James Cameron designing an MMO

[Lum]

I've already said it 3 times. I want to know what WoW cost at the development level. Strip out their campaign level marketing and tell me what the actual game cost to make.

I refuse to believe it cost more than EQ2 for reasons that should be extremely obvious.

The Wall Street Journal estimated $30 million for WoW back in January. Given how many developers worked on it for as long as they did, that's easily believable (and I've heard estimates as high as $45-70 million but that may also include infrastructure/localization costs/marketing).

That being said, the logic "It shouldn't cost that much, because I didn't like it" probably isn't the best metric. I mean, by that basis, Path of Neo should have cost $3.50!

Now to really frighten you (from a coworker's blog):

Connect the dots, flee in terror:

    John Romero:

    “I started looking at what I was going to do next, so I looked around on the net and I saw there was an opportunity for an MMO, there was a person starting an MMO so I contacted him. We talked for hours on the phone, we had a lot of common interests and ideas about this title and so basically this guy was really excited, brought me on as a co-founder of the company and I’ve been here for almost four months now. I can’t really say too much… this is [a] complete secret, stealth company”, he said, adding cryptically that “This is not a typical games company and we’re not making typical games”.

    Jim Cameron:

    “My next project — which I’m currently writing the shooting draft for — is going to be this completely crazy balls-out sci-fi flick. The plan is to develop an MMOG that takes place in the same universe and release it a little while before the theatrical release. That way people can start playing around and learning about this new world. Then we present a narrative in it with the movie.”

[schild]

If my estimate puts me in league with the Wall Street Journal. Well, I'll take that.

But like I said, after marketing, it very much could have cost $45-70M. That would not shock me at all. Many Hollywood movie budgets nearly double once they start marketing. And I'm sure EA and VUGames do it often with games. Even ones that don't need it. Like Blizzard titles.

Edit: I don't know if I buy into the tinfoil hat theory of Cameron and Romero. They may have talked. But Romero can't throw together an entire engine that fast unless he uses a modified UT engine or BigWorld. But that's less than likely knowing ID.

[Venkman]

However, they're going about it differently than they did in EQ. They say grouping will give "bonuses" that make it the more attractive choice, rather than soloing penalizing you.

Ah, ok, so a bit CoH/EQ2-ish maybe. Soloable, but better in a group. If that works, and they make it easy to gather a group (CoH Call Friend ftw!), then maybe it's time I start paying attention to Vanguard again.

That being said, the logic "It shouldn't cost that much, because I didn't like it" probably isn't the best metric

I don't think schild was talking about enjoyment as much as production values. EQ2 just looks like it cost more to make, from the graphics to the sounds.

My own take is that whatever WoW cost mostly involved making it content complete from 1 to 60. That's pretty much a first in this genre (with GW being the second), probably because of the pockets Blizzard could tap that few others can.

Now to really frighten you (from a coworker's blog):

Hmm. I could see that actually... not sure what'd come out, but certainly would be, err, different.

[Lum]

I don't know if I buy into the tinfoil hat theory of Cameron and Romero. They may have talked. But Romero can't throw together an entire engine that fast unless he uses a modified UT engine or BigWorld. But that's less than likely knowing ID.

What makes you think he's throwing together an engine? Or working with iD?

[schild]

What would make me think otherwise? Two crazy people coming out around the same time saying they were making an MMOG? That's not enough for me.

[Margalis]

You are correct in that.  However, they're going about it differently than they did in EQ. They say grouping will give "bonuses" that make it the more attractive choice, rather than soloing penalizing you. 

Too bad those are functionally equivalent. Bonuses to grouping is exactly the same as punishment for non-grouping.

[Venkman]

It comes down to pace. If the pacing for soloing is "fine" (according to players, and using WoW as a metric), then the bonus to grouping will make leveling faster, or the same pace but with better access to better gear. Typical stuff.

[Hoax]

You are correct in that.  However, they're going about it differently than they did in EQ. They say grouping will give "bonuses" that make it the more attractive choice, rather than soloing penalizing you. 

