I agree.

I think that's a very sensible way of looking at it and if games are transparent about their microtransaction system players can make a choice if they want to play the game or not.


While it's true that premium features which impact competitive gameplay tend to cause the most controversy, you can make the same argument for those which don't. For example you could say that a game which sells novelty pets is not really "free" because without paying you can't experience all the content the game has to offer.

You have to look at the quantity and quality of content which is behind this payment "gate" in order to make a judgement on whether the game is a free game with some extra pay features, or a pay game with a trial mode. It's also important to distinguish between gating content ("you cannot reach this content unless you pay") and access time ("you can reach this content but it will take you much longer unless you pay").

In our implementation we gate content that has little effect on competitive gameplay and speed access time to content which does. There are some exceptions, but in general this is how it works. We're a relatively new game and still in beta so I don't have a lot of data, but so far the two most popular premium features are reduced skill training time and private housing.

I don't see it as any different than the old penny arcades, just newer technology.
In fact, microtransactions might be a good model for a permadeath game:
Insert a quarter when you die for a new life or to continue playing.

Arrgh. That again.
I'm more concerned about muds that advertise themselves as "fun" or "great" and they ain't.

I've avoided games with micro transactions that even remotely effect the competitiveness with free players. This is mostly because at some point in time in the future they may edge into areas I'm not comfortable with. I prefer to feel secure in my hobbies that I can trust the people running its intentions for the future.

But that's mostly not a money deal. It's a time investment deal.

Yes. Perhaps you could give me a cut when I indiscriminately kill people. Maybe 10 cents per kill? Win.

Well I don't do PvP games myself, unless the second P is "puzzle". ;-)

Although many of the later arcade games did feature dual mode where one could pick cooperative or player vs. player.
I don't remember any tears. We just coughed up another quarter.

Then you'd avoid most free muds.
Up today, disappear in a month or two.
Instead of perks for money, the admins beef up their alts and friend's alts.

Yes indeed. I do avoid them and I play pay to play games currently. :P

You could argue that as well, but it's a separate issue.

A "superhero" perk that gives players ten times as many hit points and allows them to inflict ten times as much damage would obviously have a major impact on competitive gameplay between paying and non-paying players - but it doesn't stop players experiencing any content.

A pet mouse that follows you around and performs amusing socials may be content you can't access without paying, but it's not something that will impact gameplay. Some people may be unhappy that they can't get a mouse without paying, but the point is they can still compete with those who have mice - and if the mud is about competitive gameplay (which is the style of mud I've been talking about in this thread), then this is an important distinction.

Of course you get some games that combine the two - the Ubersword of Slaying that costs $100, is locked to the buyer, and is the most powerful weapon in the game.



Yeah, quite a few people avoid muds that have only been open for a few months.


Not necessarily "instead" - some muds do both!

And therein is the heart of the issue. If that is true, then your game has failed as a competitive game. Why? Because the skill of the players is less important than the size of their bank accounts.

An ideal game would be one where neither time NOR money decided victory. Unfortunately, designers usually try to place time sinks in the paths of the players because they simply can't create content fast enough to keep them interested otherwise. Player created content (either actual, or via role playing) requires some critical mass of players before it can work. Right now, most games try to play the balancing act, making the grind just slow enough to allow new content to draw people, without driving too many away.

I think that you're treating commercial ventures as something other than commercial ventures, frankly.

Since this topic is so active, I may as well ask what people think of an idea I had.

I'm really not a fan of the "free to play" model, as there is a strong tendency (and strong monetary incentive) to make it a "free to play unless you like to win" model, so I've always turned my nose up at such things. This is not to say that I don't believe they could be implemented well.

At any rate, even free muds aren't really free, at least to the developers, so I've at various times considered different perks models. The last one I came up with (and the only one I really liked) worked something like this:

1) The game accepts donations
2) Players can modify the world
3) The game accepts out-of-world player-created content such as code, etc.

[Edit: Interesting/useful modifications to the world are considered "contributions"]

Each of these types of contributions is rewarded (with sharply diminishing returns (I'm excessively fond of powers of two, so log 2 sounds nice to me)) with some sort of temporary spendable point for boosts to skills or attacks or defense, or whatever else. These bonuses aren't huge, so they do give an edge, but they're not excessive either. And they just go away if not used for a month, so people can't hoard them. I should also add that the addition happens near the end of the month and counts the whole month, so you can't cheat the diminishing values thing by spamming lower-end numbers.

Then people are rewarded for benefiting the game, not necessarily dumping cash into it, and the diminishing returns should hopefully keep people from amassing excessive amounts of whatever I decide to call these "points" that they get.

Comments/criticisms appreciated.

