Subj : Re: where did it all go? To : alt.bbs.allsysop From : "Bubblewrap" Date : Sun Jul 06 2003 12:37 pm "RhythmNp" wrote in message news:20030706012730.28574.00000141@mb-m19.aol.com... > I'm the coder of DoorMUD and Tournament Trivia. http://www.doormud.com > DoorMUD is relatively new (been around 3 years) and Tournament Trivia is brand > new (was released yesterday!). Obviously, since my doors are new, they won't > "carry the nostalgia movement". Instead, they're NEW doors with gameplay that > isn't really available in other supported doorgames. And obviously, users > (nostalgic or otherwise) seem to like them, and they get played a good amount > for new doors, judging from the number of emails and message board posts that I > get from players. Before we continue, you should try to understand that you're apparently the exception to all the general statements I made. You're doing all the things that I'm getting frustrated because I don't see enough other people doing them. DoorMUD, for instance, it doesn't really have any direct BBS nostalgia value, but it has nostalgia value all the same, with the MUD facet, and it's that facet and working on that theme that brought us MMORPGs like Ultima online and more sepecifically Everquest, which was based on an actual exisitng MUD. If "done right", DoorMUD could very easily be the next LORD or TW2002 or Realms game, breathing life into the scene when it's needed most. > >Perhaps it's that you aren't > >developing anything remarkable, as in "worthy of remark"? > > Why automatically assume that I haven't developed anything "worthy of remark", > especially before even finding out what doors I've developed? You sound like a > pessimist who compulsively feels the need to come to this newsgroup and post > rants about how/why you think the BBS scene is dead and how doorgame authors > are ripping you off. Whatever, feel free to express your opinions, but if > you're coming in here with an unchangeably negative mindset about the current > state of BBSing then there's really no reason to have a conversation with you. Go look up the word perhaps. the re-read the mesages where you have been slowly changing my mind, if only about you specifically. Are you looking for a fight? I'm not. > You shouldn't automatically equate "new door" with "bad door", that's utter > rubbish. If that's how you feel, build a time machine and go back to 1990 > instead of posting your rants on here. While yours is "new door", you do have to admit it's not exactly "new concept", it's more "new implementation" - and implentation, or lack of it, was one of the major beefs I first stated. Especially in your position as one who is doing the things that I see as responsible to both the old and the new, and conscientious as one who expects to get paid for their work, you should see how few others are doing it in the same fashion, and instead simply trying to make a quick buck. You appear to be taking this as a personal attack no matter how many times I agree with you, and that kind of precludes you from having anything weighted and considered to say about it, since it's not a personal attack. > >If faced with the choice between a completely 32 bit system or a completely > >16 bit system, > > Why would you ever have to make that choice? If you think the 32-bit BBS > platforms can't run 16-bit stuff, you haven't done your homework or even really > tested the 32-bit packages. The BBS software isn't the only consideration, there's also the OS. Every time I think I have it all under control, WinXP shows me another way it's been "quirkified" to make life tougher, so to speak. And everyone knows that ME is crap and 98 simply is too old to support some of the stuff I need, maybe not for the BBS itself, but for keeping the internet connection smooth and secure. If I could drop to real dos and use something like moslo, things would be easier, but then I'd be locking myself off from some of the valuable Win32 tools. I don't understand why it should be such a jugling act when BBSs were supposed to be "universal" in that the customization and the content was largely via doors and drop files, and the OS and modern programming is supposed to be universal in that it's largely based on Object Oriented languages, except most of them wouldn't recognize and properly handle an object if it landed on them. Coming from the experience that I'll assume you have had with muds, and at least attempting to check out Pavel Curtis' work on true object oriented integration, you should know what I mean. The basic bottom line in terms of integrations is what it pretty much always has been - we should all switch to *nix, where it's done right. :) > Personally, I don't yell at people for requesting regs for software that is > *completely unsupported*, ie, abondonware. If someone else yells at you for > it, go talk to them, but don't complain at me for it. Personally, I only have > a problem with people who crack BBS software that is still actively supported > by its author, since in that case you're intentionally stealing from an author > who spends time trying to make the BBS scene enjoyable. That sort of heartless > activity is what causes door authors to abandon their software in the first > place. But that's where you're wrong. By the letter of it, LORD is still "supported", but all they did was change the ansis and the config menus, they didn't port it (yet), they didn't add signifigant features, in short, they didn't do anything to make "the BBS scene more enjoyable". TWGS is unique, but raelly only for "home user play", and otherwise all v3 has over v2 of TW2002 is that it worked in some of the features we already got via 3rd party utilities, and in the process removed access to other features that 3rd party utilities provided. In the case of LORD, yes, they bought it and they should expect some return for it, but that's why it's called an "investment", and why part of the investment is supposed to be new active work on the product, something they haven't given us yet. In the case of TW, the TWGS is great, but doesn't preclude expectations that could rightfully be placed on the BBS version. > > >Why not simply make it per user? ... If your door is so hot it deserves > >my money, give me the whole thing and let it sell itself. Limit it to, say, > >5 users pre-registration. > > That sounds like a horrendously crippled demo, especially if the door is geared > towards simultaneous multi-user gameplay. The fact that you're effectively > saying the unreg'd versions should be MORE crippled sounds ludicrous and > hypocritical. Ok, if you don't like my example, use the number 10, or whatever number is appropriate toward the target end-number of players. This is crippling it more than space games that won't allow you to buy more than the basic ship? Or empire games that won't allow bank interest or investment settings when that's about 1/3 of the financial aspect of the game? > >Personally, if I found people doing that with my software, I'd ask them why > >first. > > Has it ever occured to you that I've tried that, as have many other door > authors? > > Most of the time, the crack-users lie. Most common responses I've received: > - "I'm just using it locally, I don't run a bbs" (if that's the case, why not > play for free on someone else's bbs who has a legit copy? this response is > extra ludicrous in cases where the cracker's bbs does indeed exist and is easy > to find) > - "I didn't realize it was cracked" (yeah, right) > - "It's not worth paying money for any door game" (if that's your opinion, run > freeware doors. And if you don't think a particular doorgame is worth a measly > $20 for the author's efforts, you obviously don't like the game enough to be > running it at all in the first place) > > >If someone's conscience isn't prompting them to pay for your software, then > >in some way what you're offering isn't worth what you're asking for, be it > >the price, the function, the support, or something. > > That's flawed logic, especially considering there's a much larger number of > sysops who are willing to legitly pay for the door, compared to the much > smaller number who crack it. If the majority who use a piece of software are > willing to pay for it, it's a clear indicator that those who crack it are > simply stealing it. I never said you should waive your rights to follow up with people who offer you stupid and transparent excuses. If you do ask, though, and you never find someone who's going to deal straight with you about it, then that might say something about your software. .