[KaVir]

There are as many variations on roleplaying style, on pk type and on many other categorizations. Take PK as an example, there is NO PK, there is FULL PK, everything in between is a gray area. In this case the grey area is listed as "Restricted Playerkilling" and players can choose to login to the mud in question to find out exactly what "Restricted Playerkilling" means in that MUD. Any attempt to categorize all styles of PK would be pointless - you can still never really pin down how ingrained PK is into that game without trying it. Same with "pay-for-perks".

Agreed, but these discussions started out with proposals of simply having a third "pay-for-perks" payment option, and that was shot down by the pay-for-perks mud owners who claimed that it unfairly overgeneralised their games.

Thus the attempt to categorise the muds in more detail.

I think it is time to prune it into it's own thread labelled "What does free mean?".

Good idea.

[prof1515]

Put bluntly, claims like those made by Nodeka are lies. Terms like "100%" or "completely" do not apply to games where any option affecting gameplay requires payment. Maybe they are "75% free" or "almost completely free" but so long as there is any means of in-game advantage or advancement or feature that requires the application of real-life capital to attain then that would negate a claim of "100%". If there are a million ways to play and only one requires "donation", that still means it's only 99.9999% free. To claim otherwise would require a statement qualifying the methods which are "100% free" so long as any in-game method of playing features options of payment.

Take care,

Jason

[Molly]

Originally Posted by Lasher Separate post intentionally. This thread is important, but has become about much more than just Nodeka's particular ad. I think it is time to prune it into it's own thread labelled "What does free mean?".

Splitting the thread is an excellent idea. This is a general issue that only remotely is connected to Nodeka's ad. The principal discussion is much better on its own.

And thank you for taking this question seriously. It's a big step forward.

[the_logos]

Originally Posted by Newworlds There was a request to split the Nodeka thread so I just thought to create a new thread. Many have ideas about what is 100% Free, Partially Free, or Pay to Play. Here is your chance to have at it. I have opinions on the whole issue with pros and cons from both sides but will reserve them for now.

Free typically means, in common usage, that you don't have to directly pay (a MUD is still free just because you need to pay for a computer and internet connection to play it) for something with money or barter of chattel. The big exception there is that your personal time and energy is usually excluded as a cost. (So, spending time and energy on playing a MUD wouldn't typically be taken into account in the common usage of free.)

That's it really. If you can play for free, it's free, whether or not there is the opportunity to spend money. In fact, common usage has that even if the only way to get something in a game is to pay for it, it is still a free game as long as you don't have to pay for it to continue to play. For instance, if I'm giving away (legally-purchased of course) copies of Oblivion, I'm perfectly within my rights to claim that you can play Oblivion for free by accepting my free copy, even though there are things within Oblivion that are only obtainable by paying for them (downloadable content).

Note how standard this use of 'free' is.
* Runescape calls some of its servers free-to-play and some members servers. You can't even get onto the members servers (where the world is much, much larger) without paying a subscription. (Currently 182,000 players online).
* AdventureQuest is promoted as free although becoming a member takes a one-time $15 payment. (18,000 players currently online.)
* Heck, just go to MMORPG Free Online Games RPG Directory - ONRPG.com and click on the list of Free MMORPGs, most of which take some sort of payment to unlock things (unlike other games, like ours, that accept payment but in which you can always obtain anything without paying) but all of which are free to play.

--matt

[Molly]

To me it is very simple. If money in any way influences any part of the gameplay, then the game isn't free. Calling the transactions 'donations' or 'pay-for-perks' isn't purely semantic. The definition of a 'donation' is that you give without expecting or receiving any reward, otherwise the transaction is a sale.

It doesn't matter much if the perks are available by normal gameplay or not. Naturally the former is preferable, but as long as you can pay for something that normally takes X hours of time to achieve in the game, you are still buying an advantage over other players.

