[Spoke]

Originally Posted by (KaVir @ Jan. 09 2006,11:15) Carrion Fields: Sells out-of-game things for real-life cash. Exactly 0% of a character's skills, power, etc, comes from real-life cash; the amount you spend has no bearing on your character. IRE muds: Sells in-game things for real-life cash. Over 95% of a maxed character's skills require the expenditure of real-life cash. Numerous other things are only available with the expenditure of real-life cash. Is the difference really that hard for you to see?

I have never argued there is no difference between the two games, in fact, it is obvious that IRE games are comercial while Carrion Fields is not. Now, obvious parts taken aside, let me say this: If starting tomorrow none of Carrion Fields players donated anything (no charity whatsoever), then they would be left with selling their real life products, Carrion Fields themed stuff, and the character sheets (although character sheets could be argued at best borderline RL), so, then Carrion Fields would become a "free-for-costumers-and-friends" game?

If a player can get or not in-game advantage has no bearing on the labeling a game "free to play". That is what you fail to understand, that is what you keep avoiding, that is what you keep ignoring page after page after page. What this discussion was about was about the appropriateness of IRE MUDs labeling their games "free to play", and what I argue (using your own arguments and comparisions) is that they have as much right to label themselves free to play as Carrion Fields does.

So, again, I am not a blind idiot who cannot realize there are differences between the games I compared above, but those differences have no bearing in this subject anyway.

Choosing to attach the "no-in-game-benefits" condition to the word free is an arbitrary decision, and by no means one that has to be adopted by anybody else if they do not want. So, read again, check what the discussion is about, read the arguments and bring forth something new or discuss with arguments rather than with arbitrary definitions made up on the spot, why the points brought up by others are wrong.

[PinkFloyd]

Originally Posted by Conversely, if the information is out there, why not make it even easier to access? Isn't it part of TMS's mission to assist players in finding the game they want?

No. I think it has been pointed out numerous times that TMS's purpose has been to act as a traffic exchange site and nothing more. The burden of finding out whether a MUD is commercial or not lies on the customer to find it out and the MUD to make the information easy to access.

Originally Posted by Well, surely it is mentioned on their extensive "Features" page, right? The only hint is on "Features, where a clan is described as a "purchasable, customizable organization", though it's not clear what kind of currency they mean. Maybe under "Economics"? Well, if you scroll all the way down to the bottom, credits are mentioned as something you can buy or sell, next to wool, coal, and other commodities. Hrm. No mention of RL currency there either! Go to IRE's front page. You're correct that there's a link to "Credits", but it's subdivided in with "Corporate", implying it's "Credits as in end of movie" and not "Credits as in a type of currency". I'd bet most first-time shoppers miss that.

The reason the "Credits" link is subdivided into the corporate section of the menu is simple, purchasing credits is part of their corporate department and would most sensibly be displaced there. I mean that makes sense no?

Furthermore, if you are going to grumble that consumers might misunderstand the meaning of "credits", it's in the consumers best interest to click that link and find out what information is stored in there. When you sign a contract to take out a loan, it is in your best interest to read the contract thoroughly, or have someone well-versed in such matters go over it with you and explain its parts. If you just sign on the dotted line without bothering to read the contract, and along the way something happens on your loan that you didn't think would happen, well then guess what it's your fault for not checking the contract out.

Originally Posted by Even if I accept your premise (the information is always easy to find), which I don't, the answer would be "What is the objection to an accurate label, then?" Surely, if it is so obvious, the label is harmless, yes?

The information is easy to find. You even went to the IRE website and found their credits page with ease. Each of the four IRE games had a credits link at the homepage of their website. Threshold RPG and Inferno also list themselves as Pay-Per-Play on the features section of their respective listings on this very site. No one is trying to hide anything.

And again, labeling of MUD's are not necessary because the information is out there! Harmless? I think so, but I would not know how certain MUD administrators would feel about it. But even if it is harmless it doesn't change the fact that it is needless.

[PinkFloyd]

Originally Posted by The obvious answer to that is that neither of the games you mention label themselves as 'FREE TO PLAY' in their listing blurbs, like the IRE games do.

As far as I'm concerned the IRE games are free to play. I can play as much as I want without having to plop a dime on any one of the four games.

