Agile game dev (1/5) - Keith 2010

Agile game development with Scrum, Clinton Keith, 2010

Part I - Problem and solution

Read the series: 1/5, 2/5, 3/5, 4/5, and 5/5.

Problems

In the 70s, arcade hardware was expensive, so developers iterated on the software and shipped when high quality. In the 80s, hardware became cheaper, so everyone could ship games without too much investment. Quality consequently decreased. But as games increased in complexity, teams started to require specialists (artists, composers, network engineers), and the software costs exploded. This led to the hit-or-miss strategy: invest only a few man-years in developing a game, ship, and hope for success. Hopefully, one hit would pay for many failures.
Problem #1: the number of man-years (and costs) to make AAA games doubles every 5 years, but the market isn't growing as fast. Moreover, only 25% of the revenues will go to the developer; the rest goes in distribution, marketing, publishing, and licensing fees.
Problem #2: only 20% of games released generate profits, so risk-averse publishers prefer sequels of existing IPs than risky innovation. Yet it is innovation that drives the game industry.

You can only know if your game is fun by play-testing it. Since design, art, and tech requirements emerge as the game is developed and play-tested, waterfall is not appropriate, and maintaining a detailed documentation too time-consuming.
Problem #3: how do stakeholders (developers, publisher, IP owner, studio management, etc.) communicate?

Traditional game development is made of 4 steps: concept, pre-production (aka pre-prod), production, and post-production. Of particular interest are pre-prod and prod. Pre-prod is exploratory, and aims at figuring out the basic mechanics for the game to be fun. Pre-prod can follow a kill-gate model, where several prototypes are started to explore ideas in parallel, and the least promising are "killed" every few months. In production, levels and assets are mass-produced.
Problem #4: how to predict the schedule, budget, and amount of new content to produce from the basics found in pre-prod? Moreover, milestones defined in contracts with publishers prevent developers from adding good features at the last moment, and prevent publishers to ask for new features too. How to accommodate everyone?

Introducing agile game development

Agile is not a silver bullet. It only makes the development process transparent: problems will become obvious, but they still have to be solved. Agile aims at improving communication between the stakeholders: publisher, developers, IP owner, studio management, and so on.

Sprints: Agile game development is iterative. At the lowest level of granularity, an inter-disciplinary team of developers designs, implements, and polishes features during iterations of 2-4 weeks called sprints.

User stories are the agile way to present features so that they communicate value/fun to the stakeholders. For example: "As a player, I want to see enemies react when shot."

Releases: At the highest level of granularity, releases of the game are delivered every 4-8 sprints (2-4 months). Releases focus on major goals such as "online gameplay".

Backlogs: Communication within the team happens through a sprint backlog, and between the team and the stakeholders through a product backlog. User stories are moved up or down the backlogs by the product owner, representing the stakeholders in the studio.

Freakonomics - Levitt 2006

Freakonomics, Levitt and Dubner, 2006

• Incentives are the cornerstone of modern life
• Conventional wisdon is often wrong
• Experts use their own informational advantage to server their own agenda
• Knowing wht to measure and how simplifies a complicated world

Incentives/deterrents can be economic, moral (I feel good about it) and social (pressure from society, shame). Experiment: The first rule was "Parents must pick up their kids before 5pm". When this rule was in place, only a few parents picked up their kids late. When changing the rule to "Parents who pick up their kids late are charged $3", many more parents picked up their kids late. Parents who used to feel morally responsible could now buy off their guilt. And the low fine signaled that it was no big deal to pick up your kids late. In the same "vein" of examples, paying people $5 to give blood results in less donors. Replacing the moral incentive by an economic one changed the way they saw the situation: while saving lives could justify the hassle/pain, $5 is not enough. People also cheat to abuse the incentive and get more for less. Cheating is more likely to happen for clear outcomes (e.g. sports or politics) than if the benefit or its recipient are not obvious.

Asymmetric information: people with exclusive info can cause fear (e.g. the USA don't know when terrorists are going to attack) and respect/gratitude (e.g. experts such as realtor agents know how much your house is worth on the market, or doctor can tell what disease you have). Internet is decreasing the information asymmetry. Experts need journalists to spread their opinion, but journalists need experts to write about new interesting/provocative topics.

What people say is not what people do. Examples: profiles on dating websites (most people rate their look "above average"), or voting for extreme right (people are ashamed?).

Four factors determine wage: specialized skill, unpleasantness, demand for the job, and supply of workers. That's why prostitutes earn more than architects per hour.

Risk: We suck at assessing risk: we measure it (implicitly) as risk = hazard + fear, while it should only be risk = hazard. When fear > hazard, we over-react. Hence the most hazardous risks are not always the scariest. Risks we don't have control over are scarier, while familiarity decreases fear. [This echoes the class on stress] Examples: heart attacks cause more deaths than terrorist attacks, yet people still eat fast-food. People fear more plane accidents than car accidents, even though they happen as often per hour spent in them.

[Except the first 2 chapters, I found this book focused too much on poor Blacks vs rich Whites.]