I thought Cardea had been dead in the water for years since the vortex licensing problems. I just tried to connect and while it is online they have disabled new sign ups, so who knows. It's interesting that both Cardea and Akanbar were started by former players of Avalon, just like Achaea was. I don't know who the creators of Elysium are, but again it has much in common with Avalon. It's a small world.

I also think it is difficult to know whether to include some games or not without input from the owners. It is easy to see if a mud has payment options or not, but only the owner can say whether they actually make enough money for it to be their main income.

And here you can see the truth of that response - there have been several suggestions for creating a commercial mud list.

This list, however, is something completely different. For example:

Skotos: A company producing a range of commercial online games, including some very high-quality muds (both text-based and graphical). The muds are certainly part of their income, but are a minority of the available games, and therefore they can't be classified as "professional" under the definition given here.

World of Warcraft: One of the largest commercial muds, but it only represents a portion of Blizzard's income, and therefore wouldn't be classified as "professional" under the definition given here.

Rekmud: A fairly stock GodWars (and thus Diku) derivative which sold +100 hit/dam items before being shut down for licence violations. The income, small as it was, was still more than the owner would make as a student - and thus this mud would have been classified as "professional" under the definition given here.

Bad Trip: A ROM derivative, and member of the DikuMUD Hall of Shame, the owner sold numerous perks to pay off his debts as well as to fund his drug habit. I believe he was also unemployeed, and as such this mud would be classified as "professional" under the definition given here.

But it would if you were to get fired from your real job, or if you were to nominate a student as the token "mud owner". In fact, any mud could make the list simply by hiring a student or unemployed person as their mud's "top imm" and then paying them $1 for the job.

KaVir, that's why this list, just like Anitra's is moderated. Just like going over to her list and scrounging up every last free MUD out there and suggesting it be listed is out of order, it's out of order to do the equivallent here.

Anitra's list includes the criteria "The mud has qualities that distinguish it from the large mass of mostly-stock muds" to avoid that sort of issue, while this list does not.

But even if such a criteria were added, it still wouldn't help in regard to the various gaming companies which run pay-to-play muds, yet don't qualify as "professional" because those muds aren't their primary source of income.

Personally I think it's a shame to see some of the top commercial muds operated by professional games companies not being included.

I don't see why you have to jump to extremes. I'm pretty sure that both Skotos and WoW would qualify (assuming grahical MMORPG's aren't somehow separated from MUDs, but that's another discussion). Maybe Threshold can confirm that. There's definetly a number of Blizzard employees working fulltime on WoW - at no point was it stated that the MUD has to be the only source of income for the legal entity behind it. I think the same applies also for Skotos - atleast previously Castle Marrach used to be their main game (I have no clue what they are doing nowadays).

Similarily, as this is a moderated list, the other extreme of stockmuds with payment options (not that I really see how they could produce significant revenue) would be filtered out.

To my understanding, not a single one of the MUDs listed are violating (nor has anybody to my understanding claimed) any codebase ToS.

IRE's games (Achaea, Aetolia, Imperian and Lusternia) run on IRE's custom Rapture engine.

Simutronics games (Dragonrealms and Gemstone IV) run to my understanding on their own custom engines. The same is true for Threshold RPG.

The only ones listed that I'm unsure of is the Avalon's, but I suspect that they too run on a custom codebase (atleast it's their claim in TMC).

This debate is somewhat equal to the "free to play versus pay-for-perks" debate, in that it is very difficult to come up with a term that everybody agrees is accurate and that is broad enough to include any serious contenders while narrow enough to keep away the ripoffs.

If that is true, then perhaps you run an excellent mud.

But that does not make you a professional, nor does it mean your mud is professionally run.

Why does the difference matter to people? Because it would be very easy for something significant to happen in your life (career, social, or otherwise) that would cause your mud to be an extremely low priority. A professionally run mud where the owner(s) depend upon it for their livelihood is far less subject to that kind of risk.

