I guess I fit under the general description of your low post moron. Why mention low posts? Does having more posts than another person on these forums give a person more legitimacy in your eyes? Anyways I have been watching the top mud sites forums for about 6 years now and I've always noticed you to be one of the most out-of-touch posters. Though I will say that your communist bull**** propoganda always makes for a good chuckle.

But let's get something straight here. A free to play MUD, as has been pointed out many times before, is what is says it is! Free to play unlimited hours without the need to pay a single cent. It's a simple concept you and your ilk seem not to grasp. The fact that some MUD's allow you to pay for perks that make your characters into Uber-Men is irrelevant, it still makes no difference to the fact that the MUD is FREE TO PLAY!
I am a huge believer in truth in advertising, and the IRE games speak the truth when advertising themselves. They ARE FREE TO PLAY, and they have the information on their websites for you to find! In fact it is so easy to find because they have a link to their pay plans on their front page! Or do you follow Valgs desparate example of being confused by the term "credits" to mean "the credits at the end of a movie" as Valg so aptly put it.

Oh and by the way. I have never played anyone of the IRE games, nary even attempted to create a character in anyone of their games. I'm not defending the administrators of the game, I am just following something called common sense. Common sense says when a game labels themselves as "free to play" then you can play a game as much as you want without having to pay.

Psst. You haven't touched on what harm would be done by TMS accurately labeling the IRE games as "pay for perks".

You realize that if you make the case that IRE makes it obvious, than you also make the case that it changes nothing by adding such a label?

(I don't think they make it obvious, which is the source of their opposition to accurate labeling. But either way, I'm in favor of accurate disclosure of how they operate. The only argument I've heard against it is "Players will be driven away by correctly understanding their business model up front.", but I think it's a plus if players are correctly informed about what they're getting into from step one.)

On the probability I am one of those "Low post morons" you seem to believe are shills for IRE, I would like to clarify that I have never played any of their games, but made the immediate assumption that they charged for "something" in their game, or rather than "free to play" they would have just called themselves free. Therefore, it was just a quick perusal of their web site, and what that "something" is became quickly apparent. I decided their credit system didn't appeal to me, and thus I didn't play. I have a feeling I may revisit that decision, because I will be changing jobs soon, and I will no longer have the time to MUD I used to (I can MUD at work presently). Therefore, IRE's model, where my reduced time to put into it doesn't put me at a competitive disadvantage to people who have more free time or can MUD from work, is starting to sound more appealing to me.

Apparently, because this is how I make my game play decisions, I am not very bright. However, I still would much rather rely on TMS and other sites as a mere launching off point and check out the games' web sites for myself, especially given how frequently the profiles on these sites (MUD CONNECTOR, TMS, MPOGD) bear little relation to the actiual game being described. I realize that TMS is said to be a one stop resource, but does anyone REALLY only rely on TMS' information to make their decision?

I would hope, as adults, most of us are more responsible consumers than that!

Not every MUD gamer is an adult.

I would rather rely on a resource site that was(hopefully) not controlled by a specific company to objectively categorize MUDs in such a way. Yes, I'd rather rely on TMS than the vague and misleading Achaea website, that makes credits out to seem not-that-important if you happen to find the credit information on their website.

Beyond that, there is absolutely no reason(other than protecting IRE/etc interests) for there not to be more specificity to help aid players in wasting their time while hunting for MUDs. It would help with travelling MUDer - is there really anything else to it?

No, I have touched on it in a direct reply to yourself. I hate to repeat myself, but since you seemingly were not listening the first time I'll tell you again. What would be the point of labeling MUD's on TMS if said commercial MUD's tell potential customers that they are commercial?

Yes, I realize that it changes nothing by adding such a label, which still makes me wonder why we need one if it changes nothing? Why make the webmaster of TMS go through more work just to satisfy your need (and you are the only one here seemingly seeking a labeling system of the MUD's).

Futhermore, I still see how it cannot be obvious that the IRE games are commercial after they have a link on the homepage of each of their four MUD's to their credit systems. Again I'll repeating another point, but it's the consumers burden to find out everything there is about a game before delving into it.

So you see, the answers didn't change. I just repeated what I told you before, and now I get the sense that you are going to ask me again on what harm would be done by TMS labeling games when I already answered you. Could I make myself anymore clear?

The low-post count doesn't really matter. But I find it interesting when you do see a bunch of low-post count people pipe in defending something because the tactic of sending in players to show support has been used time and again *cough*Medthievia*cough* As for the term moron, it adequately describes someone who considers a T-shirt the equivalent of an in-game perk. If the difference between in-game advantage and wearing a garment while you sit in front of your computer or while you 'trol the mall isn't obvious to everyone, that's either stupidity or blind refusal to acknowledge reality.

As for "Communist bull**** propoganda (sic)", that would have to be one of the funniest terms I've ever heard. Communist is a term used out-of-context by 95% of the people that use it, usually in justification of greed or something they can't defend without villainizing those that disagree. It ranks up there with "un-American" and "un-Patriotic". How exactly does holding others to ethical standards of truthful advertising qualify as "Communist bull**** propoganda (sic)"?

