GMing: The Agony and the Ecstasy.

Page: 1 2
Aug 19 2001, 5:27 am
When I saw the idea of making people pay to be GMs, I thought it was brilliant. I think the average quality of GM you'd get would be absolutely horrid, but it could still be a great source of BYONDimes. We must add this to our list of ways to make money on games.

Z
Aug 19 2001, 7:25 am
In response to Alathon
Alathon wrote:
JonSnow13 wrote:
Ebonshadow wrote:
Very good points lexy, I agree with everything u said there 100%. The only problem with people paying to be GMs is you can run into some very immature people. I used to use a system where people could pay to be gms in one of my games, 50% of the people who became GMs were corrupted(tho i only did this for 2 people). I simply kicked the other guy off, no problem whatsoever. So my 2 cents is : It's a good way to make money off your game. There are many people willing to pay to be GMs in game(my fee was 18$ a month), you just have to sift through and knock the immature ones out.

I have to play the bad guy here, you work damn hard on a game... and people are willing to actually pay money to be a GM, what's wrong with this idea/ so what if they terrorize people, the people playing it aren't the one's generating money :D take into consideration the fact that the game say was a quick game anyhow and not your masterpiece, just like a quick game you threw out there. Consider also adding a timelimit, say you can be gm for 12 hours per certain amount you enter. If I made 1$ out of my game, then that's 1$ closer to buying another blue book, etc and helping BYOND out :)

If it was, a game that took a while, would you want to destroy the game? because thats what your doing by giving anyone GM for, say $5. In the end itl be so unplayable it wont pay off. Neways, off to do homework *bahhh*


Alathon

but look, it did pay off, you made a game for free, and made 5$, something you did in your spare time made you 5$, but I'm sure there's a way to make it more broke down, like say your game isn't open on the hub, you cna't download it. So you pay say 5$ and you give the game to them and they get to host their own server and have GM rights.
Aug 19 2001, 7:46 am
In response to JonSnow13
It all depends on what you're after, if you're looking to make money and anothing else, have people pay to be GM's. If you're looking to create a world because it's something special to you or you just want it to be pleasant, then don't.
Aug 19 2001, 8:07 am
In response to Zilal
Zilal wrote:
When I saw the idea of making people pay to be GMs, I thought it was brilliant. I think the average quality of GM you'd get would be absolutely horrid, but it could still be a great source of BYONDimes. We must add this to our list of ways to make money on games.

Z

I agree. For games that are GM-heavy (like all the DBZ games) it can't actually hurt the quality of those games to charge. It might even help those games.

For many other games it would be a disaster...but I suspect there is some interesting model here that might work for a real game even. I don't know what it is, though.
Aug 19 2001, 9:05 am
In response to Alathon
Alathon wrote:
JonSnow13 wrote:
Ebonshadow wrote:
Very good points lexy, I agree with everything u said there 100%. The only problem with people paying to be GMs is you can run into some very immature people. I used to use a system where people could pay to be gms in one of my games, 50% of the people who became GMs were corrupted(tho i only did this for 2 people). I simply kicked the other guy off, no problem whatsoever. So my 2 cents is : It's a good way to make money off your game. There are many people willing to pay to be GMs in game(my fee was 18$ a month), you just have to sift through and knock the immature ones out.

I have to play the bad guy here, you work damn hard on a game... and people are willing to actually pay money to be a GM, what's wrong with this idea/ so what if they terrorize people, the people playing it aren't the one's generating money :D take into consideration the fact that the game say was a quick game anyhow and not your masterpiece, just like a quick game you threw out there. Consider also adding a timelimit, say you can be gm for 12 hours per certain amount you enter. If I made 1$ out of my game, then that's 1$ closer to buying another blue book, etc and helping BYOND out :)

If it was, a game that took a while, would you want to destroy the game? because thats what your doing by giving anyone GM for, say $5. In the end itl be so unplayable it wont pay off. Neways, off to do homework *bahhh*


Alathon

You guys seem to be forgetting that I said I kicked out the bad GMs. They didn't terrorize players, and for a while i was makin about 40$ a month off my game =P
Aug 19 2001, 11:20 am
In response to JonSnow13
JonSnow13 wrote:
Ebonshadow wrote:
Very good points lexy, I agree with everything u said there 100%. The only problem with people paying to be GMs is you can run into some very immature people. I used to use a system where people could pay to be gms in one of my games, 50% of the people who became GMs were corrupted(tho i only did this for 2 people). I simply kicked the other guy off, no problem whatsoever. So my 2 cents is : It's a good way to make money off your game. There are many people willing to pay to be GMs in game(my fee was 18$ a month), you just have to sift through and knock the immature ones out.

