Slashdot Mirror


Why Is Free MUD Development Lagging?

Thanks to Skotos for its editorial discussing why free, open-source MUD development is failing to advance swiftly. The author notes "The best [text-based MUD] efforts have been almost entirely closed-source... Free MUDs, by contrast, just haven't advanced very fast." He points to several possible factors, suggesting that "MUD information is indexed poorly, and many projects don't maintain a web site with even a basic description of what they're doing", and continues: "Another reason is licensing. The Diku license is poorly understood and shoddily enforced... LPMUDs aren't much better", before concluding: "There is no existing license that does for MUD servers what the GPL does for applications. That grudging spread of features has never happened for MUD servers the way it has for GPL-licensed applications and libraries."

22 of 88 comments (clear)

  1. Could it be because MUDs suck? by ObviousGuy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    MUDs are a dying genre. They are swiftly being replaced MMPORGS.

    The whole text-based game industry is being replaced, or has been replaced, by games with visuals because there is no good reason to restrict gameplay to text-only when you can spruce it up with immersive graphical environments.

    So with MUDs, someone decides to build one as a project and it gains a few players, but after a while everyone leaves and the MUD dies. Repeat every semester as some new college kid decides that he wants to build his own MUD.

    So you end up with people inventing the same tech over and over, but never improving on the past projects because no one bothered to document their project the semester before. But also because the project is mostly intended to polish programming skills and try out some game design techniques, the game itself is hardly ever more than a proof of concept and it never captures the attention of gamers as much as Everquest or any other professionally-designed game.

    --
    I have been pwned because my /. password was too easy to guess.
    1. Re:Could it be because MUDs suck? by Matthew+Bafford · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Plus, the more established MUDs don't want to share code because they want to hang on to whatever advantage they have over every other MUD.

      It's too easy to start up a new MUD (unzip, compile, run), so each MUD wants to hold on tight to whatever advantage they have. It's a shame that more MUD owners don't realize it's the people and the environment that make a good MUD, NOT the special features (for the most part).

      -y

    2. Re:Could it be because MUDs suck? by Cecil · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The whole text-based game industry is being replaced, or has been replaced, by games with visuals because there is no good reason to restrict gameplay to text-only when you can spruce it up with immersive graphical environments.

      You're wrong. There's one very good, and very solid reason that MMORPGs will never provide quite the same thing as text-based environments (specifically MOOs, MUCKs, MUSHes, etc): user-created-content.

      Anyone who has a basic grasp of a language (and most people do -- though IM conversations sometimes indicate otherwise) can create whatever their imagination desires simply by writing some mediocre descriptive prose to get their message across. Short of sudden and marked advances in brain-to-computer interface technology, the artistically-challenged among us will never be able to as fully express our imaginations in a MMORPG, even one of the few that allows user-created-content. And the people who are excellent artists often find that it's a lot simpler and more convenient to simply write some description than do high-quality artwork or 3D models for whatever it is they're imagining.

      So don't be so quick to abandon those text based worlds. There will always be some that survive and even flourish. Admittedly, the number of players has been thinning out significantly in the past several years, and we don't believe it'll stop anytime in the near future. But you'd be surprised how many new players we still continue to get, and how many reasons they have for staying.

    3. Re:Could it be because MUDs suck? by DrMorris · · Score: 2, Insightful

      there is no good reason to restrict gameplay to text-only when you can spruce it up with immersive graphical environments

      You completely forgot the fact that some things are simply not possible to "implement" in super-duper graphical games. Don't underestimate the role of the player's fantasy!

      It's kind of like saying that books are a dying genre, because the industry is moving towards movies... :-)

    4. Re:Could it be because MUDs suck? by Paolomania · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's too easy to start up a new MUD (unzip, compile, run), so each MUD wants to hold on tight to whatever advantage they have. It's a shame that more MUD owners don't realize it's the people and the environment that make a good MUD, NOT the special features (for the most part).

      But with so much game logic in scripts nowadays, doesn't it make sense to use a common, open source MUD platform, but distinguish yourself by the quality of the content and social network that your MUD offers? Lot of web sites serve their pages with Apache, but they don't have to open source their page generators and all the HTML that comes out.

    5. Re:Could it be because MUDs suck? by MBraynard · · Score: 2, Insightful
      I think you are making a very big mistake in your reasoning. Just because it is easy for anyone to CREATE CONTENT does mean people WILL PLAY MUDs for that reason. It's a big disconnect.

      Besides, even the difference you are pointing to between MUDs and MMORPGs is gone now thanks to Second Life, where you can design pretty much any content you want.

      Your error reminds me of a common error in the talk radio business - confusing 'lots of callers' with 'lots of listeners.'

