←back to thread

268 points behnamoh | 3 comments | | HN request time: 0.713s | source
Show context
kornakar ◴[] No.28668066[source]
This reminds me of my game development job I had years back.

I was new to the field (but not new to software development) and there was this small software team doing programming tasks for the game. The lead developer was concerned on my performance after a few months I was there.

I remember him drawing an image excatcly like the second picture in this article (an arrow going from A to B). He said that my performance was very poor, and then he drew another picture that was like the circle in the article.

The way I worked was searching for a solution, going wrong direction a few times, asking designers for more information and then eventually landing on a solution (that worked, and users like it).

But I was told this is wrong way of doing software. I was not supposed to ask advice from the users (because the team "knew better").

He also told me that a good software developer takes a task, solves it (goes from A to B), and then takes another task.

After a few weeks I was fired from that job.

To this day I'm still baffled by this. The company was really succesfull and everyone knew how to make software. It seemed like a very harsh environment. Is it like this in the top software companies everywhere? Like the super-pro-developers really just take a task and solve it without issues?

replies(12): >>28668113 #>>28668137 #>>28668138 #>>28668139 #>>28668191 #>>28668254 #>>28668778 #>>28669170 #>>28669289 #>>28669499 #>>28669533 #>>28669735 #
resonious ◴[] No.28668138[source]
In my own experience (and opinion), your style of development often results in better quality code, less bugs, and cleaner UX. The tradeoff, as you experienced, is time.

I can also tell you that maximum code quality is not always the priority. This is especially true in games, where you ship and then move onto the next project. Even online games nowadays often shut down after not long, and so they don't need quite as much maintenance as a successful SAAS.

Again in my experience, the super-pro devs I know are particularly good at knowing when to be fast and reckless, and when to be slow and calculating.

replies(3): >>28668743 #>>28669135 #>>28670186 #
1. still_grokking ◴[] No.28669135[source]
The result of this "we don't need quality" line of thinking is that almost every AAA game release nowadays is a gigantic fiasco. Nobody wants actually to buy alpha quality shit any more!

I guess games could have much higher sales (especially when the thing is new and hot) if they wouldn't release utter garbage for the most time. Just go and ask people whether they're keen on buying a bunch of bugs for 60 to 80 bucks. Most people aren't. Only a very small group of die hard fans does this.

The whole indie scene wouldn't stand a chance likely if the big players were able to deliver stuff that works actually before the first couple of patches. It's a kind of joke that one or a few people can build much better games than multi-billion companies. The problem is the mindset at the later!

I'm not advocating for "maximum code quality" as you don't get that anywhere anyway for any reasonable price. But game releases are just far beyond any pain point. The usual advice is: Don't touch, don't buy, until they proved that they're willing to fix their mess!

The games industry would need to walk a really long distance before they could get rid again of this public perception. But they need to start somewhere. Otherwise their reputation will reach absolute zero real soon now. They're already almost there…

replies(2): >>28669658 #>>28702128 #
2. e3bc54b2 ◴[] No.28669658[source]
> games could have much higher sales

Problem is, execs would like 300M revenue now, with a buggy PoS, than 500M after 6-12 months. Because those 300M can let them make another crappy game and release it 6 months earlier (12 if both skip on quality). Then you are missing 400M revenue, but you get 600M 12 months earlier. That recoups costs and looks nicer on reports.

Or in other words, gamers hate buggy releases, but not enough to change the practice.

3. girvo ◴[] No.28702128[source]
> Nobody wants actually to buy alpha quality shit any more!

Sadly, I do not think that is true. Plenty of those games continue to sell in huge numbers.