It is true that in a game like those IRE runs someone has to be buying credits for the credit-economy to work. This means that there would not be credits available for people to buy for gold if there simply were no people buying credits at all. In this, you are totally right.

It is also true that it is clear, for anybody who visits their websites that the game has an in-game type of currency called credits which are things that can be bought with real-life money.

It is also true that it is clear that IRE games are a commercial enterprice, and that anybody who is able to legally use a credit card (this should be only people 18 yr old or older in the US, where the games are hosted), can readily find this by skimming through the web-pages of their websites (all of them mention the credits and the fact that you can buy them, and the fact that they can be used whithin the game).

If we accept the above, we might considering accepting that a person who would be able to use money for advancement in these games (ie. 18 yr old or older, with a credit card account), regardless of whether they were planing or not to spend money in the games, would understand that the games would cease to be a commercial entreprice, or cease to exist if nobody bought credits. This is obvios, I hope.

Now, with this background, we could accept that someone playing these games, with some very basic understanding of economy (reading CNN or other news resource every now and then should be enough is my guess) would realize that there has to exist a continuous influx of credits into the game via people buying credits (regardless of how wealthy these people are), and as such, this translates into a constant availability of credits to be exchanged for other types of game currency or service, be it gold, items, body-guarding, etc ... If this was not true, then the commercial MUD would cease to be profitable, and as such, it would soon cease to exist.

I believe that IRE advertises their games to be free and that it is posible to have continuous advancement without having to spend money because of two things. First, their game economy, driven both by in-game-goods as well as ooc-obtained credits has reached a balance on which there is always a certain amount of credits available for the public. This is probably something you cannot set as a game designer, it is something that you just observe happening, and you probably can later adjust credit prices or credit market tax or whatever you wish, to fit your game needs for money influx. Since we are talking about a somewhat stable system, it is sensible to believe that unless they mess up very badly, the market should not drastically change, and this means they can safely say that a player can join the game, play for free, enjoy everything for free (except for buying credits *duh*), making it a free game for them. They have all the options identical to all other players, except that they have to obtain credits through the player-driven market.

Now, I argue that if a game like any of the IRE games increased the cost of credits, or opened some kind of infinite advancement option through credits that made credit usage more important and credits more scarce -> more expensive, so that the rl-hr-playing time now equals less number of credits obtained, it might come to a point where the game is really what you do describe, something that forces you to buy credits and that makes the experience without buying credits a miserable one, etc. On the other hand, if IRE has found a balance point, where the rl-time-playing cost of a credit is something players are willing to accept, then the experience might be just that of playing a free game, on which I have to sweat hard if I want to advance fast, but on which I can do things at a slower pace, and still enjoy the game.

Now, I know many people here, sometimes myself included, doubt things said by Matt, for different reasons, but many times before he has said that many of the players on IRE MUDs have not bought credits, which means, many of these people are playing IRE MUDs for free.

So, what I am trying to say is that you bring an important point at saying that someone has to buy the credits at some point, and while it is true, the success of games like these which have a large player base does not solely depend on the rich-CEO-son type of player who has access to an infinite source of dolars via on of his many credit cards but more on a larger part of the population spending small amounts with certain regularity (probably similar to what a person would donate to a game who requests such donations from players to keep their running costs), and this would mean that the large majority of the people who actually buys credits do so in small amounts and not at the "1 max skill a day" rate many people pretend to picture. This is probably the case, and if I am too deviated from the real picture I would love to be corrected, but then, in such a system, a balance could be reached where you can actually still enjoy the game without the need of paying for it.

Regardless of all of the above, the game would in any case be a free one; in some extremes a player might be forced to spend an insane amount of time for a small benefit and would probably not be liked by players not willing to spend money; in the other extreme, where there is no real advantage on buying credits because there are so many efficient ways of producing this currency with bots/playing time/etc the commercial venture would just probably fail and the game would cease to exist. I believe IRE games must be in the middle of the two, and if it is true that players can enjoy/play without spending money, I would guess they have it balanced so that these people find it worth-while to put in more playing time in exchange for the credits they will need to advance.

I hope to have made sense with this.

It would make the website more useful to players as they search for MUDs. It isn't necessary, it would just be an improvement as it would increase the usefulness and specificity as this website as a "One-Stop MUDing Resource".

Indeed many do, but I don't know of any pay-for-perks muds which don't - which isn't really surprising, as competitive activities are probably one of the greatest incentives for players to invest.

But check the description for Achaea:

"The flagship MUD from the #1 new text MUD company in the last 10 years, Achaea is a fully original world focusing on depth, roleplaying, and most importantly, PvP and Group vs. Group action of all kinds"

The other IRE muds have similar comments - they pride themselves on the quality of PvP action they provide, and rightly so.

But that doesn't change the fact that they are no more 'free' than most of the pay-to-play muds, and I'd rather see the TMS database simply avoid mention of payment method entirely rather than providing misleading information.

