skip to main content
10.1145/2460999.2461004acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageseaseConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

What do game developers expect from development and design tools?

Published:14 April 2013Publication History

ABSTRACT

Context: Development of software is a complex process with several stakeholders and their varying practices. The game industry has also additional requirements such as artistic presentation, an interesting story and high quality sound effects that further complicate the process. Objective: The objective of this paper is to understand what kind of requirements and expectations are attached to the technical infrastructure of game development in practice. Method: This study observed and qualitatively analyzed seven game-developing organizations, from recent startups to established organizations to allow comparison of their use of technical infrastructure. Results: Based on our study, the game organizations, regardless of their size, are generally pleased with the tools they apply. The selections of the applied tools are based on their ability to test concepts and build prototypes to help design. Conclusion: In general, the game development organizations expect their tools to allow adaptability to changes during the development process. The case companies did not seem to have many problems with their current technical infrastructure, and ability to test different solutions was considered very important feature.

References

  1. Bethke, E. (2003) "Game development and production." Wordware Publishing, Inc. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Blow, J.(2004) "Game Development: Harder Than You Think", Queue, Vol. 1(10), ss. 28--37, February. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. EC (2003), "The new SME Definition User guide and model declaration" Enterprise and Industry Publications, European Commission, 2003.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989), 'Building Theories from Case Study Research', Academy of Management Review, vol. 14, no. 4, pp. 532--550.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. Entertainment Software Association (2011) "2011 Sales, demographic and usage data: Essential facts about computer and video game industry".Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Glaser, B. and Strauss, A. L. (1967). The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. Chicago: Aldine.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Golafshani, N. (2003). "Understanding Reliability and Validity in Qualitative Research", The Qualitative Report, Vol 8(4), December 2003, pages 596--607.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Kanode, C. M. and Haddad, H. M. (2009) "Software Engineering Challenges in Game Development", Proc. 2009 Sixth International Conference on Information Technology: New Generations, 27.-29.4., Las Vegas, USA. DOI: 10.1109/ITNG.2009.74 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Kultima, A. (2010) "The Organic Nature of Game Ideation: Game Ideas Arise from Solitude and Mature by Bouncing", ACM FuturePlay 2010, 6.-7.5.2010, Vancouver, Canada. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Kultima, A. and Alha, K. (2010) "Hopefully Everything I'm Doing Has to Do with Innovation: Games industry professionals on innovation in 2009", Proc. 2nd International IEEE Consumer Electronics Society's Games Innovation Conference, Hong Kong, China.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Klein, H. K. and Myers, M. D. (1999). "A set of principles for conducting and evaluating interpretive field studies in information systems", MIS Quarterly, vol. 23, pp. 67--94. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Ng, S. P., Murmane, T., Reed, K., Grant, D. and Chen, T. Y. (2004) 'A preliminary survey on software testing practices in Australia', Proc. 2004 Australian Software Engineering Conference (Melbourne, Australia), pp. 116--125. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Petrillo, F., Pimenta, M., Trindade, F. and Dietrich, C. (2008) "Houston, we have a problem...: A survey of Actual Problems in Computer Games Development", Proceedings of SAC'08, 16.-20.3.2008, Fortaleza, Brazil. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Seaman, C. B. (1999). "Qualitative methods in empirical studies of software engineering", IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, vol. 25, pp. 557--572. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Strauss, A. and Corbin J. (1990). Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques. SAGE Publications, Newbury Park, CA, USAGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. What do game developers expect from development and design tools?

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Login options

      Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

      Sign in
      • Published in

        cover image ACM Other conferences
        EASE '13: Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering
        April 2013
        268 pages
        ISBN:9781450318488
        DOI:10.1145/2460999

        Copyright © 2013 ACM

        Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

        Publisher

        Association for Computing Machinery

        New York, NY, United States

        Publication History

        • Published: 14 April 2013

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • research-article

        Acceptance Rates

        EASE '13 Paper Acceptance Rate31of94submissions,33%Overall Acceptance Rate71of232submissions,31%

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader