Announcement

**deleted** · January 28, 2001, 01:47

Great Article. I hope that everyone gets a chance to reads it. And if anyone gets the chance to read a comprehensive list supplied by PCData, they'll begin to understand the gaming industry; and understand the decisions made by gaming companies before shooting thier mouth off. I've done this a few time;-).
[This message has been edited by deleted (edited January 28, 2001).]

**MidKnight Lament** · January 28, 2001, 02:12

A well measured and informative article. Thanks for going to the trouble of getting it all down.

------------------
- MKL ... "And a sun that doesn't set but settles" - Augie March
Shameless Plug: http://www.poetic-license.org ............. All welcome.

**raingoon** · January 28, 2001, 06:12

Great article -- very lucid. Thanks for the insights!

**JimMac** · January 28, 2001, 07:04

Yes, thanks Pyaray for an article well worth reading.

When the average fan, well.. me anyway, naively starts to believe that the over-riding concern of game makers is to produce (and support if necessary as some matter of honour or pride) an enjoyable game, it is useful to be reminded of the importance that profit plays in the real world.

Interesting editorial decision Dan,- to place the comment thread in the Civ2 forum rather than in the CTP2. Heh..

Jim

**MarkG** · January 28, 2001, 07:55

threads for general gaming articles like this are placed here cause this still remains the "Community" forum

further more, if we didnt follow this and put in the ctp2 forum it would contradict with the wish of the author to make it clear that the article has nothing to do with ctp2

**Snapcase on Snapcase** · January 28, 2001, 10:26

It should really be in the "Other Games" forum or the "Apolyton" forum, I would think...

**CapTVK** · January 28, 2001, 10:59

A well written personal observation of how game software is published. (for the record: there's an important financial reason why software MUST be published before the year is over.
-quarterly results-, lower revenues during the christmas season are deadly for your stockprice)

I'll write a more detailed response to this later.

**Bereta_Eder** · January 28, 2001, 16:39

Very Interesting. I knew the game industry was a big market but now I know the money that are needed for development are, well, a lot! thus the hard decisions.

Thanx for the article, very informative.

**MarkG** · January 28, 2001, 16:52

got this mail from someone named Donnie

quote:

Interesting article. It gets right to the point of the business decision aspect of software design. I'm not sure all gamers will understand the need to treat software development as a series of business decisions. I have been involved with the development of military software since before we had computer scientists. You know, machine code and assembler. We are driven by "perfect" software parameters. Bugs are not acceptable when you are dealing with real missiles and bombs. Therefore, we tend to deliver the type of software that gamers seem to expect from the game industry. What they don't understand is that to do this we require large software teams and budgets that are between 10 and 100 times larger than the budgets that you mentioned for equivalent sized programs.

**Pyaray** · January 28, 2001, 18:22

quote:

Interesting article. It gets right to the point of the business decision aspect of software design. I'm not sure all gamers will understand the need to treat software development as a series of business decisions. I have been involved with the development of military software since before we had computer scientists. You know, machine code and assembler. We are driven by "perfect" software parameters. Bugs are not acceptable when you are dealing with real missiles and bombs. Therefore, we tend to deliver the type of software that gamers seem to expect from the game industry. What they don't understand is that to do this we require large software teams and budgets that are between 10 and 100 times larger than the budgets that you mentioned for equivalent sized programs.

Ooh, need to comment on this one.

Since not everyone knows this, and matter of fact most of the people in this forum probably do not. My background is Aerospace. I used to work ground support for the Space Shuttle. That is another place where there is ZERO bug tolerance. And where projects I worked on cost tens of millions to hundreds of millions of dollars. If someone spent that much time and money developing bug free game, they are nearly 100% guaranteed NOT to get their money back on it.

As an additional note, you'd be amazed at how many ex-aerospace or ex-military people are working in this industry now. So it's not lack of skill on the developers part. It's definately a financial problem.

Pyaray

**War4ever** · January 29, 2001, 02:15

this is a nice bit of information..... however it doesn't soften the blow to consumers. It sounds like i am supposed to feel sorry for the designers when they screw up. I am sorry but at $60+ a game.... i expect minimal bugs......

I can live with the concept not working out.... i can live with too many options in the game making it too slow or clunky...... but come on.... if its a proof reading thing like your insinuating for some of the problems i find this unnaceptable.

Most games are designed towards kids , teens, and young adults..... do you think kids can affoard to pay and support your $60 mistakes.

I used to cringe at buying a cd for $20 and only liking one song.... its even worse in the gaming industry and at a higher cost.

And any company making games should IMO try to fix games with at least one patch..... as we know almost every game comes buggy.

I realize this sounds harsh.... and perhaps i am not being realistic.... but burn me once.... like activision did with CTP1 and you can bet i won't buy CTP2 or any other game by activision.

Instead.... because of my anger at a being ripped off, i will burn someone elses copy or download one from the net.

Releasing crappy product only further perpetrates software theft IMO..... if you release quality instead of quantity i would think software theft would decline.

