I have a random related question.

On a MUD I used to IMM for, I would send out a random gecho daily just reminding people to vote if they hadn't yet. There was nothing coded into the game, nor was there any benefit/repercussion from doing so. Would this tie into forced reminders on TMS?

I haven't really read through the rules yet, since I haven't listed my MUD here at all yet.

Threshold @ Jan. 01 2006,21:35
Since this thread is about the voting list, I’ll restrict my suggestions to that, for now at least.
So here is a suggestion that I think would really improve the voting list, leaving the discussion about two lists aside for now:

Give each voter a ‘receipt’ that the vote has been accepted/not accepted.

Preferably in the form of a message which, depending on the circumstances, says either
‘Thanks for your vote. It has been added to the listing. ’  or
‘Your vote has not been accepted. You may only vote once per 12-hour period. Please wait XX hours until voting again. ’ (The XX hours naturally being the time remaining until next vote is possible).

I understand that this type of timered message is what the muds on top of the list are using in their games, but it would be great if a similar feature could be added to the list for all users. If it is too hard to code the timer, I’d settle for the accepted/not accepted message.

The reason why I ask this is twofold.
Firstly: I am actually not sure whether my votes register at all. I try to vote every day for my favourite mud, but even if I would be the only player voting for it, (which I don’t believe I am), I don’t see it registering even the number of votes that I’ve put in personally. If I vote once a day for 30 days, the game should get 30 votes a month, right? Well, it seems it doesn’t.

Secondly: I don’t mud with a watch in my hand. So it could be that I sometimes click the vote button after 15 or 11 hours, instead of 13 hours. Or it might even happen sometimes, if I’m lagging on the net, that I click the vote button twice, because the page doesn’t change and I get unsure of whether I actually hit it or not.

I don’t think that I am alone in having these problems. Or perhaps it is just something with my server?

A simple message would serve as a receipt that the vote was accepted and also show that the time restriction in the list actually is working, which would be a deterrent for potential spam voters.
A ‘timered’ message would help preventing excessive voting by mistake, and be a big help to those voters that don’t have their muds provide them with reminders in their prompts.

And here is another suggestion: Change the voting period to once per 24 hours. It would be a lot easier to monitor, since it could be coded to accept a vote any time of day within a given date, and there would be no need for the voters to keep track of the exact hours.

Yes, I do realise that this would reduce the voting ‘traffic’ to the site a bit. But again I have to ask which is the main purpose of the site; to register as many brainless clicks as possible, whether they are legitimate or not, or to make the voting process as easy and fair as possible for everyone that uses it? This would be exactly the same condition for all listed muds, and I believe most voters, even the ones from the big commercial muds, would appreciate it. Nobody really likes to be hassled by their game owners to vote twice a day.

Jason, are you truly unable to ever make a post without insulting someone? Seriously, it's really getting old.

--matt

Let's stop with the loaded words like 'hassled.' We have hundreds of players that have -chosen- to be reminded twice a day. So does Aardwolf. Aardwolf and Achaea are perpetually on top because players -want- to vote for them. For instance, Achaea currently has about 250 players that have completely voluntarily turned on an option to remind them to vote every 12 hours. They can turn it off with a single command at any time, and nobody cares whether they have it on or not.

That's not being hassled. That's providing a service to players that want it because they want the game they play to be ranked highly.
--matt

Click-throughs to TMS result in impressions which are saleable to advertisers.

Let me spell out the process for you:
MUDs send traffic to TMS. MUDs get traffic back somewhat in proportion to how much they send. That's simply fair. You get something back in rough proportion to what you pay. Why anyone has a problem with this, I don't know. I can only theorize that some people are so used to a welfare state that the idea of getting something for nothing is second nature to them.

Every time someone clicks through, an impression is generated. Impressions are what keeps the site alive and what makes Synozeer money, since they can be sold to advertisers for banner ads and such. Reducing impressions = reducing advertising dollars, literally costing Synozeer money.

And don't talk to me about representing the mudding community. My organization directly represents more text MUDers than any other aside from Simutronics. No doubt you or someone else will now call me or imply that I am arrogant for pointing out a plain fact, but there you have it.

--matt

Plenty of the time. That wasn't an insult by the way, it was an observation on my part based on my impression of the vast majority of the commercial MUDs when compared to the best of the MUDding community. I've tried all of IRE's MUDs for example (one of them twice and another three different times over the years just to be fair) and always come to the same conclusion: sub-par in comparison to free-to-play MUDs out there.