[KaVir]

Originally Posted by (Spoke @ Jan. 09 2006,18:51) If a player can get or not in-game advantage has no bearing on the labeling a game "free to play".

Yes, it does. It's really simple: if there are no costs for the players, then the mud can be legitimately advertised to those players as 'free' - because it is indeed 'free' for those people.

If the game does have costs for the players, then it is not 'free' for players, and shouldn't be advertised as such. The fact that some players can pay for others has no bearing on this - any more than a pub could advertise its beer as 'free' on the basis that some people buy drinks for their friends.

[KaVir]

Originally Posted by (PinkFloyd @ Jan. 09 2006,18:56) Originally Posted by The obvious answer to that is that neither of the games you mention label themselves as 'FREE TO PLAY' in their listing blurbs, like  the IRE games do. As far as I'm concerned the IRE games are free to play. I can play as much as I want without having to plop a dime on any one of the four games.

As long as you don't mind having a character with less than 5% of the skill potential that a paying player has, sure.

Hey, I can play Gemstone IV for free, too! As long as I create a new account every month, that is. Perhaps they should advertise themselves as 'free' too.

[PinkFloyd]

Originally Posted by As long as you don't mind having a character with less than 5% of the skill potential that a paying player has, sure.

Right. But the game is still free to play, and IRE is not misrepresenting themselves by labeling their games as such. I can play an unlimited amount of time without having to play, which in essence is the meaning of free to play. Remember, they are not labeling themselves as a free MUD, but one that is free to play. There is a difference.

Originally Posted by Hey, I can play Gemstone IV for free, too! As long as I create a new account every month, that is. Perhaps they should advertise themselves as 'free' too.

Come on, that is a ridiculous example. In that case why not call all the pay-to-play MUD's free too then? Sure, Threshold RPG is now free because I can create another character after administration freezes my account for non-payment.

[Atyreus]

5-->

Originally Posted by (KaVir @ Jan. 09 2006,13[img http://www.topmudsites.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif[/img]5)]Hey, I can play Gemstone IV for free, too!  As long as I create a new account every month, that is.  Perhaps they should advertise themselves as 'free' too.

There's a huge difference here which you have been repeatedly ignoring.  Gemstone and other pay-to-play games do not incorporate a business model that essentially guarantees (at least for as long as the game is commercially viable) that someone else will cover your playing costs if you choose not to pay yourself.  All you have to do to play for free on an IRE game is log in.  Gemstone would never advertise itself as "free to play," because they don't make it a part of their business to ensure that you could ever do so, and, as a general rule, their games are not going to be free.

I think you want to equate a claim that a game is "free to play" with a promise that the non-paying player will be equal in all respects to a paying player.  Yet no such promise is implied.  As I've already stated "free to play" simply means you can play for free.

Is the playing experience going to be different for someone who pays for perks compared with someone who didn't?  Unless in game perks are completely meaningless, we can assume that it will be.  But just because the playing experience is different, does not mean that the game can not be "free to play."  Even if the non-paying player's game were significantly curtailed, it would still be a free game.  Granted, if it were too curtailed, it might not be a very entertaining or worthwhile free game, but that, as I've said before, is a completely different issue.

Is the playing experience going to be different for someone on a pay-for-perk game compared with someone on a game that does not take money for play or in-game perks?  Of course.  We can generally assume that such games will be implemented quite differently.  But both types of games can be "free to play."

If you can play a game without having to pay for it is, by definition, free to play.

[Valg]

Originally Posted by (KaVir @ Jan. 09 2006,12:15) Carrion Fields: Sells out-of-game things for real-life cash.  Exactly 0% of a character's skills, power, etc, comes from real-life cash; the amount you spend has no bearing on your character. IRE muds: Sells in-game things for real-life cash.  Over 95% of a maxed character's skills require the expenditure of real-life cash.  Numerous other things are only available with the expenditure of real-life cash.

This is accurate. You can buy all the T-shirts you like, but it doesn't do your character a bit of good. The only thing that has to do with the MUD is it uses the same logo.

