Support NeoGAF

[therealbigrich]

Killing creativity, gimping features, forcing small devs to do things they don't want to, gamers missing out because PS got something first and MS then say no to porting. Disc content being forced in downloads to loophole the rules.

Etc etc.

Xbox was never the only avenue to release games . PC ,PS and Nintendo were ways viable options. No need to force a game on Xbox and GIMP features , make them do things they don't want if etc . Just don't release on Xbox

 

[Elandyll]

Re-posted after bottom of page.

Honest question follows.

Preambule: I am neither for or against MS leaving the console market (even if personally I think MS as a whole has a horrible culture as a company, and a terrible history in tech), because in the end the product has fans and if there is an Xbox is doesn't remove anything from my enjoyment of other products (as long as they don't pull more GTA IV's DLC or Underworld/ RotR's that is). It's a product, and they'll make the decisions that makes sense for the long term goals of the company.

Now:
If MS was indeed to decide to stop producing a product themselves (which has big R&D costs and requires a ton of inventory management), known currently as the Xbox, and instead focus on Gaming in Windows environment...

Let's say that now "Xbox" is the game brand within Win10, and they lease that brand to various HTPC builders (Dell/ Alienware, CyberPC, etc) to produce gaming-focused PCs to put under the TV for dedicated gamers.
Windows studios would still exist to manage gaming properties such as Halo, Gears, Forza... but might be merged with Mojang under another umbrella, possibly squarely focusing on multiplayer and games-as-service.

In essence, nothing is lost (you can still buy a powerful box with the Xbox brand, the MS Studio games still come out...), but MS is largely re-focusing its business.

How would you feel about that?

 

[Admodieus]

Lot of people in this thread either weren't paying attention during 360/PS3 era or are choosing to be ignorant of certain information. XBL Indie Parity Clause was a huge discussion item back then, and Mass Effect being published by Microsoft Game Studios (who was involved in the game's development, especially the user interface). In fact, the original Mass Effect is held up as a key piece of evidence of exactly what Microsoft doesn't do anymore that people wish it would.

 

[Mass_Pincup]

What does can't handle improvements mean to you then?

It can mean a variety of things.

You can improve the gameplay, the level design, the AI and plenty of other things.

If the 360 can't handle it you'll have to revert back to something worse.

 

[leeh]

It can mean a variety of things.

You can improve the gameplay, the level design and plenty of other things.

If the 360 can't handle it you'll have to revert back to something worse.

You're saying this, but you also know that the 360/PS3 were very similar in terms of sheer performance so you know that just wouldn't happen.

 

[Maintenance]

To say that Microsoft did no good for the industry is flat out wrong, but I do think that they did more harm than good.

 

[LordRaptor]

This isn't done by lawyers, just read over and binded by them, this is done by the leads of each department. MS will have standardised templates for this and then just adjust specifics based on clients needs & requirements.

If you can't stick to something you agree too or don't properly consider something, it's your own fault. Simple as.

Any contract drafted by MS is absolutely drafted by their legal team - note: they have a legal team - and they approach contract negotiation from a stance that they will make it as unfairly advantageous towards MS as possible, because they are working under the assumption that the other parties legal team are attempting the same.

I am saying that that is maybe not the best way of approaching every contract scenario.

You maybe don't need to play fucking ruthless hardball with a small games studio primarily made up of artists.

 

[Mass_Pincup]

You're saying this, but you also know that the 360/PS3 were very similar in terms of sheer performance so you know that just wouldn't happen.

Then why does this close exist at all then?

Re-posted after bottom of page.

Honest question follows.

Preambule: I am neither for or against MS leaving the console market (even if personally I think MS as a whole has a horrible culture as a company, and a terrible history in tech), because in the end the product has fans and if there is an Xbox is doesn't remove anything from my enjoyment of other products (as long as they don't pull more GTA IV's DLC or Underworld/ RotR's that is). It's a product, and they'll make the decisions that makes sense for the long term goals of the company.

