I'm not jealous of SimUtronics' success. I even think they have a good product, if too generalized and mob-bashing oriented for my person tastes. I simply think that charging 80 dollars a month, plus additional costs, to be competitive in an online game is extremely over-priced. Yes, people are willing to pay it, obviously - that does not mean, however, that it's anything but overpriced, and sickingly so in my opinion. And probably most of the other people here.

Why should I not be taken seriously? I've achieved a lot, am very resourceful, and offer a community-oriented viewpoint. You are merely over-defensive, not realizing that your defenses of your point of view only make you look more like Vryce, and less like other administration.

I do not like Vryce's MUD or ethics more than anyone else around here. However, I don't consider you much higher up than him - and if you want to ridiculously accuse me of being jealous of money some admins havemade, I'd say you're silly. If I wanted to focus on purely capitalistic gain, it really would not be very difficult. I don't want to, though, however.

If someone is willing to pay for it, it's not overpriced. It's worth it to that person at that time, ipso facto.

You won't be taken seriously if you insist on insulting gamers who play games you don't like or who value things you don't like based on nothing more than, "Well, I don't like it."

--matt

Well, Logos... I am sooo close to falling into the trap that he just mentioned. So I know that he is right. Im addicted to imperian, but it takes so long to get up to a credit buyers level. A very long time, being years. Its just all too easy to throw 70, or 105 dollars in, just to be able to experience everything thats being dangled in front of you..

There is a person whos rich in rl, in imperian right now that bought so many credits that shes got artifacts up the wazoo, (increase stats, which is impossible in any other way besides certain skills, and do other things) she's got all her skillsets completely mastered, shes got the ability to do almost anything she wants. Heres the clincher, shes still on probation in her guild... just out of novicehood, in other words.

[rant]

I do not think this is actually true. It seems to me that most of the people discontent with the wording of the definition of the MUDs listed on TMS are game admins who are probably looking for a way to use to their advantage the words free to play while other MUDs they do not believe should yield the title should be prevented from doing so.

Pretending this thread comes on and on month after month because all the people posting are so altruistic and worry so much about the defenseless players, internet-junkies-know-nothing who are going to be ripped off by the big companies, is delirious.

On other note, comparing a pay-per-perks model with the restaurant that is free if your friend pays your bill is the sorriest excuse for an attempt to defend an idea. The two situations not only are not comparable, but the argument itself revolves about the twisting beyond imagination of the meaning of the word free, just to suit the persons need for a stupid-looking example.

Free to play seems to be an accurate description of a model in which you can play for free, not only that, but players from these MUDs are actually able to remain competitive even if they do not spend money, though, of course, they need to put on more time and learn tricks and the game in more depth (which by itself is an advantage for they at least know how to use what they have earned).

100% Free is a good way to describe a game for which everything can be obtained for free, although you are failing to mention that the game admin is paying real-hard cash to keep the game running, but you do not need that information in the front page, because what matters is that it is 100% free, nobody on earth has to pay a penny to anybody.

[/rant]

[rant]
I have tried a couple of RP and RPI MUDs in the past, I have tried a couple of MUDs about Dragon Ball GT/Z and whatnot, a Shadowrun one, a couple of IRE games and then another 2 besides the one I currently play. None of the above really seemed to be what I really wanted, actually, of the list, the ones I enjoyed the least were the RPI ones.

I remember playing for half and hour a day before frustration crept in, for a whole week, sitting in a "dark cell" in which I could see everything up to the smallest detail, just to be allowed out and be caught by the next guardian or whatever name was after being released.

Now, this clearly, is not your case, as you have previously stated that there is high quality in text-MUDs mainly because of those things that cannot be offered in Graphical games, such as role playing and deep player-player interactions; does this mean I am not part of the MUD community? does this mean that having been coder of a MUD, IMM on a couple, and player of MUDs for 9 years are not enough reasons to be able to qualify into your select community?

Seriously, drop the I am the community banner and try to defend your viewpoints without the use of the majority of the people or other twisted wording like the ones you frequently use to give more weight to your statements. The truth is, H&S games are much simpler, have a smoother learning curve, usually do not require prolonged on-line hours to be enjoyed, and the interaction with other players is semi-optional in many cases. This is why it pleases many people, many more than the niche community that is pleased by more complex, detail-rich games. Neither of the two groups is the community, both and others are part of the MUD community, and pretending to be voicing the opinion of the majority while bashing the games that include the greatest number of players among those listed in this site is not only silly but unrealistic.

[/rant]

Actually - YOU are comparing the advertising techniques of Text-based games and graphical games (and he is just responding to what you are saying).   You aren't really comparing the actual games.

Either way, Both text-based and graphical places:
Are still games.
Are in the entertainment sector.
(In general) Have the same qualities (though they often draw to different customers or the same customer at different times).

Your argument structure - that Text-based games can't use certain words (IE: free) that the graphical games do - is ridiculous.  Many companies from many different markets inside the same sector always use similar words.  It's no different with any other consumer product.

And why is it the companies fault if the consumer doesn't do the research into the product before they try it (and become helplessly hooked such that they can't stop using it ...)?  If I were one of those players you so freely cut down, I wouldn't stand for you saying that I wasn't intelligent because I was "addicted" to a game and couldn't help myself.  And I would loath being told by you that I was stupid and didn't do my own research and find out what a game is all about before becoming addicted to it.


You know Donathin Frye ... I agree with Matt on this.  You keep snubbing your nose, thumping your chest, and condescendingly TELLING everyone who is in the commerical section of Text-based games to stop and go join the graphical section ... because text-based games shouldn't be commerical, etc. etc. (I just had to count and I stopped when I counted 4 times in this thread alone ... who knows if there are more)  Like you are an expert on the matter and somehow have the right to tell people your opinion?

Rather ironic that after restating multiple times of your high-and-mighty opinion, that you tell everyone that you are working on a commercial game.  Though I do like how this last time you said it, you put the little caveat in about your loyalties ... so that you could seem better than all the rest.  I guess we should be telling you to leave and go join EverQuest.

The truth is you only have an idea of where the loyalties of the other admins fall, commercial and not.  And it's only your opinion.  Just like the rest of us - we base our opinion on our experience.  It's too bad that with this, as well as the dual list, you see the need to project and force your opinion on others.