Too bad those are functionally equivalent. Bonuses to grouping is exactly the same as punishment for non-grouping.

While I know what you are saying Margalis but I'm not sure I agree in this case.

Grouping still requires more downtime due to /afk's, finding the group, and trying to replace your goddamn healer when he leaves, those downtimes do not exist in solo'ing unless you are bad at it.  Therefore if you make some assumptions about their group content from EQ/EQ2 the bonus' would have to be major to produce a "need" to group if you wanted to stay on the exp train.

[Merusk]

Yeah, basicly grouping may increase your XP gain to the point it's required (Which is their intent, I believe.) BUT, 'required' grouping doesn't mean the mobs have to kick your ass to the point you can't kill a 'green' mob at the level cap  i.e. Warriors in EQ "Kunark Era" which is the level of 'challenge' they said they were aiming for.

[Murgos]

Warriors in EQ "Kunark Era" which is the level of 'challenge' they said they were aiming for.

Hi, I was the first level 51 warrior on my server when Kunark came out.  Due to my experience with warriors in Kunark all I have to say is I will never ever touch a game that claims to reproduce this experience.

Kill a Mob 15 levels below you solo and wait 45 minutes - 1 hour until you can take on the next one?  Having to rely on other classes to travel more than 1 zone from a safe area?  Etc, etc...  Warriors in Kunark were teh suck, don't let fuzzy nostalgia convince you otherwise.

[Merusk]

Err yeah that's what I was trying to say.  Obviously I did it poorly. I wasn't 50, but I was a warrior and right there with you on the "fuck I should have rolled a pally/ sk/ necro" train.

Encouraging grouping doesn't mean you have to go that route, which penalizes the soloer (or only specific classes) which is the suck.

I'm no Vanguard Fanboi.  Do a search for my previous thoughts about the game if you dobut that.  If they hit on a better scheme I'll give many Kudos. However, I have long expected just another rehash of EQ with all it's suck and inability to do anything as a solo character.  This is the FIRST glimmer of anything outside of that paradigm they've given.

[Strazos]

Just for reference, I think rogues were in the same boat, if not worse.

It took very specific gear for a rogue to truely be able to solo (or just way over-powered gear), and some luck.

Soloing as a rogue made me cry.

[Yegolev]

Edit: I don't know if I buy into the tinfoil hat theory of Cameron and Romero. They may have talked. But Romero can't throw together an entire engine that fast unless he uses a modified UT engine or BigWorld. But that's less than likely knowing ID.

I understand that the Wish codebase is whoring around.

[HaemishM]

Whether they actually hit Core Gamer with Vanguard though remains to be seen. I personally link "casualness" with the ability to choose when and if to group. From what I've read of Vanguard, soloability is not something they're trying to sell.

You are correct in that.  However, they're going about it differently than they did in EQ. They say grouping will give "bonuses" that make it the more attractive choice, rather than soloing penalizing you.  No idea how that'll work out in the mechanics.  These were the guys who acted like 'creating xp' was problematic when it's an imaginary construct with a make-up number and not a finite resource anyway.

That IS the way EQ did it. And in MMOG's, if something is a bonus to someone else, the person not doing what that other person is doing is getting a penalty. That's just the way MMOG players look at it. Rewarding someone else for doing the same activity a different way is a penalty.

Yes, that's stupid. MMOG whining fucks a lot of things up, mostly when developer jackholes like McQuaid believe it.

[Miasma]

I guess this is Cameron's plan.  I'm also guessing he lost a lot of money during the dot com bubble by believing companies who promised to do everything for a fraction of the cost and produce a superior product.

[HaemishM]

When this is on your MMOG platform's front page:

Make a complete Massively Multiplayer Online Game (MMOG) or virtual world for less money and in less time than you could have dreamed possible.
Participate in the game industry's most exciting frontier.
Build the features that make your game unique, leveraging the expertise of the networking and infrastructure experts who helped build the web.
Deliver your vision to a built-in market of players--without having to ask a publisher's permission or give up your intellectual property.
Get filthy rich! *

I start seeing visions of Dawn, with companies being at steak or something!11!

