13 Oct, 2010, David Haley wrote in the 41st comment:
Votes: 0
It somewhat baffles me when people talk about needing nothing more than a terminal emulator when in the same thread people are giving GUI elements as requirements…
I think the only real gap left in the client market is a browser based client that can compete with the capabilities of the MUSHClients of the world.
Browser-based mud clients have their uses, and there are a number of them available, but I think downloadable clients will also have an important place for the forseeable future. That's what MMORPGs are, after all - muds with dedicated clients.
There's no reason you can't have a dedicated client via browser. In fact, plenty of successful mmos do. I think the real take away is that these games aren't designing their game to be played with the least common denominator.
I think the only real gap left in the client market is a browser based client that can compete with the capabilities of the MUSHClients of the world.
Browser-based mud clients have their uses, and there are a number of them available, but I think downloadable clients will also have an important place for the forseeable future. That's what MMORPGs are, after all - muds with dedicated clients.
There are a number of them available, but AFAIK none of them really come close to matching even basic features that most downloadable clients have. I can think of at least one MMORPG that has done fairly well for itself by using a browser client and lowering that initial entry bar.
If my goal as a client developer was to look for the best way to have my client adopted, browser based is the market segment with the least competition and highest ceiling.
There are a number of them available, but AFAIK none of them really come close to matching even basic features that most downloadable clients have.
Some of the downloadable clients offer a lot of features, developed over many years. I think it'll take a while for any newer clients to catch up, browser-based or otherwise.
Tavish said:
I can think of at least one MMORPG that has done fairly well for itself by using a browser client and lowering that initial entry bar.
RuneScape?
Tavish said:
If my goal as a client developer was to look for the best way to have my client adopted, browser based is the market segment with the least competition and highest ceiling.
Thinking about some of the current options we've got…
Maiden Desmodus did some nice stuff with its browser client, but the public version (FMud) offers only a small number of features - it's okay as a basic client, but you can't do any cosmetic stuff.
The WGFriends browser client also looks like it has potential, incorporating ATCP to allow each mud to add minor graphical features such as gauges, but sadly the developer seems to have disappeared.
Then there's the DecafMUD client, which is looking good so far, appears to have added MSDP, and can apparently be fully customised for each mud using basic web development skills. I've no idea if the project is still alive though, there doesn't appear to be much information about it.
The ScapeFX client also looked interesting - although it required a download, it could all be done with a single click, and then you'd play through the browser. Sadly their licensing conditions were pretty harsh, and they insisted on inventing their own protocols. I'm not aware of any muds using their client, other than their own, and their forums appear to be dead.
There are a number of them available, but AFAIK none of them really come close to matching even basic features that most downloadable clients have.
Some of the downloadable clients offer a lot of features, developed over many years. I think it'll take a while for any newer clients to catch up, browser-based or otherwise.
Absolutely it would take a large time investment in order to catch up to the established downloadable clients. What I was speaking towards was if a developer were to invest that amount of time with the goal of trying to gain some sort of market share, making another "MUSHClient" wouldn't be the way to go. Supposing you ever did catch up to MUSHClient (/zMud/whatever) there still isn't really a reason for players to switch or Mud-Devs to target your program. Putting those same features into a browser-based design would at least be giving Mud-Devs a different option other than more of the same.
I think DecafMUD client is a perfect example of what I am thinking of. If it could actually deliver what it talks about in the overview (and delivered it in a stable fashion) I probably wouldn't even be messing around with writing MUSHClient plugins and instead be adopting that as my "customized" client. And the feature list on DecafMUD still pales in comparison to what the downloadables can offer. It is the format that makes it stand out from the crowd.
13 Oct, 2010, David Haley wrote in the 52nd comment:
Votes: 0
Right, basically everyone agrees that writing a new client is a lot of work. Making it browser-based would be an interesting twist, but even so what is that really gaining us? Arguing that browser-based clients are the future is basically arguing that the client download is too onerous on players. Browser-based games are (usually) meant for pretty casual play where it doesn't make sense to download a client (even if that means a click, waiting for a few seconds, and another click!). Are MUDs in this category? Maybe, at least for trying them out. But maybe not.
How about considering the following spin on checking out a MUD: you go to their website and they can show you real, interesting screenshots with a rich GUI environment. Clearly, this means that they have some kind of customized client available for download. Now contrast to the earlier situation, with a normal MUD client, where you just see a screen of text. Whee, exciting! Now, you see that the game actually has more stuff going on. I think the point is clear so I won't go on more. This is a big difference from a user's perspective: you go to the game site, you see pretty pictures, you click download, and a few seconds later you're ready to go.
