prepare a research plan for developing a gaming software

• Sponsorship
• Write For Us

Research Methodology During Game Development

Humayun Wajid

• October 26, 2021
• Reading Time: 5 minutes

What type of research methodology should be used during game development? This article explores various factors, In this era of emerging technologies, the digital world is replacing our physical life routine. This also affects our physical games and the games we played in the past outside of our homes. Today, with the help of innovative technologies, we can play the same games on our phones, computers, and other electronic devices by just sitting at home. We can get almost the same physical reaction through digital games, especially with devices like AR and VR. Today we have many categories of digital games, like shooting, sports, arcade, adventure, and many more. The game market expansion has created a market for mobile app development in Florida  and other regions to fulfill the huge demand for upgraded and enhanced games.

Research methodology 

Whether commercial or non-commercial, each kind of game has many common features such as interactivity, fun, and instructions that players must follow. The research methodology should be based on the topics, questions, and requirements. After deciding the topic, reviewing the research literature helps determine if the idea is worth pursuing fully. On the other hand, it might also be practical to be realistic and consider what skills different methods require. Unit of analysis is a significant factor of research methodology.

Unit of analysis

Explicitly studying the primary data type is a target of the unit of analysis. Going through other major research methodology, the unit of analysis appears in many terms, like describing the related dimension of scale. Research questions and methods are linked with the unit of analysis. For example, observations may be a more appropriate method for collecting information about social communications than lengthy interviews.  An official analysis is satisfactory to understand whether the games in the same genre have some standard systemic features. Studying the genre can also be in using a method in verbal analysis. The unit of analysis decided upon which level of data.

Pilot study

Test the idea with a small number of members and analyze the results according to the design. The pilot is the future for checking that the design work is futuristic. After the pilot study, the researchers conduct the actual research, examine and reporting the results. Therefore, it is better to read the conference papers, thesis, articles, or research papers earlier.

Qualitative approach 

Games are considered data, and the research develops an understanding of games like how they will work and provide beta models and instructions to players. Playing a game is approachable through the data collection method. This shows the game that is under inspection. The technique also makes predictions about players or abstracts them in the same way. The player in a game is seen only in terms of what actions they can perform. The fundamental of much game research can be seen in these kinds of methodologies. It often needed to be able to use any other approaches in one degree. For example, it becomes difficult for the player to understand the game when they don’t know about the constitutions of the gameplay.

The topic is about the methods or theories applied in research while developing a game.

Suitable methodology for game software development 

Agile 

Agile is well prepared to handle the inconsistency and difficulty during the game development projects participation. This methodology was developed to solve increasing blockings and hurdles with Waterfall and other highly structural and inflexible methods. Agile values the tools of communications and relations and their individuals. That is, Agile features the collaboration of customers throughout the process of development. It listens to changing responses rather than following a single constant plan. And the motive of agile is to concentrate on presenting working software instead of focusing on documentation. 

Main approach

The primary approach of agile is to design completely to accommodate changes and the need to produce software to work faster. Agile methods are being used. It builds a team in short sprints or iterations, Within no specific order, each of which contains a definite duration and list of deliverables. Through sprints, the teamwork towards the goals of delivering software that is in working. And sometimes, it provides a beta output or some other tangible stuff.

Agile is a heavy collective methodology. Mainly focused on team potentials and efficiency, along with the internal reviews from various departments and clients. The agile approach highly prioritizes the satisfaction of clients. This can be possible when team continuously deliver thee testing outputs, working, and prioritized feature.

If you talk about game software development. The Waterfall is the most old-style and consecutive choice. However, it is typically considered an outdated method. Yet, it is helpful to understand the actual structure and history to improve the flexibility of more modern methodologies. But it doesn’t have the potential like the Agile to handle the complexities.

How it works 

The methodology of Waterfall is to develop the approach in a series of stages in which the game projects are developed. Each step leads to a succeeding stage, and each step is more complex than the previous, making it expensive. The concept is created from an idea, and this initiates the process of a project. Once the concept matches the definite requirements for the idea stage, the project will shift to the next stage. 

The first stage is vital, and it requires a complete understanding by both client and developer of the project requirements and goals before taking any initiate. All steps are comparatively inflexible and often follow this sequence. That figure out the projects deploy, design, test, and demands. The purpose of this type of approach is to decrease the risk before taking a step forward. The basic gameplay mechanics are known in these typed of projects. And also, another critical subsystem. Like the engine of the game and user interface (UI) enables to be reused from the previous project.

The utilization of Waterfall is handled by a large team that has a great plan-driven. And have a clear understanding of the goals of the project. But unfortunately, the development teams are who don’t work in a vacuum will preferably find better outputs with flexibility and agility of more modern methodologies.

Extreme programming (XP)

Extreme programming (XP) is games and software development methodology by the agile framework. The motive of extreme programming (XP) is to develop high-quality software and best-performance games. The robust programming (XP) follows the set of values: communication, simplicity, courage, feedback, and respect.

Communication

Lack of communication resists knowledge from pass inside a team because software development is integrally a team game. But in extreme programming (XP) prioritizes the pressure of suitable communication.

What is the simple format required to do work? It is called simplicity—the reason behind discarding waste and do only essential things. For example, to keep the design of the system as simple as it is possible. So, it will be easy for developers to maintain and support it.

Feedback 

The reviews have come in many formats, through continuous feedback on previous work. As a result, the team can address the improvements and revise the practice to bring the quality product. Feedback also backing simple design.

Activities are based on other values, so the results are not harmful to the team. As a software developer, all you need is the courage to raise the structural issues that will help you out to reduce efficiency. It would help if you dared to face the problems in feedback and overcome these problems.

Respect 

The essential idea of extreme programming (XP) is that every team member deserves respect. The survival of technical excellence depends on care and respect.

The first thing developers need to understand is extreme programming (XP) to read the consumer’s user requirements. Other practices contain the scheduling and partition of work into iterations. Design with simple structure, code, and test it. This will help you out in creating fault-free gaming software. 

Always go through the feedback for a better understanding of functionality.

• More on Agile

IT Chronicles

• Write for Us
• Privacy Policy
• Sponsorship Opportunities
• Digital PR as a Service

Explore our topics

Top categories.

How to write a research plan: Step-by-step guide

Last updated

30 January 2024

Reviewed by

Today’s businesses and institutions rely on data and analytics to inform their product and service decisions. These metrics influence how organizations stay competitive and inspire innovation. However, gathering data and insights requires carefully constructed research, and every research project needs a roadmap. This is where a research plan comes into play.

There’s general research planning; then there’s an official, well-executed research plan. Whatever data-driven research project you’re gearing up for, the research plan will be your framework for execution. The plan should also be detailed and thorough, with a diligent set of criteria to formulate your research efforts. Not including these key elements in your plan can be just as harmful as having no plan at all.

Read this step-by-step guide for writing a detailed research plan that can apply to any project, whether it’s scientific, educational, or business-related.

• What is a research plan?

A research plan is a documented overview of a project in its entirety, from end to end. It details the research efforts, participants, and methods needed, along with any anticipated results. It also outlines the project’s goals and mission, creating layers of steps to achieve those goals within a specified timeline.

Without a research plan, you and your team are flying blind, potentially wasting time and resources to pursue research without structured guidance.

The principal investigator, or PI, is responsible for facilitating the research oversight. They will create the research plan and inform team members and stakeholders of every detail relating to the project. The PI will also use the research plan to inform decision-making throughout the project.

• Why do you need a research plan?

Create a research plan before starting any official research to maximize every effort in pursuing and collecting the research data. Crucially, the plan will model the activities needed at each phase of the research project.

Like any roadmap, a research plan serves as a valuable tool providing direction for those involved in the project—both internally and externally. It will keep you and your immediate team organized and task-focused while also providing necessary definitions and timelines so you can execute your project initiatives with full understanding and transparency.

External stakeholders appreciate a working research plan because it’s a great communication tool, documenting progress and changing dynamics as they arise. Any participants of your planned research sessions will be informed about the purpose of your study, while the exercises will be based on the key messaging outlined in the official plan.

Here are some of the benefits of creating a research plan document for every project:

Project organization and structure

Well-informed participants

All stakeholders and teams align in support of the project

Clearly defined project definitions and purposes

Distractions are eliminated, prioritizing task focus

Timely management of individual task schedules and roles

Costly reworks are avoided

• What should a research plan include?

The different aspects of your research plan will depend on the nature of the project. However, most official research plan documents will include the core elements below. Each aims to define the problem statement, devising an official plan for seeking a solution.

Specific project goals and individual objectives

Ideal strategies or methods for reaching those goals

Required resources

Descriptions of the target audience, sample sizes, demographics, and scopes

Key performance indicators (KPIs)

Project background

Research and testing support

Preliminary studies and progress reporting mechanisms

Cost estimates and change order processes

Depending on the research project’s size and scope, your research plan could be brief—perhaps only a few pages of documented plans. Alternatively, it could be a fully comprehensive report. Either way, it’s an essential first step in dictating your project’s facilitation in the most efficient and effective way.

• How to write a research plan for your project

When you start writing your research plan, aim to be detailed about each step, requirement, and idea. The more time you spend curating your research plan, the more precise your research execution efforts will be.

Account for every potential scenario, and be sure to address each and every aspect of the research.

Consider following this flow to develop a great research plan for your project:

Define your project’s purpose

Start by defining your project’s purpose. Identify what your project aims to accomplish and what you are researching. Remember to use clear language.

Thinking about the project’s purpose will help you set realistic goals and inform how you divide tasks and assign responsibilities. These individual tasks will be your stepping stones to reach your overarching goal.

Additionally, you’ll want to identify the specific problem, the usability metrics needed, and the intended solutions.

Know the following three things about your project’s purpose before you outline anything else:

What you’re doing

Why you’re doing it

What you expect from it

Identify individual objectives

With your overarching project objectives in place, you can identify any individual goals or steps needed to reach those objectives. Break them down into phases or steps. You can work backward from the project goal and identify every process required to facilitate it.

Be mindful to identify each unique task so that you can assign responsibilities to various team members. At this point in your research plan development, you’ll also want to assign priority to those smaller, more manageable steps and phases that require more immediate or dedicated attention.

Select research methods

Research methods might include any of the following:

User interviews: this is a qualitative research method where researchers engage with participants in one-on-one or group conversations. The aim is to gather insights into their experiences, preferences, and opinions to uncover patterns, trends, and data.

Field studies: this approach allows for a contextual understanding of behaviors, interactions, and processes in real-world settings. It involves the researcher immersing themselves in the field, conducting observations, interviews, or experiments to gather in-depth insights.

Card sorting: participants categorize information by sorting content cards into groups based on their perceived similarities. You might use this process to gain insights into participants’ mental models and preferences when navigating or organizing information on websites, apps, or other systems.

Focus groups: use organized discussions among select groups of participants to provide relevant views and experiences about a particular topic.

Diary studies: ask participants to record their experiences, thoughts, and activities in a diary over a specified period. This method provides a deeper understanding of user experiences, uncovers patterns, and identifies areas for improvement.

Five-second testing: participants are shown a design, such as a web page or interface, for just five seconds. They then answer questions about their initial impressions and recall, allowing you to evaluate the design’s effectiveness.

Surveys: get feedback from participant groups with structured surveys. You can use online forms, telephone interviews, or paper questionnaires to reveal trends, patterns, and correlations.

Tree testing: tree testing involves researching web assets through the lens of findability and navigability. Participants are given a textual representation of the site’s hierarchy (the “tree”) and asked to locate specific information or complete tasks by selecting paths.

Usability testing: ask participants to interact with a product, website, or application to evaluate its ease of use. This method enables you to uncover areas for improvement in digital key feature functionality by observing participants using the product.

Live website testing: research and collect analytics that outlines the design, usability, and performance efficiencies of a website in real time.

There are no limits to the number of research methods you could use within your project. Just make sure your research methods help you determine the following:

What do you plan to do with the research findings?

What decisions will this research inform? How can your stakeholders leverage the research data and results?

Recruit participants and allocate tasks

Next, identify the participants needed to complete the research and the resources required to complete the tasks. Different people will be proficient at different tasks, and having a task allocation plan will allow everything to run smoothly.

Prepare a thorough project summary

Every well-designed research plan will feature a project summary. This official summary will guide your research alongside its communications or messaging. You’ll use the summary while recruiting participants and during stakeholder meetings. It can also be useful when conducting field studies.

Ensure this summary includes all the elements of your research project. Separate the steps into an easily explainable piece of text that includes the following:

An introduction: the message you’ll deliver to participants about the interview, pre-planned questioning, and testing tasks.

Interview questions: prepare questions you intend to ask participants as part of your research study, guiding the sessions from start to finish.

An exit message: draft messaging your teams will use to conclude testing or survey sessions. These should include the next steps and express gratitude for the participant’s time.

Create a realistic timeline

While your project might already have a deadline or a results timeline in place, you’ll need to consider the time needed to execute it effectively.

Realistically outline the time needed to properly execute each supporting phase of research and implementation. And, as you evaluate the necessary schedules, be sure to include additional time for achieving each milestone in case any changes or unexpected delays arise.

For this part of your research plan, you might find it helpful to create visuals to ensure your research team and stakeholders fully understand the information.

Determine how to present your results

A research plan must also describe how you intend to present your results. Depending on the nature of your project and its goals, you might dedicate one team member (the PI) or assume responsibility for communicating the findings yourself.

In this part of the research plan, you’ll articulate how you’ll share the results. Detail any materials you’ll use, such as:

Presentations and slides

A project report booklet

A project findings pamphlet

Documents with key takeaways and statistics

Graphic visuals to support your findings

• Format your research plan

As you create your research plan, you can enjoy a little creative freedom. A plan can assume many forms, so format it how you see fit. Determine the best layout based on your specific project, intended communications, and the preferences of your teams and stakeholders.

Find format inspiration among the following layouts:

Written outlines

Narrative storytelling

Visual mapping

Graphic timelines

Remember, the research plan format you choose will be subject to change and adaptation as your research and findings unfold. However, your final format should ideally outline questions, problems, opportunities, and expectations.

• Research plan example

Imagine you’ve been tasked with finding out how to get more customers to order takeout from an online food delivery platform. The goal is to improve satisfaction and retain existing customers. You set out to discover why more people aren’t ordering and what it is they do want to order or experience. 

You identify the need for a research project that helps you understand what drives customer loyalty. But before you jump in and start calling past customers, you need to develop a research plan—the roadmap that provides focus, clarity, and realistic details to the project.

Here’s an example outline of a research plan you might put together:

Project title

Project members involved in the research plan

Purpose of the project (provide a summary of the research plan’s intent)

Objective 1 (provide a short description for each objective)

Objective 2

Objective 3

Proposed timeline

Audience (detail the group you want to research, such as customers or non-customers)

Budget (how much you think it might cost to do the research)

Risk factors/contingencies (any potential risk factors that may impact the project’s success)

Remember, your research plan doesn’t have to reinvent the wheel—it just needs to fit your project’s unique needs and aims.

Customizing a research plan template

Some companies offer research plan templates to help get you started. However, it may make more sense to develop your own customized plan template. Be sure to include the core elements of a great research plan with your template layout, including the following:

Introductions to participants and stakeholders

Background problems and needs statement

Significance, ethics, and purpose

Research methods, questions, and designs

Preliminary beliefs and expectations

Implications and intended outcomes

Realistic timelines for each phase

Conclusion and presentations

How many pages should a research plan be?

Generally, a research plan can vary in length between 500 to 1,500 words. This is roughly three pages of content. More substantial projects will be 2,000 to 3,500 words, taking up four to seven pages of planning documents.

What is the difference between a research plan and a research proposal?

A research plan is a roadmap to success for research teams. A research proposal, on the other hand, is a dissertation aimed at convincing or earning the support of others. Both are relevant in creating a guide to follow to complete a project goal.

What are the seven steps to developing a research plan?

While each research project is different, it’s best to follow these seven general steps to create your research plan:

Defining the problem

Identifying goals

Choosing research methods

Recruiting participants

Preparing the brief or summary

Establishing task timelines

Defining how you will present the findings

Should you be using a customer insights hub?

Do you want to discover previous research faster?

Do you share your research findings with others?

Do you analyze research data?

Start for free today, add your research, and get to key insights faster

Editor’s picks

Last updated: 11 January 2024

Last updated: 15 January 2024

Last updated: 17 January 2024

Last updated: 12 May 2023

Last updated: 30 April 2024

Last updated: 18 May 2023

Last updated: 25 November 2023

Last updated: 13 May 2024

Latest articles

Related topics, .css-je19u9{-webkit-align-items:flex-end;-webkit-box-align:flex-end;-ms-flex-align:flex-end;align-items:flex-end;display:-webkit-box;display:-webkit-flex;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-webkit-flex-direction:row;-ms-flex-direction:row;flex-direction:row;-webkit-box-flex-wrap:wrap;-webkit-flex-wrap:wrap;-ms-flex-wrap:wrap;flex-wrap:wrap;-webkit-box-pack:center;-ms-flex-pack:center;-webkit-justify-content:center;justify-content:center;row-gap:0;text-align:center;max-width:671px;}@media (max-width: 1079px){.css-je19u9{max-width:400px;}.css-je19u9>span{white-space:pre;}}@media (max-width: 799px){.css-je19u9{max-width:400px;}.css-je19u9>span{white-space:pre;}} decide what to .css-1kiodld{max-height:56px;display:-webkit-box;display:-webkit-flex;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-webkit-align-items:center;-webkit-box-align:center;-ms-flex-align:center;align-items:center;}@media (max-width: 1079px){.css-1kiodld{display:none;}} build next, decide what to build next.

Users report unexpectedly high data usage, especially during streaming sessions.

Users find it hard to navigate from the home page to relevant playlists in the app.

It would be great to have a sleep timer feature, especially for bedtime listening.

I need better filters to find the songs or artists I’m looking for.

Log in or sign up

Get started for free

• Open access
• Published: 09 November 2016

Game development software engineering process life cycle: a systematic review

• Saiqa Aleem   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-3385-0613 1 ,
• Luiz Fernando Capretz 2 &
• Faheem Ahmed 3  

Journal of Software Engineering Research and Development volume  4 , Article number:  6 ( 2016 ) Cite this article

94k Accesses

64 Citations

5 Altmetric

Metrics details

Software game is a kind of application that is used not only for entertainment, but also for serious purposes that can be applicable to different domains such as education, business, and health care. Multidisciplinary nature of the game development processes that combine sound, art, control systems, artificial intelligence (AI), and human factors, makes the software game development practice different from traditional software development. However, the underline software engineering techniques help game development to achieve maintainability, flexibility, lower effort and cost, and better design. The purpose of this study is to assesses the state of the art research on the game development software engineering process and highlight areas that need further consideration by researchers. In the study, we used a systematic literature review methodology based on well-known digital libraries. The largest number of studies have been reported in the production phase of the game development software engineering process life cycle, followed by the pre-production phase. By contrast, the post-production phase has received much less research activity than the pre-production and production phases. The results of this study suggest that the game development software engineering process has many aspects that need further attention from researchers; that especially includes the postproduction phase.

