|
I totally agree here. It's not the style of game I'd want to play, but you'll never see me post "Ban pay-for-perks! Universal free love and MUDs!"
I think both of these are valid:
1) Some players would prefer the stability and order implied by a game run by a business, as opposed to a group of volunteers. Other people prefer the community engendered by the (often cozier) volunteer environment.
2) Some people prefer a game where you can pay to get ahead. (A valid critique of this system is that it presents a tilted playing field where it is difficult to compete without spending.) Other people prefer a competition where only in-game achievements determine success. (A valid critique of this system is that it often favors players who can play a lot.)
Matt has made both of these points in his other posts, without acknowledging that they contradict his stance on search options. This controversy would evaporate if the IRE games would honestly label themselves as may-pay-for-perks games. Then, everyone knows what they're getting, and no one has a valid criticism of anyone's business model.
If you honestly believe that players prefer the stability of a company and the dual-path advancement of RL money or time, why not shout it from the top of the mountain?
|