|
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'.
|