I was wondering about how you could do that, and I finally remembered that there is an in-game market of credits for gold. So yeah, I guess you could grind out what you need by generating gold.

Looking at the credit market it looks like there are a little over 400 available to be sold, at an average price of about 2600 gold per credit. That means it takes about 3/4 of a million gold to buy yourself a maxed skill. It also means that there are not enough credits on the market to max 2 skill areas.

And the ingenious thing about it is that the game gets the cash either way. All advancement past 1000 lessons requires someone to have paid real money... OK, maybe a player can "play for free" by grinding out the gold. But, this only happens because someone actually forked over the cash, and wants to generate gold with it.

It takes about 295 credits to max a skill, which is somewhere around $90 in credits. That's about 6-7 months or more of playing a commercial MMORPG. This amazed me once I figured it out. I was about to spend about the same amount as I would for the commercial MMORPG.

And the last thing I have to say about this is that none of this is spelled out. You have to put it all together yourself from how the mechanics work.

Sorry, but even though I did somewhat like Aetolia, it just sounds... sneaky.

But it can't - you might be able to obtain it for free, but only by getting another player to pay for you. And if you consider that 100% free, we might as well remove the "pay-to-play" entry entirely, because the same argument could be applied to every commercial mud. Or indeed pretty much else, such as the restaurant analogy that apparently went over your head.

Actually there are many other ways, that don't involve anyone buying credits.

Bardic and Artisan contests are held, I'm 99% in all IRE games, every month. They give out large sums of credits for creative work that is game related and placed on the website for all to see. Not only do you get credits if you win, but your work gets posted for the whole world to see on your games website!

Most games have mortal builders, these are players that volenteer some of there time to help build rooms. I know in Lusternia we give them a decent rate per room, my current building project has 3 builders and a total credit value of 2000 credits.

Some, like I know Lusternia, also have mortal coders. While much harder to get, for a few hours a week of volenteering you can get atleast enough for 1 skill a month, up to 2 depending on how well you work.

All games randomly do things such as lotteries, which tickets are bought with gold and sometimes the prizes are large amounts of credits.

In Lusternia we give away artifacts, even some of the most expensive ones, during special events and around RL holidays. Just this last holiday season we probably gave away over 10k credits worth of artifacts and other IG items via a type of scavanger hunt.

Those that apply and are accepted to be a guide, and help new players, get "paid" in credits based on how many hours a week they volenteer. Some of our most active guides I've seen get a few hundred credits a week.

I think you may have just missed some of these other options, though most of them(besides bardic/artisan contests and lottery type things) tend to require that you are a long term player and know the game well.

And there are still other methods, the credit market you mentioned as well as trading credits for services in game with players. Mentors gain credits if their proteges purchase, as do cities and guides of their members purchase. Of course, these methods require that someone had made a purchase, but they are another way for people who don't want to spend money to still get credits.

I've thought about my presence here in this forum some, and will say this to some responses.

Matt, I admittedly allow my lack of trust and my sensitive nerve about what I consider to be condescending statements made by you to other MUDers on forums to get the better of me. I, therefor, do tend to push to the point where I am no less condescending than you, merely on the other political/economic-view spectrum as you. Therefor, I will cut the condescension, though it does not change my opinion of you, Vryce, or a few other such people.

Spoke - your post was something that I read, re-read, and decided I liked parts of. I should not try to claim to be the voice of the whole community - however, this is done, in part, because the loudest and most vocal members of these threads are(largely) the ones that I feel are the most selfish and least helpful to the community. It's something I am willing to drop, again, as most of this forum's most vocal players are loyal to the dominant groups of this particular forum, which happen to be the larger commercial MUDs.

Lanthum begs a little response as well, before I back off a bit from what seems to be an overly sensitive subject(fairness and community, that is).

Before I correct you, I'll say that of course I have the right to tell people my opinion. That is what opinion forums are for, silly.

Moving on; I have nothing against commercial MUDs, and as you noted am even working on a commercial project. I am merely an advocate of not forcing non-commercial MUDs to compete with commercial MUDs for voter ranking(hence the concept of having two seperate lists). I am also against commercial systems that advertise themselves misleadingly as something most players would assume to be non-commercial. I am also against commercial systems that give huge game mechanic bonuses to players who put out real money, making it *nearly* impossible to become competitive in such games without devoting many years to working yourselves up to something someone else can buy easily. I find these things unethical. I am not, however, against commercial gaming in the slightest - graphical mmorpgs are, by design, meant to suck money out of the player. They are boxed and mass-produced and given "expansion-packs" for this reason. You come to expect this from them. You should not come to expect this from text-based MUDing, as it is not our origins, nor is it what most MUDs strive for. That is my point.

All points made from here-on-out will specificy that I am not the voice of the entire community, and I will avoid "thumping my chest" at Matt/Vryce/anyone else that I have issues involving their ethics/etc.

I'm talking about costs for the players though. The players (as a whole) have to pay money in order to be competitive. The fact that some of them will pay for others does not, in my opinion, make the game free.

To apply the same logic to your example, we'd be talking about a mud hosting service that advertised its hosting as "100% free" - but then you realised that in order to have sufficient resources to run your mud for more than a couple of players, you'd need to either pay the hosting provider, or get the admin of another mud to pay it for you (perhaps in exchange for doing coding or building work on their mud).

I recall a situation a bit like that in the past, actually. A mud hosting provider gave a "free" hosting connection to a mud run by someone I knew, in return for sending traffic to their site. After the mud had gone through all the trouble of setting everything up (including shipping a computer over to act as their dedicated server) the provider stated that unless they sent at least a million hits per month, they'd have to pay. Such traffic was simply not possible for the mud in question, which left them in a rather awkward situation.

... bastards. : p

In another , I attempted to price "sweat equity" in MUDs, and never got a straight answer from IRE.  The number I was looking for was the conversion rate from money to time.

In other words, Hajamin toes the IRE party line and mentions that you can always write areas, essays, helpfiles, and such for credits.  In some of those areas, you're essentially working for the company-- you put in X hours of work, and they pay you.  The question is, is it worth it?

I was able to grab some numbers from another game that's much more open about how they reimburse.  In that game, if I wanted 3 in-game currency units, I could either do work that would take about an hour, or I could pay around $2.