There are many other reasons that the majority of gamers prefer a professionally run game to a hobby one, but the specifics of that are really not the issue here. This is a list for a specific type of game - a type that many gamers happen to prefer. You don't have to like it, but it is still valuable to many gamers.

KaVir, I hope you enjoy arguing with that straw man.

Is there a single mud on the Professional List that fits your absurd "unemployed scammer" model? Nope. Why? Because since I started the list and this thread, I'm the final arbiter of what qualifies, and thus there is a human being who can make sure there won't be any such mud on the list.

You are nit picking because you know darn well what a "professionally run game" really means, and you know the overwhelming majority of players prefer a professionally run game to a hobbyist game (thus, you don't want to make it easier for them to find professionally run games). It is precisely because of this fact that you keep inventing these silly, bogus examples. You can call them commercial if you want, but I'm calling them professionally run. You can hate it as much as you want, but I really am not concerned with your opinion.

To satisfy the nit pickers, I'll establish the following criterion (subject to change if necessary):

For inclusion on this List:

1) Must be a primarily text based MUD.

2) Must be a legally incoporated business entity.

3) The primary owner(s) or operator(s) must be paid full time to work on the MUD.

4) Must be listed on TopMudSites.

5) Cannot use or have ever used DIKU or any other DIKU-derived codebase. (Why? Because of the list's presence in this forum community. The DIKU issue is too contentious. If any MUD on this list uses or ever used any DIKU derivative, it would completely destroy the list's utility due to the thread being even more mired in flames.)

Hey, c'mon now, add Medievia, too. It's not nice to start a club and then leave out somebody. Very mean.

And you should throw all those domain names and sites to the first post, make it a little more like a sticky thread (though you risk the chance of confusing the reader into believing in some sort of time-paradox). Donut moderators aside, there may be folks who'll want to see this side of the fence, so I say go for it.

I know I've been clamoring for a distinction between the two, so hopefully this'll speed things up.

We had yanked their Vortex license for completely failing to pay royalties or keep an accurate accounting of their revenue. They started using a new engine, but they are still in 'beta'. They opened in August, 1997, one month before Achaea did. They definitely don't have anyone working on it as a job.

--matt

I used Avalon's engine way back when (before Vortex, before Rapture) and have seen their codebase. It's custom.

--matt

I disagree strongly with this statement. Many "hobbyist" MUDs, us included, have multiple active administrators. Even if one (or a few) admins suddenly feel the MUD is a low priority, it does not have a direct impact on the game because other admins can easily fill the gap.

On many (but not all) professional MUDs, there is one or a couple of paid administrators, and then a bunch of volunteer staff (who may receive some benefits for "volunteering"). In these scenarios, should one of the paid admins leave (vacations, lucrative job offers etc), it will have a much bigger impact on the game than in the hobbyist scenario. Most of the "professional" MUDs have a quite limited budget, so it's not possible for them to keep half a dozen or more of paid staff that could then be elevated into administrators. I would also argue that just because someone has a financial interest in a game (maybe with the exception of games that has seen a truly significant investment budget prior to launch), "professional" MUDs are more prone to being shut down (or replaced with another game) if the administrator realizes he is no longer earning enough from the game.

The case for stability in professional MUDs versus hobbyist MUDs mainly applies to hobbyist games with a single implementor. There are risks in both models, but since the admin of a professional MUD is financially dependant on the game, he/she is more likely to terminate (or make significant modifications) in the project, should the businessmodel start failing.

BatMUD is definitely the exception, not the rule. The longevity and quality of that MUD is not common in the hobbyist arena by any means. It is certainly something the admins (both current and historical) should be very proud of.

Furthermore, keep in mind that what I am talking about here is the perception of players/customers. A very large number of players prefer the professionally run MUDs - and one of the reasons is that they believe them to be more stable and reliable. I happen to agree that in the majority of cases, a professionally run mud is less prone to the random sways of interest hobbyist admins may have. I do admit, however, that there are exceptions to this rule, and there are hobbyist muds that do indeed end up being as stable and reliable as professional ones.

But the purpose of this list is to benefit players who don't like gambling on hobbyist muds (since most of them are NOT run as well as BatMUD) and would like to know in advance which ones are professionally run.

I would tend to agree with your logic, nhl, but then it occurs to me that all the oldest extant MUDs are commercial (MUD 2 and Gemstone are certainly older than any non-commercial MUDs, and I think Avalon is as well, though I'm not positive there) and I wonder if the answer is more complicated than it seems at first glance.

--matt

I would personally never play any of the games on this list. But apparently some people like these games. And like this list. What's the problem? Why is it necessary for every topic to be an argument?

TEC has at least one paid staff member who focuses mainly on it, as well as several other staff members who occasionally get involved.

I was wondering about The Eternal City, because I thought they might be a professionally run mud.

Do you know if they are a legally incorporated business entity?

Is TEC's owner(s)/operator(s) a paid employee whose full time job is TEC?

If so, they definitely quality for the list.

I was wondering about The Eternal City, because I thought they might be a professionally run mud.

Do you know if they are a legally incorporated business entity?

Is TEC's owner(s)/operator(s) a paid employee whose full time job is TEC?

If so, they definitely quality for the list.[/quote]
Well, Eternal City was developed and used to be run by World's Apart Productions (which is a company, not just a DBA), but Eternal City is now published through Skotos.net. Neither the main owner of Skotos or the main owner of World's Apart has much to do with running Eternal City these days, but I don't know if someone else runs TEC as a full-time job or not. I'd guess not as Skotos doesn't really make enough money to afford to have someone running each of their games full-time.

--matt

Speaking of Skotos and Eternal City, I noticed their websites are down. Anyone know what's up with that?

Oh, wow, you censor. Huh.

Medievia is also a Diku dervative and violating the license, hence they are not listed here.

On top of the license issue, there's an even more clear-cut case of plagiarism, as they do not properly acknowledge the team that created the codebase that they are based on.

It's why I asked for clarificiation regarding the use of the word "professional" (the primary definition mentions conforming to "technical and ethical standards")-- I'd be fired from my day job in a second for appropriating the work of others as my own.

That doesn't matter, however.  Carrion Fields, LLC has official titles for its partners (we have a Copyright Agent, a President, etc.), as part of being a legally recognized business entity.  Charities and other organizations not aimed at taking money from their clients have this for their volunteers as well.

Medievia does have at least one paid employee, which is the difference between them and us.  (We pocket $0-- all funds donated go towards upkeep, bandwidth, etc.)  That's what you should focus on, though it runs into the problems related to their legal issues and professional conduct, as mentioned above.

Ninja's, Ink.
My Backyard, In the Treehouse
North Canton, Ohio
April 20, In the Year of Our Lord Two-Thousand and Six

------------------------------------------------------------------------
With ninjas, your shuriken 2 win!
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. Valg(q?),

If the stationary on which I've written this post didn't suggest it to you already, I've been known to do something in jest, once in a while. I'm sorry I had to stretch a bad joke this far to illustrate it. So you don't have to take my first quote as literally as you did in your post. I understand that fancy names aren't regulated by the government.


To further address Medievia's legitamacy, let me point out that a lot of 'professional' companies aren't necessarily 'ethical'. A good example is sitting right in front of me. Microsoft had to be slapped on the hand and broken into a few chunks to satisfy our ideas on fair play, but I think you'd have a hard time contesting their professionalism. At any rate, it certainly hasn't stopped business.

I can empathize with the dilemma of these coding teams trying to cope with licensing issues, but will that make any difference to people who try out Medievia and like it?

