[DonathinFrye]

IRE states that it is completely free to play, and that we(the players) should only pay them if we think they deserve it. It does not say there, on the website, that we should pay them if we want any chance of being competitive with people who dish out real-life money for in-game perks.

It's misleading advertising, and it's different than trying to put a positive spin on a small playerbase; the difference is that your misleading advertising can cost players money, whereas other misleading advertising will only cost them a bit of time/disappointment if the MUD isn't as good as they'd hoped it would be.

Simultronics has created a solid set of MUDs that prey on the most addicted of the MUDing population. No game is worth paying 80 dollars a month for, or paying real life money just to be able to participate in realm-wide quests, or to have in-game weddings. NO game is worth that, and just because some sad players are conned into paying that does not change the fact that it is highway robbery, at best. It is one step up from drug-dealing to suburban rich kids who get hooked on the juice and have the money to sustain their habit.

Your defense of Simultronics, as well as your other weak arguments set forth recently, only go to show that you only care about making money - and that you judge success in an online MUDing community based on howmuch profit you are turning, or howmany players are sucked in.

Good for you - feel great about yourself. Most of us would venture to say that your ethics are questionable, and that your heart is in the wrong place compared to most of us in this online community of text-based Multi-User-Dungeons - games that are born from British Legends/MUD, as compared to games that are born from Ultima: Online/etc. They are seperate genres, and your callous, self-serving attitude does not mesh well with many people here, as I'm sure you can tell.

Again, your defense of Simultronics is classic. They are internet thieves - and it is not that I say this from lack of experience. I played their games when they were free, they were among the first MUDs I played, 13 years ago. They are internet con-artists now. IRE might not be as bad as them, but based on what Matt says, I doubt it is from lack of trying. :-p

[KaVir]

It's a professionally run pay-to-play game that advertises itself as such, and personally I have no problem with that. If people want to pay for it, that's up to them.

I don't have a problem with the pay-for-perks model either, although it's not something I would play myself. Some players even prefer this approach, and I see absolutely no reason why there shouldn't be muds that cater to such players.

However I do feel that players should be able to see this sort of information up front, rather than being told that the mud is 'free' and then only discovering later that it's actually pay-for-perks. Equally, I feel that those players who prefer the pay-for-perks model should also be able to view that information up front.

[Zhiroc]

First of all, I don't mind subscribing to games. I do it for MMORPGs (and btw I think when you use that term nowadays, everyone will assume you are talking about a graphical MMOG), and I'd do it for text games as well.

I played Aetolia for a little while, and while I decided it wasn't my kind of game, I have nothing against it, or IRE.

The thing I don't like about Aetolia being called free or even pay-for-perks is that it is much more than that. In Aetolia, in addition to levels that you can gain by playing for free, you really also need to gain your skills. You do that by getting lessons, which are either 10 per level, or 6 per bought credit.

Now with 100 levels, you will therefore get 1000 lessons. But it takes 1700+ lessons to max out a single skill category, and you have 3 guild sets plus other general ones. If you never buy a credit, you would be the most gimped level 100 in the game. Actually, to bash the MOBs you'd need to, I doubt you could do that without buying the credits to max out your skills.

So that's why I'd classify this really as pay-to-effectively-play.

If I'm wrong about any of that, please correct me.

[Atyreus]

No, I see the point.  It doesn't change the fact that I'd still be playing for free.  The fact that this is possible because of a business model that allows my play to be essentially sponsored by someone else doesn't change that fact.  In the days before cable TV, all my neighbors and I had no trouble thinking of TV as "free" even though network advertisers were covering what would otherwise have been our costs.

I am not familiar with Gemstone's or Avalon's business models.  However, as I recall, Threshold requires you to pay at least a one-time $50 fee to play (and then you can pay more for extras).  So, no, I wouldn't consider Threshold free to play, I'd consider it to be a $50 game.

A more appropriate analogy would be a pub that advertised "free beer" and when you got there you could drink tap Budweiser for free, but if you wanted Guiness or maybe some food you'd either have to pay for it or get someone else to buy it for you.  You're still getting free beer, and most people walking into that situation aren't going to be saying, "What a rip!!! No one told me I'd have to pay for the sandwiches and good beer!!!"  They know the free beer is a draw to get them into a commercial establishment.

