the_logos wrote:
"Yep. That's all true. Just as true as it is to say that in nearly all muds,the guy with more free time is going to "win." Free time and money are both currencies possessed in varying amounts by different people. Most muds reward solely those with lots of free time. We choose to do both and you can attain absolutely anything in the game with exclusively free time, though many things cannot be obtained exclusively with rl money."

Threshold wrote:
"So the person with no life and no job who plays the game 20 hours a day is on a balanced playing field with the guy with a family and a job who can only play 2-4 hours a day?"

You both seem to be making the same argument:  That since success in a mud is typically based purely on time, it is a virtue for such a game to accept money in lieu of time.

I'm sorry, gentlemen, but I believe this to be a straw man argument.  You'll forgive me if I misuse the terminology slightly; it's been a long time since my university logic classes.

I don't believe that saying many other muds do something in a way you find abhorrent or lacking (time = advancement) is a valid justification for doing things the way you do (time or money = advancement).  I'm certain there are countless muds out there with horribly stupid features (or lack thereof) that you wouldn't implement in your own muds in a thousand years.  They really don't justify this either.

The truth is that you accept money for advancement in your games simply because you like money.  Perhaps you see a need for it, either to pay the expenses of your mud or purchase yourself costly housewares.  This is certainly no crime; you would hardly be the first people in the history of civilization to attempt to exchange a quality good or service for the money of others, and surely civilization has benefitted from many such exchanges.  No one rational would blame you for doing so.

But let's not kid ourselves.  If you were motivated solely by the benefit to your players and in being able to have a diverse player base, you would simply design a game in which large amounts of catass time are not a requisite to play or enjoy the game, rather than trying to tack on an exchange of currencies as an alternate to catass.  (Perhaps we could coin a term for circumventing catass through payment, such as catbuy or assbarter.)

You can build a game that doesn't fall along the traditional achiever molds and will provide equal enjoyment to the hardcore gamer and casual gamer.  From the numbers of people who play your existing games, it seems likely that you have good enough design abilities as they relate to the mudding world to take a good stab at this.  I'd like to challenge you to do so.

I'm not sure where virtue comes into this discussion. I certainly am not claiming any sort of moral superiority based on our business model. Threshold and I are merely pointing out that giving people the option to spend money is no different from giving people the option to spend free time.

Of course no one rational would. Sadly, that doesn't seem to prevent some people from complaining.

--matt

YES EXACTLY KEEP THIS DISCUSSION ON TOP!!!!!! So that Achea, Imperian and other pay-to-play (tehe) muds we are complaining about so can be the topic of all discussion therefore get the player flow so that they can see what all the hype is about, if you're truly upset with the pay-to-perk mud, um don't know play it? write a review? keep it on top of the discussion board to promote it? Eh, ok..........

Well, first of all, I don't think that statement is really that correct. There are a lot of well paid people that work a 40 hour week and a lot of poorly paid people that work a 40 hour work week. And usually better jobs give you more vacation time! While I would say it is true for some jobs, I would not say it is a general truth. I work the same hours as my manager, and we're certainly not paid the same.

Secondly, I find it a lot easier for most (though not all) people to devote more time to something, if they so choose. Obviously, there are exceptions, but in general, if you have a full time job you have the same amount of time free, regardless of your payscale, as anyone else who has a fulltime job.

So basically for your average worker bee, the only thing that will unbalance them in a game like Achaea, is the fact that some worker bees get paid more than others.

I entirely agree with the points brought up that people can choose for themselves to play OR pay, and that you can still do well without paying for the game... and I don't at all think these games are hypocritical in saying they're "Free" or whatever. I *do* think it's questionable, to say the least, to deny that the paying aspect tilts the game in favour of whoever can afford it. I don't see why people are ashamed of that fact, a lot of games require payment to play them... Achaea just requires payment to play to your full potential.

Sure, often people who have more time will do somewhat better, this is also true (and a frequent counter-arguement). But really, in my experience, it's pretty difficult to take that aspect entirely out of the game without making the game suck. It's pretty easy not to charge money.

- Theomanic

Who is saying that paying money doesn't give you an advantage? Of course it does: It saves you time. You could get anything you want with time, but not everyone has the time or is willing to spend the money. Just like not everyone has the time or is willing to spend the time.

And setting aside my developer role for a moment, as a player, I quickly grow tired of games in which I can't spend money to compete with the kids who don't have mortgages and car payments that require working to pay for. The most recent MUD that I've played seriously, City of Heroes, was a lot of fun, but in the end I quit because it required too much time. Had it offered me the opportunity to purchase something to speed my xp-gathering, for instance, I definitely would have bought it and stuck around longer. I'm not claiming that my view as a player is any more valid than anyone else's. I'm just saying that's what I want for myself.

Sure, it's far more difficult to take the time = success aspect out, but I'm not sure how that's relevant. It'd only matter if you assumed there was anything wrong with charging time or money for advantages. I'm going to go spend some time on Ninja Gaiden now, and be annoyed that I can't purchase myself a shortcut through the game, as I don't have the time to play it all the way through. I am heartened that Sony plans to sell downloadable car upgrades for Gran Turismo 4.

--matt