Now, the heart of the pay-for-perks model is forcing people into that decision.  IRE has described their game as a place where "3/4 of our sales are driven by PvP".  So, let's say I want to compete with Daedroth's character, the dirty fiend.  (Could be a fight, but really could be anything credits can effect.)  He knows I'm coming, so he drops $20 on enhancing a key skill.  That's a pretty modest amount of money as an isolated incident.

Now, I have the following options:
1) Compete at a disadvantage.
2) Drop $20 just like Daedroth did.
3) Spend 10 full hours cranking out essays, area work, etc.
4) Decline to compete and find poorer targets.

10 hours?  That might be my gaming time for a week.  The real choices are #1, #2, and #4.  And if Daedroth spends more than $20, #1 becomes increasingly impossible.  (If all that money didn't buy him victory, why would he spend it?)

It's an arms race.  I can't beat Daedroth unless I spend like he does, or invest an unreasonable quantity of time.  The system is designed to create this result.  Pay, or be a second-class citizen.

And that's the difference between pay-for-perks and the other models (flat fee, or free).  It's a tilted playing field and always will be. Some people like that sort of thing, and all we're asking for is some honest labeling of it.

OK, I'll grant you that, but they all do revolve around credits, not IC actions in the game for the most part.
These take RL OOC talent to do. I haven't the talent, nor the inclination to do art, poetry, or prose.
So OK, you can work for a game and get paid for it. To me, time is money. I'd value mine at at least $50/hour.
You can't seriously count on luck as a mechanism to fund advancement, can you?
Depending how they're given away, this might at least by an IC thing. But still, winning events is not something you can control.
Being a guide is a valuable and worthwhile activity, and those who spend their time doing should be compensated. However, again this is compensation for time spent.

Remember, I am not against pay-to-play. I do it all the time. I bought Aetolia credits, and if I kept playing, would do so again. I simply maintain that it should be considered something more than pay-for-perks and perhaps a little less than pay-to-play.

I also maintain that the games do not adequately document up front the amount a player might be expected to pay. The normal pay-to-play game model uses a nice, predictable, and documented fee structure.

The sneaky part is in grabbing new players, who don't know, and actually can't tell from game docs how much they will be paying. So let's do a back of the envelope calculation. My guild has a doc telling you that it will take 294 credits (about 1750 lessons, I don't remember precisely) to trans a skill. Is that documented anywhere in the help files? No (at least I'm pretty sure not in Aetolia--I never found it). Why not? I hope it isn't to keep new players from figuring out the payment required if you choose to buy the credits.

Let's see: I have 8 major skills. Let's add in 4 extra mini-skills for a total of 12. That would take 3528 credits to trans them all. Subtract the 166 credit-equivalent you get for getting level 100 (1000 lessons / 6). So that's 3362 credits. Current prices on the site, for buying 2000 + 1500 credits is $1022 (getting only 3400 credits only saves you $7, so might as well get the extras).

You know, I only spend $131/year on my graphical MMORPG, which is a rather typical cost for a 12-month sub. By the way, the above amount is therefore 7.8 years of subscription costs for my MMORPG. So this is not a small amount of change. And note, the above is all for advancement. No perks here.

This somewhat reminds me of those "free" contests you can enter, that then begin to send you puzzles where you can buy hints/word lists/etc. to get you the best scores.

I'm not saying it isn't worth it--that determination is for the player. I'm also not saying that you can't find ways to get "free" credits, though I don't consider the examples above good general mechanisms (where your "free" play generates them--only grinding for cash to buy credits fits that bill, and in that case, you're likely buying credits someone else has bought).

Thanks for providing some numbers. Most pay-for-perks games are notoriously sparse on public disclosure, as you mention, and for obvious reasons.

So, maximizing what you consider a reasonable skill set (12 skills) costs $1015 (we'll assume you get the absolute cheapest) per character.

Let's say you decided tomorrow to never spend another cent on your game. How many hours do you think you would have to invest to 'trans' those 12 skills? Assume your present level of skill, and no "charity" from other players. (In other words, if you can make money to buy credits by selling them stuff you find, that's fair game. But having a friend just hand you stuff isn't really "earning" them.)

If you're feeling ambitious, maybe break it down by different methods if you're familiar with them. In other words, "I could spend X hours farming an area, or Y hours writing area content for them, or Z hours... "

I'm curious how IRE values your time, and if it's close to the $2/hour figure I calculated from another game with a documented fee structure.

Aside: This is straying from the topic heading a bit, but I think it's very interesting to discuss. Maybe move your response to the 'price of sweat' thread I mention a couple posts up?

All of our games also give out credits for winning contests. Some skilled artists and story tellers have received thousands of dollars worth of credits directly from us, not from having bought credits from other players.

So yes, you can obtain it for free, and it doesn't require another player to pay for you. I wish you'd do a little more research before holding forth on a business model you're not that familiar with, with all due respect.

--matt

Pardon me? Hobbyist MUDs are, by and large, newcomers to the MUDing scene. The very first MUD went commercial, and nearly all of the MUDs from the first 9-10 years of MUD-dom were commercial.

You're doing it again. Don't try to tell the mud community what it can and cannot do or what it should and shouldn't be. Why don't you let the mud community decide for itself by deciding what games people in it wish to play?

--matt

That's just a subjective value judgement. "Unreasonable quantity of time" is your opinion and is no different from that other guy saying that Simutronics are thieves because some people are willing to pay $80 for a quest.

The fact is, we have many long-time players who never pay a dime. Do they view their playtime as an "unreasonable quantity of time"? I doubt it.

You keep trying to conflate "equality" with "free." They're unrelated.
--matt

KaViR, I know you usually do not go and read a post twice to make sure you did not take someone's words out of context.

Let me explain to you how it is correctly done:

First, you quote an entire paragraph, not just the words that might sound controversial
Then, if you were actually reading the post, you would have noticed that the previous paragraph refered to the so-called pay-per-perks MUDs characterizing them as free to play while this chapter in question refered to those on which you cannot obtain anything with your real life money.

So, once again, you failed to make sense in your replies.

By the way, here is a quote of your post
This of course, beyond any question proves you do not make sense.