I find the last tid-bit to be extremely humorous. I'm grasping at straws, when you have to compare potential time to real money? Did you know that there's a 'cap' on how much money you could ever possess too? And that that cap is equal for everyone as well? It's the worth of all the currency on the planet earth at the given time and you have the exact same chance to get it all as you do to have 24 hours of time in the day to do as you wish with.

You have to get up pretty early in the morning, no pun intended, to fool someone into thinking that this is a valid line of reasoning.

As for your 'maybe you haven't been to college' and 'exhibiting some bitterness toward college students too' quips - I happen to be a university student presently. One that has to work to support himself. According to you, it's MY best interests that you're defending.

It's the lesser way to get credits, yes. And I also don't have to pay out of my pocket. You still don't seem to think that money has any value  whatsoever to a person.

Using my credit card doesn't guarantee I'll be able to get credits either. What if there's an earthquake? Chances of that are the same as the credit market going dry.

Poor wording on my part, I suppose I should be more careful lest I be accused of lying. That should probably be "...I've yet to see another fighting system this capable of allowing skill to trump stats."

No, it isn't. You're right. This is the first time I've been chastised for it though. I do hope you manifest that attitude selectively.

Personal attacks aside, 'the experience' is a something that varies from player to player. Some players happen to dislike 'gold farming' or 'eq farming' or 'level farming' or whatever. The majority of MUDs out there are based very heavily on these activities. I hope you're not trying to bring RPIs into this again.

Spending money isn't a requirement for success in IRE games. That's been said so many times that the only way you could've missed it is by purposefully ignoring it.

Not everything takes time. You can avoid spending time doing something if there are alternative ways of doing it - i.e. paying money. You're right that the time = money comparison isn't completely accurate - it doesn't have to be because we're not trying to prove them completely equivalent. The only thing that matters about time and money in this discussion is that one can be substituted for the other in this case. It's irrelevant exactly how much money time translates to and vica versa.

The paying player doesn't get 'success'. Provided of course that you mean 'success' as in, winning fights, being respected in MUD society and or getting a high level. None of these things can be achieved through credits. If you have some home-cooked version of 'success' that differs from mine, do spell it out next time. As for "money>=time", I can only say that you haven't been short on personal time before if you believe this to be true. People spend huge amounts of money to be able to make up SOME free time for themselves. Think about it if you ever buy a plane ticket instead of a boat ticket.

So the entirety of this paragraph is based on the assumption that at some point, you might not be capable of purchasing credits for gold in some remote instance? When a possibility is too small, it's irrelevant. That's the case with your argument. The credit market has been steady and the gold return of quests and ratting has been just as steady for years now. Hypothetical situations are worthless in a discussion unless there's a reasonable probability of the occuring.

I do hope you have more to add next time you post, Jason, so I don't have to sift through recycled arguments and fresh insults.

PvP is fairly optional. It's a means of solving conflict, but it's not mandatory for your play. A vast amount of players don't PvP at all actually and concentrate on RP, trade and levelling. You can enjoy the game quite fully without PvPing at all.

The point is, would that information be more important potential players than any other? Do you need a complex system of color coding if that information is already easy enough to find on the site of the MUD in question?

There also appear to be negative preconceptions of what 'pay-for-perks' is so the suggested color coding would probably be negative for the MUD owners, I'm sure everyone is acutely aware of that already and I'm getting the feeling that it's the result desired by several posters (incidently owners of competing MUDs).

PvP is a big feature of IRE games. And you can compete without paying real money. So the point is moot. Pay-for-perks aren't pay-to-play any more than MUDs that accept donations are pay-to-play. (Donations are needed from the target audience - players.) You have ways to substitute the investment of money with an investment of time.

If the point didn't come accross after Spoke's post, I doubt it ever will.

=======================
I think we've come to the point where we're discussing hypothetical situations with low probability - a sign that real arguments are exhausted. If anyone feels like adding something to the discussion which is realistic enough to be a probability, please do so. The real things I have supporting my statements are the facts that:
1) Players can play for free. (Meaning, paying money is optional.)
2) Players can get ahead without paying real money for credits.

These are facts. They are supported by evidence - i.e. people who have done it and are still doing it. Myself included in the first group.

Muds that give rewards for donations are indeed pay-for-perks - and in cases where those perks are things that can only be bought with 'donations', and which give advantages that cannot be gained without payment, I would argue that the same logic applies - they are effectively pay-to-play unless you want to play as a lower-class citizen who can never match the power of a paying player.

However we've already established that players cannot play competitively if they play for free.  Without credits they will be at a severe disadvantage - even you have admitted that there are many things that cannot be earned without credits, and Zhiroc also gave a breakdown of the amount of credits required to buy skills up to competitive levels.

Is a game "completely free" if you can only play it in a limited fashion without money?  If so, doesn't that mean that commercial muds which give you the first month free can also advertise themselves as "completely free"?  After all, there's nothing stopping you from creating a new account each month.

But there are many things they cannot do without credits, and the only way that players (as a whole) can consistently and repeatable earn credits is with cash.

