Question for those in the know...

[Segagendude]

I'm guessing this is as good a place as any to post this...

I've always wondered why games that have yearly releases seemingly have the same bugs/glitches as previous editions. For example---- a game's released. There's a glaring issue that gets patched. The following year, that same issue appears again. And another patch gets released. And so on....

Ok, so if you're a developer, and are aware of an issue that needed patched, can't you just make sure it doesn't happen again by reviewing the code or whatever?

Let's say you're a car maker. Your 2010 model car has a faulty part that needs recalled. Would you put that same part in the 2011 model? Of course not. You'd analyze what happened and take steps to not let it happen again.

So why can't game companies do this? Seems every year, no matter the game, I see threads pop up like this:
"I see ________is back. This has been prevelant in the series since (year). Why can't (developer) ever get this right!?"

I've been curious about this for some time now. Wondering if anybody out there who has knowledge of game programming can shed light on this?

And I'm not singling out any particular company, so please don't use this thread to bash.

Thanks!

[The GIGGAS]

Re: Question for those in the know...

I'm guessing this is as good a place as any to post this...

I've always wondered why games that have yearly releases seemingly have the same bugs/glitches as previous editions. For example---- a game's released. There's a glaring issue that gets patched. The following year, that same issue appears again. And another patch gets released. And so on....

Ok, so if you're a developer, and are aware of an issue that needed patched, can't you just make sure it doesn't happen again by reviewing the code or whatever?

Let's say you're a car maker. Your 2010 model car has a faulty part that needs recalled. Would you put that same part in the 2011 model? Of course not. You'd analyze what happened and take steps to not let it happen again.

So why can't game companies do this? Seems every year, no matter the game, I see threads pop up like this:
"I see ________is back. This has been prevelant in the series since (year). Why can't (developer) ever get this right!?"

I've been curious about this for some time now. Wondering if anybody out there who has knowledge of game programming can shed light on this?

And I'm not singling out any particular company, so please don't use this thread to bash.

Thanks!

Well, as a developer, here's how I understand development to work on projects.

You've got a source control system (we'll just call it SVN because it's a short name and a the industry standard). In SVN, you've got all of your code. You write some code, and commit it to the repository. When you release your software, you basically branch that now completed and shipped code into a tag or a branch, which is basically saying: this is the code that was shipped.

If you make a patch, you make changes to that branch. Now the thing is, developers are supposed to remember to pull that change from the branch to the current "trunk" (latest and greatest code).

Sometimes this is forgotten (I've had to remind my colleagues of this at times), and can lead to regressions.

I don't write games, though, so it could be different in game development.

[aholbert32]

Re: Question for those in the know...

I'm guessing this is as good a place as any to post this...

I've always wondered why games that have yearly releases seemingly have the same bugs/glitches as previous editions. For example---- a game's released. There's a glaring issue that gets patched. The following year, that same issue appears again. And another patch gets released. And so on....

Ok, so if you're a developer, and are aware of an issue that needed patched, can't you just make sure it doesn't happen again by reviewing the code or whatever?

Let's say you're a car maker. Your 2010 model car has a faulty part that needs recalled. Would you put that same part in the 2011 model? Of course not. You'd analyze what happened and take steps to not let it happen again.

So why can't game companies do this? Seems every year, no matter the game, I see threads pop up like this:
"I see ________is back. This has been prevelant in the series since (year). Why can't (developer) ever get this right!?"

I've been curious about this for some time now. Wondering if anybody out there who has knowledge of game programming can shed light on this?

And I'm not singling out any particular company, so please don't use this thread to bash.

Thanks!

Couple of issues with this entire post:

1) Your definition of "glaring" may be different than what game companies or other people may be. Ive seen people on this site call things like wrong shows or accessories as "glaring issues".

2) The car analogy doesnt work. If my brakes are faulty because of a defect, that leaves the car company open to potential lawsuits and damages if an injury occurs related to that defect. For that reason, there is way more urgency for a car company to fix an issue than a game company.

3) New features sell games not fixes. What looks better on the back of a box "New Franchise Mode!" or "Pass Interference Calls Fixed!". I say the first one and most people would agree. Thats why game companies focus more on adding features.

4) Ive talked to several game devs about this and they say adding new features can cause new bugs or glitch things that werent broken before. Take NBA2k11. NBA 2k10's Custom Music function worked great after the first patch so you would assume it would work in 2k11. Wrong! They made a few tweaks to the function and the sound in general and now there are new bugs.

[Crimsontide27]

Re: Question for those in the know...

I have a somewhat insider knowledge on a company that releases games on a yearly basis and its actually encouraged to regress in certain aspects of the game so there is always the illusion of making the product better down the line.

