NASA Responds To MMO Concerns

Sean Hollister writes "GameCyte contacted Daniel Laughlin, Project Manager of NASA Learning Technologies, to find out where that $3 million budget for their educational MMO actually went. As it turns out, NASA still has the money — they are just planning to use it differently than we thought. Meanwhile, the 'non-reimbursable Space Act Agreement' actually allows the game developer to profit where they might not have, otherwise. 'If it were a government contract, it would be illegal to be paid twice, once by the government and a second time by consumers.'"

Comments

Now that's a good deal...

[Fluffeh]

Here is how I seem to understand all of this debarcle...

Nasa wants to make a game.
They have a paltry $3mill budget to make it.
They decide to not pay the developers to make it, but let them profit from making the Nasa game.
The game developer has to make what is likely going to be a dull drab game (compared to other space MMO standards) and as a reward is ALLOWED to make money off said game.

Now is it just me, or is this utterly setting yourself up for a fall? Not only do you not get to have all the aliens and things running about in your game, you probably won't get to run about conquering and destroying, and due to budgets and the likely developers who would actually GO FOR THIS deal, you will likely end up with a B-Grade MMO that looks totally like a B-Grade MMO.

Is this really a smart step for Nasa? If you can't do it properly or well enough, sometimes it is indeed better not to do it at all.

Re:Now that's a good deal...

[Cryacin]

The game developer has to make what is likely going to be a dull drab game Come on! Adjectives like dull and drab hardly describe working at NASA! Imagine a game where you have to beg for money from diplomats, fight off the disgruntled engineers after more budget cuts, all the while being bound up by several rolls of red duct tape! (It's not just used on apollo missions!)

I for one can see millions of people paying $20/month for the privilige!


Wake me up when the spin doctors are done.

Re:Now that's a good deal...

[iNaya]

It's probably not as stupid as it sounds.

There's probably already a game company out there that has thought about implementing some kind of game based on NASA. Now with NASA offering free advice, knowledge and who knows what else, it would be an ideal opportunity for a game developer who may already have something in the works.

Not only that, but they will probably be able to get an official NASA endorsement + free advertising on the NASA website.

Could actually work out well for both sides, and we may get a cool game from it.

Re:Now that's a good deal...

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a bit more complicated than that. When you browse seriously thru the RFP, you see patterns to emerge.

Despite naming (with typos) MMORPGs like EVE Online or World of Warcraft, they are not looking to a MMORPG. A number of elements that have to feature in your game, like "measuring the learning", having specific educator access, and it's explicit target audience (kids from 13 - the legal minimum for an on-line service - to college) indicate that they're not looking to a RPG or anything but a straight educational tool. Their goal is not to make SimNasa, but the next-generation morning-class video - only with Web 2.0 and social networking, in which, presumably interested pupils will team across the country to do "fun" NASA-themed assignments and projects and whatnot.

A classical MMO, while interesting and all isn't what they've specified. If you read the STEM brochure, on figure 1 page 5, you'll see what. The tool they specify lies squarely on educate/engage side. A classic MMO would probably in the Informal block, inspire/engage. Those two products are as different as night and day (and, I admit, I was lured by the MMO catch-word). It's a MMO, but probably not in the sense we recognise; it's closer to a Web 2.0 browser tool than a PC/Console game. Which means the $3m budget makes sense: it's a paltry sum for a videogame, but a good sized budget for a web application.

Re:Now that's a good deal...

[mcvos]

Could actually work out well for both sides, and we may get a cool game from it.

I agree. Despite the doubts many slashdotters have about the fun of an educational NASA game, I can definitely see some great opportunities.

Firstly, don't make it an RPG. That market has been cornered, and it makes no sense whatsoever in a NASA context. Get away from the real-time first/third-person view. You want to be able to get to orbit or Mars before dinner.

I'd make it a design/build/resource management game. Maybe you've got a budget. There are a couple of easy standard missions, like get a rocket off the ground. Then a bit harder: get a rocket to orbit. Then get a human to orbit and back. Then get a human to the moon. Build a space station. Go to Mars. Etc.

Each time you succesfully finish a mission (and you can make up your own missions to build something completely unexpected if you like), your budget goes up depending on how well you did. Did you get there fast? Did you stay far under budget? Did you bring more astronauts for a longer period? The better you did, the more your budget goes up for your next mission. If you fail, you get the same budget you had before.

Ofcourse you want to avoid grind; people launching the same rocket over and over again to increase their budget, so only your best attempt counts. If you redo the same mission, make sure you have better results than last time. Do it cheaper, faster and better, and your budget goes up. Launch the same old design, and you've wasted your time.

Ofcourse it's important that the game uses a reasonably realistic physics, but it shouldn't be so hard that you have to be a rocket scientist in order to play. On the other hand, I expect a lot of astronauts to die in this game.

I think this sort of game could be really cool. Build stuff, launch it, and see if it works. I wish I had the resources to develop something like that.

Re:Now that's a good deal...

[elrous0]

It's the deal of the century! Not only do you get to foot the development bill and take all the risk on a game that will almost certainly be a total snooze-fest, but you also get the added fun of a bunch of NASA bureaucrats looking over your shoulder saying "No, do it like THIS!" at every turn. Who WOULDN'T jump on such a great opportunity?

You can't make a B grade MMO for 3 million

[patio11]

I don't know if the government bureacrats quite understand how fast asset production eats through money. Its insane, and it continues getting more insane because increasing hardware capability leads to increased asset production cost AND the winner-take-most leaders in the MMORPG space are running away from the field qualitatively. You can make an MMORPG for $3 million, sure, but it will be like comparing Pine to GMail. Hint: people who enjoy MMORPGs do not typically choose Pine over GMail. (Pipe down, you. You're atypical. Ask the other folks in your WoW guild.)