Your argument for 'free' seems to be based around the fact that players can trade credits with each other.  However you've still not addressed the fact that this same argument could apply to every other commercial mud out there - you could play Gemstone or EverQuest for free as well, if another player will pay for you in return for services rendered.  Does that mean that Gemstone and EverQuest should advertise themselves as 'completely free'?

You can't have it both ways.  Based on your logic, all muds are 'free'.

The bolded part is untrue. It's been said many many times before. You can substitute money with time and still get access to everything in the game. I don't mean 'time' as in working for the game either.

We've never established that. One of the very first examples you were given was of a player with full skills and at the top of the rankings without having paid anything. The opportunity for advancement is there and it's very real. You're right that paying money gives you an advantage, but it gives you an advantage in precisely the same way that investing more time does.

It doesn't say 'completely free' anywhere. It says 'free to play', which implies that there is something you CAN buy for money - but it isn't the ability to play. It's also a system that allows you progress, unlike the free first month example you gave. You can't substitute money for time in it.

You can consistently quest for gold and you can consistently get credits for gold. Repeatably too.

IRE advertises as 'free to play', not completely free. And playing is indeed - free. No player has to pay anything for you to play.

Based on your logic you could make the statement that all MUDs who accept donations aren't free. A MUD needs to finance itself in order to stay afloat. Whether it's financed by the MUD owner or by optional player payments makes no difference how free the MUD is to play.

Earlier you posted "Credits are used to buy items and skills which aren't available through any other currency."

So which is it?

I bet there are EverQuest players who have played for years without having paid anything, too. But their account still needed to be paid for by one of EverQuest's customers - just as the player in your example had to have money invested into their character by IRE customers.

Of course you can - you could spend time performing services or gathering items in Ultima Online, then give them to another player in return for that player renewing your account.

Not from the game itself you can't - only by trading with other players who have bought them with real cash. You can do the same in most MMORPGs.

As long as you don't mind playing a weak character in a mud which advertises itself as focusing on "most importantly, PvP and Group vs. Group".

If the players get bonuses in return for those donations, then yes, I'd agree - that would be pay-for-perks.

It's actually both. There are items and such that can only be bought with credits, however you can buy credits for gold. This was relevant to the notion that people who buy credits are avoiding the competition for limited resources which isn't true because credits can not be used to 'generate' such resources but instead to only buy some unique items and skills.

You're right, there probably are players like that. The difference is this - they have to do something or to have someone pay for them to play. In IRE that isn't the case, because playing is free. No player has to pay anything for you to play.

I was rather speaking of the example you gave of someone just making new accounts every month.

If you can get someone to pay your subscription for you, more power to you. Your playing time still has to be paid for, which isn't the case with IRE games.

Hence my comment that most MUDs out there support a pay-for-perks subculture of some sort. You can consistently buy credits from the credit market - a game feature which is fueled by player bought credits. Yes. I'm going to get back to this poit shortly. (*)

You don't have to pay to make your character stronger. You don't have to pay to play. If you don't pay money, it will take an investment of time to develop the character.

I think we're mixing up two discussions at this point. One seems to be 'Pay-for-perks MUDs can't be free' and the other is 'the playing field isn't levelled in pay-for-perks MUDs'. Here is where I return to my previous point (*). IRE games are free to play. They are pay-for-perks, but free to play. They are free to play in the meaning of the word where you're not expected to have to pay money. You, nor anyone else, has to pay for you to play an IRE game. That is a different issue from the issue about the 'fairness' of the game.

Your last quote addresses the fairness of the game and isn't connected to the fact that you can play for free. If somebody invests more money than you in an IRE game, they will have an advantage over you. Analogically, if someone invests more time than you in an IRE game (or in most other MUDs), they will have an advantage over you. The pay-for-perks model allows time to be substituted with money. Credits aren't 'free' in the full sense of the word, but you can get them by investing your time instead of your money. If you don't buy credits in an IRE game and wish to compete in PvP, you're going to have to invest a significantly larger amount of time gathering gold to buy credits with than somebody who has simply bought them with money. The question isn't IF you can continue to advance in the game, it's HOW you can advance in the game.

The question isn't if you'd call them 'pay-for-perks', but if you'd call them 'free', and it makes no difference to that distinction whether they get bonuses from donating.

Personally I feel that any game which offers the OPTION of paying money in exchange for in-game benefits should not advertise itself as free. Reason being, there will always be players who use that option - and for those people, it is not free.

A free game is free, no pay for perks, no monthly fee, no hourly fee, no quest fees, no fees for anything involving game play. Offering mousepads for $10 to alleviate the costs of the server isn't involving game-play. Offering in-game credits that a player can use to buy somethingfor their character involves game-play. That some games offer credits for sale, or quests for sale, or weddings for sale, or whatever - means the game isn't *exclusively* free.

Either it's free, or it isn't. Pay-for-perks means not free. And time only equals money when you're working. Gaming isn't working (unless you're one of the admins). The entire notion of time=money doesn't even apply to this discussion. My free time is - you guessed it - free. It isn't costing me a thing to use my free time however I choose to use it. My free time has no value to anyone but myself, and I don't pay myself money for it, therefore it has no monetary value at all.

No, they could just create a new account each month. They wouldn't even have to discard it - they could bring it back out of stasis once they got another player to pay it for them.

In both cases, in order to play the game fully you need cash invested into your character.

If you don't invest cash into your character, you will not be able to compete with other players. For a mud which focuses on PvP combat that is a pretty severe handicap. The fact that you can get other players to invest that cash for you doesn't make the game 'free'.

No, I believe pay-for-perks muds can be 'free', but not if some of those perks can only be reliably obtained via cash, as is the case with credits. Whether you pay it yourself, or get another player to pay it for you, the fact still remains that in order to play the game competitively you need to invest cash into your character.

According to Zhiroc, it takes around 294 credits to max out a skill. In the example he gave, with 8 major skills and 4 mini-skills, it would take him 3528 credits to max them all. Subtract the 166 you get for playing your way up to the top level and that leaves 3362 credits which someone needs to buy, costing $1022 (enough for 7.8 years of subscription costs for Zhiroc's favourite MMORPG).

That's over a thousand dollars per character, and it has to be paid for by the same customers who are being told that the mud is 'free'. Over 95% of that character's skills will have been trained with cash, funded by customers of the mud. Less than 5% of the character's skills will have come from the player working their way up to the maximum level.

Conversely, if the information is out there, why not make it even easier to access? Isn't it part of TMS's mission to assist players in finding the game they want?

Go to IRE's front page. You're correct that there's a link to "Credits", but it's subdivided in with "Corporate", implying it's "Credits as in end of movie" and not "Credits as in a type of currency". I'd bet most first-time shoppers miss that.

Well, surely it is mentioned on their extensive page, right? The only hint is on "Features, where a clan is described as a "purchasable, customizable organization", though it's not clear what kind of currency they mean.

Maybe under ? Well, if you scroll all the way down to the bottom, credits are mentioned as something you can buy or sell, next to wool, coal, and other commodities. Hrm. No mention of RL currency there either!

I could go on, but Achaea has obviously spent some time making this information not obvious up front, which is why they want this site to be complicit and help them keep it not obvious. However, I think this runs counter to this site being a useful resource for finding games to play.

Even if I accept your premise (the information is always easy to find), which I don't, the answer would be "What is the objection to an accurate label, then?" Surely, if it is so obvious, the label is harmless, yes?

The fact that you can pay for something doesn't mean it can't be free. If you get a free XBox, do you expect to get all the accessories for free as well?

And you seem to be saying that free time is.. worthless. The fact that it doesn't translate directly into money doesn't mean you wouldn't be willing to spend money to make more of it. Some people have more money than time, and some people have more time than money. Why are the ones with more time on their hands supposed to be privileged?

KaVir, you're reducing me to quoting myself at this point. Not a good sign.

-
Define 'fully'. There are features on all online games that I won't immediately have access to. I know I won't get to try out remort races unless I invest a considerable amount of time levelling a character to max. To play an IRE game fully, you need what you have to have for every other MUD out there - a commodity to invest, be it time or money. That cash can be invested in your character by someone else in exchange for your money. Credits aren't free by definition, that doesn't mean you can't get them for things other than money from other players. And if we consider that PvP might not actually be your thing, then things are put into a whole different light.

-

-

Nobody said credits are free. They're perks - you don't need them to play the game and enjoy it. You need them if you want to compete at the highest levels of PvP, which is optional. PvP is actualy very fun at the medium and lower levels too. Even then, I reiterate, you CAN get them in the game. No, they're not free ultimately, but you can get them for IG currency from other players.

Not many players get all skills, because most skills are optional. The base-line is the three guild skills, which means that while they're going to take a while to master, aren't quite worth 3000 dollars. You can infact do pretty well with just one or two guild skills in some guilds.

If you're looking to prove that you can avoid finding the information, then that's probably true. You also learn about it within your first minutes of playing, so there's no danger of a player being kept oblivious of that. What labeling it as pay-for-perks would mean is that there will be players turned away before even knowing the first thing about the game - there seems to be a preconception that you can't get anywhere in a pay-for-perks MUD if you don't pay cash, which is of course false.

The only reason this change is being requested in the first place is precisely to achieve that, it seems. Any player will know what the business model is once they enter the game so there's no reason to try and claim that it's for the good of the players.

Well, how about "in order to reach 5% or more of your skill potential you need cash invested into your character"?

But the point is that credits are not free. You might win them from time to time, but in order to consistently and repeatedly earn them, they require cash. They are a pay-to-play commodity, and the fact that they can be traded among players doesn't change that fact.

Well if you don't like PvP then you're probably not going to be playing a mud "focusing on...most importantly, PvP and Group vs. Group action" in the first place.

But you need them to be competitive, because over 95% of your skills come from them.