In one paticular meeting, The Show was featured on what to..and what not to do. The bottom line and keynote of the whole meeting was that you dont want to make a product as flawless as possible because you hurt yourselves with future releases and expectations down the line. A very disturbing analog was used to demonstrate the point and that was certain controlled substances. You could find someone to give you a small sample to get you hooked and afterwards you would do anything possible to continue getting your fix.

Yearly titles fall into that category. Issues are left unfixed for a reason, and that is to get you to want to buy the next years title "knowing" that whatever issue you had and was patched will be fixed. This forum is proof that this analogy has a firm foundation. No matter what is not fixed and how many people say there is no way they are buying " X " title , they still go and get it anyways in hopes it would be better than the previous year.

Dont expect this to change. One company is already learning that putting out a very high quality annual title has actually led to missing game sales forcasts even with the market share of player bases increasing on a yearly basis.

[fistofrage]

Re: Question for those in the know...

I have a somewhat insider knowledge on a company that releases games on a yearly basis and its actually encouraged to regress in certain aspects of the game so there is always the illusion of making the product better down the line.

In one paticular meeting, The Show was featured on what to..and what not to do. The bottom line and keynote of the whole meeting was that you dont want to make a product as flawless as possible because you hurt yourselves with future releases and expectations down the line. A very disturbing analog was used to demonstrate the point and that was certain controlled substances. You could find someone to give you a small sample to get you hooked and afterwards you would do anything possible to continue getting your fix.

Yearly titles fall into that category. Issues are left unfixed for a reason, and that is to get you to want to buy the next years title "knowing" that whatever issue you had and was patched will be fixed. This forum is proof that this analogy has a firm foundation. No matter what is not fixed and how many people say there is no way they are buying " X " title , they still go and get it anyways in hopes it would be better than the previous year.

Dont expect this to change. One company is already learning that putting out a very high quality annual title has actually led to missing game sales forcasts even with the market share of player bases increasing on a yearly basis.

Well EA has specifically broke some items that were working just fine. It happens with such regularity that it couldn't possibly be an accident. Even this year they had QB accuracy just fine, along comes tuner #2...F*&^*(&^! Robo QB is back again.

I also play PC games and the things that the modders can do with some of those games is fantastic, but there is just enough annoying things that they leave hardcoded that you will go back for the next version. I understand keeping your source code private, but its specifically things that would appear to be an easy fix that they leave broken, it almost seems intentional.

I would say though that I bought the SHow 2009 and it was good enough that I didn't have to buy 2010. So they probably have a point. I will buy 2011 though. But NCAA football ends up being subpar every year, and just like a dog returns to his own vomit and fool to his folly, I buy NCAA every year.

[Gotmadskillzson]

Re: Question for those in the know...

Videogames is business, like any other business. If you make a product PERFECT, then nobody will ever go out to buy the newer version of it. Look at german made cars and look at american made cars. German cars are built to last, where as american cars aren't.

Same thing with the roads. German roads rarely get potholes, they build their roads with better material for it can last longer. American roads are built with cheap material, therefore keeping constuction workers in business because they have to re-do the same damn road EVERY year.

I mean if they wanted to make stuff perfect they could, but then they won't make any money anymore. Why you think appliances from the 50s and 60s are still working today, but stuff you buy now only lasts a couple of years or so ?

[DrJones]

Re: Question for those in the know...

I've put out 15 or so titles (mostly baseball games at EA). Much like others have said, these are the two main reasons why this happens:

1. Fixing certain bugs cause more trouble than they're worth. In the old Triple Play games, there were plenty of long-running bugs that needed to get fixed, but the code was like a Jenga set. Fix one bug, another five bugs are created. A big fix is necessary to correct a (relatively) small bug or issue, and there's no time. The original code was written for a different platform by someone no longer at the company, so the programmer is navigating a minefield, that kind of thing. It took an excruciating amount of time and effort to put out games that weren't significantly better from the year before. Very frustrating.

2. Execs want new flashy features to be pimped. Improving gameplay/fixing lingering bugs doesn't appeal to them, because a.) many of them are business/marketing types that aren't particularly interested in playing the games themselves, and b.) it's an admittal of failure. (Answering "Why wasn't Gameplay Problem A fixed last year?" with "Because we spent all our energy doing Stupid New Feature B as you demanded." doesn't go very well with higher-ups.). As a result, there's little time set aside for such fixes/improvements, and devs have to do so on the sly (which is pretty much what happened with MVP 2005).

As for the whole, "We'll deliberately withhold features/fixes in order to save something for next year," I've never encountered such a thing, though it's certainly possible. Every cut feature on every game I've ever worked on has been removed because a.) it turns out the feature sucked, or b.) we don't have time to execute this feature properly/at all. If there were meetings where people put up their feet, smoke cigars, and plot how they're going to screw the consumer over by deliberately withholding features so they can add them next year, I was never invited.

