Is anyone an experienced as a dev,managing games?

mechsauc3 · July 2016

What do you feel about the current state of ESO? and how zenimax chooses to ignore the major bugs.. so that they can make more money putting new dlcs with new bugs?

- Cyrodil loading screens, 1year old bug
- Cyrodil ping, 1year old issue.
- Getting thrown off the map bug
- Gap gloser rng bug
-

Smileybones · July 2016

I'm afraid I'm not a game developper or game manager but I play MMos since quite a long time.

All you mention is PVP related, PVE gets bugs fixed regularly. Also you need to realise that "making more money" means keeping the servers running and game evolving.

mechsauc3 · July 2016

Smileybones wrote: »

I'm afraid I'm not a game developper or game manager but I play MMos since quite a long time.

All you mention is PVP related, PVE gets bugs fixed regularly. Also you need to realise that "making more money" means keeping the servers running and game evolving.

Indeed, but the thing is.. how can a big AAA+ company just leave bugs,exploits ignored for almost a year!?

rootimus · July 2016

Smileybones wrote: »

PVE gets bugs fixed regularly.

Except bugs that have been around since beta / launch day.

Mwnci · July 2016

I've never managed games, however I am an experienced software developer, so I can only answer from that point of view.

Edited:

Hidden as not really all that relevant:

ZeniMax developers are more than likely a collection of passionate gamers, who love building games and providing an enjoyable experience for everyone, but at the end of the day, ZeniMax is still a business first and foremost; and as such, decisions made are all about maximising profits in order to stay in business and keep shareholders happy.

Their primary goal is to make money; which, in the absence of a forced subscription ( as with ESO ), means the introduction of new content on a regular basis ( gamers have a habit of powering through content and then demanding more; which they get, and then pay for.. cha-ching! ). As a result, attending to bugs causes new content development to suffer, which reflects to lower financial turn over - which is obviously bad for business.

Bug Tracking:

99 little bugs in the code
99 little bugs in the code
Take one down, patch it around
117 little bugs in the code.

Apt, albeit rather sardonic.

Because bugs are dynamic ( they come in, we fix them, we patch them in, we mark them off and yet more come in ), we need a way to manage them. Thus, in order to establish some form of normalcy, some form of control over what we are doing, and to ensure we don't get bogged down with fixing bugs to the detriment of new development, developers assign priority and severity levels to the each and every single bug.

No software is bug free; World of Warcraft, for example, is currently under-going development for the new Legion expansion, and as I recall, one staff at Blizzard said they were fixing about 2,000 bugs a week. Each one of those bugs has their own priority and severity level.

Bug Classifications Explained:

Priority - A classification that is based on the importance and urgency of resolving the error.

Immediate: Self-explanatory.
High: During the course of normal development, this bug should be resolved before the update is released to the next (sub)version.
Medium: Important, but should be left alone until more important bugs are fixed.
Low: Update .. whenever. Literally. This may, or may not, get resolved. Like. Ever. Srsly.

Severity - A classification that guages the impact the bug has on the system.

Critical: Causes the software to become unusable. Such as a CTD.
High: It doesn't cause the software to halt, or raise a fatal exception ( such as a CTD ), but produce incorrect results, or renders the software largely unusable.
Medium: The bug doesn't actually impact anything at all.
Low: The bug is aesthetic. Like your mount having a gimpy leg that it drags behind it like a dead body as you gallop across the fields of Glenumbra at full throttle.

Where they fall into these two categories, determines when they will be attended to - if at all.

Some bugs can be attended to quickly, some can't and require substantial investigation and possible rework. Whilst a bug might seem easy to fix to the end-user, the reality is that the bug could very likely be extremely difficult to fix; or fixing the bug could break a number of other things.

As an example, I remember a rather easy bug to fix - however, the fix had a knock-on effect that required I spend a week reworking an entire portion of the application. Whilst that is an extreme case, it is an entirely real eventuality.

To attend to a couple of those you listed above:

Whilst, from the player's perspective, the long loading screen is frustrating beyond imagination, the issue likely isn't chasing players away from the game itself, and is unlikely to be causing any significant financial loss, if at all. As such, I would rank it as a medium priority, with medium severity bug. In other words, I'll get to it when I have time and have nothing on my plate.
The down side to this is, as more important bugs come in, it will continue to get pushed further down the line, ultimately resulting in it being over a year old; incidentally, on a large project, having bugs over a year old is normal.

>> There are more important things ( from a development perspective ) to look at it than bugs with a medium-low priority/severity.

In regards to something like the ping in Cryodil, this is an issue that could be caused by hardware, resulting in, for example, a bandwidth bottleneck ( too many connections trying to get through at once ). The fix for this could simply be to increase the amount of allowed connections, however, it could also be a fundamental flaw in the design of the network handling around that portion of the game. Fundamental flaws sometimes require substantial investment of time/resources to correct and a lot of company's are loath to invest in it due to the cost implications, so they simply try different ways of fixing it. This is an example, this is not necessarily the case with ZeniMax. Whatever the reason, the ping issue in general is unacceptable, and leaving it for so long is simply poor development management in my eyes.

ZeniMax, like any other developer, is working off a schedule. They have content that needs to be developed; and unless they devote time/resources/staff to dedicated bug fixing ( which simply doesn't happen ), lower prioritised bugs will simply have to take a back seat.

In an ideal development world, we'd have sufficient staff to produce new content and fix all the bugs at the same time; but in the real world, up-scaling and teaching new developers costs money, resources and time that most development houses simply don't have available. Not to mention that one of the biggest problems in development is you can't just throw more developers at the problem and expect it to get fixed sooner, in fact, the opposite usually happens ( we call this Brooks' law ).

Ergo, it's important for a development house to utilise what hands they have available in a smart and efficient manner. New content that generates income is smart ( from a business position ), and organising bugs into priorities and tackling them over time is an efficient approach. Inconvenient for the end-user, but efficient for the company.

On that note, it's important to keep in mind that what we, as the end-user, consider to be a top priority issue will not always align with what the developer considers to be a top priority issue. Understand that they have an infinitely deeper understanding of the system than we do, and whilst we may be passionate about the product and have been using it for years; we are still ignorant as to it's internal workings.

ZeniMax's priorities are not our priorities. Meaning it could take a year for a bug to be attended to, if it ever does get attended to.
Bugs are never ignored.. but they do fall through the cracks from time to time.

ArchMikem · July 2016

rootimus wrote: »

Smileybones wrote: »

PVE gets bugs fixed regularly.

Except bugs that have been around since beta / launch day.

If you want bug fixes to be made in order from oldest to most recent, then the most recent will be put on the back burner while ZOS plays catch up. No matter what they do, people will still complain about something because on a game of this scale there will always be something.

UltimaJoe777 · July 2016

Just because they haven't fixed them yet doesn't mean they're ignored. They know, they're working on it, but it's not so simple as to say "oh it's broken I'll fix it right now. *presses a button* There, all fixed!". They have to figure out all the variables making these big breaks to fix them... Just because they haven't found a fix yet doesn't mean they should drop everything and work on it, because they ARE working on it and focusing the entire staff on a single issue won't fix it any faster.

notimetocare · July 2016

Mwnci wrote: »

I've never managed games, however I am an experienced software developer, so I can only answer from that point of view.

ZeniMax developers are more than likely a collection of passionate gamers, who love building games and providing an enjoyable experience for everyone, but at the end of the day, ZeniMax is still a business first and foremost; and as such, decisions made are all about maximising profits in order to stay in business and keep shareholders happy.

Their primary goal is to make money; which, in the absence of a forced subscription ( as with ESO ), means the introduction of new content on a regular basis ( gamers have a habit of powering through content and then demanding more; which they get, and then pay for.. cha-ching! ). As a result, attending to bugs causes new content development to suffer, which reflects to lower financial turn over - which is obviously bad for business.

A sardonic, but humorous, poem goes:
99 little bugs in the code
99 little bugs in the code
Take one down, patch it around
117 little bugs in the code.

Enter bug lists. Bug lists are a constantly changing thing. Bugs come in, we fix them, we send the fix out; more come in.
In order to establish some form of normalcy, some form of control and to ensure we don't get bogged down with bug fixing instead of new content implementation, bugs are assigned by Priority ( Immediate, High, Medium and Low ) and Severity ( Critical, High, Medium and Low ). Where they fall into these two categories, determines when they will be attended to.

Some bugs can be attended to quickly, some require the developer to delve deeply into the code to find the cause of the issue, some bugs -no matter how small they appear- could take a long time to fix; and some other bugs can be caused by a much deeper problem.