It'd be like playing a 100-level mud which required cash to get past level 5. The mud can still be fun up to level 5, but that doesn't change the fact that you're going to be at a severe disadvantage to the other players if your character doesn't have cash pumped into it.

Then how about "in order to reach 5% or more of your skill potential you need cash invested into your character, but you don't have to invest it yourself as other players are more than happy to do it in return for in-game gold"?

It depends on what light you put it in.

The lessons you can gain by just leveling to lvl 20 are enough to be able to get the skills you need to bash(level, whatever) and to enjoy any other part ofthe MUD outside of PvP. PvP is a selling point, yes, but it's not the only selling point. Even then, practice has shown that you can get enough credits to fully participate in PvP by buying them for IG gold.

Credits aren't required to play - they're a perk.

Are you saying it's for the good of the players to keep them in the dark about the economic realities of the game until they've invested time playing?

Why shouldn't TMS just state it, clearly, up front? I know why IRE doesn't want that (they like their deceptive advertising to be as effective as possible), but why should TMS not provide accurate labeling up front?

A lot of people won't try the game at all, based on preconceptions. I don't think that's a service to the players at all.

As for 'keeping people in the dark with advertising', can you claim to have all non-attractive traits of your MUD in your ad? You're not being 'deceptive', are you?

I invite you to visit a Carrion Fields , in it you will find a free game that compares itself with the $50 latest game in the computer store shelves to encourage players to pledge money for covering the running costs of the MUD. It also clearly states that for 10 years a convination of IMM and players has contributed to keep the MUD running (by pledging money to a free game they enjoy). There are options to buy game-design RL items and also another to buy character sheets that appear in the MUD forums (a resource widely used by players that I would guess would let you have bragging rights for your success with previous characters).

A more direct quote goes like which is pretty much the reality for any game good enough to have a numerous player base that would not be posibly held in a free server (and probably no game with 10 yrs history has been always on a free server either).

Now, my question is, if it is totally okay for this specific game to claim to be free, 100% free and free to play, yet they do require monetary support from the player base and they do request this monetary support (as per their wording in the above link); why cannot a game that can be effectibly played for free, without money investment on an specific character but that requires someone else (among the player base) to spend money (in this case on themselves) be called free to play?

Would you be willing to accept the idea that both types of MUDs would then fall into the cathegory of "not free" then? what would be a free game with a high quality then? that run by a multi-millionaire who puts all the money by himself, covers bandwidth costs, etc and gets all the job done by himself or via pledged time of IMM staff? If you are willing to accept this then go ahead, label those games described above differently, it wont change anything because all the first page and many beyond will be of either type anyway.

PinkFloyd @ Jan. 09 2006,01:24
The obvious answer to that is that neither of the games you mention label themselves as 'FREE TO PLAY' in their listing blurbs, like  the IRE games do.

Spoke @ Jan. 09 2006,11:35
The obvious difference there is that you don't get any IN-GAME benefits for donating in Carrion Fields.

Is that really so hard to grasp? It has been pointed out over and over in this thread.

Carrion Fields: Sells out-of-game things for real-life cash. Exactly 0% of a character's skills, power, etc, comes from real-life cash; the amount you spend has no bearing on your character.

IRE muds: Sells in-game things for real-life cash. Over 95% of a maxed character's skills require the expenditure of real-life cash. Numerous other things are only available with the expenditure of real-life cash.

Is the difference really that hard for you to see?

I have never argued there is no difference between the two games, in fact, it is obvious that IRE games are comercial while Carrion Fields is not. Now, obvious parts taken aside, let me say this: If starting tomorrow none of Carrion Fields players donated anything (no charity whatsoever), then they would be left with selling their real life products, Carrion Fields themed stuff, and the character sheets (although character sheets could be argued at best borderline RL), so, then Carrion Fields would become a "free-for-costumers-and-friends" game?

If a player can get or not in-game advantage has no bearing on the labeling a game "free to play". That is what you fail to understand, that is what you keep avoiding, that is what you keep ignoring page after page after page. What this discussion was about was about the appropriateness of IRE MUDs labeling their games "free to play", and what I argue (using your own arguments and comparisions) is that they have as much right to label themselves free to play as Carrion Fields does.

So, again, I am not a blind idiot who cannot realize there are differences between the games I compared above, but those differences have no bearing in this subject anyway.

Choosing to attach the "no-in-game-benefits" condition to the word free is an arbitrary decision, and by no means one that has to be adopted by anybody else if they do not want. So, read again, check what the discussion is about, read the arguments and bring forth something new or discuss with arguments rather than with arbitrary definitions made up on the spot, why the points brought up by others are wrong.

No. I think it has been pointed out numerous times that TMS's purpose has been to act as a traffic exchange site and nothing more. The burden of finding out whether a MUD is commercial or not lies on the customer to find it out and the MUD to make the information easy to access.

The reason the "Credits" link is subdivided into the corporate section of the menu is simple, purchasing credits is part of their corporate department and would most sensibly be displaced there. I mean that makes sense no?

