[MUD-Dev] Advertising Thread

[Brandon J. Van Every]

Rayzam said:

> As you say, you haven't been interested in muds until recently.

More accurate is I haven't resumed my interest in MUDs until
recently.

> Advertising tends to be targetted. Someone walking into EBX is
> into playing computer games. Someone checking out The
> Mudconnector, or half a dozen other online game related sites are
> into playing those types of games.

When is the MUD market ever grown then?  You just hope someone
stumbles on to The Mudconnector by blind chance?

> So it's not a question of rarefied.

Yes, it is.  I don't have player numbers but I do have some $
figures:

  http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/industry_news_display_plain.php?story=1245

    2002 Console market = $31 billion
    2002 PC market      = $8.5 billion
    2002 online market  = $0.873 billion

Given that there's a 35:1 difference between expenditure on consoles
and well-known online games of all types, what kind of player
numbers would you like to put on "unknown MUDs?"

> Sure, there are less MUD players than computer game players, than
> console game players. But the same way you can say that the ads
> haven't reached a game designer of 4 years, you can say that game
> designers of 4 years should have been interested in/following up
> on the breadth of the field for their own edification.

Looking at the numbers above, it's quite clear that MUDs are a
teeny, tiny, eensy, weensy part of the "breadth of the field."  Like
1% of what a game designer could concern himself with.  I'm sure
you'll understand why so many game designers found something else to
do, and didn't spend their days studying up on MUDs that have never
effectively advertized their capabilities.

> If you're a researcher getting into a new question, you always
> want to read up on everything going on in that part of the
> field. Even for your own line of research, you want to keep up
> with everything available. Doesn't seem to be the case nowadays.

Perhaps because the big guys spending money aren't there to
research, but to ship a product.  They could dig around in MUD
history all they like; where's the value add?  Sometimes there is
one, such as a technical architecture.  Often times there is not.
Who cares who did the first underwater area?  And even if you do
find a good technical architecture, how often are they so amazing
and important that it couldn't stand a redesign from scratch?

> Take a look at the MMORPG releases. Were the more successful ones
> developed by designers with experience in the text world? Were the
> unsuccessful ones developed by designers without that experience? 
> I don't have hard facts on this, but my intuition is that it's
> true.

If you don't have hard facts on it, then you don't know.  You might
want to believe it but that doesn't mean it has to be true.  I'd
suggest a thread soliciting this kind of information from people who
actually do know.

I also have a problem with thinking that MMORPG success/failure is
primarily a function of historical / game design expertise, as
opposed to marketing, funding, revenue model, artwork, and PC
technology of the day.

> So how does the concept get marketed to a larger audience?
> Franchises that have a large target audience moving into the
> field: Star Wars & Warcraft.

This doesn't help The Mudconnector get a larger audience.  It
doesn't make anyone more aware of MUD history.  It makes people more
aware of Star Wars and Warcraft, whatever they implement in their
own MMOGs.


Cheers,                         www.3DProgrammer.com
Brandon Van Every               Seattle, WA

20% of the world is real.
80% is gobbledygook we make up inside our own heads.


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