    6. Re:Could it be because MUDs suck? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      There's a difference though: Most graphical games are fairly text-heavy. Nearly any graphical RPG still has just as much text as an old text-based RPG. A movie (or play, or opera) doesn't have as much text as a novel of simmilar scope.

      Movies aren't a technological advancement on books, they're a technological advancement on theater, and they have contributed to a major decline in live theater.

      Graphical games are, however, a technological advancement over text based games, and they have already replaced nearly all of them. The only single-player text based games are freeware and developed by amateur programmers. The last major hangers-on to the genre are MUDs. MUDs are a dying breed. There used to be any number of them, and you could usually find a newly opened one any time you were bored. Now, there's only a handful left, and nobody's making new ones.

    7. Re:Could it be because MUDs suck? by IpalindromeI · · Score: 2, Insightful

      There's not a single MUD out there that isn't heavily derived from one of the original ones.

      How about this one?

      --

      --
      Promoting critical thinking since 1994.
    8. Re:Could it be because MUDs suck? by scrytch · · Score: 2, Insightful

      But with so much game logic in scripts nowadays, doesn't it make sense to use a common, open source MUD platform

      It's already been done, DGD, MOO, Cold, are quite nicely programmable generic platforms. It's certainly not technology stopping anyone, even if the languages are somewhat aging and others might prefer to program in, say, Python (I patched Python to make it a multi-user-safe runtime once, it's not horribly difficult). There's quite a few, for lack of a better term, "systemic" problems that keep MUDs from flourishing:

      1) They had their day. Lots of things on the net are simply fads, which flare up, then subside and leave only a core group of remaining followers, not much bigger or even smaller than the original population.

      2) The gameplay on most MUDs isn't much different than MMORPG's: jump on the mobs that pop, loot, level, repeat. Doesn't engage the brain anyway, so why would you want to do it without any eye candy?

      3) The "pure RP" muds that are out there are often a variation of hanging out at the guildhall and kvetching.

      4) At some point in any game development, one hits a "critical resource" problem: server bandwidth, storage, and above all, artistic talent. Artists aren't into commity work like coders are, it's in fact pretty antithetical to their worldview for most of them. Whether changing the art culture to a free software ethic is the answer or not, the fact remains that good artists that can produce models, textures, character art, voice acting, writing, and music are damn expensive. The ones a project does get tend to have to make it a full-time-job to get any decent amount of art done (this tends to be true for visual artists, musicians seem to be able to do part time production work)

      --
      I've finally had it: until slashdot gets article moderation, I am not coming back.
  2. Duh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You could ask the same about any game genre: why are the free, open-source first-person shooters lagging? The large amount of work that goes into any game means that they're not as easy to develop. Due to the time they consume, it's difficult to pay the rent if you create them as anything other than commercial, closed-source products (and sell the result).

    But don't forget that MUDS are also a dying genre. They are less popular than ever. Because of this, there are going to be fewer projects - open or closed working in the genre. MUDS need writers as the primary content authors. And good writers are not very likely to want to give their work away for free.

    Finally, if you really want an open-source MUD: make one yourself.

    1. Re:Duh. by ajagci · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You could ask the same about any game genre: why are the free, open-source first-person shooters lagging? The large amount of work that goes into any game means that they're not as easy to develop.

      Neither is the Linux kernel or many other open source projects. Furthermore, there are plenty of "total conversions" of existing video games that involve completely new models of everything.

      No, the reason why you don't see that stuff is cultural and sociological: the kind of people who do that sort of thing generally are not very much into open anything. Many of them come out of a shareware or "freeware" tradition that happens to be closed source and builds on commercial building blocks.

      But it's going to change over time: as open source provides better tools engines and better graphics tools, you'll see more of that energy being poured into open source games of every genre.

    2. Re:Duh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Furthermore, there are plenty of "total conversions" of existing video games that involve completely new models of everything.

      Yes, let me list a few of the more memorable ones:

      * Counter Strike - the most popular mod ever, a counter-terrorism mod ("modification") for the game Half-Life. The developers are now working at Valve Software, having released several commercial versions. Their follow up "Counter Strike - Condition Zero" is due on shelves next month.

      * Desert Combat - the premier mod for Battlefield 1942, voted best game mod of 2003 and 2002 by Gamespy. The team (Trauma Studios) just signed a contract worth $.5 million with DICE to develop a commercial project for a future Battlefield product.

      * Natural Selection - the #2 Half-Life mod, the Natural Selection team has formed their own studio and are looking for publishers to take Natural Selection to retail.

      * Team Fortress - the ancient Quake then Half-Life mod who's employment by Valve meant that TF1 was included with the official Half-Life patch. This project spawned the now infamous (for the wrong reasons) Team Fortress 2.

      as open source provides better tools engines and better graphics tools

      I don't see that happening. Commercial games typically take 18 months to complete. An open source project will take longer than that if it's worth playing. I can't see unpaid virtual teams sticking together for that long - it's too much effort for too little reward.