Especially, given the nature of an average mudder who enjoys 'professionally developed' games. If they don't mind the fact that using money can simply 'speed up' a normal process of gameplay, maybe they'll see Medievia's operation despite license claims as a means of them speeding up their own growth before a successful litigation.

To me, that's just the cut-and-thrust of the business world. Having an 'Inc.' at the end of your name means that in some people's eyes you've destroyed the rainforest, or smashed small mom-and-pop operations to bits in your conquest for monopoly. That's really not true in most cases, but you're still forced to bear the same title as others you feel are suspect.

And on the same token, people who enjoy games that have been described as 'viagara muds' by their detractors will gravitate to other games receiving that same criticism, despite the real intricacies and circumstances that make one person's corporate agenda different from another's.

So, to me, there's the rub of it. People in the other thread who've made their own original worlds may not enjoy rubbing elbows with muds that have taken their cues from popular animation and movies, but they'd still be obliged to do the same, if in fact they hold to that same 'for the people' policy this thread's taken up.


Yours in nitpicking,

Jimmy
Senior Mutant Turtle Consultant

Add Legends of Terris in there, it was up on AOL when Gemstone, Modus Operandi, and DragonRealms was there (but it stayed when they left).

Eh.. So I spoke to a non-mudding capitalist economics major, who I think is a pretty good authority on this issue, and on track for graduating next year, about the "Free" vs "Free to Play" issue. She gave me this reply pretty much immediately (paraphrased)..

"If the content is not all *immediately* accessible for free, and paying for it only saves the input of time otherwise taken to get it, then its ok to call it 'free to play'. Since Time = Money."

We added surges on AR (automated double exp periods) precisely so that older players with limited time can still make a competitive character within a few weeks, without spending money on it. Essentially, what we did there is make some limited "time" more valuable instead of introducing "money". (It also congregates our playerbase which is getting more important to do with the declining numbers muds are suffering nowadays - we had 60 people online a few weeks ago.)


These lists could (should?) be accompanied with the advantages and disadvantages of both models to help gamers to decide who to throw their boat in with. For example, if a mud is 100% free, but has limited eq, obviously there's going to be people accumulating it until they're uber, especially cleric types that are designed to take a beating. The pay model gives a way around that, that isnt a 5 man gank party... or a cheese assassinate, or being stripped for not playing enough TIME (enforced logins kinda suck), etc.

Um...did you post that in the wrong thread? This thread has nothing to do with free to play, etc.

--matt

Really? I could have sworn they were taken to court over it, but have not been broken up yet... guess I missed that major bit of news.

MS hasn't been broken up. The courts aren't going to pull an AT&T on them.

--matt

I looked at the web site in your sig, but I cound not find information like:

1) What is the name of the incorporated business entity that owns/runs Legends of Terris.

2) Who is/are the full time paid employee(s) that run/manage/own the game.

3) How do people pay?

1)

2)

3)

I'm glad to see you're now taking these sort of factors into account.

Thanks for the info, KaVir.

Updated List:

<span style='color:red'><span style='font-size:9pt;line-height:100%'></span></span> - Founded: September 1997 - -

<span style='color:red'><span style='font-size:9pt;line-height:100%'></span></span> - Founded: January 1998, -

<span style='color:red'><span style='font-size:9pt;line-height:100%'></span></span> - Founded: October 1989, -

<span style='color:red'><span style='font-size:9pt;line-height:100%'></span></span> - Founded: October 2001 - -

<span style='color:red'><span style='font-size:9pt;line-height:100%'></span></span> - Founded: February 1996 - no telnet -

<span style='color:red'><span style='font-size:9pt;line-height:100%'></span></span> - Founded: December 1989 - no telnet -

<span style='color:red'><span style='font-size:9pt;line-height:100%'></span></span> - Founded: April 2003 - -

<span style='color:red'><span style='font-size:9pt;line-height:100%'></span></span> - Founded: September 1995 - no telnet -

<span style='color:red'><span style='font-size:9pt;line-height:100%'></span></span> - Founded: October 2004 - -

<span style='color:red'><span style='font-size:9pt;line-height:100%'></span></span> - Founded: June 1996 - -

If you don't add Medieva to the list, the usefulness for this list is fairly low. This list is for players care about the commercial interests in those that run the mud. To have a list for those who are interested in muds that have a financial incentive AND follow unenforced licenses, well that's such a small portion of potential players as to make this entire list useless.