And common sense says that when a game is free-to-play, that means it's free-to-play in every aspect. IRE games are not free-to-play in every aspect since credits are required to unlock some aspects of the game, the most necessary aspects for success. If one can't be a certain type of character or succeed in that capacity without paying money, the game isn't free to play. When money becomes a requirement for success, there is no real freedom. So it's not free in every respect. Unless they advertise the qualifiers, that's what free-to-play means. But if there are conditions, there ought to be a note of that:

This is why IRE's advertising of their MUDs as "free-to-play" is not honest or accurate. It's deceptive. It's an attempt to lump themselves with MUDs where any player can achieve anything without any monetary spending. They may describe themselves as "free-to-play" or "pay-for-perks" but in the end they're "pay-to-succeed". And regardless of how they spin it, they're not free since you can not play to the same level as someone who does pay, even if you want to, unless money is exchanged by you or someone else in your favor.

I'm curious how you define "out-of-touch". How does that term apply to me? Examples?

Take care,

Jason

Insult flinging on either side does not really help keep pure the intentions of this discussion, which has become to advocate changing the listing system to show players using TMS what kind of MUD they are playing, economically-speaking.

While the word 'moron' is not good to use when trying to push for a positive change(I don't think it's a good way of handling things) neither is showing close-minded, conservative bigotry by calling people "communists." I've watched several people(including myself) be labelled as communists on this thread, and I think it's silly.

A) I am not a communist, though I am liberal and capitalistic.

B) Communism is not a source of evil, or something that should be used as an insult. MUDs are played internationally, and some countries who play our/your games may live in communist nations. Beyond that, some players may actually believe in communistic ideals, and I think it's openly bigotted to use their ideals in negative connotation.


Summary; let's stick to the issues. Sometimes heated words will get thrown around, but let's not allow this to be the focus.

Question; are there any non-IRE/Threshold players/admins in this discsussion who are against color-coding? If so, why? I already know why the others are.

This discussion really outlived it's usefullness with the same arguments being repeated over and over and not a single new point being made. I think we've gotten to the point where everyone considers their arguments to be self-evident, when they aren't to the opposing side.

I'll bow out and state my opinion as I do:
Donathin, the color-coding scheme is going to be a liability in it's implementation. That's what I think at least. A good deal of the people here hold the opinion that pay-for-perks equals pay-for-play, labeling IRE games as such however would be wildly inaccurate and a great disservice to both the IRE MUDs, their community and potential players. The suggestion is to bring more clarity to the TMS listing, but I have sever doubts that this is what will be achieved if it's implemented. I tend to think it might bring further ambiguity.
Also, asking for the opinions of people who are not associated with IRE games in any way, you're going to get skewed results - everybody but IRE has something to win if IRE is represented as a game that requires payment. Keep in mind that the population of the forums are mostly owners/players of competing MUDs.

My experience in Aetolia (which Valg requested earlier in the thread) has been such:
1) I've been playing for free for 2 years or so.
2) I've gained a decent array of skills through buying credits from other players with in-game gold.
3) I'm not a top fighter, but I've been in a secretary position in my guild and have had a pleasurable time playing.
I didn't have to skirt the rules to get any of these.

I'm too busy to spend more time on this discussion, so I'm just going to make a call to at least mantain civility throughout it and to at least read each other's comments before replying.


P.S. Jason, you may have had something worthwhile to say, but you completely discredited yourself by presenting it in a frighteningly immature manner. My advice to you is that you work on your attitude if you ever want to successfully lead any significant project - such as a MUD. Take it or leave it.

[quote= (prof1515 @ Jan. 09 2006,23:13)]Perhaps because I'm currently an IRE volunteer via Lusternia, my opinion on the matter will be disregarded - or perhaps my lack of post count will do that as well. I'm not exactly certain why either condition should immeditately assign me to the 'you're an idiot' category, or why being a Imm should automatically mean that Matt's arm is 'up my ass' as some have so eloquently quoted, but I can sincerely insist that there is nothing farther from the truth.

I am not paid for what I do, nor do I deal with Mr.Mihaly beyond extreme circumstances. To be perfectly honest, I'm almost certain I don't even like him that much, though I can respect him. I gain nothing from sucking up or playing nice, nor do I ever intend to do so as that is not my style. I don't work for Matt, or do the things I do as an Imm for Matt. I do what I do because I love the game I'm in, and that is the only reason I freely give away hours of my day.

But, accustations of ulterior motives hopefully having been swatted away, back onto the true subject of the topic at hand, or at least what it has progressed into. Namely, the nature of IRE.

I started mudding at the age of 13. I went to Achaea at 15 years of age, still in school and with no incoming wages. No money, nada - to say I didn't do as well as other players who did decide to pay large amounts of money is ridiculous. I have artifacts, I am high in my skills, I was and am still fairly well known - after almost a year of logging in for a few minutes a month, at best.