      And games are much more of an artistic endeavour than a purely technical challenge of writing an operating system where there's often a provable "best way" of doing something. Operating systems are a means to an end - games exist only for the sake of the game, hence everyone wants things to work their way. Expect infighting, splinter groups and a lot of projects not getting finished.

      Remember, open-source software is an anomaly in the world of commerce. As a rule, nobody provides work or services for free - at least, no work or services that you'd actually want.

    3. Re:Duh. by ajagci · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I don't see that happening. Commercial games typically take 18 months to complete. An open source project will take longer than that if it's worth playing. I can't see unpaid virtual teams sticking together for that long - it's too much effort for too little reward.

      So? Many open source projects have been around for decades, not just 18 months. The ability to do development for the long haul is where open source has a huge advantage. And the different time scales are also why you are only now beginning to see open source equivalents of games like Quake: open source really is in it over the long run.

      And games are much more of an artistic endeavour than a purely technical challenge of writing an operating system where there's often a provable "best way" of doing something. Operating systems are a means to an end - games exist only for the sake of the game, hence everyone wants things to work their way. Expect infighting, splinter groups and a lot of projects not getting finished.

      I think you really misunderstand software if you think that there's a "provably 'best way'" of designing a word processor, kernel, or graphics editor.

      In any case, if the game is designed well, that kind of dynamic will improve things: competing models, competing looks, multiple interacting worlds, etc.

      In fact, there are plenty of open source games out there that are very popular and have stood the test of time. That's a lot more than can be said for many of those commercial FPS's out there.

      The only reason you see so many commercial games with no apparent OSS counterpart is because commercial vendors push the limits of what hardware can do; OSS, for various reasons, is far more conservative, but no less inventive. And in terms of actual game play, most commercial games really aren't that hot.

  3. No, it couldn't be. by Pyromage · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Because MUDs are great! Sure, it's not the same as Everquest, but who said it had to be? MUDs have many advantages over graphical systems, and vice versa. They simply are not competing. What *is* happening is that the new generation of youngins' just doesn't have the mental capacity to work a MUD.

    Damned kids these days.

    1. Re:No, it couldn't be. by ajd1474 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      They dont have the mental capacity or they dont know what the hell a MUD is? Way back when i started university (1995), everyone knew what a MUD was. But just like Kings Quest's text based interface was replaced with a GUI, so Text-based MUDS got replaced by graphical versions. (I still think the Original KQ was far superior to the later GUI versions btw) It's not that kids don't have the brain capacity, its just that kids go to their local mall and spend their money on the 'latest and greatest' game. Just like they'd rather watch a movie then read the book. It's about instant gratification. More reward for less effort. It's more of a reflection on society as a whole, and not so much the kids that are being brought up in it. Even i stopped playing MUD's, after spending years writing them. There's really only so much you can do before you start reinventing the wheel.

      --
      I refuse to have a sig... dammit!
  4. A few reasons by +Majere+ · · Score: 4, Insightful

    One reason I think mud development is lagging, is namely that
    muds in my experience attract young players and are ran by teenagers and college student. I rarely meet players over the age of 30. This leads to inexperienced coding and less bleeding edge technology. That could be part of the problem.

    Also, muds are in competition with each other. We had short discussion about opening up the source to the mud I work on (The Northern Crossroads), and it was determined that if we opened up the source. We would lose our uniqueness among other muds. If everyone else used our features.

    Another thing, they are just games. They aren't very important on the overall realm of things, why should we be devoting tons of time and energy in keeping something alive, when its not profitable or really useful in the end.

    (Heh, not a very organized post)

  5. Muds still have one advantage by Sogol · · Score: 4, Insightful

    They are the only games that you can play discreetly at work.

  6. MUDs aren't necessarily suited to be open source by Illusion · · Score: 5, Insightful
    I'm a staunch advocate of open source -- almost everything else I write is GPLed -- and yet the MUD I've been running for 9 years isn't open source. We don't use anyone elses code or world, and we don't share ours.

    Mostly, I wish there were fewer MUDs. 99% of what is out there is the result of someone with little or no skill grabbing a copy of an open-source MUD, adding a few hundred poorly-written rooms to the world, changing the code just enough to make it crash hourly, and then advertising on Mudconnector or similar. Will these people have anything at all to contribute back to an open source project? No. They do, however, succeed in cheapening the experience that the average user has when connecting to something running that code.

    -- Aaron

    --

    Aaron

  7. Re:Not all MUDS are dying by Ieshan · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I played dragonrealms for a long time. You might recognize the name.

    It was a lot of fun while it lasted, and had some great systems that no other game has come close to mimicking. Their combat / magic systems were very impressive. But leveling was a chore.