It doesn't impact gameplay in the slightest. We're a roleplay-required game, and part of that is is avoiding situations like:

Frick: Where did you get that amazing sword? It's better than anything I've ever seen in this world?
Frack: I... uh... it... uh ... floated down from the heavens above? Did I mention no one can steal it from me?
Frick: You look beefier too. I've been working out all day, and yet you have somehow put on 40 pounds of muscle sitting on the guild couch.
Frack: I .... uh... divine favor? Yeah, divine favor. If you'll excuse me, I just ...uhh... inherited 100,000 gold coins. Yeah, inherited. That's the ticket.

We also pride ourselves on delivering interesting PvP action, and our players like the fact that when they log into Carrion Fields, they play the same game their opponent does. 100% of what your character has, your character earned through skill. Not 5%.

This is a fundamentally different approach to game design. It changes every aspect of competition with other players, as well as the challenge of competition against the game itself. We resent other games stealing the word "free" from it.

And, we advertise it accurately. No perks. Just free. Lots of games are like that. Others aren't. All we're asking is that TMS label everyone accordingly.

[Valg]

Originally Posted by (PinkFloyd @ Jan. 09 2006,12:52) No. I think it has been pointed out numerous times that TMS's purpose has been to act as a traffic exchange site and nothing more. The burden of finding out whether a MUD is commercial or not lies on the customer to find it out and the MUD to make the information easy to access.

In light of that theory, could you explain Adam's decision to exclude Medievia from the ranking list for pressuring their players too aggressively to add traffic to his site? Heck, why have forums at all, if it is a "traffic exchange and nothing more"?

One reason the site can generate traffic is precisely because it is a useful resource. Making it a more useful resource would help traffic. Allowing people to use it deceptively is not good for the long-term health of the site.

I know Matt and Threshold like the "just traffic" theory, and it's how they treat the forums, but it's pretty clear from Adam's posts and the text on this site that he wants it to be a resource to players as well.

[Spoke]

Originally Posted by (KaVir @ Jan. 09 2006,12:04) If the game does have costs for the players, then it is not 'free' for players, and shouldn't be advertised as such. The fact that some players can pay for others has no bearing on this - any more than a pub could advertise its beer as 'free' on the basis that some people buy drinks for their friends.

If this is so, then you should agree with me that games like Carrion Fields and dozens of others, where player money is needed for the continuity and survival of the game are not free, and should not be advertise themselves as free. They are as free as a the pub that advertise its beer as 'free' on the basis that some people of those who come in donate enough money when they are requested while they are inside.

[PinkFloyd]

Originally Posted by (Valg @ Jan. 09 2006,13:54) In light of that theory, could you explain Adam's decision to exclude Medievia from the ranking list for pressuring their players too aggressively to add traffic to his site?  Heck, why have forums at all, if it is a "traffic exchange and nothing more"? One reason the site can generate traffic is precisely because it is a useful resource.  Making it a more useful resource would help traffic.  Allowing people to use it deceptively is not good for the long-term health of the site. I know Matt and Threshold like the "just traffic" theory, and it's how they treat the forums, but it's pretty clear from Adam's posts and the text on this site that he wants it to be a resource to players as well.

Medievia was simply removed from the voting list because it went against the rules Adam put up. They are however still listed on TMS.

I do not see how people are using this site deceptively. There was a while back when Merentha had a voting script that allowed it be placed in the top 5 on the voting list, but that was dealt with.

The "just traffic" theory here is still valid. That's the biggest use this site has, as a traffic exchange. A place where people can come and find out what text games are out there. Forums have been added for communication between those in the MUD world, but they are of secondary importance really.

[DonathinFrye]

Originally Posted by The "just traffic" theory here is still valid. That's the biggest use this site has, as a traffic exchange. A place where people can come and find out what text games are out there. Forums have been added for communication between those in the MUD world, but they are of secondary importance really.

This website calls itself a "One-Stop MUDing Resource", not "A HUB for MUD Traffic".

[The_Disciple]

Originally Posted by (Spoke @ Jan. 09 2006,12:51) So, again, I am not a blind idiot who cannot realize there are differences between the games I compared above

If that's so, then you're being purposefully obtuse and obstinate. I wouldn't exactly be proud of that. Frankly, people would prefer to have discussions with the blind idiot.

