|
Well it's an opt-in payment scheme, and that was the general point I was trying to make within the context of my reply.
A valid point, but a mud which required payment to unlock new areas and classes would likely still be classified as a form of pay-for-perks. Guild Wars stresses that their expansions provide more options rather than more power, but I still think its difficult to know where exactly to draw the line. A mud which sold powerful equipment for $$$ would generally be considered pay-for-perks, but what if that equipment was balanced against existing gear so as to "provide more options rather than more power"? Or to move the other direction, what if Guild Wars were to sell expansions that provided superior classes and skills?
A hotly debated issue, but an important factor (for me at least) is that everything sold was originally earned through gameplay - if equipment sold to other players results in the purchaser becoming extremely powerful, then that's a flaw with the game design, and would occur just as quickly in situations where players helped out their friends, or even donated gear to random newbies.
But design issues aside, the reason I consider this an important factor is that if all equipment was originally earned through gameplay then that means I can get exactly the same gear as well, purely through playing the game. Other people are taking short-cuts, but they're not buying anything that I can't earn. However there are some pay-for-perks models (and no I'm not talking about any IRE games) which do not work this way - the top-of-the-range equipment can only be purchased from the mud owners, and cannot be exchanged or transferred. This makes the issue very relevant to players, particularly within competitive environments (such as PK muds).
Moderator Scissors: *snip*
|