D&D (2024) I am highly skeptical of the Unreal VTT

[Jfdlsjfd]

But yeah lots of more casual-end people seem to think this is what we're getting, and we're getting it soon, and sure don't take them seriously, but they're going to be pretty loud and pretty mad.

In the video, they explicitely mention a release date of 2024. If people think in earnest that 2024 is "January 1st" and not "December 31st", it's a release 16 months for now and they'd be right to expect a beta testing period starting in a few month... They may be mildly disappointed.

Yeah and from the trailer we have reason to be concerned, because they seem to be saying that rather than giving us all the stuff for our subscription, they're thinking of giving us dungeon blocks based on what we've purchased.

That's what I understood.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Given what happened with 4e I believe this has been in development for a while now. I certainly don't believe they announced it and started development the next day.

You're assuming it's even is in active development! Which is a hell of an assumption!

I don't think there's any reason to believe that. I strongly suspect, based on the information we have, it's actually in pre-production, the phase before active development. Software and games often spend months or even years in pre-production.

Unreal Engine 5 has only been available since April 5th. So, at most, assuming they hit the ground running, with experienced Unreal developers (which I haven't seen any evidence they have, though I obviously can't prove they don't), they've been developing since then, which is what, 3 months?

That would assume pre-production happened much earlier. But that's undermined, pretty harshly, by the messaging they've put out. Specifically, as of the CGI bullshot trailer they released a few days ago, they were still talking about the business model and how exactly the VTT will work speculatively, rather than factually.

That suggests the basic design is not finished. That suggests they're in pre-production. Which would make sense, because of the timing of everything involved. They only just bought Beyond on the 13th of April. So that actually pushes the timeline along - they couldn't realistically have started development before that, and more realistically, they'd take time to look at the Beyond database, to see what the Beyond people had achieved with their attempt at a VTT (which seems, like all Beyond projects, to have gone exactly nowhere, I admit), and so on. So probably we're into June before they've even finished looking at that and onboarding Beyond people and so on.

So I think it's most likely they haven't even started actual development. They're doing pre-production stuff and trying to work out their business model - that'll have a huuuuuuuuuuge impact on how they design the VTT.

Which makes the belief that they'll have this ready by 2024 even more wild.

In the video, they explicitely mention a release date of 2024. If people think in earnest that 2024 is "January 1st" and not "December 31st", it's a release 16 months for now and they'd be right to expect a beta testing period starting in a few month... They may be mildly disappointed.

People won't mind if it's December 31 2024, people are used to that. But the odds of it even being in a playable, non-alpha form by any point in 2024? Very low (unless they do a 2D and no-business-model version). It would be truly shocking if they managed that, given they're using the UE5 engine, and don't seem to have an experienced dev studio working on the product.

 

[Reynard]

In the video, they explicitely mention a release date of 2024. If people think in earnest that 2024 is "January 1st" and not "December 31st", it's a release 16 months for now and they'd be right to expect a beta testing period starting in a few month... They may be mildly disappointed.



That's what I understood

My guess is they would be aiming for a simultaneous release of at least "early access."

 

[Imaro]

You're assuming it's even is in active development! Which is a hell of an assumption!

Really? Why?

I don't think there's any reason to believe that. I strongly suspect, based on the information we have, it's actually in pre-production, the phase before active development. Software and games often spend months or even years in pre-production.

I don't, again given what happened with 4e's VTT offering and the fact that the plan for D&D One didn't formulate yesterday... it would make more sense that they have started working on this already. I mean honestly from your posts I think your are vastly overestimating what is necessary for this. It's static assets that have minimal interaction rules (So you don't have models on top of each other) at best... and buildable tile assets. It's Neverwinter Nights with UE5 and minimal coding. they create a range of models and re-skin the majority of them or slightly alter the pose. It's not anywhere near as intensive as desigining a videogame

Unreal Engine 5 has only been available since April 5th. So, at most, assuming they hit the ground running, with experienced Unreal developers (which I haven't seen any evidence they have, though I obviously can't prove they don't), they've been developing since then, which is what, 3 months?

All they need is the budget to hire contractors. The things skilled developers have already showed off with UE5, as well as what I've read about it seems to indicate it's not that steep of a learning curve. Plenty of studios have released tech demos around UE5 and again... this isn't a videogame, the bulk of the work is creating models and skins for them.

That would assume pre-production happened much earlier. But that's undermined, pretty harshly, by the messaging they've put out. Specifically, as of the CGI bullshot trailer they released a few days ago, they were still talking about the business model and how exactly the VTT will work speculatively, rather than factually.