Any talent is OOC. Are you telling me that any game in which you can advance via talent is bad because some people may not have the OOC talent to do so? I completely reject that as a game design axiom.

Then it's probably not worth it for you to play our games and not buy credits. The choice is completely up to you, of course.


Free and "something you can control" have nothing to do with each other.

You mean just like you're compensated in every bashing MUD for spending time...bashing?


Exactly, thank you.

I hope you continue to enjoy Aetolia!
--matt

Anyway, this topic has been done to death. I'll summarize, and then bow out gracefully, largely because I'm tired of clicking to the end of an 18 page discussion.

1. We're free by every standard use of the word in the games industry.
2. TMS isn't going to split itself into two lists because Adam is too savvy to alienate the people who contribute the most to the site.
3. I like pie.

Good night, and good luck.

--matt

I do believe it would be hard to define the credit/RL hr exchange for a game that is somewhat complex. Why? because different things would lead to different exchange rates, if you gold run, you would get one rate, but if you build areas, the exchange is different, and if you gold run, but you do not know how to do it correctly, you might get less gold than someone who has been doing it for years, etc etc ... so, I think your question is an oversimplification and that is probably why it has not been answered.

I also think this approach to a 'pay-per-perks' game does not necesarily apply to every game of this type. The reasons are many. First, a new player, or someone who has not spent much time playing the game, will not only lack the skills, but also the knowledge that comes with playing the game for long. Now, I do not know IRE games in depth, but I am very aware that by merelly having a deeper knowledge of the game you play, you can overcome numerical disadvantages, be it having less levels, less classes, weaker weapons, or smaller skills. If a game is poorly designed, and knowing how to use your skills does not play an important role on the outcome of PvP interaction, then your example is totally right, the player who spends the most or plays longer will have an advantage and you will have to play against weaker players. But you stated clearly that you have about 10 hr/week to play, so, it would also be imposible for you to compete against the average college player, who usually plays longer than 2 hrs a day.

Now, I assume IRE games are appealing to a large number of people in part because they are not poorly designed (again, I am not privy to this information because I have not played any of them long enough to know), and for a game that has been open for long time, the balance is usually very solid (things tend to go toward an equillibrium, and is the developers job to rock them a little to keep them alive, moving this equillibrium a little). So, if we accept that a game that would appeal to a large number of people is probably well designed and not simplistic enough for it to be (if (credits(A) > credits(B)) -> A wins else B wins), then I believe it should be posible to play and enjoy a playing said game without spending any money and being able to compete with many people (depending on how much you spend in time to learn the game, advance your character via other means, etc ..).

I accept that, and explicitly addressed the issues. I'm curious what the other poster (who is familiar with IRE games by his own description, yet isn't an employee) estimates as his rate of credit production if he's not paying, given his skill, and the method(s) he would most like to employ.

I can quantify what income/hour I could expect in RL for myself. (I wouldn't wave my hands and keep saying "It depends on what I'd do!") Quantifying it inside a game should be trivial for a player with sufficient experience.

It would be even more trivial for Matt, as I'm sure any responsible business would review the value of their best-selling product (credits) to make sure no one is exploiting means to devalue it. More concretely, if there was a way for a player to consistently generate more than X credits/hour, you can be damn sure he would shut it down, and he knows very well what X is.

However, Matt has taken his ball and Vryced his way home, and wouldn't give an honest answer anyway, so I'm asking an experienced player for an informed opinion.

You say this, then say;


You should hold yourself to the same standards you accuse other players of not holding themselves to. You can't be the voice of Syno anymore than I can be the voice of the Common MUDer. You can buy yourself into many things, but immunity-to-hypocrisy is not one of them.

If people want to play IRE games, that is their individual decision. I've played IRE games before, though they never really captured my attention for long. As I've said before, I consider the model that you use, and your dealings with the community to be unethical. There are players who would agree(admins of truly free MUDs more-than-likely), and some who would disagree(probably mostly the ones who play your games).

Players are able to determine what games they wish to play and howmuch money they wish to spend - but at the end of the day, that does not create a free, fair, and equal playing-field; which is a setting most truly free MUDs(and also some commercial MUDs) try to hold themselves to creating. You can call yourself free, advertise your MUDs as the most challenging PvP in the universe, and walk around pretending to be the mouth of Syno on these forums... none of that means that you are telling the truth, however. It is for every player to decide to trust you or not - I personally do not for many, many good reasons.

---

Valg's on the money here - since we're using a capitalistic model, let's simplify all of this. The claim is that you can receive credit bonuses via providing work/goods to the MUD.

Goods = Money
Goods = Credit
Money = Credit

Goods are not really free, it's a misleading backdoor excuse. People put hard work into creating a piece of art, a piece of literature/etc, and sell the rights to you in exchange for a Credit reward. That is not free.

The only option to achieve the same status of those players who buy game-mechanic enhancements is to spend years. And even then, for PvP(for example), a wealthy opponent can drop 20$ when necessary to buy skillsets that will aid them in filling a weakness in defense, or to protect against another specific player(who may not have the ability to pay money to keep up). This is not a truly free system. It's capitalistically savvy(perhaps unethical, but that's just my opinion), but it is certainly not free.

----

Skip this next part if you don't want to read a slightly off-topic rant about PvP and MUDs.

The element of MUDing I have the most experience with is the design, critique, use, and abuse of PvP on MUDs. On the best PvP MUDs, either there is an end that anyone can reach given some time - and once that end is reached, all players are on(more-or-less) equal footing, allowing skill to be the determining factor in combat... OR, the system is level-less and/or successful PvPs award points that can be used to enhance your character. The latter system is used in both Everwar and Utopia, probably the two of the better PvP MUDs I have ever played/reviewed(I was not always staff on Utopia, there's a reason I stuck around).

On the worst PvP MUDs, there is a) cheating, or b)a system that rewards the players who have played the longest by using a system of infinite(or nearly infinite) character/stat/skill expansion, or c) a system that rewards players who are lucky/wealthy enough to be able to by their way into powerful PvP characters. It does not promote success through PvP skill, no matter how pretty the layout of combat itself is.

And you don't need to play Aethia/Aetolia to find large group on group PvP battles. If that's what you really want, go find a better, free PvP MUD that focuses entirely on PvP. Some of them have large battles also, with better and more challenging PvP systems(Everwar, for instance).