They might want to, and with very little effort they will.  I'm not a player on any of IRE's games, but I have checked them out in the past.  It only took a brief perusal of the website for Achaea to figure out that it was a pay-for-perk system.  I also recall that you can't get through the tutorial without becoming aware of at least some of the uses of credits, from which I think anyone can conclude that Achaea is a game where people who spend money are going to get something in return for that money.  The small amount of time they'd have spent up to that point is hardly going to cloud their judgement about whether that sort of system is something they'd be interested in playing or competing in.

I don't have a problem with muds providing more detail on the information page than just whether or not they are pay-to-play.  I wouldn't complain if a system like the one you suggested in were put in place.  I'm just questioning the suggestion made by some here that a mud which is free to play is being less than honest when it advertises itself as "free to play." Most of these arguments seem to rest on the assumption that visitors to this site are complete dupes with highly addictive personalities who will only find out that a game has purchaseable benefits after they are so far taken in that they will find themselves unable to resist paying for said benefits without suffering from withdrawals and severe emotional distress.

[Atyreus]

A game, like any other service, is worth precisely what the people who pay for it think it is worth.  Welcome to life with capitalism.

I wouldn't pay $80 a month for a mud.  I also wouldn't pay $80,000 for a car.  But that doesn't mean that someone who would is somehow deficient or a victim of con artists.  It just means that, for him, the car is actually worth $80,000.

How many steps up is it from throwing kittens out of the window of a moving car?

[DonathinFrye]

Oh, you know - five or six.

[the_logos]

What you mean to say, or rather, the truth of the matter, is that no game is worth that to -you-. How about you stop trying to tell the rest of the world what's worth playing and let them decide for themselves? Are you threatened by people enjoying something or valuing something differently than you? I mean, are you so threatened that you have to resort to saying that people who value things differently than you must be effectively drug addicts, because they couldn't possibly rationally want anything but what you want.

Give me a break. By the way, it's SIMUTRONICS, not "Simultronics."

Jealous much?

It's good to know that your attitude will prevent you from ever being taken seriously.

--matt

[the_logos]

The #2 ranked player in Aetolia currently has never bought a thing with real money. He's level 100, has 7 maxed out skills, and one more that is a hair away from being maxed out.

The other IRE games have similar examples. If you don't want to pay real money, you just have to commit more time to the game. It's a simple time-money trade-off, and it's one that allows you to play for free, forever, as the #2 ranked player on Aetolia has, for instance.

--matt

[the_logos]

I'm guessing you laughed because the idea of doing something based on principle is foreign to you and that the idea that someone might require a fairly high standard for proof of wrongdoing before condemning someone else is equally alien.

But no, you'd rather fixate on the person (Soleil) than the principle and condemn them based on the fact that you don't like them. I don't like Vyrce. He's a dick. That's got nothing to do with the positions I take though, as personality doesn't (or at least shouldn't) matter in judgements of right and wrong.

I really respect Adam, for instance, for ignoring the pitchfork & torch masses who whined up a storm when Medievia was permitted back onto the voting list. Adam rightfully decided that it wasn't his job to decide whether Medievia was violating the DIKU license provisions or not: It's a court's job. Once they admitted to violating HIS rules though and refused to change their ways, he kicked them off as he should have. There was no doubt they were in the wrong, and Adam is the arbiter of the rules. Whether they are violating the DIKU license or not is between the DIKU licenseholders and Medievia, with the courts as the arbiter, as that is where civil disputes are settled.

If you want to laugh at what is an entirely reasonable and real-world (rather than the high-strung, overly sensitive world that a few forum users seem to live in) approach to this kind of thing, that's fine with me.

--matt

[DonathinFrye]

I'm not jealous of SimUtronics' success. I even think they have a good product, if too generalized and mob-bashing oriented for my person tastes. I simply think that charging 80 dollars a month, plus additional costs, to be competitive in an online game is extremely over-priced. Yes, people are willing to pay it, obviously - that does not mean, however, that it's anything but overpriced, and sickingly so in my opinion. And probably most of the other people here.

Why should I not be taken seriously? I've achieved a lot, am very resourceful, and offer a community-oriented viewpoint. You are merely over-defensive, not realizing that your defenses of your point of view only make you look more like Vryce, and less like other administration.

I do not like Vryce's MUD or ethics more than anyone else around here. However, I don't consider you much higher up than him - and if you want to ridiculously accuse me of being jealous of money some admins havemade, I'd say you're silly. If I wanted to focus on purely capitalistic gain, it really would not be very difficult. I don't want to, though, however.

[the_logos]

If someone is willing to pay for it, it's not overpriced. It's worth it to that person at that time, ipso facto.

You won't be taken seriously if you insist on insulting gamers who play games you don't like or who value things you don't like based on nothing more than, "Well, I don't like it."

--matt

[Daedroth]

Well, Logos... I am sooo close to falling into the trap that he just mentioned. So I know that he is right. Im addicted to imperian, but it takes so long to get up to a credit buyers level. A very long time, being years. Its just all too easy to throw 70, or 105 dollars in, just to be able to experience everything thats being dangled in front of you..

There is a person whos rich in rl, in imperian right now that bought so many credits that shes got artifacts up the wazoo, (increase stats, which is impossible in any other way besides certain skills, and do other things) she's got all her skillsets completely mastered, shes got the ability to do almost anything she wants. Heres the clincher, shes still on probation in her guild... just out of novicehood, in other words.

[the_logos]

[Spoke]

[rant]

I do not think this is actually true. It seems to me that most of the people discontent with the wording of the definition of the MUDs listed on TMS are game admins who are probably looking for a way to use to their advantage the words free to play while other MUDs they do not believe should yield the title should be prevented from doing so.

Pretending this thread comes on and on month after month because all the people posting are so altruistic and worry so much about the defenseless players, internet-junkies-know-nothing who are going to be ripped off by the big companies, is delirious.

On other note, comparing a pay-per-perks model with the restaurant that is free if your friend pays your bill is the sorriest excuse for an attempt to defend an idea. The two situations not only are not comparable, but the argument itself revolves about the twisting beyond imagination of the meaning of the word free, just to suit the persons need for a stupid-looking example.

Free to play seems to be an accurate description of a model in which you can play for free, not only that, but players from these MUDs are actually able to remain competitive even if they do not spend money, though, of course, they need to put on more time and learn tricks and the game in more depth (which by itself is an advantage for they at least know how to use what they have earned).

100% Free is a good way to describe a game for which everything can be obtained for free, although you are failing to mention that the game admin is paying real-hard cash to keep the game running, but you do not need that information in the front page, because what matters is that it is 100% free, nobody on earth has to pay a penny to anybody.

[/rant]

[Spoke]

[rant]
I have tried a couple of RP and RPI MUDs in the past, I have tried a couple of MUDs about Dragon Ball GT/Z and whatnot, a Shadowrun one, a couple of IRE games and then another 2 besides the one I currently play. None of the above really seemed to be what I really wanted, actually, of the list, the ones I enjoyed the least were the RPI ones.

I remember playing for half and hour a day before frustration crept in, for a whole week, sitting in a "dark cell" in which I could see everything up to the smallest detail, just to be allowed out and be caught by the next guardian or whatever name was after being released.

Now, this clearly, is not your case, as you have previously stated that there is high quality in text-MUDs mainly because of those things that cannot be offered in Graphical games, such as role playing and deep player-player interactions; does this mean I am not part of the MUD community? does this mean that having been coder of a MUD, IMM on a couple, and player of MUDs for 9 years are not enough reasons to be able to qualify into your select community?

Seriously, drop the I am the community banner and try to defend your viewpoints without the use of the majority of the people or other twisted wording like the ones you frequently use to give more weight to your statements. The truth is, H&S games are much simpler, have a smoother learning curve, usually do not require prolonged on-line hours to be enjoyed, and the interaction with other players is semi-optional in many cases. This is why it pleases many people, many more than the niche community that is pleased by more complex, detail-rich games. Neither of the two groups is the community, both and others are part of the MUD community, and pretending to be voicing the opinion of the majority while bashing the games that include the greatest number of players among those listed in this site is not only silly but unrealistic.

[/rant]

[Lanthum]

Actually - YOU are comparing the advertising techniques of Text-based games and graphical games (and he is just responding to what you are saying).   You aren't really comparing the actual games.

Either way, Both text-based and graphical places:
Are still games.
Are in the entertainment sector.
(In general) Have the same qualities (though they often draw to different customers or the same customer at different times).

Your argument structure - that Text-based games can't use certain words (IE: free) that the graphical games do - is ridiculous.  Many companies from many different markets inside the same sector always use similar words.  It's no different with any other consumer product.

And why is it the companies fault if the consumer doesn't do the research into the product before they try it (and become helplessly hooked such that they can't stop using it ...)?  If I were one of those players you so freely cut down, I wouldn't stand for you saying that I wasn't intelligent because I was "addicted" to a game and couldn't help myself.  And I would loath being told by you that I was stupid and didn't do my own research and find out what a game is all about before becoming addicted to it.


You know Donathin Frye ... I agree with Matt on this.  You keep snubbing your nose, thumping your chest, and condescendingly TELLING everyone who is in the commerical section of Text-based games to stop and go join the graphical section ... because text-based games shouldn't be commerical, etc. etc. (I just had to count and I stopped when I counted 4 times in this thread alone ... who knows if there are more)  Like you are an expert on the matter and somehow have the right to tell people your opinion?

Rather ironic that after restating multiple times of your high-and-mighty opinion, that you tell everyone that you are working on a commercial game.  Though I do like how this last time you said it, you put the little caveat in about your loyalties ... so that you could seem better than all the rest.  I guess we should be telling you to leave and go join EverQuest.

The truth is you only have an idea of where the loyalties of the other admins fall, commercial and not.  And it's only your opinion.  Just like the rest of us - we base our opinion on our experience.  It's too bad that with this, as well as the dual list, you see the need to project and force your opinion on others.

[Zhiroc]

I was wondering about how you could do that, and I finally remembered that there is an in-game market of credits for gold. So yeah, I guess you could grind out what you need by generating gold.

Looking at the credit market it looks like there are a little over 400 available to be sold, at an average price of about 2600 gold per credit. That means it takes about 3/4 of a million gold to buy yourself a maxed skill. It also means that there are not enough credits on the market to max 2 skill areas.

And the ingenious thing about it is that the game gets the cash either way. All advancement past 1000 lessons requires someone to have paid real money... OK, maybe a player can "play for free" by grinding out the gold. But, this only happens because someone actually forked over the cash, and wants to generate gold with it.

It takes about 295 credits to max a skill, which is somewhere around $90 in credits. That's about 6-7 months or more of playing a commercial MMORPG. This amazed me once I figured it out. I was about to spend about the same amount as I would for the commercial MMORPG.

And the last thing I have to say about this is that none of this is spelled out. You have to put it all together yourself from how the mechanics work.

Sorry, but even though I did somewhat like Aetolia, it just sounds... sneaky.

[KaVir]

But it can't - you might be able to obtain it for free, but only by getting another player to pay for you. And if you consider that 100% free, we might as well remove the "pay-to-play" entry entirely, because the same argument could be applied to every commercial mud. Or indeed pretty much else, such as the restaurant analogy that apparently went over your head.

[Hajamin]

Actually there are many other ways, that don't involve anyone buying credits.

Bardic and Artisan contests are held, I'm 99% in all IRE games, every month. They give out large sums of credits for creative work that is game related and placed on the website for all to see. Not only do you get credits if you win, but your work gets posted for the whole world to see on your games website!

Most games have mortal builders, these are players that volenteer some of there time to help build rooms. I know in Lusternia we give them a decent rate per room, my current building project has 3 builders and a total credit value of 2000 credits.

Some, like I know Lusternia, also have mortal coders. While much harder to get, for a few hours a week of volenteering you can get atleast enough for 1 skill a month, up to 2 depending on how well you work.

All games randomly do things such as lotteries, which tickets are bought with gold and sometimes the prizes are large amounts of credits.

In Lusternia we give away artifacts, even some of the most expensive ones, during special events and around RL holidays. Just this last holiday season we probably gave away over 10k credits worth of artifacts and other IG items via a type of scavanger hunt.

Those that apply and are accepted to be a guide, and help new players, get "paid" in credits based on how many hours a week they volenteer. Some of our most active guides I've seen get a few hundred credits a week.

I think you may have just missed some of these other options, though most of them(besides bardic/artisan contests and lottery type things) tend to require that you are a long term player and know the game well.

And there are still other methods, the credit market you mentioned as well as trading credits for services in game with players. Mentors gain credits if their proteges purchase, as do cities and guides of their members purchase. Of course, these methods require that someone had made a purchase, but they are another way for people who don't want to spend money to still get credits.