[Rufton]

Regarding the quote attributed to Matt, which may or may not be true. If it is true it certainly is not noticeable in game, perhaps it is used for borderline cases as someone suggested and only in a small way. I play Achaea regularly and I have seen severe punishments meted out to people who have spent enormous amounts when it was appropriate, and I have seen people who have spent nothing get let off or get a trivial punishment when the offence was small.

If money spent does make a difference (which I doubt), it makes very little. Don't rely on the fact that you have splashed out to mean you can go round acting like a total jerk, because you can't.

[cron0s]

There are quite a few successful muds that have monthly or quarterly charges, a few minutes research would have told you that. Maybe Shane you need to take a break from posting all over these forums and look around you. Reviving this thread was a perfect example. This issue has been discussed over and over again.

[DonathinFrye]

Just because some of us take a strong stance does not mean we wish to injure an entire business model of MUD. As I've said before, I would never want any MUD to be shut down because of its business model, even if I didn't happen to agree with a "pay-for-perks system" for gameplay reasons. However, no MUD or admin should be able to use his commercial model as ammunition to gain favor over other MUDs that should be just as supported by our community as IRE.

Using money and threats as leverage to hurt non-commercial MUDs is just one more example of why many are vocal against Matt.

In this case - it would be a positive thing to add another choice in the listings(or a tag, or anything that helps further specify) for those seeking MUDs that would be "non-commercial". This is a resource site, and the argument goes back(again and again) to the fact that any such addition would only make the site more resourceful to players.

This is why so many players have asked for the addition from Synozeer. Matt is a sub-factor in all of this, not the reasoning for this idea's lobbying. He is merely an obstacle to it, for purely selfish reasons.

[Lark]

Well, before I say anything more, let's hear the selfish reasons. No sarcasm, just honest inquisitiveness.

[Lark]

[Splork]

[the_logos]

Rufton wrote:
Oh, it's true. It's also 6 years old, which means 2/3rds of Iron Realms' time running commercial MUDs has elapsed since then. It's no surprise, I'm sure, that our policies have evolved over that time. The year after that, we opened Aetolia, and made our more or less official policy be that we don't give a damn how much money you've spent when it comes to customer service. Frankly, it's actually easier for us that way as then it's easy to say to big customers asking for special favors, "I'm sorry, but we have a policy, and if we violate that policy for you, we can't legitimately refuse to violate it for others as well. I'm sure you understand." Having said that, I have no problem at all with the idea of people who pay more receiving better service just like I don't have a problem with some guy at a hotel getting a better room because he paid more. In our case though, it's simply easier to treat everyone equally and aside from a few large customers who would -really- like to be treated differently, I think our players/customers prefer this method.


As an aside, most of the people doing customer service these days don't have access to purchase records, so aren't even capable of seeing how much a player has spent.

--matt

[DonathinFrye]

Going indepth with the specifics of a certain admin or company's intentions would just cause a chain of off-topic commentary - if it isn't obvious to you and you really are curious about the subject, feel free to PM or (better) IM me on AIM and I'd be happy to chat with you about it.

[Dovolente]

It's a little late in this thread, but I will share that I had a bad experience with a commercial MUD years ago (don't remember which, now) which wasn't clear about having fees. I played for several days, and then started getting messages about my time expiring and my needing to purchase credits for further playing time.

I was disappointed and felt slightly taken advantage of, because information about required payments to continue play was not made clear on their website--even after I got the messages and looked on the site, I found something about credits but no information about the requirement to purchase them in order to play.

[Threshold]

Nope, it isn't a difference between them at all.

I realize the hobbyists here like to pretend their players are far superior to those on a dirty, rotten, disgusting commercial mud, but their players are just people- no different than the players on other games.

I was an admin on two pure hobbyists MUDs before I struck off on my own. When they sold any kind of merchandise, or when they accepted donations of any kind, perceptions and demands from the players (now customers) changed.