I entered the artisanal/bardic contests, which are extraordinarily good ways of getting free credits. You don't have to be super talented. My first of many submissions was a simple self portrait that resulting in winning a fair amount of credits. I guided - that was an additional 25-? credits, depending how often you wished to be helping the newbies of the realm. You can also build - more credits.

In the end, I only paid the realm once, in the sum of 20 dollars. I wanted to never worry about being hacked and suicided, and I wanted to support a game that had given me hundreds of hours of free entertainment, as well as give the people I became friends with in the game a small holiday gift.

And that was just myself, who was hardly motivated to do things in any more than an easygoing fashion. There are many, many cases of people becoming omnitrans, as in, fully trained in ALL available skills, with pets, artifacts, being leaders in the various organizations, top merchants, or top PKers. And they've never spent a dime.

Obviously, I doubt this is going to sway anyone into reconsidering their rants and accusations, but as long as they're going to occur, I do love offering my take on things and likely will.

</rant>

While I don't mind reading IRE posts, I re-submit and ask two things;

1) What does Syno think?


2)

There have been at least three people against color-coding who have stated they aren't players or staff in IRE games, Donathin. Don't ignore them.

*chuckle* I "discredited" myself in the eyes of those who likely didn't care in the first place and for whom I care nothing of their opinion of me.

I call it as I see it, and anyone that knows me knows they can expect brutal honesty from me at any time on any subject. That quality, while not appreciated by all, has led me to numerous successful projects where people valued honesty over the kind of dishonest showmanship that is commonly exhibited today. Do most people appreciate it? Probably not, since dishonest tactics have been, and continue to be, successful in the world for a long time regarding a variety of subjects. But most people are also ignorant and fail to analyze things, relying on intial impressions. While that may be the reality of the world, that's why the world is like it is. People are quite often fools who support the very things and individuals which they dislike because they fall for the bull**** instead of thinking things through.

Sadly, there's probably not hope for a lot of them since they just don't have the intelligence or the reasoning skills to discern the bull**** from the facts. One can try to help them, but at some point, it's up to them to think. And most don't. Some can't. A few won't.

What we have is a group of MUDs with an advantage gained through vague terminology. They don't want to lose that advantage. They're protecting that advantage. The arguments over the definition of "free" and claims of extremely-rare instances of players overcoming the obstacles of the pay-for-perks system are smokescreens to cover the facts, just like Matt's attempt in another discussion to spin a typo in an IRE banner ad as somehow deliberately being left in to turn heads rather than being the result of shoddy work.

It's about manipulating perception rather than being honest. I don't like it and neither do a lot of other people in the world. Many fall for it, I realize that. But just because many people, hell maybe even a majority, do fall for it doesn't mean it's right or that I need to. Nor shall I. I'm not going to pussyfoot around them either though.

So "frighteningly immature" is really a poor choice of words. Blunt, yes, I won't deny that. But sometimes it takes a little blunt honesty to make people think. At least they know where they stand with me, which is more than can be said for some of the snake-oil salesmen in the world.

Take care,

Jason

If a Threshold player or administration were posting here purely out of self-interest, why would they oppose your color coding scheme?  After all, the info Threshold has provided for this site already includes a statement that it is "per-per-play" so really the only way it would add to Threshold's information here is to make, under the color scheme proposal, that fact color-coded for the illiterate visitor, and illiterate people don't really enjoy text-based games in the first place.  If the variation on this site "enhancement" were to only add another category in the site information about business model, Threshold's information would remain unchanged, but one sentence would be moved to a new slot, so I fail to see how this would have any impact on Threshold, per se. If you are talking about the search option, Threshold would STILL be unaffected, unless you are wanting IRE's games to come up in the seme grouping, which doesn't seem to be what anyone has proposed.

In fact, if I were posting out of pure self-interest, I'd want this scheme (in the variation where only a new category line is added in the info for each MUD) because I suspect, if implemented, the main impact would be to harm IRE's games, to the possible advantage of Threshold.  Even if TMS implemented the color scheme model, it would still not harm Threshold, as far as I can see, since Threshold already highlights its business model, and it only wants players who are planning on paying in the first place.

The real reason I am opposed to this idea has already been mentioned in my other posts on this issue.  Such a scheme would do nothing to prevent MUDS from misidentifying themselves as free when they are not free, if I even agreed that is what IRE does, which I don't.  The information provided already provided by MUDS here CLEARLY isn't standardized, confirmed by any independent person, or adequately policed by the community itself.  Moreover, despite the feelings of a few posters, it's obviously not at all clear that "free to play" means "all game features free of charge" so even if the site WERE to implement some sort of category option for business model, it would only create confusion.  Finally, when we read this thread, it becomes obvious that the real desire is to see IRE labeled everywhere possible as "pay for perks" and to change the whole site just to harm one company's ability to market themselves here is shortsighted.  Any change to this site, in my opinion, should be for the purpose of improving it overall, and so far, the posters for this change have all been people whose primary motive (to screw over IRE) makes me highly dubious of the value of any change they propose.