Now:
If MS was indeed to decide to stop producing a product themselves (which has big R&D costs and requires a ton of inventory management), known currently as the Xbox, and instead focus on Gaming in Windows environment...

Let's say that now "Xbox" is the game brand within Win10, and they lease that brand to various HTPC builders (Dell/ Alienware, CyberPC, etc) to produce gaming-focused PCs to put under the TV for dedicated gamers.
Windows studios would still exist to manage gaming properties such as Halo, Gears, Forza... but might be merged with Mojang under another umbrella, possibly squarely focusing on multiplayer and games-as-service.

In essence, nothing is lost (you can still buy a powerful box with the Xbox brand, the MS Studio games still come out...), but MS is largely re-focusing its business.

How would you feel about that?

They'll lose millions with the end of the Xbox Live subscription.

 

[Kill3r7]

Re-posted after bottom of page.

Honest question follows.

Preambule: I am neither for or against MS leaving the console market (even if personally I think MS as a whole has a horrible culture as a company, and a terrible history in tech), because in the end the product has fans and if there is an Xbox is doesn't remove anything from my enjoyment of other products (as long as they don't pull more GTA IV's DLC or Underworld/ RotR's that is). It's a product, and they'll make the decisions that makes sense for the long term goals of the company.

Now:
If MS was indeed to decide to stop producing a product themselves (which has big R&D costs and requires a ton of inventory management), known currently as the Xbox, and instead focus on Gaming in Windows environment...

Let's say that now "Xbox" is the game brand within Win10, and they lease that brand to various HTPC builders (Dell/ Alienware, CyberPC, etc) to produce gaming-focused PCs to put under the TV for dedicated gamers.
Windows studios would still exist to manage gaming properties such as Halo, Gears, Forza... but might be merged with Mojang under another umbrella, possibly squarely focusing on multiplayer and games-as-service.

In essence, nothing is lost (you can still buy a powerful box with the Xbox brand, the MS Studio games still come out...), but MS is largely re-focusing its business.

How would you feel about that?

It would force me to buy a gaming PC which is probably the smart thing to do moving forward regardless of what happens with Xbox or Playstation. PS4/X1 are nothing more than glorified small form PCs anyhow.

 

[quest]

Re-posted after bottom of page.

Honest question follows.

Preambule: I am neither for or against MS leaving the console market (even if personally I think MS as a whole has a horrible culture as a company, and a terrible history in tech), because in the end the product has fans and if there is an Xbox is doesn't remove anything from my enjoyment of other products (as long as they don't pull more GTA IV's DLC or Underworld/ RotR's that is). It's a product, and they'll make the decisions that makes sense for the long term goals of the company.

Now:
If MS was indeed to decide to stop producing a product themselves (which has big R&D costs and requires a ton of inventory management), known currently as the Xbox, and instead focus on Gaming in Windows environment...

Let's say that now "Xbox" is the game brand within Win10, and they lease that brand to various HTPC builders (Dell/ Alienware, CyberPC, etc) to produce gaming-focused PCs to put under the TV for dedicated gamers.
Windows studios would still exist to manage gaming properties such as Halo, Gears, Forza... but might be merged with Mojang under another umbrella, possibly squarely focusing on multiplayer and games-as-service.

In essence, nothing is lost (you can still buy a powerful box with the Xbox brand, the MS Studio games still come out...), but MS is largely re-focusing its business.

How would you feel about that?

I would hate it and would not buy the product. If I wanted to deal with the drivers and other PC issues I would buy small form factor PC right now. I want a machine I don't have to tinker with to make work. We already have seen the market does not want this device by the sales of the steam machines.

 

[Kyry]

To say that Microsoft did no good for the industry is flat out wrong, but I do think that they did more harm than good.

Exactly.
To that end, I don't think anyone should be in favor of them leaving the industry, But I would like to see some of their power over it greatly reduced.

At least to the point where things like the parity clause can't effect non Microsoft customers and to the point where deals to keep stuff like Tomb Raider behind a wall for a time are not reasonable actions for them to take.

 

[wapplew]

Re-posted after bottom of page.

Honest question follows.

Preambule: I am neither for or against MS leaving the console market (even if personally I think MS as a whole has a horrible culture as a company, and a terrible history in tech), because in the end the product has fans and if there is an Xbox is doesn't remove anything from my enjoyment of other products (as long as they don't pull more GTA IV's DLC or Underworld/ RotR's that is). It's a product, and they'll make the decisions that makes sense for the long term goals of the company.

Now:
If MS was indeed to decide to stop producing a product themselves (which has big R&D costs and requires a ton of inventory management), known currently as the Xbox, and instead focus on Gaming in Windows environment...

Let's say that now "Xbox" is the game brand within Win10, and they lease that brand to various HTPC builders (Dell/ Alienware, CyberPC, etc) to produce gaming-focused PCs to put under the TV for dedicated gamers.
Windows studios would still exist to manage gaming properties such as Halo, Gears, Forza... but might be merged with Mojang under another umbrella, possibly squarely focusing on multiplayer and games-as-service.

In essence, nothing is lost (you can still buy a powerful box with the Xbox brand, the MS Studio games still come out...), but MS is largely re-focusing its business.

How would you feel about that?

That's might be the target. Minimum investment and risk, serve cooperate goal.
All they need to do is keep investing platform feature/OS/dev tool and environment/hardware standard across different manufacturers while only invest on proven profitable titles.

Very much like Valve to steam and steambox.

 

[quest]

To say that Microsoft did no good for the industry is flat out wrong, but I do think that they did more harm than good.

Keep dreaming they were there to counter Sony and its 599.99 PS3. Like it or not without MS the online component from Sony would resemble Nintendo. I think people forget how bad Sony online was before MS and even during the first half of the PS3 era till they copied enough stuff from MS. The competition also helped make the PS4 a better product. We have seen what Sony does when they are in complete control the 599.99.

 

[onemanasylum]

Keep dreaming they were there to counter Sony and its 599.99 PS3. Like it or not without MS the online component from Sony would resemble Nintendo. I think people forget how bad Sony online was before MS and even during the first half of the PS3 era till they copied enough stuff from MS. The competition also helped make the PS4 a better product. We have seen what Sony does when they are in complete control the 599.99.

LMAo no, just no, you cannot be serous with this nonsense. Sony was never nothing like nintendo nor would they have if MS was not around, that's delusional.

 

[leeh]

Any contract drafted by MS is absolutely drafted by their legal team - note: they have a legal team - and they approach contract negotiation from a stance that they will make it as unfairly advantageous towards MS as possible, because they are working under the assumption that the other parties legal team are attempting the same.

I am saying that that is maybe not the best way of approaching every contract scenario.

You maybe don't need to play fucking ruthless hardball with a small games studio primarily made up of artists.

Let me break this down. You have a contract which discusses milestones, payments and anything financial relating to time, basically. These are usually drafted by programme managers, or any similar roles. They contain your termination clauses and so forth.

Then you have your SDLC documents which explain how you're going to get to your milestones. This includes your development plans, testing plans, OAT plans, NFR plans... whatever the hell plans/documents you need to define how you're going to reach certain milestones.

These are usually drafted, by all the representative figure heads of those areas, signed off by any stakeholders involved and then kept to. MS could make some outlandish demands but then you'd turn around and basically say "piss off".

If you as a development house don't properly read what you're agreeing to, then it's your own fault, simple.

This all comes from my own day-to-day experience.

 

[Stallion Dan]

Xbox was never the only avenue to release games . PC ,PS and Nintendo were ways viable options. No need to force a game on Xbox and GIMP features , make them do things they don't want if etc . Just don't release on Xbox

Just close off a huge marketplace?

No Dev wants to do that.

 

[Mass_Pincup]

Keep dreaming they were there to counter Sony and its 599.99 PS3. Like it or not without MS the online component from Sony would resemble Nintendo. I think people forget how bad Sony online was before MS and even during the first half of the PS3 era till they copied enough stuff from MS. The competition also helped make the PS4 a better product. We have seen what Sony does when they are in complete control the 599.99.

600$ for a console worth 800$ and the best bluray player at the time.

I hate when people are just talking about the price in a vacuum. Sony didn't try to rip you off, they were losing money on it and provided a powerful console ahead of its time (2006).

Now we just have a weaker PC.

 

[tiredheadcrab]

Re-posted after bottom of page.

Honest question follows.

Preambule: I am neither for or against MS leaving the console market (even if personally I think MS as a whole has a horrible culture as a company, and a terrible history in tech), because in the end the product has fans and if there is an Xbox is doesn't remove anything from my enjoyment of other products (as long as they don't pull more GTA IV's DLC or Underworld/ RotR's that is). It's a product, and they'll make the decisions that makes sense for the long term goals of the company.

Now:
If MS was indeed to decide to stop producing a product themselves (which has big R&D costs and requires a ton of inventory management), known currently as the Xbox, and instead focus on Gaming in Windows environment...

Let's say that now "Xbox" is the game brand within Win10, and they lease that brand to various HTPC builders (Dell/ Alienware, CyberPC, etc) to produce gaming-focused PCs to put under the TV for dedicated gamers.
Windows studios would still exist to manage gaming properties such as Halo, Gears, Forza... but might be merged with Mojang under another umbrella, possibly squarely focusing on multiplayer and games-as-service.

In essence, nothing is lost (you can still buy a powerful box with the Xbox brand, the MS Studio games still come out...), but MS is largely re-focusing its business.

How would you feel about that?

I doubt this would ever happen. MS wants control over its own hardware. See the Surface line of products. Even if they were to license out the OS to other companies they would still make their own.

Now when they first started making Xbox they wanted to do this. It didnt go over well with Dell and HP i think. I still dont think either company would go for it if MS offered it. And they arent.

 

[leeh]

Then why does this close exist at all then?

Because they don't want other companies to come in on the sneak and pay money for their game to have exclusive features on different platforms.

 

[LordRaptor]

If you as a development house don't properly read what you're agreeing to, then it's your own fault, simple.

This all comes from my own day-to-day experience.

Your day to day experience is that - presumably - of corporate software engineering given the methodology you cite dealing mostly with other equivalent level corporate contracts.

Game development doesn't work like regular software engineering, and MS aren't a generic small to mid sized corporation.

 

[Mass_Pincup]

Because they don't want other companies to come in on the sneak and pay money for their game to have exclusive features on different platforms.

That's weird because I remember Portal 2 having exclusive features on PS3 yet it released day and date with the 360 version.

That would be a good case to enforce this guideline don't you think?

 

[SlaughterX]

Lot of people in this thread either weren't paying attention during 360/PS3 era or are choosing to be ignorant of certain information. XBL Indie Parity Clause was a huge discussion item back then, and Mass Effect being published by Microsoft Game Studios (who was involved in the game's development, especially the user interface). In fact, the original Mass Effect is held up as a key piece of evidence of exactly what Microsoft doesn't do anymore that people wish it would.

Also see SMT Nine for the original Xbox and how Atlus kinda screwed over Microsoft developing that engine for Nocturne and DDS and producing a shit game at Microsoft's expense.

Anyway it really sucks that this game was cancelled, for whatever reason.

 

[leeh]

Your day to day experience is that - presumably - of corporate software engineering given the methodology you cite dealing mostly with other equivalent level corporate contracts.

Game development doesn't work like regular software engineering, and MS aren't a generic small to mid sized corporation.

Same thing, different milestones regarding certain plans. All agile methodology these days. Whether it be pre/main/alpha/beta. Same thing, just different phases comparing SDLC to GDLC.

 

[leeh]

That's weird because I remember Portal 2 having exclusive features on PS3 yet it released day and date with the 360 version.

That would be a good case to enforce this guideline don't you think?

That clause was regarding XBLA if I remember rightly.

 

[quest]

600$ for a console worth 800$ and the best bluray player at the time.

I hate when people are just talking about the price in a vacuum. Sony didn't try to rip you off, they were losing money on it and provided a powerful console ahead of its time (2006).

Now we just have a weaker PC.

It was not a head of its time. It was about the same power as a console released 1 year earlier that also was much easier to develop for. I don't think a lot of gamers were happy to pay a 200 dollar bluray tax so Sony could win a format war. This was reflected in sales until they reached price parity with MS.

 

[Dragun619]

Exclusive timed DLC is something MS invented?

Man, I just wanna say I don't think anyone gave a shit about exclusive dlc back then until MS came out and announced Xbox360 will receive exclusive GTA IV DLC.

That shit became a big deal everywhere, especially after word came out that MS paid $50 million for it.
Shit was crazy. I don't even recall if people even mentioned the word timed before or after that, until evidence for PS3 version eventually popped up.

But yeah, There's no doubt that move single handedly pushed Exclusive DLC to the forefront and made it the selling point it is today. Looking at you, Call of Duty.

 

[firelogic]

It was not a head of its time. It was about the same power as a console released 1 year earlier that also was much easier to develop for. I don't think a lot of gamers were happy to pay a 200 dollar bluray tax so Sony could win a format war. This was reflected in sales until they reached price parity with MS.

It would seem they did because if you look at the aligned sales numbers, PS3 consistently outsold the 360 from day 1. The only reason it looked like 360 was beating PS3 was because of the full year's head start. The chart is floating around GAF somewhere. And of course what makes it worse for the 360 is that it had no competition for a year and yet a PS3 at $600 with the 360 and Wii to compete with still outsold the 360 right out of the gate.

 

[Sir_Crocodile]

It was not a head of its time. It was about the same power as a console released 1 year earlier that also was much easier to develop for. I don't think a lot of gamers were happy to pay a 200 dollar bluray tax so Sony could win a format war. This was reflected in sales until they reached price parity with MS.

Actually it was inferior, because the 360 had a unified memory architecture.

 

[Crayon]

600$ for a console worth 800$ and the best bluray player at the time.

I hate when people are just talking about the price in a vacuum. Sony didn't try to rip you off, they were losing money on it and provided a powerful console ahead of its time (2006).

Now we just have a weaker PC.

It was 500. Why does everyone remember the 600 dollar one? Was the 500 one hard to get? I did get the 600 dollar one because I was going to scalp it on ebay. Boy did that backfire....

 

[Mass_Pincup]

Also see SMT Nine for the original Xbox and how Atlus kinda screwed over Microsoft developing that engine for Nocturne and DDS and producing a shit game at Microsoft's expense.

Anyway it really sucks that this game was cancelled, for whatever reason.

What was the involvement of Microsoft with Nine? Because Atlus developed and published the game.

That clause was regarding XBLA if I remember rightly.

The article above mention on-disc parity.

It was not a head of its time. It was about the same power as a console released 1 year earlier that also was much easier to develop for. I don't think a lot of gamers were happy to pay a 200 dollar bluray tax so Sony could win a format war. This was reflected in sales until they reached price parity with MS.

The PS3 consistently outsold the 360 outside of the US and UK ever since it came out, it was insane value for its time and was more powerful then the 360 as evidenced by the gap in terms of graphical quality between their respective exclusives.

So yes it was a great value in my opinion.

 

[LordRaptor]

Same thing, different milestones regarding certain plans. All agile methodology these days. Whether it be pre/main/alpha/beta. Same thing, just different phases comparing SDLC to GDLC.

Would it surprise you that the overwhelming majority of games development uses Waterfall, not Agile?

 

[leeh]

The article above mention on-disc parity.

Well, yeah then haha. You'd thought that this wouldn't happen and they'd enforce it...

 

[leeh]

Would it surprise you that the overwhelming majority of games development uses Waterfall, not Agile?

It would because agile is the better way to do development. Especially for the actual teams who're doing the work. It's a lot better for team cohesion and building.

If you're referring to that in the sense that the GDLC pipeline looks like waterfall, then I'd say that it'd be agile within those phases. Like in the main production phase, they'd structure that in an agile way, 2/3 week sprints or whatever.

Although, if you're saying that teams perform those phases in a true waterfall fashion, then I'd ask them wtf are they doing. No wonder they'd often exceed milestones. It'd be the usual, lets spend 4 months developing and then 2 weeks testing and realise it's all god-damn broken.

 

[LordRaptor]

Although, if you're saying that teams perform those phases in a true waterfall fashion, then I'd ask them wtf are they doing.

And now you realise that games development is not like normal software development, why the rate of burnout is so high, why projects routinely have crunch periods that can last in excess of a year, why the client funding a games development holds so much power at milestone reviews, and why so many studios live hand to mouth on projects.

e:
And how "lazy devs" is such a horrifically contemptuous misunderstanding of whats involved in actually getting a game onto market in the first place

 

[Outrun]

It would because agile is the better way to do development. Especially for the actual teams who're doing the work. It's a lot better for team cohesion and building.

If you're referring to that in the sense that the GDLC pipeline looks like waterfall, then I'd say that it'd be agile within those phases. Like in the main production phase, they'd structure that in an agile way, 2/3 week sprints or whatever.

Although, if you're saying that teams perform those phases in a true waterfall fashion, then I'd ask them wtf are they doing. No wonder they'd often exceed milestones. It'd be the usual, lets spend 4 months developing and then 2 weeks testing and realise it's all god-damn broken.

Interesting, this was being discussed briefly on the Star Citizen 144 million raised thread.

 

[lukeskymac]

TIL asking for one example is list wars now.

Name one way competition has harmed the industry as a whole.

XBL is just one way that MS made console gaming better.

Also, try reading up on quotation marks.

So you think the way Microsoft strong-armed their way into the industry is an honest-to-god, textbook example of good-for-everyone competition? Wew.

Actually it was inferior, because the 360 had a unified memory architecture.

UMA was certainly a boon, but that'd fall into "easier to develop for" as well. UMA's only advantage for last gen was the less rigid division of game logic memory and video memory.

What did make the 360 superior at the start of the gen was the unified shader architecture of its GPU. This gave it a big GPU edge over the PS3 until devs started making full use of SPUs halfway through the gen.

 

[leeh]

And now you realise that games development is not like normal software development, why the rate of burnout is so high, why projects routinely have crunch periods that can last in excess of a year, why the client funding a games development holds so much power at milestone reviews, and why so many studios live hand to mouth on projects.

e:
And how "lazy devs" is such a horrifically contemptuous misunderstanding of whats involved in actually getting a game onto market in the first place

I'm genuinly intriuged by this. Do you have this knowledge in good source & faith?

I've never worked in a GDLC myself, but I'm passionate around software lifecycles in general. I have a lot of experience in SDLC though.

Colour me suprised, no wonder we're seeing situations like we are. Why are game development houses still working in the 90's way of developing software?! Even just the simple Agile formailities like show & tells provide such a good relationship between client/developer and help avoid any nasty surprises.

 

[TheBanditKing]

Re-posted after bottom of page.

Honest question follows.

Preambule: I am neither for or against MS leaving the console market (even if personally I think MS as a whole has a horrible culture as a company, and a terrible history in tech), because in the end the product has fans and if there is an Xbox is doesn't remove anything from my enjoyment of other products (as long as they don't pull more GTA IV's DLC or Underworld/ RotR's that is). It's a product, and they'll make the decisions that makes sense for the long term goals of the company.