And you're a fine one to talk about insults. If I actually wasted my time to cut and paste all the insults you've laid out against countless people on these boards over the years, Synoozer'd have to start an entirely new forum to hold them. Hell, look no further than your post a matter of minutes later:

Now, to be fair, am I often an ass? Hell, yes, I do my best to be as straight-forward and as blunt as I can. I don't deny that at all. But don't sit back and pass judgement on me without considering your own behavior.

What is getting old is you and your pathetic desperate attempts to maintain TMS as your personal advertising board, peeing in your pants whenever anyone mentions anything that would make this site more than that. "Traffic exchange" my ass. Is that part of what it is? Yes, I'm not denying that. Is that the only thing it is? No, it's more than that and there are those of us who do think about the usefulness of the site beyond that of just the big commercial MUDs or our own. The difference between our positions is that the "traffic exchange" aspect benefits you (and a few others that rabidly defended your assertion), hence you see it from that perspective. That doesn't make it the only legitimate reason for the site to exist, nor does it even make it the primary reason. And it certainly doesn't make you altruistic through your defense of that position.

As for your last comment, the MUDding community does not thank you, at least this member of it does not, for your ever-so-valiant (insert sarcasm of galactic proportions) representation of the community. While at times you are a good representative of the community (and on those occassions, you'll get your praise from me...if you check, you'll see you have), it's not consistent. Your whole position regarding the purpose of this site demonstrates as much. That's because you're not just arrogant, you're quite often a selfish ass. You may represent a plurality of the "community" through the playerbase of your MUDs, but often you represent it quite poorly and ultimately for your own benefit, not the community's, so hop off your high horse. Do you have a right to look after your investment? Yes. But selfishness isn't an endearing quality so don't expect everyone else to let you be at the community's expense.

Jason

Again, I'll say it - if you are in the MUDing community to make money and approach it from a purely capitalistic goal, then you're better off working for EverQuest... where *real* money is made. Most MUDers and MUD Admins are in it for the love of the genre and community. I am currently working on a commercial MUD project, but my loyalties still lie with the community as a whole.

As far as IRE representing a larger group of MUDers than other organizations/games... just because your group is larger, does not mean that you represent over 50% of all MUDers. The majority of MUDs and MUDers are not commercial, and that group of people deserves to be represented for what they are - not howmuch money they do/don't make.

If Syno created this site to maximize howmuch money he could make, that's fine; as I've said before, however, I assumed it was to create a prominent MUDing resource to aid the whole community based on the way the website describes itself. I can easily see why people like Matt and Thresh would see it purely from a money standpoint, but it just kind of makes me ill to see that mindset be so prevailent in a text-based mmorpg community.

As far as calling you arrogant - I really don't care howmany people you can suck into playing IRE games through professional advertising, flashiness, and popular features - I've always judged media based on the qualities I look for in it, and not on its popularity(though popularity is not always a bad thing, I admit freely). I'd like to consider the group I'm starting to be more along the lines of an Independent Film-making company, and less along the lines of a Hollywood Studio. My way allows more innovation and specific purpose. Call me arrogant for thinking that I'm creating something better than an IRE MUD. I suppose we all have our own views of what is good. Mine is challenge/creativite-innovation, some others are popularity/money.

Ultimately, this is neither mine, nor Matt's site. It is Syno's. Whatever he believes will best serve the purpose of his website is what will go. I'm imagining that he is not as far-left liberal in his approach as I am, nor is he so blindingly conservative right as Matt/Thresh are. This, based on his not stepping in to support one side or another. But again, I can only speculate, and be glad that he is listening to my logic, even if some others are unable to get that far.

What is my hidden motive then? There isn't one. All of my motives are in the open.

The people with the hidden motives are the ones with their sneaky calls for "2 lists... Why? UM... um... um... because it would be good for the community! Yeah, that's the ticket!" All they really want is their favorite mud to be listed more prominently.

Instead of using their energy to recruit more players for their favorite game, or work harder on it to make it better, or anything of that sort, they'd rather find a way to get unfair, artificial benefit from traffic that SOMEONE ELSE sends to TMS.

Matt put it best in comparing their desires to those who constantly expand the welfare state.

