Responsibility in game development

[medwyn]

The act of release - what can (or should) a team deliver and in what quality? Is the term "finished" really like a swamp in game industry?

This is a question I tried to wrap my head around - with not much success.
I understand that game development is a wite elephant (no racism intended) among the industries because it's selling something virtual. I also understand that financing is an issue and developers have to manage to get some decent funds to be able to take on a project. Even crowd funding is a wonderful way to do that because it already implies a good and reliable sort of feedback.

However what I can not really understand that why customers let the developers not delivering the qualities. Why is it possible to let the quality standards of the game development drop seriously one project after the other and use some previous incompetence as an excuse to back up a current one? Where is the responsibility of the developers?
I'm not surpirsed because just here with ED I saw a massive playerbase who don't mind what they get on release. They don't care if they read some professional analitics and fundamental reviews pointing out the clear bottleneck of why the vision is not even possible to be delivered so waiting and hoping ("trusting") is just pretty pointless (apart from the peace of mind of course but that has no relation to the facts).

I would separate game development from software develoment because utility softwares have to provide exactly the same quality they are aiming otherwise it's just useless all in one. There1s no room for error in using databases, account manager softwares, etc. That's business and nobody tolerates undelivered and buggy visions.

I would like to see the game industry to get the responsibility and quality back like in every other industries. But that won't happen if the baseline of the overall reception of a RELEASED game is contaminated by the act of cooperating with the failures and converting them to excuses. That is a feedback which makes the quality of game development falling. In five years most of us will have to be happy with anything moving on a screen and called a game. And even then there'll be players satisfied and sending me away to play something else. Or use my imagination. Or whatever...
It's not beneficial for any of us however some of us are not aware of this.

What do you think? How do you imagine the future of game development? Is there an "ideal" way in which certain returning disappointment could be avoided?

 

[supersane]

There is no way i see this going well. This is something think about every day though, we can talk about it on PM if you like.

 

[Lobstris]

I'll just leave this here. Make of it what you will. http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2015/02/13/peter-molyneux-interview-godus-reputation-kickstarter/

 

[Wavey]

Make your own game then come back and tell me how it went .

 

[Monk]

I would suggest reading the recent interview with Peter Moleneux over at RPS regarding the Godus disaster.

Now, the interviewer pretty much drags him through the thorns but with valid points and questions. I feel for Peter in this, as I feel it shows the problem with Kickstarter and game development. KS, just like being beholden to a publisher, puts you at the pressures and demands of others. Granted, KS backers don't have any real power as the purse strings are never established, its a pledge for a sometime to be finished product, but they do have a lot of voices and a receptive press.

It is incredibly difficult to predict how much money and time you need to complete a game. As the pressure to bring a game to market increases, bad press and frustration follow. Forcing devs to release when they might not be ready.

Now, big publishers, really, have no excuse. Their deep pockets and vast talent pools mean they can churn out quality games. The problem with them though, is the games are driven by dodgy market research, flashy business pitches and a race to the bottom brought on by strong investor involvement.

RSI/CIP did the right thing with Star Citizen...they reached for financial goals that included contingency funding, and they just got way more than they could have expected. They've got big publisher money without the big publisher problems. Now it is a question of whether they hired the right people to put that money to good use...so far so good but it is way too early to pass judgement. (minor judgement, I think there are way too many Hollywood types there for my liking, but that is where Roberts was before starting SC)

Anyway, I don't expect a lot of good discussion to happen in here...though I hope so.

EDIT: Partial ninja...the article I referring to is up a couple posts

EDIT2: I'd also add, there is a new direction happening in game development...I think that direction is towards an industry that is better for the consumer but there are going to be lots of pains and mistakes getting there

 

[Jukelo]

Make your own game then come back and tell me how it went .

Does it also mean none of us should have the right to vote since virtually nobody here has any experience running a country, and therefore we should just shut up and not express our expectations, our concerns and our disappointments?

 

[BrewerGeorge]

I think I miss the old days when the people who were unhappy with a game just stopped playing it.

Now they take to the forums to sour other people's experience to vindicate their own unhappiness.

 

[Wavey]

Does it also mean none of us should have the right to vote since virtually nobody here has any experience running a country, and therefore we should just shut up and not express our expectations, our concerns and our disappointments?

No it means dont vote for anyone as they dont have a clue and have never had a real job anyway .That has nothing at to do with what i said ....the OP made a lot of criticisms and i asked him to make his own game .Quite a valid point as then he would have experience to back up his post

 

[DrDeathO5]

It is a matter of marketing, building the hype while at the same time keep enough stuff open to always have an excuse.
Every gaming company can get away with it because well people like to dream... and people refuse to face reality and instead they always grasp the last bit of hope that is available.

The next game is always bigger/better then life.... while in reality gaming companies develop easy game-play mechanics / numbed down AI to give the avarege player instant satisfaction.
I like simulators or games with some gameplay depth and a proper challenge like ARMAIII / Iracing / DCS World...
I thought that maybe Elite was going to fall into that same categorie but it is not much different then the average MMO (only for space-fans) with an emphasis on grinding/trading.

 

[Monk]

I think I miss the old days when the people who were unhappy with a game just stopped playing it.

Now they take to the forums to sour other people's experience to vindicate their own unhappiness.

And when was that? I've been posting on gaming BBSs since the days of Tie Fighter (20 years ago). Though, there were rarely official forums like we have today. The whining and trolling was already around.

I do wish folks would just go away. However, people have to justify their existence somehow, and when you don't leave your home for weeks at time, the only people you can vent to are on the internet. Go figure...

 

[Cmdr Pli55ken]

I would separate game development from software develoment because utility softwares have to provide exactly the same quality they are aiming otherwise it's just useless all in one. There1s no room for error in using databases, account manager softwares, etc. That's business and nobody tolerates undelivered and buggy visions.

Working on utility software development i can tell you that you're wrong on this. Utility software is no more 'bug free' than game software on release. This has to do with the increasing complexity of software which leads to the inability to test every combination of settings/hardware platfroms/user workflows. Gaming software like Elite is alctually much worse off because in utility software you can shoehorn the user somewhat into a very limited number of workflows (or at least make the workflows very separate from each other and put them in different modules). With something like ED? No chance.

Youi have to juggle a number of factors on release, and not all of these are purely "does the software work?". There's considerations when to release (with regard to competitors). A buggy, but basically functional software now - when no competitor is on the market - sells. A perfect software later - when everyone has bought the software by a buggy early releaser - not so much. For games it's even worse, since on top of that there are critical release slots (e.g. christmas season).

Then there's the backlog. You always have more bugs/issues than developers can handle. If you wait for everything to be fixed you will never release. So you set quality goals by priority
- how many crashes/freezes are acceptable? (usually zero)
- how many potentialy worflow breaking issues are allowed upon release? (should be a low number)
- how many vexing issues exist, but which the user can work around without too much hassle? (low priority. This can be a rather high number)
- how many cosmetic bugs exist? (the number here is usually extremely high - and these mostly don't count towards the quality goal)

So you work towards the quality goal and upon the deadline you evaluate whether you've reached it (usually not - that's when the discussions start whether to delay code freeze or accept the additional issues. At this point it's all marketing and the Devs have very little say)
Then you go into rounds of testing, each consisting of test, and then a period of bugfixing (with a new quality goal, as above) and a code freeze. But you can't do that indefinitely, either, because you'll run out of money.

So the reality in the software industry is (everywhere. games or utility software): Release early - release often.
The times when you could just write a game to a disc, sell it, and forget about it are gone.

 

[Twelvefield]

Does it also mean none of us should have the right to vote since virtually nobody here has any experience running a country, and therefore we should just shut up and not express our expectations, our concerns and our disappointments?

Like Starship Troopers? Earn your citizenship! Honestly, that has a lot of appeal, especially with Denise Richards in a short skirt!

Big gaming studios are slowly on the way out, I think. The big money is in engine licensing, but the big cost is in engine development. The big studios all have A,B,C. resources. They don't go around saying, I want to make a game about space aliens and a plucky Earth lad who comes to the rescue of a beautiful space princes (Steven Spielberg's infamous LMNO disaster, I am looking at you!). What they do say is, we have A,B, and C resources, let's find a way of making this engine sell. Whatever else is just gravy: story, artwork, music, players, whatever.

It's the indie developers that are making the best games now, look at GOG or STEAM. There is a fine line between budget and quality that these guys strive for because they have to build quality into their games rather than rely on engine royalties. However, if you can't or won't be bothered to search out this sweet spot, you can always make a game for a phone, and that's the biggest thing going right now. You gotta bet there's some Spock-Ears out there with his iPhone going, dadgummit, why cain't I play Elite on this here thang? Elite: Killer App will likely be a thing sooner or later; Elite 1984 should play on a phone no problem once you make the port.

 

[supersane]

that RPS article was every dev's nightmare no question. he earned it, but it's still paneful

 

[Monk]

@Twelvefield

I don't think the big dogs are going anywhere anytime soon. Say what you will about their behavior, but they still hold all the chips. Especially with console games, where all the big money is at.

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

that RPS article was every dev's nightmare no question. he earned it, but it's still paneful

I felt so bad for him. Made me rethink the floggings I got as a project leader for some web apps. Getting screamed at by a VP for 5 minutes is nothing compared to what he is going through...yuck

 

[supersane]

they are bleeding money, like uncontrollably. it will fall faster than you think. they also tend to have 6 receptionists and stainless steel everything. unsustainable. once you devalue a media in the mind of the consumer it kinda changes the game ( industry ) permanently. smart ppl will buy pc's, regular people will steal.

 

[Ytheleus]

I would like to see the game industry to get the responsibility and quality back like in every other industries. But that won't happen if the baseline of the overall reception of a RELEASED game is contaminated by the act of cooperating with the failures and converting them to excuses. That is a feedback which makes the quality of game development falling. In five years most of us will have to be happy with anything moving on a screen and called a game. And even then there'll be players satisfied and sending me away to play something else. Or use my imagination. Or whatever...
It's not beneficial for any of us however some of us are not aware of this.

