Skip to main content

Stargate MMORPG Announced


If there was anything that Perception's Stargate game proved, it was that there's quite a following of fans who were eager for the game adaptation of their favourite TV series. Well, MGM certainly had other plans for the Stargate license as a recent announcement by MGM and another game studio showed that things were brewing sometime last year for a Stargate MMORPG...

Cheyenne and MGM Interactive entered into a licensing agreement to develop Stargate Worlds in September 2005 and Cheyenne has quickly built a very talented development team and created some impressive initial art and technology assets. Cheyenne is excited to partner with world-renowned MGM Studios, and is proud to be entrusted with the popular Stargate SG-1 franchise. The Cheyenne staff is comprised of a veteran management team that has shipped more than 80 world-class titles, and boasts extensive MMO development experience.

Hey, I hope Kurt Russell is involved in this ;)

Submitted by anonymous (not verified) on Wed, 01/02/06 - 2:04 PM Permalink

  • 1. unit - Wednesday, February 01, 2006 - 8:19:47 AM
    Ok all the pieces fit into place now. It is however, prett shoddy stuff if MGM kept mum about this particular license agreement with another developer, simply waiting it out until Perception starved.

    If I recall Perception had an exclusive license, and had planned to do more than one title. Curious

  • 2. LiveWire - Wednesday, February 01, 2006 - 9:24:23 AM
    From what I've heard standard game licences and MMO licences are often kept seperate, and the the owner licencing the MO rights to one developer and the 'exclusive' game rights to another is not unheard of - Mavel I belive was the last in this situation. I dont remember the details but it was on Gamasutra a while back.
  • 3. unit - Wednesday, February 01, 2006 - 10:20:36 AM
    In any case, by the time this sees the light of day in an ever-crowded MMO market, Stargate SG-1 will have finished (both SG-1 and Atlantis have diminishing audiences and there's a real 'smell of impending death' about them) and the world would've moved on.

    If this were to be released in the next 12 months I'd think it have a chance. Beyond that...meh. Methinks this won't see the light of day until early 2008 at least.

  • 4. JS - Thursday, February 02, 2006 - 6:03:43 PM
    I believe Perception had the total interactive rights, and I think I can smell a rather nasty law suit in the brewing.
  • 5. unit - Thursday, February 02, 2006 - 7:45:09 PM
    That's my recollection of it too. But the studio undertaking this project (Cheyeen Mountain???) appears to be a direct subsidiary of MGM. I'm sure under the terms of the agreement signed with Perception that MGM hold the ultimate right to withdraw the license but what then? What recourse would Perception have in that event? It's been a long time wince I was directly privy to the event surrounding this.

    If JoWood were then announced as the publisher of this time, then the plot would certainly thicken. :) As it stands something funny has transpired here.

    In any case, I read that they expct a 4 year development for this title. Too late...

  • 6. Kmo - Friday, February 03, 2006 - 1:05:08 AM
    I dont think Sg1 will die out anytime soon, id say it has 2 or 3 good seasons left in her, that is more then enough time to get this game out, i will play it even if the show is gone anyway.
  • 7. LiveWire - Friday, February 03, 2006 - 10:04:17 AM
    I'm surprised it didnt die a long time ago, although judging from season 9, in which they've managed to bring some fresh life into the series, i can see at least one more season in it and more if they can keep it up.
  • 8. Anonymous Coward - Saturday, February 04, 2006 - 7:44:22 PM
    Someone should develop a MacGyver MMO...
  • 9. Someone in the know - Saturday, February 04, 2006 - 8:26:40 PM
    SG1 is very popular in Australia and some European countries but isn't as popular in the US although there is a following. The truth is that SG1 isn't very high on MGM's priorities; they are willing to get what they can for it. You can get this license off them for around USS70k upfront, non-exclusive. You would be dealing with an organisation full of lawyers and accountants. That's effectively what they do, license their properties for as much money as they can get up-front and if you make a mistake then you get hammered by their teams of lawyers. They don't really care if anyone succeeds or fails as long as they get their upfront fees. Quality only becomes an issue if a title is likely to reach market and they have the final say about that making the agreement potentially worthless. They can simply say they're not happy with the quality and sell the license to someone else. It's a dirty game.
  • 10. Hazard - Tue, 21 Feb 2006 0:39:36Z
    This is pretty much on par with my 'speculations' - which I mentioned earlier on on the other stargate thread, so this comes as no surprise to me.
  • 11. Grover - Tue, 21 Feb 2006 3:10:10Z
    Why do ppl try and smell conspiracy when a developer misses milestones? Thats what happened.. Perception missed milstones (by a huge margin too).. and for some reason, everyone blames the publisher.. or the license owner.. but being developers here.. seem to think developers are always the victim? This is so completely opposite of the truth.. its sad.. The amount of criticism levelled at publishers and license holders is proof of that, when in actual fact, rarely either of these parties have ANYTHING to do with making the game? They usually form up a set of milestones for the contract, developers happily sign it without consulting their tech ppl .. or are just inexp in making large multi-console titles.. and then miss dates.. its happens ALL THE TIME... quit trying to make these Aus companies look like victims.. its hardly ever even close to the truth..
  • 12. pb - Tue, 21 Feb 2006 8:9:19Z
    To make thing worse many developers resort to deception, shell games, fake screenshots etc..Its hardly surprising publishers have to be so aggressive in looking after their investment. Not nice for the good honest developers who are needlessly obliged to jump through extra hoops but its certainly understandable from the publishers point of view.