Furthermore, if you are going to grumble that consumers might misunderstand the meaning of "credits", it's in the consumers best interest to click that link and find out what information is stored in there. When you sign a contract to take out a loan, it is in your best interest to read the contract thoroughly, or have someone well-versed in such matters go over it with you and explain its parts. If you just sign on the dotted line without bothering to read the contract, and along the way something happens on your loan that you didn't think would happen, well then guess what it's your fault for not checking the contract out.

The information is easy to find. You even went to the IRE website and found their credits page with ease. Each of the four IRE games had a credits link at the homepage of their website. Threshold RPG and Inferno also list themselves as Pay-Per-Play on the features section of their respective listings on this very site. No one is trying to hide anything.

And again, labeling of MUD's are not necessary because the information is out there! Harmless? I think so, but I would not know how certain MUD administrators would feel about it. But even if it is harmless it doesn't change the fact that it is needless.

As far as I'm concerned the IRE games are free to play. I can play as much as I want without having to plop a dime on any one of the four games.

Yes, it does. It's really simple: if there are no costs for the players, then the mud can be legitimately advertised to those players as 'free' - because it is indeed 'free' for those people.

If the game does have costs for the players, then it is not 'free' for players, and shouldn't be advertised as such. The fact that some players can pay for others has no bearing on this - any more than a pub could advertise its beer as 'free' on the basis that some people buy drinks for their friends.

As long as you don't mind having a character with less than 5% of the skill potential that a paying player has, sure.

Hey, I can play Gemstone IV for free, too! As long as I create a new account every month, that is. Perhaps they should advertise themselves as 'free' too.

Right. But the game is still free to play, and IRE is not misrepresenting themselves by labeling their games as such. I can play an unlimited amount of time without having to play, which in essence is the meaning of free to play. Remember, they are not labeling themselves as a free MUD, but one that is free to play. There is a difference.

Come on, that is a ridiculous example. In that case why not call all the pay-to-play MUD's free too then? Sure, Threshold RPG is now free because I can create another character after administration freezes my account for non-payment.

This is accurate. You can buy all the T-shirts you like, but it doesn't do your character a bit of good. The only thing that has to do with the MUD is it uses the same logo.

It doesn't impact gameplay in the slightest. We're a roleplay-required game, and part of that is is avoiding situations like:

Frick: Where did you get that amazing sword? It's better than anything I've ever seen in this world?
Frack: I... uh... it... uh ... floated down from the heavens above? Did I mention no one can steal it from me?
Frick: You look beefier too. I've been working out all day, and yet you have somehow put on 40 pounds of muscle sitting on the guild couch.
Frack: I .... uh... divine favor? Yeah, divine favor. If you'll excuse me, I just ...uhh... inherited 100,000 gold coins. Yeah, inherited. That's the ticket.

We also pride ourselves on delivering interesting PvP action, and our players like the fact that when they log into Carrion Fields, they play the same game their opponent does. 100% of what your character has, your character earned through skill. Not 5%.

This is a fundamentally different approach to game design. It changes every aspect of competition with other players, as well as the challenge of competition against the game itself. We resent other games stealing the word "free" from it.

And, we advertise it accurately. No perks. Just free. Lots of games are like that. Others aren't. All we're asking is that TMS label everyone accordingly.

In light of that theory, could you explain Adam's decision to exclude Medievia from the ranking list for pressuring their players too aggressively to add traffic to his site? Heck, why have forums at all, if it is a "traffic exchange and nothing more"?

One reason the site can generate traffic is precisely because it is a useful resource. Making it a more useful resource would help traffic. Allowing people to use it deceptively is not good for the long-term health of the site.

I know Matt and Threshold like the "just traffic" theory, and it's how they treat the forums, but it's pretty clear from Adam's posts and the text on this site that he wants it to be a resource to players as well.

If this is so, then you should agree with me that games like Carrion Fields and dozens of others, where player money is needed for the continuity and survival of the game are not free, and should not be advertise themselves as free. They are as free as a the pub that advertise its beer as 'free' on the basis that some people of those who come in donate enough money when they are requested while they are inside.

Medievia was simply removed from the voting list because it went against the rules Adam put up. They are however still listed on TMS.

I do not see how people are using this site deceptively. There was a while back when Merentha had a voting script that allowed it be placed in the top 5 on the voting list, but that was dealt with.

The "just traffic" theory here is still valid. That's the biggest use this site has, as a traffic exchange. A place where people can come and find out what text games are out there. Forums have been added for communication between those in the MUD world, but they are of secondary importance really.

This website calls itself a "One-Stop MUDing Resource", not "A HUB for MUD Traffic".

If that's so, then you're being purposefully obtuse and obstinate. I wouldn't exactly be proud of that. Frankly, people would prefer to have discussions with the blind idiot.