Under the hood, you might be providing a customized version of MUSHclient (or whatever) that comes prepackaged with your branding (complying with license of course), your out-of-band protocols; everything you need to make a good out-of-the-box experience. No further user intervention required: it Just Works.
IMHO, this is the path of the future, be it web-based or download-based. I think that holding on to one-client-every-game is what is harming the genre, not necessarily downloadable clients.
13 Oct, 2010, David Haley wrote in the 53rd comment:
Votes: 0
Another note regarding players who refuse to change clients: these people represent a tiny, tiny portion of the total pool of players out there. This is evidence by the small (to say the least) playerbase of all MUDs together compared to the massive playerbase of online games more generally. So why cater to such difficult and picky people when there are far more and bigger fish in the sea?
Right, basically everyone agrees that writing a new client is a lot of work. Making it browser-based would be an interesting twist, but even so what is that really gaining us? Arguing that browser-based clients are the future is basically arguing that the client download is too onerous on players. Browser-based games are (usually) meant for pretty casual play where it doesn't make sense to download a client (even if that means a click, waiting for a few seconds, and another click!). Are MUDs in this category? Maybe, at least for trying them out. But maybe not.
Just to clarify, I'm not arguing that a browser-based client is the future of MUDs and/or the downloadable client is antiquated. Only that for anyone wanting to take a pre-existing client and customize it for your mud, your only real choice right now is the downloadable type. There was a reoccurring sentiment earlier in the thread that there wasn't really a point to building a new client from scratch when you already have the MUSHClients of the world. I was presenting that there is a segment of the client market that is relatively untapped.
Quote
How about considering the following spin on checking out a MUD: you go to their website and they can show you real, interesting screenshots with a rich GUI environment. Clearly, this means that they have some kind of customized client available for download. Now contrast to the earlier situation, with a normal MUD client, where you just see a screen of text. Whee, exciting! Now, you see that the game actually has more stuff going on. I think the point is clear so I won't go on more. This is a big difference from a user's perspective: you go to the game site, you see pretty pictures, you click download, and a few seconds later you're ready to go.
Under the hood, you might be providing a customized version of MUSHclient (or whatever) that comes prepackaged with your branding (complying with license of course), your out-of-band protocols; everything you need to make a good out-of-the-box experience. No further user intervention required: it Just Works.
I would think that a browser based implementation would be even better in that situation. They go to the web-site, see the pretty pictures, you click play, and you are ready to go. And the next time they log on they are getting the latest and greatest version of your client (no need to re-download or *cringe* have the client connect and search for updates). Of course it doesn't really matter right now since there isn't a publicly available browser-based client with those sort of capabilities. Mud-devs can either roll their own or implement it in a downloadable.
Quote
IMHO, this is the path of the future, be it web-based or download-based. I think that holding on to one-client-every-game is what is harming the genre, not necessarily downloadable clients.
I completely agree that it isn't the clients fault. I think it is actually fair to say that over the past few years the mud client designers have been more progressive than the mud designers themselves.
At the end of the day it's still text, which is why tintin++ is getting 1500+ downloads a month.
13 Oct, 2010, David Haley wrote in the 56th comment:
Votes: 0
That statement isn't saying anything meaningful without comparison to downloads for the other clients. :smile: If tt++ has 1,500 downloads but client XYZ has 20,000, it would put things into some perspective…
Full disclosure. Scandum has a vested interest in the one client for all scheme. Also, I'm glad the community is seeing the influx of tens of thousands of gamers each month.
I estimate the total client downloads to be 16.000 for the 4 biggest clients, based on numbers provided, and probably 20.000 total.
What I'm saying however is that this discussion is like a bunch of guys getting excited about the thought of recovering from dwindling book sales by adding pretty pictures to it. So far nothing has improved player numbers, and I think the obvious conclusion is to focus on the quality of text and gameplay.
I think the only way to move forward at this point is a community effort toward a physics based dynamic description engine, a kind of OpenGL for the dynamic textual representation of virtual worlds.
14 Oct, 2010, David Haley wrote in the 59th comment:
Votes: 0
Yes, clearly, focusing on the quality of text is what has worked for the "Big Games" that have millions, or even 'only' tens of thousands, of subscribers. :wink:
That being said, more seriously, I am curious as to what you mean about "a kind of OpenlGL for the dynamic textual representation of virtual worlds".
I think a popular firefox add-on for muds is the best strategy to bring in fresh blood. I base this claim on the popularity of ChatZilla, an IRC client add-on for Firefox. Many new users have come to IRC through ChatZilla, mainly because it gets free advertisement through the Mozilla Add-On library. If a "MudZilla" firefox add-on were popularized, it could potentially be advertised to anyone browsing through Firefox's addon library.