For example:

Cryodil loading screens: Whilst, from the player's perspective, the long loading screen is frustrating beyond imagination. The issue likely isn't chasing players away from the game itself, and is unlikely to be causing any significant financial loss, if at all. As such, to me as a developer, it's an issue that would rank as medium Priority ( ie: Only look into this when the major bugs are fixed ) and low Severity ( the bug is aesthetic, or a minor enhancement as it does not impair application functionality ). The down side to this, is as more important bugs come in, it will get pushed further down the line, resulting it eventually being over a year old. On a large project, having bugs over a year old is quite normal. There are more important things ( from a development perspective ) to look at it than medium-low Priority, medium-low Severity bugs.

As I mentioned above, some bugs are caused by a deeper problem.
In regards to something like the ping in Cryodil, this is an issue that can be caused by hardware, resulting in something like a bandwidth bottleneck. The fix for this, would be to upgrade the infrastructure, and whilst leaving this for a year is completely unacceptable, it's entirely plausible to assume ZeniMax simply don't have the time/resources/money to upgrade their servers just yet ( assuming that's the issue ). In addition, the impact on the game ( from their standpoint ) could be minor ( plenty of people still play Cyrodil ) thus resulting in a medium Priority, medium Severity ( it does not cause failure or impair usability of the game ) ranking.

One of the biggest problems in development is you can't just throw more developers at the problem and expect it to get fixed sooner, in fact, the opposite usually happens and we call this: Brooks' law. So in an ideal development world, we'd have sufficient staff to a) produce new content and b) fix all the bugs at the same time; but in the real world, up-scaling and teaching new developers costs money, resources and time that most development houses simply don't have available.

It's important to keep in mind that what we, as the end-user, consider to be "major" or "top priority" will not always align with what the developer considers to be "major" or "top priority." Understand that they have an infinitely deeper understanding of the system that we do.

ZeniMax, like any other developer, is working off a schedule. They have content that needs to be developed; and unless they devote time/resources/staff to dedicated bug fixing ( which won't happen ), medium-low Priority/Severity bugs take a back seat.

Finally, someone to really explain it.

Turelus · July 2016

No personal experience with it but I have been spoiled rotten by CCP Games and their amazing ways (sometimes, ignore the $1000 pants thing!)

reiverx · July 2016

I've been writing business software for 31 years. I'm not going to go into the ins and outs of development but I'll give my two cents on business practices.

I've mainly worked for large corporations, just because they are usually more stable. One thing I've noticed is they are very conscious about their image. It means a lot. Negative press is bad, especially nowadays with social media being used as a weapon.

I worked in the healthcare industry for four years. If a bug ever got into production, which was rare but it happened, then you bet it would be taken care of straight away.

The healthcare industry is in the public spotlight.

Most of the companies I've worked for are in the public spotlight.

The games industry is not.

And I believe this is the reason why games companies can produce shoddy work. The general public don't give a damn. It's only a game. The wheels of industry will still turn.

There will never be a news headline that a bug brought down the ESO servers. Now if a bug brought the automobile industry to its knees... well, you get the picture.

Johngo0036 · July 2016

I am not a games developer,

I am a Systems Engineer and have around 20 years experience in software development,

I worked primarily in the banking industry and believe me when i say that had zenni been a bank they would have closed their doors already,

If a banking internet site was as laggy as cyrodiil no customers would return,
It i treated payments like zenni treats gap closers, your payments would never happen and when they did you would not be surprised to see the funds go to some account you dont even have as a beneficiary,

Balancing the different packages would be interesting as pensioners and children would be paying higher banking fees than the working class,

So lets be very happy that Zenni has not expanded into any other industries where fatalities could be a direct result of sloppy design, sloppy implementation and really shoddy customer support....

SlayerTheDragon · July 2016

ZOS needs to:

Get in some professionals to track and audit the code and technical issues.
Be honest with they player base e.g. "Our servers are taking strain, but we are looking at our options..."

But in the world of code -
Bug Fixing > Everything Else.

Averya_Teira · July 2016

reiverx wrote: »

I've been writing business software for 31 years. I'm not going to go into the ins and outs of development but I'll give my two cents on business practices.

I've mainly worked for large corporations, just because they are usually more stable. One thing I've noticed is they are very conscious about their image. It means a lot. Negative press is bad, especially nowadays with social media being used as a weapon.

I worked in the healthcare industry for four years. If a bug ever got into production, which was rare but it happened, then you bet it would be taken care of straight away.

The healthcare industry is in the public spotlight.

Most of the companies I've worked for are in the public spotlight.

The games industry is not.

And I believe this is the reason why games companies can produce shoddy work. The general public don't give a damn. It's only a game. The wheels of industry will still turn.