Maybe someone could clue the NASA folks in. "Hiya guys, MMORPG has costs approaching that of programming control code for the shuttle." "Gadzooks! Why, $3 million wouldn't cover the header file on the system clock function!" "Yeah, its sort of like that. Except minus the defense contractor slush fund. But mostly like that."

Re:You can't make a B grade MMO for 3 million

[osu-neko]

I think they do understand. That's why they're doing in this way. Knowing that $3 mil isn't going to cover the costs, they're instead letting the developer charge real money for a real game, something the developer couldn't do if NASA paid them the paltry $3 mil.

Could be agood deal.

[moteyalpha]

I am one of those horrible 'The universe is half full' guys and I see that the integration of science and MMO can in fact be exciting and visually entertaining where 'Mario' gets mushroom points for each correct solution. I was doing it myself and I don't see where NASA has an exclusive on the physics of the universe. --tag-- Please give me more mod points, I needs the 'precious'. Absolute stupidity, disrupts absolutely.

Second Life, Croquet

[nguy]

I think they should just build something on top of Second Life. With $3m, they can actually do something in SL that's a lot better than other SL effort and they already have a user base. SL pretty much ensures it will be a B-rate experience, but at least it will be that, and it will be a B-rate experience that's better than all the other stuff in SL. And, maybe, NASA could actually get SL to fix some of the awful limitations of that platform.

Another NASA-ish thing to do might be to build something on top of Croquet (www.opencroquet.org)... they'd be supporting a neat platform, and for $3m, they could probably get the Croquet people quite interested and get something better out of it than paying a game company to develop a new MMO from scratch.

No one would want to?

[CannonballHead]

Why not? Think of it... NASA endorsement and advertising. Sure, maybe a major game studio isn't going to, but if people are willing to work on, say, open source projects where you pretty much won't make any money and never will, why wouldn't a relatively new game company try to work on it and get their name out there in a big way? It would be like an unknown composer (like me) getting to work gratis on a video produced by a major video studio. You don't get money, but you get your name out there in a big way, and if you do WELL, it would do wonders for future job contracts.

SimMars

[SimHacker]

Maxis was working with NASA on SimMars, while I was there working on The Sims.

It was eventually canceled after The Sims shipped and sucked up all the resources into the franchise.

But some of the ideas from SimMars ended up in one of The Sims expansion packs and Spore.

From wikipedia:

In The Sims: Vacation, there was an arcade game titled SimMars and it had a detailed description about the game. This may or may not have been the real premise of the game:

"Direct mankindâ(TM)s first mission to the red planet! Launch rockets and deploy robot probes! Deploy teams to search for alien resources! Establish and run a network of specialized colonies to create a self-sufficient civilization! Provide your colony with food, shelter, and power! Fast, furious, adrenaline-pumping action!"

As of May 12, 2000, Maxis has stated that "SimMars is on hold and we do not have staff at Maxis currently working on the game. With the phenomenal success of The Sims, we've decided to move resources to support that franchise as well as other titles that we haven't even announced yet."

Some elements of SimMars are used in the upcoming Maxis game Spore.

-Don

Does Laughlin know nothing about game development?

[Chaos Incarnate]

'If it were a government contract, it would be illegal to be paid twice, once by the government and a second time by consumers.' Except, with the game sure to cost far more than $3 million, they're really only being paid once.

I think it's even worse

[Moraelin]

Actually, I think it's even worse. You can't really make even the Pine of MMOs for 3 million any more. Actually, I'll guess you never could.

You could make the Pine of single player RPGs, maybe.

Now take the costs for designing quests, landscapes, dungeons, etc, for that and multiply them by at least 10.

No, seriously. SP RPGs are aiming for anywhere between 10 and 100 hours of gameplay, with the curve actually peaking near the lower end of that. A MMO, I don't know the latest WoW figures, but back in the day of Everquest Sony had figured that the average player stays subscribed for 6 months. (Of course, like with any averages, not everyone is the same. Some quit after the free month, some stay for 4 years, but the average was half a year.)

You actually have to provide some content for them for 6 months. They have to actually keep finding stuff to do for that that long. Way past the point where a SP RPG player popped the DVD out and moved on to something else.

Six months is about 180 days. Let's say only 150 until he finished everything and got stuck in the endgame raid grind. (You don't want that to happen _too_ early, because a lot of people give up.) Let's also say we're not even aiming for 150 days of an unemployed obsessive gamer who puts in 16 hours daily. We're aiming for it to last 150 days for a borderline casual guy averaging 4 hours a day. (Which can also mean less than that on weekdays and a bit longer on Saturday and Sunday, so it's not as obsessive as it looks.) The 16 hours-a-day maniacs will, of course, then finish the game in a little over a month, but, oh well. So, anyway, we're up to 600 hours of gameplay already.

Even if you do go heavier on the time sinks than in a SP RPG, there's only so much time sink percentage you can have before most people find it non-fun. Taking a wild guess based on WoW's design, at the lower levels you want almost no time sinks, while later it gradually increases. But even that boiling-the-frog model lets you rise the bar only so far. So let's be generous and assume you managed to make a whole 50% of your game be time-sinks, and somehow you din't lose 99% of the players because of that.

That's still enough content for a 300 hour SP RPG you need to have there. It's more work than it sounds.