Modular Approach to Video Game Design Content Addition.

(Just a short article today, I only have half a days research under my belt for this one so bare with me).

resh off the back of a $35,029,574 (as of december 2013) crowd funding project, "Star Citizen" has become a powerhouse of press and pride. Rightly so, the project is confirmed to be the single most successful KickStart in history.
The key to their success lies in canny marketing, snazzy pitch ideas and saucy "pledge rewards" not to mention a very desirable finished product.
Not only does this project hold the promise of an excellent game it also pioneers a new method of game development. The modular approach.

The concept behind this is to provide a constant flow of new content without being to the detriment of original content. For example: Your open world game has a number of selling points. Freedom-of-character, zone exploration and so on.
This is your base unit. Its 100% feasible for retail and, provided the promise of future content is picked up on by customers, has the potential for a enduring community. From here you may add any number of features and content. The "Multiplayer Module" is one example, or the "Car Builder Module".

The unfortunate truth is however that should you find yourself with a publisher breathing down your back, suggesting the modular approach is like wearing an IRA support T-shirt on an aeroplane. You'll get a rubber bullet up the tootsie.
The desirable business model (BM) is always short and sweet. More drawn out profits could possibly rake in more but its simply too much of a risk for any suit to accept. Look at Activision's infamous "Call of Duty" series. Not a very innovative one you must admit but it still manages to out-sell many of its competitors. Any paper sniffing publishing gang is not going to want to pull funds every time developers decide on a new modular component. It's just not done.

The good news is that the snaffing majority of you lot are in the wonderful world of indie development, where the banners of publishers are sacrificially burnt and names like Andrew Wilson are guffawed with many a rude jibe around a round of beers.
So dream! Be free, for you can take the modular approach and crow it from the mountain tops.
Until next time!

Check out my other articles ​

▌ ► Visual Effect Over Saturation in Modern Games - When Will it Stop?
▌ ► Unity 3D is Missing a Trick - Here's Why.
▌ ► On The Future of Video Games - There is hope! (Euclideon, Star Citizen Beyond)
▌ ► Modular Approach to Video Game Design Content Addition.
▌
▌

 

I agree. Speaking as a 'noob' developer, my current project has turned out as well as it has because I developed modularly. I started with a core mechanic; technically, each monster counts as its own module, even if it draws off some common components. Door between scenes? Module. Dialogue? Module.

Technologically, the cool part comes when I figure out how to separate some unit of gameplay into its own independent module. The next time I have to use it, I know what other 'moving parts' it interacts with, such that I can focus on putting more thought into content and less into underlying technology.

 

Huh?

First, not an "article". It's a post, its pretty silly to dress it up to make it appear to be something it isn't.

Second, they are pioneering nothing. Modular development is common, it was the standard for social games. Many games games over the years have used this approach. Sims/Spore, LBP, DLC content addition, heck we had big hit just last year with Infinity which was also physically modular.

Third, your comment about is publishers violently hating modular based games has no basis in reality. Many things go into deciding to build a game, modular development is just one of many factors, despite your silly violent analogies. Modular development clearly is used by games, and again big games use it and virtually all of the successful social games. It has the advantage of only having to invest on additional development if it is still financially viable.

Posting something to discuss is what forums are for. Posting ill conceived, un-verified opinions stated as facts is what a blog is for.

 

There are of course many 'levels' of modularity (is that a word?). Star Citizen is about as "all-out" as its possible to go (CIG hopes to add aspects from other genres to the game) but of course adding new monsters and other content is just a viable.
In the interest of keeping things separate though, adding new enemies and other in-game content currently compatible with the base unit is technically "updating" or "expanding". When we say "the modular approach" it tends to mean core gameplay features and functionality that wouldn't necessarily be a natural progression. For example: Battlefield 4's Dino mode, thats not a new map or gun but rather a whole new feature that doesn't naturally grow fro the base unit.

Thanks for reading my other ramblings I'm sort of experimenting with acting as a forum jerno.. Lets see how it goes but its fun and I'm getting good feedback.

 

@zombiegorilla
I'm not entirely sure you understood anything I wrote there. Might want to re-read and re-evaluate your mental perceptions of where informative reading content can be found...

Oh and Zombiegorilla, writing "ill conceived, un-verified opinions" is called journalism. Only without the "un-" bit.

 

You didn't really"write" anything. You quoted KS figures, claimed it was pioneering with no support. You claimed publishers hate modularity without defining it or any support. Then a couple of opinions. You confusing modular development/game, and claim it is ground-breaking even though both are common.

Yea, not much to understand, just a few uninformed opinions stated as fact. Nothing informative at all.

 

Thats for you to decide. Whether content is informative or not is based on how much you already know on the subject. If you were expecting an essay on the particulars of publisher mentality and informed business decisions then I'm afraid you've very much come to the wrong place.