There will never be a news headline that a bug brought down the ESO servers. Now if a bug brought the automobile industry to its knees... well, you get the picture.

I think this is mostly it. They can ignore players and push back fixing stuff and whatever they want. Thousands of people still buy that 15$ pet and those 10$ hats, etc. while the general public (which shareholders are part of) don't even understand the negativity and think "It's just a game, my quarterly is good though...."

ESO is still buggier than most MMO I've played, even amateur-ish indie MMOs.... That is a big problem to me. It means their whole team is less competent than 2-10 guys working out of their houses....

Reapor · July 2016

mechsauc3 wrote: »

What do you feel about the current state of ESO? and how zenimax chooses to ignore the major bugs.. so that they can make more money putting new dlcs with new bugs?

- Cyrodil loading screens, 1year old bug
- Cyrodil ping, 1year old issue.
- Getting thrown off the map bug
- Gap gloser rng bug
-

I used to develop for a private server of a aion and RF online, without seeing server side all i can really say honestly is idk(way to much stuff to consider).

We did have bugs that lasted a long time that we had to completely change the emulator to fix tho and that was a lot of work.

I really doubt they ignore bugs the issue is they dont communicate if they have issues fixing something, thats the real issue.

AnviOfVai · July 2016

I used to help run an online game back in the day, but I was on the designer side Graphic Designer, creating maps and furs for characters, I can honestly say yes we did get our fair bit of problems, and the fact is bugs are always going to pop up, putting out an update to fix that bug will generate another 10, its an endless cycle. The game will never be clean. Eso however has had a ridiculous amount of problems that are slow to be fixed. I'm not blaming them, the game is HUGE it is a lot to deal with and I am pretty sure all bugs are reported and they will be worked on. Its just...very slow. However I love the game, I love the style and I love the freedom, and I will continue to play this game with endless load screens, lag and bugs everywhere!

At last there are no flying bird humans like there was in Red Dead Redemption... Mind you those bugs were fun!

idk · July 2016

mechsauc3 wrote: »

What do you feel about the current state of ESO? and how zenimax chooses to ignore the major bugs.. so that they can make more money putting new dlcs with new bugs?

- Cyrodil loading screens, 1year old bug
- Cyrodil ping, 1year old issue.
- Getting thrown off the map bug
- Gap gloser rng bug
-

Concerning cyrodiil, anyone who plays there knows the issue and anyone who pays attention to patch notes knows Zos is working on the issue incrementally since they cannot properly test changes to cyrodiil on the PTS.

To ask if any are experienced game Devs is a little melodramatic.

Granted, their working at a snails pace and should probably just bite the bullet sns do a wholesale change with a warning that cyrodiil may go dark.

Tandor · July 2016

I've helped develop and run games as well as having my own game published "back in the day". I don't recognise the claim that ZOS are ignoring bugs so as to concentrate on revenue-earning content. I'm very confident that they're addressing both the outstanding issues with the game and the addition of new content, almost certainly through different teams. A lot of the simpler bugs have been fixed, the more tricky ones to replicate, diagnose, provide a fix which then has to be tested are always going to take time. A lot of the issues have to be addressed a bit at a time for fear of screwing other things up or simply making the initial problem worse, and ZOS have said previously that this is the case with performance issues in Cyrodiil, for example, where they're introducing a number of fixes a stage at a time. That all makes a lot of sense, and of course it is also the case that these are often not issues that everyone suffers from in any event.

waterfairy · July 2016

Smileybones wrote: »

All you mention is PVP related, PVE gets bugs fixed regularly.

Orsinium isn't PvP and it's currently taking characters hostage on console, even after yesterdays "maintenance".

It may be laggy but at least you can load into Cyrodiil and exit it again without having to request your character be moved.

Drakoleon · July 2016

Most of all those major issues are almost 2 years old especially PVP lag. Really what makes you believe that zeni can fix them now?
Apparently instant of fixing old bugs for good.....they add new

I think zeni is incompetent to handle this great game

AnviOfVai · July 2016

Drakoleon wrote: »

Most of all those major issues are almost 2 years old especially PVP lag. Really what makes you believe that zeni can fix them now?
Apparently instant of fixing old bugs for good.....they add new I think zeni is incompetent to handle this great game

The Bug With Cyrodiils lag could be a number of things, one of them being so many players being in one location. Yes it is still ongoing but it has been improved in the last 2 years, its no where NEAR what it used to be, but its not completely fixed.