I have to play the bad guy here, you work damn hard on a game... and people are willing to actually pay money to be a GM, what's wrong with this idea/ so what if they terrorize people, the people playing it aren't the one's generating money :D take into consideration the fact that the game say was a quick game anyhow and not your masterpiece, just like a quick game you threw out there. Consider also adding a timelimit, say you can be gm for 12 hours per certain amount you enter. If I made 1$ out of my game, then that's 1$ closer to buying another blue book, etc and helping BYOND out :)

Personally, If I went into a game where there were power hungry GMs and they were terrorizing ME, you would loose me in the department of playing this game. I am sure many other people are like this. Once you loose the players JonSnow, who would want to be a GM for your game? They'd leave once the players leave. You might not get GMs in the future because no players would give you another chance! You said to take into considertaion the fact that that game wasn't your masterpiece...Well, my game, Ash's Tag, is NOT a masterpiece but, people still manage to have a blast in it, me included. So, even if the game isn't "a masterpiece" who's to say it isn't still fun? Also, this statement "so what if they terrorize people, the people playing it aren't the one's generating money" made me cringe. Who are you making the game for? The GM-to-be's or the PLAYers? (I gave you a hint there)...Why you would leave someone totally irresponsible in charge of your game just because he paid you is beyond me. You don't care at all if the game is ruined because of the treatment of the players? Please, correct me if I am wrong JonSnow, but, this is what I picked up from your post.

Ashianna
Aug 19 2001, 11:23 am
In response to Shadowdarke
Shadowdarke wrote:
Foomer wrote:
Best example for me is my super splat game. I havn't put admin commands into that game, and yet people still ask me if they can be an admin, when I tell them there arn't any admins, they go "Well why havn't you added them yet?". Well I've decided now to add a boot command, for those very people...

My idea to deal with this would be to setup a little system, and start anyone with the key "Botman" with a verb called make_gm. When you use the make_gm verb on someone, it tells them: "You are now an official GM!" and adds them to the GM list. (which saves, mind you, and loads at a new game.) Everyone who is added to the GM list gets the make_gm verb now. So they are free to make whoever they want GM's as well. Of course, being a GM gives you nothing but a verb to make someone else a GM, but hey, this might actually satisfy some people :o)

I'd like something like this:

mob/verb/make_GM(mob/M in world)
if(M.client)
M << "[usr] makes you a GM."
var/mob/GM/G = new(M.loc)
G.client = M.client
G.icon = M.icon
// transfer any other variables you like
del(M)
mob/GM // make a different mob if you already use GM in your game
density = 0
visibility = 0

//overide all important verbs so they can't interact with anyone but they still think they can

say(T as text)
src << "[src] says: [T]"

attack(mob/M in view())
src << "<span class=combat>[src] attacks [M] for [rand(10000,99999)] damage.</span>"

get(obj/O in range(1))
src << "GMs don't need items."

// etc.

Sure, give them make_GM as a verb, but make sure to give the victims an option, like an alert box that asks "Would you like to be a GM?" so they can't use the verb to interfere.

Nice... :oD
Aug 19 2001, 11:28 am
In response to Ashianna
Personally, If I went into a game where there were power hungry GMs and they were terrorizing ME, you would loose me in the department of playing this game. I am sure many other people are like this. Once you loose the players JonSnow, who would want to be a GM for your game? They'd leave once the players leave. You might not get GMs in the future because no players would give you another chance! You said to take into considertaion the fact that that game wasn't your masterpiece...Well, my game, Ash's Tag, is NOT a masterpiece but, people still manage to have a blast in it, me included. So, even if the game isn't "a masterpiece" who's to say it isn't still fun? Also, this statement "so what if they terrorize people, the people playing it aren't the one's generating money" made me cringe. Who are you making the game for? The GM-to-be's or the PLAYers? (I gave you a hint there)...Why you would leave someone totally irresponsible in charge of your game just because he paid you is beyond me. You don't care at all if the game is ruined because of the treatment of the players? Please, correct me if I am wrong JonSnow, but, this is what I picked up from your post.

