[Sinuhe]

I am starting a new thread for this, since the old one is 'overloaded' to say the least. (Hopefully the same arguments for and against will not be hashed and rehashed here again).

Quite some time ago a request was made by several posters if a function for commercial resp. non-commercial games could be added to the TMS search engine. The question was discussed in detail for a very long time, and I was under the impression that some sort of consencus had been reached about the content for such a function.

I believe Valg was going to mail Synozeer about it, and since some weeks have passed now, I'd like to ask:

Was there any reaction/decision from Synozeer, and if so, in what direction?

[Valg]

I was going to let the threads go for a couple days to see if new input popped up, and then forgot about it until today. I sent an email to Synozeer this morning, and he'll comment or not based on his interest.

The short version of a longer email:

Top MUD sites provides a page where games provide information about themselves. Presently, one category includes a checkbox for "Pay-to-Play", with no definition attached. The proposal is to expand and clarify this existing utility with four checkboxes, replacing the old one:

( ) Optional payments can influence gameplay.
( ) Optional payments access otherwise unavailable gameplay.
( ) A one-time payment is required to continuously play.
( ) Recurring payments are required to continuously play.

[KaVir]

Originally Posted by ( ) Optional payments access otherwise unavailable gameplay.

I think the above wording will result in nobody ticking the box, on account of the fact that most such muds hold contests and other activities which theoretically allow players the chance to access all parts of gameplay without making payments.

[Valg]

Originally Posted by (KaVir @ Feb. 14 2006,12:04) Originally Posted by ( ) Optional payments access otherwise unavailable gameplay. I think the above wording will result in nobody ticking the box, on account of the fact that most such muds hold contests and other activities which theoretically allow players the chance to access all parts of gameplay without making payments.

I offered to write more descriptive language as a hyperlink from each term which would spell out some gray areas. One possibility would be to change the point in question to:

( ) Optional payments access normally unavailable gameplay

From there, we could explain that "normally unavailable gameplay" means it could not be accessed for free at any given time.

For example, one common model is to sell equipment. If the equipment is only ever available if you pay the fees, or by winning a one-time or annual contest, you check the box. If the equipment is sold but is otherwise possible to get on any given day, you don't.

[Protoss]

Originally Posted by (Valg @ Feb. 14 2006,10:53) ( ) Optional payments can influence gameplay. ( ) Optional payments access otherwise unavailable gameplay. ( ) A one-time payment is required to continuously play. ( ) Recurring payments are required to continuously play.

I have a problem with the first check box (Optional payments can influence gameplay). This seems to be more of a value judgement than hard facts, therefore making it ambiguous. How do you exactly define influencing the gameplay? No one would check this box either, it's confusing unless some more specific wording is added.

[Valg]

Originally Posted by (Protoss @ Feb. 14 2006,13:37) I have a problem with the first check box (Optional payments can influence gameplay). This seems to be more of a value judgement than hard facts, therefore making it ambiguous. How do you exactly define influencing the gameplay? No one would check this box either, it's confusing unless some more specific wording is added.

Aside from the choice of verb (alter?), I guess I don't find it unclear. What type of game couldn't make a decision there?

As far as "No one would check this box"... I think IRE would, Aardwolf would, Threshold would, Materia Magica would, Medievia would... that list goes on. the_logos points out that by making these sorts of payments, one can accelerate one's development within the game, which is appealing to some players. Other people have voiced a dislike for it, because it introduces an OOC variable into an IC equation. The checkbox would just let people know in advance which kind of game it is.

It's clear from the language ("optional", "can") that paying is voluntary, and that you get something for it. I don't think any of the games in question would dispute that. If they would, I encourage them to speak up and explain why, of course.

[the_logos]

Originally Posted by Other people have voiced a dislike for it, because it introduces an OOC variable into an IC equation.

I doubt that's why. There are already tons of OOC variables involved in most MUDs, from requirements that you speak an OOC language (English) to requirements that you invest a ton of OOC time, etc. If there's any opportunity for expression of player skill, there's an OOC element involved there as well.

Originally Posted by As far as "No one would check this box"... I think IRE would, Aardwolf would, Threshold would, Materia Magica would, Medievia would... that list goes on. the_logos points out that by making these sorts of payments, one can accelerate one's development within the game, which is appealing to some players.

I wouldn't check it because I don't care for the wording and because I dislike the motives behind it. I'd imagine lots of people would feel the same way about checkboxes for "mud administration headed by amateur mud developers" and "mud administration headed by professional mud developers."

--matt

[the_logos]

Originally Posted by (Valg @ Feb. 14 2006,12:38) For example, one common model is to sell equipment. If the equipment is only ever available if you pay the fees, or by winning a one-time or annual contest, you check the box. If the equipment is sold but is otherwise possible to get on any given day, you don't.

So if the monster that drops the equipment resets every 2 days instead of every day, is the equipment normally available or not? What about if it resets every week? Every month? Every year? Now what about if it requires the administration to flip a switch to make it reset?

--matt

[Valg]

Originally Posted by (the_logos @ Feb. 14 2006,14:48) I wouldn't check it because I don't care for the wording and because I dislike the motives behind it.

If Synozeer implemented the feature, you would lie?

How professional of you.

[the_logos]

Originally Posted by (Valg @ Feb. 14 2006,14:59) Originally Posted by (the_logos @ Feb. 14 2006,14:48) I wouldn't check it because I don't care for the wording and because I dislike the motives behind it. If Synozeer implemented the feature, you would lie? How professional of you.

No. I just wouldn't check it, which is what I said. If you're going to devolve into flaming, I ask that you take it to another thread.

