Top Mud Sites Forum - View Single Post

gth · 11-15-2009, 04:40 PM

Actually, I read Hephos' statement as a common approach that all admins take in not trying to screw their existing players around - e.g. don't force your entire existing playerbase to use a new client, just keep them happy and work on getting new players instead. Perhaps the word 'incestuous' would have been a better choice? Best to at least ask what the poster meant than assume their intent and go full thottle on the flamethrower. :\

I'm glad the cost has come down. I guess my own preference would be some kind of cross-promotion deal rather than money, but everyone has to pay the bills somehow so I don't begrudge someone running their business the way they see fit.

Are all plugins developed by any MUD sharable with anyone else? Between each other and/or via ScapeFX as a repository? If a MUD's plugins are normally their own and a closed development, would a MUD that donated all their plugins back into the ScapeFX repository be of interest? I guess I see it as 'if there's a MUD you'd never make a sale with under your current model, what do you lose if you let them contribute to the resources that all your other clients would then get to enjoy?'... I gues the answer is EU$249/year, huh? The $1100 figure mentioned earlier is a very clear explanation of why the whole "get a few players to donate $10 a year and you're sorted" doesn't work. MUDs are very rarely a profitable enterprise, period.

Alas, it's a pity everyone is busy building their own empires and protecting their own 'turf'. I believe web-based click-to-play clients will soon be a necessary (if not the only) method to expose MUDs to a huge, new audience - installed clients will only be a preferred stepping stone for players that stick around (assuming they are technically capable). Over time, simple platform diversity will inhibit installed clients too... e.g. how many MUD websites have preferred client statements for Windows 7?

11-15-2009, 04:40 PM	#54
gth Member Join Date: Nov 2003 Posts: 50	Re: New mud client in the works: ScapeFx Actually, I read Hephos' statement as a common approach that all admins take in not trying to screw their existing players around - e.g. don't force your entire existing playerbase to use a new client, just keep them happy and work on getting new players instead. Perhaps the word 'incestuous' would have been a better choice? Best to at least ask what the poster meant than assume their intent and go full thottle on the flamethrower. :\ I'm glad the cost has come down. I guess my own preference would be some kind of cross-promotion deal rather than money, but everyone has to pay the bills somehow so I don't begrudge someone running their business the way they see fit. Are all plugins developed by any MUD sharable with anyone else? Between each other and/or via ScapeFX as a repository? If a MUD's plugins are normally their own and a closed development, would a MUD that donated all their plugins back into the ScapeFX repository be of interest? I guess I see it as 'if there's a MUD you'd never make a sale with under your current model, what do you lose if you let them contribute to the resources that all your other clients would then get to enjoy?'... I gues the answer is EU$249/year, huh? The $1100 figure mentioned earlier is a very clear explanation of why the whole "get a few players to donate $10 a year and you're sorted" doesn't work. MUDs are very rarely a profitable enterprise, period. Alas, it's a pity everyone is busy building their own empires and protecting their own 'turf'. I believe web-based click-to-play clients will soon be a necessary (if not the only) method to expose MUDs to a huge, new audience - installed clients will only be a preferred stepping stone for players that stick around (assuming they are technically capable). Over time, simple platform diversity will inhibit installed clients too... e.g. how many MUD websites have preferred client statements for Windows 7?