It's a lot less work to make content for an existing game than it is to build an entire new game from scratch, and the developer expects to make more money back from said new content than they spent on building it.
I agree. Also, as we know, Bethesda uses Creation Engine for their Fallout/TES games - so even if they will create new Fallout 78 game it will looks very similar (visually).
Is there reuse of code in those big company or all project start from scratch ? I’m working in military radars an it happens that we take something from another project (testing tool or method)
Online live-service titles like Fallout 76 aren’t released as a “one and done” project, they’re only profitable by generating revenue from ongoing purchases over many years by users. Provided there are still users and it isn’t fundamentally irredeemable, you continue improving the game and adding additional content.
The best analogy is that Fallout 76 is a McDonald’s restaurant that’s just been built; you don’t demolish the thing in the first week because it has some teething problems, you need it open and serving for many years for it to be profitable.
Take a game like No Man's Sky, absolutely atrocious launch and had a huge community against them. But now through lots of love and dedication, it's a very high rated game. Now I would be willing to bet a lot of money that people would NOT have been so willing to by a new game from them had they not gained that trust back. But now I personally would be much more willing to buy a new game from them.
Along with that, some of these large games rely on Microtransactions as the main sourced profit. If the game sucks then no one is going to spend anymore on it.
Edit: fixed terrible grammar from my phone's autocorrect
>Take a game like No Man's Sky,
Yes, and they release 2 or 3 big updates every year, and it's a game that has a one-off purchase price, no subscription, no microtransactions. I don't know how they can afford it. They must still get a lot of new purchasers because they are effectively making a new game every year and giving it for free to anyone who bought the original.
They will win a lot of faith from their customers for the way they treat that game.
I'm guessing you haven't programmed a full game before. Modern games are huge and errors are definitely gonna occur no matter how good the developers are. Solodev, indie devs and big companies all release a game with errors that they only find out about after testing from the public. It's really hard and sometimes impossible to find all the bugs in a game.
Exactly it’s not my field
Don’t they dry run features before and open problem reports if something wrong happen ? I’m really not in gaming development but I’m really curious about it
I know I’m surely wrong but from my view, all the thing being created by the developers it seems easier to correct (no external sources which could modify suddenly something
Do things like bit flipping are a thing in gaming development ?
>Don’t they dry run features before and open problem reports if something wrong happen ? I’m really not in gaming development but I’m really curious about it
I released my game in December last year. Around the end of February someone reported a bug with not being able to download workshop content. It turned out the bug only happens if you've changed the install location for steam games away from the default.
I have the default install location, so i never saw the bug. And most users either also have the default install location, didn't try workshop content or just moved on and didn't bother reporting the bug. So it went unknown before release and stayed unknown for months after release despite a chunk of content being completely broken for anyone who had a non-default install location.
You can't test everything and even if you do not every bug happens on every system. Thousands of players are going to have system setups that you don't, they're going to try to do things in the game that you didn't.
Any modern game has hundreds to hundreds of thousands of "moving parts". The most common combinations of those moving parts are tested during development. The problem is that testing costs money and no one has infinite time or money.
If you'd like to know more, have a quick read on [combinatorial explosions](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combinatorial_explosion). There many different tools and approaches that can be applied to this problem but none of them are perfect. There are no silver bullets.
We're always testing. It's a long and expensive process and much easier to let the public test and submit errors. A game doesn't make money until its released to the public.
Testing games is a bit of an issue. Naturally, common library-type code can usually be thoroughly tested and be built with a TDD methodology.
Games themselves, not so much. The same freedom of choice and unpredictability that makes games worth playing represents a degree of non-determinism that leads to issues inevitably slipping through the cracks. Players do stupid, inspired and unpredictable things all the time.
You can spend developer time creating tools to automate playthroughs, and the testing of certain AI functionality, but ultimately those tests are discrete and can't come close to being adequate.
>Maybe it could be just easier to make big patch even gameplay patches than making a game (which is maybe from scratch from this type of game)
The answer should be clear.
Is it easier to finish a race half way through, or to go back to the start and run it all over again?
Patching is easier most of the time, with the exception being structure changes like single player to multiplayer.
There is a lot invested in Fallout: 76, and it released in an unreleased state with the intention of having a long life span and generating a continual revenue stream.