[DrJones]

Re: Question for those in the know...

I have a somewhat insider knowledge on a company that releases games on a yearly basis and its actually encouraged to regress in certain aspects of the game so there is always the illusion of making the product better down the line.

In one paticular meeting, The Show was featured on what to..and what not to do. The bottom line and keynote of the whole meeting was that you dont want to make a product as flawless as possible because you hurt yourselves with future releases and expectations down the line. A very disturbing analog was used to demonstrate the point and that was certain controlled substances. You could find someone to give you a small sample to get you hooked and afterwards you would do anything possible to continue getting your fix.

Yearly titles fall into that category. Issues are left unfixed for a reason, and that is to get you to want to buy the next years title "knowing" that whatever issue you had and was patched will be fixed. This forum is proof that this analogy has a firm foundation. No matter what is not fixed and how many people say there is no way they are buying " X " title , they still go and get it anyways in hopes it would be better than the previous year.

I've never come across anything as Machiavellian as this. Horrifying if true.

[CMH]

Re: Question for those in the know...

I think Dr. Jones's experience with Triple Play is a lot of what consumers are seeing with the Madden product.

As mentioned previously, they fix one thing but suddenly a nagging issue pops up again. I would imagine that developers have less time putting out a patch then they do developing a game for the year. Everyone knows that when you fix one thing it can usually mean trouble everywhere else.

I've seen that happen to me numerous amount of times during web and graphic design work. A certain font doesn't work? Well, lets fix it, but wait, that means everything else needs to be redone too because now the formatting is off, things need to be moved around, etc. I'm in a constant back-and-forth (not arguing, just conversation) with my boss on the reality of getting something "fixed" without hurting a deadline. Some things you just have to live with and I know for a fact that I will web or graphic design in a way that is efficient for the project but not necessarily for the long term. The long term requires more man hours that I simply do not have because of the mounting projects. So, we take short cuts. It looks the same, but the code isn't the best.

I'm not saying that game companies do this on purpose to screw anyone. I don't do it to screw our clients or ourselves (as a lot of the work is for our own marketing). I do it because it gets the job done and if I need to fix it later, I'll worry about it then. Right now, it needs to get done and this is the quickest way to do it even if it is the worst way.

[ab713]

Re: Question for those in the know...

I've put out 15 or so titles (mostly baseball games at EA). Much like others have said, these are the two main reasons why this happens:

1. Fixing certain bugs cause more trouble than they're worth. In the old Triple Play games, there were plenty of long-running bugs that needed to get fixed, but the code was like a Jenga set. Fix one bug, another five bugs are created. A big fix is necessary to correct a (relatively) small bug or issue, and there's no time. The original code was written for a different platform by someone no longer at the company, so the programmer is navigating a minefield, that kind of thing. It took an excruciating amount of time and effort to put out games that weren't significantly better from the year before. Very frustrating.

2. Execs want new flashy features to be pimped. Improving gameplay/fixing lingering bugs doesn't appeal to them, because a.) many of them are business/marketing types that aren't particularly interested in playing the games themselves, and b.) it's an admittal of failure. (Answering "Why wasn't Gameplay Problem A fixed last year?" with "Because we spent all our energy doing Stupid New Feature B as you demanded." doesn't go very well with higher-ups.). As a result, there's little time set aside for such fixes/improvements, and devs have to do so on the sly (which is pretty much what happened with MVP 2005).

As for the whole, "We'll deliberately withhold features/fixes in order to save something for next year," I've never encountered such a thing, though it's certainly possible. Every cut feature on every game I've ever worked on has been removed because a.) it turns out the feature sucked, or b.) we don't have time to execute this feature properly/at all. If there were meetings where people put up their feet, smoke cigars, and plot how they're going to screw the consumer over by deliberately withholding features so they can add them next year, I was never invited.

Having worked on a major title, this is exactly my experience.

[DrJones]

Re: Question for those in the know...

And in the end, it leads to days like yesterday, when good people lost their jobs because of mistakes made by the people firing them. Hooray for the gaming industry!

[CMH]

Re: Question for those in the know...

Unfortunate news for that development team. I hope all of them are able to find jobs quickly.

[Buckeyes_Doc]

Re: Question for those in the know...

And in the end, it leads to days like yesterday, when good people lost their jobs because of mistakes made by the people firing them. Hooray for the gaming industry!

What happened there?

[DrJones]

Re: Question for those in the know...

What happened there?

100+ laid off at EAC on Wednesday. Mainly NBA, Skate, and Active.