developing a game after it goes gold

**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 By the end, it's might be 2-3 years out of date and you want to move on to the latest cool stuff.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.

**ShellShock** · 01-20-2005, 20:40

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** · 01-20-2005, 21:39

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