Top Mud Sites Forum - View Single Post

tommi · 09-12-2009, 04:55 PM

I think you are joining dots that were not there to begin with. My argument is that the only thing i can see that MUSH does not have that scape does is a skinable interface and that MUSH can do everything else that scape does and more, with a much bigger user base and has the bonus of being open sourced and free, and supports mxp pubelo and sound protocols.

So to take YOUR logic to the nTH degree, it could also be argued that Aardwolf (Your Target Customer) considers skinable interfaces to be not worth the effort and that MUSH is a superior product to EVERY other client out there, im sure 300+ online players average speaks for itself. Or perhaps they consider FMUD to be a better option for a web client as they use it as well. Hmmmm

I should also mention that for US $300 per year you could licence Portal GT for all your users as well.

09-12-2009, 04:55 PM	#22
tommi New Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 23	Re: New mud client in the works: ScapeFx I think you are joining dots that were not there to begin with. My argument is that the only thing i can see that MUSH does not have that scape does is a skinable interface and that MUSH can do everything else that scape does and more, with a much bigger user base and has the bonus of being open sourced and free, and supports mxp pubelo and sound protocols. So to take YOUR logic to the nTH degree, it could also be argued that Aardwolf (Your Target Customer) considers skinable interfaces to be not worth the effort and that MUSH is a superior product to EVERY other client out there, im sure 300+ online players average speaks for itself. Or perhaps they consider FMUD to be a better option for a web client as they use it as well. Hmmmm I should also mention that for US $300 per year you could licence Portal GT for all your users as well.