I'm replying only to avoid dragging Synozeer into something: I'm not his voice, nor did I claim to be speaking for him. He did, however, tell me what I told you, in almost the same words, so get off your high horse.

--matt

This is completely fine, Matt; if you want to throw your weight around to protect your interests, it is within your rights/means to do so. It only further shows your character.

If Syno refuses to add the seperate lists, that is fine, if unfortunate for non-commercial MUDs. It is within his rights to do so, as he owns this site.

As far as my high-horse; whether or not I'm actually on a high-horse, the forum could always use outspoken people like me to balance out outspoken people of the opposite political-mindset. Like Matt.

You want the path of no-resistance Matt, and you can't always buy it. Some people don't like the way you play ball, and this is the place where we can talk openly about it. Same goes for Vryce, or anyone else of the sort. I'll try not to speak for the entire community, as it is a very large and diverse group, but I'm not going to stop calling out my opinions.

Contests of luck and skill can be fun, but we're still talking about scenarios where one person wins and many lose. In order to play competitively a player needs a way to consistently obtain credits.

Apparently people can also earn credits by developing code and areas, but this is really an external activity to the mud itself, and is something done by certain pay-to-play muds as well (in fact even AOL did this for a while, with the whole 'free accounts for volunteers' thing, although I've no idea what happened after the whole lawsuit fiasco). It's also not something that everyone can do, as I'm sure you don't recruit everyone who asks.


Well I've tried to gather what information I can, but other than what you and other players have said the information seems a little sparse. Is there a section on your website which explains exactly how the model works?

Prior to my current association with Aetolia, the highest credits/hour rate at which I was able to work was approximately 60 credits/hour. The closest credit packages sold, packages of 40 and 100 credits, cost 50 and 40 cents per credit, respectively. Approximating a 60 credit package at about 43 cents per credit, this would come to around $25.80 per hour. That's more than a lot of people playing MUDs these days is going to make, so the opportunity is there for the "sweat equity" of earning credits within the game (Note, these are not credits that were previously purchased by other players) to surpass that of working for the money to buy them OOC.

DonathinFrye is far from alone in his opinions. Several of us have similar feelings, but I guess that without a poll among the Forum members and guests it would be hard to get an idea about how many. (Also, as someone pointed out, and as the list itself is an example of, polls can very easily be manipulated).

We are really discussing two things here, and both of them have ethical aspects.

1. The first is the play-for-perks idea in itself
2. The other is the intentionally misleading way of some commercial muds to present their games as free when in fact they are pay-for-perks.

Here are my own opinions on both:
1. Pay for perks
We all have our preferences. I would never choose to play a Mud with a pay-for-perks system myself, because the idea of buying success for real money, in what should be a skill game, offends my idea of fair competition. I wouldn’t go as far as calling paying for in game benefits unethical. But it is not my idea of a fair game.

However, if other players like the concept, this is of course their privilege. It is apparently a very popular system, judging from the amount of players those types of muds have. But in a way it reflects the general down-going standard of mudders. Today’s players are a lot more impatient and a lot less inclined to put down much time and effort in exploring and learning the mechanics of the game they play. Many of them prefer almost instant success, and if the easiest way to get that is to pay real money for it, that is what they’ll do, provided they can afford it. As a result real gaming skills no longer count in the way they used to. It’s a rather sad development, but it is one that we all will have to learn to live with, because it reflects a general shallow trend in the community.

2. ‘Free’ versus ‘commercial’
Another trend in today’s society, (and one I particularly loathe), is the aggressive and often devious way in which certain companies market their products. Telephone marketing, where you are tricked into accepting something that you don’t really want, is one example of this. Another is the often used scam to fool the potential customers into believing that they are getting something for free that in reality is going to cost them money. Book Clubs sometimes use this marketing strategy. They offer to send you a book for free, just as a ‘sample’ of their product. If you accept this, they send you the book, but at the same time you realise that you also accepted an ‘offer’ to buy one book a month from them, unless you specifically send in a coupon to cancel the purchase. A lot of the people that fall for this scam forget to cancel in time, which is of course what the company is counting on. There are other tricks that these companies use too. For instance to hide the information about the costs in the small prints section, and to make it as complicated as possible to cancel a book, and even harder to opt out of the system once you got roped in. The sad thing is that people actually fall for this kind of scam, I’ve done it myself a couple of times too.

Some commercial muds use similar tricks.
The ultimate goal for a commercial mud is to get as many players as possible to pay as much as possible as often as possible. That is the reason why they go commercial in the first place.

To achieve this goal, and lure as many new players into the system as possible some commercial muds market their game as ‘FREE TO PLAY’. They even put this in their promotion blurbs on the site. They defend this desinformation by claiming that you actually can play for free, and even be successful doing it. To prove this they offer the example of a couple of players that got to the top without paying, while at the same time carefully avoiding to mention the hundreds of others that failed.

The information that the game is actually far from free, if you want to have any chance of competing on equal terms with those that do pay, is a lot harder to find. I took the trouble of checking out the website of Achaea, and discovered that they had disguised the info pretty well, under the heading 'Credits', which to most mudders means something totally different. It took me quite some time to find, even though I was specifically looking for it, because that wasn’t the obvious place to look. The ‘small prints’ trick once again.

To me methods like those are unethical, especially when large parts of the target group are under age. I think that a large, commercial company like IronRealms should be above using cheap tricks like that. It sends a bad message to the community. And it also reminds me of some other shady methods that Achaea has used in the past.

I think the reason why this subject keeps popping up on TMS about once a year is that there is a general resentment among most of the members against unethical methods. Just as the community shuns obvious rogues like Medievia, most people also react negatively to methods that are perceived as unfair, or even unethical.

I think that if TMS, TMC and other Mud list sites would implement the filter and colour code for commercial/non-commercial muds that several people have asked for, it would be a great improvement to the search engine and the list. It would also be much appreciated by a majority of the mud players and mud owners.

For the players of pay-for-perks muds it shouldn’t matter at all, since they have already consciously chosen the system. It might even help them to find other muds of similar type to the one they like to play. (Once you have got use to paying for advancements, it is probably hard to go back to a pure skill-and-time system). So for them too it should be valid and valuable product info.