I'm not sure the vagaries of how they are going to sell something necessarily indicates they haven't started working on it yet. Is a videogame's price set before development starts?

That suggests the basic design is not finished. That suggests they're in pre-production. Which would make sense, because of the timing of everything involved. They only just bought Beyond on the 13th of April. So that actually pushes the timeline along - they couldn't realistically have started development before that, and more realistically, they'd take time to look at the Beyond database, to see what the Beyond people had achieved with their attempt at a VTT (which seems, like all Beyond projects, to have gone exactly nowhere, I admit), and so on. So probably we're into June before they've even finished looking at that and onboarding Beyond people and so on.

No it doesn't. It suggests they aren't certain of their business model yet... And yes they could have started some development before the finalized purchase of Beyond since more than likely the decision and talks for that purchase began months ago. You are assuming they want to use or even needed to assess Beyond's tech for a VTT when they could have easily gone the route of assessing how best to integrate different tech with Beyond and thus be working on the VTT separately. My guess is that they didn't buy Beyond without having already chosen this course and assessed the feasibility of creating and integrating the VTT in the timeframe they gave.

So I think it's most likely they haven't even started actual development. They're doing pre-production stuff and trying to work out their business model - that'll have a huuuuuuuuuuge impact on how they design the VTT.

Well I've already stated the reasons I think you're wrong... you're assuming things that just don't seem to make sense.

Which makes the belief that they'll have this ready by 2024 even more wild.

If all of you're assumptions are correct, sure... if they are correct...

1. They publicly announced a released date while in pre-production.
2. They don't have a VTT that they've been working on and plan to integrate with Beyond as opposed to building it onto Beyond.
3. They have no modelers, designers, developers who know how to use UE5
4. UE5 takes considerable knowledge and experience to use
5. They're business model must be finalized before design & development start
6. The business model will stall even starting design and development unless it's finalized

I just can't believe these assumptions are true and they still chose to announce this. But maybe I'm worng.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Is a videogame's price set before development starts?

Oh dear, really?

I said business model, and yes, the business model of a game is almost always determined in pre-production, and usually only changes if something goes very seriously wrong.

1. They publicly announced a released date while in pre-production.
2. They don't have a VTT that they've been working on and plan to integrate with Beyond as opposed to building it onto Beyond.
3. They have no modelers, designers, developers who know how to use UE5
4. UE5 takes considerable knowledge and experience to use
5. They're business model must be finalized before design & development start
6. The business model will stall even starting design and development unless it's finalized

I didn't assume 3 and 5 & 6 are the same point twice expressed differently. The business model doesn't have to be finalized, it's true. It's just that virtually every project that doesn't finalize it in pre-production runs way over time and budget, because they have to make major feature changes later on to accommodate the new business model.

All they need is the budget to hire contractors.

LOL.

I mean, that is not even an argument. If you could just throw money at contractors to get things done, well what a wonderful world we'd live in, I'll just say that.

It's Neverwinter Nights with UE5 and minimal coding. they create a range of models and re-skin the majority of them or slightly alter the pose. It's not anywhere near as intensive as desigining a videogame

How long exactly do you think it takes to develop videogames with the sort of high-res art they're using here? Because it's typically 3-5 years, with huge teams (often many hundreds of people, sometimes over a thousand). Obviously it's going to be less demanding with little animation and so on, but it's still an extremely serious task which is going to require a lot of artists working full-time, for a very long time. You can afford to hire more 3D and texture artists and fewer riggers and animators, at least.

Here they appear to have a very small team, with a very ambitious project, a brand new engine, and an uncertain business model. You're welcome to assume that's going to be done in two years, no probs. But I think that's probably pretty optimistic lol.

 

[Bill Zebub]

My prediction: when the AI historians look back, the robot takeover will have all started with WotC's VTT.

 

[Reynard]

My prediction: when the AI historians look back, the robot takeover will have all started with WotC's VTT.

"Would you like to play a game?"

 

[Imaro]

How long exactly do you think it takes to develop videogames with the sort of high-res art they're using here? Because it's typically 3-5 years, with huge teams (often many hundreds of people, sometimes over a thousand).

This is the disconnect for me... it's not a videogame... it in no way requires the amount or complexity of coding a videogame would. It is a collection of assets you can manually move... seriously most (all) basic VTT's let you snap grid pieces so that's not cutting edge design or development work and having manually moveable assets isn't cutting edge either (no animations, interactions, etc.)... modelling and skins is where the bulk of the work would be and they will be static. The UE5 engine does the heavy lifting for the graphics and the reason so many live action videogames sell a multitude of skins and static models is because they are cheap and relatively easy to make.

