[MUD-Dev] [News] Virtual goods--Oh, the controversy!

[John Buehler]

Paul Schwanz writes:
> John Buehler wrote:
>> Matt Mihaly writes:

>>> Yep, quite right. We find our players with money appreciate
>>> being able to obtain things with money that would otherwise take
>>> more time than they're willing to spend. Why spending money is
>>> controversial and spending time is not is beyond me. My time is
>>> far more valuable to me than my money. Money is replaceable.

>> For many players, money is far more valuable than time. Further,
>> there is the ethic of a level playing field. In games like
>> Everquest, where advancement over time is the primary metric of
>> success, it seems a bit foolish to say that the very structure of
>> the game can be sidestepped by appropriate application of
>> money. It's like buying a political position. Or the right to be
>> considered an NBA all-star. It's not the way that people want it
>> to work.

> But how is that a level playing field?  The time-wealthy have an
> incredible advantage over the time-poor.  Or do you simply tell
> the time-poor that this isn't the game for them, since "the very
> structure of the game" is based on time-wealth?  It seems to me
> that developers are reticent moreso because the time-wealthy
> complain over losing their advantage and threaten to leave, and
> not because giving the time-poor an opportunity to aquire equal
> footing leads to a playing field that isn't level.

I don't have time to train for a marathon.  So on race day, I just
pay for the ability to ride a bike through the race.  Then my time
goes up on the same scoreboard, without footnote, as the people who
actually trained and ran the grueling race.

Actually running the race by foot is an implicit ethic.  The people
who play the level grinds believe that their way of playing the game
IS the implicit ethic of the game.  It sure was the ethic
established by the game when it was released.

To not go through the grind isn't following the ethic.  The amount
of money that you have has ZERO to do with the game as far as they
are concerned.  Because in their mind, the game is ABOUT investing
time to work through the level grind.  That is the expectation that
the game sets because it doesn't have a level-buying or item-buying
feature advertised as part of the experience.

Matt Mihaly's Achaea sets expectations early on that players can buy
stuff.  That's a mainstream element of play.  I'm quite sure that
people don't have a problem with people who buy stuff.  It's the
ethic that was established for gameplay from day one.  And Matt has
been kinda careful about not giving away the store.  He mentions
that players can't even buy the difference in power between an
EverQuest level 30 and an EverQuest level 40.  I think he did that
for good reason.

I wonder what Matt's players would think if some of the aspects of
gameplay that can only be 'earned' by skill or by wiles could be
bought.  I think that people would be upset because an established
ethic of gameplay had been sidestepped by the use of money.

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