#resource allocation

They're not wrong in that building such things isn't free. However, you're also right in that we on the dev side should be thinking about better ways of doing this - there isn't only one solution to these problems. Whatever final solution we implement doesn't have to be the most expensive means of doing so. It's actually up to us to think of better/more efficient ways of doing the things we want to do. Adding accessibility options is often a worthy goal, not only to the players who need those options to be able to play, but also for general quality-of-life. If we're making changes after the fact, of course they're super expensive. If accessibility options are a production goal that we plan for, they're much cheaper because we don't have to redo work - we do it with accessibility in mind in the first place.

For example - let's say that we're working on UI and we have this system:

Let's say that we want to improve things for colorblind players. If we wanted to make this more accessible, instead of just using color to differentiate the choices, we could also add different border visuals to provide additional context.

In such a situation, the difference in choices is still obvious if you're colorblind and it helps legibility for non-colorblind players as well.

These kinds of UX changes can be expensive if we decide to do it after the fact, but if it's something we decide is important to us from the jump we can compensate for those costs by creating efficient and smart solutions early. Remember, the cost of any change in game development is directly proportional to how close that change is to shipping the game. The earlier the change is made, the cheaper it is. Furthermore, we make resource allocation choices based on our goals. If we want to make a game more accessible, we will figure out a way to do so that fits within our budget and provides a good player experience. Players don't really have a say in how we allocate our resources and that kind of armchair producer talk isn't particularly constructive anyway. Telling us what's important to you and why (including accessibility requests) is really the best kind of feedback we can hope for. Don't sweat coming up with the solutions or fretting about where we spend resources, that's our job.

[Join us on Discord] and/or [Support us on Patreon]

Got a burning question you want answered?

Short questions: Ask a Game Dev on Twitter

Long questions: Ask a Game Dev on Tumblr

Unlock the secrets to successful project budget control and avoid overruns with these 10 essential strategies. #ProjectManagement #BudgetControl #CostEstimation #PMStrategies

Effective project management is a multi-faceted skill that requires a delicate balance of various elements, with budget control being a crucial aspect. Project budget overruns can be detrimental to an organization’s financial health and the successful completion of a project. To mitigate the risks associated with budget overruns, project managers need to employ a variety of strategies and…

The Austrian School of economics is a heterodox economic theory that emphasizes the role of individual subjective value, entrepreneurship, and the importance of markets in the allocation of resources. It is distinguished from other economic schools by its emphasis on the dynamic and entrepreneurial nature of economic activity, and its view that the economy is constantly evolving and adapting to changing circumstances. The Austrian School is also characterized by its commitment to methodological individualism, which is the idea that social phenomena can only be understood by examining the actions and motivations of individual actors. This emphasis on the subjective experiences and preferences of individual actors is also reflected in the Austrian School's commitment to the subjective theory of value, which holds that the value of a good or service is subjective and determined by the individual valuations of those who exchange it.

One key aspect of the Austrian School is the concept of the business cycle, which refers to the regular fluctuations in economic activity that occur over time. According to the Austrian theory of the business cycle, these fluctuations are caused by the expansion and contraction of credit by banks. When banks expand credit, they make it easier for individuals and businesses to borrow money, which can lead to an increase in investment and economic activity. However, this expansion of credit can also lead to an unsustainable increase in the demand for goods and services, which can result in a misallocation of resources and the emergence of malinvestments. When the credit expansion eventually comes to an end, the demand for goods and services can suddenly drop, leading to a contraction in economic activity and a corresponding drop in the supply of money and credit. This process of credit expansion and contraction can lead to the regular fluctuations in economic activity that are characteristic of the business cycle.

One important concept in the Austrian School of economics is that of economic calculation, which refers to the process by which individuals and businesses make decisions about how to allocate their resources in the face of scarcity. According to the Austrian School, market processes are the most efficient means of economic calculation because they allow individuals to make decisions based on their own subjective preferences and valuations, and provide information about the relative scarcity of different goods and services through the system of prices. When prices are allowed to adjust freely in response to changes in supply and demand, they provide a clear and accurate signal about the relative scarcity of different goods and services. This allows individuals to make informed decisions about how to allocate their resources and optimize their utility.

For example, if one good is experiencing a shortage and its price is higher than another good that is not experiencing a shortage, an individual may choose to purchase the good that is not experiencing a shortage even if they prefer the good that is in short supply. This is because the higher price of the good in short supply reflects its relative scarcity and the individual may be able to obtain more utility by purchasing a greater quantity of the good that is not experiencing a shortage. This process of resource allocation through market prices promotes the most efficient use of resources and contributes to economic growth and prosperity.

The Austrian School argues that subsidies and other forms of market intervention can distort prices and undermine the ability of the market to perform this crucial role in resource allocation. By distorting prices, subsidies can create artificial shortages or surpluses of goods and services, leading to misallocations of resources and inefficiencies in the economy. This can ultimately undermine the ability of the market to promote economic growth and prosperity.

Money is just another good among many in an economy, and like any other good, it is subject to the laws of supply and demand. When the supply of money is increased or decreased, this can have a significant impact on the relative prices of other goods and services in the economy, as well as on the level of economic activity. The Austrian School of economics argues that the state's control of money and its regulation of private alternatives can distort market processes and undermine economic prosperity. By monopolizing the supply of money or over-regulating private alternatives, the state can manipulate the money supply and interfere with the proper functioning of the market. This can lead to misallocations of resources, economic inefficiencies, and ultimately, a lower standard of living for individuals and businesses.

One way to promote economic stability and prosperity is through the denationalization of money, a concept posited by Friedrich Hayek and embraced by many Austrian economists. This idea refers to the proposal that money should be privately produced rather than issued by a central government or bank. The Austrian School argues that private money would be more stable and less subject to manipulation by governments and central banks, and would therefore be more effective at promoting economic stability and prosperity. One way in which private money could be implemented is through the concept of free banking, in which banks are free to issue their own private currencies while also subject to no special regulations beyond those applicable to most enterprises.

Free banking is a monetary system that has the potential to promote greater competition among banks, leading to better quality currencies and a more stable financial system. In a free banking system, banks have an incentive to issue currencies that are widely accepted and maintain their value, as this would increase the demand for their currency and their profits. To achieve this, banks must demonstrate the reliability and trustworthiness of their currency to the public. One way that banks can do this is through a practice called "note-dueling."

Note-dueling is a practice that occurs in a free banking system, in which banks attempt to gather up as much of their rivals' outstanding notes as possible in order to demonstrate the strength of their own currency. This process can be thought of as a form of market discipline, as it incentivizes banks to maintain reasonable reserve ratios in order to be able to honor their promise to redeem their notes for gold or other specie when requested. Competition among note issuers led each bank to try to demonstrate how solid and reliable it was relative to other banks, and this competition effectively regulated the specie reserves held in the banking system. If a bank has a large specie reserve relative to its outstanding note issue, it is better able to honor this promise and maintain the confidence of the public in its currency. On the other hand, if a bank has a small specie reserve relative to its outstanding note issue, it may be at risk of facing a liquidity problem if there is a high demand for note redemption. In this case, the bank may not have enough gold on hand to meet the demand, which could lead to a failure in the bank that did not have enough specie reserve relative to its outstanding note issue.

The Cantillon effect is a phenomenon in economics that refers to the way in which changes in the money supply can have unequal impacts on different parts of the economy. Named after the 18th-century economist Richard Cantillon, the effect suggests that the first recipients of new money tend to benefit the most, while those who receive the new money later on tend to be disadvantaged. This is because the first recipients of new money are able to use it to purchase goods and services before prices have had a chance to adjust to the increased demand, which can lead to higher prices for these goods and services. This can lead to a transfer of wealth from those who receive the new money later on to those who receive it earlier, contributing to economic inequality.

Many Austrian economists advocate for the denationalization of money and the implementation of free banking as a way to mitigate the potential for the Cantillon effect and promote economic stability and prosperity. In a system of free banking, banks are free to issue their own private currencies and compete with one another for customers. This competition can help to ensure that the supply of money and credit is more responsive to market forces and less subject to manipulation by governments and central banks. One aspect of this competition is the process of "note dueling," in which banks attempt to gather up as much of the outstanding note issue of their rivals as possible in order to demonstrate their own reliability and stability. By allowing the market to play a greater role in the supply and demand of money, the Austrian School argues that free banking can help to promote economic stability and reduce the potential for the Cantillon effect to contribute to economic inequality.

(Epistemic Status:  Almost certainly written on by smarter and/or more articulate people than myself; helpful insight, pragmatic.)

A few weeks ago, I had an interesting experience where I noticed that I had a strong desire to do something but lacked sufficient resources to execute it.  I thought a little harder and I noticed I did have sufficient resources but I had already mentally earmarked them.  Once I realized this, I examined my priorities and desires, realized I wanted to keep the resources earmarked to the things they were allocated to and felt the desire to accelerate the project fade.  I also felt a sort of peace at having resolved the internal tension.

