34 replies to this topic

[PenumbralRadiance]

Hi all, I have been having concerns over the course of the last couple of patches with the apparent priorities of the PGI team in regards to where they are focusing their (apparently VERY limited) development resources, and I have been hearing the same concerns voiced by many of my comrades on the NgN public TS.

I put together a poll over in the Patch Feedback section to gather some opinions on where the community feels the developers should be focusing their efforts.

Please stop over and chime in!

http://mwomercs.com/...-their-efforts/

*Note: Please post a comment of "bump" here when you see this to help keep this topic visible, I would like to get as much feedback on this topic as possible!

[Rotaugen]

You DO know that the person who designs cockpit items has nothing to do with net code, right?

[Particle Man]

Not on crybabies in the forums that have no clue about game development

[Taryys]

First let us take a look at a few important facts:

FACT 1 - Specialized Development Roles: The people that work on net code or bug fixing are not the same people that are working on modeling. Bug fixing/programming is a different skill/specialization than net code troubleshooting which is a different skill than working mech modeling and maps. I am a programmer and I could not put a model together to save my life and I would be hard pressed to do any sort of net code fixing. With this being known they are going to be able to pump out models and maps, etc while still working on net code and bug fixing. Stopping everything else to concentrate on bug fixing and netcode issues would mean that everyone else of the office would sit around doing absolutely nothing but twiddling their thumbs which wastes valuable money and time, when they could actually be doing something to move the game forward.

FACT 2 - Bug Fixing is Hard: Bug fixing is 1000 times more difficult and time consuming than writing new code, especially when you have thousands and thousands of lines of code to sort through and it becomes even more difficult if the code is not written by you (ie multiple programmers). You may think that you have found the problem in one place and you place some code there to fix it, but it turns out that the real problem is hidden deep down within layers and layers of dependent code. You put two integer values into a function and expect to get an integer value out, but on occasion you get "SRM" instead. That is a WTH moment, and honestly all it takes is for one = or == to be out of place and things will break intermittently and unexpectedly.

FACT 3 - Small Shop: They are a small shop so getting things done takes a lot longer than super-mega funded projects who are hemorrhaging cash. PGI's work on MWO is underwritten by a small independent producer, IGP, and is not support by a massive corporation like Sony or Bioware. If they were we would have MW5 like they were originally looking to do, and not MWO as it is now.

FACT 4 - Monetization: Playing on Fact 3 here - since they are small shop and PGI and other investors require a return on investment and need a steady income stream they need to be continuously be putting on the money making items (bobble heads, Christmas lights, hero mechs, etc) in order to support the game and continue its development.

[Kaijin]

I don't care about anything else now except the CTDs. I wanna play dammit!

Edited by Kaijin, 06 December 2012 - 01:11 PM.

[SilverlightPony]

Taryys, on 06 December 2012 - 12:59 PM, said:

First let us take a look at a few important facts:

FACT 1 - Specialized Development Roles: The people that work on net code or bug fixing are not the same people that are working on modeling. Bug fixing/programming is a different skill/specialization than net code troubleshooting which is a different skill than working mech modeling and maps. I am a programmer and I could not put a model together to save my life and I would be hard pressed to do any sort of net code fixing. With this being known they are going to be able to pump out models and maps, etc while still working on net code and bug fixing. Stopping everything else to concentrate on bug fixing and netcode issues would mean that everyone else of the office would sit around doing absolutely nothing but twiddling their thumbs which wastes valuable money and time, when they could actually be doing something to move the game forward.

FACT 2 - Bug Fixing is Hard: Bug fixing is 1000 times more difficult and time consuming than writing new code, especially when you have thousands and thousands of lines of code to sort through and it becomes even more difficult if the code is not written by you (ie multiple programmers). You may think that you have found the problem in one place and you place some code there to fix it, but it turns out that the real problem is hidden deep down within layers and layers of dependent code. You put two integer values into a function and expect to get an integer value out, but on occasion you get "SRM" instead. That is a WTH moment, and honestly all it takes is for one = or == to be out of place and things will break intermittently and unexpectedly.

FACT 3 - Small Shop: They are a small shop so getting things done takes a lot longer than super-mega funded projects who are hemorrhaging cash. PGI's work on MWO is underwritten by a small independent producer, IGP, and is not support by a massive corporation like Sony or Bioware. If they were we would have MW5 like they were originally looking to do, and not MWO as it is now.

FACT 4 - Monetization: Playing on Fact 3 here - since they are small shop and PGI and other investors require a return on investment and need a steady income stream they need to be continuously be putting on the money making items (bobble heads, Christmas lights, hero mechs, etc) in order to support the game and continue its development.

Hear, hear!

[Hikaru Shizuka]

I think I've summed it up somewhat well already here:

http://mwomercs.com/...ixing-over-art/

Edited by Hikaru Shizuka, 06 December 2012 - 01:21 PM.

[PenumbralRadiance]

Actually I understand these points, and my response is simple:
I have repeatedly been told that PGI pulled in over 5 million from the founders program.
If that is the case, or if the truth is even remotely close (even if it is just 1 million),
then the question becomes one of where they should be focusing ADDITIONAL resources moving forward.

Basically, the point here is to gather feedback on what the community is most concerned with, and therefore provide a touchpoint for the developers as they move forward and perhaps re-invest some of this money they are extracting from us into the game itself.

Also: Yes, I am aware of how hard bug fixing is, I am a troubleshooter who worked in a software as service company up until six months ago.

I updated the poll to reflect this.

