developing a game after it goes gold

[nokhor]

i've always kinda assumed that developers continue to develop their games after the vanilla, market version 1.0 is released. i mean its what they do for a living, and once the cutoff time for the finished product has been reached, they stop adding stuff to the thing that will be released to the public. but that they continue tinkering with their in-house versions when they have some free time, or in between projects, adding more options but probably having a less stable game. so that unlike the gamer, who gets to see maybe 4 different builds of the game; demo, vanilla, patch, expansion; the developers play with dozens of different versions even after it goes gold and never spend a huge chunk of time on a specific build like we do.


for those of you who work for CA or another developer or anyone else in the know, is my analysis correct or am i way off base?

[Khorak]

I don't see why they'd do that. After a hard days coding, who the heck would want to wander off in their free time and....start coding?

[nokem]

As a coder I usually find by the time my software ships I'm already sick to death of it and can only think about the next project.

When you start a new project - especially game development - you're working with the very latest, usually pre-release technology. By the end, it's might be 2-3 years out of date and you want to move on to the latest cool stuff.

[drone]

This will depend on the management. They generally don't like paying people's salaries unless there is some point. If the company plans on taking the game further (expansion or engine licensing), they will probably assign some developers to continue tweaking. Otherwise, I think the game gets bug support only.

Developers in their "free time" (after hours) may want to try things out. In this case, the developers must be careful with the Configuration Management process (baselining code), anything they change cannot be checked in. Essentially they will need their own copy of the code and build area. Generally, this is a big PITA, and if they do get the managerial go ahead to check things in, they have to worry about merging files with support patches, testing, etc.

The only reason I can see this happening is if a developer is really attached to the game, and maybe slightly disappointed in the end result.

[tombom]

I don't see why they'd do that. After a hard days coding, who the heck would want to wander off in their free time and....start coding?

Well, Johan from paradox codes EUII beta patches in his spare time - that's mainly becuase he likes to play MP though.

[Ar7]

A very good example of developing a game years after it's release is Neverwinter Nights. It was released in 2002 and they continue to add things until today, releasing new campaigns and patches ( the resent one came out about a month ago ). It still remains a very popular game and I myself play in a persistant world based on NWN. They do not go with one patch...

[Turbo]

A very good example of developing a game years after it's release is Neverwinter Nights. It was released in 2002 and they continue to add things until today, releasing new campaigns and patches ( the resent one came out about a month ago ). It still remains a very popular game and I myself play in a persistant world based on NWN. They do not go with one patch...

Interesting isn't it that CA has convinced users to be grateful for any patch and the large number of users that grovel accordingly.

[Ar7]

Another interesting thing is that they are currently working on a major project - NWN 2 and I think they need all they manpower they can get, though still find the resources to keep their customers satisfied while they make the new game. I guess it is just different marketing strategies *shrugs*

[drone]

Interesting isn't it that CA has convinced users to be grateful for any patch and the large number of users that grovel accordingly.

I don't think it's CA's call here, but Activision's.

Neverwinter Nights is an excellent example of ongoing developement. I think Bioware put a lot of work into the original, and knew from the start that they would be releasing multiple expansions. They were constantly putting out updates, and even integrated a patch upgrade utility into the game. And because they knew they were going to continue creating expansion packs, the developers got support from management.

If Activision plans on selling multiple expansions to R:TW, they would be wise to follow this example. From a cost standpoint, expansion packs for popular games are like free money, with relatively low risk. The bulk of the coding is already finished, all that needs to be done is to integrate new features, create the new artwork, fix known bugs, and test. Expansions also have the advantage of lots of "beta" testers, who paid for the privilege of testing the original game.

[ShellShock]

I think CA will continue to work on the core RTW engine for some time, both for expansions and the next full Total War game, as they have already invested so much time in it in going to full 3D, and it has a lot of scope left.

In theory it should be possible for modders to retro fit the improved engine into the existing RTW game, so we could continue to play essentially the same game (units, buildings, map etc) but with a better engine (improved AI, diplomacy etc).

[fret]

They get put 'on the bench'. That is where developers go after the disc is sent to the pressing factory. 'On the bench' is the industry term for 'inbetween projects or project phases'. Also known as holiday/vacation to normal people.

Developers normally continue to get paid while on the bench, albeit a reduced rate. For this reason they dont hang around for long playing with their finished toy.

The stay on the bench until they get a new SPA from their publisher, or they tout around new ideas/concepts to publishers in the hope of getting an SPA signed.