One of my best friends is a guy who makes a lot of money but doesn't have a lot of free time. When he plays a game, he prefers to buy his way to be competitive with the top players in terms of equipment or what have you. He'd rather spend the money and get right to the top tier of the game than grind or screw around. He prefers to play games where you can do that (either because it's explicitly integrated or because a marketplace of some kind has grown up around the game.)

Conversely, I have another friend who is an PvP game nut. He can't stand the idea that someone might have an advantage on him, player versus player, because of spending money. The last time he tried a pay-for-perks game and found out two days into play, I had to listen to him bitch about it for a week.

What possible reason could there be for a site like this to not want to help each of these guys find the kind of game they prefer more easily?

I'll try to keep this short...

1) Let's say I start a MUD that I advertise as free-to-play, but also say that "people who subscribe at $15/month get 10x the XP and loot rewards". Is this still F2P? I'd say no, but if others think yes, then we might as well stop arguing about IRE because we have radically different mindsets on the concept of free. (And I'm not trying to say which is correct, which would be pointless discussion.)

2) Cany anyone point me to an IRE web page, help file, or official resource that documents how many lessons it takes to learn a skill. This is my major sticking point. Without it, a player can't just figure it out themselves.

They have to actually play the game, and even then, since the scale is non-linear (you'd have to trans one skill to tell, but see below), and since the game doesn't keep track of it neatly and nicely (you can't tell *ever* how many lessons you've spent without keeping track yourself, and you can't even tell how many lessons it will take to get to the next level (without a lot of hassle and calculation).

3) The major source of credits available to a player without spending money is the in-game credit market. There are 309 on sale right now (337 yesterday, if I remember). Is there enough of a market to support having multiple players doing this?

An interesting test would be to have 5 players start and try to play the game "for free" by trying to amass gold and buy credits, and watch the effect on the credit market. I'm somewhat reticent on trying this however, because I think it would really screw up the market for long time players, and I personally don't have the time to do the grind.

Well, how specific should we get with color coding?

Kavir and Donathinfrye have both agreed that a "pay for perks" is substantially different given the focus of the game. Following the logic through, they are significantly different and would thus deserve their own seperate colors in order to not confuse poor, easily befuddled players and to not cast the evil light of one onto the other.

We can have one color for 'pay for perks' that don't really affect gameplay directly, another color for pay for perks that affect gameplay directly in pvp but not in other aspects, another color to represent pay for perks which significantly affect all aspects of the game, another color for donations optional and donation equipement, another option for donations with no equipment but without which the game would not be able to continue to run and you get a mention in the credits, another color for donations required for which not even credit listing is given, another color for subscription games for which an option for further perk-buying is possible, another option for subsciption games with no further perk buying, another color for games for which the admin shoulders all the costs and does not ask for any donations whatsoever, another color for games with both "basic" and "premium" accounts in which the premiums have significant direct IG bonuses, another color for games which have basic and premium accounts in which the premiums have only cosmetic benefits in actual gameplay....ad infinitum.

Or, of course, we could forget about the problems presented by nitpicking the minor details of the business model of the MU* and all the problems presented therein.


I'm sure we won't have any trouble finding the volunteers to police every game on the list in order to ensure they are colored correctly, right? We wouldn't want any errors, or for players to have to depend on their own ability to process information.

This illustrates my biggest concern about such a feature being added. The profiles for the MUDS listed on this site are ALREADY filled with inaccuracies, whether intentional or not, and so clearly the administration and "community" cannot even begin to police the promotion already in place. I believe adding ANOTHER place for various MUDS to incorrectly clasify themselves would just further erode the value of the listing at all.

This is ESPECIALLY true for something as subjective as whether a game is free, pay to play, or pay for perks.

Jonathan Swift called. He wants his nearly 300-year-old idea of suggesting something obviously retarded in an effort to make a point back.

(Aside: No, you did not make a point.)

Just as this resource does not find it necessary in the MUD Info section to differentiate between "PvP Allowed" and "PvP Encouraged" and "PvP Required", etc - it would not be necessary to get as nit-picky as you are saying poses a problem. If a player prefers pay-for-perk systems, and sees a bunch of(let's say) RED color-coded lines representing pay-for-perk MUDs - all of the sudden, he has a narrowed list of which MUDs he may enjoy more, and then can look into the ones of those that seem most appealing. Likewise, a poor college kid who doesn't enjoy some factors of pay-for-perks game sees BLUE color-coded lines representing 100% Free - now he knows better which games he'd be interested in playing.

It would be a useful guide - neither myself, nor Kavir are attempting to say that all information about each MUD should be nit-picked to as ridiculously specific as it can possibly be. However, it would seem that many players in this forum do not consider 'what level of free' a MUD is to be nit-picky.

I understand how IRE is defending its own tooth and nail, here. They are protecting their desire for ambiguity. We're countering by saying that IRE's desire for ambiguity should not overshadow what would be improvement to a resource designed for players looking for a new MUD.

I would be far more interested in hearing from Synozeer, than IRE's staff/players though. I'd sort of like to know what he thinks, after this discussion continues to thrive after [29] pages.