Ashianna

Oh, cripes--don't act so shocked. The words market economy ring a bell? Do you really think that restaurants are out there cooking meals strictly in the interest of good food, that automobile manufacturers make cars solely the purpose of having good automobiles, or that game companies design games just so that people can have fun? Sure, you can banter about the immorality of the whole system all day... and you know what? You'd be right. But what's the purpose of sitting here and berating one (potential) participant in this scheme of things? If you're out there to pull as much money from your player base as you can, pay-for-GM'ing sounds like a very solid plan to me. The player that won't shell out a dime to log into a prospective game will gladly pay ten bucks to gain extra power over his fellow players. Such a game would quickly become old and stale... but with effective policing of your GMs and a strict no-returns policy up front, you could keep things playable for a looong time (assuming that the rest of your game was managed well enough). You're not gonna make any really fun games this way... but you could make some very lucrative ones.
Aug 19 2001, 11:34 am
In response to Leftley
Oh, cripes

Mmmmm, Crêpes...Thank you for reminding me of that delectable breakfast dish! :o) Also, it's always a pleasure to read your posts...You always say something I forgot. And, I was surprised because I just can't see why people get so greedy sometimes. I am okay now...*takes a deep breath*

Ashi
Aug 19 2001, 11:39 am
In response to Ashianna
Ashianna wrote:
Oh, cripes

Mmmmm, Crêpes...Thank you for reminding me of that delectable breakfast dish! :o) Also, it's always a pleasure to read your posts...You always say something I forgot. And, I was surprised because I just can't see why people get so greedy sometimes. I am okay now...*takes a deep breath*

Ashi

Think about who we're talking about here. I'm guessing you can picture the sort of person who would jump at the chance to pay to gain administrative power over their peers... now consider the manner in which this sort of person generally acts. Parting these people from their money isn't an act of greed... it's an act of justice. :P
Aug 19 2001, 12:06 pm
In response to Leftley

Oh, cripes--don't act so shocked. The words market economy ring a bell? Do you really think that restaurants are out there cooking meals strictly in the interest of good food, that automobile manufacturers make cars solely the purpose of having good automobiles, or that game companies design games just so that people can have fun? Sure, you can banter about the immorality of the whole system all day... and you know what? You'd be right. But what's the purpose of sitting here and berating one (potential) participant in this scheme of things? If you're out there to pull as much money from your player base as you can, pay-for-GM'ing sounds like a very solid plan to me. The player that won't shell out a dime to log into a prospective game will gladly pay ten bucks to gain extra power over his fellow players. Such a game would quickly become old and stale... but with effective policing of your GMs and a strict no-returns policy up front, you could keep things playable for a looong time (assuming that the rest of your game was managed well enough). You're not gonna make any really fun games this way... but you could make some very lucrative ones.

Hmm, I prefer what I think Lexy was doing in LexyMUD, where players can pay to gain extra stuff in BYONDimes, but GM powers are out of reach. Because a powerful player is much less capable of ruining a game than a GM is. (Yet, they still get to kick their fellow player's behinds should it come down to it.)
Aug 19 2001, 12:09 pm
In response to Foomer
Foomer wrote:
Oh, cripes--don't act so shocked. The words market economy ring a bell? Do you really think that restaurants are out there cooking meals strictly in the interest of good food, that automobile manufacturers make cars solely the purpose of having good automobiles, or that game companies design games just so that people can have fun? Sure, you can banter about the immorality of the whole system all day... and you know what? You'd be right. But what's the purpose of sitting here and berating one (potential) participant in this scheme of things? If you're out there to pull as much money from your player base as you can, pay-for-GM'ing sounds like a very solid plan to me. The player that won't shell out a dime to log into a prospective game will gladly pay ten bucks to gain extra power over his fellow players. Such a game would quickly become old and stale... but with effective policing of your GMs and a strict no-returns policy up front, you could keep things playable for a looong time (assuming that the rest of your game was managed well enough). You're not gonna make any really fun games this way... but you could make some very lucrative ones.

Hmm, I prefer what I think Lexy was doing in LexyMUD, where players can pay to gain extra stuff in BYONDimes, but GM powers are out of reach. Because a powerful player is much less capable of ruining a game than a GM is. (Yet, they still get to kick their fellow player's behinds should it come down to it.)

Well, and from what Lexy said about her "dime shops", I'd be willing to wager that what would be sold would not be simple raw power (i.e., access to a longsword +10 for paying customers as opposed to a longsword +1 for the common rabble), but a wider variety of options. At any rate, that's the sort of pay-for-power system that I think is most conducive towards good gameplay.
Aug 19 2001, 12:12 pm
In response to Leftley
At any rate, that's the sort of pay-for-power system that I think is most conducive towards good gameplay.

