[Daedroth]

Lets just say this, no matter how long this goes on, IRE is still a commercial business. Which means that the_logos and his people at IRE are out to get as much money as they can from as many players as they can. Do you think theyd actually want to tell people that their mud is almost futile to play unless you either have as much time as the laziest person in the world or start handing over cash? You tell me...

[Hardestadt]

Originally Posted by (Daedroth @ June 02 2005,05:32) Lets just say this, no matter how long this goes on, IRE is still a commercial business. Which means that the_logos and his people at IRE are out to get as much money as they can from as many players as they can. Do you think theyd actually want to tell people that their mud is almost futile to play unless you either have as much time as the laziest person in the world or start handing over cash? You tell me...

We have a new Queen of conspiracies! Molly has abdicated her throne, and now we have an heir! Hail Queen Daedroth!

Heh.

If you think that is what corporations are about then I pity you, your world must be a very scary and paranoid one. When you grow up and get a job(hopefully) you'll learn that companies aren't evil by nature, I expect.

Thats not to say there aren't evil companies out there, hehe.

-H

[Hardestadt]

Originally Posted by (Valg @ June 01 2005,22:08) But above, the_logos (correctly) points out that it is a commonly-used model in the industry. It's easily defined, and distinct from "Free" and "Flat Fee" services. It doesn't only target the company you work for-- Materia Magica and other games use similar models, and they have nothing to do with IRE.

I never said it targets IRE, who I don't work for. I work for Persistent Realms LLC, which is an entirely different entity. Saying I work for IRE is like saying you work for SCO if your mud runs on a unix system.

Originally Posted by Why the resistance to an honest label? If it's such a freedom to be able to invest cash instead of time, why not advertise it loud and proud?

I can't speak for IRE, but I expect its for the following reason.

You don't advertise things that may scare away a potential player before they even try your product.

This is basic common sense. None of the successful commercial muds on this list loudly advertise that they are in fact commercial, for good reason. Noone goes to something commercial if they think it'll cost them money, they'll go to something free, unwittingly going to what is a substandard product(most of the time) when they could have enjoyed the benefits of the quality of a commercial mud without paying a dime.

-H

[Hardestadt]

Originally Posted by (Valg @ June 02 2005,02:43) 8--> Originally Posted by (the_logos @ June 01 2005,16[img http://www.topmudsites.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif[/img]8)] Originally Posted by Valg,May 31 2005,21:14 On a pay-for-perks MUD, the existing players will still have every thing you outline above (practice, skills, equipment, know-how). The difference between that and a subscription or free MUD is that they can also have additional perks which they bought. The gap is larger, not smaller. Apparently you seem to be repeatedly misunderstanding this, so let me explain again. In many pay-for-perks MUDs, everything is obtainable, completely for free. I'll repeat that: Everything is obtainable completely for free. The players who don't pay have the opportunity to get -anything- simply by putting in time. Huh. Sounds a lot like most MUDs where time is the major factor, doesn't it? --matt Apparently, you seem to be repeatedly misunderstanding me, so I'll explain again: New player: Enters with nothing. Free MUD established player: Has edge in practice, skills, equipment, know-how. Pay-for-perks MUD established player: Has edge in practice, skills, equipment, know-how, and previously invested money. The pay-for-perks scheme means the new player has to invest an amount of money (equal to that spent by the average established player) to reduce the gap to the same magnitude encountered in a free game. This remains true even if your MUD has an implicit rate of dollars-to-time conversion, as you claim IRE does. Example, using arbitrary numbers: Starting conditions: 1) Average player on Free MUD: 100 hours of experience. 2) Average player on Pay-for-Perks MUD: 100 hours of experience, plus $50 invested. The new player, in order to be "even" on the Pay-For-Perks MUD cannot do so by only spending 100 hours of play. They either have to spend some combination of: 1) 100 hours and $50, or 2) (100 + X) hours, where X is the amount of hours needed to accumulate perks equivalent to what $50 gets you. You repeatedly point out that the new player can accelerate their development by spending money, but repeatedly ignore that everyone else has access to that same acceleration (and has had that access for longer), which only means that new players are starting behind faster-moving established players. No matter how you frame it, a game where (experience + money) determines rate of progress is inherently more difficult on newbies.

Only if you compare raw newbies only to the very best players/characters in the game. Ultimately, in an established game newbies will never do well against them.

Have you ever tried playing within the model, Valg? No offence, but your arguments make it seem that you have no experience with it, or you're trying your hardest to make it look bad.

-H

[Valg]

Originally Posted by (Hardestadt @ June 01 2005,20:59) Only if you compare raw newbies only to the very best players/characters in the game. Ultimately, in an established game newbies will never do well against them. Have you ever tried playing within the model, Valg? No offence, but your arguments make it seem that you have no experience with it, or you're trying your hardest to make it look bad.

Actually, I'm comparing newbies to the average player, which is the whole point. The argument becomes much stronger if you start thinking about how far behind the "top end" players a newbie is in a pay-for-perks system. My point is that they're extra-far-behind the median player, relative to a subscription or free system.

I looked into playing games of that kind (both as a prospective player and as an administrator seeing what ideas were out there), but ultimately the uneven nature of the playing field kept me from spending a dime, and I found a superior product for my tastes that was both free and fair. I think I understand the nature of the business model very well from browsing the discussion boards of games where it is used.

Ultimately, I'm more concerned with what I see as mislabeling, which you touch on in your other post. If the pay-for-perks games labeled themselves accurately, I could really give a crap what business model they used.

[Aeyr]

Originally Posted by (Valg @ June 02 2005,01:26) Actually, I'm comparing newbies to the average player, which is the whole point.  The argument becomes much stronger if you start thinking about how far behind the "top end" players a newbie is in a pay-for-perks system.  My point is that they're extra-far-behind the median player, relative to a subscription or free system.

Funny, this is exactly why I don't play WoW. I don't have the extra time needed to come anywhere close to the median players. Let alone the "top end" ones. (Assuming I actually liked WoW that is. I find it pretty boring.)

Also, thought I'd point out this from your earlier post:
Established 'free' mud player: eq/skills/knowhow/etc + >>> TIME INVESTED <<<
Established 'perk' mud player: eq/skills/knowhow/etc + perks bought

You leave out the key part to the whole argument. Time IS money, man. It just is. You can argue about the relative values of them, but the equivalence is still there.

Now, you're going to say "but what about the person who has both time and money?" Heh, well, I'd say the number of people who are independently wealthy in this world is pretty few. Thankfully too, since they can make life feel pretty unfair sometimes, to say nothing of any game they may choose to play.

[the_logos]

Originally Posted by (Valg @ June 02 2005,01:26) Ultimately, I'm more concerned with what I see as mislabeling, which you touch on in your other post.  If the pay-for-perks games labeled themselves accurately, I could really give a crap what business model they used.

Carrion Fields advertises itself as having "16 balanced classes." I don't buy that for a second. I've never, ever seen a game of any sort that had 16 balanced classes unless they were all just the same class. And balanced for what? Balanced for combat? Balanced for sneaking? Balanced for earning money? What you view as balanced another person may very legitimately not view as balanced. Do you explain any of that instead of just saying 'balanced?' No. Why? Because it'd be silly to. Balanced is a more powerful way of labeling your game than saying "We have 16 classes that are kind of balanced if you're talking about 1 vs 1 combat, but not so balanced in 3 vs 3, and not at all balanced in terms of ability to sneak."

Now I don't actually see any legitimate argument as to how a service that is provided 100% for free isn't free, but my point is, again, that the world is full of different views and different viewpoints. If you want to look at a service that can be played forever for free and say it's not free, that's fine, but you need to accept that this is your viewpoint and that your viewpoint is contrary to how an ordinary person views the word 'free.' What you seem to want to be saying is that our games are not "equally accessible to those who don't pay and those who do pay." I agree on that. Those who don't pay are going to have to spend a lot more time to get the same stuff. But what the heck does being able to be competitive have to do with free? We've never said, "Play the same amount of hours as anyone who has spent real money and you'll be just as powerful." We've said that our games are free, and they are. Go play them. You'll never be charged for playing them. You'll have access to absolutely every single thing in the game, for free, forever. That's free.

Anyway, if you're looking to distinguish your version of free from our version of free, there's nothing stopping you. Pick a new term to use to describe YOUR game, but we're not going to change the way we do things just because you object.

