developing a game after it goes gold

**nokhor** · 01-20-2005, 13:37

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** · 01-20-2005, 14:19

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** · 01-20-2005, 17:33

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 By the end, it's might be 2-3 years out of date and you want to move on to the latest cool stuff.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** · 01-20-2005, 18:19

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** · 01-20-2005, 18:52

Originally Posted by 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?

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

**Ar7** · 01-20-2005, 19:12

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** · 01-20-2005, 19:48

Originally Posted by 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...

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** · 01-20-2005, 20:12

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** · 01-20-2005, 20:18

Originally Posted by Turbo

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.