Modders doing the work of devs

[Sknubbinateur]

I see that several modders have released hotfixes for bugs introduced by Firaxis' updates. It seems completely ridiculous to me that people can do this for free in their spare time, but the paid staff of Firaxis don't?

Similarly I am wondering why obvious basic stuff has to be done by modders, even extremely simple UI things like being able to use WASD instead of arrows, showing all effects of a tech in the tech tree, or common sense options like having a difficulty bonus that scales evenly and is not massively frontloaded at the beginning.

Is there no incentive for developers to work on this because it doesn't make them more money? (But they do release updates...) I would think the UI and AI problems have an impact on the game's reputation?

Can't really wrap my head around the reasons for this. Maybe it is because of the organisational structure of such a company (developers getting orders from above and not having the freedom to improve things they encounter themselves)? Or why don't they hire some of the modders? Do modders generally feel frustrated that they're doing the work of the devs for free or don't mind?

Also wondering why content that was there in earlier Civ games is removed only to be added again by modders. To leave low-hanging fruit for expansions perhaps (or just to show in their promotion that each game is super 'different')?

 

[GrumboMumbo]

I'm no expert, but I have done some modding myself. I think modders do it because they are so passionate about the game. I had no previous modding experience, but I spent countless hours working on a balance mod for civ5, just because I wanted to have a slightly better experience.

It is clear to me that same passion is not present at Firaxis (and lots of other AAA developers right now) They all too often make subpar, unfinished work. They are big companies run by people who don't understand the importance of seemingly small things like game balance/AI that works etc. But when you delve deeper, it does effect the reputation of the game and does have a knock on effect on sales figures. Whether they understand that or not is another matter.

Like you said perhaps the developers just don't have enough creative freedom. Or maybe they are just not that good at their jobs. This happens in all walks of life, unfortunately it's no different in gaming. I wish we all had higher standards for this sort of thing.

 

[Gorbles]

This is a common view, and is the result of varying factors.

To explain this, we'd first have to separate out "basic stuff" into "UI things", "effects in a tech tree", or difficulty scaling options. These are all things that hit different areas of the game code, and some are more arguable than others. These kinds of arguable things are why mods exist - modders can make these changes because mods are an optional, opt-in system. For the less arguable improvements, see below.

Games development isn't about "incentive". Games developers are often worked incredibly exhausting hours for below-average pay (compared to software development in general). Developers have more tasks to complete in any given week than they have hours to complete them in (comfortable assumption from me, a regular software developer, knowing the additional work games developers often have to taken on). Tasks (as in regular software dev) are done in order of priority (most of the time).

Some of it ultimately comes down to because an issue isn't seen as much of a business concern as all the other things on a particular developer's plate. That's a call management has to make (daily / weekly / monthly, whichever). Absolutely. However the reality is there are far more suggestions that a community can generate about a game than developers can ever feasibly implement. And this is before we get onto the technical details of performance - more than a few things may not be performant enough for developers to implement officially. This is why giving modding tools to a community helps both the community and the developers - modders aren't forced to make the changes and fixes they do. But having the option is ideal, because modders can work to a schedule that developers simply can't. Updating a mod doesn't cost money, updating a mod doesn't require official QA, or marketing costs.

This doesn't mean that modders can't be exploited to improve a game, but I don't think that's the case simply from looking at the effort that goes into each Civ. patch. There have been pages of changes.

Mods are inherently easier to maintain and update than an actual game's codebase. That doesn't mean that mods can't be vastly-complex and require entire teams of people. But there are differences that, if you don't know them, are easy to handwave to one side.

 

[Sknubbinateur]

Interesting. For the optional additions, I think this does not necessarily have to be done by modders because the game also includes options that can be turned on or off. But let's focus indeed on the 'less arguable' things like bugfixes etc.

What do you mean by that updating would require marketing costs, and what are official QA (you mean Q&A/patch notes)?

You say that mods are easier to maintain and update than an actual codebase. But what does it matter if a modder fixes/adds something or if a developer can fix/add the same thing in the same way?
​

I didn't know that game developers were so overworked. In that case it would make sense to me that they hire more staff (e.g. some of the people currently doing the modding) to fix things more promptly etc. But perhaps this isn't profitable? Either because people are currently doing it for free and buyers know that a game will be improved by mods, or because a better-working/more often updated game doesn't sell sufficiently more than now? I don't mean "incentives" from the perspective of an individual developer/employee but from the company's perspective.

