What happened to a 3d VTT?

[Dungeoneer]

3D is cool, but I think as others have stated here, it's not clear that what you get from going 3D justifies the cost.

Benefits of 3D VTT:
- Looks cooler
- Gives players a more accurate representation of the battlefield

Costs of 3D VTT:
- Harder to code
- Added complexity for DMs
- Demands more bandwidth
- More time required for creating art assets

I honestly think Cost #4 is your big, long term problem. Unless you come up with a really robust and user-friendly monster creation tool you are going to have to create models for new monsters manually. This is a time-consuming process to say the least. Wizards would probably have to employ more than one full-time 3D modeler just to keep up with the release of new monsters. Even ignoring the many monsters that just require a simple palette swap there always seem to be new monsters that just don't fit in any pre-established category.

The same problem affects 3D dungeon tiles.

Basically, a 3D VTT is simply an expensive undertaking, and maintaining it wouldn't be cheap either.

 

[Jhaelen]

Wizards would probably have to employ more than one full-time 3D modeler just to keep up with the release of new monsters. Even ignoring the many monsters that just require a simple palette swap there always seem to be new monsters that just don't fit in any pre-established category.

I'm pretty sure WotC's original plans involved reusing the 3d monster models they use to create their minis. I.e. they wouldn't have to hire additional 3D modelers.

 

[malraux]

I'm pretty sure WotC's original plans involved reusing the 3d monster models they use to create their minis. I.e. they wouldn't have to hire additional 3D modelers.

No. They might have been able to reuse a few models from the latest line, after they switched to a CAD program, but certainly not a lot of them and it wouldn't have represented a gigantic back catalog.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

A couple of thoughts occur to me, reading this: 1, I do not think that 3-D first person is that 'realistic'. I personally found the lack of peripheral vision somewhat disconcerting.
2, there is no real reason that the 3-D models could not be made available at a later date on the 2-D surface.

That said, from a DM perspective creating good 3-D maps would be a real pain.

 

[Stoat]

One of the things that I enjoy about using a VTT is having the ability to display custom maps and tokens to the players. I like creating maps that look as much as possible like the environment the players are exploring. I like using tokens that look as much as possible like the creatures the players encounter.

I'm somewhat concerned that WotC won't let me use my own custom maps and tokens with their 2D tabletop. However, I'm 100% confident that I would not be able to create custom 3D maps or tokens. For this reason, I'm glad to see WotC move away from the 3D VTT.

 

[TDarien]

A couple of thoughts occur to me, reading this: 1, I do not think that 3-D first person is that 'realistic'. I personally found the lack of peripheral vision somewhat disconcerting.
2, there is no real reason that the 3-D models could not be made available at a later date on the 2-D surface.

That said, from a DM perspective creating good 3-D maps would be a real pain.

Agreed, creating encounters for Maptool is time-consuming enough when you have your maps already in 2d image files that just need to be imported. Trying to create dungeons with 3D modelling tools would be a nightmare.
A 3D table, while looking cool, would just be more annoying than functional, IMO.

 

[TerraDave]

Hadn't seen any one discussing this, but when I saw the front page news on the new Wizards VTT, I just had to wonder why they dropped their older work on the 3d version for this newer 2d version. The videos they had shown of the original VTT looked like they had it pretty close to complete. The new one almost looks like a prettied-up version of the web tool that let you plan maps with the dungeon tiles.

Its not just the vidoes, but several screen shots and descriptions from a few years back.

They had some kind of functioning visualizer (the mini maker) and they had a table top. They demoed that table top. I saw, it, as did dozens--at least--of others.

And I saw it crash. Its my understanding that it just kept crashing.

The reason they stopped is that could no longer keep spending money to get it to work.

 

[Dungeoneer]

No. They might have been able to reuse a few models from the latest line, after they switched to a CAD program, but certainly not a lot of them and it wouldn't have represented a gigantic back catalog.

In addition, they don't make minis of every monster. And the ones they do, I'm sure they're not mapping textures to.

 

[Jhaelen]

No. They might have been able to reuse a few models from the latest line, after they switched to a CAD program, but certainly not a lot of them and it wouldn't have represented a gigantic back catalog.

They started using CAD models with the 'Desert of Desolation' set, IIRC.

If you look at the available screenshots of the prototype VTT you'll notice every model shown is one that _is_ available as a mini. Coincidence? I doubt it very much.

The availability of D&D minis was a contributing factor when deciding what monsters to port to 4e; they even often used the same names.

And as I said, I think that were their 'original' plans. The declining success of the DDM line may well have contributed to their decision to forget about the 3D VTT (that and the various other problems that have already been mentioned here and elsewhere).

 

[Hussar]

Thinking about it, an isometric view would be cool. It's not 3d, obviously, but, it at least has the illusion of depth. I know I played a VTT game with this map: Bandit's Lair by Torstan from Kobold Quarterly and it really added a lot to have that sense of height.