That's fine Crystal, it's expressly allowed

I would just like to point out, Lusternia has quite a few people that have spent nothing and have far more than many who have spent. Our current highest level player, that has all their skills at max, and more than one artifact has spent nothing but time.

I myself, before joining their team, was a player in college with no money to spent. Yet I still had high level characters, many with almost all my skills at max, and all had more than one artifact. I spent no money doing this, just time and using the in game economy.

It is 100% possible in, a well designed, pay-for-perks systems to get everything without spending money. It just takes time and/or a knowledge of how to use the economics systems.

And it's a remarkably specious argument, because any of the people you're discussing could have thrown RL money at the game and blown away their zero-money effort.  

I could walk to California from New York, but good thing "I have the option" to buy a plane ticket, or a car, etc.  The existence of a guy who walked to California doesn't mean the guy with the private jet doesn't have a ridiculous advantage as far as getting places.

If the money didn't Viagra-fy (*) the character, no one would spend it.

(*): TM, someone else.  Statistically, socially, and/or in other aspects.  I recognize that not everyone values rewards equally, and that rewards need not have quantitative impact (skill bonuses, etc.) to be coveted.

I am just pointing out that it would seem that Thresh did not understand that in their post, Lex was saying that he was accusing other players who are thinking about the community as a whole of having hidden motives. Just so Thresh isn't so confused anymore, he missed her point and then accused her of the very thing that she said he would.

And I will again point out that the current MUD project I am working on is commercial - and I still believe that there should be two lists. Not everyone is in the community only to act as a wolf to protect our own MUDs well-being; I.E., some of us really are just approaching the problem from a logical perspective, with no hidden motives and only our own sensibilities/opnions.

It's a common psychological concept that those that see "wolves"(could be anything in reality; cuckolders, cheaters, thieves, etc) in others who are innocent, are infact wolves themselves and are projecting that onto others. Thank you for showing us once again that your thought pattern is so self-involved, that you would accuse smaller MUDs really only wanting two lists so that their own MUDs could get on the main-page, when you just don't want to share the spotlight with any MUDs who are meant to be money-making machines.

Chuckle. I love the false dichotomy.

--matt

Being commercial is not a negative thing to me, especially since being commercial can serve many different ends and is not always based around sacrificing standards just to maximize profit.

Being self-serving, not caring about the community as a whole, and being so commercial that you use your popularity gained from lack-of-ethics as an excuse to put your MUD on a pedestal above other MUDs is a negative thing to me.

I also don't agree, or like, the concept of in-game credits that unevens the field for players depending howmuch money they are willing to spend.

But that's for another time. These are all, again, my opinions only.

Threshold @ Posted: Jan. 03 2006,02,05
‘Hidden motives’…  well...

The main divider between commercial and free muds is whether or not you make any money from your Mud. (And let's keep the question of whether or not you make any profit from it out of this discussion, because 'profit' can be manipulated in too many ways. So let's keep it simple; if you do or do not make any money from it).

If you do, you can use that money to pay for banners or other types of ads, to market your mud and get more players, which in turn will generate more money... Free muds don't have that option, which puts them at a great disadvantage from the start.

But... Then you have the commercial muds that choose to advertise themselves as free, although they clearly are commercial. Apparently you don’t do that, Threshold. Neither do some large, old time commercial muds like Gemstone and DragonRealms. And I commend you for it. But some commercial Muds do.

And that is where the real hidden motives come into play. Because why do they do it?
Clearly to get new player hooked to their mud, before they realise that they actually have to pay, if they want a real chance to compete with the players that do.

We all know how it works. Players get incredibly attached to the mud they play, once they have vested some time and effort into developing their char, and made some friends within the mud. Even if the Mud is a crappy stock Diku, even if the imps are immature jerks who cheat and/or abuse their players. Or even if the game turns out to be a disguised pay-for–perks mud, most players stick to the mud, after they passed the first newbie stage, unless they get a really strong incentive to leave. So they stay. And sooner or later most of them pay. (And the very few that still don’t can be used in the advertising, to show how you don’t have to pay. As Valg so aptly put it; You always have the option to walk from New York to California, instead of taking the jet flight).

To sum this up, maybe having parallel lists might be taking things a bit too far, I’ll grant you that. But having a way to separate the really free muds from the commercial ones is a very legitimate wish from both mud owners and mere mud players like me. And it is nothing new. It’s a long time request from all owners of free muds. If there were a filter to separate free muds from commercial, just as there is a filter to separate PK from non PK, or RPI from nom RP, I think most members of the mud community would settle for that and be content. But as long as the option does not exist, this discussion will keep popping up from time to time, because the free muds feel that they don’t get a fair treatment.