As it stands now...... i won't buy any product until i have pirated a copy for myself first..... i refuse to waste my hard earned dollars on crap.

I know this practice is wrong.... but i cannot affoard to purchase "software mistakes"

Anyways great article...... just letting you know this particular consumers angst with "no offical company"

**Pyaray** · January 29, 2001, 04:22

quote:

Originally posted by War4ever on 01-29-2001 01:15 AM
this is a nice bit of information..... however it doesn't soften the blow to consumers. It sounds like i am supposed to feel sorry for the designers when they screw up. I am sorry but at $60+ a game.... i expect minimal bugs......

No, it shouldn't "soften the blow" as it were. That article was meant to explain why it happens. The main thing I want people to get out of it is that when game companies make decisions like that it's not because they're out to "screw the consumer". They're not. They really don't like making those kinds of decisions. What I wanted people to understand in that article is that it's not personal. People often assume that the companies are out to get them, and that's simply not the case.

Personally I won't buy a game that at least 2 of my friends haven't recommended, or that I've tried. I don't pirate to try games out, but I do have enough friends that play games that I can borrow just about anything I want for a weekend or two.

Pyaray

**East Street Trader** · January 29, 2001, 14:05

I'm glad there is a gaming industry and that talented people like you, Pyaray, work in it.

But I'm with War4ever on this.

It is simply not on for a manufacturer to produce a defective product and then offer it for sale as though it is fit for its purpose and of the quality you expect from goods offered for sale.

That is as true for a computer game as it is for a motor car, a pot, a pan, a table or a chair.

And a manufacturer - or an industry - which ignores this will not last long.

I bought Braveheart when it came out. It has much in it to admire. But admiration does not survive the fact that it is impossible to play the game through to a conclusion and the most ambitious bits just won't run at all.

At the time I bought it one of the designer's (a really nice and honest sort of bloke) was responding to questions about the game's problems on a chat board and I thought, oh well, there'll be a patch.

But after a bit it became clear that there would be no patch. The tone of what was said by the nice designer got more and more apologetic and then he stopped posting.

Now, having an unplayable game for which I have payed money is irksome and I feel conned and insulted by Eidos. It is only because I am lazy that I do not sue.

They did not say, when the game was on the shelf and my money had not yet been transferred to their pocket, that the game is incomplete because their budget ran out on them.

How would it be for a motor car manufacturer to say, well I'm not sure the brakes work (in fact, I know they don't) but I've run out of development money so I must put the cars into production or I can't start taking people's money?

And for motor car substitute any good.

I will not readily buy another Eidos product and I am no longer part of the initial market for any game. Nowadays I patiently wait until there are some websites from which I can glean information about how buggy a game is and see whether the developer will support it with a patch or two. It is only when I am confident that the game can be played that I become a prospective purchaser.

The answer seems to me for manufacturers to be more realistic with the development budget. And cut down on the complexity of the games.

If withdrawing myself from the initial market means that businessmen make lower and lower estimates of their sales, spending less and less on development and releasing more rubbish - well so be it. I will give up gaming cheerfully if the alternative is to feed money to people who think they can sell rubbish just because it will recover them the bucks they have invested in that rubbish.

I don't buy other duff products and see no reason to make an exception with computer games.

If the industry produces nothing more it will deserve remembrance for Civ2, SimCity and Theme Park alone. But I hope one or two companies with a belief in good mercantile reputation and staying power get established.

They won't have staying power if they do not concentrate on good repute.

**MarkG** · January 29, 2001, 14:34

another mail

quote:

Hi Mark,

The last paragraphs on Bugs in David's article are Hogwash. Looking at the history of CTP1 & 2, serious bugs have cost large unit sales losses. Serious bugs can be defined as either crash type or features that don't work as intended type. It is obvious that neither of these games were seriously tested before going 'gold'.

I've been a project leader in significant Hi-tech products involving hard and soft-ware. Firstly, it is true that all software has bugs, but the amount is directly related to the competence of the software design and management team. Most software people are creative and use good code design techniques. But, with experience and training, they gain the knowledge of how to produce bug free code. I believe training is minimal in the video game industry because of the high turnover rate and fast track projects. Also, the whole team has to test the product after the first internal release. Primarily this testing should take place at the customers point of view and not just reading the lines of code in a large printout. (Note: feature improvements must be frozen) Up front, individual people should be held responsible for their code and for the feature area they tested. Using these kind of techniques will minimize the amount of serious software bugs that end up in the product.

Lastly, bugs need to be planned for by project management. Estimates on the amount and seriousness should be done as soon as the team is assembled. This should be added to the project timeline. Also, it should be made clear to upper management that the amount and seriousness of the bugs is a primary concern.

Serious bugs that get out the door are one of the primary reasons a product may not meet sales targets.

Dennis_caver

Announcement

Column #151; By David "Pyaray" Ray

Column #151; By David "Pyaray" Ray

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment