Zugg Software :: View topic

Adept Joined: 10 Jan 2002 Posts: 264 Location: USA

Free upgrades for life... isn't this "new" zmud still simply zmud? i mean so it's not being written in borland anymore... it's now written in zapp language... isnt it still zmud? the mapper was still the mapper after ADO/MDAC to SQLite wasnt it?

Quite frankly, your zmud is the ONLY piece of software i EVER bought straight out (not counting OS or other SW that came bundled with systems or hardware). Sure i can could still be easily cracking even the newest zmuds but i aint... it rocked so much i couldnt, PLUS it has FREE upgrades for LIFE (Honestly i would never offer that myself, but I didnt).

"A single registration fee is good for all future versions of zMUD. Zugg Software reserves the right to re-generate registration codes on a periodic basis to discourage hackers. Registered users will receive updated registration codes free of charge via email. It is the user's responsibility to keep their email address current with Zugg Software."

Posted: Tue Aug 09, 2005 3:09 pm

Dunno how much this matters... but for the record, I voted "I would be very angry by having to pay for an upgrade" before I read the thread (inconsiderate of me... but my initial reaction was of anger, since I would have little or no use for most of the new features coming in, but knowing that the majority of support for the older version would cease to exist if the new zMUDXP were to come into being).

After having read the thread, my perception has changed quite a bit. I can't promise to run out and buy the new version, simply because I do not need the new features. It wouldn't be an intelligent purchase. However, I would likely purchase the new version at some time in the future, solely to show my support to the program (as someone else said) that I've used most, save for Windows over the past several years.

In either case, I no longer begrudge the concept... in fact, I support it. The poll did not give an option to change my vote, but know that one of the enraged votes has been changed.

A couple of quick suggestions:

1) Rip down this thread, and re-post it with the vote listed as a REPLY, beneath your initial statement Zugg. I think the initial statement, posted honestly and succinctly, might help to change a lot of people's minds (as it did mine)... but likely many people (as I did) are voting on the initial concept, without reading the rationale.. and likely many of them did not bother to read further as I did.

2) I'd love to see a little bit of focus put in for the average user (such as myself). I started on TinTin++, and while I do utilize many of Zmud's advanced features, I play on a MUD that doesn't allow scripting, and I tend to (whenever possible) write my code in the TinTin++ style; this is obviously not the best way, it's just the way I know best. I think there are more like me than not.. If you're interested, I can start a new thread (or reply in this one) with some suggestions.. the majority of which are small, none are crucially important, and many are probably relatively time consuming (for you) for little benefit... yet the overall improvements would probably be more than enough to spur me (and I'd think others) to really want and buy the new program...

3) For upgrades.. I've personally never liked buying any program that did not include free lifetime upgrades. However, as you've stated, zMUD IS the MUD market these days.. I would buy it and stick with it either way, as it is the best available, and you deserve the support for the years of hard work anyway. But I'd suggest, rather than a time frame for upgrades, a VERSION frame. If zMUDXP starts at version 1.0, offer free upgrades for 3 versions (everything 3.99 and down). Once you reach version 2.0, change it to 2 versions (3.99 and down still, 4.99 and down for v3.0, etc). Always rounded down (so 3.64 is upgradeable to 4.99). The rationale is simple: nobody is privy to your life, nor has the right to make demands on it. 2 versions is a fair (imo) amount of upgrades, and could happen in 2 months or 5 years, depending on your free time, inspiration, and the program's needs. This way everyone gets the same amount of upgrades, regardless of how your time is divided at their time of purchase.

4) When sales come, offer a package sale of zAPP and zMUDXP (Pro). Slight discount (perhaps $5-$10). Might help bring the money in even faster ;) Probably make more money overall too.. many users who might never use zAPP might be more likely to buy the packagae "just in case"...

