[MUD-Dev] Middleware (was re: Sun's Sim Server and Gordon's 10Reasons (thefirstone :))

[Derek Licciardi]

From: Michael Sellers
> Raph wrote:

>> To broaden the discussion a little to the general topic of server
>> middleware/server codebases: what's the general feeling of the
>> list on this issue? My personal take is that middleware generally
>> makes too many assumptions that end up constraining the eventual
>> game design--plus, you have to rewrite most of it anyway or end
>> up with generic stuff. This has seemed to me to be true with muds
>> and true with MMOGs.

> I think middleware becomes viable when the design space has been
> traversed often enough that it's pretty well-known, or when
> there's a solution that's simply so good you both want to include
> it and couldn't possibly make it yourself for the same price.  For
> example, just a few years ago 3D engine creation was still in the
> realm of being a black art, and licensing one was perilous at
> best.  Now such licensing is increasingly common.  Many might not
> consider a 3D engine to be middleware, but I think it qualifies:
> it's an important chunk of code and functionality that you decide
> to buy vs. build.

I had this same feeling at GDC this year.  Is there anyone on the
list that isn't blown away by SpeedTree?  There's a piece of
middleware that seems to be gaining significant steam in the
industry.  I seem to favor middleware that solves a specific
problem.  Generating lots of interesting trees and being able to
render them in real time is one of those narrow problems.  Large
networking libraries, Big World, Butterfly.net, and some of the
others did not seem as viable to me for one reason or another.  I
would think it has to do with your game but it all goes back to what
Michael says in this reply.

  "I think middleware becomes viable when the design space has been
  traversed often enough that it's pretty well-known."

Given that MMOs have only had a handful of successful iterations; it
seems really difficult to automate the process of creating them
without introducing constraints to the design process.  I too agree
with Raph in that I think you'll get a generic game out of them
without rewriting them and frankly, none of the GDC presentations
from Big World, Butterfly.net, et al showed me differently.  At this
time I don't think it's possible to provide a truly useful MMO
middleware solution for commercial use.  (ala to compete with SWG,
EQ, AC, DAoC...)

Now, when it comes to 3D engines, there seems to be a different
mentality here and part of that is due to a perception and part of
it is due to the development costs rising.  Customers have a
perception that an engine =3D= =3D stability and a good
launch. (Thank DAoC, EQ, AC, Shadowbane... for that perception) 3D
engines are awfully hard to create and get right for all of the PC
hardware out there.  If you're not doing something out of the
ordinary, like creating a procedural terrain engine from scratch,
then existing engines can provide a good tradeoff between stability
and flexibility.  Admittedly, you give up being able to do some of
what you want but in return you most likely get a good client
launch, a stable client and happy customers.  (If you botch your
server code, that's another matter) As far as I'm concerned the
rewards outweigh the risks and an engine is a good place to start
from.

At this time I can see using a 3D engine, SpeedTree and other very
narrowly defined technologies, but full scale MMO servers are a bit
premature which probably explains why Big World and Butterfly.net
have yet to secure that one huge customer.

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