1 Introduction

With the rapid advancement of computer technology, the significance of software engineering in our daily lives is increasing. It affects every aspect of our lives today, including working, living, learning, and education. A new and popular mode of entertainment and an important application of technology are software games, which have become increasingly accepted by people of all ages. In today’s culture, technology is easily accessible and has become more convenient; more and more people like to play games and are also becoming motivated to design their own games. Salen and Zimmerman ( 2003 ) defined “game is a software application in which one or more players make decisions by controlling game objects and resources, in the pursuit of its goal”. Software games are software applications that are installed on hardware devices such as video game consoles, computers, handheld devices, and Personal Digital Assistants (PDAs). Software games have now become a worldwide creative industry, but because of the multidisciplinary activities required, their development is a very complex task.

The multidisciplinary nature of the processes that combine sound, art, control systems, artificial intelligence (AI), and human factors, also makes the software game development practice different from traditional software development. However, despite the high complexity of the software engineering development process, the game industry is making billions of dollars in profit and creating many hours of fun (PWC, 2011–2014 outlook). The software game market throughout the world has grown by over 7–8 % annually and has reached sales of around $5.5 billion in 2015 (SUPERDATA 2015 ). Newzoo Game Market ( 2015 ) has also reported that the world-wide digital game market will reach $113.3 billion by 2018.

Creation of any game involves cross-functional teams including designers, software developers, musicians, script writers, and many others. Also, Entertainment Software Association (ESA) ( 2014 ); 2015 ) reports highlighted the latest trends about the software game industry. Therefore, game development careers have currently become highly challenging, dynamic, creative, and profitable (Liming and Vilorio, 2011 ). The ability to handle complex development tasks and achieve profitability does not happen by chance, but rather a common set of good practices must be adopted to achieve these goals. The game industry can follow the good and proven practices of traditional software engineering, but only a clear understanding of these practices can enhance the complex game development engineering process.

The computer game domain covers a great variety of player modes and genres (Gredler, 1995 ; Gredler, 2003 ; Rieber, 2005 ). The complexity of software games has posed many challenges and issues in software development engineering process because it involves diverse activities in creative arts disciplines (storyboarding, design, refinement of animations, artificial intelligence, video production, scenarios, sounds, marketing, and, finally, sales) in addition to technological and functional requirements (Keith, 2010 ). This inherent diversity leads to a greatly fragmented domain from the perspectives of both underlying theory and design methodology. The software game literature published in recent years has focused mainly on technical issues. Issues of game production, development, and testing reflect only the general software-engineering state of the art. Pressman ( 2001 ) states that a game is a kind of software that entertains its users, but game development software engineering faces many challenges and issues if only a traditional software-development process is followed (Kanode and Haddad, 2009 ; Petrillo et al., 2009 ). Some studies have proposed a Game Development Software Engineering (GDSE) process life cycle that provides guidelines for the game development software engineering process (Hendrick, 2014 ; Blitz game studio, 2014 ; McGrath, 2014 ; Chandler, 2010 ; Ramadan and Widyani 2013 ). However, the proposed GDSE process life cycle development phases do not ensure a quality development process.

A GDSE process is different from a traditional software development engineering process, and all phases of the proposed GDSE process life cycle can be combined into three main phases: pre-production, production, and post-production. The pre-production phase includes testing the feasibility of target game scenarios, including requirements engineering marketing strategies; the production phase involves planning, documentation, and game implementation scenarios with sound and graphics. The last phase post-production involves testing, marketing, and game advertising. Because of high competition and extreme market demand, game development companies sometimes reduce their development process so they can be first to market (Kaitilla, 2014 ). This reduction of the development process definitely affects game quality. Because of these types of complex project-management tasks, the game development software engineering process diverges from traditional software development. Therefore, it becomes important now to investigate the challenges or issues faced by game development organizations in developing good quality games. This systematic literature review is the first step towards identifying the research gaps in the GDSE field.

1.1 Related work

Managing GDSE process life cycle has become a much harder process than anyone could have initially imagined, and because of the fragmented domain, no clear picture of its advancement can be found in the literature. A systematic literature review provides a state of the art examination of an area and raises open research questions in a field, thus saving a great deal of time for those starting research in the field. However, to the best of the authors’ knowledge, no systematic literature review has been reported for GDSE process life cycle. Many researchers have adopted the systematic literature review approach to explore different aspects in software games. Boyle et al. ( 2012 ) conducted a systematic literature review to explore the engagement factor in entertainment games from a player’s perspective. In this study, 55 papers were selected to perform the systematic literature review. The study highlighted the different aspects of engagement factors with entertainment games; these include subjective feelings of enjoyment, physiological responses, motives, game usage, player loyalty, and the impact of playing games on a player’s life. Connolly et al. ( 2012 ) explored 129 papers to report the impacts and outcomes of computer and serious games with respect to engagement and learning by using the systematic literature review approach.

Another study also reported the importance of engagement in digital games by using a systematic literature review approach. Osborne-O’Hagan et al. ( 2014 ) performed a systematic literature review on software development processes for games. A total of 404 studies were analyzed from industry and academia and different software development adoption models used for game development were discussed. The findings of the study were that qualitative studies reported more agile practices than the hybrid approach. The quantitative studies used an almost hybrid approach. We also noted that lightweight agile practices such as Scrum, XP, and Kanban – are suitable where innovation and time to market is important. A risk-driven spiral approach is appropriate for large projects. Only one systematic study was performed related to research on software engineering practices in the computer game domain rather than GDSE process life cycle (Ampatzoglou and Stamelos 2010 ).

This study mainly review the existing evidence in the literature concerning the GDSE process research and suggest areas for further investigation by identifying possible gaps in current research. Furthermore, the aim of this study is to cover the state of the art for the GDSE process life cycle, and to accomplish this, an evidence-based research paradigm has been used. In the software engineering field, possible use of an evidence-based paradigm have been proposed by Dyba et al. ( 2005 ) and Kitchenham et al. (2004). The Systematic Literature Review (SLR) research paradigm constitutes the first step in an evidence-based paradigm research process, and its guidelines for performing systematic research are thoroughly described by Brereton et al. ( 2007 ) and Kitchenham ( 2004 ).

The rest of the paper is organized as follows: Section 2 provides the research background and Section 3 describes the methodology used for the systematic literature review as described by Breton et al. (2007). Section 4 presents the statistics for the primary studies, Section 5 answers various research questions, Section 6 discuss the external threats to validity, and, finally, Section 7 concludes the presentation.

2 Background

In the software development industry, software games are gaining importance because they are not only used for entertainment, but also for serious purposes that can be applicable to different domains such as education, business, and health care. Serious games are designed to have an impact on the target audience similar to entertainment games but they are combined seemingly with a practical dimension too. Both have to be attractive and appealing to a broad target audience (Alvarez & Michaud, 2008 ). Especially for serious games, along with their applicability to different domains, their revenue has also been increasing. Games software earned three times more revenue than any other software product in 2012 (Nayak, 2013 ).

Robin ( 2009 ) defines a development method as a systematized procedure to achieve the goal of producing a working product within budget and on schedule. A number of methodologies used for game development and design (Castillo 2008 ). The first is the waterfall method, which is also commonly used in traditional software development. Unlike game projects, once the pre-production phase is completed, production phase activities are performed in a “waterfall” manner. First, the activities are segregated based on functionalities and assets, and then they are assigned to their respective teams. The requirements team spent a significant amount of time in functionality definition and front-end activities, which implies a late implementation of level and mechanisms (Schwaber & Beedle, 2002 ). However, in the waterfall method, it is difficult to reverse any activity (Flood, 2003 ).

The second development methodology is the agile method that is commonly used for game development. These methods are highly iterative and not documentation-centric. The production phase is divided into small iterations and focusses on the most crucial features. During the beginning phase of each iteration, the whole team meets and sets clear objectives. At the end of each iteration, results are communicated to clients. These methods support different team cycles and dynamics through daily meetings. The most used agile methodologies in game development are extreme programming (XP), rapid prototyping, and Scrum (Godoy & Barbosa, 2010 ).

The unified development process (Kruchten, 2000 ) is another traditional SE method, which focusses more on analyzing requirements and converting them into functional software components. The requirement analysis document includes a definition of the game concept, use cases, and assets definitions (Schwaber & Beedle, 2002 ). The method includes five disciplines: requirements, analysis, design, implementation, and testing. The unified process is based on a philosophy of four key elements: iterative and incremental, use case-driven, architecture-centric, and risk-driven.

Kanode and Haddad ( 2009 ) stated that an important, but incorrect, assumption was made that GDSE follows the waterfall method. More recently, researchers have agreed that it must follow the incremental model (Munassar and Govardhan 2010 ) because it combines the waterfall method with an iterative process. A major concern, reported by Petrillo et al. ( 2009 ), was that very poor development methodologies are commonly used by developers for software creation in the game industry. The GDSE appears as a question in many forms attempting to determine what types of practices are used. However, there is no single answer to this question. Few researchers have explored GDSE practices and then tried to answer questions like the phases of the GDSE process life cycle. Blitz game studios ( 2014 ) proposed six phases for the GDSE process life cycle: Pitch (initial design and game concept), Pre-production (game design document), Main production (implementation of game concepts), Alpha (internal testers), Beta (third-party testers), and the Master phase (game launch). Hendrick ( 2014 ) proposed a five-phase GDSE process life cycle consisting of Prototype (initial design prototype), Pre-production (design document), Production (asset creation, source code, integration aspects), Beta (user feedback), and, finally, the Live phase (ready to play). McGrath ( 2014 ) divided the GDSE process life cycle into six phases: Design (initial design and game design document), Develop/redevelop (game engine development), Evaluate (if not passed, then redevelop), Test (internal testing), Review release (third-party testing), and Release (game launch). Another GDSE process life cycle proposed by Chandler ( 2010 ) consisted of four phases: Pre-production (design document and project planning), Production (technical and artistic), Testing (bug fixing), and, finally, the Post-production phase (post-mortem activities). The latest GDSE process life cycle in 2013 proposed by Ramadan and Widyani ( 2013 ) was based on the four GDSE process life cycles previously described. They proposed six phases: Initiation (rough concept), Pre-production (creation of game design and prototype), Production (formal details, refinement, implementation), Testing (bug reports, refinement testing, change requests), Beta (third-party testers), and Release (public release).

In traditional software engineering, the development phase usually involves activities such as application design and its implementation; the production phase is when the software actually runs and is ready for use. However, in the GDSE process lifecycle, the production phase includes the development process, which is the pre-production phase of the traditional software engineering process, and the production phase of traditional software engineering is actually the post-production phase of the GDSE process life cycle (Bethke, 2003 ). Therefore, the GDSE process life cycle is different from the traditional software engineering process, and many researchers have studied the challenges faced by this domain (Kanode and Haddad, 2009 ). The most prominent observation made in these studies is that to address the challenges faced by the GDSE process life cycle, more rigorous software engineering strategies must be used. Most researchers have explicitly compared the software engineering process with the GDSE process, but none of them has studied complete GDSE process life cycle and research topics under this domain in detail. This study will provide evidence on these topics and their differences from the traditional software engineering process. In this paper, the GDSE process phases were divided into three phases for basic understanding: Preproduction, Production, and Post-production. Efforts were made to classify these further based on studies found in the literature. The primary contribution of this paper is that it is the first SLR that addresses these GDSE process life cycle research topics and highlights the topics that need further attention by researchers.

In this work, the conceptual description of the SLR process presented by Kitchenham ( 2004 ) was used to investigate the research intensity for each phase of the GDSE process life cycle. Conceptually, SLR provides an opportunity for researchers to collect empirical evidence from the existing literature about a formulated research question. Although most authors followed the general SLR guidelines provided by Kitchenham ( 2004 ), there were slight variations in the description and presentation of the conceptual process layout. The generic SLR guidelines stated by Kitchenham ( 2004 ) are further elaborated here, and the overall process is described as a set of activities The research process has been adopted for this study described by Kitchenham and Charters ( 2007 ). There are mainly three phases of the review and the steps associated with each phase are shown in Fig.  1 .

3.1 Planning phase (Step 1–4)

This study started by selecting a topic, at which point the study objectives were also clearly defined and the boundaries of the domain delineated.

3.1.1 Selection of topic and research questions

Selecting a topic for SLR is of crucial importance because many factors such as individual or community interest, research gaps, and research impact contribute to shaping research questions on the topic. Our understanding of the GDSE process life cycle is continuously evolving (Kitchenham et al., 2010 ), and many areas in this field lack generalized evidence. It is critically important for the game industry to identify a quality-driven GDSE process. Several studies have investigated different phases of the GDSE process life cycle, but they do not offer systematic, comprehensive, and thorough methodological research specific to this topic.

In this review, studies from 2000 to 2015 will be explored to answer the following research questions:

Research Question (RQ1): What is the intensity of research activity on the GDSE process life cycle?

RQ2: What topics are being researched in the pre-production, production, and post-production phases?

RQ3: What research approaches are being used by researchers in the software game domain?

RQ4: What empirical research methods are being used in the software game domain?

The number of publications has been identified by the research group to address RQ1. A graphical representation has been used to represent the increase or decrease in the number of publications per year as a measure of research activity. To address RQ2, RQ3, and RQ4, each study selected has been affiliated to a research topic, to a certain approach, and to a specific methodology used for the research. Details of this classification into corresponding categories are discussed in section 3.2.4 .

3.1.2 Review team & protocol establishment

A multidisciplinary team is needed to perform a high-quality scientific SLR. To enhance the thoroughness and minimize the potential bias of a study, an SLR is normally undertaken by more than one reviewer. The SLR team for this review was made up of three people. Two people were designated as principal reviewers (Second expert report by American institute 2011). One person was also selected as the project leader to handle additional administrative tasks such as team communication, points of contact, meeting arrangements and documentation, task assignment and follow-up, and quality assurance. Table  1 details the tasks required for the SLR process and reviewer’s involvement and total time duration.

In order to ensure the review could be replicated and to reduce researcher bias a review protocol and it’s evaluation procedure was developed at step 3 and 4. The final review protocol is discussed in the following sections 3.2.1 to 3.2.4 (Steps 5–9 incl.).

3.2 Conducting phase (Step 5–9)

3.2.1 search strategy.

In the SLR, the search procedure is based on an online search. The search strategy for an SLR is a plan to construct search terms by identifying populations, interventions, and outcomes. Key terms are combined together to created different groups in order to form search strings. Each group comprise of terms that are either different forms of the same word, synonyms, or terms that have similar or related semantic meaning within the domain. Table  2 depicts the followed approach.

In order to retrieve different sets of relevant literature, four groups are designed. The main objective of this grouping is to find the literature that is the intersection of the groups as shown in Fig.  2 .

Selection of relevant studies

The search strategy was implemented by applying the “AND” and “OR”, where the “OR” operator is used within the Group and the “AND” is used between the groups. According to Table  2 , the following search string will capture the structure:

( Group 1: [Software game] OR [Digital game] OR [Video game] OR [Computer game] OR [Online Game] OR [Serious games] OR [Educational Games] OR [Learning Games])

( Group 2: [Development] OR [Advancement] OR [Steps] OR [Evolve] OR [Project])

( Group 3: [Life cycle] OR [Design] OR [Implementation] OR [Requirements Engineering] OR [Testing] OR [Evaluation] OR [Maintenance])

( Group 4: [Process] OR [Progression] OR [Method] OR [Model]).

Therefore, “ Software game development lifecycle process ”, “ Computer game development design process ” and “ video game testing process” are some examples of the search strings and similar way different search strings were formed in order to capture all relevant studies.”

To ensure that all relevant research concerning this area of study was reviewed, journals and conferences from 2000 to 2015 were covered, using as sources IEEE Explorer, ACM Digital Library, Science Direct Elsevier, Taylor & Francis, Google Scholar, and Wiley Publications. If the information required, as indicated on the form shown in Table  3 , was not explicitly present in the potential study, then that paper was peer-reviewed by all team members and, after discussion, validated for correctness. Otherwise, each paper was reviewed by one reviewer. Each study involved some general information and some specific information, as indicated on the form.

3.2.2 Pilot selection & data extraction

The research study selection and data extraction was based on the following coverage criteria:

Inclusion criteria for study

For SLR, articles and research papers from 2000 to 2015 were included, and to evaluate their suitability, the following criteria were analyzed:

The study should be thoroughly reviewed by at least one of the reviewers.

Only the following types of studies were considered: case studies, theoretical papers, and empirical analysis surveys.

The full text of the article should be available.

If any article identifies any challenges and problems in software games, that article is included as a review.

Studies that describe motivation for game application.

Study exclusion criteria

The following criteria were used to determine articles to be excluded:

Articles published on company Web sites.

Articles not relevant to the research questions.

Articles not describing any phase of the game development life cycle.

Study selection

This procedure involved two phases. In the first phase, an initial selection was made on the basis of the inclusion criteria and after reading the title, abstract, and conclusion of each article. In the second phase, if a particular article met the criteria, then the whole article was studied. One hundred forty-eight papers were identified after final selection, as shown in Fig.  3 . Table  4 shows the results found in each data source and Additional file 1 : Appendix A contains a full list of selected publications.

Study selection process

3.2.3 Quality criteria

In this research, quality guidelines were defined based on a quality instrument that was used to assign a quality score to each article as a basis for data analysis and synthesis. The quality instrument consisted of four sections: a main section containing a generic checklist applicable to all studies, and three other sections specific to the type of study.

The checklist was based upon SLR guidelines (Kitchenham, 2004 ) and was derived from Kitchenham ( 2004 ) and Second expert report by American institute (2011). The detailed checklist is shown in Table  5 . Some of the checklist items could be answered by “yes” or “no” and they also included a “partial” option. A value of 1 was assigned to “yes,” 0 to “no,” and 0.5 to “partial”; then the sum of the checklist values was used to assign a quality score to the study to assess document quality.

3.2.4 Data synthesis

For data synthesis the topics, research approaches and methods are classified and their classification details are listed below:

Classification of topics in the GDSE Life Cycle

This section includes a classification of the topics covered by each study with respect to the pre-production, production, and post-production phase issues involved. The 2012 ACM classification system was used for classification, which is the same method used by Cai and Card ( 2008 ). The proposed classification system has been adopted by many journals and conferences specifically for software engineering topics. The same classification was used here to classify the papers under study, and these were further fabricated based on studies found in the GDLC domain. Table  6 presents the selected classification schema.

Research approaches and methods classification

Research articles can be characterized based on their method and approach, as described by Glass et al. ( 2002 ). The main categories for scientific approach are descriptive (a system, tool, or method; a literature review can also be considered as descriptive studies), exploratory (performed where a problem was not clearly defined), and empirical (findings based on observation of its subjects). To evaluate new methods or techniques, three major empirical research methods are used: surveys, case studies, and experiments (Wohlin et al., 2000 ). Table  7 describes the three major empirical research types; Dyba and Dingsoyr ( 2008 ) also used the same type of empirical classification.

The data collected were statistically analyzed as follows:

To address RQ1, the number of studies published per year, whether journal articles or conference publications, and the number of publications on the GDLC hosted by each digital library.