@GrumboMumbo: Could be. I would think that someone working professionally on Civ VI, especially someone who designed the game in the first place, must be passionnate about it (as we all are about our creations). Perhaps it's more to do with them not getting the time due to company- or market-level reasons

 

[Browd]

QA is the internal testing process to make sure that the game works under as many different circumstances as possible, including confirming that a purportedly fixed bug has, in fact, been fixed (often that depends on having correctly identified the cause) and that the fix doesn't break other things (either new bugs, or reviving a previously "fixed" bug, or otherwise disrupting balance). That usually involves multiple QA testers working on different machines in different environments, submitting reports that then have to be reviewed and validated, before being fed back to the development team for further fixes. And that is all complicated by the fact that multiple changes are being made in every internal "build" that is provided to the QA team, so when they find something broken, was it that the intended bug fix didn't work, or did the bug fix introduce a new, related bug, or is this a new bug that was revealed by the process of testing whether the former bug was fixed? There is a reason the following meme has legs in the software (including game) development industry:

I don't want to over-generalize this (since some mods are stunningly ambitious and complex), but fixing a mod bug is usually more straightforward, both because the mod's code base is usually far less complex than the game's code base (so fewer things to go wrong) and because the modder is more likely to be performing his or her own QA, so more likely to produce a new build of the mod right after fixing the bug and immediately testing it.

 

[Sknubbinateur]

Makes sense. Good to hear a bit more about the constraints from someone who knows about the field. I didn't mean bugs within mods, but mods that fix bugs in the vanilla game (e.g. the hotfix mod that was released for some issue introduced by the June patch). But I guess for a modder to try to fix it, without responsibility in case something else then becomes affected, is easier than for a company developer who is bound by rules to go through a quality assurance/testing process, needs validation from his superior who is on holidays etc

 

[Lanthar]

I can second @Gorbles observations - I worked for a good game company that didn't try to kill their employees with unreasonable, extended mandatory OT. Still, there was OT, and at one point all but 4 people were laid off, while the 4 remaining finished the game. People work at game companies because they are passionate about games...and the industry uses that passion to pay them less. I make much more money not working in the video game industry - more than a 30% increase, easily at the time (likely a larger % more now due to my specialization).

Every project has a budget set by the publisher, and a lot of that money goes towards project management, art design, art assets, animation and then QA near the end. Defects in the code are triaged, and the most important/most impactful are taken care of. There are always mores issues to fix than time and money available. While software estimation has improved, it will never be fully accurate, just like with construction estimation.

Toolsets for games like these are great - especially because they rarely increase sales significantly, so the cost of developing modding tools for public release goes entirely to the bottom line. Modders can then make improvements (or fixes) as they see fit. They can fix bugs that maybe the publisher won't, because the fix fails on the lower end of their hardware specs (which the modder doesn't own and doesn't test for) or some other reason. Modders can make mods for the hardcore (ie, us) that fix issues that maybe the general public won't ever see (they don't play enough to find flaws that those really good at the game find). Modders can do things the company may want to, but don't have the budget or freedom from hardware/software compatibility issues or Publisher rules.

It's a good solution when done well, allowing mods. A game's life is extended and good word of mouth from superfans can help the next iteration when done well.

 

[Sknubbinateur]

Interesting as well, thanks. I guess it all comes down to that they don't allocate enough money/human resources to fix all the things modders fix (because this isn't their most profitable option and the competitive market forces them to maximise profit). Still, feels kind of wrong for me to spend 140 euros on a game (all included) that is significantly flawed and have others work on it for free. (Although the latter is common in our cultures glorifying 'volunteerism' ). Would prefer to have a way to pay proportionate amounts to the original creators of a work and to those improving/adapting it, but won't be legally possible without radically reformed IP laws.

In any case I think we can agree that in an ideal world they would leave stuff like this to the community instead, and divert resources from it to the game itself:

 

[Mr. Shadows]

It seems to me that the only concrete complaint that the OP has is that mapping "WASD" had to be modded in. Seriously, that's such a minor UI preference that the devs SHOULDN'T be wasting their time on it. The tone of the post is incredibly sour for such a small complaint. Beyond that it sounds like he's blaming the devs because he doesn't like the way the industry at large works.

 

[Victoria]

There is a reason this cartoon was made and is up on walls in lots of IT companies. Business decisions is what it is and introducing a modders ideas is a hat tip to the modder and perhaps the way a developer can introduce something they like within the budget of the project because soemone else did the work. The developer lead could not justify it to the tight fisted project manager.
I live in steps 5 & 10 and TBH 5 often is just dropped because the project ran out of money by the time that stage was gotten to and therefore I get hit more at 10 which then has additional difficulties because they need me but have no money.

 

[tedhebert]

thx @Victoria !!!

That cartoon is such a classic. I too am an IT professionnal, albeit never in the gaming industry. I have friends who are and have been, and yes they were very much taken advantage of money and time wise. I think the video game industry is an excellent place to start an IT carreer, you get to learn an awful lot very fast. But don't stay there too long, you'll probably pay for it as much moneywise as health/family wise

 

[GrumboMumbo]

I think my earlier post was a little too harsh, I am just a bitter consumer at the end of the day and I want things done to a certain standard. I'm sure there is far more at play than I can understand. I just get frustrated when I find game breaking bugs or elements of a game that seem half baked. Perhaps this is an impossible task though in a massive production with so many moving parts.

