Developers share next-generation wish list
Game developers talk about ideas they want to see implemented in the next generation, ranging from more power to lessons from mobile devices, free-to-play PCs, and easier patches and updates.
With all the talk of PlayStation 4s and Xbox 720s and such lately, it seems the next generation is fast approaching. All those technical bells and whistles won't amount to much without developer support, though, so it's important to consider what studios want out of the next gen.
Gamasutra posed the question question to various game developers, from Epic to Ubisoft.
Tim Sweeney, founder of Epic Games, suggests that the next consoles should learn lessons from mobile devices, from Facebook integration to ease of buying and downloading games on the App Store without having to make physical media. "So, having all the things you'd expect from the game industry as a whole, and the best that's been done elsewhere, and bringing that to the console platform is really important." Of course, it wouldn't be Epic without wanting more power, and Sweeney says he'd like to see "as many teraflops as is economically possible" to create new experiences.
Crytek, another performance-heavy developer, similarly suggests having more powerful tools, but also wants to see consoles take note from the differentiated pricing models on PC and mobile devices. "We're seeing a change in models in games toward more freemium content, and a quicker response to your community," said Crytek's Carl Jones. "You can be very successful with a game by giving a game away for free, and then giving players the content they want. And if they really want it, and are really enjoying it, that's when they'll pay for it. That's appropriate. Why shouldn't we do it like that?"
Other responses range from "a much more fluid means of providing updates to consumers" (Capcom's Christian Svensson) to more platform parity and reduced "bureaucracy" for things like game updates (Ubisoft's David Polfeldt).
One would hope that Sony and Microsoft are taking this kind of feedback into consideration, and have already heard it all and made plans for how to implement these ideas. We won't know for sure, of course, until we hear console plans from the manufacturers themselves.
-
Steve Watts posted a new article, Developers share next-generation wish list.
Game developers talk about ideas they want to see implemented in the next generation, ranging from more power to lessons from mobile devices, free-to-play PCs, and easier patches and updates.-
-
-
-
-
3 years minimum at least. Assuming it's not cheaply built. . . if you have proper heat dissipation, and you are giving it clean power, (ups' are your friend), the hardware should last a long time. However with mechanical I'm a bit more forgiving. Hard drives, fans, etc.
The 360 was straight up poor design. -
-
You are not the rule I'd say. 6 years for a PC is a long time. Are you saying you do no upgrades in that time? Also, after 3 years I expect hard drives to start dropping. They are mechanical and nothing running at high RPM like that is immune to failure. Same thing goes for fans and other components. We aren't talking military or industrial grade parts here.
-
No, I only change parts out if something isn't working right. So far this has only been to address heat issues. I deliberately buy parts that are a gen or so back when building computers because they tend to be significantly more reliable, as they've had time to iron out the issues. While the computers tend to be pretty worn down by year 6, I've never had a part fail on me outside the traditional first 3 months where the manufacturing defects tend to show.
-
-
Fair enough, but my PS1 and SNES are still working fine. Hell, my damn original Game Boy brick lasted longer than TWO successive PSPs. it's only once the console arms race started with the PS2/Xbox gen that all these issues started cropping up. Obviously the machines are much more complex than they used to be but that doesn't mean they can't put more of a priority on longevity.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
what does this really mean though? You want Sony, MS and Nintendo to each do a huge amount of thorough playtesting (beyond the normal cert/basic functionality stuff) of the next 100 hour Fallout game to ensure higher quality? Assuming that the publisher doesn't use this new process as an excuse to do less QA themselves (iirc RomSteady mentioned this was exactly why cert ended up having a high cost, because certain companies were just submitting for cert over and over rather than doing proper QA on their side).
-
I'd rather have the developers and publishers of these games test and polish their stuff thoroughly and stop releasing releasing broken products early due to publisher demand and unreasonable and inflexible release dates. Obviously never going to happen because business is business and "when it's done" isn't always good business.
The console manufacturers shouldn't have to do any rigorous testing if the product is sound when they get it for cert. Yet if they are going to continue to force certification processes for every little thing rather than adopt a more open approach like Steam as seems to be the current trend, then yeah. Deter game companies from taking the release broken fix later approach by any means necessary.