Taryys, on 06 December 2012 - 12:59 PM, said:

First let us take a look at a few important facts:

FACT 1 - Specialized Development Roles: The people that work on net code or bug fixing are not the same people that are working on modeling. Bug fixing/programming is a different skill/specialization than net code troubleshooting which is a different skill than working mech modeling and maps. I am a programmer and I could not put a model together to save my life and I would be hard pressed to do any sort of net code fixing. With this being known they are going to be able to pump out models and maps, etc while still working on net code and bug fixing. Stopping everything else to concentrate on bug fixing and netcode issues would mean that everyone else of the office would sit around doing absolutely nothing but twiddling their thumbs which wastes valuable money and time, when they could actually be doing something to move the game forward.

FACT 2 - Bug Fixing is Hard: Bug fixing is 1000 times more difficult and time consuming than writing new code, especially when you have thousands and thousands of lines of code to sort through and it becomes even more difficult if the code is not written by you (ie multiple programmers). You may think that you have found the problem in one place and you place some code there to fix it, but it turns out that the real problem is hidden deep down within layers and layers of dependent code. You put two integer values into a function and expect to get an integer value out, but on occasion you get "SRM" instead. That is a WTH moment, and honestly all it takes is for one = or == to be out of place and things will break intermittently and unexpectedly.

FACT 3 - Small Shop: They are a small shop so getting things done takes a lot longer than super-mega funded projects who are hemorrhaging cash. PGI's work on MWO is underwritten by a small independent producer, IGP, and is not support by a massive corporation like Sony or Bioware. If they were we would have MW5 like they were originally looking to do, and not MWO as it is now.

FACT 4 - Monetization: Playing on Fact 3 here - since they are small shop and PGI and other investors require a return on investment and need a steady income stream they need to be continuously be putting on the money making items (bobble heads, Christmas lights, hero mechs, etc) in order to support the game and continue its development.

[Taryys]

The 5.2 mil did not go to PGI. It went to IGP.

[Particle Man]

AND they had been in development for many months before that money came in

[elsie]

PenumbralRadiance, on 06 December 2012 - 01:44 PM, said:

Actually I understand these points, and my response is simple: I have repeatedly been told that PGI pulled in over 5 million from the founders program. If that is the case, or if the truth is even remotely close (even if it is just 1 million), then the question becomes one of where they should be focusing ADDITIONAL resources moving forward. Basically, the point here is to gather feedback on what the community is most concerned with, and therefore provide a touchpoint for the developers as they move forward and perhaps re-invest some of this money they are extracting from us into the game itself. Also: Yes, I am aware of how hard bug fixing is, I am a troubleshooter who worked in a software as service company up until six months ago. I updated the poll to reflect this.

But did you work in the service company before it had any customers? Up until the founder program, I don't believe they had much in other public funding streams. So it is most likely that the 5 million quatloos they pulled in served two purposes: one, to show their investors that the business model was viable; and two, to pay for a lot of their outstanding debt from a couple of years of development. Having been in a (failed) startup, I've seen how much initial funding you can burn through and that funding has to be paid back or written off. They are unlikely to have a large balance of that money left that isn't already allocated for maintaining salaries, infrastructure and development.


elsie

[Krivvan]

$5 million actually isn't all that much. Other studios can raise $100 million and still consider that to be a mediocre amount.

And like elsie said, the money likely went to either paying off debts and/or it went to IGP.

Edited by Krivvan, 06 December 2012 - 03:01 PM.

[OneManWar]

Just look at salaries alone. 45 man development team ranging from probably 40-80K so lets average it at 60. For one year (already done) that's $2,700,000. Factor in equipment, advertising, operational costs (such as bandwidth, rent, paper and everything in between) and that 5 million is LONG gone. Grand Theft Auto 4 took 100 million dollars to develop. Mind you it was the most expensive game of all time, but anyways it should put things in perspective a bit.

[anonymous175]

Drop everything they're doing.

Reply to this thread.

Then reply to every thread.

Yes?

[Pugastrius]

Quote

FACT 4 - Monetization: Playing on Fact 3 here - since they are small shop and PGI and other investors require a return on investment and need a steady income stream they need to be continuously be putting on the money making items (bobble heads, Christmas lights, hero mechs, etc) in order to support the game and continue its development.

Just so you know, this is no where near the truth.

For example... which is more attractive?

Quote

1) $100 every year forever
2) $110 every year starting next year?
3) $121 every year starting in two years?

[mouzerius]

i want them to make more maps and game modes and less crap to put in cockpits.

[Zanathan]

mouzerius, on 06 December 2012 - 03:40 PM, said:

i want them to make more maps and game modes and less crap to put in cockpits.

Same here. However I do realise now that some of the graphics designers are improving the current maps to increase performance and this, like debugging issues, will take time.

To fill in the gaps while we wait though I would love to see more variants of the current maps.

[Shard Phoenix]

I threw in some votes.

I'm not going to be too hard on PGI for the pace that they're turning out content.

I won't lie and say things like the net-code induced lagshield isn't somewhat aggravating. However, it is what it is, and I know that coming to the forums to post up a huge rage-filled rant about it isn't going to make the fix come sooner.

I'd like some of the performance issues to be addressed. The CryEngine update they did several patches ago caused me all kinds of game-play drama that wasn't present before that patch. I think some of it is problems with my hardware/software, so again I'm not going to get my pitchfork and torch out. It's frustrating to have to restart the game every 3 drops to prevent massive FPS drops and Black Screen of Death, but I'm dealing with it for now.

[Taryys]

Actually, it is true by virtue of the business model that they chose.
F2P vs subscription.
Each has its merits, but the devs choose F2P, therefore my statements stand.

Pugastrius, on 06 December 2012 - 03:21 PM, said:

Just so you know, this is no where near the truth.

[b]For example... which is more attractive?

[Garth Erlam]

Pugastrius, on 06 December 2012 - 03:21 PM, said:

Just so you know, this is no where near the truth. [b]For example... which is more attractive?

When you're paying the rent and utilities? The first one.