--matt

[Valg]

Originally Posted by (the_logos @ Feb. 14 2006,15:02) No. I just wouldn't check it, which is what I said. If you're going to devolve into flaming, I ask that you take it to another thread.

Which would be lying. The feature puts a question to you, and by answering "no", you would be lying. IRE accepts optional payments for in-game content, notably credits. It's not a gray area. It's a bald-faced black-and-white lie.

Lying is unprofessional behavior. Accurately calling you out for threatening to do so is not "flaming", any more than your recent threads points out Materia Magica's lies was flaming. As a professional game administrator, the amateurish behavior you are displaying appalls me.

[the_logos]

Originally Posted by (Valg @ Feb. 14 2006,15:13) Which would be lying. The feature puts a question to you, and by answering "no", you would be lying. IRE accepts optional payments for in-game content, notably credits. It's not a gray area. It's a bald-faced black-and-white lie. Lying is unprofessional behavior. Accurately calling you out for threatening to do so is not "flaming", any more than your recent threads points out Materia Magica's lies was flaming. As a professional game administrator, the amateurish behavior you are displaying appalls me.

Declining to fill out a form is not lying, it's simply declining to fill out a form that I have no obligation to fill out. It's not lying any more than not filling out the "gender" section of a customer satisfaction survey. If Synozeer asked me to, I would either do it or not, as I choose and the consequences would follow, as Synozeer chooses and as I choose.

Flame on. It's your standard operating procedure anyway.

--matt

[Valg]

This would not a new form.  You presently fill out a form like this to have your MUD listed here.  The proposal would be to add four new yes/no questions to a list which already has a couple dozen such questions.

Asking you to be honest isn't flaming you.  

Beyond that, you've written far saltier things on this site on a regular basis (links available on request), and the accusation strikes me as hypocritical to say the least.

[the_logos]

Originally Posted by (Valg @ Feb. 14 2006,13:54) As far as "No one would check this box"... I think IRE would, Aardwolf would, Threshold would, Materia Magica would, Medievia would... that list goes on. the_logos points out that by making these sorts of payments, one can accelerate one's development within the game, which is appealing to some players. Other people have voiced a dislike for it, because it introduces an OOC variable into an IC equation. The checkbox would just let people know in advance which kind of game it is.

Incidentally, I might add that your own MUD and virtually every MUD on earth falls in this category of "optional payments may influence gameplay."

If the concern is actually "introducing an OOC variable" (nevermind that every MUD is already full of OOC variables), then it doesn't matter who the money is going to: It's precisely as OOC whether you're paying real money to another player or to the game admin for that Sword of Ubercoolness, and there is no MUD I'm aware of that can make an honest claim that there is no way a payment of real money could ever influence gameplay.

--matt

[Jazuela]

I think the different boxes to determine "which kind" of pay-to-play game it is can be summed up in just two, and four isn't needed:

1) Payment optional for some or all game benefits.
2) Payment required for some or all game benefits.

A game like Gemstone would click both 1 and 2, because payment is required to play, and optional benefits, such as weddings and quests are available for an extra fee.

The IRE games would fall under 1, but not 2, because any of their things can be acquired for free, but the option exists to pay for them to get them quicker or without winning a contest or submitting whatever it is those folks let you submit to get a free perk.

Games that accept donations to cover server costs, but don't provide any benefits beyond the existence of the game on the server, would continue to be categorized as "free to play" along with those games that don't take donations to cover server costs. Also included in free to play are games whose admins offer non-game benefits for money, such as mouse-pads and t-shirts.

The option boxes for the "pay to play" shouldn't be a "pick one" but instead should be a "pick all that apply." Allowing for "optional" vs. "required" covers everything, and lets those that do both (such as Gemstone) continue to maintain its commercial integrity by allowing it to pick both.

[Valg]

Originally Posted by (the_logos @ Feb. 14 2006,16:59) Incidentally, I might add that your own MUD and virtually every MUD on earth falls in this category of "optional payments may influence gameplay." If the concern is actually "introducing an OOC variable" (nevermind that every MUD is already full of OOC variables), then it doesn't matter who the money is going to: It's precisely as OOC whether you're paying real money to another player or to the game admin for that Sword of Ubercoolness, and there is no MUD I'm aware of that can make an honest claim that there is no way a payment of real money could ever influence gameplay.

The MUD's policies would be the decisive factor. I thought that was obvious, but maybe it does need clarification.

IRE accepts cash for in-game perks as part of their WvW system. We use a PvP system instead, so it's our policy not to accept money for in-game perks. Incidentally, player-to-player cash transactions of that sort are also forbidden by our rules, punishable by deletion of the offending characters. Someone could conceivably get away with it behind our backs, but that's very different than a codified system allowing or requiring the MUD to collect fees.

I know you've previously mentioned a time you bribed a MUD admin for favors, but I've never even been approached in such a fashion. I frankly suspect you made the whole thing up to bolster this painfully contrived attempt to claim a game like Carrion Fields uses the same business model as yours do. The models are quite different, which is why I'm proposing more accurate labeling for both.

Everyone knows why you're resistant to honest disclosure of your commercial model, even though you've previously stated you're open to accurate descriptions of this sort. But it doesn't mean I intend to roll over and make it easy for you to conceal it.

We're free. I fully intend to let as many people as possible know what that means.

[Valg]

Originally Posted by (Jazuela @ Feb. 14 2006,18:49) I think the different boxes to determine "which kind" of pay-to-play game it is can be summed up in just two, and four isn't needed: 1) Payment optional for some or all game benefits. 2) Payment required for some or all game benefits.

I'm equally fine with this instead of my initial proposal in this thread, including the caveats given in the rest of your post.

Really, the differences are clear from a player's perspective, so we should be able to come up with a labeling system that reflects that intuition.