reflect his business model.  And the fact is, whether or not you think that buying credits with in-game money is still pay-for-perks because someone somewhere had to pay for them, a game with such a system is distinctly different from a game in which similar perks can ONLY be purchased with real-world cash.  It's not unreasonable for someone to argue against a system which doesn't draw such a distinction, particularly if they feel it will disadvantage their game.

I think any system worth having would have to go beyond the one you describe.  The biggest problem with any list of categories will be that it will only work until some game comes along that doesn't quite fit into any of the categories or which fits in a way that might be unexpected or unintended by the particular category scheme.

Maybe, if you feel it is really necessary to provide information about a game's business model (or lack thereof), you should consider a field which would allow the mud owners to describe their business model in their own words.  It's not as neat and tidy as a category chosen from a drop-down list, but it would probably be more meaningful and informative for anyone actually interested in knowing such things.

This argument seems to come up about every six to twelve months, but I've yet to see any evidence that there's any signicant number of visitors to this site who are really clamoring for a change.  That doesn't mean I'm opposed to a change; I'm just skeptical that it'd really make much of a difference in the overall scheme of things .

[DonathinFrye]

Atryeus - I understood Matt's point, and am far from illiterate. The point of my post was to show the difference between Matt's loaded and twisted example, and an example that was objective. "Free-to-Play" is objectifiable - I even used extensive and boring dictionary definitions and explanations that a child could understand to show this.

Matt doesn't think "Pay-for-Perks" accurately describes the conditions of IRE, because Matt doesn't think this is the most positive spin on his model that he can put. However, as the definitions show, it IS an accurate example of his model. There are no contradicting definitions.

Admins can describe their business model in the MUD Bio if they wish - let the color-coding/etc be controlled by the owner of the site.

I'd really like to hear some arguments that aren't empty, insulting, and take my -entire- post into account... instead of just selectively quoting and arguing with a single line, just for the sake of being able to argue back at all.

Try a little harder if you want others to take you seriously - nobody seems to be rushing to your side of this argument for a reason.

[Drealoth]

The problem with pay-for-perks is that it sounds like there are things in the game that you can only get with spending real money, which isn't the case.

Pay for accelerated advancement maybe?

[DonathinFrye]

Accelerated Advancement doesn't entail everything that can be bought. I'd be fine using another word besides 'perks' to describe the model, as long as the word was fair and covered all things money-bought on such games.

[Sinuhe]

DonathinFrye @ Jan. 19 2006,04:53
I think that 'pay to advance faster', (or 'pay for Accelerated Advancement ' too for that matter), covers the IRE system pretty adequately.

After all, that is how it comes out for the player. And it's the outcome for the player that matters in a search engine.

Then the category 'pay-for-perks' could be used to describe things that don't directly affect the stats and strength of the player, like for instance fancy titles, or RP weddings, which I think someone mentioned earlier.

Some muds have both forms of course, and would have to tick both boxes.

[Jazuela]

I still think these 17 pages are full of unneccessary arguements over semantics that don't even apply to the issue.

It isn't a matter of whether or not you *must* pay, at one point or another, to do something or get something in-game. It's a matter of whether or not you *can* pay, at one point or another, to do something or get something in-game.

When paying real-life money for something in-game becomes an option, OR a requirement, then that game ceases to be free. As soon as ONE person spends money for something in-game, it ceases to be free for that ONE person. And therefore, the term "free" no longer applies to the game.

If Synozeer wishes to distinguish better for the benefit of his websites search functionality, there really only needs to be two categories regarding free/payment:

Commercial, and non-commercial.

Commercial covers payment required, payment optional for extra stuff, subscription required, one time fee after 30 day trial, anything that involves a player bringing revenue to the game in exchange for in-game benefits of any sort whatsoever, whether required or optional, whether it means buying a bunch of credits or buying a "Gaming subscription" (like Skotos) so you can continue playing the game you WERE playing for free.

Non-commercial means they do not exchange real money from a player for any in-game benefits (including access to the game in the first place) in any way, shape, or form, whether optional or required. They do not accept money for it, period.

Again - it's not "must pay" vs. "don't have to pay." It's "can OR must pay" vs. "pay not accepted."

[The_Disciple]

I think it's reasonable to also draw a line here, between a game like Achaea where money can accelerate your advancement but can't get you anything a penniless player couldn't eventually somehow get, and a game like Medievia where there are game-mechanics edges that can only be purchased with money.

The first type of game, I think, can legitimately appeal to a variety of people. I can't imagine the second type appealing to anyone who understands it.*

I think it's fair to create categories that allow the first type of games to differentiate themselves from the second, and a third type of game where you pay a fee to play but then further money doesn't help you to differentiate themselves from either.