So are you saying you volunteer for the job then, Disciple?(and if you really believe that satire and reductio ad absurdum is only 300 years old, be very angry at your literature or philosophy prof.)

Clearly there are many different forms of donation, pay for perks, subscription and mixtures as business models. Enough that merely two colors (or columns) wouldn't do justice. The point is clearly either make all the necessary differentiations and police them for accuracy or (the more reasonable option in my mind) accept that players may well be capable of figuring this stuff out themselves.

That is what TopMudSites is precisely at the moment. You got a bunch of MUD's on some list, there's your resource. No need to make any changes, like creating separate lists or adding labels to commercial MUD's. It works perfectly fine as is.

I'll propose three categories:

Free: No purchase is available to change the game experience.
Perks: Optional purchases can change the game experience.
Pay-to-Play: Mandatory purchases are required to access the game on a continuing basis.

Is there a game which doesn't fit neatly into one of those three boxes? Examples:

Free: Aardwolf, WotMUD, Discworld, Armageddon, Carrion Fields, Icesus.
Perks: Achaea, Lusternia, Aetolia, Imperian.
Pay-to-Play: Threshold, DragonRealms, Gemstone.

Actually, I think IRE doesn't fit neatly at all:

Pay vs. Free: you can buy credits, but there are methods (good or not) for getting them free.

Perk vs. Play: skill advancement beyond a novice level requires credits--is advancement just a perk?

They do seem a bit broad.

"Perks" as you've defined it can include everything from someone who gets a t-shirt for their character for donating $5 for the upkeep costs to laying out 1K or more to get 'the perfect pvp fighting machine'

The proposed categories also fail to address 'combination' models (e.g subscription costs+option to purchase special items via cash) or alternative models (Threshold's one-time required donation with options for more is really neither really a required purchase on a continuing basis nor is it 'optional' for that first payment past a certain point)

If the categories are too broad they really aren't very useful and lump together too many dissimilar models, if the categories address that problem by becoming more specific they become too numerous to be useful.

Actually, PinkFloyd, Inferno ended up being a pay-optional game before it shut down several months ago. You could maintain a subscription and everything that went with it, or you could go for a free subscription without access to guilds. But as I said, it shut down several months ago for good. And they -never- advertised themselves as a "free" game. They did let people know that playing free was an option but were very clear that free play came with reduced benefits.

Why would I "agree" with something which plainly goes against the very statement you quoted me saying?

If there are no costs for the players, then it should be advertised to the players as "free".

If it costs over a thousand dollars to max out your character, then no, it's not "free".

Can you please read my posts before trying to put words in my mouth?

For starters, try reading the post where I stated "I'd rather see the TMS database simply avoid mention of payment method entirely rather than providing misleading information."

Agreement is reached.

What I posted:
Free: No purchase is available to change the game experience.
Perks: Optional purchases can change the game experience.
Pay-to-Play: Mandatory purchases are required to access the game on a continuing basis.

If the T-shirt was an in-game T-shirt, that's a perk, and the game is pay-for-perks.

A subscription plus the ability to buy perks is pay-to-play, if the subscription is mandatory.

Threshold is pay-to-play, as they require one or more fees up front to play the game.

I don't get what's confusing here. At most, I could see a game with both mandatory payments and perks (Threshold) as getting both icons next to their name. Or a fourth color denoting "both".

It all comes down to:
(y/n): Are perks available within the game?
(y/n): Are there mandatory fees for playing the game?

I don't think that's very confusing, and I do think it's valuable information for a player using this MUD resource.

Valg, you're talking to morons who aren't thinking, they're regurgitating what they've been led to believe without taking the time to analyze exactly what it is you're saying or those they're defending are saying.  They don't understand your point because the results of your system don't agree with the uninformed, preconceived opinions they already possess and have been fed.

I do find it funny to see the number of low-post names that have suddenly appeared in this discusssion supporting IRE now that Matt fled crying because his bull**** propaganda was being drowned out by logical alternatives to make this site more useful to the MUDding community instead of turning it into a brothel for the Viagra MUDs.  It says another thing about the ethics of those games which use false advertising to attract victims...er...suckers...er...customers...er..."va lued players".

As for those making some of the stupidest arguments I've seen in a long time:  Reality check, everyone!  Where do you play?  I bet I could guess the vast majority of you do based on your posts in this discussion.  So, here's a thought for you.  If you happen to play an IRE or other Viagra-MUD, stop and actually think about things instead of just blindly defending your MUD's format as something other than what it is.  You may be surprised at what it is you're defending and how ridiculous your claims are.

For Christ's sake, start thinking instead of just acting like puppets for your MUD.  You'll be more respected, you won't sound so damned stupid, and your ass will hurt so much less without your MUD admin's arm up it.

Take care,

Jason

Ahh that's interesting. However, I remember the days I played that the game required a $20/month subscription to play. They then brought a pk server that charged $10/month. But I'm not surprised to hear that it went out of business.