‘I’m not talking about the potential for game imbalances that a pay for perks system creates, but rather is it ethical to construct a payment system that allows players to spend large amounts of cash on a game which is designed to be compelling, or even addictive?
I’ll take an IRE game as an example as theirs are probably the best known games using this system, though it’s not my intention to single them out for any particular criticism.
I just had a quick look at Lusternia and by my calculations to maximise the skills on a single character would cost around $1,000 if you buy credits in bulk.
In addition, all the IRE games have powerful magical items called artifacts which are only available for credits. Again I had a quick total up and if you bought one of each type you’d be looking at spending around $10,000 to do so. These are just the magical item artifacts; there is also housing, shops, pets and customisations which you can spend thousands of dollars on too.
And this is just on one character. If you want to play another character you can spend it all again, or in the case of an existing character changing profession or trade you need more credits to learn your new skills.
The system is designed in such a way that however much you can spend, the game has something for you to spend it on.
You might argue that there are ways to obtain credits without paying for them and that in practice few players will actually spend $1,000 to fully develop a character, much less own every single artifact, but that’s not really the point.
Whether players choose to spend to the max or not, this kind of system is designed to allow them to do so and it’s the big spenders where you really make your money.
Is it ethical to combine this kind of payment system with a game design featuring reinforcement, the Hero’s Journey, community ties and all that crazy compelling good stuff that hardcore immersive virtual worlds are notorious for?
I know that we’re just providing an entertainment product and my experience has been that players who pay are generally happy with their purchase, however part of me still feels a little uneasy about the whole thing.
I wonder if you can make an analogy with any other industries or products? I have a $2,000 watch for example, but it doesn’t tell the time any better than a $10 one, nor does it contain any precious metals or jewels to justify the high price. The price tag is solely because of the brand.
Can we say that my watch is worth $2,000 to me in the same way that that a virtual character in a virtual world may be worth $2,000 to someone else? I suppose some people enjoy owning $2,000 wrist watches, just like some people enjoy playing characters in text games that have lots of expensive virtual toys.
bcdev.design.blog 
It seems to me that to say this is not ethical would be to say that IRE (for example) has a responsibility to the communities in which their players live not to divert resources that might be put to better use elsewhere.
However on its face this is very hard to justify, at least with regard to the entertainment industry, without selecting some quality of life standard (which in the end may be impossible to do anyway).
Can we say that the values and priorities of much of the wealthy (not to say super wealthy, but just most people in developed countries) are in pretty bad shape? Yeah, I think that’s fair, but then again to hold up some ideal of right livelihood feels more like a chimera at best and an illusion at worst.
From my personal perspective I wouldn’t want people to spend that much money on my games, but I’m not really in the shoes of a niche business marketing alongside much bigger competitors either.
LikeLike
“I wonder if you can make an analogy with any other industries or products? I have a $2,000 watch for example, but it doesn’t tell the time any better than a $10 one, nor does it contain any precious metals or jewels to justify the high price. The price tag is solely because of the brand.”
I think with IRE games it would be a bit different analogy:
You are about to enter some shop to buy a watch and stopped by a shady man.
– Don’t go there, their watches are awful and don’t last more than two days. I can give you the best watch in the world and absolutely FREE! Yes, I mean FREE!
When you follow him, he leads to some dusty closet and brandishes some old chinese watch with scratches and traces of dirt.
– As I said, you can look at it absolutely for FREE! FREE! FREE! FREE!
Man stops repeating “free” with visible effort.
– $2000 and it’s yours. Awesome deal isn’t it? The screen is empty? Hey, I have a battery and it costs $500 only! You can also set a date for $1200 and day of week for $600. Alarm? Sorry, it’s a FREE watch after all.
Day later (when you have found that bought “watch” is empty inside) a shady man is nowhere to be found.
Now, returning to actual question, I don’t see anything unethical with direct or indirect charging of money in addictive game as long as real cost is presented to new player in honest way.
LikeLike
@george:
“Can we say that the values and priorities of much of the wealthy (not to say super wealthy, but just most people in developed countries) are in pretty bad shape? Yeah, I think that’s fair, but then again to hold up some ideal of right livelihood feels more like a chimera at best and an illusion at worst.”
I totaly agree with you on this line. And to answer the question on the title, it is not about ethics at all.
Cheers,
Daniel
LikeLike
@george
I agree that a p4p mud isn’t really any different from any other form of entertainment wrt to the amounts of money we spend on them, and whether the entertainment industry as a whole has value is a whole other debate.
@nabu
I see the point you’re making, although I think you’re being a little harsh! Certainly I don’t think there are many non-paying players on p4p muds that feel they were suckered into playing and now they’re so hopelessly addicted they can’t quit. I expect the majority of people who object to the charging model find out it’s not for them soon enough, and those that remain are happy to enjoy the game without paying.
@Daniel
It was mostly a rhetorical question, although what do you think the issues are with p4p, if any?
LikeLike