Jump to content

V3 Question


V3 Question  

35 members have voted

  1. 1. V3 Question

    • Develop the new engine now; abandon compatibility
    • Work on a more compatible successor; keep the new engine going and release it in the future
    • Some other solution (please post in the topic)

Recommended Posts

As far as v3 development goes, we've hit a snag that we would like input on.

Basically, to develop v3 from scratch in the way we would like to, we'd have to almost completely abandon any support for v1/v2/Redux mods. Basically, the new engine would have a new database & file structure that would make using old mods impractical at best and impossible at worst.

There is, however, another option... and that is offering a possible closer successor to v2 either seperately, or as a more "immediate" v3 before releasing a completely new engine.

Obviously, the v2 successor would still have many new features... while retaining the essential parts to maintain compatibility with v2 mods with few changes.

Your input on this, as a current or past user of MCCodes and/or developer of MCCodes mods, would be appreciated. While we won't be necessarily taking what is said here as the final word, we want to hear what the community has to say on this issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You could attempt to create a very confusing and potentially lengthy "compatibility layer". Which would attempt to allow original V2 mods to be imported into the new engine and in essence emulate the V2 functions from the V3 code.

This is a pretty lengthy and confusing process, but if you don't want to lose your entire userbase you need support for the V2 mods which are available due to that being one of McCodes mains USP's.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mccodes, even if you don’t care to admit it, is never going to be aimed at the more seasoned developer. If you wish to change this then you can drop mod compatibility, and expect a tiny amount of sale compared to your past. On the other hand keep it and keep your appeal to the newer developer.

Personally, and having seen the first alpha and given my opinion on that, I say keep compatibility.

The other option is not dropping v2 for sales. You could outsource it a little, and allow for some updates without killing mod compatibility on the original engine. I doubt that you could make it modular or for that matter change things as much as some would like (such as changing the database to a better design), but it could certainly be improved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Working with redundant scripts is a pain, and from personal experience it suppresses the ability of future generations of the application.

A application I'm currently assigned to is much like this, even though it's more SaaSy.

We can not upgrade to PHP 5.4 because it still uses features deprecated in the new release, and because of a few other reasons.

Neither can we develop a new version of the application, because so many other features requires certain parts of the code base.

I even had a bug today where one javascript file w so old that it created a bug because of deprecated features within the JS engine of most browsers.

But most of all, we really do not have the time to develop a new system purely because of the maintenance(bug fixes, additions, client-specific, etc) of the current application.

If you have the chance to develop a new generation/version of the engine, I would say do it.

I wouldn't say you drop previous versions right now, but they shouldn't be your highest priority.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Drop it, all new.

I'm sure if your product is worth our time a few community members probably would be willing to redo a chunk of the freely available mods for v3.

However those willing members should get early access to the script therefore upon release there is already a few addons available.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would say treat this "forge" engine as a new engine altogether, and create a v3 that follows the old mccodes.

The reason the old mccodes was so popular was because anyone could buy it, upload it, and generally alter it, without much programming knowledge.

With this iteration, that is dead. While it is clearly an improvement, it all but guarantees far fewer upgrades from v2 to v3.

I think treating this as your newest engine would be wise, but don't market it as MCCodes, because it is not what the customers are used to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my opinion i would say make a whole new engine. However making it simple and easy to use like Mccodes v2 and easy to make new modification

If this is the case you shouldn't launch the name as Mccodes V3 but more of a new generation, Right [i.e Mc Codes New Gen 2012 ? xD] ?

In any case, would go for the toally new built engine then working back on mccodes.

(My english sucks as always, still trying to improving =/)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Managing multiple codes in the same times seems a bit un-practicable. At least if there is only one developer group. Maybe CB and Dabs could somehow sell or give away the right of V2 to somebody such that this person or group of people can continue to work on it and in the mean time they work on their new version in parallel. With such solution you would have the best of both words.

For V3, I would suggest to stop calling it V3 as if there is no compatibility nor really a sharing design between the 2, it would maybe make people un-happy if they purchase V3 thinking that they would keep all modules and yet would not be able to.

At the end, the community is more interested in a new version it seems, therefore I would suggest CB and Dabs to continue with their work. So we don't need to wait yet too long before we get our hand dirty with something fun to play with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Abandon V2 and concentrate on V3. Most people have been waiting for a new version for quite some time, V2 has had its time now and something new is needed as people are starting to lose interest in MCCodes. I wish you well in whatever you decide to do and also I await for a newer version to come out as I will be using it :) .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You've hit the worst nightmare any engine supplier can hit because right now you've got to rule out the pro/cons to doing both and basically decide what's best for McCodes as a text based RPG Engine.

The good sides to starting new would be getting rid of all the bad points to MC and starting fresh, However the bad points is no current user of MCCodes is going to recode all there game to fit in with the new engine, Which brings a drop in sales automatically.

However if you continue to support MC V2 you're limited on the code & functionality.

In my own view I would say a new engine altogether would do McCodes good, simply because it'd give you routes to lots of new functions and such to play with, It'd take a while to kick off due to it being new and would take alot of time for current Mccodes users to update all there games, Some own more than others however if the core base is secure and realiable while being cheap & cheerful you're gunna rock the market once again.

If you support MC V2 too much you'll never be able to show off anything good, Simply because you'll always be stuck at the limited functionality.

Also, I would take A_B advice, MC V2 still needs to be fully supported, so selling or managing the rights to the core efficiently would pay well, MC V1 was abandoned therefore hardly used.

If you are not going to support V2 with V3 I would also look at a name change, Versions IDS usually means they can be installed without messing everything up, If you're starting fresh you would need a new name instead of V3 as the small minded people would try and install straight into there game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Create New...