The fact that you are dismissive of anyone who plays Threshold or IRE games speaks volumes about your mindset, and this mindset, if shared by the others who support your position, probably explains why this thread has gone on for so long, rather than being sufficiently covered in a few pages.  Given that, this will be the last post I make on this subject, unless someone addresses me specifically in this thread.

I would have thought this was obvious, but it doesn't seem like anyone has spoken to this yet, so I will.

Making TMS more informative makes it a more useful/robust site. This is to be desired by the site owner (who presumably wants to run a site like this for reasons other than pure masochism) because the higher quality TMS is, the harder it would be for someone else to start a competing site that eventually overtakes TMS and renders it obsolete.

I'm aware that there are other MUD list sites; personally, I find this one to be the best. The more it does to remain the best, the more traffic and interest it's likely to retain in the future as well.

I'm not dismissive. Re-read my posts instead of putting words in my mouth - I've stated that I don't mind and even encourage hearing from Threshold/IRE players/staff. However, I've already heard their same points again and again, and I would be interested in hearing others' arguments against a color-coding system.

Quote them to me if you could. I didn't see them. If so, that would be a great aid in my refocusing this conversation towards players who didn't seem to have either a self-serving agenda, or a fierce loyalty to the MUDs who do not want to be publically labelled as "pay-for-perks". While both of the previous are acceptable, I believe the argument with those players has played itself out. They are too focused on protecting themselves, in my opinion, to agree with what would be a pro-active and helpful change to some players.

Threshold is openly labelled as pay-for-perks. It has been since TMS made that option available to us. This is how we choose to explain our registration system on this particular site.

Graeblyn's point is that this option is already available on this site. It clearly does not appease people who believe that one game or another has mislabeled itself. In fact, people are so unappeased that they've thrown a mud that is CLEARLY labelled as PAY FOR PERKS in with a game who has pay for perks options and labels itself as free. Thus, what exactly is the point?

I'm assuming a color code thing would be by choice like the pay-for-perks/pay-to-play/free mud tag that's already available. What is to make someone who already isn't using the available tags from just not turning on the color tag? You're asking Synozeer to code something new that will ultimately have the same result as what's already occurring here anyway.

Assuming there is some benefit to labeling yourself as "free" as opposed to anything else (which I'm not even sure there is), then how do we police people who have any type of money involved? Who gets to determine how the game should be listed? Does accepting donations of any sort mean that you're no longer free? Does selling t-shirts mean that you're no longer free? This just seems like extremely murky ground where no one will is going to be happy with the system.

Not only is Threshold listed as pay-for-perks, you cannot finish our character creation without a full and detailed explanation of our registration system. I'm assuming that you cannot create on IRE without having their credits system explained. (I don't know this for sure since I've never played an IRE game.) Either way, it's made pretty clear to all players that there's money involved in the games mentioned above. The fact that Threshold is labeled clearly as a pay-for-perks system and yet is getting thrown into this conversation as a mis-labeled mud indicates that no system is going to make certain people happy.

Dalaena

I think you may be getting your terminology mixed up, or else you've gotten confused with another mud listing site, because on Top Mud Sites there is only "free" and "pay-per-play" (Threshold is listed as the latter).

Your mud was brought up (along with several other muds) to provide a counterpoint example to the payment model being discussed - in this case, because once the registration fee is paid, the mud itself can be played for free without any further payment required. I'm not quite sure why DonathinFrye lumped IRE and Threshold together, but after 30 pages the conversation had become somewhat diluted.

Actually, Threshold is (correctly) listed as "Pay-per-play". Part of the issue is that there is no third category for "payment accepted but optional", which is what is being proposed. If anything, I've tried to use Threshold as an example of a game that behaves responsibly and just states what they are.

As I understand matters, Threshold requires a fee to set up an account, which makes them pay-to-play. (If you never give any money, you cannot play the game beyond the free trial.) It is additionally pay-for-perks (as in, you can pay optional fees for extra advantages), but the definitions were such that it would only properly be listed in its current category, pay-to-play. Some proposed definitions:

1) 100% free. Non-commercial. RL money cannot alter gameplay.
2) May pay for perks. Optional fees may change gameplay.
3) Pay-to-play: Fees are required for gameplay.

As for enforcement, we currently enforce voting rules (as evidenced by Medievia's dismissal) in order to keep the site useful as resource to players, and this would be much easier to enforce than that.

I'm not aware of any administator who has not been willing to admit their business model on these forums when asked to clarify it. And if they did, it would be very easy to just point people to the game's PayPal or similar link as proof of the misrepresentation, since I doubt any game is dealing exclusively with offline commerce (checks, etc.).

Could you explain how your system works? Apparently, what I and probably a lot of people had heard was in error and I'd prefer to not inadvertantly misrepresent you.

Sure!