Here they appear to have a very small team, with a very ambitious project, a brand new engine, and an uncertain business model. You're welcome to assume that's going to be done in two years, no probs. But I think that's probably pretty optimistic lol.

Who is on their design/development team? Again UE5 is not hard to use, tons of studios are easily putting out graphic demos with it and the VTT isn't a videogame. The business model doesn't stop them from creating tiles, models or skins... regardless of how they eventually choose to package and sell them. I think we will have the basic VTT in 2 years and I think the minis, tiles and functionality will continue to grow from there.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

it in no way requires the amount or complexity of coding a videogame would. It is a collection of assets you can manually move...

I agree that we disagree here.

This requires most of the same things a video game does, and you seem not to be aware of that. You seem to think it's trivial to make 3D VTT like this. It isn't. This is challenging. This is not some lightweight browser-window thing that can rely on synergising a bunch of existing off-the-shelf components or plug-ins, but you're treating it like it is.

The decision to use UE5 means they're not going to have access to a bunch of pre-developed stuff (not for a few years yet). They're going to have to develop virtually everything for themselves - networking, UI, however it accesses the rules (and that cannot just be the current Beyond, because it is nowhere near up to the task), all the management of turns and initiative, and so on. That's very similar to what you need to do for a turn-based game, except the networking here needs to be way better. They may well also be integrating voice/video and so on.

I think we will have the basic VTT in 2 years and I think the minis, tiles and functionality will continue to grow from there.

I think it's possible they'll have something basic by then, but I don't think it's going to resemble what they showed. It's even possible it'll be entirely separate VTT. One scenario I can see if that, if the Beyond VTT was far along, it might be worth developing that as a stopgap whilst they work on the 3D VTT.

 

[Imaro]

I agree that we disagree here.

This requires most of the same things a video game does, and you seem not to be aware of that. You seem to think it's trivial to make 3D VTT like this. It isn't. This is challenging. This is not some lightweight browser-window thing that can rely on synergising a bunch of existing off-the-shelf components or plug-ins, but you're treating it like it is.

Bolded for emphasis... it does not. I'm not sure how to explain this any better than I have. A VTT is not a videogame you keep speaking like this requires level design, coding for interactions, movement, animations, etc. and it simply doesn't.

No one claimed that it's a "lightweight browser-window thing" but it most definitely isn't a videogame and doesn't require anywhere near the coding complexity of a videogame or even the complexity of most basic business apps. They haven't promised that it automates anything, nothing moves, no animations... this is a fact not an opinion. Is it more complex than Roll20...sure, as complex as Neverwinter Nights... not even close.

The decision to use UE5 means they're not going to have access to a bunch of pre-developed stuff (not for a few years yet). They're going to have to develop virtually everything for themselves - networking, UI, however it accesses the rules (and that cannot just be the current Beyond, because it is nowhere near up to the task), all the management of turns and initiative, and so on. That's very similar to what you need to do for a turn-based game, except the networking here needs to be way better. They may well also be integrating voice/video and so on.

I didn't mention anything being pre-developed. But they only have to make 1-10 models for tiny, small, medium and large humanoids and then re-skin. And they already have some of the models as evidenced by the in-game footage they showed. You're assuming this VTT will be running the game for you and that's not the impression I got from what they showed. It might eventually get there but integration with D&D Beyond to start could be as simple as allowing you to roll dice that add modifiers... beyond simple integration and we are getting into the realm of your expectations for what it will be as opposed to exactly what they said and yes, they may not meet those..

I think it's possible they'll have something basic by then, but I don't think it's going to resemble what they showed. It's even possible it'll be entirely separate VTT. One scenario I can see if that, if the Beyond VTT was far along, it might be worth developing that as a stopgap whilst they work on the 3D VTT.

I think if you knew what people have done with UE5 in the short time it's been available (with videogames and cinema) you might not think that. I don't believe it's been noted as hard to design or develop for and most UE4 developers say it's leaps and bounds beyond UE4 in capabilities and ease of use. I think they already have a grasp on how to create the models and skins for it (again as shown by the pre-alpha in-game footage) and if that's pre-alpha they will probably polish it even more. I don't think they need a stop gap, they just need to be careful about overshooting what they can accomplish from an automation and functionality side. If they keep scope creep to a minimum and aim to bring the basics first on a strong foundation this will probably be ready in 2 years time.