It would be quite simple to set the separation criteria, so that isn’t really the problem:. If you can get ANY in game benefits from paying real life money, (whether they be ‘pay-for-perks’, ‘donation equipment’ or just the plain ‘pay-to-play’); then the mud is commercial. If not, it is free.

The only reason why a listing option like this doesn’t already exist is that certain commercial muds have always vehemently opposed any suggestions in that direction. And why do they do that?

That is where the real ‘hidden motives’  come into play.

Where is this great mass of incredibly moronic players who enter a commercial game and don't discover until they are hooked that some guy in a black trenchcoat is going to show up at their door to break their legs if they don't pay up?  I've never understood why people who make this argument about whether or not a commercial game can be free always seem to assume that they somehow have some insight into the "real" costs of such a game that any other Average Joe will just not be able to work out for himself before deciding to try out a particular game.

Huh?  If paying is an issue, then by definition it would be a strong incentive to leave.  Not that it really matters; you'd have to have the IQ of a cabbage to start playing any of the top listed commercial games here and not acquire some basic understanding of their business model well before deciding whether or not to stick with the game in question.

Oh, wait, I know this one!  They want commercial muds listed with hobbyist muds so that they can force people to smoke crack!

Except that some MUDs deceptively advertise themselves as "free". People have asked them to describe their business model accurately for a while, and there has always been strong resistance. It's obvious why.

Personally, I would prefer to have the option to walk, than have to pay to even be able to walk.

There are basically three types of mud:

100% free mud

This type generally doesn't have the money to advertise, and many are the same stock you can get anywhere. Though there are some extremely good ones out there.

Pay to play mud

This one requires you pay them some amount of money every month(normally), just to play the game. They do have the money to advertise, and one would expect that they also tend to offer more than a stock game would. In addition the admin would be expected, but aren't always, to be more professional in their treatment of players.

Pay for perks mud

This one can be played completely free, but offers bonus for spending money. A well made one offers some in game way to get anything that one could buy for money. These also have the money to advertise, and one would expect more of their administration.

When I want to play, I like a dynamic world, with many players and fair administration. I don't like the idea of having to pay every month just to keep my character. Looking at those three types, Pay for Perks fits what I'm looking for. There might be a few 100% free muds out there that can do that, but when I looked they weren't something I wanted. Nothing against them, just not what I was looking for.

The choice is up to the players, but a pay for perks game is in the middle. They are commercial, but can be played without spending money.

I think we're in agreement on most of those definitions. (I don't think how staff treats players is well-correlated with the business model. Some admins on commercial games (Vryce comes to mind) routinely treat their players as children. I'm among the hardasses on my own game's staff, and I'd never make the threats and insults he routinely throws around.)

My major concern is that the pay-for-perks crowd often calls themselves "free" instead of "pay-for-perks". I'm not fond of playing a game of that sort, since I feel it ruins competitive balance, but you and others prefer it for various reasons. The_logos frequently makes a case that the pay-for-perks model is superior because it allows player flexibility as far as how to get ahead, as one example.

My major objection is that IRE in particular, and pay-for-perks games in general, go well out of their way to pass themselves off as "free". But as you mention, "free" really should be a separate designation.

I don't see a need for multiple lists. I think it would be confusing and arbitrary. However, I think a simple labeling system (color-coding MUD names, or icons next to the names, for example) would promote transparency to someone who is browsing. A player like you who wants pay-for-perks can find that readily. A player like me who wants either free or pay-to-play can find that as well.

What's the objection to something like that?

Sure, some people have been asking for awhile. A few people. That's it. On the other hand, the use of the word 'free' as IRE and others use it, is simply the standard in the games industry. (See Habbo Hotel with 40 million accounts, and Runescape with 2 million active users, and Kart Rider, with god knows how many gazillions of users, etc). Why should we conform to the wishes of a small minority when the accepted standard works fine for everyone else?

I'm not trying to diminish your opinion, as it's as valid as anyone else's, but on the other hand, it's just one person's opinion, and the industry as a whole has taken a different point of view.