Bear in mind - that work could be taking place on a game for 12 months, maybe longer, before the publisher even begins marketing the title. During this period(and beyond), the small print in the SPA will enforce NDA's on the devleoper prohibiting them from talking about whatever it is they are doing. For this reason, its highly unlikely you will get an employee of CA posting on a message board about what it is they are currently working on.

In this scanario, silence from a developer is usually a good sign, it means they are working on something.

BTW, SPA = Software Publishing Agreement, NDA=Non-Disclosure Agreement

Hope that helps.
fret

[drone]

They get put 'on the bench'. That is where developers go after the disc is sent to the pressing factory. 'On the bench' is the industry term for 'inbetween projects or project phases'. Also known as holiday/vacation to normal people.

Developers normally continue to get paid while on the bench, albeit a reduced rate. For this reason they dont hang around for long playing with their finished toy.

The stay on the bench until they get a new SPA from their publisher, or they tout around new ideas/concepts to publishers in the hope of getting an SPA signed.

Surprised they don't call it "at the pub", because that's where I would be if I finished working long hours on a game title. Especially after hearing the horror stories of EA employees.

[fret]

Especially after hearing the horror stories of EA employees.

Are they directly employed by EA, or part of studio hired by EA to develop a title?

If they are part of a studio, there will be good reason for the horror stories: once the release date is agreed, the studio will be bound by the terms of the SPA and if they fail to deliver before deadline, the fines will start racking up, they are not small either, $6-figures plus probably.

..and EA have good reason for fining them, they cant just send a disc to the pressing factory and say 'run of 1,000,000 copies of this please", factory time must be booked - to coincide with the printing of manuals and boxes, warehousing and distribution. To this end, if the studio fail to meet deadline, EA will lose a fortune.

On top of losing a fortune, their marketing engine will be completely mis-timed - once they have sent the advertising Copy to the magazine publishers (maybe 3 months before it hits the shelf), they cant just cancel the contract. So they have magazines all over the world full of $10000 back-page ads...and no product on the shelf to sell. So if the Studio is late, the marketing climax is mis-timed, and revenues drop further.

This begs the question...

If you are the CEO of a game Studio, with 2 months to go before deadline, but 4 months of work left to do, do you...

A) deliver the finsihed product 2 months late and get penalized with $100,000's fines

or B) make all your company work 16 hours a day for two months to get the finished product to the publisher within terms of the SPA

In order to get 1 million cardboard boxes full of bits of plastic and printed paper, to several countires accross 3 or 4 continents, all within a time-fram of say, 1 month, takes an awful lot, and everything is dependant on the Studio delivering the Gold product before deadline.

That's probably the root cause of the horrer stories

[Spino]

In defense of CA, Bioware had a hell of alot of leverage in dealing with publishers after the phenomenal success of Baldur's Gate and its expansion pack. When they followed it up with Baldur's Gate II, an even bigger seller and considered one of the best rpgs of all time, it became essentially a seller's market for Bioware's properties and ideas. I'm sure all subsequent contracts gave Bioware sweet deals and a great deal of say with regards to content, support, etc.

Shogun and Medieval were huge successes (Shogun sold over 750 thousand copies, Medieval over 1 million) but not the overnight sensations that BG1 & 2 were. Who knows what CA's current contract with Activision is like? If CA is contractually obligated to Activision to make a sequel to Rome and each of these titles wind up selling over 1-1.5 million copies each then CA will have that much more leverage when it comes time to renew the contract or seek a deal elsewhere. However, given the limited patch support we've seen with Medieval and now Rome I doubt CA's contract with Activision is as sweet as we'd like to think it is.

[Kraxis]

No fret, they come from EA themselves, well actually the employees spouses as the workers are afraid. And we are not talkiing about a mere crunch, it is crunchtime alltime.

[drone]

Regarding EA and their studios, I think the situation can get even worse than fret says, since they have to deal with console games as well as PC. Burn those console discs, and pray there are no show-stopper bugs. Vodka, with a milk of magnesium chaser, keep them coming until closing time, be here same time tomorrow...

[Khorak]

In defense of CA, Bioware had a hell of alot of leverage in dealing with publishers after the phenomenal success of Baldur's Gate and its expansion pack. When they followed it up with Baldur's Gate II, an even bigger seller and considered one of the best rpgs of all time, it became essentially a seller's market for Bioware's properties and ideas. I'm sure all subsequent contracts gave Bioware sweet deals and a great deal of say with regards to content, support, etc.

