Lappeenranta University of Technology Faculty of Technology Management Department of Information Technology Master’s Thesis Risto Laine VIDEO GAME – FROM SOFTWARE TO EXPERIENCE Examiners: Professor Kari Smolander D.Sc Jussi Kasurinen ABSTRACT Lappeenranta University of Technology Faculty of Technology Management Department of Information Technology Risto Laine Video Game - From Software to Experience Master’s Thesis 2012 102 pages, 11 figures, 19 tables and 4 appendixes Examiners: Professor Kari Smolander D.Sc Jussi Kasurinen Keywords: software engineering, video game, game design, user experience, creative industry The aim of study for this thesis was to form a view of video game development in the industry, describe the development processes of studied organizations, evaluate them with software engineering literature and discuss the relevance of ISO/IEC 29110 -standard for video game development. Seven SME companies from South-East Finland were interviewed in four rounds including game designers, testers, programmers, artists and upper management. Grounded theory was applied to the analysis of the data. Current software engineering literature was found unable to explain video games and their development. The studied organizations implement processes, tools and know-how to embrace the iterative creativity to produce the core of video games - experience. This paradox of knowledge management and its effects on the development processes needs further study in order to understand the development processes in video game industry. ii TIIVISTELMÄ Lappeenrannan teknillinen yliopisto Tuotantotalouden laitos Tietotekniikan koulutusohjelma Risto Laine Videopeli – Ohjelmistosta elämykseksi Diplomityö 2012 102 sivua, 11 kuvaa, 19 taulukkoa ja 4 liitettä Tarkastajat: Professori Kari Smolander TkT Jussi Kasurinen Hakusanat: ohjelmistotuotanto, videopeli, pelisuunnittelu, käyttökokemus, luova teollisuus Keywords: software engineering, video game, game design, user experience, creative industry Työn tavoitteena oli tutkia videopelien kehitystä alan teollisuudessa, kuvata valittujen organisaatioiden tuotantoprosessit, selittää tulokset ohjelmistotuotannon kirjallisuudella ja tarkastella ISO/IEC 29110 -standardin soveltuvuutta peliteollisuuteen. Seitsemän Kaakkois-Suomen pelinkehitys-organisaation parissa suoritettiin neljä haastattelukierrosta (suunnittelijoita, testaajia, ohjelmoijia, taiteilijoita sekä johtoa). Grounded theory - menetelmää käytettiin analyysissä. Ohjelmistotuotannon kirjallisuus ei kyennyt selittämään videopelejä tai niiden kehitystä. Tutkitut organisaatiot käyttävät prosesseja, työkaluja ja tieto-taitoa iteroivassa prosessissa tuottaakseen videopelien ytimen – kokemuksen. Tästä tiedonhallinnan paradoksista, ja sen vaikutuksista pelikehitysprosesseihin tarvitaan lisätutkimusta, jotta videopelikehitystä ja toimialaa voidaan ymmärtää. iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS “I have no idea what I want to do… but I’ll keep on looking.” My compulsory service at the Finnish Defense Force had ended. I quit ice-hockey - the career of my life. “I’ve always been ok with computers….” was the thought that brought me to lappeen Ranta (correct notation). I noticed something was off – I have to study, instead of wanting to. To my rapidly declining motivation economics and business provided a small comfort (trust, tacit knowledge, organizations, leadership, open innovation, entrepreneurship, etc.). Still - nothing felt truly mine. I became an active student: in charge of freshmen in the IT guild (Cluster), student representative (Edari), coach of ice-hockey team (ParruHT). I founded a video game club (LAG) with fellow gamers. I was one of the founders on the student entrepreneurship society (LUTES). I even founded a company (TeRiSolutions Oy/Ltd) with a friend. When things got rough I was lucky to find out that we have a great student health care system (YTHS). When in need, ask for help. However I still didn’t know what I wanted to do… With this thesis I have slowly become to acknowledge that games are what I want to work with. I am passionate about games. By finding what keeps you naturally motivated, action becomes easy working out of interest instead of necessity. If you are not quite sure, keep looking. Enjoy the search! iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to thank Kaakon peliklusteri for this opportunity. I am lucky to be able to study the industry I am passionate about for my master’s thesis. I hope this is a start for an interesting career. Thanks to Jussi Kasurinen for managing the SOCES project and directing this thesis. Thanks to Corbin & Strauss for relieving me to my scientific journey without the encumbrance of enforced rules. Much of the same wisdom can be implied on life in general: “How a person does qualitative analysis is not something that can be dictated. Doing qualitative research is something that a researcher has to feel him- or herself through. – It is up to the individual to make use of procedures in ways that best suit him or her.” To my family and friends, I love you. Lappeenranta, 2012 Setämies, Risto ‘Riisto’ Laine v TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................ 4 2 VIDEO GAME INDUSTRY ........................................................................................ 5 2.1 GROWTH ............................................................................................................... 5 2.2 VALUE CHAIN...................................................................................................... 6 2.3 DIGITAL DISTRIBUTION .................................................................................... 6 3 VIDEO GAME DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................. 8 3.1 REQUIRED SKILLS .............................................................................................. 8 3.2 PHASES OF PRODUCTION ............................................................................... 11 4 VIDEO GAMES IN SOFTWARE ENGINEERING .............................................. 13 4.1 A GAP OF KNOWLEDGE .................................................................................. 18 5 RESEARCH PROCESS ............................................................................................ 21 5.1 GROUNDED THEORY ....................................................................................... 21 5.1.1 DATA ANALYSIS .............................................................................................. 22 5.2 ORGANIZATIONS .............................................................................................. 24 5.3 INTERVIEWS ...................................................................................................... 26 5.4 JUSTIFICATIONS FOR CHOOSING GROUNDED THEORY ........................ 26 6 RESULTS .................................................................................................................... 29 6.1 ORGANIZATION ................................................................................................ 29 6.1.1 ORIENTATION ................................................................................................. 29 6.1.2 EXPERIENCE .................................................................................................... 31 6.1.3 STRUCTURE..................................................................................................... 31 6.1.4 SELF-EVALUATION .......................................................................................... 33 6.2 DEVELOPMENT ................................................................................................. 34 6.2.1 METHODS ....................................................................................................... 34 6.2.2 DESIGN ........................................................................................................... 36 1 6.2.3 TESTING .......................................................................................................... 38 6.2.4 OUTSOURCING ................................................................................................ 41 6.2.5 SELF-EVALUATION .......................................................................................... 41 6.3 DEVELOPMENT PROCESS FIGURES ............................................................. 43 6.4 ISO/IEC 29110 ...................................................................................................... 52 6.5 SUMMARY .......................................................................................................... 54 7 COMPARISON TO LITERATURE ........................................................................ 57 7.1 CREATIVITY IN THE VIDEO GAME INDUSTRY ......................................... 57 7.1.1 SUMMARY ....................................................................................................... 64 7.2 EXPERIENCE AND GAME DESIGN ................................................................ 66 8 DISCUSSION .............................................................................................................. 68 8.1 TOWARDS ‘EXPERIENCE PARADIGM’......................................................... 70 8.2 FUTURE STUDY – ‘VIDEO GAMES AS EXPERIENCE’ ............................... 71 8.3 CRITIQUE AND LIMITATIONS ........................................................................ 72 9 CONCLUSIONS ........................................................................................................