[MUD-Dev] code base inquiry

[Richard Woolcock]

Matthew Mihaly wrote:
> 
> On Sat, 15 Jan 2000, Richard Woolcock wrote:
> 
> > Whether the codebases had restrictions or not has no baring on the quality
> > of the muds.  If you took away the restrictions we'd *still* have thousands
> > of rubbish stock muds - except they'd all be pay to play.  In turn that
> > would make people even *more* likely to start their own up rather than
> > having to pay to play on someone elses mud.
> >
> > At least with the restrictions it ensures that the majority of text-based
> > muds are run by hobbiests, while those are just in it for some easy money
> > are put off by the idea of having to create a mud from scratch.  Those few
> > muds which *are* written from scratch for commercial use are then put in a
> > better position to compete.
> 
> Easy money. Heh. You've either not created a lot of commercial text muds,
> or you are incredibly competent and efficient.

You're not listening to what I said.  What I said was that if there were no
restrictions on codebases, those people who *wanted* to make some easy money
could do so - as it stands right now, the restrictions ensure that people 
either run the mud for no profit, or else have to put in a lot of work.

> It's most certainly not easy money, and if all free muds had commercial 
> restrictions removed, it most certainly wouldn't be easy money for them 
> either, particularly given that I don't see people paying to play 99% of 
> the free muds, given the quality and same-ness of them.

Just a point of note - the same-ness has nothing to do with whether or not
the mud is free.  If you decided to release the code for your mud, in a few
years time people would refer to it as being a "crappy stock code".

Furthermore, the most innovative and unique mud designs I've ever seen have 
not been for commercial muds.  I often wonder if the main reason that the
owners of commercial muds strike out against free muds is down to jealousy - 
that someone could (in their spare time) make something that is more 
successful than something they themselves have put years of hard work into 
commercially.

> As for the survival of those of us with commercial muds written from
> scratch, I, for one, am a believer that a rising tide raises all
> ships. See my reply to Caliban.

As it stands, the majority of muds fight over who can get the most players.
If all muds were based around the concept of making money then - quite
obviously - that would be the same objective for everyone who wanted to 
profit from their mud.

What about those muds - like my own - who's only objective is to be true
to the vision of their creator?  Those muds who wish to be unique and
original in such a specific way that they would only ever cater to a very 
small niche of the mudding community?  Very little profit to be made there, 
I'm afraid.

Personally I feel that if all muds started trying to become profit-making
ventures, there would be no place for the truely unusual and unique muds.
To attract the best distribution of players, your number one priority would 
be to have all the "cool" features rather than those you personally felt 
should be there.

There is a certain freedom in creating a mud, knowing that you can never
profit financially from it - and therefore never feeling that your designs 
should be restricted by the opinions of others.  That is a freedom I'm not 
sure I would want to give up.

KaVir.



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