Overly Optimistic?

I just had someone post a comment on the blog about my overly optimistic view of my new project. I figured I would post my answers so everyone else interested could read them as well.

>>overly optimistic/ambitious?

That's not an unfair assessment.  However, I do have confidence in a few things.  I'm confident that I can do this project; based on the fact that I have successfully completed similar projects in the past, more than once.

I am also confident that I am managing technical risk.

For example, one of my first requirements is not to get even any game play working.  My first requirement is to get a server written that can manage 1,000 simultaneous connections and to test it with bot scripts which actually create 1,000 connections and move characters around the world.

The 'M' in MMO stands for 'massive' and if I can't achieve that, then nothing about the game client really matters.

The key to success, in my view, is to provide a unique truly massive gaming experience; the kind you could only ever get, to date, from 'Planetside' and do better.  Having been the lead software engineer on 'Planetside' I would like to think I know a little bit about this.

>>have you already prioritized a list of features so that you know what to drop when you don't meet deadlines?

Yes.  I'm using Agile/Scrum methodology and Rally to track everything.

>>(and have designed play tests to know that these features aren't make-or-break?)

Well, we aren't doing the project that way.  This project will be in a continuous state of open beta from the day we have enough server infrastructure in place and two people can walk around the game world.  The game will never officially 'ship' in that sense; but rather features will continuously be added, and game design refined through play test over time.

This is the only way any truly successful multiplayer game gets developed.  If you do not always have a playable game, during the entire development process, you are taking an absurd risk in my opinion.

And, while we will never officially 'ship' the game, we will officially start charging people money for beta testing.

However, even then we have a lot of flexibility.  One of the key things to test is the monetization of the game, and what works best.  So monetization will be play tested and balanced just like everything else.

My design is that, from the stand point of the game mechanics, you will never play the game for 'free'.  What will be free are credits to play the game, which I will hand out with abandon to anyone who is willing to help us test and tune the development process.

Once the game reaches a level that it is truly fun to play, and I feel worth charging money for, at that point I will just stop giving away so many free credits.

For example, let's say you want to beta test.  Well, I can give you a $100 worth of credits to play the game (enough credits to play the game a ridiculous number of hours for five months).

Once those credits run out, if that guy is still in beta test, he is going to want some more credits to keep playing the game.

If I haven't created a game that is enough fun to accomplish this, then I will have failed.

However, this game is starting with a known, proven, and completely addictive game design.  So, my confidence level is fairly high that I can find a decent sized group of people who will enjoy playing it and be willing to pay a modest amount of money for the privilege. I'm not talking about charging them some absurd amount of money in subscription fees, or annoying the shit out of them with micro-transactions and/or advertising.  My initial plan is simply to charge very modest some of money per time played.  Something roughly on the order of 25 cents for half an hour.  But, this too, is all subject to change, refinement, and tuning as testing plays out.

This game is going to provide a unique gaming experience you simply cannot get anywhere else in any other form.

>>anyway, good luck with it all! Keen to see your demo in 2 weeks

Thanks, looking forward to getting it out!