A blog about how we decide what features go into FM games.

There are going to be a few blogs this week (depending on whether some of them get permission to be posted or not!), although they aren’t new feature blogs as such. These will start mid next week.

This weeks blogs will be based around some behind the scenes things at SI.

This blog will focus on how we decided upon new features for FM2010, and the process that we go through. I’ve been asked a few times on the forums, and in interviews, what process we go through and how we’ve changed the process for this year.

As I mentioned in a previous blog, we used to store feature ideas and bugs all in one database, which was inefficient, as it meant certain things didn’t get looked at, so we split our database in two, and now have one for feature suggestions, and one for bugs.

We also used to be quite haphazard about what feature suggestions went into the database. Our feature meetings were split between looking at suggestions in the database, suggestions on our internal wiki, emails sent to us, and ideas that came to us in the feature meetings.

The meetings were also a bit odd, as we used to have one meeting that went on for a couple of days that everyone would attend.

What we did this year was split the meetings into the same modules that the game is split into – match, media, database, misc (finance, database and other stuff), GUI and platform (the platform layer is the code you won’t ever notice, but without it the game plain won’t work!).

The features database was split in the same way so that we knew what to discuss in which meetings. Any new feature requests had to be added into the main database (and still are) and assigned to me to have a look at before I approved or denied it to go forward to the features databases – the reason for this stage of the process is that some ideas just aren’t possible legally, or are not appropriate for what we’re trying to do with the game, so it makes sense to get rid of these suggestions before the discussion stage as there’s no point talking about something that isn’t going to be possible.

Each feature meeting in each area took at least 2 days. Some we had to re-convene after other meetings if there was a cross over on areas. Every feature suggestion in the features database was discussed – all 800 of them!

Some of these things are not what you might call a feature. Changing the text on a button in the game wouldn’t be classed as many as a feature, but we have to have everything in the database separately, so things like that do count. It’s one of the reasons why we don’t have the normal “this is how many new features are in the game” in the initial press release as we would have had in previous years if I was to give a raw number from the features database, we’d be looking at well over 200, many of which would not have counted in previous years.

Some of these features might take an hour to do. Others might take months, or in some cases, years. Others have to be done in phases, so some of it makes it into this years game, and we already know how to expand it in future years. But by having it in one database, it makes it a lot easier to track these things, and make sure nothing important is missed.

The meetings themselves were also done differently this year too. We switched to a voting system where everyone who attended a meeting (and the meetings were open, so anyone in the studio could attend a meeting even if it wasn’t in their own area) had an equal vote out of 5, and could also play one “joker” per area of the game, which would double their vote. This lead to some features having a 150% score, but that just meant the features were very high priority. It also lead to some features having less than a 50% score, which means they are unlikely to ever be done, as there will always be things that we deem more important, although each of these features will be re-visited each year when we have the meetings.

After all of these meetings, the production team at SI sat down with the senior coders in each area to get expected timelines for coding the feature, and once that was completed, features were assigned to the different members of the dev team based on priority (the score the feature got) and the time on their schedules.

As you can imagine, we had far too many features we wanted to add into the game that we had time for, so this scoring system was essential. It means that the highest priority features could get done, but also that if there was time left over, others could do too. Those that didn’t make it this year will likely make it for FM2011, and certainly some things that we really wanted to do this year just weren’t possible timeline wise, alongside some new ideas.

As for new suggestions, throughout the year, more feature suggestions are entered into the database, from the forums, our research team, test team, internal ideas and external ideas. Some of these are “fast-tracked” and get discussed immediately, particularly if it’s something small or something that is directly related to one of the new features already in the game. Others will be there ready to discuss in the FM2011 feature meetings and, with the amount of ideas currently in the database (well over 1,200), likely the FM2012, FM2013, FM2014 and FM2015 meetings too!

I'm curious, how were the feature decisions made in previous years?

We had a lot less people here, so in a sense it was a lot easier, as there were less opinions. There would always be a few "heated discussions" and a general concensus, but the new way is a lot more organised.

i'm curious what kind of features are abssolutely nonsense in SI oppinion those below 50%, could you name at least one MIles or it's a secret

That would be unfair on the people who come up with those ideas....

Some are rejected due to being technically impossible, or would take too long for the benefit, so it's not just that they are "absolute nonsense".

i thought so you're right,

just one question, are there any features suggested say for fm 05 or fm06 and they still didn't make it

Yes - some that were rejected outright, and some that are "nice to have at some point in the future". There are ideas from further back than that too - at least one of which is in FM2010.

Quite a few features are dependent on other things being done before they can go in too. So some of the smallest but nice things are only possible when larger modules have been re-written.

Is there any way for the forum users to know whether a feature request has been adopted in the feature database for review?

E.g. i have multiple times posted a certain idea on a few topics, however never received a confirmation. It would be nice to have a place to check those feature requests you have received from the community.

There isn't really - everything gets looked at, but you'd be amazed how much stuff is already in there.

Also, when ideas are posted on the forums, they often morph into something else entirely, so all is looked at, and the best parts noted down.

Thanks for the insight Miles, really fascinating

At what point in the process do you agree on the new features that will go into the game?

For instance, by the time 09 was released, did you already know every new feature that is going into 10? Did you know some? Or was none of it set in stone at that point?

The feature meetings were late this year as people were spending so much time on the patches for FM09, so very little was finalised until February.

Some features, however, had already been done by then as a couple of coders weren't working on the patch. The GUI mock ups were also started well before then, as we knew we wanted a new GUI this year.

Now that we're more organised, we already have some confirmed features for FM11 and FM12, a couple of which have been started already (ones that will take longer than one cycle), but the feature meetings are never held until a game is released. I would hope to be having the feature meetings in November this year, if possible, but it's more likely that they will be in December.

Do these features meetings purely look at adding new features, or do they also look at older features. I’d be interested to know if there’s some sort of balancing act to help decide whether it’s worthwhile introducing a new feature ahead of enhancing a current feature in the game.

Both

Well, how many features do you really have in your db, 800 or 1200 ???

Anyway. Nice blog Miles. Do you encounter sometimes some really nasty bugs such as : feature A is very interesting and high priority, feature B also. And after some tests, you realize that features A and B are completly incompatible ?

800 when we were doing the FM10 feature meetings. Since then, more has been added, so there are around 1,200.

As for your latter question, it's not really that some things are incompatible, but features do get "dropped" for various reasons during the dev process.

I'm happy to hear that FM is planning to go to up least FM15.

I'm also very excited about the new features! Is there any way we can get a small glimps at what will get there in the long run?

No... We take each year as it comes.

Have there ever been any features suggested for previous versions that you've decided to implement in different versions? (ie. suggested for 06 and implented in 09)

Yes. The league editor was one of those - we've been looking at the possibility for a while, and that was originally on the FM09 feature list, but there wasn't time to do it properly.

So SI are Never short On feature ideas? That's a comfort.

Fm is all about realism so do the unrealistic ideas just get thrown out?

Oh and a bit of a weird question have You Ever seen a Feature on cm that. You've copied or tweaked for fm?

Unrealistic ideas do tend to just be thrown out, yes.

We've seen a handful of features on other management games that we've been inspired by. But then most of the other management games have nicked a few thousand features from us, so....

Miles - Do changes to the look and feel of the game have a specific team or do each of the separate functions feed into it individually? I have always been curious who makes the decisions as to what information is on each page and so on? I have posted before on ways in which the "Histories" page could be improved (IMO i hasten to add) and wonder whether this would (if looked at) be a change or a new feature and the level of difficulty to make the changes.

We have a "UI Team" who are a mixture of coders and designers / artists and are tasked with most of the visual changes to the game interface including the information that is displayed on each screen.

I hope those long-term features you mentioned are the dynamic league/nation reputations and economic models! They need to be in by FM12, before the world ends

They'll happen (properly) at some point. And yes, that would be an example of a long-term feature.

Just curious, but what current feature in FM09 or any previous or maybe future versions would have taken the longest for you to implement into the game, can i guess it was the 3D match engine?

Yes and no. The match engine took longest time wise overall, but had a couple of false starts before we got an expert in, who got it in pretty quickly in the circumstances. In recent times, it's probably the new editor or somethng else in FM10 (a technical thing, rather than a gameplay thing) that we haven't announced yet, and something to come in (hopefully) FM11 that trumps them all timewise. Although I wouldn't promise it for FM11 either.

Miles, when it comes to thinking about how to add realism to the game do you and your staff ever consult ex coaches, go out to the training grounds to see what its really like and how youth players are developed? I know that you have a kind of a guy who is a consultant if you will to advise in certain areas but I was hoping you could share a little about how you accurately judge what is realism and what isn't. I mean I know that you and your staff make a great game but I don't think many have played professional to accurately say "well that is realism to the fullest" without actually seeing it or living it. Thanks and great stuff.

Well, we have Ray Houghton working as part of the team at SI, which certainly helps us on the realism side of things, as well as using many of the same tools that real life managers use to analyse matches.

Away from the match engine, we have a network of people inside the game who help out - from chief executives, club directors, agents, managers, scouts, sports journalists and sometimes players. Some playtest, some are advisors, but they all give a great insight. We do not, and will not, reveal who these people are as we don't have commercial deals with them, nor are they on the "payroll". They help us make the game as accurate as it can be by telling them when we go wrong, and giving us examples of what we should be doing to get it right.

Plus our public associations with AFC Wimbledon, Luton's youth team, Everton, Arsenal and other clubs, each of which have their own possibilities for insights in different areas.

So we have a wide and varied bunch of contacts all over the world who provide an insight, and not just by doing interviews or being on the cover of the game, which I personally find pointless.

That said, many of us do live and breathe the game too. And I firmly believe that there are many football fans out there who know as much as the professionals - we have the most indepth football database in the world, all researched by football fans, that is used by real life clubs. I don't think we can get a better endorsement than that.

That's a nice bunch of information that lets everyone know that input is valued...

So, how long until you're back on youtuba showing us the little treats in store for the upcoming release?

New feature blogs should start mid next week.

YouTube should come back into play the week after.