I mean, look, Topmudsites is free, right? But by your definition, it's not, insofar as while you can promote your mud for free via the reviews or the forums, people who pay have an advantage via more persistent and flashier ads. I don't think that definition makes sense, as "having an advantage" isn't at all synonymous with "not free."

--matt

You're comparing a text-based MUD to graphical mmorpgs. The two genres offer very different kinds of games.

You have no reason to conform. It suits your purposes very well to mislead people into thinking your MUD is 100% free, and using graphical mmorpgs as comparison is a weak argument. :-p

No, I'm talking about the games industry, which we are a part of. Besides, graphical MUDs are as welcome on TMS as text MUds. Muds are Muds whether they are graphical or text. Everquest is just a diku with graphics, for instance, and WoW is slightly evolved from that.

If you think that "using graphical MMORPGs as a comparison is a weak argument" then I'd suggest that you really don't understand the medium you're speaking about. Most working professionals that have worked in both text and graphics understand that they are the same thing, just with a different client program.

--matt

the_logos @ Jan. 04 2006,04:49
Aren't all  MMORPGs commercial? Most text Muds are free. That's the difference.

Listing yourself as free when you are in fact pey-for-perks is intentionally misleading.

Obviously a lot of people like the pay-for-perks system you use.

So why are you so afraid of listing youreslf accurately? It might even be to your advantage.

No, there are also non-commercial MMORPGs out there, but clearly far less than commercial ones because of the huge committment and resources required.

As I said, one would HOPE that a commercial game has administration that is more on the unbiased/fair side of things... though, as with everything, there are exceptions(Vryce comes to mind).

As for the word free, as I said above, pay for perks games are free to play, in that you don't HAVE to pay to play them. If they were to say they were 100% free, I would agree with you completely. If they, like we do, claim to be free to play then they are not misleading anyone.

Simultronics charges for weddings? All I have to say is... wtf?

Yeah. The whole "But we could be free!" thing is pretty laughable. the_logos keeps pointing out that it's a common lie in MMORPGs, which doesn't really justify it here or anywhere.

If you're constantly saying things like "I'd only play a commercial game! They're much more professional!" and "Pay-for-parks is the ultimate flexibility! You can do anything!"..... and on the other hand you're consistently refusing to label your games as "pay-for-perks"....

You're talking out of both sides of your mouth. If being able to pay to get ahead is a godsend, trumpet it from the mountaintop! Don't whisper it in the shadows.

To be clear, I'm not discussing what is technically legal. I'm sure, like Vryce, people can get away with a number of unethical things. I'm asking people to be honest, which is a different concept.

It's neither a lie nor unjustifiable. The fact that most MMORPG's that get good exposure are pay to play commercial MUDs shouldn't be lost on you. There are a ton of MMORPG's out there that are free, but you tend not to hear about them unless you are looking for them specifically because the production value required to make a game that a fairly high number of people will want to play tends to be higher, and thus requires some form of income to support and expand.

There is no "We could be free." to speak of. The games are free, anything beyond that is a function of individual play style and available avenues of investment, be it with time, money, or skill.

Selective advertising is practiced by everybody on this list. It's an undeniable fact of life that it's going to happen, and hand picking those things that you want your competitors to label your games with isn't fair to anyone involved. This isn't the medical industry where people are in danger of dying because a product fails to mention what might go wrong with it. These are luxury products, regardless of whether they are free, pay to play, or pay for perks, being marketed to a select niche group of consumers.

By the same arguments that have been made against pay for perks MUDs, it can be readily argued that any number of features or lack of features should be explicitly defined in the advertisements of any MUD on this list. For space reasons and simple logic, we should not expect this to happen.

The question of ethics can't be sufficiently defined by any one party, as ethics are a group social meme. As such, we cannot clearly define what is "ethical" in the context of TMS beyond what is ultimately defined as legal or otherwise by Synozeer.

The question of honesty in particular can't really be sufficiently maintained. It's no less honest to list a pay for perks mud as Free than it is to label a MUD with an average of 2 players online as "Spacious and expansive," but the latter probably takes place more often.

My main dislike of the claim is based upon two main points:

1. In order to play competitively you need credits, and:

2. In order to consistently obtain credits, someone has to pay real money for them.

The 'free' argument seems to revolve around the fact that you can get someone else to buy those credits for you in return for something within the game.