You get approximately 100 hours of gameplay before you are told to review help register (which is a file you must read before you finish creation). Between 300-400 of game time, you get a mailed reminder from the admin to register your character.

"Registering" to us means that you pay a one-time fee to the game, and you receive certain perks for this as well. What happens if you do not? Your account eventually gets frozen as we assume you have no interested in paying for the game. Players know from day 1 that this registration is required, though they can work it out with the admins how long it will take and how they will pay it.

After that, we have perks that you can pay for. I won't bother to list them here since it will mean nothing to the people who do not play our game.

We experimented with attempting a yearly payment system, but we decided against it eventually since our players were very attached to our current system. Thus, we have no recurring fees.

Hope that helps.

(I'm really out of practice. This is the 4th time today that I've accidentally tried to create a new topic instead of replying.)

Agreed there. I can't find the information on Threshold's web site any more, but I could swear it used to cost $50 to register a character.

Anyway, I wasn't proposing that random people like me decide what flags your game gets. It would be self-identification, like the current flags are.

If anyone lied, it wouldn't be long before someone would try it, see the misrepresentation, and report back to TMS.

Well, that's a mandatory fee, which would get filed under "pay-to-play". Unlike IRE, there's no way to dodge it, even if you're willing to accept slow development.

I seriously think part of the problem here is the vaguaries of these terms.

To me, pay-to-play are represented by games where if you stop paying, you stop getting to play. For example, tons of games out there have monthly fees. You pay anywhere between $9.99 a month to $30+ a month to play some of these games. If you stop paying your monthly fee, you can't log on with your characters/account anymore until you've gone and paid the gaming company. That's definitely not how Threshold operates.

What do you call a mud that has a 1 time fee (that also gets you perks) and then it's pay for perks from then on? Basically, think of going out and buying The Sims 2 and then paying for a bunch of different outfits or an uber house or something. That doesn't seem to be the same as pay-to-play to me.

Well, regardless of what I personally believe, we put ourselves under what is closest explaining what we have to most of the players out there. I hate to think that we're doing this at our own disadvantage, since we DO NOT have a monthly fee.

Threshold is odd in the way that it is more akin to a game like Guildwars than a MUD. Most MUDs don't have one-time registration(or "buying") fees. I would lean towards calling this pay-to-play, just because you are required to play in order to be able to play... but again, I go back to an old analogy I used before.

Shareware versus Freeware. Shareware gives you part of the product, requiring payment for the most complete version. In real life, you can get keycodes from other players, get hacks, etc and therefor play for free - however this does not make shareware the same as freeware, which is always completely free without penalty for not-paying and only accepts money in the form of donation.

Threshold and IRE would be shareware. Threshold identifies itself as such(it's difficult to fit it into pay-for-perk or pay-to-play categories completely, though I again lean more towards calling it pay-to-play). IRE does not. Either way, this website would be more 'resourceful' if it had a tag that distinguished for the players.

Ok lets ask you this simple question. Could you, if you wanted to, play any IRE game as many hours as you wanted to without having to cough up a nickel?

No.. free to play means free to play. The term doesn't imply anything else besides simply telling you that you can play something for free. Again, could you play any IRE an unlimited amount of hours without having to pay?

Even though credits are required for certain things, it still doesn't change the fact that it is free to play, because again you can play that game without having to pay.

Now if the IRE games were to label themselves as "free" (with no "to play" addendum) then I would have a bone to pick with them as they are indeed not free. But as you see the IRE administrators have carefully added the "to play" addendum so as to not mislead you as to the game being absolutely free. Again I see nothing wrong with the way IRE advertises themselves.

That's an example of being out of touch. Adding extra meaning to terms and phrases where no such extra meaning exist. It is very apparent that you are twisting the mean of the term "free to play" to make it fit your agenda. Yes your communist (we'll leave out the bull**** this time around to play nice) propoganda of trying to make all MUD's equal.

I will add something to this.

Even though ThresholdRPG does not have recurring fees, the administrators do send out notices to customers that have not added to their registration total in over a year asking them to send in more money to add to their overall registration.

I can provide an example of such a letter if asked for.

I believe this does indeed make Threshold a pay-to-play MUD.

OH MY GOD! THE HORROR! NOT A *shudder* *quake in fear* NOTICE! ACK!

You mean we actually want to stay financially solvent so we can stay in business?

The fact that you felt the need to specifically mention this in a "gotcha" manner is hilarious.

You're not playing the same game as someone who's paying for credits.  It may be played in the same world, but it's not the same game.  It'd be like playing 2-on-5 basketball.  So no, it's not free-to-play if you want to play the same game as those buying credits.

All MUDs aren't equal and I have no intention of trying to make them so because it's impossible.  For example, trying to make the quality of RP on a Viagra MUD consistently equal to that of an RPI would be a hopeless task because the system's just not set up for RP.  The ability to use outside factors to affect in-game performance destroys the RP environment.  Likewise, it's not set up for player-skill-based PvP since the credit system can be used to gain advantage beyond one's abilities (see the above 2-on-5 basketball game).  Nothing that can be done will make all MUDs equal so long as there are niche types.

