[MUD-Dev] Buying benefits

[Marian Griffith]

In <URL:/archives/meow?group+local.muddev> on Mon 11 Jun, Matt Mihaly wrote:
> On Sat, 9 Jun 2001, Marian Griffith wrote:
>> In <URL:/archives/meow?group+local.muddev> on Fri 08 Jun, Matt Mihaly wrote:

>> This may perhaps be true for the current crop of game players,
>> but I would hardly believe this is true for anything more than a
>> minute minority of people around.  Look at how much people are
>> willing to pay for an armani suit. It may be better quality, but
>> that much? Or haute couture for an even more extreme example.

> Yeah, I have to take back what I said about the clothing
> really. Clothing is useful after all. It's not the rarity of
> clothing that makes it cost a lot. It is, however, a factor of its
> usefulness. How useful is it for helping you look good? How long
> will it last? How comfortable is it? A top suit looks stunning,
> will last 20 years if cared for properly, and is very
> comfortable. A cheap suit looks like a cheap suit, will not last
> long at all, and may or may not be comfortable.

Fashion sells dreams. Many people are willing to pay a whole lot to
purchase the dream they want.  Come to think of it, is that not
exactly what a mud is doing? Maybe we are all looking at it in the
wrong way. Rather than seeing it as a game, we should see it as a
dream to sell (or share). But that is exactly what dr.Cat is doing
at Furcadia, is he not?

> I've already sold clothing for more than $1000 actually, but it is
> highly functional clothing. Current players don't place a high
> value on how they look in MUDs. They don't derive enough
> usefulness from looking good.

True, but then your game is, from what I have read here, highly com-
petitive, and hardly social. I do not mean to apply that there is no
social aspect to it (any multi player game has that, obviously), but
that it is not a major, or even minor, goal in the game.

> I'll make a prediction. Virtual clothing will not regularly sell
> for more than $1000 until virtual sex is as or nearly is
> satisfying and desirable as physical sex. The qualifier there is
> that the clothing's only function is to make you more visually
> attractive. (to avoid things like clothes that keep you warm, but
> which possess the power to keep you so warm no cold damage can
> hurt you, etc.)

I disagree. Virtual sex will never be as desirable as physical sex,
but sooner or later virtual clothing (and I am applying the term
clothing in a loose sense) will be sold for real money.  The key is
how much the virtual life on a mud is integrated with every day li-
fe. It is a matter of numbers and involvement. The first determines
how many players there are who can afford to spend real money on a
virtual dress or suit. Too few and there is no viable economy.  The
second determines how many people are going to -want- to have it.
Too few, or if their on-line presence is too transient, then there
is no (or not enough) demand.  Right now we are looking at games
with only a few hundred, or maybe thousand devoted players who
spend, for a few months, significant amounts of time in the
game. Already people are connecting more of- ten and longer. I
suppose that eventually we end up being connected to the internet
more or less permanently. At that point your online persona becomes
as important as your physical persona (or arguably more important as
you will meet more people online). Virtual cloth- ing at that point
-will- be significant.


Marian
--
Yes - at last - You. I Choose you. Out of all the world,
out of all the seeking, I have found you, young sister of
my heart! You are mine and I am yours - and never again
will there be loneliness ...

Rolan Choosing Talia,
Arrows of the Queen, by Mercedes Lackey

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