Top Mud Sites Forum - View Single Post

Atyreus · 01-04-2006, 07:15 PM

No, I see the point. It doesn't change the fact that I'd still be playing for free. The fact that this is possible because of a business model that allows my play to be essentially sponsored by someone else doesn't change that fact. In the days before cable TV, all my neighbors and I had no trouble thinking of TV as "free" even though network advertisers were covering what would otherwise have been our costs.

I am not familiar with Gemstone's or Avalon's business models. However, as I recall, Threshold requires you to pay at least a one-time $50 fee to play (and then you can pay more for extras). So, no, I wouldn't consider Threshold free to play, I'd consider it to be a $50 game.

A more appropriate analogy would be a pub that advertised "free beer" and when you got there you could drink tap Budweiser for free, but if you wanted Guiness or maybe some food you'd either have to pay for it or get someone else to buy it for you. You're still getting free beer, and most people walking into that situation aren't going to be saying, "What a rip!!! No one told me I'd have to pay for the sandwiches and good beer!!!" They know the free beer is a draw to get them into a commercial establishment.

They might want to, and with very little effort they will. I'm not a player on any of IRE's games, but I have checked them out in the past. It only took a brief perusal of the website for Achaea to figure out that it was a pay-for-perk system. I also recall that you can't get through the tutorial without becoming aware of at least some of the uses of credits, from which I think anyone can conclude that Achaea is a game where people who spend money are going to get something in return for that money. The small amount of time they'd have spent up to that point is hardly going to cloud their judgement about whether that sort of system is something they'd be interested in playing or competing in.

I don't have a problem with muds providing more detail on the information page than just whether or not they are pay-to-play. I wouldn't complain if a system like the one you suggested in were put in place. I'm just questioning the suggestion made by some here that a mud which is free to play is being less than honest when it advertises itself as "free to play." Most of these arguments seem to rest on the assumption that visitors to this site are complete dupes with highly addictive personalities who will only find out that a game has purchaseable benefits after they are so far taken in that they will find themselves unable to resist paying for said benefits without suffering from withdrawals and severe emotional distress.

01-04-2006, 07:15 PM	#144
Atyreus Member Join Date: Feb 2003 Home MUD: The Dreaming City Posts: 60	No, I see the point. It doesn't change the fact that I'd still be playing for free. The fact that this is possible because of a business model that allows my play to be essentially sponsored by someone else doesn't change that fact. In the days before cable TV, all my neighbors and I had no trouble thinking of TV as "free" even though network advertisers were covering what would otherwise have been our costs. I am not familiar with Gemstone's or Avalon's business models. However, as I recall, Threshold requires you to pay at least a one-time $50 fee to play (and then you can pay more for extras). So, no, I wouldn't consider Threshold free to play, I'd consider it to be a $50 game. A more appropriate analogy would be a pub that advertised "free beer" and when you got there you could drink tap Budweiser for free, but if you wanted Guiness or maybe some food you'd either have to pay for it or get someone else to buy it for you. You're still getting free beer, and most people walking into that situation aren't going to be saying, "What a rip!!! No one told me I'd have to pay for the sandwiches and good beer!!!" They know the free beer is a draw to get them into a commercial establishment. They might want to, and with very little effort they will. I'm not a player on any of IRE's games, but I have checked them out in the past. It only took a brief perusal of the website for Achaea to figure out that it was a pay-for-perk system. I also recall that you can't get through the tutorial without becoming aware of at least some of the uses of credits, from which I think anyone can conclude that Achaea is a game where people who spend money are going to get something in return for that money. The small amount of time they'd have spent up to that point is hardly going to cloud their judgement about whether that sort of system is something they'd be interested in playing or competing in. I don't have a problem with muds providing more detail on the information page than just whether or not they are pay-to-play. I wouldn't complain if a system like the one you suggested in were put in place. I'm just questioning the suggestion made by some here that a mud which is free to play is being less than honest when it advertises itself as "free to play." Most of these arguments seem to rest on the assumption that visitors to this site are complete dupes with highly addictive personalities who will only find out that a game has purchaseable benefits after they are so far taken in that they will find themselves unable to resist paying for said benefits without suffering from withdrawals and severe emotional distress.