I don't care to waste my time trying to achieve that which won't happen.  For example, in the case of my own MUD, we're not trying to create a MUD that will appeal to as many people as possible.  We're concentrating on developing a comprehensive world with a social structure that is as functional and accurate as we can get it to the historical model we're using.  We know this won't appeal to the average MUDder at all and even the average RPI MUDder may find it less than attractive at first.  We're fine with that because we're trying to cater to those players that concentrate on character development and total immersion into the social setting and culture rather than those who take a casual approach toward RP consistency.  Therefore, we won't be advertising ourselves as anything but what we are.  The problem with most MUDs though is that they try to advertise themselves as everything to everyone.  And for people using this site (and has been pointed out, regardless of a few commercial MUD owners' opinion, this is more than a traffic exchange), honesty would be nice when trying to find what they want, rather than what the MUDs themselves want to sell you.

And finally, your continued misuse of the word "communism" indicates one of two things, if not both:  your poor vocabulary and/or your close-minded, paranoid fear and protectionism of your prefered MUD.  Try learning a bit about terms you don't understand before you use them.  You'll come across a little more intelligent.  And while you're learning the definition of communism, take a little time to learn how to spell propaganda correctly.  Then you won't look like you're both ignorant and illiterate.

Take care,

Jason

Yes. Guild Wars and Threshold are also free to play (just not free to buy/register), and you'll see Guild Wars advertising itself as such. Many of the large monthly-fee commercial muds also allow you to play for free (as long as you don't mind creating a new account each month).

The problem is that if you use the term 'free' to mean only 'free to play' and nothing more, then most commercial muds would have good grounds for arguing that they fall into that classification. I think this could get very confusing for prospective players.

Okay, the joke is up and I'm on to you. No one could write that sentence in all seriousness.

Oh noes! The commies is coming to get us and wash our brainses! Awesome, man. Just awesome.

(Note: It got confusing talking about both Threshold (the game and business entity) and Threshold (the forum poster who owns it), so I'm referring to the latter as Mr. Threshold.)

Heck, we ask our playerbase on our forums to donate if they can, maybe once or twice a year. We don't send them anything beyond a thank-you, and it doesn't do anything to the gameplay (we don't even know what characters are associated, since donations arrive with the player's RL name, which we don't track). Completely voluntary requests like that don't make you a commercial enterprise, and I don't think anyone would confuse us with one.

Threshold is pay-to-play because there's a mandatory fee up front. It's what they advertise, and I agree with Mr. Threshold's philosophy that it probably saves them heartburn to make it clear up front.

I'm not some crazy hippy railing against the Corporate Man. At my day job, people pay me a generous salary for my services, and those people and I get along swimmingly. If I didn't like it, I could leave. Mr. Threshold gets paid for his services, doing whatever he does on a daily basis to keep the MUD running. If he didn't like it, he could leave. If his customers didn't like it, they could leave. There's no difference there- all the relationships are mutually agreed upon.

I'm also not pretending I have no stake in this. I've stated a number of times that what I don't like is that TMS uses the same word ("Free") to describe both Carrion Fields-type games and IRE-type games, even though we use very different business models. I enjoy my game, I've taken on the responsibility of advocating it here, and that's part of it. I think that my agenda (accurate labeling) is beneficial to my game. I also honestly think it is beneficial to players who are looking for a game to play.

If I had a "hidden agenda", as some posters have implied about people on this thread, I wouldn't be signing every one of my posts with my "MUD name", my affiliation and title, and the CF logo waving away in the upper left corner. I sign them that way in the interest of accurately labeling myself as well.

And am I chastising you for writing such a letter? No.

However, Mina stated that Threshold is a pay-for-perks MUD rather than a pay-to-play MUD,. I was just using this to counter her sentiment that she views Threshold more as a pay-for-perks. That's all.

But do you have to recreate a new character every month for an IRE game? Can you play an unlimited amount of hours on an IRE game without having your character deleted because of non-payment?

I am not using the term "free" to mean "free to play". I am using the term "free to play" to mean "free to play". There is really nothing ambiguous about it really. As long as you allow a player to play a game without forcing them to pay anything means that said game is free to play. The fact that said game might allow you to enhance your character into an uber-man by allowing users to pay for it is irrelevant. They don't force your character to become uber-man, it's your choice to do so.

As I said, I would have a problem with IRE if they did label their games as "free" only.

You are playing the same game. When you log into the MUD the world is identical for each player. You have access to fight the same mobs, the same shops, the same guilds or whatnot.
It's not trying to play 2-on-5 baskteball, it's more like facing a team that has superior players to yours.

Still, your team is allowed to pay for free while the superior team has to pay up for a lot of upgrades. It does not change the fact you can play an unlimited amount of hours without being bothered to pay. That's free to play. You are mistaking the term with something along the lines of "free to play, but not equally".