However, certain owners of commercial muds that label themselves as free vehemently object to the idea. Why? After all, the pay-for perks system obviously is a popular one. So if you believe in your system, why pretend to be something else? Why not market yourself as what you really are, and leave the FREE label to the muds that actually are 100% free? The only reason I can see for the objection would be that the scam actually is a lot more successful than they like to admit, and gets them far more new players than they would have if they labelled themselves correctly.

Once again: It is not the P2P that people react against, it’s the sneaky way in which certain muds pretend to be something that they are not.

So I am asking Synozeer again; please give us a system that actually distinguishes between free muds and commercial ones.

If you decide not to do it, it's of course your privilege as List owner. But at least do us the courtesy of telling us yourself. And please motivate your decision to us. We would prefer to hear it from you, not the_logos. After all, you own the site, not he. Right?

Not to be blunt, but there's really very little reason for Adam to consider switching to that system, given that it would probably negatively impact the traffic his site received.

However, if I'm wrong and you have a good reason as to why it would, in fact, benefit Adam as the owner of the site to switch to the system, rather than just as a perceived benefit to those who already bring a minority share of the traffic, I'm sure there would at least be some minutely greater amount of attention paid to the value of the argument.

I just wanted to say that i had no idea about TMS before i found Achaea, nor that it rated one of the top spots, when i was looking for online gaming, i was looking for quality, and thats what i found, and for the longest time afterwards I played the game without purchasing anything, cause it wasn't needed to enjoy the experience. As i see it, the reason the Achaea holds one of the top positions is because it has gained and kept so many players through its consistant high quality, not because its a commercial MUD, simply because it is not a vital aspect of the game, which in turn causes its voters to vote for the site, I do, thinking that i want to share the experience i have and am still having, with every potential MUDer out there.

Every MUDer has his(or her) own cup of tea that they prefer. I just prefer to know what cup of tea I am drinking before I buy it. Some players play Achaea/etc without spending money and still enjoy it - it is statistically unlikely that they enjoy success as others do, but I am always glad when they enjoy their favorite MUD.

Some of us aren't huge fans of IRE MUDs - for instance, I've played them all and not really enjoyed any of them, besides Aetolia(slightly). If I am looking for questing, there are better quest-oriented MUDs. If I want a large world, there are plenty of them. If I want staff-sponsered events, they are all over the place. If I even want solid mob-bashing, I can *still* do better than IRE. If I want PvP, I can certainly do better... all in my opinion.

Not all of us enjoy the IRE MUDs, but that's not important - what is important is the impact some sketchier large MUDs have on the rest of the community. This forum is a perfect example; the owner is not able to choose what should be an obvious improvement to the current system, because his most wealthy clients are large commercial MUDs opposed to giving non-commercial MUDs an equal chance on the listings page(we're not talking about giving them free advertising banners, which you pay for with cash).

----

The most obvious answer(of several) to your challenge is that Adam switching to a split system would improve the quality of the site, in relation to what it advertises itself as. "A One Stop MUD Resource". If you're creating the best MUD Resource you can, it behooves you to include as much variety as possible. Which brings me to my next point;

Why should Adam lose traffic? The top MUDs on the listing are commercial(largely), and they are competing with each other for the top spots. They would continue to vote and bring in traffic, as they do currently. Also, a second list would mean that smaller MUDs that feel like voting is pointless because they could never buy the playerbase Achaea has to vote for their MUD... those MUDs would all of a sudden have a reason to vote again, and there would be more competition in the secondary listing. If anything, this improvement could increase traffic.

The only reason Adam could lose traffic is, as Matt says, by "alienating" his most traffic'd MUDs. This is basically short-hand for Matt saying that if non-commercial MUDs are given their own list, he(or others) will send less traffic to the site in retaliation. Sounds like financial strong-arming to me, and is just another notch on the list of reasons to disapprove of certain companies/admins.

Improve the quality of the site for whom? Such qualitative judgements are purely subjective. I certainly wouldn't consider the site higher quality if it pandered to the loudest voice rather than doing what was best for its own growth. As for the fact that the site is advertised as a MUD resource, I don't think there's any dispute to that. But there's no greater "variety" in what is listed on the site under one system or the other.

You are assuming that they would continue to vote. Where are you going to place these new rankings? If they are on the front page, with the commercial below the non-commercial, then the exposure is reduced and the desire to vote for the vastly greater number of players of commercial MUDs is decreased, far outweighing the number of new voters from smaller MUDs who might now find themselves inspired to frequent the site. If the commercial were placed above the non-commercial, almost nothing would have been accomplished by this as the amount of exposure for the larger non-commercial MUDs would decrease as well.

As I explained above, the incentive for the supplier of most of the site's traffic to continue to vote would decrease under the proposed system. Call it what you will, it would be bad business to continue to support the site if it was intentionally designed to limit your exposure, and that would be a disservice to the playerbase. This isn't unethical by any means, it's being more responsible to the people who are playing your game than to others who have no interest in their entertainment.

I believe there's more to it than just that.  I really don't think players are any less patient now than they were five or ten years ago.  On the other hand, there is no question that the average age of computer gamers (and, I'd assume, mudders as well) is going up.  A result of this:  more players with full-time jobs and/or families who perhaps prefer games in which the key element to success is not the availability of ridiculous amounts of time in which to play said games.  For these players, buying shortcuts isn't laziness, it's very likely seen by them as conducive to their enjoyment and essential to their ability to compete with their college-aged fellow gamers.

Out of curiousity, what do these examples have to do with anything?  Nobody has suggested (until now, I guess) that IRE or any other commercial games listed on Topmudsites actually scam their players into paying for things they didn't want.

Yes, that's what is generally known as "a good business practice" TM.  Just about every good or service you have ever purchased was probably sold to you by people operating or attempting to operate in accordance with similar practices.

Yes, another "good business practice."  Provide potential customers with a free sample so that they will purchase goods and services from you later.  This is a completely above-board practice that is well-understood by consumers who generally view it as a convenient way to test drive what they might soon be paying for.

First off, if I can play a game for free, it is not "desinformation" for the game to advertise itself as free to play.  "Free to play" means just that: I can log in and play for free.  It doesn't mean will enjoy purchaseable perks.  It doesn't mean I will get to take shortcuts available to people who pay for those shortcuts.  I means I can play the game and not pay to play it.  How hard is that to understand?  It's as valid a use of the word "free" as would be "Buy one, get one free" (even though this is really just buying two of something at half-price) or "Get one month of X for free" (even though your free month of X is being subsidized by the other customers of the company that is offering X).  These are all senses of free that are clearly understood by consumers.  No reasonable person takes advantages of such offers and then argues that they've been scammed because further enjoyment of the products or services made available through these offers will now cost money.

Before IRE was advertising here, people were whinging about other commercial games with straight-forward subscription models.  Before that, in the earliest incarnation of this site, people were whinging that Realms of Despair was dominating the mud list because it was a rank, unimaginative dikurivative that appealed to the lowest common denominator in order to garner a huge playerbase.  I think ethics have always had less to do with such complaints than have sour grapes.

Well, I was thinking they'd look cute together side-by-side, actually. There is no reason to ellevate one above another. And if the commercial MUDs are at the same "height" of the website, then they haven't really lost their promotion space. There's just more promotion space, another slot to support the non-commercial games. Again, if you did it correctly, the implementation of split-lists would only increase voter-turnout, inspiring more competition amongst the non-commercial MUDs. This would get Syno more traffic, and therefor more money. The only reason that the site would lose traffic is if the commercial MUDs resented having to be on a seperate list(which does not harm them, and only helps non-commercial MUDs), and encouraged their players to vote less. That is the leverage being used by some to help influence control over the site.

---

And Atyreus; sour grapes? Nah. I've staffed MUDs that have reached a hundred to a couple hundred players before. I feel more accomplished with other projects than those - I don't dislike RoD, though I agree that it might play down to the common denominator. I don't even dislike some commercial MUDs and even get involved with some such projects. What I dislike are admins and companies that use misleading advertising and use money to strong-arm themselves into a dominant position in the community... when infact, they are most concerned with finding ways to maximize money-made, and not interested in ways that could help promote the other MUDs of the community as much as possible.

That's all. There are a very select few that fall into such category, but it really burns me and many other players around here.

Is there really any other reason to put seperate lists than to give smaller muds larger exposure? I don't think so, maybe other than sour grapes. If you can knock a few muds off the the top of your list, maybe you can get a couple new players next month. All this BS about commercial muds being unethical and now perhaps scamming is just plain dumb.

I don't know much about business/marketing/advertising but if I came to this site as a new comer and saw on one side "FREE MUDS" and the other "COMMERCIAL MUDS," I would definitely pick from the side labeled "FREE." So yes, to me, it seems like that would harm them. But we don't care of course, just make sure we get the smaller muds up in rank!

And what do you mean by commercial muds having leverage to help influence control and strong-arming themselves? Seems like encouraging their players to vote less will hurt their own mud much more in the long run than it would affect TMS. And for ads, I thought all muds had the equal opportunity to buy them, it's just that they were seized by others first...correct me if I'm wrong. (which of course you all won't hesitate to do:)

So are you saying there is something wrong with commercial MUDs listing themselves as commercial? Are you suggesting that commercial MUDs should get the perks of being commercial without having to announce upfront that they are, indeed, what they are? That is an example of misleading information - case in point.

Seperating the lists would help aid non-commercial MUDs(which is important for the community as a whole), could even help Syno get extra traffic by igniting more competition, and it would only hurt the commercial MUDs if their admins stopped encouraging their players to vote. It has been said before, Aethia(for example) players vote for Aethia because they love the game oh-so-much, and have ingame/website reminders to help encourage voting. That, coupled with a large playerbase produces their high number of votes. If the admins of IRE/other-commercial-MUDs changed nothing about that approach, they would still bring in the votes and achieve top site listing. Syno would still have his traffic. So why the veiled threats at "alienation"?

As far as banner advertising goes - that's not even a made issue here. Yes, commercial MUDs tend to buy most of the ad-space for an obvious reason. I don't see that as a problem, they paid their money - they get their adspace. Better IRE than seeing some porn-bar up there. : p

The problem is that it's not quite a free trial, but more like getting a demo version that's gimp'ed but you weren't told. As I've said, it not the cost, or the pay-for-perk/play that is my primary gripe. It's that players are never told the absolute truth of the costs--they have to figure it out themselves.

There are two ways to look at this. Your (and IRE's) way, and as a "bait and switch" tactic. In most states it illegal to market an inferior product cheaply in order to hook the customer into buying a better product at a better profit for you. I'd say this comes close.

And, like I keep saying, it would be 100% OK from an ethical standpoint if they were just very upfront with telling new players how it works. Disagreeing with pay-for-perk is not relevant here.

As I've said, it not the cost, or the pay-for-perk/play that is my primary gripe. It's that players are never told the absolute truth of the costs--they have to figure it out themselves.

First of all, I have no association with Matt or IRE, and really wouldn't care if they vanished from the face of the planet.

That said, the above gripe is just silly - you're basically complaining that IRE doesn't act as a person's brain to comprehend what the availability of purchaseable perks means. It's on par with warning labels that tell people not to do stuff like dropping a running hairdryer into a tub of water, put a metal can of pressurized chemicals next to an open flame, or drink antifreeze.

Do you really have such a low opinion of the average mudder that you think they can't puzzle through something like "If somone buys these instant powerups, they'll be stronger than me unless I spend a lot of time or buy some too"?

And, like I keep saying, it would be 100% OK from an ethical standpoint if they were just very upfront with telling new players how it works. Disagreeing with pay-for-perk is not relevant here.

Maybe i'm just strange, but I tried Achaea about a year ago, and I knew full well about the existence of the whole credit system before I started playing.

There's a link right on the main homepage that leads to a listing of how much the credit packages cost, how you can pay for them, and a quick overview of what they're used for.

To quote - A 'credit' is an in-game currency that may be purchased on this page. Credits may be spent on a variety of enrichments, such as extra lessons for skills, amazing items of power, a pet, houses in which to live, and so on.

The memory escapes me at this point, but I imagine there's plenty of in-game help on the subject as well.

Seems to me that the possible problem is not so much players not being told how the system works, but rather players not bothering to read all the basic information about the game before they start.