The concept of prioritization is far from new or original.  Generally, people have things they want to do more than other things and in situations of limited resources, will allocate resources to the things they want to do more.  The concept of revealing your preferences with how you actually use your resources, as opposed to your words, is also not new.  What felt new to me is the sensation of peace and ability to defuse the pain of desire by going through this process.  Statements like “I want” and “I wish” cause a simulation of the experience of loss, at least for me.  I notice I am missing something and that I would rather not be missing that something.  Sometimes this drive is very helpful and directs my cognition towards  gaining the desire.  Other times, it leads to a feeling of powerlessness or worse, to bad decisions because the want/wish is too powerful.   The concept of noticing the desire and interrogating my priorities feels like an antidote to that helpless feeling.

Overall, I think this is a good tool in the vein of figuring out what you really want and also discarding bad attachment feelings that you cannot act on.

Thank you for taking the time with this and many other questions. Love your posts.

Thanks for reading and your kind words. I'll be the first to say that I'm no graphics programmer, so I can't really say anything to the specifics and utilization of a specific feature. That said, I'll try to address your question the best I can. Generally, there are two core reasons that we don't utilize specific hardware features that we could potentially use:

First - it's usually because we're still supporting last-gen hardware that doesn't necessarily have this feature, so we need to be more careful about where we spend our performance optimization resources. Getting last-gen performant is a much bigger undertaking than getting current-gen performant. Spending a bunch of engineering time optimizing this feature that doesn't help our game on last-gen consoles would likely be better spent on finding optimizations that help across the board, especially if the last gen still has a lot of players. This particular reason phases out over time, as more and more last-gen players convert to the new generation, but it's a really big issue in the first two or three years after the launch of a new hardware generation.

Second - it's usually because not all of the hardware that we're targeting supports that particular feature. The PS3 had their special SPU Cell processors that nobody else had, which meant that any work done to optimize games to run on those Cell processors was totally wasted on the PC, X360, or Wii. This is totally fine if we're targeting PS3 as an exclusive title, but it's not very resource-efficient if we're aiming at the roughly 40/40/20 split between PS3/X360/PC that most multiplatform AAA games saw at the time.

You probably noticed that the calculus here is primarily "Will this effort translate to significant gain across all of our target platforms?" We only have so many graphics engineers (some of the most expensive and sought-after roles in the game industry!) and they only have so much time to work their magic. We try to ensure that whatever we task these folks with is the most efficient use of their limited time. That's the real answer - we only have so much time/resource to spend over the course of development, so we try to get the most we can out of what we have.

[Join us on Discord] and/or [Support us on Patreon]

Got a burning question you want answered?

Short questions: Ask a Game Dev on Twitter

Short questions: Ask a Game Dev on BlueSky

Long questions: Ask a Game Dev on Tumblr

Most game dev teams have a strong idea of who our game's target audience is, and that includes the kind of context they should already have. If we're building a big budget AAA first person shooter, we can expect that our representative player recognizes and likes first person shooters and is likely already familiar with the basics of how to play them. It is unlikely we will need to teach them the very basics like how to move about the map and aim or what strafing is. If we're building a casual mobile game where we expect our representative player is new to games and lacks the context needed to play, we'll need to spend more effort to teach them that context.

The need for tutorialization is especially high in two major cases:

When introducing new kinds of gameplay for which there the player doesn't have much or any existing context from other games or real life. Players have no context for the new gameplay, so they need to be taught much more carefully so they can learn. If you've ever seen a player play Dance Dance Revolution for the first time, you'll see what I mean - there's a lot of awkwardness before they start to look more comfortable with playing it. Final Fantasy 13's role change system was similar - it was so significantly different from conventional wisdom that the tutorial elements were spread out over many hours in order to get players familiar with it.

When introducing gameplay that specifically conflicts with conventional wisdom. Players already have habits, conventions, and muscle memory associated with that kind of gameplay, so having things work differently will require a lot of unlearning the old habits in order to learn the new ones. If anyone's played the first Mass Effect, you'll probably understand - the aiming and reticle system in Mass Effect 1 is a façade. Putting the crosshairs on a target's head and firing will not guarantee a headshot, even with a sniper rifle. This choice broke a lot of established shooter conventions and caused significant player confusion.

In these situations, it is a good idea to spend significantly more resources on tutorials than games with more traditional gameplay. We, unfortunately, don't always get the resources to do that. In those cases, it ends up hurting the game's reception because players will often miss the features entirely and then complain they aren't there.

[Join us on Discord] and/or [Support us on Patreon]

Got a burning question you want answered?

Short questions: Ask a Game Dev on Twitter

Long questions: Ask a Game Dev on Tumblr