[MUD-Dev] selling Godhoods

[J C Lawrence]

On Tue, 25 Apr 2000 06:08:35 +0000 (GMT) 
Matthew Mihaly <the_logos at achaea.com> wrote:

> On Tue, 25 Apr 2000, Richard Woolcock wrote:

>> Matthew Mihaly wrote: 

>> In that case I think you really need to decide exactly what your
>> motive is.  If someone is really good, you'll promote them for
>> free, which is fair enough.  However, if someone is okay (but not
>> good enough to be promoted normally) then they have to pay $3000
>> to show that they are "really serious" about becoming an
>> immortal, correct?

> This is a fair point. I think my answer is basically that a few
> players (very very rare) are so good that I simply want them,
> regardless. Others are maybe good enough, but I question either
> their dedication, or I simply don't have time to interview all the
> potential applicants to decide on who is truly right, and my
> belief is that the act of paying a lot of money alone will make
> them better gods.

This is a gamble.  There are several possible outcomes, ranging from
your desired everybody-gets-along-and-some-gods-pay-and-some-don't
to quickest-way-I-can-think-of-to-sow-dissent.  The problem is that
which of the many possible outcomes actually manifests is going to
depend on factors outside of your control: that mostly being your
player base, their reactions, their chain reactions, their comments
off-MUD and the resultant reactions to those, amy of their private
hobby horses (and their general popularity), and any spins which
they counter-apply to your positioning and marketing, and simply
whether any player decides to make an issue of it and whether he is
listened to enough (to create an effect, not necessarily enough to
make his content be significant).  You COULD end up with a really
neat system out of this that operates smoothly, produces a nice cash
stream, and generally is not a source of problems.  The difficulty
is going to be in getting it accepted in that guise (this may
actually be the easiest bit), and then maintaining it in that form
until it enters the role of tradition and "of course" in a
population rather well known for being fickle and without memory.

My sole significant concern on this model would be the fact that it
presents an attractive target that is easy to exploit to make you
the enemy, and then to reframe your game into players vs you.  You
may look at this reframing in terms of "unfair" or any other hobby
horse or socially concious folk song army refrain you want, but I
really don't think the details are going to matter.  Any and all of
them are both possible and easy, and the game of geting people upset
and campaigning for or against something (in this case you) is as
old as the hills, is implicitly more "exciting" than any in-game
event/structure, and is one that many naturally flock to.

Risky.  It is possible to steer around that reef and make it thru,
but I wouldn't wander in there with my eyes closed.

>>> No, no refunds. We will explain very carefully to them what is
>>> expected of them before signing any contracts.
>> 
>> If you decide that they should leave (and they've not actually
>> broken any part of the contract) would you still refuse them a
>> refund?

> Oh, no no. If we decided they should leave and they haven't broken
> the contract, there's no question we'd refund their money. We're
> not filth you know!

In line with the above warning: be careful with that protest as you
have now injected the item that you may or may not be "filth" into
the debate.  Its *REALLY* easy to immediately turn that around in
Shakespearean fashion,

  "Whaddya mean you're not filth?  What sort of filth are you?  You
make a habit of going around taking people's money for something and
then not giving it back...etc?"

That's a tar baby you can never unstick from, and never wash the
stick of off.  
 
>> True - but mainly to those who think it's all fun and no work.  I
>> suspect you're likely to attract a fair few "rich kids" who are
>> just interested in the chance to flex some virtual muscle.

> Naah. I think you'd really be surprised. People love being
> involved, and being a God means, for instance, a lot of freedom to
> build areas you wish to build, as opposed to having to have every
> single detail approved by us ahead of time.

<nod>

There's a general point of the state and quality of the existent
community being ignored here.  I'll comment more on this in another
reply.

--
J C Lawrence                              Internet: claw at kanga.nu
----------(*)                            Internet: coder at kanga.nu
...Honorary Member of Clan McFud -- Teamer's Avenging Monolith...


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