Rachels Lab Notes

Game Development as seen through the Blum Filter

Archive for November, 2009

There are never enough render engines..

with 13 comments

After my post on the hidden cost of C++, Vince suggested I go write a small game in C, see how I like that.

While that’s an interesting idea – maybe for another day – I’m interested in looking at larger-scale problems than that. And since I’m lately itching to write a renderer again (the last one was 1998), that’s where I started.

The goal of this project is to explore the “pressure points” in writing games in C++1, to see if in some of these areas, the pain and delay can be alleviated. To make it as painful as possible, it’s of course going to be cross-platform. That means OS X and Windows, unless somebody wants to gift me a devkit for Xenon or PS3…

And even after that first bit of code, just hoisting out the most basic platform abstractions, a few lessons are to be had.

Banned Forever

I hope to keep the preprocessor mostly banned, except in some very limited areas where the libraries abstract actual hardware. It’s cause for a lot of confusion in real-world projects, so let’s try to keep it out. It is interesting to think if you could achieve the same effect without a preprocessor, just with language constructs – and what those would be.

Too Useful to be banned

Some C++ features are too useful to be banned. Writing a render engine in pure C, as Vince suggested, is possible, but tedious. So I guess I have to loosen my stance and allow some features to creep back in.

  • namespaces

    Sure, you can prefix every single function, but it’s a messy business. It carries no performance cost to have them, so they’re in.

  • limited classes

    Mostly, to get the convenient syntax of member function invocations. On non-virtual members, this carries a predictable cost. (I.e. I can predict what code the compiler will generate without having to look up the class API). Casts and copy constructors are still out, since they can implicitly generate code that I won’t be aware of when examining code.

    So, basically, C-style structs that have member functions and access protection are what’s allowed.

With both of these, I’m curious about their impact on compilation time.

Missing Features

Some features are missing from C++ that would be extremely useful:

  • Anonymous functions.

    Yes, the new standard has them – but at a high readability price.

  • Headerless compilation

    Header files are a completely pointless waste of time, a remnant from the late 70’s. As a side effect, that would allow mapping platform-specific enums to abstraced enums without having to expose the platform-specific header that contains them.

  • Cleaner Syntax

    Braces/semicolons do add a lot of noise. Can I get a whitespace-scoped language, like Python?

Don’t care

There are many issues I don’t care about right now. Consequently, I’ll go “off the shelf” with them.

  • math libraries.

    I really don’t want to write the 22nd implementation of a vector class, thank you. I’ve written enough of that. Since they’re all owned by my employers, I’m opting for an open-source one. So far, CML is the chosen one. It is, rather poignantly, making the point that this is a facility that’s sorely missing from C++ for game development.

  • Window System Code

    While I really do want to examine the effects cross-platform code carries, some things are too gross to be touched by humans. I started out using GLUT, but its shortcomings meant native window handling. That’s not what really concerns me here, so I’ll be basing things on SDL for now – at least for purposes of handling the windowing system.

  • Memory management

    I didn’t need to touch that yet, but if it comes to that, there’s dlmalloc, or Fluid Studios’ memory system (no link, since their atrocious website doesn’t have links – it’s all Flash. But you can find it by starting here), and probably many others. And unless I absolutely have to touch memory management, I don’t want to go there.


  1. I’m not sure if that’s even relevant for much longer. I see the number of teams writing entire engines definitely shrinking, since it’s very expensive. Often, off-the-shelf engines (or something another team in your company wrote) will be good enough. Since I’m a systems-level gal, I hope to stay on a team that works on an engine, though. Hence the focus on it. 

Written by groby

November 14th, 2009 at 5:01 pm

Posted in Uncategorized

EA, Playfish & Layoffs

with 10 comments

To get the formalities out of the way: I work at EA, but this is my private blog. The views and opinions expressed here are mine, and mine alone. (Unless it’s something really stupid, then my cat typed it.)

Also, nothing in here reflects knowledge internal to EA. Not only am I a lowly peon in a large machine who doesn’t get told anything of importance, I certainly wouldn’t share if I was told internal info either. Professional pride and all that.

With that out of the way, let’s look at Playfish first. Many critics claim it was done to appease analysts or, if they are analysts, that it dilutes EAs core business.

While those are valid concerns, they miss a major fact that’s looming for video games: AAA games are getting expensive enough that they just might outgrow the size of their market, core video gamers. And even if they don’t, it is a rather crowded market, and revenue only arrives in bursts every 2-4 years for each title.

What EA is doing here is branching out into a market with a far larger customer base, lower costs, and monthly revenue. And, more importantly, server-based games can’t be pirated. EA just cut out a large threat that is in the process of killing the PC market and even has significant impact on the console market. (After all, Microsoft just killed almost a million accounts on XBox live for hacking)

Furthermore – assuming Playfish indeed delivers on its revenue & profit valuations – EA has traded cash-on-hand against a profitable revenue stream. And while it’s nice to sit on $2.2B cash, a positive cash-flow is a better choice in the long term.

And then there are the layoffs. While I appreciate the sentiment of many online commenters that “EA shafted their employees to buy Playfish”(paraphrased), that’s almost certainly not true. As I said above, EA has plenty of cash to go buy something. There was no need to cut jobs for that acquisition, and I don’t think there’s any relation.

Riccitello simply realizes that the console games market as is has matured and is saturated. There’s only room for so many titles, so it makes sense to focus on those with the best chances to make money.

Yes, gamers are now going to scream about the “evil EA” that just produces sequels – but I believe the sales numbers of all the excellent new IP EA has produced last year clearly tell the story. Vocal gamers profess a love for new IP, but what’s mostly getting bought is the sequel to the established title.

Leaving out Nintendo consoles – because they thrive on mostly first-partly titles – let’s look at the top titles for the year so far:

  • Halo 3
  • Resident Evil 5
  • Killzone 2
  • Call of Duty: World at War
  • FIFA Soccer 10
  • Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2

Notice a trend there? Every single one is a sequel. Gamers buy what they perceive as “established quality”. And I can’t really blame them – $60 is a lot of money to invest for entertainment.

To be clear: I have NO insight what titles actually have been cancelled. EA remains tight-lipped about that. For all I know, we might have cancelled only sequels and focused on new IP, although I’d consider that unlikely.

And for analysts like Pachter, who now complain that EA “didn’t spot” the underperforming titles last year: It is incredibly hard to judge what a game will be until you’re at least a year or so into execution. Making games is not formulaic. It takes a great idea, an awesome team, and a spark of magic to make a good game happen. You can control the first two, but the last one is out of your control. You’ll see it manifest at some point, but it takes some work before you know it’s there or not.

So, even though I don’t like it on a personal level, I think EA has at least the right ideas. You can certainly debate the merit of the concrete steps taken, but I believe AAA console games will shrink in importance, while online gaming increases – so this seems a decent decision. Lots of things could have done better; we certainly have internal talent capable of building social games. But we missed the boat, and that means there was pressure to buy market share out of the box.

What I do have an issue with is the handling of this, though. If you have to lay off people, let them know. Then people at least know where they stand. There is still no official word on what studios and titles will be affected by those 1,500 layoffs – which means everybody is worried to some extent. It is incredibly hard to do good work if you don’t know you’ll still have a job the next day – and that endangers that spark of magic I mentioned, the one ingredient to a successful game that’s incredibly hard to come by in the first place.

Written by groby

November 12th, 2009 at 9:50 am

Posted in Uncategorized