[vworld-tech] Ultimate MMO Platform

[Megan Fox]

> I'd suggest that the extent to which any stage in any branch of
> the evolution of this system is suitable for commercial or
> non-commercial applications will be quite varied.
>
> I believe that the focus must be on functionality. Leave
> commercial viability to branches created by commercially
> interested parties - only they have the resources.

Simply not requiring a peer-distributed model is a fine start - and security
on the model.  If you hadn't noticed, while the internet is peer
distributed, each peer has a specific set of securities which can be
customized by the user of that peer... a distributed cyberspace would need
to have a similarly scalable level of security, both on the public net and
on closed loop intranets.

So long as these securities exist, and the system can exist on a single
server or server farm if desired, it's quite likely a commercial entity will
at least consider it viable should they ever have a project which could be
benefitted by it.

> Sorry. I really think this first step is the one that always
> leads to oblivion.
>
> Are we a commercial consortium with oodles of financial resources
> that can afford to explore this avenue?
>
> Or are we a special interest group with only sweat equity for funding?
>
> If the latter, then I don't think we can afford to put anything
> on the system roadmap that is solely necessary for commercial viability.

Bad assumption - who's to say designing for commercial viability will cost
anything extra, or take any extra time?  You need securities whether it's
commercial or non-commercial, and you need those securities to be
user-scalable.  You would also want single-system viability for
non-commercial, to provide for those users that just want their private
little cyberspace to dick around with.

So where's the rub?

> Indeed, but it is likely that commercial entities will also say
> "Oh, although this system is quite functionally sufficient for
> our application, unfortunately it doesn't have characteristic X
> designed into it which is necessary for our business model".
>
> I say "Let them design characteristic X into it"  or provide
> funding for us to do so for them (as a project fork say).

If they decide they don't want to use the system, that's fine, but there's
no compelling reason to design to leave them out from the start.
Demonstrate how a commercial entity would in all cases need more than
securities and closed-loop compatiability, and I will relent, but I'm of the
mind that many commercial entities would be fine with the system so long as
it has these two systems.  Not all, but some, and that's all that matters.

(and these two systems are just as needed by private entities, and not
adding them would amount more to lazy coding than it would anything else)

-Megan Fox