On the PC side it the patching processes needs to be open because there are so many hardware and software configurations and they can't possible test all of them. A game designed for a specific console should be bulletproof by comparison.-
right, so we know it's not going to 'just happen' from the dev/publisher side. So what is 'any means necessary' on the platform holder's side if not a massive QA effort of their own for each title? The only way to deter companies from releasing buggy games is to charge a high cert fee and have a super rigorous cert process (and having a quick and easy patching process like Steam and enforcing high quality releases at launch aren't really mutually exclusive concepts on the face of things). I don't see any good punishment after the fact working. Are you really going to go punish Activision for an exploit filled MW2 multiplayer when it's selling billions of dollars worth of software on your platforms?
-
I'm all for punishing Activision for anything MW2 related so I'm probably not the guy to be taking that question. MP betas for console releases have already been the norm. Start using them to actually test and fix exploits on a grand scale prior to release rather than having them be the mislabeled demos and promos that they are. The platform holder should not be responsible for another's broken product. I wouldn't say it's punishment, but rather teaching them to learn from their mistakes so they don't do it in the future.
It's been a slippery slope since consoles became online enabled and packed in HDDs for storage. And it's only going to get worse unless someone does something about it. Either get rid of the cert process entirely and let the developers fix their shit in a timely fashion and do whatever the fuck they want like on PC, or make them think twice about releasing a busted game.
Real punishment would not be charging them more for certification but a recall and replacement for all the defective games for every consumer. Why should games not be held up to the same standards as other products?
-
I'm all for punishing Activision for anything MW2 related so I'm probably not the guy to be taking that question.
MW2 is hardly the only high profile offender. The recent Fallout games and Skyrim had plenty of bugs on both platforms. Punishing companies after the fact for releasing a product that ultimately made you many tens of millions of dollars? Good luck with that.
It's been a slippery slope since consoles became online enabled and packed in HDDs for storage. And it's only going to get worse unless someone does something about it. Either get rid of the cert process entirely and let the developers fix their shit in a timely fashion and do whatever the fuck they want like on PC, or make them think twice about releasing a busted game.
This just doesn't follow unless you're asserting that PC games are less buggy than console games modulo unforeseen bugs due to hardware variations. Like I said, an initial high quality cert process and then quick patching are not mutually exclusive concepts. Is Skyrim on PC now much higher quality than the 360 because of either initial higher quality or faster bug fix rate? Mass Effect? DX:HR? I'm not saying the quick patching model of Steam isn't great for a variety of reasons, but that doesn't make it a cure all for the things you're complaining about.
Real punishment would not be charging them more for certification but a recall and replacement for all the defective games for every consumer. Why should games not be held up to the same standards as other products?
Do you recall entire car lines every time there're a few little defects in certain models? As something grows in complexity the incidence of problems is going to increase, that's inevitable. This has always been true of software. A recall obviously accomplishes nothing that a patch couldn't, and is insanely expensive to a degree that no publisher would agree to those terms.-
You keep throwing around the concept of punishing a company after the fact like it's unheard of but aren't they already being punished with the current certification processes for patches and updates? Do you think it's not so bad because they are rolling in the dough even though it really hurts smaller developers and indies even more? When and why do you get to draw the line and say what's a fair punishment and what isn't? I don't understand the stance you are taking with this at all.
And yeah, Skyrim is and has consistently been higher quality on PC because they've been doing more frequent updates and fixes there first. At the outset too, remember the low texture bug when it was installed to the 360's HDD and how long that took to fix?
Bethesda has even started beta testing the changes for the console patches on PC before they submit them to certification. The 1.5 beta opt in had been going on for weeks and just officially came out on Steam a few days ago with the console release still TBD. Really smart of them to take advantage of the benefits of that platform and delivery system. Part of the reason the certification process sucks is because you have to wait so long for important and gamebreaking issues to be resolved. How long the Arkham City save bug was actually in cert after it was found and fixed?
Even with the opportunity for constant updates and fixes in a less costly and much timelier fashion, you still have publishers like EA holding back the PC fixes until the console ones are out of certification for simultaneous deployment. So sometimes it doesn't even matter and everyone gets the short end of the stick whether the platform has a cert process or not.
And vehicle recalls are incredibly common: http://www.recalls.gov/nhtsa.html
But I don't know why you'd even bothered to compare something so radically different.-
You keep throwing around the concept of punishing a company after the fact like it's unheard of but aren't they already being punished with the current certification processes for patches and updates?
That's my point, it's different to do it after the fact. To say before release 'we have a quality bar for releases on our platform and you need to do x,y,z to meet that, we charge a fee to check those features' is something that most people (aka publishers/devs) can understand the rationale for.
That's very different from 'so... I know you guys sold 18 million copies but your game is pretty buggy so we're going to fine you $500k.' So we met your cert requirements and sold a shitload of copies that made you a lot of money but because it was too buggy (by what metric?) you're fining us based on what scale?
