[MUD-Dev] banning the sale of items

[Ryan Palacio]

Raph Koster wrote:
> > Simutronics, specifically Gemstone, had "regular service" and "premium
> > service".  This was much more akin to "renting" an expansion than
> > purchasing.  People paid extra money for "premium service" which allowed
> > them access to special areas and therefore special items and such.  The
> > purchase of in-game events I have no previous knowledge of, but I
> > have also
> > never heard of items being directly sold to players by Simutronics.  The
> > latter of which is the crux of the issue.
>
> The crux of the issue was actually player-player transactions, as I
recall.
> Simutronics did in fact witness this, and allow it, and eventually decided
> to leverage it.
>
> Elonka at GDC described several sorts of additional revenue streams mostly
> from selling additional service (the wedding example, which I recall as
> being $2500, not $25,000, but that's a minor point), as opposed to
specific
> items.

Actually, after long thinking (specifically after the Simutronics issue
arose), I have come to the conclusion that *premium service* is the way of
future (and past) for MMORPGs.  Guess that means Simutronics had it right
all along ;).  However, unlike the Gemstone III example, I believe this
premium service will come in a manner less similar to renting an expansion
and more along the lines of subtle advantage with exclusive and prioritized
service.  Examples of subtle advantage might include higher "luck" factors,
birth right (as in D&D - with birth right came bonuses - extra starting
cash, items, associations, etc), interest bearing bank accounts, and better
overall pricing on big ticket items.  Examples of exclusive and prioritized
services might include priority on petitions, access to exclusive vendors,
automatic inclusion for beta expansions, and access to special boards for
voicing of concerns to developers where a response is always provided.

    On a side note, for balance reasons, I believe that under a system like
this, the number of characters per server/shard must be inversely
proportional to the "quality" of the account subscribed.  Effectively, the
better your account, the less characters you can have on any particular
server.  This would not only help simulate the bottom heavy socio-economic
structure, but also prevent potential exploitation of mule/cheese characters
by those with premium account benefits.

The bonus here is that money does provide an advantage.   Additionally, it
is overall more palatable to someone who finds player-to-player  (or worse
yet developer-to-player) transactions for money despisable.  And (for the
business minded), it completely follows the rules of expendability as
subscribers must continue to pay to receive the benefits.

> I have come to believe that twinking is a
> good thing and should be institutionalized. If anyone asks, I'll explain
at
> length. ;)

<--- asks :)  This has been a subject of eternal debate in the office and
perhaps a fresh perspective will shed some light on unexplored aspects.
Perhaps this warrants another thread?

~Ryan Palacio




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