Oh and I find it funny that you chastise me for misspelling one single word. Calling me illiterate even? Well congratulations sir, you have shown qualities of being a mighty fine proofreader. Must make you feel so superior by pointing it out and then using it to denigrate me. Enjoy the ego boost.

Furthermore, the definition of illiterate is being unable to read and write or showing a lack of formal education. The definition does not make any references to misspelling a word. In that case I guess you are as illiterate as I am for the misuse of a word.

However "free to play means free to play. The term doesn't imply anything else besides simply telling you that you can play something for free."

Even though there might be a registration or initial payment fee, and even though with some commercial muds you might have to recreate a new character each month, "it still doesn't change the fact that it is free to play, because again you can play that game without having to pay".

As I stated before, the problem with the arguments you use is that they can be applied equally well to most other commercial muds.

Again you are ignoring critical distinctions. IRE can honestly and ethically claim that their games are free to play because they have made the games available to everyone for play at no charge. No payment, or even promise of payment, is ever required of such players in order to play the games. Any reasonable person can accept "free to play" as a fair description of such a game. Note what "free to play" does not say: it does not say that you will get all the advantages of a paying player; it does not say you are guaranteed to enjoy the game as much as paying players; it does not say that you won't have to devote extra time for certain achievements that other players can perhaps purchase. It just says that you can log in to the game and play it without paying for it and without ever being expected to pay for it.

Threshold does not make its game available for free to everyone. They allow you a trial period to decide whether or not to become a paying player (IIRC, their helpfile states that you can play for 100 hours for free after which you are expected to pay). If you decide not to, your character will eventually be deleted. Furthermore, unless things have changed since I played there, you cannot just create a new account without permission from the game administration. It's pretty safe to say that the only way you could play Threshold for free is to violate their game rules and constantly re-create accounts under the guise of someone who is actually considering paying for the game.

No, the problem is that certain people are claiming IRE muds are "free to play" based on the literal meaning of the phrase, while at the same time arguing that other muds are not "free to play" based on their own additions to the definition.

So do most commercial muds. If I wanted to I could sign up for Gemstone IV right now, and play it for a month, completely free. I could create an account on Threshold and play it tonight if I wished, all without spending a cent.

I could even buy a copy of Guild Wars tomorrow, phone in to work sick, then play it for free as much as I liked - .

Nor does it say that you'll be able to keep your character for more than a month, or that there won't be any registration or purchase fee.

Yes, it does - all you have to do is connect and you can start playing. Remember, "free to play means free to play. The term doesn't imply anything else besides simply telling you that you can play something for free."

But why do such games not advertise themselves as "free to play"?  Probably because, in the US at least, offers for free trial periods are generally required to be clearly explained as such so that consumers know what the length of the trial period is, what the conditions of eligibility for such trial periods are, and what, if anything, the consumer needs to do to avoid being charged for continued services after the trial period is over. For example, if my cable TV company advertises an offer for a "free" upgrade to my standard cable service, they have to let me know for how long the upgrade will be free and what action I have to take to cancel the service to avoid being billed for it when the trial period runs out.

Guild Wars does not advertise themselves as "free to play." They very clearly qualify "FREE online play" to mean only that you will be allowed to access their servers for online play without having to pay a monthly fee, the assumption being, of course, that you have already purchased their game.  Unless they plan not to charge for their client either, Guild Wars is not free to play; the cost of play is the cost of the client required to play. This is not at all the same as saying that you are offering to let anyone play at no cost.

If you'd misspelled just one word, that'd be an error. However, your posts demonstrated numerous misspellings and gramattical errors as well as your ignorance of the meaning of the word "communist" which justified an assessment of your literacy as such.

In fact, you just gave another example by showing a limited knowledge of the word "illiterate" itself.

Taken from
Your lack of familiarity with the English language, as demonstrated by your frequent spelling, gramattical and contextual errors meets the definition of the word illiterate.  Hence my use of the term is correct, while your use of the word only further demonstrates your illiteracy through your failure to realize as much.  So, yes, you are illiterate.

Take care,

Jason

To further the analogy, their team is not superior by nature, it's superior because they're not constrained to the same limitations, ie. not playing by the same rules and hence not really the same game, because they've paid money and you have not. They get unlimited fouls while five against you sends them the line for some free throws. And while you get one point for a free throw, they get four! That's not the same game.

And neither is paying credits versus "free-to-play". To make "free-to-play" accurate, it should be elaborated upon through the noting of limits. Then it becomes accurate.

Take care,

Jason

You'd have to ask them that. But that's really completely irrelevent to the fact they are indeed "free to play", going by the literal meaning of that phrase. It's when you start adding your own implied meanings to the phrase that it becomes an issue, yet that's exactly what you've criticised others for doing.

They advertise themselves as having "FREE online play", which is effectively the same thing. Try doing a google search for "guild wars" and "free to play", and you'll see literally thousands of reviews and comments describing Guild Wars as being "free to play".