Now:
If MS was indeed to decide to stop producing a product themselves (which has big R&D costs and requires a ton of inventory management), known currently as the Xbox, and instead focus on Gaming in Windows environment...

Let's say that now "Xbox" is the game brand within Win10, and they lease that brand to various HTPC builders (Dell/ Alienware, CyberPC, etc) to produce gaming-focused PCs to put under the TV for dedicated gamers.
Windows studios would still exist to manage gaming properties such as Halo, Gears, Forza... but might be merged with Mojang under another umbrella, possibly squarely focusing on multiplayer and games-as-service.

In essence, nothing is lost (you can still buy a powerful box with the Xbox brand, the MS Studio games still come out...), but MS is largely re-focusing its business.

How would you feel about that?

In truth our feelings on the matter don't amount to much, despite this being a very passionate community and activity, gaming is a business and if its not turning profits for them we can't expect them to continue. That said I have felt (as I stated a few pages back) that this was MS's future intention for the brand. They are foremost a software company whos physical products (xbox aside) have struggled or flopped, we slowly saw them integrate Zune from a portable device into a service absorbed/changed into Xbox music. I think the transition for Xbox will take more time but I would not be surprised to see it become a service/spec for Windows, essentially taking MS out of hardware and just providing specs to third parties and managing Xbox Live services and subscriptions.

 

[leeh]

Interesting, this was being discussed briefly on the Star Citizen 144 million raised thread.

Can you link me cause I'm lazy? I like doing any reading on this.

 

[LordRaptor]

I'm genuinly intriuged by this. Do you have this knowledge in good source & faith?

Yes, both personal and anecdotal, neither of which are worth the pixels they're printed on.
I found this with a quick google, but its out of date and published by Atlassian whose tools are specifically built for Agile development and you would expect their survey to reflect that, but they still see a very high percentage of developers using Waterfall in the traditional gaming space and note that as surprising, with "non-traditional" gaming being where people are using more modern software development methodologies.

As to why... there's probably a serious games journalism article to be written there.

e:
Its also super common for "Agile" to not actually be agile, just Waterfall but with a burndown chart, where things like end of sprint reviews are skipped because they "take too long to do", milestones are set in stone regardless of actual team velocities and velocities are expected to adjust to reach the milestone rather than the other way round, and all sorts of other waterfall-but-not-really-waterfall fuckery

 

[Triggerhappytel]

Just going to say this out-right. If developers don't have the right legally-binding contracts and agreements in-place to protect themselves, then it's their own fault.

Every client in the world tries to get everything for nothing. It's how you client.

Don't set up a game development company without the right business people, developers are developers.

So basically you're always pro-publisher, right? Good to know. Were you pro-Bethesda when they tried to break and then buy Human Head as well? Or pro-MS when they fucked with Phantom Dust and essentially put the developer out of business?

 

[otakukidd]

Then why does this close exist at all then?



They'll lose millions with the end of the Xbox Live subscription.

Not only that, they would loose all the royalties from people buying 3rd party games cause everyone would just install steam. It would be what would happen if they decided they wanted to get out of gaming. They could do this and save face at the same time. It didn't fail but evolved.

 

[boneyjangles]

Yes, the Scorpio is an interesting product and direction.

No, the Xbox equivalent of a steam machine isn't.

 

[LordRaptor]

So basically you're always pro-publisher, right? Good to know. Were you pro-Bethesda when they tried to break and then buy Human Head as well? Or pro-MS when they fucked with Phantom Dust and essentially put the developer out of business?

In fairness to him, I believe he is extrapolating his own experience onto others (which most people do) and I've just provided him with an epiphany as to just how shitty the games industry routinely is.

 

[leeh]

Yes, both personal and anecdotal, neither of which are worth the pixels they're printed on.
I found this with a quick google, but its out of date and published by Atlassian whose tools are specifically built for Agile development and you would expect their survey to reflect that, but they still see a very high percentage of developers using Waterfall in the traditional gaming space and note that as surprising, with "non-traditional" gaming being where people are using more modern software development methodologies.

As to why... there's probably a serious games journalism article to be written there.

e:
Its also super common for "Agile" to not actually be agile, just Waterfall but with a burndown chart, where things like end of sprint reviews are skipped because they "take too long to do", milestones are set in stone regardless of actual team velocities and velocities are expected to adjust to reach the milestone rather than the other way round, and all sorts of other waterfall-but-not-really-waterfall fuckery

Thanks for that link, yeah, out-of-date with it being 2010, but considering the overall timelapse of a large project, I can't imagine much has changed.

In credit to the game development companies themselves, I can't imagine them wanting to finish a project and then burn any money which they're getting in on their own process improvement to migrate methodologies especially when they could start and realise they've not got it right.

Regarding your edit, I completely agree. How can you be truely agile if you're fixed to milestones? You simply can't. Then, which client is going to outline a contract which essentially says we'll work on this until it's finished to your standards to allow it to be truely agile?

For me personally, I say I work in Agile, but like you've stated it's not actually agile. We do all the formalities, we do plan properly and we do our end of sprint reviews/retrospectives in the right way, even though it takes out 2 days of development. Although, what you loose in those 2 days, you gain back in efficency and improvement. We can never define contracts with clients which allow us to be truely agile, they just don't want it because they can't properly plan the cost of it.

Thanks for that information though, truely eye-opening.

 

[therealbigrich]

Exactly.
To that end, I don't think anyone should be in favor of them leaving the industry, But I would like to see some of their power over it greatly reduced.

At least to the point where things like the parity clause can't effect non Microsoft customers and to the point where deals to keep stuff like Tomb Raider behind a wall for a time are not reasonable actions for them to take.

Parity clause is dumb but it really only hurts non Xbox customers . The TR thing seems to get a lot of flack but I'm sure PS has a lot of games that are delayed for sometime but not sure if Sony is paying for that or what .

 

[therealbigrich]

Let me break this down. You have a contract which discusses milestones, payments and anything financial relating to time, basically. These are usually drafted by programme managers, or any similar roles. They contain your termination clauses and so forth.

Then you have your SDLC documents which explain how you're going to get to your milestones. This includes your development plans, testing plans, OAT plans, NFR plans... whatever the hell plans/documents you need to define how you're going to reach certain milestones.

These are usually drafted, by all the representative figure heads of those areas, signed off by any stakeholders involved and then kept to. MS could make some outlandish demands but then you'd turn around and basically say "piss off".

If you as a development house don't properly read what you're agreeing to, then it's your own fault, simple.

This all comes from my own day-to-day experience.

But MS has so much money shouldn't they be giving developers a break lol

 

[Outrun]

Can you link me cause I'm lazy? I like doing any reading on this.

It was nothing really profound. What you mentioned was more detailed.

I just appreciated you shed light on agile.

 

[leeh]

So basically you're always pro-publisher, right? Good to know. Were you pro-Bethesda when they tried to break and then buy Human Head as well? Or pro-MS when they fucked with Phantom Dust and essentially put the developer out of business?

Like LordRaptor has said, I've presumed game development houses would develop software in what typcally corporate software development is like, since it's the modern way about it.

My answer to this now, is that it's not a black/white outlook in that someone is in the wrong. It's just a whole f'n mess.

 

[onemanasylum]

Parity clause is dumb but it really only hurts non Xbox customers . The TR thing seems to get a lot of flack but I'm sure PS has a lot of games that are delayed for sometime but not sure if Sony is paying for that or what .

Not true, many indies left MS and went to sony and avoid MS all together because of it. It only hurts indies and MS. Sony has by far better indie support.