Top Mud Sites Forum - View Single Post

Shane · 05-03-2006, 09:53 PM

This may be a little convoluted, but here goes.

Acuity used to be iChat. I don't know, but I think the change of name may be related to an Apple gadget that now bears the same name.

Some more background concerning iChat. Note the use DGD was put to.

Points I find of interest:

"I have come to see the response to the $100 a month license as
symptomatic for the text MUD "industry". Almost everyone
who contacted me severely underestimated the difficulty of creating
your own MUD, didn't know how to run a business, and was unwilling to
invest $1200 for the first year to get their MUD running.

Then I got involved with ichat. They were in the $100,000+ per year
licensing league. Using DGD and 2 LPC programmers, they created ROOMS
and in 6 months they had 80% of the chat market."

and,

"You'll discover that when it comes to charging for MUDs, there's not
really a long end of the stick. Skotos, last I checked, was just about
breaking even in the business. It's not like they're getting rich by
screwing over small developers -- there's just not currently a lot of
money in the business, so the key seems to be minimal development cost
(i.e. MUDs that suck, few new features, using a standard codebase
illegally, getting people to donate building/development time) so that
you don't have any expenses. Skotos is *really* not doing it that way,
which is one reason I'm so impressed with them."

The point? Professionals do not skirt licensing issues. Professionls recognize and disdain those who do.

There is a lot of money to be made out there in communication and entertainment, not a little of it I imagine from advertising. No one is going to advertise with, sign contracts with, or get into any close association with people who violate licensing and the law. It is simply not accepted in the professional environment. Advertising associated with a massive MUD would likely be game related. How many game developers want to do business with someone who plays fast and loose with copyright?

Heck, what customer wants to pay money to someone who plays fast and loose with ethics in general?

I don't want to hyper-inflate this argument, but what I am trying to say is that it is in everyone's best interest to make things not just okay, but as they say in ethics classes I have had to take, to avoid if at all possible even the appearance of impropriaty.

Developing trust in your chosen field among those in that market is just good business.

05-03-2006, 09:53 PM	#25
Shane Member Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 159	This may be a little convoluted, but here goes. Acuity used to be iChat. I don't know, but I think the change of name may be related to an Apple gadget that now bears the same name. Some more background concerning iChat. Note the use DGD was put to. Points I find of interest: "I have come to see the response to the $100 a month license as symptomatic for the text MUD "industry". Almost everyone who contacted me severely underestimated the difficulty of creating your own MUD, didn't know how to run a business, and was unwilling to invest $1200 for the first year to get their MUD running. Then I got involved with ichat. They were in the $100,000+ per year licensing league. Using DGD and 2 LPC programmers, they created ROOMS and in 6 months they had 80% of the chat market." and, "You'll discover that when it comes to charging for MUDs, there's not really a long end of the stick. Skotos, last I checked, was just about breaking even in the business. It's not like they're getting rich by screwing over small developers -- there's just not currently a lot of money in the business, so the key seems to be minimal development cost (i.e. MUDs that suck, few new features, using a standard codebase illegally, getting people to donate building/development time) so that you don't have any expenses. Skotos is really not doing it that way, which is one reason I'm so impressed with them." The point? Professionals do not skirt licensing issues. Professionls recognize and disdain those who do. There is a lot of money to be made out there in communication and entertainment, not a little of it I imagine from advertising. No one is going to advertise with, sign contracts with, or get into any close association with people who violate licensing and the law. It is simply not accepted in the professional environment. Advertising associated with a massive MUD would likely be game related. How many game developers want to do business with someone who plays fast and loose with copyright? Heck, what customer wants to pay money to someone who plays fast and loose with ethics in general? I don't want to hyper-inflate this argument, but what I am trying to say is that it is in everyone's best interest to make things not just okay, but as they say in ethics classes I have had to take, to avoid if at all possible even the appearance of impropriaty. Developing trust in your chosen field among those in that market is just good business.