[schild]

Movies are easy compared to MMOGs. It's like goddamn playmobile and mindstorms.

Edit: Actually, that's not even a good comparison. But my point still stands.

[Yegolev]

I could have a MMO for just $10k?  I think Baldwin Online just found a new home.

[Murgos]

According to their website you can have an MMO for free.  If you never charge anyone to play it anyway.  The question is, of course, how much does it cost in modification to the Multiverse platform to make a competitive MMO?  Don't forget Multiverse is going to keep half your income (or more) so multiply that number by two or three.

[Yegolev]

The question is, of course, how much does it cost in modification to the Multiverse platform to make a competitive MMO?

Just the cost of photoshopping the Baldwins' faces onto base 3D models.

[El Gallo]

It comes down to pace. If the pacing for soloing is "fine" (according to players, and using WoW as a metric), then the bonus to grouping will make leveling faster, or the same pace but with better access to better gear. Typical stuff.

Well, VGs current plan gives every group member full xp per kill.  With 6 man groups, you get 6x the xp over time in a group than a soloist does.  That's assuming there's zero class synergy.  But there will be class synergies, which allow groups to kill more of the same mobs, or the same number of more rewarding mobs.  So you're talking 1/10th or so the xp/hr solo vs being in a group.  Compare with EQ, where a fair number of classes (and, later in the game, pretty much every class except warriors and rogues, maybe clerics too) could get solo XP ranging from at least half the group rate to well over the group rate.

Now, you're right that pacing is the key issue.  Maybe they'll set it up so soloists get acceptable content consumption rates while groups burn through it 10x faster.  But I think it's a lot more likely that the rates will be tuned for groups with soloists being 10x slower.  This is in addition to the fact that Sigil's conception of "acceptable content consumption rates" and your or my conception of such rates is the same, which it probably isn't.

Then again, the game is (from what I hear, I'm not in the beta) a ways away from completion, so we'll see.

[Trippy]

When this is on your MMOG platform's front page:

Make a complete Massively Multiplayer Online Game (MMOG) or virtual world for less money and in less time than you could have dreamed possible.
Participate in the game industry's most exciting frontier.
Build the features that make your game unique, leveraging the expertise of the networking and infrastructure experts who helped build the web.
Deliver your vision to a built-in market of players--without having to ask a publisher's permission or give up your intellectual property.
Get filthy rich! *

I start seeing visions of Dawn, with companies being at steak or something!11!

I like how all the top people are ex-Netscape people working on backend server stuff while there and have absolutely zero, zilch, zippo, video game development experience (the Lead Engineer does have 3D graphics experience though).

[Venkman]

Thread rez ftw!

Well, VGs current plan gives every group member full xp per kill.

Good. This was one of the things I liked about SB. That VG is a PvE game makes this even more important. After that though, everything you said sounds pretty standard. It advancement rate is less important than the penalty for solo or group. VGs system has no penalty per se, but rather a positive-reinforcement model in the benefits for grouping. This is a better way to approach it.

That it means soloers may progress 1/10 as fast as a group is important, but still less important than the pain of grouping. Are there level restrictions? Is major travel time involved?

Multiverse, a startup that makes a massively multiplayer online (MMO) video game possible for a tiny fraction of what they typically cost.

I love how "startup" and past-tense "makes" are used in the same sentence. News alert: they haven't made anything!

It sounds like Multiverse just wants to be the business folks. For $10k, they'll advise you on what to purchase and create. Then they'll happily enter into a contract with you to handle all billing and account management services for a period of time.

That's not a $10k MMO though. That's just a $10k consulting fee. Cameron et al still need to buy servers, people, code, assets, etc, with the budget of a cheap movie that doesn't go to Multiverse.