QA = Quality Assurance (game testers)
Firaxis, if you are hiring, I'm up for the task!

 

[Sknubbinateur]

@Mr Shadows: obviously what I listed in the initial post are just a few examples, could have mentioned many more; what matters is that we probably all agree that many things improved by modders could just as well be part of the base game. I even saw a mod implementing something (sorting option in trade screens I think) that was already partially contained in the game's files but never finished, probably because the devs didn't have time anymore before some deadline.

@GrumboMumbo : same here. I think it is normal that we expect a fully functional product. The fact that it is probably not the fault of individual programmers that so many elements are half-baked, but of financial incentives on a market/industry level, doesn't mean that we should just accept that, imo (I guess conservatives may think differently from me). If modders can fix things in their free time then those things are not impossible tasks in the technical sense

 

[Mr. Shadows]

@Mr Shadows: obviously what I listed in the initial post are just a few examples, could have mentioned many more; what matters is that we probably all agree that many things improved by modders could just as well be part of the base game.

This is in no way agreed, that's why you need to give more examples of what you're talking about. I have 2,000+ hours in the game-most of those without mods- and I sincerely don't understand what your complaint is.

 

[Victoria]

Firaxis, if you are hiring, I'm up for the task!

You may find the job not quite as exciting as you think.

I think it is normal that we expect a fully functional product.

quite the opposite, when did Windows last release a finished version? Oracle? Sap? I work with all 3 of these big guns and a new version is always rubbish till it’s been beta tested by the end users.

 

[The googles do nothing]

QA = Quality Assurance (game testers)
Firaxis, if you are hiring, I'm up for the task!

My limited experience with modding Civ6 with SQL is that it's tedious testing changes. Pick a mod and do some testing on it and give feedback on steam. I'm sure the creator will appreciate it.

Firaxis does watch the bug Bug Reports forum I believe.

 

[Kaan Boztepe]

we live in age where the young people have an attention span of a few minutes ( gross generalization but hey it is a youtube stat ) , and we want new toys, new everything all the time.
the gaming industry , as any other, has to adapt or die. so they found this preorder-beta version - microtransaction - DLC model , that works well for them at the moment.
Now coming to the crux of the issue , as with any model that works well , the market leaders ( in this case big publishers with deep coffers like EA-activision or any other who want to be big ) will hire managers that will exploit the model .these managers have only one goal , to make money. Guess what doesnt make money , a little hint , anything AFTER people already paid for the game. Or do you think it is just a coincidence that EA buys hugely succesful companies , have them spit out the next version of their successful franchise in half the time and with tons of bugs , dont support the game apart DLC-micro transactions, have poor communication ( it gets harder and harder to find excuses that will cover up the truth of "we dont have the budget to fix this" ) and then shut them down?
I understand that developpers have a job to do and that unfortunately is usually what the money guys tell them. So i am never angry at them , i just blame the publishers and project managers who mishandle the game/franchise. Take a note of who did what and dont spend any money on their next project/game. If you want to see a change , you are in a unique position to do so. Dont spend money , dont preorder and show them that this is not how the sector should progress. Of course the price of the games will skyrocket because of this .

 

[Victoria]

dont preorder and show them that this is not how the sector should progress

Great explanation but sadly this is not restricted to the games industry.
Microsoft themselves had to back out of a patch not long ago because it was deleting users cloud files... poof gone in a cloud forever.
As one involved in testing, it is not as easy as you think. They have test on various devices and versions and testing gets quite boring so anyone good at gaming soon progresses on. Also the amount of testing requires resource so cheap resource is better.
Then of course there is automation which means the boxes are ticked but only based on what the script is checking for.
And finally as already stated they strip money out of the testing area to pay for what is considered ‘scope creep’ and similar.... and modder ideas are often considered scope creep, indeed the title of this thread is the cause of delays and lack of good testing.

 

[Deliverator]

This is in no way agreed, that's why you need to give more examples of what you're talking about. I have 2,000+ hours in the game-most of those without mods- and I sincerely don't understand what your complaint is.

The XP Bonuses and Royal Navy Dockyard Hotfix is probably the most significant recent example of a modder providing an interim hotfix for a bug. There have been others like the YEILD typo which affected the AI.

 

[Kwami]

The XP Bonuses and Royal Navy Dockyard Hotfix is probably the most significant recent example of a modder providing an interim hotfix for a bug. There have been others like the YEILD typo which affected the AI.

I'm actually a bit surprised that we didn't get a hotfix for those issues. Firaxis actually did release a small hotfix after the previous big patch.

Anyway, just remember that there are far more modders than developers, that modders don't have to answer to anyone but themselves, and that every team has to prioritize what they work on. What's problematic to you (e.g. WASD controls) might not be a priority for the team.