Top Mud Sites Forum - View Single Post

Atyreus · 01-19-2006, 12:41 PM

You used dictionary definitions to argue for particular meanings of "free to play" and "pay for perks" that are already agreed upon, but which for your argument with Matt are beside the point. It is possible for both statements to be true: that IRE games use a "pay for perk" model and that the statement "pay for perks" does not fully and adequately describe the model that IRE uses.

Just as "amateur" does not put the most positive spin on muds run as hobbies. The term "amateur" is objectionable because, in addition to the meaning intended by its use in such a case ("one who engages in a pursuit as a pasttime rather than as a profession") there are the connotations of the broader sense of the word ("one lacking in experience and competence in an art or science"). "Pay-for-perks" in this case is also objectionable, not because of any associated negative connotations of the term itself, but because of its association with business models that might be significantly different from IRE's.

It is fair to claim a distinction between a model like IRE's which allows someone to pay for in-game benefits, but which also provides the means to acquire those benefits without payment, and a game such as Threshold which has a number of in-game features and perks that are only available to people who pay for them. If the point of a system of categorization for business models is to assist players who are looking for muds to play, then I think you would want a system that depicted business models as accurately as possible.

Except that when it comes to language, context is everything. In the context of this argument the issue is not a broader (and largely agreed upon) definition of "pay-for-perks" but the accuracy of using that phrase to describe a model that can be distinguished from other models which also fall within the definition of "pay-for-perks." You did not provide an accurate example of IRE's model. You provided an example of which that model would be a subset. I think at the very least, we'd need a system of categories that would distinguish between relative subsets (Sinuhe's suggestion seemed to move closer towards such an end). Certain relevant distinctions within the pay-for-perks set could include: (1) Can perks be obtained via in-game means without payment or are they only purchasable with real world cash? (2) Do perks effect advancement and/or competitiveness or are they merely cosmetic? (3) Are perk payments used to support a commercial venture or are they simply rewards for donations for server upkeep or game maintenance?

01-19-2006, 12:41 PM	#173
Atyreus Member Join Date: Feb 2003 Home MUD: The Dreaming City Posts: 60	You used dictionary definitions to argue for particular meanings of "free to play" and "pay for perks" that are already agreed upon, but which for your argument with Matt are beside the point. It is possible for both statements to be true: that IRE games use a "pay for perk" model and that the statement "pay for perks" does not fully and adequately describe the model that IRE uses. Just as "amateur" does not put the most positive spin on muds run as hobbies. The term "amateur" is objectionable because, in addition to the meaning intended by its use in such a case ("one who engages in a pursuit as a pasttime rather than as a profession") there are the connotations of the broader sense of the word ("one lacking in experience and competence in an art or science"). "Pay-for-perks" in this case is also objectionable, not because of any associated negative connotations of the term itself, but because of its association with business models that might be significantly different from IRE's. It is fair to claim a distinction between a model like IRE's which allows someone to pay for in-game benefits, but which also provides the means to acquire those benefits without payment, and a game such as Threshold which has a number of in-game features and perks that are only available to people who pay for them. If the point of a system of categorization for business models is to assist players who are looking for muds to play, then I think you would want a system that depicted business models as accurately as possible. Except that when it comes to language, context is everything. In the context of this argument the issue is not a broader (and largely agreed upon) definition of "pay-for-perks" but the accuracy of using that phrase to describe a model that can be distinguished from other models which also fall within the definition of "pay-for-perks." You did not provide an accurate example of IRE's model. You provided an example of which that model would be a subset. I think at the very least, we'd need a system of categories that would distinguish between relative subsets (Sinuhe's suggestion seemed to move closer towards such an end). Certain relevant distinctions within the pay-for-perks set could include: (1) Can perks be obtained via in-game means without payment or are they only purchasable with real world cash? (2) Do perks effect advancement and/or competitiveness or are they merely cosmetic? (3) Are perk payments used to support a commercial venture or are they simply rewards for donations for server upkeep or game maintenance?