--matt

[the_logos]

Originally Posted by (Valg @ June 02 2005,01:26) I think I understand the nature of the business model very well from browsing the discussion boards of games where it is used.

I really don't mean any offence by this, but no, you don't understand it very well. You wouldn't have used the chess tournament analogy where the only way to get bishops was to spend $20.

--matt

[KaVir]

Originally Posted by (Aeyr @ June 03 2005,02:45) Originally Posted by (Valg @ June 02 2005,01:26) Actually, I'm comparing newbies to the average player, which is the whole point.  The argument becomes much stronger if you start thinking about how far behind the "top end" players a newbie is in a pay-for-perks system.  My point is that they're extra-far-behind the median player, relative to a subscription or free system. Funny, this is exactly why I don't play WoW. I don't have the extra time needed to come anywhere close to the median players. Let alone the "top end" ones. (Assuming I actually liked WoW that is. I find it pretty boring.)

And the point Valg is making is that if you could buy your way up, so could they. The median player would be even further ahead of you (while others who invested more money that you would overtake you).

Originally Posted by Also, thought I'd point out this from your earlier post: Established 'free' mud player: eq/skills/knowhow/etc + >>> TIME INVESTED <<< Established 'perk' mud player: eq/skills/knowhow/etc + perks bought You leave out the key part to the whole argument. Time IS money, man. It just is. You can argue about the relative values of them, but the equivalence is still there.

For some people, time is money. But we're talking about muds where money replaces skill, and that's a different thing entirely. I enjoy pitting my skills against other players, but not against their wallets.

[KaVir]

Originally Posted by (the_logos @ June 03 2005,04:42) Originally Posted by (Valg @ June 02 2005,01:26) I think I understand the nature of the business model very well from browsing the discussion boards of games where it is used. I really don't mean any offence by this, but no, you don't understand it very well. You wouldn't have used the chess tournament analogy where the only way to get bishops was to spend $20.

For many pay-for-perks muds his example is pretty much dead-on - in such muds the only way to earn the top equipment is by spending money.

[Daedroth]

Originally Posted by (Hardestadt @ June 01 2005,20:40) Originally Posted by Daedroth,June 02 2005,05:32 Lets just say this, no matter how long this goes on, IRE is still a commercial business. Which means that the_logos and his people at IRE are out to get as much money as they can from as many players as they can. Do you think theyd actually want to tell people that their mud is almost futile to play unless you either have as much time as the laziest person in the world or start handing over cash? You tell me... We have a new Queen of conspiracies! Molly has abdicated her throne, and now we have an heir! Hail Queen Daedroth! Heh. If you think that is what corporations are about then I pity you, your world must be a very scary and paranoid one. When you grow up and get a job(hopefully) you'll learn that companies aren't evil by nature, I expect. Thats not to say there aren't evil companies out there, hehe. -H

I wonder where in my post i said that IRE was evil...? hrm, I guess NOWHERE! I just simply stated that they do, in fact, whether you believe it or not, want to make money. And I'm not your queen, I'm your God...

[Valg]

Originally Posted by (Aeyr @ June 02 2005,20:45) Also, thought I'd point out this from your earlier post: Established 'free' mud player: eq/skills/knowhow/etc + >>> TIME INVESTED <<< Established 'perk' mud player: eq/skills/knowhow/etc + perks bought You leave out the key part to the whole argument. Time IS money, man. It just is. You can argue about the relative values of them, but the equivalence is still there.

Actually, I address it quite explicitly. The players in the pay-for-perks MUD also have time invested. As pointed, out, there is a time.money exchange rate. There is, however, one additional resource in play, and as a new player you have 0 of that resource invested when you first log in. Other players have more than 0 of that resource. Therefore, it's an additional category in which you are behind. A repost of your chart, correcting for this glaring omission:

Established 'free' mud player: eq/skills/knowhow/etc + >>> TIME INVESTED <<<
Established 'perk' mud player: eq/skills/knowhow/etc + perks bought + >>> TIME INVESTED <<<

[Valg]

Originally Posted by (Hardestadt @ June 01 2005,20:55) You don't advertise things that may scare away a potential player before they even try your product. This is basic common sense. None of the successful commercial muds on this list loudly advertise that they are in fact commercial, for good reason. Noone goes to something commercial if they think it'll cost them money, they'll go to something free...

Well, I understand why IRE uses deceptive advertising of the kind you mention. (However, you imply it's guilt by omission, where I think the word "Free" is a mislabel.) I just think you either have to go that route, or go on and on about how pay-for-perks is a wonderful tool that helps players level the playing field.

[Valg]

Originally Posted by (the_logos @ June 02 2005,22:42) Originally Posted by (Valg @ June 02 2005,01:26) I think I understand the nature of the business model very well from browsing the discussion boards of games where it is used. I really don't mean any offence by this, but no, you don't understand it very well. You wouldn't have used the chess tournament analogy where the only way to get bishops was to spend $20.

I really don't mean any offense by this, but I'm going to trust my own opinion, gathered from my own research, over the "But I said so!" claim of someone who makes his income from a pay-for-perks scheme.

[KaVir]

Originally Posted by (KaVir @ May 29 2005,00:42) Originally Posted by I'm trying to figure a system that's like this, but instead of not being able to play for a month, you're just not going to be able to take full advantage of certain things for that month ... Any thoughts on this? Similar to the approach Traithe is taking for his new game then?  That could work, although as I've said before, my personal reference (as it's opinions you're asking for) would be something that didn't replace (or remove the need for) player skill.  Examples might include unlocking extra character options (giving pay-to-play people more variety rather than more power)

I've just noticed that Guild Wars does exactly that:

Will I remain competitive if I do not buy the chapters? Will I be able to compete with and against others if I have only some of the Guild Wars chapters?

Yes. Purchasing the newer chapters of Guild Wars will not make you strictly more powerful. You will have access to many more strategic options, due to the expanding nature of the skills, abilities, items and professions that you enjoy with each chapter. It would be similar to building a deck in Magic: The Gathering™: The more cards you own, the greater the number of different playing decks you can choose to play. When you buy the chapters of Guild Wars, you will acquire a larger collection of skills and abilities from which to build your skill set, but you will not gain more power. So if you purchase a chapter and your friend does not, you will still be able to play competitively against and with one another.

No monthly charge, and those who do pay are no more powerful than those who don't - now that's a pay-for-perks model I could live with.

[Spoke]

Originally Posted by (KaVir @ June 03 2005,05:03) Originally Posted by (the_logos @ June 03 2005,04:42) Originally Posted by Valg,June 02 2005,01:26 I think I understand the nature of the business model very well from browsing the discussion boards of games where it is used. I really don't mean any offence by this, but no, you don't understand it very well. You wouldn't have used the chess tournament analogy where the only way to get bishops was to spend $20. For many pay-for-perks muds his example is pretty much dead-on - in such muds the only way to earn the top equipment is by spending money.

KaViR et all.

Maybe, just maybe, you are not reading the full posts of people before writting a reply. While in the past there have been instances where Mr. Logos' replies could have been misunderstood, I see his replies to this specific thread crystal clear.

It is obvious that there is an inherent difference between the chess game example and whatever play-per-<fill the blank> scheme IRE uses. I played a couple of their games for a while, I know people who has played their games for much longer time, and in both cases I have not been asked (neither have the people I know) to pay for the game or access to anything.

The fact that there ARE SOME pay-for-perks muds that fullfil Valg's example does not imply the pay-per-perks scheme is faulty, or that all muds with a pay-per-perks muds are faulty in a deep way or that they are not to be considered free.

Your statement at this point of the "discussion" just makes it clear that you are just jumping in the middle without trying to address any of the things being discussed. Just plainly attack the ppp scheme and no more.

From what can be recollected, Mr. Logos is trying to say that in HIS muds, the ppp scheme is such that it offers a clear option for those who want to spend money in their games, while leaving the option for those who have a lot of time and no desire to spend a penny to compete and enjoy their game in full.

Now, going back to the discussion at hand, I think the points by the_logos are valid, time is a resource more important to many people, and if there are people who mud and want to be competitive and do not mind to spend money in their characters, the option must be there (in a comercial enterprize), for implementation, in a ppp system, what is important I think is to gauge how bigger a person who invests money can get with respect to someone who does not. For example, if you can get a special weapon by doing quests and it will take you around 10 hrs playing if you did