What really counts is whether the gameplay is affected. So pure donations, or selling mousepads and T-shirts from the website are okey - as long as no in-game benefits are received the game is still free.

But to avoid the usual semantics around the word 'Free'. let's go for KaVir's 3 main categories;

1. No in-game benefits
2. In-game benefits available
2A. Low-impact pay-for-perks
2B. Standard pay-for-perks
3. Pay-to-play

[the_logos]

Originally Posted by Molly To me it is very simple. If money in any way influences any part of the gameplay, then the game isn't free.

Well, your personal opinion aside, where's the evidence for this as the meaning of free? It's a lot more productive to talk about how the word IS used in culture rather than how you wish the word was used.

Calling the transactions 'donations' or 'pay-for-perks' isn't purely semantic. The definition of a 'donation' is that you give without expecting or receiving any reward, otherwise the transaction is a sale.

That is flat-out untrue. All sorts of organizations do fund-raising drives where you donate and in return get a package of stuff. Nobody calls these anything but donations, including the government tax agencies. For instance, National Public Radio frequently does fund-raising drives where you donate variable amounts and get variable packages of stuff as a thank you.

It doesn't matter much if the perks are available by normal gameplay or not. Naturally the former is preferable, but as long as you can pay for something that normally takes X hours of time to achieve in the game, you are still buying an advantage over other players.

What does buying an advantage over other players have to do with free? You're talking about perceived fairness now. The two don't have anything to do with each other.

What really counts is whether the gameplay is affected. So pure donations, or selling mousepads and T-shirts from the website are okey - as long as no in-game benefits are received the game is still free.

Again, that's to do with your personal perception of fairness, not whether something is free or not.

--matt

[Lasher]

Originally Posted by Molly To me it is very simple. If money in any way influences any part of the gameplay, then the game isn't free. Calling the transactions 'donations' or 'pay-for-perks' isn't purely semantic. The definition of a 'donation' is that you give without expecting or receiving any reward, otherwise the transaction is a sale. It doesn't matter much if the perks are available by normal gameplay or not. Naturally the former is preferable, but as long as you can pay for something that normally takes X hours of time to achieve in the game, you are still buying an advantage over other players.

We (the collective users of this site, not me and you) are never going to agree on the definition of "free". If I can login and enjoy your game without feeling any need to buy whatever you may or may not have on offer, to me it is free. There are hundreds of thousands of sites on the net that are "free" but where you can pay for additions. Free email but buy additional space, free stock site but buy the newsletter, free personal-page but buy widgets, etc, etc. The phrase being used a lot there is "freemium".

Would you argue that this site isn't free? It's free if you're a user looking for a MUD. It's free if you're a MUD owner looking to list their MUD. It isn't free if you're a MUD owner looking to get the most the site can offer you. Most are content to enjoy it, free, without worrying about whether or not they have "the most". By the path being taken with MUDs, then TMS is a "pay site". How many people looking for a site on MUDs might see that label and think "uhoh, no thanks" when the site would meet their needs perfectly without any need, obligation or even mention of them ever paying? The only point there really being that "free" is in the eyes of each individual player.

I'm kind of jumping roles here, between interested participant in the discussion and the site admin. As the site admin I am not going to claim authority on the definition of what is and is not considered "free", and defining "minor/meaningful" advantage would just make the hole deeper. Brings us right back to facts:

[ ] Payment required to play? (replacing pay-to-play).
[ ] Payment / Donations accepted.
[ ] Payment / Donations rewarded in-game.
[ ] No Payment / Donations accepted, period.

Even as clean cut as that looks it isn't. We have to assume on good faith, for example, that an "unrewarded" donation is not indirectly rewarded in-game via the gratitude of the MUD staff. We have to assume that if a grateful player on a "no donations" MUD sends that admin a birthday present it doesn't suddenly mean they accept donations.