Not to mention Bioware were holding the D&D license, and have practically no competitors in the realm of top town stat-run RPGs. Combined with a quite obvious reputation for extreme quality (they're like Blizzard used to be, it's frightening) and enthusiastic post-release support, any publisher can be pretty much guaranteed a cash cow of massive proportions, complete with craploads of expansions and continued consumer interest through the support Bioware provide. Publishers would be shitting kittens to get their hands on that much moolah.

[fret]

since they have to deal with console games as well as PC. Burn those console discs

This is a very real problem, however, because console development is done on proprietry hardware, the occurance of such show-stopping bugs is a much rarer occurance than in the PC market, which has to cope with an infinate number of combinations of hardware manufacturers and a myriad of varying client specifications.

A 'rushed' console game is more likely to result in a less polished title, rather than a title needing emergency patches.


With regard to gauranteed franchise success and the mega succesful studio's, such a id, Bioware, Valve, Firaxis etc, the draconian measure's forced on them by the publishers still remain, the differance is that the Studio will be able to negotiate a better SPA in the first place - but if they fail to meet the the terms they still get punished the same as the little guys. ie when Firaxis negotiated the Civ3 SPA, they would have bargained for a longer development period mainly, if Joe Bloggs Studio wanted to develop a title, Activision would give them less capital and less time to create the product, wheras id or Firaxis would get more capital funding and a longer deveopment period.

Still, there are very, very, very few people who can arrogantly have the attitude of John Carmack and tell the Activision big-wigs "It will be ready when its ready".

Another consideration with these mega-succesful companies is that much of the work will be contracted out anyway (for example, id never made Return to Castle Wolfenstien, they merely oversaw the development of it in a consultative capacity) in this case, the publisher still has to enforce a draconian regime which is passed down the chain.. Activision pressure id -> id pressure contractor -> and so on.

Ad naseum hell on earth

[Mayfield The Conqueror]

Not to mention Bioware were holding the D&D license, and have practically no competitors in the realm of top town stat-run RPGs. Combined with a quite obvious reputation for extreme quality (they're like Blizzard used to be, it's frightening) and enthusiastic post-release support, any publisher can be pretty much guaranteed a cash cow of massive proportions, complete with craploads of expansions and continued consumer interest through the support Bioware provide. Publishers would be shitting kittens to get their hands on that much moolah.

That and no one makes RPG's anymore.. can you name 3 that were released for the PC in 2004? They are considered the #1 RPG maker and they can basically do what they want.

And correction: NWN 2 is being developed by another studio for Bioware. Bioware is currently developing another RPG called Jade Empire.

No one has mentioned the obvious restrictions for this game.. this game was marketed and hyped more than any strategy game I have ever seen. With the History Channel tie ins as well as commercials the publisher had a lot riding on the game being released about the same time that the marketing hype hit. The marketers must have planned all of this a year in advance, and the developer (CA) probably had to have pretty hard release date. They could not fall back on Blizzards classic "when its done" release date, they had to have it out in Sept 2004. This could be a reason for a rushed product.

[nokhor]

Shogun and Medieval were huge successes (Shogun sold over 750 thousand copies, Medieval over 1 million) but not the overnight sensations that BG1 & 2 were.

Spino, where did you get that info? it's not that i doubt you, but i am curious as how well some pc games have sold and have never been able to find the data online. do you have a link to a site, or do you have some serious insider connections, and if you tell me, you'd have to then kill me? by the way, any idea how many units moved RTW has had so far?

[Mikeus Caesar]

they had to have it out in Sept 2004. This could be a reason for a rushed product.

Well that means if they ever release another TW product, they might regret having rushed RTW. I've heard of a lot of people saying that they were so annoyed with RTW they'll never buy another TW game again, which means that activision will have lost a large amount of suckers, oops wait, i mean 'valued customers'. So if they do release a new TW game, they might not make as much money, and will be very dissapointed.

[Mayfield The Conqueror]

Well that means if they ever release another TW product, they might regret having rushed RTW. I've heard of a lot of people saying that they were so annoyed with RTW they'll never buy another TW game again, which means that activision will have lost a large amount of suckers, oops wait, i mean 'valued customers'. So if they do release a new TW game, they might not make as much money, and will be very dissapointed.

You are right, they will lose the diehards like us who know what is wrong with the game, but for the vast majority of consumers they think it is cool to just toss armies at armies. I will not buy another game until after they patch it AND people here say it is ok. And if they dare fix all the problems with an expansion, basically ransoming you to pay another $30 US for a fixed game, it is then a sorry state in PC gaming.