The drawback with that reasoning is that it could apply to anything. Gemstone, EverQuest, World of Warcraft, etc, could also be played without spending a single cent, if you could get another player to pay your monthly charge in return for something else in-game. Yet I would feel decidedly miffed if I were to buy a MMORPG that plastered "free to play" all over the front of the box, got it home, and discovered that it was only "free" if I could get someone else to pay the monthly fee.

The argument isn't even limited to computer games. Imagine a restaurant which advertised itself as "free", but then as soon as you sat down and looked at the menu you realised it wasn't. "Well, Sir, you could try polishing other customers' shoes and perhaps they'll pay for your meal" just wouldn't cut it. Nor would "But you don't have to eat here!" when I'd already gone to the hassle of walking there and sitting down, even if the water was free and there was no entry charge.

However this point has already been covered again and again, and I really can't see anything changing. The muds that would suffer from such a change are generally those who also pay for advertising - so Synozeer would have to deliberately spend time and effort to make a change that would upset his customers. Not exactly good business sense.

Does this really matter, though?  If a game advertises itself as "free to play," I (and, I would suspect, many others as well) expect just that - to be able to log on and play without spending any money.  Whether other players keep the game alive by spending real money for credits that I might or might not purchase with money acquired in-game, or whether the game is kept alive by imms who pay all the bills for server maintenance is irrelevant.

Furthermore, if said game is also a commerical venture in which players can pay for various perks or advancements, I will readily assume that I will either have to (a) pay to remain on par competitively, or (b) find an alternative means, if there is one, of remaining competitive.  And, contrary to what some people have tried to argue, I think any reasonable player can be given credit for being able to figure that much out upon deciding to play a game such.  Players can and do play such games without getting ripped off or cheated or exploited and lured into paying for addictive behaviors over which they apparently have no control.

There's nothing unethical, dodgy, dubious, innacurate or questionable about a game claiming to be free to play when you can in fact play it for free.  Any reasonable person knows that if such a game does offer benefits for play it could well mean that the free play might have some limitations when it comes to competing with paying players.  Give such players credit for being able to decide for themselves whether such limitations make the free version of the game still worth their time.

"Any reasonable person knows that if such a game does offer benefits for play it could well mean that the free play might have some limitations when it comes to competing with paying players. Give such players credit for being able to decide for themselves whether such limitations make the free version of the game still worth their time."

Wouldn't accurately labeling IRE's games as "pay for perks" help that decision process? After all, the_logos tells us that the additional flexibility is a plus to gameplay for some players. Wouldn't discriminating gamers who value that be especially attracted if IRE advertised their games accurately?

No, they are not. MMORPG is just another word for MUD. Achaea, for instance, could be called a text MMORPG or a text MUD. It has graphics, of course, but it is primarily text-driven. WoW has more graphics, but also relies heavily on text for user output and input. Incidentally, this understanding is accepted by luminaries such as Dr. Richard Bartle (inventor of MUDs) and Raph Koster (designer of LegendMUD, Ultima Online and SW:G, and Creative Director at Sony Online).

I'm not afraid of listing ourselves accurately. We are free. You guys are the ones who want to redefine the word, so come up with your own word. We're just using standard terminology, in which if a playing experience costs no money, it is free.

--matt

Simutronics rocks. They've created games good enough that people will not only spend that much cash but spend lots of time as well.

--matt

The fact of the matter is, 'free' is a more powerful way to advertise than "pay for perks" and the two are unrelated. A game can happily be free with pay for perks and a game can happily require a subscription cost along with offering pay for perks. Given that the existence of pay for perks is thus completely independent of the "freeness" of a MUD, it's just another feature. I'll also point out that we don't label Lusternia as "having geomancers" which is yet another feature that is completely independent of "freeness." I don't know much about Carrion Fields, but I'd like to believe that it contains more features than you talk about in the 250 character blurb on the front of TMS. Presumably you have selected those features to promote on TMS which you believe will attract players the most easily on TMS.

--matt

You know you're on shaky ground when you have to resort to analogies like that.  C'mon.

If you made the following two polls, do you think the results would be remotely similar?

What business model would you most prefer to play under:
- Free
- Pay-For-Perks/Arms-Race
- I have no preference.

What type of game would you like to play?
- The game must have Geomancers, whatever those are.
- The game must not have Geomancers.  I hate those.
- I don't care if geomancers are present or not.

Whether you will publically admit it or not, the reason this topic gets discussed a lot is precisely because a lot of people care strongly about what business model they play under.  

