[Xerihae]

Originally Posted by MudMann The ABC method mentioned is quite good...

Actually, the ABC thing I did was just in reply to the post above my own as an example of how the three hypothetical MUDs he listed would be categorised by the suggested 5-Option system. You can see the full range of options in the thread here.

[MudMann]

Originally Posted by Xerihae Actually, the ABC thing I did was just in reply to the post above my own as an example of how the three hypothetical MUDs he listed would be categorised by the suggested 5-Option system. You can see the full range of options in the thread here.

Applogies, I did not mean to criticise, I have skimmed over a few thread.. my mistake.

[Threshold]

Originally Posted by Xerihae You have still yet to show how the 4/5 option promotes some games at the expense of others.

Because muds that sell merchandise can pick any category that suits their personal needs or preferences at that time.

It also allows them to claim there is no effect in game, when that is a completely bogus claim.

The problem is that by creating explicit search options, it creates an impression of validity that is simply not legitimate.

[Threshold]

Originally Posted by Emil With all due respect, what made you an expert on what players regard as useful information?

I dunno. Maybe 11 years of professional work experience in the industry?

The success of my company is a direct reflection of my ability to understand what players regard as interesting and useful.

[Xerihae]

Originally Posted by Threshold Because muds that sell merchandise can pick any category that suits their personal needs or preferences at that time. It also allows them to claim there is no effect in game, when that is a completely bogus claim.

I would expect a MUD that sold merchandise to pick the "no results in-game option". Your claim that it has no results is a bogus claim is... a bogus claim. In certain circumstances yes, unscrupulous admins may favour people who have given them money just like they might favour their friends over random people who've come to the game. Claiming that such is the case in every circumstance is just a convenient blanket statement.

I know for a fact that if I were running a MUD and caught someone cheating, the result would be the same whether they've just joined or have spent £1000 on merchandise. If they tried to say I should cut them some slack because they paid money, I'd laugh. In a non-commercial game holding on to players who continually give money to the game is a lot less of an issue, especially if the admin can already afford the server costs.

It's important for a commercial game to keep its paying customers happy, so I can see why you personally would have that viewpoint. However, don't assume it applies to everyone else just because you feel that way, because no matter what you say I know it would have no bearing on my reactions in said situation. Claiming otherwise, as if I don't know my own mind and morals, I would take as an insult.

[Angie]

Originally Posted by Threshold I dunno. Maybe 11 years of professional work experience in the industry? The success of my company is a direct reflection of my ability to understand what players regard as interesting and useful.

Did you just say that your experience is somehow better than the experience of everybody else on this forum?

[Brody]

Originally Posted by Threshold I dunno. Maybe 11 years of professional work experience in the industry? The success of my company is a direct reflection of my ability to understand what players regard as interesting and useful.

While your longstanding success in this field is to be admired, it shows that you understand what your players regard as interesting and useful.

That narrows the field down a bit. I wouldn't recommend overstating beyond that.

[Newworlds]

People.

Are we still debating about what does "Free" mean. Or are we digressing into personal attacks? How about we lock this forum up soon, because it is getting silly. We now have a poll and over 500 arguments about free and various search systems and we still aren't closer to resolution. If we go a few more months we might match congress in finding a budget.

[TheDisciple]

Originally Posted by Brody While your longstanding success in this field is to be admired, it shows that you understand what your players regard as interesting and useful.

Thanks for putting that much better than I would have. And really, being able to make a living doing something you love is something to be admired.

The post Brody was replying to was tantamount to saying that since there's a market for Rocky Road and someone could make a living selling Rocky Road, that all anyone could care about in choosing an ice cream was whether it was Rocky Road or not. Anything else is clearly shameless manipulation by twisted purveyors of Mint Chocolate Chip.

The other problem with that logic is that one would have to concede that the creators of commercial graphical MUDs are roughly one million times wiser, since financial success = wisdom, which I don't believe is automatically true.

[DurNominator]

Originally Posted by MudMann To me, the current MUD that I am trying, Evarayn is a FREE MUD, you can donate, and these donations help you learn skills slightly faster for a short period of time. There are no other bonuses to be gained with RL cash.

I for one, would have a problem with your categorization, as I choose not to play games that sell advanced character acceleration, such as faster skill gains, training your skills using purchasable credits etc. The four box system has neat, easily defined categories that separate games with perks from games without perks. The fifth box I see as an extension of those game that fit into category B - Payment rewarded in game. I see categories A and B as somewhat problematic, as people's tresholds to pay for a game are different. The checkboxes I suggest are additional questions to better define categories A and B are for use in addition of the four box system:

Category A - Subscription required to play:

The game subscription fee is

[ ] One time/lump sum payment
[ ] Monthly fee
[ ] Yearly fee
[ ] Weekly fee

Category B - Pay for perks:

[ ] All game content is available without payment/donations
[ ] Character advancement rates can be improved with payment/donations

The wording of the sub-options needs some work. I can't think of any necessary sub-options for categories C and D.

[Newworlds]

Originally Posted by DurNominator I for one, would have a problem with your categorization, as I choose not to play games that sell advanced character acceleration, such as faster skill gains, training your skills using purchasable credits etc. The four box system has neat, easily defined categories that separate games with perks from games without perks. The fifth box I see as an extension of those game that fit into category B - Payment rewarded in game. I see categories A and B as somewhat problematic, as people's tresholds to pay for a game are different. The checkboxes I suggest are additional questions to better define categories A and B are for use in addition of the four box system: Category A - Subscription required to play: The game subscription fee is [ ] One time/lump sum payment [ ] Monthly fee [ ] Yearly fee [ ] Weekly fee Category B - Pay for perks: [ ] All game content is available without payment/donations [ ] Character advancement rates can be improved with payment/donations The wording of the sub-options needs some work. I can't think of any necessary sub-options for categories C and D.

More muddying of the waters that are black already. I can think of numerous sub options for categories C and D, but why bother, this horse is dead.

[Threshold]

Originally Posted by Angie Did you just say that your experience is somehow better than the experience of everybody else on this forum?

How about you go back and read my post and the post I replied to. Then you can answer that question for yourself. I didn't say ANYTHING like that, and it is absurd and ridiculous for you to act like I did.

Someone asked me why I consider myself an expert on what players want. I posted a reason why I believe I have some expertise on that topic. There are many other people with similar expertise. I made no comments as to anyone else's expertise other than my own.

A little more reading and a little less straw man abuse will go a long way.

[Threshold]

Originally Posted by Xerihae I would expect a MUD that sold merchandise to pick the "no results in-game option". Your claim that it has no results is a bogus claim is... a bogus claim. In certain circumstances yes, unscrupulous admins may favour people who have given them money just like they might favour their friends over random people who've come to the game. Claiming that such is the case in every circumstance is just a convenient blanket statement.

As soon as money changes hands between two people, their relationship is forever altered. It is impossible for the exchange of money to have NO EFFECT on the relationship, and therefore on the game. This has nothing to do with admins being unscrupulous. This is about basic reality and the fact that money changing hands forever alters a relationship between people.

Originally Posted by Xerihae It's important for a commercial game to keep its paying customers happy, so I can see why you personally would have that viewpoint.

Well, I can't disagree with that. Admins on commercial games do indeed have a much larger and more powerful motivation to keep their players happy. That is one reason the overwhelming majority of gamers prefer commercial games.

Originally Posted by Xerihae because no matter what you say I know it would have no bearing on my reactions in said situation. Claiming otherwise, as if I don't know my own mind and morals, I would take as an insult.

Well, you can imagine insults where there are none if you want, but I am just being realistic. Furthermore, this is not a moral issue in any way, shape, or form.

To claim that Person A giving money to Person B does not change their relationship AT ALL is an unsupportable claim. To say that this will have NO EFFECT on their relationship is just naive to the extreme. As soon as money changes hands, the relationship changes and the way people treat each other changes. To argue otherwise is to be completely oblivious to reality and the world around us.

For that matter, things SHOULD change. We are talking about people who give you money (either as a gift, a purchase, or whatever) to keep your MUD running. Are you honestly going to tell me that has no effect on you at all? There is no gratitude for this whatsoever?

But circling around to the original point of the whole thread, a MUD that sells merchandise is no more or less free than a mud that sells swords. In both cases, the operator of the mud is receiving money as a direct consequence of running the mud. They are simply different business models and different ways to monetize their game.

[Xerihae]

Originally Posted by DurNominator I for one, would have a problem with your categorization, as I choose not to play games that sell advanced character acceleration, such as faster skill gains, training your skills using purchasable credits etc. The four box system has neat, easily defined categories that separate games with perks from games without perks. The fifth box I see as an extension of those game that fit into category B - Payment rewarded in game. I see categories A and B as somewhat problematic, as people's tresholds to pay for a game are different.

Both the 4/5 Option system and the 2 Option system also feature a text box area underneath the choices for admins to clarify what applies to their game. A lot of people seem to be missing the text box thing

[Xerihae]

Originally Posted by Threshold Are you honestly going to tell me that has no effect on you at all? There is no gratitude for this whatsoever? But circling around to the original point of the whole thread, a MUD that sells merchandise is no more or less free than a mud that sells swords. In both cases, the operator of the mud is receiving money as a direct consequence of running the mud. They are simply different business models and different ways to monetize their game.

Oh I'm sure I'd feel somewhat grateful yes. Would I allow it to change the way I treated in the player in game? Not in the slightest. To do so would be to compromise what I would see as my professional work ethic, which in this case would be to ensure all players in the game are held to the same standards/rules.

Now try not to take offense at this commercial-type people, but I'm going to let you in on a personal observation of mine in regards to "free" and games, that I've noticed over the years of MUD and MMO playing:

The only people who think a game is "free" when you have to pay to access some in-game content are the people who run the games and marketing-type people. I'm talking about GAMES, not websites, not museums, but GAMES. I've literally talked to hundreds of MUD and MMO players over the last 18 years or so, and I've yet to meet one that would consider the following a "free" game:

"You can play ThisMUD for FREE!
To progress past level 10 you will need to pay a fee/donation of £50"

You may all continue to argue that your game is free to play because someone can log in and play those first ten levels without paying a penny, but I have never met a MUD or MMO player who wasn't a commercial game admin or had a career in marketing that thought this was a fair description of said type of game.

Pay-for-perks, when said perks can also be earned in-game with an equivalent amount of time, is fine. Restricting access to some of your games content to people who have paid means it is no longer free, it is only PARTLY free. Claiming it is free is a misleading and inaccurate blanket statement.

Just because business says it is so and has the money and clout to change things to their liking, doesn't make it right or even supported by the majority.

[TheDisciple]

Originally Posted by Threshold To claim that Person A giving money to Person B does not change their relationship AT ALL is an unsupportable claim. To say that this will have NO EFFECT on their relationship is just naive to the extreme. As soon as money changes hands, the relationship changes and the way people treat each other changes. To argue otherwise is to be completely oblivious to reality and the world around us.

I understand your opinion on this matter; however, I don't share it. Even if I accept the somewhat cynical idea that party A will treat party B differently if they give him/her money, there's still no reason it has to be true for all games.

For example, what if a game accepts donations only anonymously? Let's say that someone might need to know where the money comes from in the case of credit card payments etc., but that person/entity makes no decisions involving the game -- that responsibility is abdicated to a bank or some uninterested third party.

Or, imagine a game running a store that sells game T-Shirts through something like CafePress. They know orders are being placed and they get money from them, but an admin choosing to ban a problem player has no information on who did or didn't buy 50 T-shirts.