And increased funding. That being the imortant thing ;o)
Aug 19 2001, 12:16 pm
In response to Ashianna
Ashianna wrote:
And, I was surprised because I just can't see why people get so greedy sometimes. I am okay now...*takes a deep breath*

Greed is good...no, really.

Making a game with the intent that it will be good enough for people to pay for keeps you focussed. It helps keep you from going off in self-deluded directions and never finishing your game. People with no connection to their audience tend to start to lose it. They become writers with nothing to say, or politicians who think average people make 200k a year (no kidding there was one who got that bad).

Hmm...when I said this in another form once it started a huge unfortunate argument.

Let me try to keep it non-inflammatory by saying: Making a game that pleases you is one important element of game making. Making a game that pleases some other people (doesn't have to be everyone) is another important element. And money is one way to measure all this.

That said, charging money in itself won't generate a good game, and the scheme that started off this conversation is sure to result in a bad game.

BUT...I also do believe there is an interesting model here that could work somehow...
Aug 19 2001, 12:53 pm
In response to Deadron
Deadron wrote:
Ashianna wrote:
And, I was surprised because I just can't see why people get so greedy sometimes. I am okay now...*takes a deep breath*

Greed is good...no, really.

Making a game with the intent that it will be good enough for people to pay for keeps you focussed. It helps keep you from going off in self-deluded directions and never finishing your game. People with no connection to their audience tend to start to lose it. They become writers with nothing to say, or politicians who think average people make 200k a year (no kidding there was one who got that bad).

Hmm...when I said this in another form once it started a huge unfortunate argument.

Let me try to keep it non-inflammatory by saying: Making a game that pleases you is one important element of game making. Making a game that pleases some other people (doesn't have to be everyone) is another important element. And money is one way to measure all this.

That said, charging money in itself won't generate a good game, and the scheme that started off this conversation is sure to result in a bad game.

BUT...I also do believe there is an interesting model
here that could work somehow...

I do agree with you point of money being motivation. But, my point was that JonSnow was considering ruining his game just so he could get money from people. I think that if you want to make money on your game, you shouldn't go about doing that by letting someone GM as long as they pay you. GMs should be hand picked to benefit the game.

Ashianna
Aug 19 2001, 2:13 pm
In response to Deadron
BUT...I also do believe there is an interesting model here that could work somehow...

Well, for the new SpaceTug, whoever hosts a game will have administrative powers over it. So, in theory, I could set it up so that you have to pay to host a game. In a way, I guess that would be similar to the Hasbro email game model--pay up front and invite your friends to play on your dime... hey, wait a minute! Don't we do something like that in DragonSnot already? Jeez, I was only gone a week... maybe I did too much reading over vacation and accidentally bumped out some of my old knowledge.

Aug 20 2001, 6:20 am
In response to JonSnow13
JonSnow13 wrote:
Alathon wrote:
JonSnow13 wrote:
Ebonshadow wrote:
Very good points lexy, I agree with everything u said there 100%. The only problem with people paying to be GMs is you can run into some very immature people. I used to use a system where people could pay to be gms in one of my games, 50% of the people who became GMs were corrupted(tho i only did this for 2 people). I simply kicked the other guy off, no problem whatsoever. So my 2 cents is : It's a good way to make money off your game. There are many people willing to pay to be GMs in game(my fee was 18$ a month), you just have to sift through and knock the immature ones out.

I have to play the bad guy here, you work damn hard on a game... and people are willing to actually pay money to be a GM, what's wrong with this idea/ so what if they terrorize people, the people playing it aren't the one's generating money :D take into consideration the fact that the game say was a quick game anyhow and not your masterpiece, just like a quick game you threw out there. Consider also adding a timelimit, say you can be gm for 12 hours per certain amount you enter. If I made 1$ out of my game, then that's 1$ closer to buying another blue book, etc and helping BYOND out :)

If it was, a game that took a while, would you want to destroy the game? because thats what your doing by giving anyone GM for, say $5. In the end itl be so unplayable it wont pay off. Neways, off to do homework *bahhh*


Alathon

but look, it did pay off, you made a game for free, and made 5$, something you did in your spare time made you 5$, but I'm sure there's a way to make it more broke down, like say your game isn't open on the hub, you cna't download it. So you pay say 5$ and you give the game to them and they get to host their own server and have GM rights.

Notice the part that says a game that took a while. By a while I mean atleast a few days, and I can make a hell of a lot more in my spare time then $5 a day. So, in my book its not really worth it, might be different for others though I guess.

Alathon
Page: 1 2