Also, IRE's misleading advertising does impact free games, by diluting the word "free".  (I like the analogy of a "free" restaurant, because you can sit at a table and ask for water.  "Oh.  Did you want food?  Well...")  As long as you insist in this deception, you should expect to be called on it.

You're missing the point. You're only playing it for "free" because another player is paying for you, in return for something that you're giving them.

Do you think that Gemstone, Avalon and Threshold should be able to advertise themselves as "free to play"?

What about restaurants and pubs? I bet my local would get a lot of extra customers if they advertised "free beer". Do you think those customers would be surprised to discover that the beer was only "free" if they could convince another punter to buy it for them?

Then don't you think they might want to know that information before they connect to the mud?

The listings already distinguish between "free" and "pay-to-play", so obviously it's already been decided that this is an important search feature for new players - that's not in question. The question is only whether or not players might want to know if such a game sells perks, because - as you've already pointed out - "it could well mean that the free play might have some limitations when it comes to competing with paying players".

IRE states that it is completely free to play, and that we(the players) should only pay them if we think they deserve it. It does not say there, on the website, that we should pay them if we want any chance of being competitive with people who dish out real-life money for in-game perks.

It's misleading advertising, and it's different than trying to put a positive spin on a small playerbase; the difference is that your misleading advertising can cost players money, whereas other misleading advertising will only cost them a bit of time/disappointment if the MUD isn't as good as they'd hoped it would be.

Simultronics has created a solid set of MUDs that prey on the most addicted of the MUDing population. No game is worth paying 80 dollars a month for, or paying real life money just to be able to participate in realm-wide quests, or to have in-game weddings. NO game is worth that, and just because some sad players are conned into paying that does not change the fact that it is highway robbery, at best. It is one step up from drug-dealing to suburban rich kids who get hooked on the juice and have the money to sustain their habit.

Your defense of Simultronics, as well as your other weak arguments set forth recently, only go to show that you only care about making money - and that you judge success in an online MUDing community based on howmuch profit you are turning, or howmany players are sucked in.

Good for you - feel great about yourself. Most of us would venture to say that your ethics are questionable, and that your heart is in the wrong place compared to most of us in this online community of text-based Multi-User-Dungeons - games that are born from British Legends/MUD, as compared to games that are born from Ultima: Online/etc. They are seperate genres, and your callous, self-serving attitude does not mesh well with many people here, as I'm sure you can tell.

Again, your defense of Simultronics is classic. They are internet thieves - and it is not that I say this from lack of experience. I played their games when they were free, they were among the first MUDs I played, 13 years ago. They are internet con-artists now. IRE might not be as bad as them, but based on what Matt says, I doubt it is from lack of trying. :-p

It's a professionally run pay-to-play game that advertises itself as such, and personally I have no problem with that. If people want to pay for it, that's up to them.

I don't have a problem with the pay-for-perks model either, although it's not something I would play myself. Some players even prefer this approach, and I see absolutely no reason why there shouldn't be muds that cater to such players.

However I do feel that players should be able to see this sort of information up front, rather than being told that the mud is 'free' and then only discovering later that it's actually pay-for-perks. Equally, I feel that those players who prefer the pay-for-perks model should also be able to view that information up front.

First of all, I don't mind subscribing to games. I do it for MMORPGs (and btw I think when you use that term nowadays, everyone will assume you are talking about a graphical MMOG), and I'd do it for text games as well.

I played Aetolia for a little while, and while I decided it wasn't my kind of game, I have nothing against it, or IRE.

The thing I don't like about Aetolia being called free or even pay-for-perks is that it is much more than that. In Aetolia, in addition to levels that you can gain by playing for free, you really also need to gain your skills. You do that by getting lessons, which are either 10 per level, or 6 per bought credit.

Now with 100 levels, you will therefore get 1000 lessons. But it takes 1700+ lessons to max out a single skill category, and you have 3 guild sets plus other general ones. If you never buy a credit, you would be the most gimped level 100 in the game. Actually, to bash the MOBs you'd need to, I doubt you could do that without buying the credits to max out your skills.

So that's why I'd classify this really as pay-to-effectively-play.

If I'm wrong about any of that, please correct me.

No, I see the point.  It doesn't change the fact that I'd still be playing for free.  The fact that this is possible because of a business model that allows my play to be essentially sponsored by someone else doesn't change that fact.  In the days before cable TV, all my neighbors and I had no trouble thinking of TV as "free" even though network advertisers were covering what would otherwise have been our costs.