One of my best friends is a guy who makes a lot of money but doesn't have a lot of free time. When he plays a game, he prefers to buy his way to be competitive with the top players in terms of equipment or what have you. He'd rather spend the money and get right to the top tier of the game than grind or screw around. He prefers to play games where you can do that (either because it's explicitly integrated or because a marketplace of some kind has grown up around the game.)

Conversely, I have another friend who is an PvP game nut. He can't stand the idea that someone might have an advantage on him, player versus player, because of spending money. The last time he tried a pay-for-perks game and found out two days into play, I had to listen to him bitch about it for a week.

What possible reason could there be for a site like this to not want to help each of these guys find the kind of game they prefer more easily?

[Zhiroc]

I'll try to keep this short...

1) Let's say I start a MUD that I advertise as free-to-play, but also say that "people who subscribe at $15/month get 10x the XP and loot rewards". Is this still F2P? I'd say no, but if others think yes, then we might as well stop arguing about IRE because we have radically different mindsets on the concept of free. (And I'm not trying to say which is correct, which would be pointless discussion.)

2) Cany anyone point me to an IRE web page, help file, or official resource that documents how many lessons it takes to learn a skill. This is my major sticking point. Without it, a player can't just figure it out themselves.

They have to actually play the game, and even then, since the scale is non-linear (you'd have to trans one skill to tell, but see below), and since the game doesn't keep track of it neatly and nicely (you can't tell *ever* how many lessons you've spent without keeping track yourself, and you can't even tell how many lessons it will take to get to the next level (without a lot of hassle and calculation).

3) The major source of credits available to a player without spending money is the in-game credit market. There are 309 on sale right now (337 yesterday, if I remember). Is there enough of a market to support having multiple players doing this?

An interesting test would be to have 5 players start and try to play the game "for free" by trying to amass gold and buy credits, and watch the effect on the credit market. I'm somewhat reticent on trying this however, because I think it would really screw up the market for long time players, and I personally don't have the time to do the grind.

[Letrus Abbot]

Well, how specific should we get with color coding?

Kavir and Donathinfrye have both agreed that a "pay for perks" is substantially different given the focus of the game. Following the logic through, they are significantly different and would thus deserve their own seperate colors in order to not confuse poor, easily befuddled players and to not cast the evil light of one onto the other.

We can have one color for 'pay for perks' that don't really affect gameplay directly, another color for pay for perks that affect gameplay directly in pvp but not in other aspects, another color to represent pay for perks which significantly affect all aspects of the game, another color for donations optional and donation equipement, another option for donations with no equipment but without which the game would not be able to continue to run and you get a mention in the credits, another color for donations required for which not even credit listing is given, another color for subscription games for which an option for further perk-buying is possible, another option for subsciption games with no further perk buying, another color for games for which the admin shoulders all the costs and does not ask for any donations whatsoever, another color for games with both "basic" and "premium" accounts in which the premiums have significant direct IG bonuses, another color for games which have basic and premium accounts in which the premiums have only cosmetic benefits in actual gameplay....ad infinitum.

Or, of course, we could forget about the problems presented by nitpicking the minor details of the business model of the MU* and all the problems presented therein.


I'm sure we won't have any trouble finding the volunteers to police every game on the list in order to ensure they are colored correctly, right? We wouldn't want any errors, or for players to have to depend on their own ability to process information.

[TapDancer]

Originally Posted by (Letrus Abbot @ Jan. 09 2006,15:56) Well, how specific should we get with color coding? ******SNIPPED LONG, BUT GOOD, PART ILLUSTRATING THE INSANITY OF ALL THIS***** Or, of course, we could forget about the problems presented by nitpicking the minor details of the business model of the MU* and all the problems presented therein. I'm sure we won't have any trouble finding the volunteers to police every game on the list in order to ensure they are colored correctly, right? We wouldn't want any errors, or for players to have to depend on their own ability to process information.

This illustrates my biggest concern about such a feature being added. The profiles for the MUDS listed on this site are ALREADY filled with inaccuracies, whether intentional or not, and so clearly the administration and "community" cannot even begin to police the promotion already in place. I believe adding ANOTHER place for various MUDS to incorrectly clasify themselves would just further erode the value of the listing at all.

This is ESPECIALLY true for something as subjective as whether a game is free, pay to play, or pay for perks.