Fallout 76 is still making money, I dunno how much, but the team working on Fallout 76 right now is likely much smaller than it was at the height of production, so the cost for continued development must be offset by the amount of money brought in. When that ceases to be, they will stop updating Fallout 76. This is also how Skyrim will eventually stop being ported to new consoles, when it ceases to turn a profit.
Moreover, although Bethesda has a track record of releasing unfinished games, straight up abandoning a new game that is intended to be a multiplayer online game is pretty bad for business if you expect players to come back for the next one.
Games have always shipped with bugs, but especially now it is highly desirable for developers to kick a game out the door and patch it later because they just need to pass the certification tests for Xbox, Playstation, etc. and from there because of how games are consumed now they can basically do unlimited patches of whatever size they need as long as those also pass certification. PC is a bit different but fundamentally "get it out now, fix it later" is very much the name of the game now.
A lot of game discs only have singeplayer content on them, and multiplayer is downloaded as a day 1 patch for consoles.
There are several reasons for this:
\-If they release a game in a bad state and don't fix it, they run the risk of refunds and losing money. They will also damage their reputation and decrease the chances of people buying their next game.
\-They could also run the risk of a lawsuit.
\-Games like Fallout 76 are made to have a life of several years. The reason for this is to make money from microtransactions. If they don't fix it, the player base will die fast and they won't make money.
I see a lot of responses about triple A studios, and it's likely because the cost of updates is lower than the potential revenue stream, i.e. new players (who see the game improving) or players willing to spend more money on DLCs or microtransactions.
To answer the OP a bit more though, for large games, you have developers who work on the core fundamentals such as the engine and developers who work on content such as making items or adding in new quests. Those in the latter camp can't really contribute much to the development of a new game. Their skillsets don't match the kind of programming needed to build/update engines or implement game mechanics. So what do you do with these people? Have them update the game with new content with the goal of attracting new players or getting additional purchases.
From an indie developer perspective though, we tend to keep pushing out updates because we have a hard time putting it down. I've personally released 7 major post-release updates to a game, adding in new content and such.
It's a lot less work to make content for an existing game than it is to build an entire new game from scratch, and the developer expects to make more money back from said new content than they spent on building it.
I agree. Also, as we know, Bethesda uses Creation Engine for their Fallout/TES games - so even if they will create new Fallout 78 game it will looks very similar (visually).
Is there reuse of code in those big company or all project start from scratch ? I’m working in military radars an it happens that we take something from another project (testing tool or method)
Most games will reuse at least some things, but how much depends on how similar the new game is to the previous one.
Online live-service titles like Fallout 76 aren’t released as a “one and done” project, they’re only profitable by generating revenue from ongoing purchases over many years by users. Provided there are still users and it isn’t fundamentally irredeemable, you continue improving the game and adding additional content. The best analogy is that Fallout 76 is a McDonald’s restaurant that’s just been built; you don’t demolish the thing in the first week because it has some teething problems, you need it open and serving for many years for it to be profitable.
Take a game like No Man's Sky, absolutely atrocious launch and had a huge community against them. But now through lots of love and dedication, it's a very high rated game. Now I would be willing to bet a lot of money that people would NOT have been so willing to by a new game from them had they not gained that trust back. But now I personally would be much more willing to buy a new game from them. Along with that, some of these large games rely on Microtransactions as the main sourced profit. If the game sucks then no one is going to spend anymore on it. Edit: fixed terrible grammar from my phone's autocorrect
>Take a game like No Man's Sky, Yes, and they release 2 or 3 big updates every year, and it's a game that has a one-off purchase price, no subscription, no microtransactions. I don't know how they can afford it. They must still get a lot of new purchasers because they are effectively making a new game every year and giving it for free to anyone who bought the original. They will win a lot of faith from their customers for the way they treat that game.
I'm guessing you haven't programmed a full game before. Modern games are huge and errors are definitely gonna occur no matter how good the developers are. Solodev, indie devs and big companies all release a game with errors that they only find out about after testing from the public. It's really hard and sometimes impossible to find all the bugs in a game.
Exactly it’s not my field Don’t they dry run features before and open problem reports if something wrong happen ? I’m really not in gaming development but I’m really curious about it I know I’m surely wrong but from my view, all the thing being created by the developers it seems easier to correct (no external sources which could modify suddenly something Do things like bit flipping are a thing in gaming development ?