I am not familiar with Gemstone's or Avalon's business models.  However, as I recall, Threshold requires you to pay at least a one-time $50 fee to play (and then you can pay more for extras).  So, no, I wouldn't consider Threshold free to play, I'd consider it to be a $50 game.

A more appropriate analogy would be a pub that advertised "free beer" and when you got there you could drink tap Budweiser for free, but if you wanted Guiness or maybe some food you'd either have to pay for it or get someone else to buy it for you.  You're still getting free beer, and most people walking into that situation aren't going to be saying, "What a rip!!! No one told me I'd have to pay for the sandwiches and good beer!!!"  They know the free beer is a draw to get them into a commercial establishment.

They might want to, and with very little effort they will.  I'm not a player on any of IRE's games, but I have checked them out in the past.  It only took a brief perusal of the website for Achaea to figure out that it was a pay-for-perk system.  I also recall that you can't get through the tutorial without becoming aware of at least some of the uses of credits, from which I think anyone can conclude that Achaea is a game where people who spend money are going to get something in return for that money.  The small amount of time they'd have spent up to that point is hardly going to cloud their judgement about whether that sort of system is something they'd be interested in playing or competing in.

I don't have a problem with muds providing more detail on the information page than just whether or not they are pay-to-play.  I wouldn't complain if a system like the one you suggested in were put in place.  I'm just questioning the suggestion made by some here that a mud which is free to play is being less than honest when it advertises itself as "free to play." Most of these arguments seem to rest on the assumption that visitors to this site are complete dupes with highly addictive personalities who will only find out that a game has purchaseable benefits after they are so far taken in that they will find themselves unable to resist paying for said benefits without suffering from withdrawals and severe emotional distress.

A game, like any other service, is worth precisely what the people who pay for it think it is worth.  Welcome to life with capitalism.

I wouldn't pay $80 a month for a mud.  I also wouldn't pay $80,000 for a car.  But that doesn't mean that someone who would is somehow deficient or a victim of con artists.  It just means that, for him, the car is actually worth $80,000.

How many steps up is it from throwing kittens out of the window of a moving car?

Oh, you know - five or six.

What you mean to say, or rather, the truth of the matter, is that no game is worth that to -you-. How about you stop trying to tell the rest of the world what's worth playing and let them decide for themselves? Are you threatened by people enjoying something or valuing something differently than you? I mean, are you so threatened that you have to resort to saying that people who value things differently than you must be effectively drug addicts, because they couldn't possibly rationally want anything but what you want.

Give me a break. By the way, it's SIMUTRONICS, not "Simultronics."

Jealous much?

It's good to know that your attitude will prevent you from ever being taken seriously.

--matt

The #2 ranked player in Aetolia currently has never bought a thing with real money. He's level 100, has 7 maxed out skills, and one more that is a hair away from being maxed out.

The other IRE games have similar examples. If you don't want to pay real money, you just have to commit more time to the game. It's a simple time-money trade-off, and it's one that allows you to play for free, forever, as the #2 ranked player on Aetolia has, for instance.

--matt

I'm guessing you laughed because the idea of doing something based on principle is foreign to you and that the idea that someone might require a fairly high standard for proof of wrongdoing before condemning someone else is equally alien.

But no, you'd rather fixate on the person (Soleil) than the principle and condemn them based on the fact that you don't like them. I don't like Vyrce. He's a dick. That's got nothing to do with the positions I take though, as personality doesn't (or at least shouldn't) matter in judgements of right and wrong.

I really respect Adam, for instance, for ignoring the pitchfork & torch masses who whined up a storm when Medievia was permitted back onto the voting list. Adam rightfully decided that it wasn't his job to decide whether Medievia was violating the DIKU license provisions or not: It's a court's job. Once they admitted to violating HIS rules though and refused to change their ways, he kicked them off as he should have. There was no doubt they were in the wrong, and Adam is the arbiter of the rules. Whether they are violating the DIKU license or not is between the DIKU licenseholders and Medievia, with the courts as the arbiter, as that is where civil disputes are settled.

If you want to laugh at what is an entirely reasonable and real-world (rather than the high-strung, overly sensitive world that a few forum users seem to live in) approach to this kind of thing, that's fine with me.

--matt