I have to say, I agree with John. Players by and large don't care about Medievia's alleged violations. It's largely a few other admins that do, and this list isn't for them. Medievia fulfills the requirements and should probably be on there.

--matt

That's ridiculous. It is an absurd claim to say if one game is not on a list, the list is not useful.

The usefuless of the list would be zero the second Medievia were added to the list. Why? Because then the whole thread would be a 500 page flame war about Medievia with all the old arguments that have been taking place for 5+ years.

Well, we could hope that the moderator of this forum would keep off-topic attacks on Medievia under control.

I just think it's a shame to let the people who are interested in flaming them dictate anything. Their problem with Medievia is their problem, but by modifying your behavior to account for their behavior, you make it your problem too, if you see what I mean.

--matt

As I stated in an earlier post:

Gemstone III is now Gemstone IV.

They underwent a major systems rewrite.

Their website is located at:



The website you link does take you to the new address, but I figure the correct address without a redirect would be more proper.

Well I guess I'll chime in.

Of course we should be on a list of commercial muds if there is one. Of course we won't be because of all the crap that really no one cares about except a handful of people who frequent this forum. Aristotle used to be against us too, so it's no surprise.

I haven't complained until now because as Aristotle has said many times, since he started the thread, he gets to dictate who is on it. So, in my mind it's not "MUDs run by Professional Game Developers", it's "Aristotle's List of Muds run by.... etc".

So, eh, do what you want. Where will this list be seen besides deep in this thread anyway?

I got lost about half way through this thread, however AOTT is a pay to play game, however I'm not entirely sure if its fits into your category as they game developers don't spend 100% of their time and efforts into creating it, however they do have a paid coder on staff so.....

Age of the Throne Inc.

It pops up from time to time as new games are added to it, but yeah mostly you have to dig back.

I thought Ari would be on you people's side seeing as Threshold was built on MudOS.

I invite you to come and look at the thread about legal issues I started regarding games and fair use. I am curious about all these legal issues, and it's rather current with a lot of things besides just muds.

I think this thread is probably not the place to continually rehash the Medievia debate tho. Just... my opinion that.

And some of the people who worked on the Diku code of course.

I merely pointed it out because I thought it odd that this thread was supposedly for a group of people, yet by the criteria is for a much more limited group.

After all, a list of definite ethical muds (as in it is widely believed they follow the licence for the code it uses) is useful. a list of completely free muds is useful. A list of commercial muds I'll admit is theoretically useful (I do wonder how many would find it useful though). However a list of ethical commercial muds, surely the amount of people in that group is small beyond pointless to cater to them.

Uh...'Yeah!'?

Moderator note: Please make sure future posts contain actual content. "Yeah"/"I agree" comments don't add anything.

This thread has not even come close to going as off topic as or becoming as flaming as the non-commercial thread of similar topic. It took a lot before the moderators would even step in on the other conversation. You making comments like this only throw your own thread off-topic and bait flaming even more. I find this ironic.

Also, if you do not add Midievia to a commercial MUD list, then you have to give reason why in your list of pre-requisites(aka, we don't accept MUDs that are known to have broken the DIKU license). My suggestion is to add them, because you hurt your credibility otherwise.

This is all in spite of my personal feelings on Midievia.

I'm also not sure, but would Materia Magica get itself a spot on this list? I'm not sure how they are run, but as I recall they sell in-game perks, at the least.

I love how it took to the third post before the flaming began.