This needs addressing, but it needs to be done once and right in a way that is fair to both sides of the fence and I can see no better way to do that than with options that are facts, not opinions we will endlessly debate.

[Lasher]

Originally Posted by cratylus To quote Osiris from another forum: "Just because players are not 'required' to pay does not mean that a mud is Free. Competing with others who get in game benefit from payments made to the mud basically turns your escape hobby into a reflection of real world haves and have-nots. You'll be encouraged and even pressured to pay at some point."

But again, this is an opinion, one of many possible interpretations of the facts.

Better to present the facts and let each reader decide what the facts mean to them.

[Newworlds]

Another word of advice:

Many players look for the Free Mud, or Free this or that. I stated before that I respect both types of Muds: those that are Free and those that are Pay to play and everthing in between. Keep in mind the old proverb - You get what you pay for.

By this I mean that some feel that a free mud should and does offer all the guaranties, playability, fixes, and staff assistance that a pay mud offers. This is simply not the case in most circumstances. A mud that is bringing in donations or payments can offer more services and you can expect more services. Several of the top 20 muds on TMS are virtually free but also offer some form of payment either through donations or registrations or credits. These Muds can utilize resources to enhance playability.

Make no mistake, Muds cost time, money, and resources to operate. Having funding to keep them operating not only gives a player a sense of responsibility and ownership, it grants the mud operators the ability to use those resources for enhancements and administration.
Simply put, having funds greatly enhances a mud and should not be discounted when you are seeking a mud to play. While many very exciting and well administered muds that are completely free exist. In the 10 years I have programmed, administered, and played numerous games, the above proverb has always ringed true - You get what you pay for.

Let me finish by saying that New Worlds Mud is completely free, but I vehemently defend and support those games that do have registration, donations, and credits for play.

[Molly]

Originally Posted by Lasher 1. We (the collective users of this site, not me and you) are never going to agree on the definition of "free". (snip) 2. Would you argue that this site isn't free? (snip) 3. Brings us right back to facts: [ ] Payment required to play? (replacing pay-to-play). [ ] Payment / Donations accepted. [ ] Payment / Donations rewarded in-game. [ ] No Payment / Donations accepted, period.

This may come as a surprise, but I almost totally agree with you.

1. I totally agree there. We, the collective users of this site, will never agree about the definition of the word 'free'. So. like I already said in an earlier post, let's not argue about semantics, and instead concentrate on the proposed options for the search engine.

2. I wouldn't call this site free, no. To paraphrase Orwell's classical Animal Farm; 'All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others'. It seems to me that those that pay for adverts get a bit more than the banners they pay for. They also seem to get a larger impact on decisions, and how the discussion boards are run. I will however hold my final assessment until I see the outcome of this thread.

3. I am perfectly happy with your 4 categories. If you would implement those in the search engine, I think it would be valid improvement for the site.

[cratylus]

matt/sarapis/the_logos/whatever wrote:

That's it really. If you can play for free, it's free, whether or not there is the opportunity to spend money.

This is the position that makes people think that
"free mud" is an inadequate descriptive term.

Since the ability to play some portion or aspect of
the mud for free is easy to provide, any commercial
mud can, under your definition, call itself "free"
even while insisting that advancement past level 1
requires payment.

This definition of "free" may be satisfactory for
the purposes of the mud advertising itself, but it
goes against what I feel is the implied (indeed,
common sense) meaning of "free" in a mud context.

From the frequency with which this disagreement
pops up, I suspect I am not the only one who feels
this way.

Because "free" is commonly used in misleading ways,
I think it's more productive to avoid "free" as
a category in mud listings, and opt for a system
that accurately describes the relationship of
the given mud with their players' money.

I fancy my modified Osiris scale, though KaVir's
will do nicely as well.

The idea is to avoid the abuse of confidence that
marketing commercial muds* as "free" represents.

-Crat
LPMuds.net - Index

*Where the commerce involves the players' money.