To address RQ2, the major topics of the GDLC that were investigated in the software game domain.

To address RQ3 and RQ4, the research approach or method used by number of studies.

From Section  3.2.4 , data were tabulated and are presented in Additional file 2 : Appendix B.

3.3 Documenting (Step 10–12)

This step of the SLR describe conclusion, possible threats and limitations to the validity of this study. Authors believe that there is a chance that the word game was not part of the title of some studies, but that nevertheless they discussed game development. These studies may, therefore, have been excluded from the primary dataset by the search procedure. There are other threats that are also linked to a systematic literature review such as generalization and subjective evaluation (Shadish et al., 2002 ).

There are limitations to our results, although significant amounts of effort and time was spent to select the papers that were studied. More specifically, our search was limited to the academic databases. It is obvious from the results of RQ1 that developers prefer to submit their work on the blogs or forums. However, posts for different game forums and blogs cannot be included in a systematic literature review because they don’t fulfil the quality criteria used for the selection of papers. In addition, the exclusion of less-known journals and conferences from the Web of Science and the Scopus index might have led to a different dataset.

Another limitation of the study is the exclusion of Human-Computer Interaction (HCI) filed studies. In the phase of screening out, we found studies from HCI field such as (Plass-Oude Boss et al. ( 2010 )) for games but they didn’t focus on software engineering perspective. In short, we didn’t consider studies from HCI because they take non-functional requirements, and usability features into account. These methods help developers to evaluate software and they considered as an integral part of game development. However, due to the limited scope of the study, we excluded studies from HCI field.

Finally, the classification scheme might have altered the results if they were classified by a scheme, such as the waterfall model, instead of the ACM classification scheme. Despite these limitations, the results of our systematic literature review will be useful to game development organizations and developers of software games.

4 Results and Discussion

This section presents the results of statistical analysis of the data set discusses the findings concerning the RQs formulated in Section 3.1 . The characteristics of the data set are tabulated for better understanding. To trace the categories of each mapped study, the interested reader is referred to the Additional file 2 : Appendix B. A total 148 studies were collated and analyzed as part of this review. To identify GDSE process life cycle domain specific characteristics, the findings of this review will be compared to results from similar studies done by Cai and Card ( 2008 ), Glass et al. ( 2002 ), and Dyba and Dingsoyr ( 2008 ).

4.1 RQ1 What is the intensity of research activity on the GDSE process life cycle?

Table  8 clearly shows that GDSE process life cycle research intensity has increased during the last few years. Figure  4 showed an increase in GDSE process life cycle over time. The y -axis represents the number of publications in the form of a fraction and is calculated by taking year (i) ’s number of publications as the numerator and year (0) ’s number of publications as the denominator. From Table  8 , 2007 was taken as year (0) , and the first data point of the graph was calculated for year (1) i.e., 2008. Figure  4 shows the results up to 2015. Years are given on the x- axis.

Increase in GDSE process life cycle research activity

Figure  4 illustrates that during the last few years, research activity in the GDSE process life cycle domain has continuously increased and the number of publications in the GDSE domain has increased at a polynomial growth rate since 2005. During 2013, 2014 and 2015 the drop in research activity is noted. It seems obvious that most of the work related to GDSE research activity was not published on the selected sources for this study. During 2014, most of the research activities were seen on the game development associations/groups web sites, like DIGRA association and Gamastura, or game developers personal blogs.

Moreover, Fig.  5 shows the list of countries most active in GDSE process life cycle topics research. Looking at research activity based on countries, China now dominates GDSE process life cycle research, but its research into the game domain started only in 2010. In four years, China has come to dominate this area of research. Before 2010, the United States and the United Kingdom were dominant.

Research activity per country

Authors from North and South America have played a dominant role since 2004 and are still contributing in this area. Contributors in Europe also started research into the GDSE domain in 2007, but the Asian continent has dominated the GDSE domain since 2010. It can be visualized in Fig.  6 . The most popular venue for GDSE research publication is IEEE; it seems that IEEE accounts for the main bulk of publications (approximately 63 %), followed by Elsevier, Springer, and ACM.

Research activity by continent

4.2 RQ 2: What topics are being researched in the pre-production. Production and post production phase?

This section addresses the identification of main research topics in the GDSE process life cycle domain. Table  9 clearly suggests that most research has been conducted in the production phase, followed by the pre-production phase. On the other hand, the post-production phase has not attracted much research interest. These GDSE process life cycle topics are somewhat different than in software engineering because of two factors: first, the GDSE domain has special needs and priorities, and second, it is a young domain which requires more fundamental research in the area of requirements, development, and coding tools. When the GDSE domain becomes mature, then other areas in the field, like testing and verification, will attract the interest of researchers.

As mentioned earlier in Section 2 , games have specific characteristics, which the conventional software development process cannot completely address. In the past years, research on GDSE process life cycle topics has become more active because, unlike other software products, games provide entertainment and user enjoyment, and developers need to give more importance to these aspects. As a result, research about the pre-production phase has increased. The implementation phase is shorter than in the traditional software implementation process because of the short time to market. This production-phase research intensity has attracted the interest of many researchers, and maximum research activity has been reported because the GDSE domain requires efficient development and coding techniques. McShaffry ( 2003 ) also highlighted the importance of the production phase to counteract poor internal quality. There is much less research activity in the post-production phase than in the pre-production and production phases.

Figure  7 presents the growth of each GDSE process life cycle research topic since 2000. It is apparent that in the pre-production phase, the most researched topic is management of the game development process, followed in this order by production-phase development platforms, programming, and implementation topics. In the post-production phase, the marketing area attracted the largest amount of research interest. The state of the art research is the description of actual primary studies, and, therefore, they are mapped according to the research topics they addressed (Budgen et al., 2008 ). Next, a short description of each GDSE topic is presented along with a full reference list. A full reference list of all the studies included is presented in Additional file 1 : Appendix A.

GDSE process life cycle research topics

4.2.1 Pre-production phase

In the pre-production phase, most of the studies categorized under this topic address management issues during the GDSE process life cycle. The overall management of the game development process combines both an engineering process and creation of artistic assets. Ramadan and Widyani [S1] compared various game development strategies from a management perspective, and most studies like [S3], [S6], [S7], and [S8] have proposed frameworks for game development. Game development guidelines can be followed to manage GDSE process life cycle. The presence of agile practices in the game development processes is also highlighted by some studies. Tschang [S4] and Petrillo et al. [S17] highlighted the issues in the game development process and their differences from traditional software development practices. Management of development-team members and their interaction is critically important in this aspect.

Some studies [S10] and [S11] have provided data analytics and empirical analysis of the game development process and issues of interdisciplinary team involvement. Best management practices in the game development process must consider certain elements such as staying on budget, timing, and producing the desired output. To assess game quality, five usability and quality criteria (functional, internally complete, balanced, fun, and accessible) can be used, but a process maturity model specific to the game development process is still needed to measure these processes for better management and high performance.

Requirements specification

One of the main differences between the traditional software development process and GDSE process life cycle is the requirements phase. The game development process requires consideration of many factors such as emotion, game play, aesthetics, and immersive factors. In four studies, the authors have discussed the requirements engineering perspective to highlight its importance for the whole game-software development process. They discussed emotional factors, language ontology, elicitation, feedback, and emergence [S19], [S20], [S21], and [S22]. In particular, game developers must understand these basic non-functional requirements along with the game play requirements and incorporate them while developing games. The main challenges in requirements identification are a) communication between diverse background stakeholders, b) non-functional requirements incorporation with game play requirements, such as media and technology integration, and c) validation of non-functional requirement such as fun, which is very complex because it is totally dependent on the target audience. Callele et al. [S20] further fabricated a set of requirements based on emotional criteria, game-playing criteria (cognitive factors and mechanics), and sensory requirements (visual, auditory, and haptic). The requirements specification phase must address both the functional and non-functional requirements of game development.

Game system description language

Many description languages are currently used by developers, such as the UML model, agent-based methodologies, and soft-system methodologies. Quanyin et al. [S32] proposed the UML model for mobile games. They performed experiments and reported that it would be a good model for further development of games on the Android operating system. Shaker et al. [S33] extracted features of the Super Mario Brothers game from different levels, frequency sequences of level elements, and statistical design levels. Then, they analyzed the relationship between a player’s experience and the level design parameters of platform games using feature analysis modelling. Tylor et al. [S28] proposed a soft system methodology for initial identification of game concepts in the development process. The proposed approach can be used instead of a popular description language because it provides an overview of the game. Chan and Yuen [S30] and Rodriguez et al. [S31] proposed an ontology knowledge framework for digital game development and serious games modelling using the AOSE methodology. A system description language for games must be both intelligible to human beings and formal enough to support comparison and analysis of players and system behaviors. In addition, it must be production-independent, adequately describe the overall game process, and provide clear guidelines for developers.

Reusability

The existence of reusability of software (Capretz and Lee 1992 ) and development platforms in game development has been reported by some researchers, but to gain its full advantages, commonality and variability analysis must be done in the pre-production phase. This category addresses reuse techniques for game development software (Ahmed and Capretz, 2011 ). Neto et al. [S34] performed a survey that analyzed game development software reuse techniques and their similarity to software product lines. Reuse techniques in game development could reduce cost and time and improve quality and productivity. For reuse techniques, commonality and variability analysis is very important, similar to a software product line. Szegletes and Forstner [S36] proposed a reusable framework for adaptive game development. The architecture of the proposed framework consisted of loosely coupled components for better flexibility. They tested their framework by developing educational games. The requirements of the new game must be well aligned with the reusable components of the previously developed game.