What do you think?

I think you can't possibly know which people are aware of what, or dictate how people will judge something as subjective as a game. I think you are trying to elevate your opinion to the status of fact.
I think you can't apply arbitrary standards of completeness to modern games since they are increasingly in perpetual development, until they are not.

This is particularly true of crowd funded games, where backers and buyers explicitly take risks and rely on the competence of developers. If you feel FD has broken a contract with you, you are entitled to seek redress in whichever jurisdiction applies. Alternatively, if you entered an agreement with FD based on insufficient evidence of their competence, you are the responsible party. Caveat emptor.

Personally I have few doubts about FD's competence, speed of development can always be faster because we all want miracles yesterday for free.
Disappointment cannot be avoided in games because we tire of them. It is only when we seek to blame the developers for our gadfly attention spans that we begin to delude ourselves.

For the money I paid as a backer, this is one of the best games I've played in terms of return on investment and I am confident that I will get more value in future. This is not the same as being a fanboi, it is an assessment I am as entitled to make as you are. Not everything can be defined in black and white terms. 'Finished' is meaningless in this context. As for feedback, you can hardly argue that there's no mechanism in place for it.

Perhaps in future you might label your opinion as such more clearly, and be aware that perfectly rational people might have good reasons to disagree with you.

So when you say 'some of us are not aware of this', I take this to mean 'some people fail to think in the correct manner', which is ridiculous in questions of personal taste.

 

[Simon853]

I would separate game development from software develoment because utility softwares have to provide exactly the same quality they are aiming otherwise it's just useless all in one. There1s no room for error in using databases, account manager softwares, etc. That's business and nobody tolerates undelivered and buggy visions.

If only! I use business software and development tools every day that have bugs. I lose documents, spreadsheets, source code, etc. all the time if I don't save my work regularly. I've even had publishers want me to take out a support contract (beyond the purchase prices) even before they'd accept a bug report for a repeatable crash. (you'd think they'd be glad for it..)

The truth is business software is an order of magnitude more buggy and less reliable than most games. And don't even get me started on the bespoke software systems that us tax payers foot the bill for. You'd be shocked at how bad a lot of software for military platforms is.

 

[Rolands]

Lower your expectations and everything will be fine.

 

[BrewerGeorge]

...

The truth is business software is an order of magnitude more buggy and less reliable than most games. And don't even get me started on the bespoke software systems that us tax payers foot the bill for. You'd be shocked at how bad a lot of software for military platforms is.

Yup

45678

 

[medwyn]

Working on utility software development i can tell you that you're wrong on this. Utility software is no more 'bug free' than game software on release. This has to do with the increasing complexity of software which leads to the inability to test every combination of settings/hardware platfroms/user workflows. Gaming software like Elite is alctually much worse off because in utility software you can shoehorn the user somewhat into a very limited number of workflows (or at least make the workflows very separate from each other and put them in different modules). With something like ED? No chance.

Youi have to juggle a number of factors on release, and not all of these are purely "does the software work?". There's considerations when to release (with regard to competitors). A buggy, but basically functional software now - when no competitor is on the market - sells. A perfect software later - when everyone has bought the software by a buggy early releaser - not so much. For games it's even worse, since on top of that there are critical release slots (e.g. christmas season).

Then there's the backlog. You always have more bugs/issues than developers can handle. If you wait for everything to be fixed you will never release. So you set quality goals by priority
- how many crashes/freezes are acceptable? (usually zero)
- how many potentialy worflow breaking issues are allowed upon release? (should be a low number)
- how many vexing issues exist, but which the user can work around without too much hassle? (low priority. This can be a rather high number)
- how many cosmetic bugs exist? (the number here is usually extremely high - and these mostly don't count towards the quality goal)

So you work towards the quality goal and upon the deadline you evaluate whether you've reached it (usually not - that's when the discussions start whether to delay code freeze or accept the additional issues. At this point it's all marketing and the Devs have very little say)
Then you go into rounds of testing, each consisting of test, and then a period of bugfixing (with a new quality goal, as above) and a code freeze. But you can't do that indefinitely, either, because you'll run out of money.

So the reality in the software industry is (everywhere. games or utility software): Release early - release often.
The times when you could just write a game to a disc, sell it, and forget about it are gone.

Thank you for the detailed insight.
It does not warm my heart up though
Seeing the overall drop of quality because the business part of production is becoming overwhelmingly the first and last consideration (even on games which are about fun and joy and creativity) draws a sad future of the whole concept.
But I still see the opportunity to be able to give proper feedback through our purchase habits. This was the one and only pre-purchase in my life (thanks to the original Elite and all the fish) but I'll never make it again.
I usually wait for the first couple of reviews and patches when I buy games and I already learned how not to support unsatisfactory development (like I didn't buy a couple of tasty and long awaited titles last year - fortunately as they all turned to be much lower in quality than how they've been advertised).
I guess if another consumer habit could arise with more consciousness behind the "buy now" button, the devs would also have to regroup behind a more reliable approach.