Perhaps this should be brought up in a new thread, since it is a different train of conversation :smile:

Seems related to me, since they're discussing balance issues of perks models, but I am not adverse to it being moved.

There are games out there where it is virtually impossible to participate in PvP for example without having premium items or enhancements. Those games definitely do prevent non paying players from experiencing that content. I don't disagree with the points you make about paid enhancements which give a competitive advantage, but in the context of your comments about "free" vs "free trial" I think it's important to look at what content is available to non paying customers vs paying customers and not just to focus on competitive gameplay.


I think this is why paid enhancements which give competitive advantages cause such a furious reaction in some people; they strike right at the heart of the player skill fallacy.

One area where I think paid competitive enhancements could possibly work is in closing the gap between the skilled minority and everyone else. If you take a PvP system for example where player skill is a significant factor then that system is going to be dominated by a few highly skilled players and everyone else is going to lose most of the time. The usual argument against paid enhancements in such a system is that they make those who have paid the most into the dominant players. However, what if you could provide paid enhancements that scaled inversely with player skill? They would make little or no difference at the top end of the scale so skilled PvPers who hadn't purchased them wouldn't be at a significant disadvantage to those who had, yet at the bottom end they would enable players who would otherwise suck badly to perform much better and not get battered all the time.

I wonder what people who frown on competitive advantages for paying players would make of such a system, and if the paid enhancements weren't enough to give an edge over a truely skilled player, would people still feel they were worth paying for?

I guess I should ask what your general stance on character development is. In my experience, when something is available in a game that will give one player an artificial advantage over another player - be it good attributes, a high level, good equipment, or a number of purchased "perks" - it's only a matter of time before possession of that thing becomes a prerequisite for being competitive (especially in combat).

Is this unfair? Is it poor game design? Maybe both, maybe neither. In my mind it's simply a reward for those who are willing to put an investment - whether it be thought, time or money - into the game.


This is a neat idea. Do you know how well it works in practice?

Of course the importance of "competitive gameplay" would heavily depend on the style of game - I usually play competitive games, so for me the importance is high. But in more general terms, when differentiating between "free" and "free trial" I would consider the perks within the context of the overall gameplay for that particular mud. A game where competitive activities were little more than a minor minigame, for example, obviously wouldn't be so heavily impacted by competitive perks.


I think player skill is extremely difficult to quantify in such terms (unlike time vs money for example), and even if you were to somehow manage it I doubt that either side (the skilled and those who pay) would be happy - every time they lost they'd blame it on the perks (claiming they were either too good or too bad).

It would also make a joke of the whole "competitiveness" aspect if the skill and capabilities of the participants had no impact on the outcome. For some reason that idea reminds me of the novel "Incompetence", set in a future society where no-one can be "prejudiced from employment for reason of age, race, creed or incompitence [sic]".


Imagine a race between a mixture of professional and amature athletes. The professionals can spend all of their time training, so they'll be in better shape. But let's say the amature athletics can buy better shoes which allow them to make up the difference. That's one of the arguments put forward in favour of pay-for-perks - in theory, the professional and amature athletes can now compete with each other on comparable terms. In practice of course, the winner of the race will always be a professional athlete who also buys better shoes.

But to compensate for skill as well we'd need to introduce another element into the analogy. Let's imagine that every runner is given a backpack containing various weights of bricks, each carefully balanced to their individual skill, therefore ensuring that every runner can complete the race in exactly the same amount of time. You could spend years training solidly, or just spend your time in front of the TV drinking beer and eating burgers - it doesn't matter, you'd still complete the race in exactly the same amount of time.

The question is, is that still a competition?

I don't think I posted my "play for pay" idea here yet. ;-)
The idea is that instead of the players paying you, you pay the players to play your game.
I think I calculated that it would cost $200 a month to run regular rotation banner ads
on the three major mud advertising sites (well at the the time, not sure now).
Anyway instead of doing that you simply give the money to players in the form of prizes
every month for various in game achievements. You'd probably get more interest in
the game that way than in a banner rotation. Maybe… dunno.

Another idea, although not original (it's really a variation on what Skotos does), is to
allow builders to produce and sell content in game. They design, build and stock new
"areas/zones/realms" in the game, and after they are accepted presumably as balanced and
in theme, the builder can sell or give away tickets to players to allow them to play that content.
A portion of the microtransaction proceeds go to the game maintenance, or back into
the "play for pay" system above.

I was at a family thing and a relative was going off about how golf is a serious
sport and the players are athletes and wutnot, so I go "Hey Lou, didn't Tiger
Woods just get beat by a chainsmoking guy with a beer belly?"

I love uncle Lou, I do, but gawd that expression was priceless.

-Crat
http://lpmuds.net