If however you enjoy an entertaining overview of current methods, mentalities and modus operandi of the video game industry the you have come to the right place. This isn't my PhD thesis, its a few hours of researched information consisting of figures, facts, face-to-face Skype calls, my own academic background and admittedly my opinions... Not to mention a little creative wordplay for flavour.

 

Duck I like what you are doing, keep it up. Some think every post must be specifically for them... some might call that arrogant.

Of course you are posting with an audience of a huge varying degree of development skill. Some will appreciate what you post, and others, just because there's nothing in it for them, will spill hate in your general direction and tell you that you suck. This "Bully mentality" scares others from sharing their open opinions... We need more like you.

Thanks again for having a positive post. I considered it a good read.

 

It has nothing about informative, as the "article" contains no information other than the KS details. The rest are opinions stated as "truths". Your opinions are are entirely your own and I have no issues. But this, as well as your previous posts, make wildly inaccurate states about what the "game industry" is and how it works for which state as fact. They are usually wrong, if not exactly the opposite of reality. If you are going to make claims contrary to reality, provide reasoning. Calling something true doesn't make it so.

If you want to discuss your opinions of trends, or things happening in the "industry", that is exactly what this is, a discussion forum. If you want to make unchallenged claims without supporting details or proof, that is a blog. Since you are posting in a public discussion forum, you can expect your inaccurate statements to be challenged.

You made two claims in your post, a) modular design/development is a "new method of game development". It is not. Modular development is an interesting topic to discuss as are the various approaches to it. But it has been around pretty much as long as games have. b) publishers are violently against modular development. Again, not remotely true.

I wouldn't care generally, but you constantly post as from the standpoint of being knowledgeable about the industry and that your observations are accurate. Many people here are new, and your wildly inaccurate statements are a disservice to those who are in unfamiliar territory. Your comments about standard practices for artists and contracts was potentially harmful. Share your opinions, discuss, whatever. But when you make blatantly false claims of "truth" in an industry that I am deeply passionate about, I will be happy to correct you.

 

Is it?

I pledged a fair amount and it had nothing to do with *any* of those points. Would be interesting to see *why* people pledged (correlated with when etc.)

 

Whoooooa there champ, that is referred to as terrible journalism. Perhaps consider a course on Journalism neutrality and ethics?

 

Then please do. When you have solid research contradicting one of my points then go for it. But not until then.

 

Yeah I think it has something to with me dropping the Journalistic objectivity workshop in favour of going to on a dig in Cairo.
The point still stands though, mainstream press is "ill-conceived (yet) verified". The kicking majority of things on our front page is tragic or stupid.

 

Do you not see the irony in making claims about something without presenting any evidence, then requiring that anyone who disagrees with you present something which you've failed to do yourself?

 

Yea... doesn't work that way. If you make an unsubstantiated claim of truth is is your responsibility to prove it/back it up. Basic logic. If I say all unicorns have bad breath, I can't claim it is true because you haven't claimed it is false. You are one the playing at journalist. You are the one pretending to speak authoritatively about the state/practices of the game industry. You are the one claiming "truth", the way things are, and claiming to have done research. The onus is on you.

 

I see it from your prospective. Are you asking me to list my sources with every article? Because I can do that if it's required.

 

Ideally, yes. Some of the sources are obvious (such as the kickstarter figures), but when you make claims about X being like Y, even if it is an opinion, you should qualify it with relevant sources or information on your experiences to show how you've reached that conclusion.

If I was to tell you been eating various different types of toast for 30 years, and make the statement that I think toast is the best food ever invented, it holds a lot more weight in a discussion than if I've never eaten toast and claim that it's the worst food ever invented.

 

Very true, but even if you have only eaten one piece of toast, the statement "I think toast is the best food ever invented" is perfectly accurate and not really a debatable point, as you are the final authority on what you think. However if you say "All humans think that toast is the best food ever and was invented just last week", then sources would be in order.

 

I agree with everything you're saying, but I think your diction is a bit off. I feel like this is not a modular approach to game design, it's a modular approach to product design. Modular game design would be like Legos, where you can add new pieces to the mix at any time during the product's lifespan, and they will still work with the original pieces once the consumers get ahold of them. Modular product design is more like a Swiss Army knife, where the consumers get the modules they paid for, and they're pretty much stuck with them until they get their next knife.

I would say that games like EVE and Minecraft are very much in line with modular game design, not because of what the players can do with them, but because of how easily the developers can add features to them after initial development/launch is completed. Games like Star Citizen, however, have most of their modularity limited to the initial development period - which isn't really a new concept. The new part is what you're talking about, where the consumers have a major impact on what modules get added before the product launches (which is agreeably super cool).