Game design document

The Game Design Document (GDD) is an important deliverable in the pre-production phase. It consists of a coherent description of the basic components, their interrelationships, directions, and a shared vocabulary for efficient development. Westera et al. [S37] addressed the issue of design complexity in serious games by proposing a design framework. Furthermore, Salazar et al. [S38] highlighted the importance of a game design document for game development and provided an analysis of many available game design documents from the literature. They also compared their findings with traditional software requirement specifications and concluded that a poor game design document can lead to poor-quality product, rework, and financial losses in the production and post-production phases. Hsu et al. [S40] pointed out the issues of level determination in games and trade-off decisions about them. They proposed an approach to solve the trade-off decision problem, which is based on a neural network technique and uses a genetic algorithm to perform design optimization. Khanal et al. [S41] presented design research for serious games for mobile platforms, and Cheng et al. [S42] provided design research for integrating GIS spatial query information into serious games. Finally, Ibrahim and Jaafar [S43] and Tang and Hanneghan [S44] worked on a game content model for game design documents. Currently, GDD suffers from formalism and incomplete representation; to address this issue, the formal development of GDD is very important. A comprehensive GDD (focused on the game’s basic design and premises) results in good game quality.

Game prototyping

Game prototyping in the pre-production phase helps the developer to clarify the fundamental mechanics of the final game. Game prototyping in the preproduction phases is considered important because it is used to convey game and play mechanics and also helps in evaluating a game player’s experience. Reyno and Cubel [S49] proposed automatic prototyping for game development based on a model-driven approach. An automatic transformation generates the software prototype code in C++. De Silva et al. [S48] proposed community-driven game prototyping. The developer can approach the well-established community and focus on the technical stuff rather than starting from scratch. They used this approach for massive, multi-player online game development. Guo et al. [S50], Kanev and Sugiyam [S51], and Piesoto et al. [S52] proposed analysis of rapid prototyping for Pranndo’s history-dependent games, 3D interactive computer games, and game development frameworks respectively. Prototypes also help to identify missing functionality, after which developers can easily incorporate quick design changes. Model-driven or rapid-prototyping approaches can be used to develop game prototypes.

Design tools

Game design tools are used to help game developers create descriptions of effects and game events in detail without high-level programming skills. Cho and Lee [S56] and Segundo et al. [S57] proposed an event design tool for rapid game development and claimed that it does not require any kind of programming skill. These tools also enable reuse of existing components and reduce the total time of the game-creation process.

Risk management

In the game development domain, risk management factors do not receive much discussion by researchers. Risk management is very important from a project management point of view. Identifying risk factors in the game development process is also important. In game development, the project manager is the game producer and must bring together management, technical, and aesthetic aspects to create a successful game. The study by Schmalz et al. [S58] is the only study highlighting the issue of risk management in video development projects. They identified two risk factors during the development process: failure of development strategy and absence of the fun factor. In game development, important risk factors can be the development strategy, the fun factor or extent of originality, scheduling, budgeting, and others, but very low priority has been given by game developers to formal analysis of risk factors.

4.2.2 Production phase

Asset creation.

Asset creation in the production phase is the foundation stage where game developers create the various assets and then use them in the game implementation phase. In the production phase, the first step is to create assets for the game. One of these assets is audio creation. Migneco et al. [S63] developed an audio-processing library for game development in Flash. It includes common audio-processing routines and sound-interaction Web games. Minovic et al. [S65] proposed an approach based on the model drive method for user interface development, and Pour et al. [S64] presented a brain computer interface technology that can control a game on a mobile device using EEG Mu rhythms. For audio processing, open-source libraries are available, especially for games. Audio and interface design are examples of game assets.

Storyboard production

Storyboard production is the most important phase of game production; it involves development of game scenarios for level solutions and incorporation of artificial intelligence planning techniques for representing the various features of games through a traditional white board or flow chart. Pizzi et al. [S59] proposed a rational approach that elaborated game-level scenario solutions using knowledge representation and also incorporated AI techniques to explore alternative solutions by direct interaction with generated storyboards. Finally, Anderson [S61] presented a classification of scripting systems for serious and entertainment games, and Cai and Chen [S62] explored scene editor software for game scenes. Their approach was based on the OGRE.Net framework and C++ technology. Various scripting editors based on different technologies are available for game developers to produce storyboards. Some of this software helps to develop and edit scenes at different game levels, and other software helps by generating game levels automatically based on a description.

Development platforms

The studies classified under this category proposed various types of platforms for game development. Development platforms provide a ready-made architecture for server–client connectivity and help developers create games quickly. Open-source development platforms are available, but developers must customize them according to the required functionality. Peres et al. [S69] used a scrum methodology for game development, especially for multiple platforms, and implemented interfaces with social networking Web sites such as Twitter and Facebook. Jieyi et al. [S70] proposed a platform for quick development of mobile 3D games. First, the platform implemented the game template in two environments such as the Nokia series 60 platform and the Symbian OS. The second part of the process involved analysis of the entire game structure and extraction of game parameters for later customization. Finally, the tool could be used for game customization. Lin et al. [S] developed intelligent multimedia mobile games from embedded platforms. The proposed communication protocol was able to control the embedded platform to achieve the game usability and amusement. Mao et al. [S78] presented a logical animation platform for game design and development, and Alers and Barakova [S81] developed a multi-agent platform for an educational children’s game. Suomela et al. [S77] highlighted the important aspects of multi-user application platforms used for rapid game development. Some researchers have proposed a development platform similar to that described above that provides connectivity along with client customization and unnecessary updating of game servers.

Formal language description

Game semantics can be classified under formal language description for programming languages; only two studies were reported under this classification. The formal language description of game semantics provided a way to gain insight into the design of programming languages for game development. Mellies [S99] proposed a denotational prepositional linear logic for asynchronous games, and Calderon and McCusker [S100] presented their analysis of game semantics using coherence spaces. Very little work has been reported in this area, and very few game semantic descriptions of languages have been published.

Programming

Code complexity is increasing, especially in game development, because of the incorporation of complex modules, AI techniques, and a variety of behaviors. The most common programming languages used in game development are object-oriented structured languages such as Java, C, and C++. Studies classified under this category explored the programming aspect of game development. El Rhalibi et al. [S82] proposed a development environment based on Java Web Start and JXTA P2P technologies called Homura and NetHomura. It extends the JME game engine by facilitating content libraries, providing a new interface, and also providing a software suite that supports advanced graphical functionalities within IDE. The other two studies, done by Meng et al. [S84] and Chen and Xu [S85], also explored programming languages such as C++, DirectX, and Web GL and also Web Socket technologies for game development. Three studies by Yang et al. [S87], Yang and Zhang [S88], and Wang and Lu [S89] explored collision detection algorithms from a game logic aspect for software games, proposed A* search, and AI optimization-based algorithms.

Wang et al. [S83] proposed a framework for developing games based on J2ME technology. Zhang et al. [S92] also explored the effects of object-oriented technology on performance, executable file size, and optimization techniques for mobile games and suggested that object-oriented technology should be used with great care because the structured programming in game development is highly competitive. Bartish and Thevathayan [S86] and Fahy and Krewer [S90] analyzed the use of agents, finite state machines, and open-source libraries for the overwhelmingly complex process of multi-platform game development. Optimization techniques can be used with object-oriented programming to avoid unnecessarily redundant classes and inheritance, and to handle performance bottlenecks. These languages can be used across different development environments such as Android, iOS, Windows, and Linux. Researchers have proposed various approaches and tools for efficient game development. The integration of various development artefacts into games can also be done by generative programming, which also helps to achieve efficient development.

Game engine

A game engine is a kind of special software framework that is used in the production phase for creating and developing games. Game engines consist mainly of a combination of core functionalities such as sound, a physics engine or collision detection, AI, scripting, animation, networking, memory management, and scene graphs. Hudlicka [S108] identified a set of requirements for a game engine, including identification of the player’s emotions and the social interactions among game characters. This is the only study that has highlighted the important functionalities that an affective game engine must support. Another study by Wu et al. [S109] focused on game script engine development based on J2ME. It divided script engines into two types. The first type is the high-level script engine that includes packaging and refining of the script engine. The second type, the low-level script engine includes feature packages associated only with API. Four studies [S102], [S105], [S106], and [S107] explored the development of game engines on mobile platforms. Finally, Anderson et al. [S109] proposed a game engine selection tool. Recently, developers have been using previously developed or open-source game engines to economize on the game development process. Various researchers have proposed script-based, design pattern-based, and customizable game engines. In the GDSE process life cycle, game engines automate the game creation process and help a developer to develop a game in a shorter time.

Implementation

The foundations of game theory are used in game development because it is a branch of decision theory that describes interdependent decisions. Most studies in this category described different aspects of game implementation technologies on various types of platforms. They considered improving programming skills, 2D/3D animations and graphics, sound engineering, project management, logic design, story-writing interface design, and AI techniques. Various kinds of game implementation technologies can be found in the literature. Vanhatupa [S117] presented a survey of implementation technologies especially for browser games. The technologies explored in these studies are mainly server applications (application runtime, server-side scripting, and user interface and communication), client applications, databases, and architecture. The same study also described the accessories that can be used for implementation: application platforms, game engines, and various types of plug-ins. Abd El-Sattar [S112] proposed an interactive computer-based game framework for the implementation process. The framework includes steps from design through implementation that are based on game theory foundations and focus mainly on game models, Nash equilibrium, and strategies of play. The proposed framework includes architectural design and specifications, a proposed game overview, a game start-up interface and difficulty scaling, game modelling, the game environment and player control, and a free-style combat system.