    No, really. Once you've reached a certain level, it became no more fun to level. Everything was just X creature with new name, in Y area. Roleplaying is much more fun in small groups with a DM: There's no need to keep up the insanely serious air without some breathing room to just have fun, and often, major events happened without you.

    I contributed a lot to the game in terms of player content (I hear many of the G'nar Peth stuff which a few of us started is still going on), and lets face it, I had a lot of fun doing it. But overall, the game is a whole lot less rewarding than something which lets you be a character in a social situation: real life.

    I mean, if the point of the game you're playing really is social interaction, why don't you just go interact socially?

  8. Re:Code theft is one major reason by true_tavish · · Score: 2, Insightful

    /. is the last place I figured the "who cares if it is stolen code, it's fun!" excuse would show up. Old habits die hard I guess.

  9. With a Grain of Salt by true_tavish · · Score: 4, Insightful
    I would expect no less from Skotos to publish an article foretelling the downfall of the free game community. Where will all the gamers turn to now in order to fill their desires? Free MUDs continue to thrive and are still creating new and innovative designs. The problem is there are just so many new games out there that do rely upon pre-existing code, it is hard to find those on the leading edge.

    Amazingly enough a large percentage of the MUDers I run across are from the age group that is supposedly too graphically oriented to play text-based games. The allure of free, fun, and gaming still seems to hold some drawing power after all. Especially considering that word of mouth and the occasional banner on niche sites is the sum total of advertising for the games.

  10. MUDs and MMORPGs: the word and the image by 0x0d0a · · Score: 5, Insightful

    MUDs are a dying genre. They are swiftly being replaced MMPORGS.

    Perhaps in market share, but the player base seems to be roughly constant (though I really wouldn't notice anything short of an order-of-magnitude shift in some direction).

    The whole text-based game industry is being replaced, or has been replaced, by games with visuals because there is no good reason to restrict gameplay to text-only when you can spruce it up with immersive graphical environments.

    Perhaps in theory, but there are a number of good reasons I can think of. The big one, the fact that the client interface is simple, is a huge deal. It means:

    * MUD clients have a simple protocol -- the same text that you're looking at on-screen. It's *very* easy for players to customize clients to fit a given MUD's protocol (via triggers or regexes on prompts). There is no standard GUI MUD client. Such a thing is not impossible (and ever since VRML fell on it's face I've been wondering who's going to try next). I guess it'd be something like Neal Stephenson's Metaverse. Worldforge is one effort, but it seems far too ambitious to ever usefully come to fruition -- it's been six years in the making, and it's still not ready.

    * Lightweight clients. Most games, even in this day and age, *still* suck down all the CPU time on a computer, and make no effort to avoid doing so. Some of this is because OSes provide crummy latency on sleep functions, some of it is because there's little reason to do so. If I'm compiling XFree86 in the background, I can play a MUD in the background without worrying about the CPU usage. Not true of Neverwinter Nights or Jagged Alliance 2 or really any other game on my computer that I can think of. Most games don't do this.

    * Very powerful, mature clients. There are excellent MUD clients out there. They have triggers, aliases, macros, etc. It's much harder and less obvious how to do this with a GUI environment. This is the same problem that GUI and TUI apps face -- the reason all the "real" programs that a UNIX guru uses are text-based is because the text-based programs have a very powerful, simple way to tie the two together. After more than two decades of GUIs, we *still* do not have good, universal GUI scripting and user-controllable IPC mechanisms on the degree of the simple pipe that the TUI provides.

    * Unobtrusiveness. It's easy to snap a MUD window into the background for a moment while chatting on ICQ or web browsing or something similar. Most 3d MMORPGs have, in the name of "immersiveness", made it standard to take over the entire display.

    * Easier creation. If you took a look at all the MUDs, rooms, worlds, and mobs out there, you'd be amazed at the sheer amount of content. It's easy for anyone that can write and has a bit of imagination to sit down and make a MUD world. It's much harder to be a good skinner and modeler. I can write a description of a green-haired female elf wearing a green silk gown and with a burnished bronze waistband that glows red. I can certainly not skin and model one, not without expending many, many times as much time and effort. Hence, there is just *more content* out there for MUDs.

    * Better handling of text. There is a lot of text in MUDs, and a fair amount in MMORPGs. I can read text in my scrollback-buffer-ized MUD client much more easily than I can with little bits of text floating in the air over character's heads.

    * Spatial distance is a function of gameplay-related meaningfulness. In an MMORPG, I may walk for a minute to cover some random, boring green hill. In a MUD (or an TUI IF game), I may walk ten feet each step if I'm in a detailed city full of things to do, and cover ten miles if I'm in the countryside. The boring and the mundane are naturally filtered out.

    * Natural logging. It's easy to keep a complete log (not just of messages) in a MUD. It's much harder to do so with a MMORPG.

    * MUDs do a better job of completely taking advantage of their medium