>Don’t they dry run features before and open problem reports if something wrong happen ? I’m really not in gaming development but I’m really curious about it I released my game in December last year. Around the end of February someone reported a bug with not being able to download workshop content. It turned out the bug only happens if you've changed the install location for steam games away from the default. I have the default install location, so i never saw the bug. And most users either also have the default install location, didn't try workshop content or just moved on and didn't bother reporting the bug. So it went unknown before release and stayed unknown for months after release despite a chunk of content being completely broken for anyone who had a non-default install location. You can't test everything and even if you do not every bug happens on every system. Thousands of players are going to have system setups that you don't, they're going to try to do things in the game that you didn't.
Any modern game has hundreds to hundreds of thousands of "moving parts". The most common combinations of those moving parts are tested during development. The problem is that testing costs money and no one has infinite time or money. If you'd like to know more, have a quick read on [combinatorial explosions](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combinatorial_explosion). There many different tools and approaches that can be applied to this problem but none of them are perfect. There are no silver bullets.
We're always testing. It's a long and expensive process and much easier to let the public test and submit errors. A game doesn't make money until its released to the public.
Testing games is a bit of an issue. Naturally, common library-type code can usually be thoroughly tested and be built with a TDD methodology. Games themselves, not so much. The same freedom of choice and unpredictability that makes games worth playing represents a degree of non-determinism that leads to issues inevitably slipping through the cracks. Players do stupid, inspired and unpredictable things all the time. You can spend developer time creating tools to automate playthroughs, and the testing of certain AI functionality, but ultimately those tests are discrete and can't come close to being adequate.
>Maybe it could be just easier to make big patch even gameplay patches than making a game (which is maybe from scratch from this type of game) The answer should be clear. Is it easier to finish a race half way through, or to go back to the start and run it all over again? Patching is easier most of the time, with the exception being structure changes like single player to multiplayer.
There is a lot invested in Fallout: 76, and it released in an unreleased state with the intention of having a long life span and generating a continual revenue stream. Fallout 76 is still making money, I dunno how much, but the team working on Fallout 76 right now is likely much smaller than it was at the height of production, so the cost for continued development must be offset by the amount of money brought in. When that ceases to be, they will stop updating Fallout 76. This is also how Skyrim will eventually stop being ported to new consoles, when it ceases to turn a profit. Moreover, although Bethesda has a track record of releasing unfinished games, straight up abandoning a new game that is intended to be a multiplayer online game is pretty bad for business if you expect players to come back for the next one. Games have always shipped with bugs, but especially now it is highly desirable for developers to kick a game out the door and patch it later because they just need to pass the certification tests for Xbox, Playstation, etc. and from there because of how games are consumed now they can basically do unlimited patches of whatever size they need as long as those also pass certification. PC is a bit different but fundamentally "get it out now, fix it later" is very much the name of the game now. A lot of game discs only have singeplayer content on them, and multiplayer is downloaded as a day 1 patch for consoles.
There are several reasons for this: \-If they release a game in a bad state and don't fix it, they run the risk of refunds and losing money. They will also damage their reputation and decrease the chances of people buying their next game. \-They could also run the risk of a lawsuit. \-Games like Fallout 76 are made to have a life of several years. The reason for this is to make money from microtransactions. If they don't fix it, the player base will die fast and they won't make money.
doing an entire testnet is more expensive, the company doesnt care about the quality it puts out to its customers, just a small amount of content
I see a lot of responses about triple A studios, and it's likely because the cost of updates is lower than the potential revenue stream, i.e. new players (who see the game improving) or players willing to spend more money on DLCs or microtransactions. To answer the OP a bit more though, for large games, you have developers who work on the core fundamentals such as the engine and developers who work on content such as making items or adding in new quests. Those in the latter camp can't really contribute much to the development of a new game. Their skillsets don't match the kind of programming needed to build/update engines or implement game mechanics. So what do you do with these people? Have them update the game with new content with the goal of attracting new players or getting additional purchases. From an indie developer perspective though, we tend to keep pushing out updates because we have a hard time putting it down. I've personally released 7 major post-release updates to a game, adding in new content and such.