In fact, the moment they send money in ANY way, the relationship HAS changed. Like it or not, you have created a commercial relationship.

That's how the law views it. That's how the IRS views it. That is how many (if not most) people view it.

Pretending "our players are different!" is really silly and dishonest.

[Threshold]

So when a customer pays money to someone they need "professional help" if they feel like they have engaged in a commercial transaction?

Now *that* is a ludicrous statement.

Sending in a "donation" (these aren't charities, by the way), buying a tshirt, or paying a subscription are not any different under the law, nor are they different in the minds of most logical, reasonable people. It is a commercial transaction- plain and simple.

Pretending they are different is silly and naive.

[DonathinFrye]

Yes, some players may expect favoritism for donations made, even on a completely free MUD. Players expect a lot of things, though, and sometimes their expectations are not reasonable.

If a 100% Free MUD asks for donations(or sells t-shirts) to help pay for the upkeep of the MUD, and they make it clear that there are no perks for those that donate, then the line is drawn. If a player expects more, that is a reflection on that player's personality and not the MUD; there is a difference with games that charge money for in-game service. You have agreed to exchange a service for payment.

If a pay-for-perks system makes it clear that buying "credits" or "paying for registration" or whatever other charges there may be will not grant the player better customer service than non-paying customers, then the player of that game has no more right to expect special service than the one who donates to a completely free game. The key is in being specific about what money is worth on a MUD.

On a truly 100% Free MUD, money gains you no in-game service, by the community's social definitions. This includes gameplay enhancements and customer service. It is not naive to make this distinction; it is specific and ethical.

[Shane]

[Valg]

The thing is, you keep telling me how our players are going to react, but I haven't seen any of it. Empirically, your theory doesn't seem as universal as you pronounce it to be.

[HBDR]

I think you need to review my post. I stated that "someone thinking the purchase of a t-shirt or similar from a website entitles them to special in game treatment should seek professional help." I did not claim it was not a commercial transaction. I am not one to engage in flame wars but seriously, quote me at what I say, not what you want it to mean. "Special in game treatement" and "commercial transactions" are two entirely different things.

[Anitra]

Threshold, May 08 2006,18:27
That's a very cheap shot and pure flamebait, (typical of the poster, regrettably).

Nowhere did I or anyone else pretend that the players on free Muds are 'superior' to those on commercial Muds. It is the goals, philosophy and policy of the Administrators that are different.

There are people who think that money should not buy you any advantages in a competitive game. In fact they see that as the very definition of a 'fair game'. (And yes, these people do exist and are not even uncommon, even if you cannot get the notion into your own head). People who have the opposite opinion naturally exist too. I wouldn't even try to make a guess about the proportion between the two types. However, it would be a rather natural assumption that the second type is more common in commercial muds, because that is the environment they'd primarily choose.

But what we really are talking about is the EXPECTATIONS from the players. It's very simple, really. A bit like Pavlov's dogs.

If you feed the dog a large, juicy bone every time a bell rings, or even if it just sees its mates getting fed at the signal, naturally it will be expecting it, and start salivating already when the bell rings. If the dog never gets anything connected to the signal there will be no salivation.

Likewise, if it is made totally clear in the policy from the start that nobody will ever get any in game benefits from money, and if this policy is upheld strictly from the beginning to the end, without any exceptions, there will also be no expectations.

[GuruPlayer]

[John]

So Threshold I have a serious question here: Outside of what players buy, how do you deal with their demands when they expect special treatment in unrelated areas in the game, over players who haven't spent as much as them on Threshold?

[Hadoryu]

That hinges on an assumption though, doesn't it? It's equally meaningless in reality as for instance an argument that players who play commercial MUDs do it because of the stricter standards for admin-player interaction. I know many hobbyist MUDs are much more prone to unequal player treatment, because of relationships between players and admin, be they financial or otherwise, because the admin doesn't need to keep a presentable, market-viable face to the playerbase. Does that prove a point of any kind?

The whole argument is based on nothing but speculation in the end.

[Shane]