In most states it illegal to market an inferior product cheaply in order to hook the customer into buying a better product at a better profit for you. I'd say this comes close.

This is even sillier than your first comment. I guess my cellphone and cable companies are on the edge of being illegal, along with Microsoft's XBox Live Marketplace, Nintendo's upcoming new console and game purchase service, grocery stores, electronics stores (like Best Buy), and basically anywhere else that gives away free samples or sells a cheap(er) no-frills product in hopes of getting you to purchase add-ons or something more expensive in some way.

If it is so obvious, what is wrong with color-coding MUDs by their business plan? Accurate labeling is all people are asking for. If it's obvious, an accurate label is harmless.

(Obvious answer: It's not obvious. It's concealed well.)

I'm not asking IRE to label the game "perks make you more powerful". Everyone knows why they sell perks-- it's an instant leg up. Heck, I'm not asking IRE to do anything.

I'm asking TMS to flag MUDs by business model. No separate lists. No visibility differences. Just an icon or color code that lets players know whether paying for in-game content is disallowed, optional, or possible.

If it is so obvious, what is wrong with color-coding MUDs by their business plan?  Accurate labeling is all people are asking for.  If it's obvious, an accurate label is harmless.

Nothing's wrong with it. In fact, I think adding another filter to the database the same way you can search for size, average players, PK status, etc. would be a wonderful idea. Certainly better than the idea being tossed around about creating two seperate lists.

Seems to me there's two seperate debates going on here - whether muds that offer paid perks are deceiving their players somehow, and whether things should be made "fair" by seperating the lists into free and pay-for-perks.  

I was arguing about the first, not the second - the second issue should be a no-brainer to anyone with a modicum of common sense.

I'm not asking IRE to label the game "perks make you more powerful".  Everyone knows why they sell perks-- it's an instant leg up.  Heck, I'm not asking IRE to do anything.

Exactly, which makes it so baffling why Zhiroc and others are griping that players somehow don't know what they're getting into if they play an IRE (or other pay-for-perks) game.  Not exactly rocket science to anyone that's purchased something with optional services available before.

I'm asking TMS to flag MUDs by business model.  No separate lists.  No visibility differences.  Just an icon or color code that lets players know whether paying for in-game content is disallowed, optional, or possible.

I would be in complete and total agreement with this.

I don't see the need for two lists, but color coding or some kind of denotation of a game's business model or lack thereof makes sense to me.

There's a lot of ways to phrase it if people think "free" vs "commercial" is inappropriate or "subscription pay" vs "feature pay" vs "free" is too slanted or whatever. Honestly, it all depends on how you spin it. There are plenty ot instances outside of MUDding where consumers prefer a pay product to a free one, and plenty of instances where they prefer to pay for things in different ways. The are reasons that all-inclusive vacations sell, yet don't totally dominate the travel market -- some people prefer to play a flat free up front, others to pay only for what they use, etc.

So, what you mean to say here is that it is not posible, from the help files and the web sites for the different IRE games to figure out what you will need to play?

Suppose you play for a week, 1 hr a day, would 7 hrs be enough to skim through those help files if they even exist?

Should I go out and sue the guy in the computer shop for selling me this nice LCD screen, because I came home and nobody told me I also happened to need a CPU, a mouse and a keyboard for it to work?

I'd be happy just to see the Feature list of each database entry include "Pay-for-perks" as well as the current "Pay-per-play".

Failing that, I'd rather see the "Pay-per-play" removed entirely.  At least that way people would know they had to look the information up, rather than rely on the listing.  No information at all is better than misleading information, IMO.

You'll note in all of the above that I have not been talking about artifact purchases. Those are pretty clear and documented, and from the start by reading the docs you can decide whether the credits are worth the artifacts or the play.

You'll note, however, that in my previous posts, my complaint is with the fact that the credit system provides the bulk of the skill learning system. After maxing out at 100 levels, you can only achieve about 60% of the lessons needed to max out only 1 skill class. So, unless you count skills as a perk, this is a little more than just pay-for-perks (the question about how you can manage to win/work for credits aside for now).

The next observation is that no where in either Achaea's online manual or in Aetolia's help system will you find documentation as to how many lessons it takes to max out a skill. Without this, you have no idea to begin just how much money you are looking at to buy the credits needed. Luckily, my guild documented it, or I wouldn't know to this day. The answer is about 294 credits worth of lessons (somewhere around $100 if you buy them, more or less, depending how many you buy at once).

And that's why I think it is not entirely up-front.

Like I said, only if you think skill advancement is an optional perk. Perhaps the fact that in your limited time playing there (if I understood you correctly) that you hadn't connected just how not-optional credits would be to advance your character proves the point.

(the question about how you can manage to win/work for credits aside for now)

Buying credits directly with your own money may be the quickest way of getting them, but that doesn't make it the only option - and the alternate ways of earning credits seem to be pretty clearly laid out in Achaea's help files.

I've seen it in plenty of other game discussions - if some people can't do something the most efficient way possible, suddenly it's like the slower alternatives don't exist....Which just isn't true.

Like I said, only if you think skill advancement is an optional perk. Perhaps the fact that in your limited time playing there (if I understood you correctly) that you hadn't connected just how not-optional credits would be to advance your character proves the point.

No, I think the ability to directly buy credits with cash (what you've been complaining about) is an optional perk. Again, one can clearly infer this from the help files before even making a character.

That's about as clear as I can be, and this is quickly getting to the point where it's difficult to care anymore, so I wish you luck in finding someone else to argue with - I don't seem to have much chance of changing your mind.

Throughout the 20 pages of discussion here, the only way I've heard that people can consistently and repeatedly earn credits is by buying them, or getting them from someone else who has bought them. If there is another way (other than actually working for the mud) I've yet to hear about it.

Not if you want to play competitively. We've already established that without credits, a character is going to be severely weaker than characters who have had credits spent on them - hardly irrelevent for a mud which promotes itself as focusing on PvP.

Assuming that someone who connects to a mud labelling itself as "free" considers that, yes. It's for this reason that I'd rather see the "pay-per-play" option removed entirely if no "pay-for-perks" option is going to be added - at least then the player knows it's up to them to look the information up, rather than assuming it's free based on the entry (and yes, there have been players who have done this).

Kavir, were you a lawyer in a past or present life?