Commentary:
I don't think MUDs are dead. I think they are more alive than ever, but they suffer from the same problem they always have: they are too hard to learn, and people generally don't know about them. It takes a long time to learn how to effectively play a MUD, and longer still to learn how to use a client. And many people who stumble across MUDs don't know about clients.. and without a client, a MUD is (imo) rarely worth playing... too annoying to type on telnet :P I don't really believe that there's much you can do, in terms of new versions/programs/etc to stimulate the growth and existance of MUDs. I personally prefer MUDs to any graphical based game for numerous reasons, and would have no interest in a client that would integrate graphics or 3D style useage. What I DO think MUDs need is exposure, and probably a "beginner's MUD." An extremely easy MUD, with extensive but easily navigable help files, and several "stages" so players can learn the basics before being bombarded with advanced or MUD-specific features. While this is unlikely to ever happen, if someone coded this type of MUD (and of course, hosted it, with a fairly large Imm/Helper staff), combined with some wider advertising and exposure, I think MUDs would begin to emerge as one of the most popular forms of entertainment on the Net.

There are already tens of MUDs with more active players at any given time, now, then there was 15 years ago when I started MUDing. There are thousands more active MUDs, with at least SOME form of a playerbase then when I started MUDing. The graphical MMORPGs would've flopped miserably back then, too. The market exists, and the potential and growth are both there. What lacks is exposure and experience. Many people feel immediately comfortable with the graphical MMORPGs because they simulate, or are similar to, the games they've played on their home PCs or Playstations for years. MUDs are a totally unique and massive beast, and intimidate (or simply overwhelm) many people.

Posted: Tue Aug 09, 2005 3:19 pm

Atreides_096, thanks for your post...it really helps me to hear the rationale of people who have really thought this through, and who are still playing and enjoying MUDs.

If you have ideas on how zMUD could be improved with zMUDXP, no matter how big or small the idea is, definitely feel free to post. In fact, I'll go ahead and start another sticky topic just for that. Other people might also have some ideas.

Private: what you need to ask yourself (and what I've ask myself) is what makes zMUD "zMUD"? In other words, how much change is needed before a new MUD client isn't just an upgrade to zMUD? Is any MUD client with a compatible scripting language zMUD? Is any MUD client that has a compatible mapper? Where do you draw the line? You might be one of the people who will just be angry no matter what I do, but I encourage you to read this thread and then think about it. My goal is to make zMUDXP different (better) enough that most people will agree it's not just an upgrade.

Beginner Joined: 09 Aug 2005 Posts: 17

I'll just preface this post with a big "it doesn't really matter to me" message, but just to answer your question Zugg...

Adept Joined: 01 Mar 2005 Posts: 277

cmurphy54, reusing code does not mean it is the same product. zApp may use some code that zMUD uses but it is a completely different product. Your argument would not stand up court. I believe that all that is necessary is a name change and a portion of the code to be rewritten to make it "new" technology. Whether that angers people or not has no bearing on the legality of it.

Here is an example: As a developer I purchase an ActiveX control from a company with life time updates. A new version of the control comes out that is targeted as .NET component but does the exact same thing (in fact, many of the algorithms used are the exact same.) These are two seperate products (provided there was some code change to make it new technology.) I would have to purchase the .NET component seperately. I don't get angry at something like this because as a developer I perfectly understand this.

GURU Joined: 28 Sep 2000 Posts: 434 Location: USA

In fact, it is a goal of many developers to create portable code that can be reused in many different projects. Why reinvent the wheel when you have a garage full of them?

Beginner Joined: 09 Aug 2005 Posts: 17

It depends largely on the text of the license agreement.

This is the appropriate text from the agreement:

"A single registration fee is good for all future versions of zMUD. Zugg Software reserves the right to re-generate registration codes on a periodic basis to discourage hackers. Registered users will receive updated registration codes free of charge via email. It is the user's responsibility to keep their email address current with Zugg Software."

zMUDXP is just a new "version" by almost any definition you can think of. An upgrade has a different definition than a version, so I don't believe you are comparing apples to apples in your example, theNerd. If I am entitled to "updates" or "upgrades" then if you update the software, I get it, but if you create an entirely different version (such as a .NET COM component, or a version that runs on Linux), I probably don't. If you are entitled to "all future versions" then if you create a new version that is a .NET component, then I am likely entitled to it.

One of the common standards applied to contract disputes is the reasonable man/person standard, which is a process by which the judge/jury/etc put themselves in the view of "How would a reasonable person interpret this contract." A reasonable person will likely look at zMUDXP (just on the name alone, and say, that's a new version of zMUD).

I agree completely, that even if zApp uses some portion of zMUD's code base, that doesn't necessarily make it a new version of zMUD. You can clearly look at the two and say, these are different products that are used in completely different scenarios. However, if the new application competes with zMUD directly (which zMUDXP would) then, in that context, it has a much greater chance of being found as a new version rather than a different product if it a) uses the zMUD name and b) reuses code.

If you, theNerd, used zApp to write a new mud client, it also wouldn't be a new version of zMUD. If Zugg wrote a new mud client using zApp and chose to call it "Super Mud Client" and it was not significantly similar to zMUD, he would also likely be free from any claims against him.

If however, Zugg writes a mud client that has significantly the same functionality as zMUD with some improvement and calls it "zMUDXP" and the application is an obvious successor to zMUD (especially if it reuses significant portions of code), then in all likelyhood, as I said, this will be considered a new version of the application.

I am not saying Zugg shouldn't do zMUDXP by any means and I am definitely not advocating that someone sue, I am just saying that given the very broad wording of his license agreement, he really should consult a lawyer about the exact legal ramifacations if he wants to be safe.

Adept Joined: 01 Mar 2005 Posts: 277

cmurphy54, I do not disagree with everything you are saying. If Zugg encapsulates much of zMUD into an ActiveX control it is no longer the same product (this would be new technology.) In fact he could sell this to other developers to work with. It would be an entirely new product. If Zugg does wrap much of zMUD into an ActiveX (the terminal emulation portion, for example) and then plops it in zApp and develops around it as an ActiveX control it would bear no resemblence (technically) to zMUD and would be based on new technology. However, I agree with you that the name should be radically different to avoid possible confusion.

SubAdmin Joined: 18 Nov 2001 Posts: 5182

I think theNerd pretty much hit the nail on the head. It is very likely that Zugg will split off the parser and execution modules for zScript into seperate controls. Then he will enable zApp to handle the full spectrum of telnet protocol activities. Finally he will build the majority of 'zMudXP' in the zApp environement. This pretty much means that the only thing reused is the only thing required to make it so we don't have to learn yet another scripting language. I far as I can see that is an entirely new program, and if Zugg really needs to cover his ass he could always release some miniscule documentation on his parser .dll and call it a day.

Just because Zugg, who is most qualified by way of doing zMud for 10 years, is writing it does not make it the same product.

Anyhow this is all irrelevant, some people will be irate no matter what; and if someone who has used zMud for many years wishes to sue Zugg for 10 cents I don't think it matters.

Wizard Joined: 10 Oct 2000 Posts: 1551 Location: Australia

Remember the whole 'for life' thing is abstract... who's life? Why, the life of the pope! The pope is dead, no more zmud upgrades :p

Although, most companies say 'the life of the product' well, that's sad, zmud has been end of lifed. We may release a new product in the future which will bring graphics to the online gaming world, it might even share a portion of the name, after all it still connects to MUDs among other online products, and it's still written by zugg who has a 'z' naming convention (zMapper, zApp, zDoctor, zExplorer)...

*shrug* life of the pope works for me ;)

Posted: Wed Aug 10, 2005 12:05 am

Actually, *legally* it's up to me to define what "zMUD" is as a product.

Private, I'll give you another concrete example: The Delphi development system from Borland that zMUD is written in has several different products: There is Delphi Standard, Delphi Professional, Delphi Enterprise (called Architect these days I think). Each of these products have a version, like Delphi 3, Delphi 5, Delphi 2005, etc.

When I buy Delphi Professional 3, I get upgrades within that product (like for Delphi Professional 5). Delphi Enterprise 5 is considered a completely different product. I don't get upgrades for it at all. Just because something shares part of a name (like "Delphi") doesn't make it the same product.

This would be like doing a zMUDLite and zMUDPro. They are different products and free upgrades for zMUDLite wouldn't have anything to do with zMUDPro. It would just mean that you'd get a free upgrade from zMUDLite 1.0 to zMUDLite 2.0.

This kind of naming is common. And you don't get to say that "zMUD" applies to any MUD client created by Zugg Software that contains the letters "zMUD". It's completely up to me to define the difference between two products like zMUD and zMUDXP.

Now, with that said, I should mention that this new product will *not* be called zMUDXP. I'm just using that as an internal name right now. I already have a great name picked out and reserved. I'm keeping it a secret for now to surprise people later. But I can reveal that it doesn't even start with a 'z'.

But it doesn't matter. It's up to the company to determine what their products are. The "free upgrades for life for zMUD" means that you get free upgrades for the duration of *that* product. And if I decide that zMUD's life as a product is over, then there are no more upgrades for it. It doesn't matter how much code the new product shares, it doesn't matter what the name of the new product is.

Sure, anyone can try to sue anybody for anything. But since there are many examples in the industry of different products with similar names, it just wouldn't stand up in court. It would be up to a jury to decide if there was enough of a difference between the products regardless of what the license agreement said. And no lawyer or court would ever take a case for a $20-$30 game client like zMUD from a small business with few assets.

And don't worry, I *have* already consulted a lawyer on this.

GURU Joined: 10 Oct 2000 Posts: 4379 Location: USA

Beginner Joined: 09 Aug 2005 Posts: 17

Wizard Joined: 14 Oct 2000 Posts: 1368

Beginner Joined: 11 Apr 2005 Posts: 10

You said you wanted opinions, so I'm going to give my two penneth. How I would feel if you discontinued support for zMud and moves to zMudXP (or whatever) I'd be pretty ticked off. I've been waiting for a few features on zMud for a long time now (do not use exits (not just rooms), conditional exits/rooms (based on a variable) to name just two). I've spent a fair amount of time tweaking the mapper so it works well, and writing scripts based around it. If you did this (and I'm probably in the minority here) it would probably be the final push for me to go the whole hog and either write my own client from scratch, or help out and integrate a decent mapper into one of the existing open source mud clients.

(Next bit sounds a little spiteful but what the hell)
It'd probably write it such that it can import zmud settings (as thats what I'd want myself), and then when that was done (a few months work all told I imagine) I'd probably release the whole thing open source (if I was writing from scratch) or submit the patches to the project which I took the client base from.

I was considering writing my own client a long time back, but got a bit lazy at the time and had a play with zmud, which I bought assuming I'd be able to get it to work (and I did in the end) I liked the free versions for life, and going back on that would, at the end of the day really annoy me, but thats just me.

Posted: Wed Aug 10, 2005 3:30 pm

Spansh2: yep, I wanted opinions, so thanks for posting. I know that I can't please everyone. According to this poll so far I'd really upset about 10-15% of the people on this forum, and probably upset even more people who don't read this forum. But also according to the poll there is about 40% of the people on this forum who would be really excited about this new product, and another 30% interested enough to buy it. So do I deal with 15% of really upset people to make the other 70% happier? In the past I would never do that, but now I think it's not fair to ignore the majority anymore.

Also, people should keep in mind what the alternative is. If I don't write zMUDXP, then I'll be writing some other program like eMobius instead. Major new features to the existing zMUD product are out of the question at this point. I tried an experiment with v7.13 and added some nifty new features like spellchecking and asked people voluntarily to buy the new version to show their support. Very few people did that. From a business point-of-view, 7.13 was a waste of my time. So that tells me that I can no longer continue to upgrade the existing product with the free-upgrade policy and stay in business.

And sure, if you feel that it's worth your time to spend months and months writing a mapper for some open source MUD client rather than just paying $15 for a new client that will always be better than any other client, then you are welcome to that. You obviously have more free time on your hands than most of the rest of us, and apparently don't have any bills to pay and can afford to just give your away your time and work for free. Of course, it took several years to write the mapper within zMUD, but sure, if you think you can do better, than I wish you luck.

Beginner Joined: 11 Apr 2005 Posts: 10

I understand you have to stay in business, and whatever you do is your choice. I don't have "infinite" free time, I work pretty hard. However I also enjoy programming as my hobby (as well as my work, I'm quite lucky), so I'd class it as a challenge to solve. I also estimated (in the post) that it would take 2-3 months of my free time to get the mapper working (basic mapper, no funky features, it would capture mud output and parse it, and it would display the map). Having had a very brief look on google earlier and there are plenty of algorithms around for pathfinding, I wasn't going to implement one from scratch myself. We'll see anyways, I've started playing WoW more than the Mud I played and developed anyway, so I might not even bother, however I always love a challenge and writing my own client could be a laugh, I suppose I just needed the right push.

Adept Joined: 01 Mar 2005 Posts: 277

You think $15 is too much to pay?

Posted: Wed Aug 10, 2005 5:12 pm

You go Zugg! Sqlite and dropping elicense are major features i really look forward to.

GURU Joined: 10 Oct 2000 Posts: 4379 Location: USA

Posted: Fri Aug 12, 2005 11:46 am

Having seen references in the past about not including SSH in current versions of the regular zMUD, I am wary of it suddenly becoming available in a new super uber client that just happens to cost a new license...have the laws you chose to abide about ssh being part of a program being available internationally become lax and will ssh filter down into the regular client as a result?

As for will I buy zmudxp, perhaps when Vista comes out where a directx interface will enhance the speed/performance of the gui, as it stands now zmud is just right

Posted: Fri Aug 12, 2005 4:19 pm

Yes, actually the laws surrounding SSH *have* changed. Various export laws have been relaxed regarding encryption. There are still countries where it is illegal. So SSH in the new MUD client will likely be a plugin and it will be up to users downloading it to follow the laws in their specific countries. But there are SSH implementations now that do not require licensing, and I can no longer get in trouble for offering such a plugin for download.

The problem with such a solution in the existing zMUD is the existing limited plugin support. Only a redesigned plugin system, like the one provided by zApp, would make such a low-level change possible. So you won't see SSH in the existing client.

It is theoretically possible to integrate SSH support into zMUD without a plugin, but then I'd have to maintain two versions (one with SSH and one without) since it would be illegal to download the SSH-enabled version in some countries. A plugin solution is much better from a support and legal viewpoint.

But you won't see such a plugin until the new MUD client is stable. So think of SSH support as part of "phase 2" of the project.

Posted: Sat Aug 13, 2005 8:30 am

Posted: Sat Aug 13, 2005 4:01 pm

No, you misunderstand. It is not illegal for me to create the software. It is only illegal for someone from a restricted country to download it and use it. So what I was saying is that if I built SSH into zMUD, I would have to have two versions so that people in a restricted country could still download a version of zMUD that didn't have SSH.

By using plugins, the people in the restricted countries can download the main zMUD, and just not download the plugin. So I don't have to maintain two versions of zMUD that way.

I think that's the same thing I said, but maybe it's clearer.

Newbie Joined: 07 Oct 2004 Posts: 3

Kinda funny, but just earlier today I realized I'd been MUDing for almost a decade now. Been using zMUD for the entirety of that period. I certainly feel that I have gotten more than my monies worth on this particular piece of software and while I probably would wind up buying a license for the new piece of software, even if no discount is offered, but I would be far more likely to purchase it if there was a discount offered for existing customers.

As far as some people have been saying, regarding the upgrade timeframe, I have always found the two year license idea to sit well with me.

For features, honestly, the only advanced features of zMUD that I use are the scripting/aliasing features. I would dearly love to see a major overhaul of zMUDs scripting language, either into a C/C++ like version or using an embedded language like Python or ... well, something. I am fairly proficient with the scripting language, but I've always found it to be clunky and difficult to work with. Also, better built-in documentation. I have never had an issue that I wasn't able to find an answer on these forums, but I like to check the documentation first.

The mud I currently play renders the mapper unnecessary. And most of the uses I see people using the database system for, so I don't really care about either of those.

So, I guess, my verdict is: Go for it. I've never been disappointed by the current zMUD, and I don't expect I'll be disappointed with the new one. (Oh, although I vote to keep the zMUD name, just wouldn't feel the same without it.)