*On the basis of commercial style or business model alone, versus alternate business models.

[Shao_Long]

To be honest, I find any type of "pay for perk" games - games where you don't HAVE to pay for the game itself, but get 'bonuses' for doing so - are much less honest and fair than both games that are entirely free as per Jazueala's definition, and games that require subscriptions or one-time payments.

Personally I simply dislike the very concept of a game where anyone with no skill or effort whatsoever can get same things that take me hours and days, possibly months, of mastering the game. I find it simply unfair, and I would never even consider playing a game where selling of in-game items for real cash occurs more or less frequently; I am sure I am not the only person who feels this way.

Things become even worse on MUDs like IRE games are, where you are told that the game is entirely free to play and real life money isn't involved, and then you find out that a lot of players don't even 'play' the game to acquire their in-game 'wealth' or whatever... Also the arguement of tradeable credits that are purchaced with real life cash... well, that's stupid. If there was a game where some items were buyable ONLY with real life cash, surely the players would still trade such items around for other things, I don't see why wouldn't they. So, there really isn't much of a difference between either systems.

So yeah. I don't know if I like the idea of putting pay-to-play and "pay-to-advance" MUDs in the same category, but I'm sure it's wrong to put free and "pay-to-advance" MUDs together.

[DonathinFrye]

Disciple - I'm not sure I agree. There is a limit to howmany skills you can train in IRE games. Credits do more than just accelerate your advancement in the game - Credits also increase your maximum skill levels beyond what they'd normally be capable of becoming. This is mechanic enhancing, and while you could barter in-game items for cash-bought-credits, the same thing could be done on Midievia, or any other commercial game. The fact that perks are being bought with cash, and that without any cash there would be little-to-no market for perks shows that the models are nearly identical with minor semantic differences.

I'm not trying to bring down the pay-for-perks system... I just think it should be categorized for what it is. "Pay-to-Play & Pay-for-Perks" or "Free-to-Play, but may Pay-for-Perks" depending on the game. Either way, it would better the quality of this website to plainly show users which games follow which formats, so that they may make more educated decisions on how to use their time while searching for new MUDs.

Players deserve that, I think.

[Atyreus]

You used dictionary definitions to argue for particular meanings of "free to play" and "pay for perks"  that are already agreed upon, but which for your argument with Matt are beside the point. It is possible for both statements to be true: that IRE games use a "pay for perk" model and that the statement "pay for perks" does not fully and adequately describe the model that IRE uses.

Just as "amateur" does not put the most positive spin on muds run as hobbies. The term "amateur" is objectionable because, in addition to the meaning intended by its use in such a case ("one who engages in a pursuit as a pasttime rather than as a profession") there are the connotations of the broader sense of the word ("one lacking in experience and competence in an art or science"). "Pay-for-perks" in this case is also objectionable, not because of any associated negative connotations of the term itself, but because of its association with business models that might be significantly different from IRE's.

It is fair to claim a distinction between a model like IRE's which allows someone to pay for in-game benefits, but which also provides the means to acquire those benefits without payment, and a game such as Threshold which has a number of in-game features and perks that are only available to people who pay for them. If the point of a system of categorization for business models is to assist players who are looking for muds to play, then I think you would want a system that depicted business models as accurately as possible.

Except that when it comes to language, context is everything.  In the context of this argument the issue is not a broader (and largely agreed upon) definition of "pay-for-perks" but the accuracy of using that phrase to describe a model that can be distinguished from other models which also fall within the definition of "pay-for-perks." You did not provide an accurate example of IRE's model. You provided an example of which that model would be a subset. I think at the very least, we'd need a system of categories that would distinguish between relative subsets (Sinuhe's suggestion seemed to move closer towards such an end). Certain relevant distinctions within the pay-for-perks set could include: (1) Can perks be obtained via in-game means without payment or are they only purchasable with real world cash? (2) Do perks effect advancement and/or competitiveness or are they merely cosmetic? (3) Are perk payments used to support a commercial venture or are they simply rewards for donations for server upkeep or game maintenance?

[The_Disciple]

There is some, actually. There are games where you can buy game-mechanics-advantage things with RL cash that are non-transferrable. I've been told that Medievia, for example is this way -- you pay $X and get a medallion that you can't lose or transfer that gives you 1000 extra hit points or whatever. If you will not buy it with your RL cash, you will always be 1000 hit points (or whatever) behind the pack in PvP. It's like extra credit assignments in a class that's graded on a curve -- it becomes the standard and ceases to be optional for people who want to compete.