The phrase "free to play" does not mean "free to register and play", nor does it mean "free to download the client and to play". If you start trying to redefine it, then that's no different from claiming it means "free to play on a level playing field with those who pay".

I can understand someone wanting to use the literal meaning of the phrase. I can also see someone wanting to apply their own implied meaning to the phrase. But it is double standard when you apply your own implied meaning to other people's muds, while at the same time insisting that only the literal meaning should apply to yours.

True, it does qualify exactly what it means by "free", because it's quite clearly not a free game.  Considering Guild Wars is entirely online, the unqualified sentence would be as misleading as advertising Corn Flakes as "FREE to eat", or books as "FREE to read".

(FWIW, I like the "Commercial" / "Non-Commercial" distinction idea.)

I'm not attempting to apply a literal meaning to the phrase "free to play." I'm attempting to make a case for how it is can be expected to be understood in advertising (after all, this whole issue was set off by people accusing IRE of being dishonest and unethical for using the phrase "free to play" to advertise their games).

I'm not going to try to lawyer a line between what games can honestly, ethically, and legally advertise themselves as "free to play" and what games can't.  I'll I've done is make some observations on why certain games probably don't advertise themselves as free to play.

Guild Wars does NOT advertise themselves as "free to play."  Read their press release again.  Their offer for "FREE online play" is obviously qualified by the assumption that you have purchased their game (unless you want to assume that they are going to be distributing their client for free, in which case they would most definitely be "free to play").

Likewise Gemstone and Threshold have, as far as I am aware, no intention of letting people play their games for free beyond a limited time period and are, thus, probably not likely to advertise themselves as free games or as "free to play" games.  Given the obvious advantages of advertising something as free, we can only assume that they don't do so because they don't consider themselves to be in the business of providing "free to play" games. In fact, it wouldn't surprise me if either game would make efforts to prevent a player from repeatedly opening new accounts just for the sake of playing for free if they detected such activity.  As I've explained, Threshold has rules in place that at least implicitly forbid such activity.

But, even if we were to accept limited-time free trials as an acceptable variant of the "free to play" claim, what does it matter?  If anything, this would just strengthen the argument that IRE is being completely honest and above-board when they advertise their games as "free to play," considering you are never in jeopardy of being prohibited from playing further if you choose not to pay for the services they offer.

Well after reading this thread and getting bored with it around page 23 or so, I thought I'd chime in and add my 2 cents worth of babble.

I am Your Average Mud Player. I like to play MUDs; I have been playing MUDs for 7-8 years or so now. I always use TMS as a resource to find new MUDs to play.

Whenever I find a MUD that adveritses itself as a free to play MUD, I expect nothing more than being able to play that MUD without having to pay any sort of fee for an unlimited amount of time. Now if that same MUD also had some sort of system that allowed you to purchase credits to power-up your characters, I would still have to consider the MUD as free to play because it is an option, not a requirement. Though I will add that I would probably not play such a MUD for long because they playing field is not exactly equal (and I've quit the IRE games because of said reason).

Whether you like it or not, IRE is within their rights to advertise their games as free to play. I would support an idea like Valg's to label MUDs as commercial and non-commercial, but how about a simpler idea? If pay-to-play is one of the phrases available in the features section of a MUD listing, why not just add the phrase pay-for-perks and force all games (like IRE games) to add that to their features list?

I also wanted to respond to Kavirs' comments.

Yes you could, but you would eventually be forced to play. You have taken meaning of free to play out of context. Just because a game offers a free trial does not make it free to play.

Furthermore if you wanted to create an account on Gemstone and use their free trial you would have to give them a credit card number. You could not keep creating free accounts on Gemstone without them eventually realizing what you were up to.

And I expect to be able to play it on an equal footing with all other players without having to pay any sort of fee. But I don't get to enforce my interpretation on other people any more than you do.

And whether or not you like it, so are most other commercial muds. The fact that they choose not to is something I appreciate, but that's another issue.

No, I have taken it by its literal meaning. If Guild Wars advertised itself as "buy the game for $X, then play for free as much as you like", would you have a problem with that? If Threshold stated in its adverts "One-off registration fee of $50, then play for free as much as you like", would you find that misleading? If Gemstone IV posted an AD which stated "play for free for your first month", would you find that objectionable?

Fair enough. However, your interpretation of it is a lot more specific than the term implies. Free to play is not limited to just playing on an equal footing with everyone else. It is a very general term, which can also include being able to play without paying a fee but having the option to upgrade yourself by paying real-life money.

That again depends on your definition of free to play. If you are going to include Threshold and Gemstone as examples of MUDs that are free to play then I would not be in agreement with you.

No I would not find it objectionable because they are telling you upfront about any fees you have to incur. But you are getting off topic, the argument has been about the term free to play, not pay X now then play for free as much as you like. If they are advertising themselves as free to play without requiring you to pay how could you find that objectionable? Even if they do have an optional system of purchasing credits.