[MUD-Dev] banning the sale of items

[Zak Jarvis]

--> On Sun, 16 Apr 2000, Par Winzell wrote:

>> I'll never understand this argument. The difference is enormous. Time is
>> the ultimate resource, the great equalizer, the one that humans have in
>> common. When you spend an evening in a group to clean out the orc caves,
>> the simple fact of the shared time is what bonds you to these people.

--> On Sunday, April 16, 2000 Matthew Mihaly replied

> Time isn't the issue. Free time is, and free time differs greatly among
> people.

No arguments there.

--> Par said:

>> It's superior because it creates a better game. It's that simple. Forget
>> all the "ethical" crap; that's too easy to argue against. Investing time
>> in a game cannot be compared to investing money.

--> Matt replied:

> If we're talking about big MMORPGs here, who cares if it creates a better
> game. All that matters (or should matter to me, if the game is being
> created for a publically-traded company) is how much profit it makes.

The players care. The more the players feel it's a good game, the less churn.
The less churn, the longer the life of the product. The longer the life of the
product, the more prestige you gather. The more prestige, the easier to get
backing for further products. Etc.

However, I would argue that another incentive for reducing real-money sales of
characters and some items (though I think items is a tricky issue, as it's easy
for me to imagine systems where item sales enhance the game and world rather
than detract) is that excessive purchasing of what your content developers have
designed to be attained through in-game mechanics demoralizes staff. Content
development staff is more important per-head than players. You'll always lose
players here and there, but you need your staff around to make the stuff that
attracts the players. It very much behooves the designer to development staff
happy and efficient.

I also really agree very strongly with Par's sentiments on the issue. He was
able to pin down something that had been nebulous for me until now.

--> Par stated:

>> I have nothing against an -expensive- game -- if I spend $200 to play a
>> two-week scenario that I've looked forward to all year, that's fine. I've
>> got nothing against exclusitivity. I don't care about fairness. I dislike
>> using real-life wealth as an indicator as -anything- other than possibly
>> civic responsibility. :-)

--> Matt contended:

> So, I've gone to an Ivy League university. I was raised in a privileged
> environment. I had access to a fine education and was encouraged from
> birth to speak properly, etc. This gives me an _undeniable_ advantage in a
> game like Achaea (where things like your political standing is heavily
> influenced by your perceived education level and your ability to
> communicate clearly). All those advantages I listed above are a result of
> real-life wealth (of my parents in this case). Do you object, then, to
> designs which possibly reward well-spoken, well-educated players?

The problem with this statement is that it's application cannot be universal.
There are plenty of players with the same background without your abilities to
impress. Do you really attribute all your success to the wealth of your family?

There are also plenty of examples of players who are just as persuasive and
impressive who have had none of the privilege you've had.

Can you say that your background predisposes you to be more effective? Perhaps,
though it likely depends on your field of study in college. An engineer is far
less likely to impress than an English major. An actor might well impress more
than an English major.

I like to think that I comport myself quite respectably in games and elsewhere
with my command of language. I finished my high-school education through home
studies and I've never taken a college course in anything. I did poorly at
English when I was in school. The majority of my ability is self-taught.

That said, I absolutely believe in the importance of a good education. My issue
is with the assumption that *any* education imparts advantage.

I don't think the players in Achaea would really give me any social advantages
if I carried on at length on the relative merits of the Copenhagen
Interpretation, Niobium doping in Josephson Junctions, or the potential of
superfluids as an industrial byproduct in future applications of orbital
assembly. They'd probably think me a terrible bore, in fact. Unless they were
studying the history of quantum mechanics, theoretical applications of
electronics or lunatic theories of matter in zero G environments.

-Zak Jarvis
 http://www.voidmonster.com





_______________________________________________
MUD-Dev mailing list
MUD-Dev at kanga.nu
http://www.kanga.nu/lists/listinfo/mud-dev