I don't think games where you can bypass a time investment by dropping a bunch of money should be categorized with the free games or the flat fee only play games, but neither do I think it's entirely fair to lump a game where you *could* theoretically get/see/do everything in the game by means other than personally paying money (even if it takes those people way ridiculously longer) in with a game where you absolutely must pay to be PvP competitive.

If you're extremely cash-poor and want to be a top PvPer on Achaea, as I understand it, you've got some options even if they're not great ones. On Medievia you don't have those options at all.

[the_logos]

It's not on a mysterious page. It's only on a mysterious page to those who participate in the discussion without bothering to read the thread first.

From page 4:


I also have a problem with labeling just as "pay-for-perks" unless it includes more detail. For instance, to more completely (but still not completely) describe our revenue model, I believe the following information would need to be included:
1. Free to play.
2. Option of paying to gain in-game things.
3. All things that may be paid for may be instead obtained via either skill, luck, or greater time investment.

I have no problem to categorizing ourselves as the above. That's what we are. If that selection of options were available in the database, I'm totally fine with that. I'm not fine, regardless, with being asked to market any specific feature of our game on the front page, as I don't believe that the option of pay-for-perks is proveable, at all, as being more important to players than a host of other options (such as the level of customer service, whether it's a PK mud, whether it's an RP enforced mud, etc etc etc)




Couldn't agree more. The FTC agrees with us. Common practice agrees with us (as illustrated by Google's acceptance of free as we use it). Makes me wonder why other people insist on nitpicking.

Totally agree. That's why I support our use of the word free. It is the commonly used meaning, as supported, again, by the body in charge of regulating commerce (and this is, after all, a commercial site) in the United States.

You're telling me Armaggedon's website isn't affiliated with Armaggedon the MUD? That's absurd. Of course it's affiliated with the MUD. It is the official website of the MUD.

--matt

[prof1515]

Now who's nitpicking? You know full well what they meant by "not actually affiliated" even if their choice of words wasn't a good one.

Armageddon's website may link to fan merchandise, but none of this merchandise relates to the game itself, ie. no matter how many t-shirts you buy, you're not going to become a better warrior or improve you skill at basket-making. That's in sharp contrast to Viagra MUDs, where the exact opposite is true. Credits are an integral, and for the most part essential, part of success in the game. The difference isn't nitpicking.

Take care,

Jason

[DonathinFrye]

You're wrong - did you read my definition post? (I don't blame you if you skipped some of, it was crazy long). Amateur and Professional have relevant definitions that state that the words both revolve around whether or not one gets paid for his work - Amateur and Professional ALSO have relevant definitions that state that the words both revolve around either being skilled or unskilled. They two definitions conflict with each other. This makes both of those terms subjective and not specific when used as an example.

The definitions of 'free', 'play', 'pay', and 'perks' were shown in my previous post to not contradict their own definitions, therefy making them objective and more specific. This makes them better terms to use.

Matt - I'm not against specifying the termanology even more - though I would like to try to come up with a mutually agreeable phrase for some of the more difficult to explain models. "Free-to-Play, Optional-to-Pay-for-Perks" or something of the like works fine in my mind; especially if each item in the coloring keycode had a link that sent you to TMS' definition of such a game. If people want to brainstorm and find mutually agreeable terms to come up, I wouldn't be against that, as long as it was for specifying the models for the players objectively.

The point is that it would better for all players if they had more extensive knowledge at their disposal. I've still yet to understand how anyone would be against this basic idea - I'd expected more arguments on the best way to implement it when this thread first started, and fewer arguments on why MUDs shouldn't have to give their models.

[Threshold]

I am just curious. What "skill" is involved in pressing the "kill monster" button thousands of times per day, 8, 10, 12, or more hours per day, 7 days a week?

Honestly, the degree to which people think "monumental time investment in a tedious, repetitive behavior = skill" always confuses me.

But perhaps that is another issue.

[Valg]

There isn't any, and it's probably not worth playing games where that is the case. Nor is it worth playing games where it's simply the player spends the most that wins. I avoid either of those types like the plague.

Any business model can be badly implemented. Please put the straw man down and return to the topic at hand.

[Atyreus]

But this brings us back to context.  I'm not questioning your definition of "free to play" (I've been pretty much the same definition all along) or "pay for perks."  But, as I said in my previous post, your definition of "pay for perks" can be spot on and can be applicable to IRE's games, among others, but still be a less than optimal way to categorize such games.  Stripped from the context of the current argument, your definitions are fine, but in the context of the current argument, they completely dance around the particular objection that was raised against simply using the phrase "pay for perks" without any further elaboration. My point was not that your definition is wrong or self-contradictory, but that it is not accurate enough for the purposes of providing players with useful information about what costs might be associated with any particular games and not helpful to game owners who understandably want to provide information about their games that is as accurate as possible.