[Lasher]

Originally Posted by Molly 2. I wouldn't call this site free, no. To paraphrase Orwell's classical Animal Farm; 'All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others'. It seems to me that those that pay for adverts get a bit more than the banners they pay for. They also seem to get a larger impact on decisions, and how the discussion boards are run. I will however hold my final assessment until I see the outcome of this thread.

No let's not wait. I'd like to hear the facts behind your temporary assessment rather than wait for the final one. I'd like to hear what else they get. If nothing else then perhaps I can market it and place a few more banners.

Help me understand your point better, because right now it reads something like:

If this thread goes how you'd like all is well. If this thread doesn't go how you'd like it is to cater to the MUDs buying banners.

There doesn't seem to be a whole lot of room in there for consideration of the possibility that it is simply because someone doesn't agree with you - with or without financial incentive? This may not be your meaning at all of course, which is why I'm asking.

Back to the matter at hand, it seems we have similar ideas on what could be added, but that isn't the point.

[the_logos]

Originally Posted by cratylus matt/sarapis/the_logos/whatever wrote: The idea is to avoid the abuse of confidence that marketing commercial muds* as "free" represents. .

I disagree that accurately marketing a MUD as free when it is, in fact, free is an abuse of confidence just because the MUD is commercial. I can watch broadcast tv networks for free and they are inarguably commercial enterprises.

Whether something is commercial or not has no bearing on whether it's free or not.

As for enterprises that accept payments from players, at minimum if you're able to attain/achieve everything without paying I genuinely fail to see how that is not a free experience. You might not think it's fair but then why not start a thread about fair and have that discussion there.

--matt

[Xerihae]

I doubt it really matters, but I'm in the "Free" means there are no pay-for-perks or to unlock anything or whatever. If someone tells me I can play a game for free, I expect to be able to take advantage of everything that game offers for nothing and compete with everyone regardless of how much money they have. This means, even if I can earn stuff in-game that other people pay for with money, I expect it to take no more effort than the sucker... err... customer with the credit card

I don't have a problem with games that offer both options, but I tend to avoid games where the guy with more money than me gets more stuff. And yes, this does mean I tend to avoid MMO's as well as MUD's a lot these days!

I'm also curious about this part of Mollys post:

Originally Posted by Molly It seems to me that those that pay for adverts get a bit more than the banners they pay for. They also seem to get a larger impact on decisions, and how the discussion boards are run.

Since when? Lasher has listened to my opinions on things and included me in all talk regarding the discussion boards as far as I'm aware and I pay for nothing on this site, nor do I have anything to do with a pay-for-play/perks/monkies MUD. I'm curious as to why you think this is otherwise? The only person with a vested interest in a particular game who gets more say than anyone else here is Lasher himself, and I think so far he's done an excellent job of keeping his affiliation with Aardwolf from affecting his running of this site.

[cratylus]

Lasher fumed:

No let's not wait. I'd like to hear the facts behind your temporary assessment rather than wait for the final one. I'd like to hear what else they get. If nothing else then perhaps I can market it and place a few more banners.

Apparently the influence of businesses on this site is a touchy subject.
It is, however, a valid point of discussion and I hope it can be discussed
without risk of incurring administrative enmity.

matt/sarapis/the_logos/whatever wrote:

I disagree that accurately marketing a MUD as free when it is, in fact, free is an abuse of confidence...

This appears to be the point you are not grasping. Since
people's opinion on "free" differs, and you are not the
final arbiter of what it means to the reader of your ad,
it is reasonable to presume that many people will view
"free" in the way they have expressed it here. That
reasonable presumption does indeed make it an abuse
of confidence, even if you are convinced you are right,
because you understand that others do not view it as you do,
and you are presenting the ad as fact.

Pretending that your opinion of "free" is the only valid
one may work for you, but in this thread you are not
boss of its definition. Unless I've missed something.

-Crat
LPMuds.net - Index