Again, I'm differentiating from the initial cert on release vs constant quick patching as your initial comment was that you'd like to see higher quality releases out of the gate. So I'm imagining a system where you lower the bar for patches later but somehow raise the bar on initial quality. The latter meaning either a more comprehensive cert process or some means to punish developers after the fact if their initial release was buggy (but not stopping them from fixing those issues asap). So in the case of Skyrim, was the PC version significantly higher quality than the Xbox version on release? I doubt it. Yes there were some high profile bugs like the texture one you mentioned, but in terms of broken quests and scripting and whatever I highly doubt there was much that was platform specific. The PS3 had its own set of issues as I recall. In terms of higher quality, guaranteed to work out of the gate, that's usually a big part of why people prefer consoles over PC in the first place.
And vehicle recalls are incredibly common: http://www.recalls.gov/nhtsa.html
But I don't know why you'd even bothered to compare something so radically different.
They're not 'incredibly common' by any measure. They happen yes. They're a last resort. The reason I brought them up is they're an example of a non-software, consumer product with incredible complexity. That some things in a car break (early/often/whatever) is a fact of life with car ownership. Every little issue does not warrant a recall, nor does everyone go beating down the door at Ford the moment something in their car breaks. There're warranties and whatnot but there's a certain amount of fix ups that are expected when you own a car. This is a concept people have become accustomed to. There are relatively more or less issues with certain cars and that's certainly a criteria one uses when picking a vehicle but I think most people aren't naive enough to think they're going to buy a car and have literally 0 issues for years and years (whether under warranty or not). As software becomes increasingly complex the same issue arises but it's more difficult for people to internalize that complexity and its effects. There're a certain number of bugs that are simply inevitable when shipping millions of lines of new code on a cadence of a few years. This applies to games, operating systems, browsers, whatever.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
breakdown after time is a bit different, i'd say. Shouldn't you have a reasonable expectation that your car work correctly just after your purchase it? Wouldn't you be irritated if there were some major bugs with its performance? Things that possibly prevented you from using the car as you intended?
It would suck if you bought a car, and then had to take it to a shop a week after buying it for an update to make it work properly.
It's not a very good analogy. =/
-
-
-
-
Yeah, I was playing through Castlevania:LoS at launch on the PS3 and was thinking about how well polished it was. Until the corrupt save game bug got me when I was about halfway finished with the game. :(
Reminded me of the time I got to the end of Dragon Warrior on the NES and took the cart to my neighbor's so he could watch me fight the end boss. Walked into the room and his baby sister had pulled the cart out and put in Super Mario 2. Yep. Wiped the save file. :(
-
-
If that is what you then don't cry when development and testing times triple. If you don't want to wait a few extra years for testing then you have to accept that bugs will happen. Complex software is going to have glitches no matter what you do. Just one example , NASA occasionally has to rewrite or patch portions of code on some of their probes that have been launched.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Realistic wishes:
Reliable hardware.
DirectX 11.1
12x bluray read speed drive.
2gb ddr5 for gpu. 2gb for system.
Hybrid storage. (SSD cached mechanical drive)
Ability to use your own hard drive if you want to go full SSD.
Minimum 720p @60fps with some sort of AA. (New TXAA algo from nvidia looks very promising)
Wireless 802.11n
7.1 HD audio (lpcm, dolby truhd, dts-hd)
Pipe Dream:
120hz capable output.
Minimum 1080p@ 60fps w/ AA
Tru2Way Support + DVR (No more renting cable boxes)
4gb XDR2 gpu ram, 4gb system.
BD-XL disc support. (128gb discs)
802.11ac
Biometric feedback controllers.
Mouse + keyboard support with every game.
Publisher ability to offer free DLC
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
They tend to release the patch for all platforms at the same time so they are held back by the cert process.
Sony's servers have always been slow as hell but the patch process isn't much different from Xbox patches. If you play it often it's not a big deal but if it sits for 6 months like my 360 did then you have to wait though an ass ton of updates.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
but you're just mashing together a bunch of stuff that doesn't have to be that way. Being able to invite someone to a game directly via their FB profile is different from having the game automatically spam your news feed with 'I'm playing videogames!!'
You don't know many people who use FB for that because none of the games that use Steam/XBL allow that functionality so we all have a bunch of platform specific friends lists. Where as when you hop on a new iOS game (like Draw Something) people very much login with FB so they can quickly start playing with whoever else of their friends has the game.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-