Four studies [S113], [S114], [S119] and [S120] focused mainly on a development framework for mobile devices. Su et al. [S96] proposed a framework describing implementation of various main modules such as pressure movement, a thread pool based on the I/O completion port, and a message module. They also claimed that their proposed framework addressed the problems of traditional frameworks such as the single-server exhaustion problem, synchronization, and thread-pooling issues. Jhingut et al. [S114] discussed 3D mobile game implementation technologies from both single-player and multi-player perspectives. They also evaluated two game APIs: MDP 2.0 and M3G API. Finally, Kao et al. [S120] proposed a client framework for mobile devices that used a message-based communication protocol and reserved platform-specific data as much as possible. A few researchers have proposed agent-based frameworks as explored above for effective communication and synchronization between system components.

4.2.3 Post-production phase

Quality assurance.

Process validation plays an important role in assessing game quality. Collection and evaluation of process data from the pre-production phase through to the post-production phase either provide evidence that the overall development process produces a good-quality game as a final product or reveal that it cannot. Only two studies were reported under this classification. Stacey et al. [S122] used a story-telling strategy to assess the game development process. They carried out a two-year case study on a four-person development team. Astrachan et al. [S126] tried to validate the game creation process by analyzing the development process and design decisions made during development. The scope of studies done under this category was limited. The case studies were done for small teams and were limited to only one phase. In the game development process, quality assurance and process validation are critical components, and standard methodologies are lacking. More exploration is needed to provide deeper insights. QA for games needs more research attention because very little work has been reported.

Beta testing

Beta testing in games is used to evaluate overall game functionality using external testers. Beta testing is a kind of first public release for testing purposes by users. Game publishers often find it effective because bugs are identified by users that were missed by developers. If any desired functionality is missing, it must be addressed at this stage. This testing is performed before final game release. Under this classification, only four studies [S127], [S128], [S129], and [S130] were reported. Hable and Platzer [S129] evaluated their proposed development framework for mobile game platforms. Omar et al. [S128] evaluated educational computer games and identified two evaluation techniques: Playability Heuristic for Educational Games (PHEG) for expert evaluators, and Playability Assessment of Educational Games (PAEG) for real-world users. The proposed AHP-based Holistic Online Evaluation System for Educational Computer Games (AHP_HeGES) online evaluation tool can be used in the evaluation process. Very little work was reported in this category.

Heuristic-based testing

Heuristics are a kind of design guideline and can be used as an evaluation tool by game design developers or users. Basically, heuristics can be used in software engineering to test the interface. In games, evaluation must extend beyond the interface because other playability experiences also need evaluation such as the game story, play, and mechanics. Six studies [S132], [S133], [S134], [S146], [S147], and [S148] fell under this classification. Al-Azawi et al. [S132] proposed a heuristic testing-based framework for game development. The proposed framework divides testing by two types of user: experts and real-world users. Experts evaluate playability, game usability, and game quality factors. Users evaluate the game as a positive or negative experience. Omar and Jaafar [S133] and Al-Azawi et al. [S134] proposed a framework for the evaluation phase in the game development process. Heuristic testing can be done during the development process and repeated from the early design phase. It is perfect for game testing because after the game is implemented, if anything goes wrong, it will be too expensive to fix and will affect the project schedule. This topic also needs attention by researchers.

Empirical testing

Empirical testing approaches for the game-testing phase have been explored by only a few researchers. The approaches described by these researchers have focused only on final-product quality and usability. Only two studies were reported under this classification [S135] and [S136]. Escudeiro and Escudeiro [S135] used a Quantitative Evaluation Framework (QEF) to evaluate serious mobile games and reported that QEF frameworks are very important in validating educational games and final-product quality. Choi [S136] analyzed the effectiveness of usability-expert evaluation and testing for game development. Experimental results showed the importance of the validation process in game development. The scope of the studies done under this category was very limited, and other aspects of final-product testing have not been explored by researchers.

Testing tools

Development of testing tools has not been addressed by many researchers. Only one study [S137] was reported under this classification. Cho et al. [S137] proposed testing tools for black-box and scenario-based testing. They used their tool on several online games to verify its effectiveness. Tools for game testing facilitate the testing process. The proposed scope of study was also limited, and available testing tools have focused only on evaluation of online games.

After a game has been developed, the final step is marketing. Marketing of games includes a marketing strategy and a marketing plan. The marketing strategy is directly related to the choice of users and the types of games that are in demand. The marketing plan is something that a publisher can give to a distributor to execute on the publisher’s behalf. Some studies have been done from the perspective of game-user satisfaction that provide the baseline for the factors that game developers must take into account for new game development. Yee et al. [S142] described a game motivation scale based on a three-factor model that can be used to assess game trends. Three studies [S139], [S143], and [S144] empirically investigated the perspective of game-user satisfaction and loyalty. No study in the literature has directly captured a marketing strategy and a marketing plan for games.

4.3 RQ 3: What research approaches are being used by researchers in digital game domain?

Table  10 shows that most GDSE process life cycle studies have used an exploratory research approach. Figure  8 shows a comparison between the three research approaches used in the GDSE process life cycle domain. Figure  9 shows a comparison among the empirical research methods used in the GDSE process life cycle domain. The results suggest that surveys are most frequently used in GDSE domain research.

GDSE process life cycle research approaches

Empirical research approaches

These results were to be expected because the GDSE domain has only been growing since 2005; before 2010 more studies follow the descriptive approach because the field was young. After 2010, more studies have followed the exploratory approach because the domain has been maturing. More specifically, exploratory and descriptive approaches seem now to be equally used in the GDSE process life cycle domain.

4.4 RQ4: What empirical research methods are being used in the software games domain?

Table  11 depicts the results of the RQ4. The experimental empirical method is less used in the GDSE process life cycle domain, as mentioned by Wohlin et al. ( 2000 ), because carrying out formal experiments requires significant experience. The case-study method has also been used infrequently by researchers. The reason for this could be that case studies require project data obtained through various types of observations or measurements, and no research database or repository is available for the GDSE process life cycle domain. Finally, the survey method was more common than the other two methods. This is reasonable because the GDSE domain is still immature and researchers are trying to produce knowledge by questioning game users, experts, and others.

5 Conclusions

The GDSE process proved to be incredibly challenging as game technology including game platforms and engines changes rapidly and coding modules are used very rarely in the another game project. However, recent success of digital game industry enforces further stress along with game development challenges and highlights the need of good practices adoption for game development process. In order to find out the specific area in game development software engineering process for improvement, assessment of process activities needs to be performed. However, due to relatively young history and empirical nature of the field, there has not been any development strategies or set of best practices to carry out game development fully explored. This systematic literature review helps to identify the research gaps in game development life cycle.

The main objective of this research was to provide an insight into the GDSE process life cycle domain because, in the past, researchers have pointed out that it is different from the traditional software development process. To achieve this objective, a systematic literature review was performed, which confirmed the first step of the evidence-based paradigm. The results also confirmed that the GDSE process life cycle domain is different from the traditional software engineering development process and that research activity is growing day by day, attracting the interest of more researchers. This observation provided an evidence for developers they need to look for other important activities on top of software development process. This paper describes the various topics in the GDSE domain and highlights the main research activities related to the GDSE process life cycle. The research topics identified in the GDSE were a combination of different disciplines and together they complete the game development process.

The most heavily researched topics were from the production phase, followed by the pre-production phase. On the other hand, in the post-production phase, less research activity was reported. In the pre-production phase, the management topic accounted for the most publications, whereas in the production phase, the development platform, programming, and the implementation phase attracted the most researchers. The production phase has attracted more research because game developers focus more on implementation and programming because of the limited game-development time period. The post-production phase includes process validation, testing, and marketing topics. Very little research activity was observed in this area because the quality aspect of game development is not yet a mature field. These results highlighted that researcher’s need to pay attention especially in the phase of post-production.

In addition to research topics, more researchers used exploratory research methods; as for empirical research methods, surveys were carried out by more researchers than case studies and experiments. Overall, the findings of this study are important for the development of good-quality digital games. Rapid and continual changes in technology and intense competition not only affect the business, but also have a great impact on development activities. To deal with this strong competition and high pressure, game development organizations and game developers must continually assess their activities and adopt an appropriate evaluation methodology. The result of the study highlighted that use of a proper assessment methodology will help the organization identify its strengths and weaknesses and provide guidance for improvement. However, the fragmented nature of the GDSE process requires a comprehensive evaluation strategy, which has not yet been entirely explored. Finally, this kind of research work provides a baseline for other studies in the GDSE process life cycle domain and highlights research topics that need more attention in this area. The findings of this study will help researchers to identify research gaps in GDSE process life cycle and highlights areas for further research contributions. This study also is a part of a larger project aiming to propose a digital game maturity assessment model (Aleem et al. 2016a ). The identified important dimensions are developer’s perspective (Aleem et al. 2016b ), the consumer, the business (Aleem et al. 2016c ), and the process itself. It also reinforces the assertion that the GDSE process life cycle domain is a complex scientific domain comparable to the software engineering development process, and it needs more attention and consideration of different factors in game development software engineering process.

In short, this study presents a systematic literature review of the GDLC topics. Overall, the findings of this study are important for the development of good-quality digital games because they highlight the areas that needs research attention. The results of this study have shown that the fragmented nature of the GDLC process requires a comprehensive evaluation strategy, which has not yet been entirely explored. Finally, this kind of research work provides a baseline for other studies in the GDLC domain and highlights research topics that need more attention in this area. The findings of this study will also help researchers to identify research gaps in the GDLC and highlight areas for further research contributions.

Abbreviations

Game Design Document

Game Development Software Engineering (GDSE)

Quantitative Evaluation Framework

Systematic Literature Review

Ahmed, F., Capretz, L. F., 2011. A business maturity model of software product line engineering. Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, 13, 4, 543–560, DOI: 10.1007/s10796-010-9230-8

Aleem S, Fernando Capretz L, Ahmed F (2016). A Digital Game Maturity Model (DGMM), Entertainment Computing 17, 55-73. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.entcom.2016.08.004

Aleem S, Capretz LF, Ahmed F (2016a) Critical Success Factors to Improve the Game Development Process from a Developer’s Perspective. J Comput Sci Technol 31(5):925–950

Article   Google Scholar  

Aleem S, Capretz LF, Ahmed F, (2016c). Empirical investigation of key business factors for digital game performance, Entertainment Computing, Vol. 13,pp. -25-36, http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/j.entcom.2015.09.001

Alvarez, J. Michaud, L., (2008). Serious Games: Advergaming, Edugaming, Training, and More, IDATE

Ampatzoglou A, Stamelos I (2010) Software engineering research for computer games: a systematic review. J Inf Softw Technol Elsevier 52(9):888–901.

Bethke E (2003). Game Development and Production. Wordware game developer's library. Wordware Pub, Plano. ISBN 978-0-585-44833-6

Blitz game studio, (2014). Project Lifecycle. Retrieved May 1, 2014 from http://www.blitzgamesstudios.com/blitz_academy/game_dev .

Boyle EA, Connolly TM, Hainey T, Boyle JM (2012) Engagement in digital entertainment games: A systematic review. Comput Hum Behav 28:771–780

Brereton P, Kitchenham B, Budgen D, Turner M, Khalil M (2007) Lessons from applying the systematic literature review process within the software engineering domain. J Syst Softw 80(4):571–583

Budgen D, Turner M, Brereton P, Kitchenham B (2008). Using mapping studies in software engineering. In: Proceedings of Psychology of Programming Interest Group (PPIG). Lancaster University, Lancaster. pp. 195–204

Cai KY, Card D (2008) An analysis of topics in software engineering. J Syst Softw 81(6):1051–1058

Capretz LF, Lee PA (1992) Reusability and life cycle issues within an Object-Oriented Design methodology (refereed). In: Ege R, Singh M, Meyer B (eds) Technology of Object-Oriented Languages and Systems. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, pp 139–150. ISBN 0-13-042441-2

Google Scholar  

Castillo T, Novak J, (2008). Game Development Essentials: Game Level Design. Delmar Cengage Learning. ISBN: 9781401878641

Chandler HM (2010) Game Production Handbook. Johns and Bartletts, Sudbury

Connolly TM, Boyle EA, MacArthur E, Hainey T, Boyle JM (2012) A systematic literature review of empirical evidence on computer games and serious games. Comput Educ 59:661–686

Dyba T, Dingsoyr T (2008) Empirical studies of agile software development: a systematic review. Information and Software Technology 50(9-10):833–859

Dyba T, Kitchenham BA, Jorgensen M (2005) Evidence-based software engineering for practitioners. Software Magazine. IEEE Computer Society 22(1):58–65

Entertainment Software Association (ESA), (2014). Essential facts about the Computer and Video Game Industry. Entertainment Software Association Available at: http://www.theesa.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/ESA_EF_2014.pdf . Accessed on 15 Oct 2015.

Entertainment Software Association (ESA), (2015). Essential facts about the Computer and Video Game Industry. Entertainment Software Association. Available at: http://www.theesa.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/ESA-Essential-Facts-2015.pdf . Accessed on 15 Oct 2015.

Flood K (2003) Game Unified Process: GameDev., Available at: http://www.gamedev.net/page/resources/_/technical/generalprogramming/game-unified-process-r1940 . Accessed June 12, 2015

Glass RL, Vessey I, Ramesh V (2002) Research in software engineering: an analysis of the literature. Inf Softw Technol 44(8):491–506

Godoy A, Barbosa E F, (2010). Game-Scrum: An approach to agile game development, Proceedings of SBGames 2010 Computing Track (I. S. F. SC, ed.), Sao Carlos, pp. 292–295, November 8–10, pp. 292–295.

Gredler M. E (1995). Designing and evaluating games and simulations. Behavioral Science. Wiley Online Library, 40, 1 (1995), 76–77

Gredler M. E (2003). Games and simulations and their relationship to learning. Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology, Lawrence Erlbaum, Inc: Mahwah, NJ pp. 571–581.

Hendrick A (2014). Project Management for Game Development. Retrieved 20 May 2014, from http://mmotidbits.com/2009/06/

Kaitilla C (2014). How to learn Ouya Gamdev. Retrieved December 20, 2014, from http://gamedevelopment.tutsplus.com/articles/how-to-learn-ouya-gamedev--gamedev-9197 .

Kanode C M., Haddad H M (2009). Software engineering challenges in game development. In Proceedings of the 2009 Sixth International Conference on Information Technology: New Generations, (April 27–29, 2009), 260–265

Keith C (2010) Agile game development with Scrum. Addison-Wesley, Boston

Kitchenham B (2004). Procedures for performing systematic literature reviews. Joint Technical Report. Computer Science Department, Keele University, July 2004, 33 pages.

Kitchenham B, Charters S, (2007). Guidelines for performing systematic literature reviews in software engineering, Software Engineering Group, Keele University and Department of Computer Science, University of Durham, United Kingdom, Technical Report EBSE-2007-01, 2007

Kitchenham, B., Sjoberg, D.I.K., Brereton, P., Budgen, D., Dyba, T., Host, M., Pfahl, D., Runeson, P., 2010. Can we evaluate the quality of software engineering experiments? In Proceedings of the 2010 ACM-IEEE International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement, 1–8

Kruchten P (2000) The Rational Unified Process: An Introduction, 2nd edn. Addison Wesley Longman, Reading

Liming D, Vilorio D (2011). Work for play: Careers in video game development, Occupational Outlook Quarterly. Available at: http://www.bls.gov/careeroutlook/2011/fall/art01.pdf . Accessed on: 30 Sept 2015.

McGrath J (2014). The game development lifecycle: A theory for the extension of the agile project methodology. http://blog.dopplerinteractive.com/2011_04_01_archive.html . Accessed 1 May 2014

McShaffry M (2003) Game coding complete. Paraglyph Press, AZ, USA

Munassar N, Govardhan A (2010) A Comparison Between Five Models Of Software Engineering. International Journal of Computer Science Issues 7(5):94–101

Nayak M (2013). A look at the $66 billion video-games industry, Reuters, Retrieved June 2013 from http://in.reuters.com/article/2013/06/10/gameshow-e-idINDEE9590DW20130610 . Accessed 12 Sept 2014

Newzoo Game Market Research, 2015. Global Report: U.S. and China take half of $113 bn game market in 2018. Available at: http://www.newzoo.com/insights/us-and-china-take-half-of-113bn-games-market-in-2018/ . Accessed 2 Oct 2015

Osbourne-O'Hagan A, Coleman G, O'Connor RV (2014) Software development processes for games: a systematic literature review. In: 21st European Conference on Systems, Software and Services Process Improvement EuroSPI, Luxembourg, 25-27 June 2014

Petrillo F, Pimenta M, Trindade F, Dietrich C (2009) What went wrong? A survey of problems in game development. Computers in Entertainment. ACM Digit Library 7(1(13)):1–22

Plass-Oude Boss, D., Reuderink, B., Van De Laar, B.L.A., Gurkok, H, Muhl, C., Poel, M., Heylen, D.K.J., Nijholt, A. (2010), Human-Computer Interaction for BCI Games: Usability and User Experience. In Proceedings of the International Conference on CYBERWORLDS, A. Sourin (eds), IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos, 277–281

Pressman RS (2001) Software engineering: a practitioner approach, 5th edn. Wiley, New York

PWC global media and entertainment outlook 2011–2014, 2011. Available at http://www.pwc.com/gx/en/global-entertainment-mediaoutlook/territory-segments-digital-forecast-overview.jhtml . Accessed on 28 Jul 2013.

Ramadan R., Widyani Y, (2013). Game development life cycle guidelines. In Proceedings of 5th International Conference on Advanced Computer Science and Information Systems (ICACIS). IEEE Computer Society, Jakarta, Indonesia, (September 28–29, 2013) 95–100.

Rieber LP (2005) Multimedia learning in games, simulations and microworlds. Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning. Cambridge University Press, UK, pp 549–567

Book   Google Scholar  

Robin S, (2009). Introduction to game development, 2nd edition. Charles River Media. ISBN-10: 1584506792

Salen K, Zimmerman E (2003). Rules of Play: Game Design Fundamentals. MIT Press, ACM Digital Library. p. 80. ISBN 0-262-24045-9

Schwaber K, Beedle M (2002) Agile Software Development With Scrum. Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River

MATH   Google Scholar  

Shadish WR, Cook TD, Campbell DT (2002). Experimental and Quasi-experimental Designs for Generalized Causal Inference. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston

SUPERDATA 2015 Digital Good Measurement Blog. Worldwide digital games market. Available at: https://www.superdataresearch.com/blog/us-digital-games-market/ . Accessed 30 Dec 2015.

Wohlin C, Runeson P, Host M, Ohlsson MC, Regnell B, Wesslen A (2000) Experimentation in Software Engineering. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston/Dordrecht/London

Book   MATH   Google Scholar  

Download references

Authors’ contributions

SA designed the study and performed the review methodology, collected the data, analyzed the data and drafted the manuscript. LC helped to conceive the study and provided guidance to carry out the quality assessments of paper, reviewed the drafted manuscript and fine-tune the final draft. FA helped in study design, provided guidance to present the analysis and helped to draft the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

College of Technological Innovation, Zayed University, Abu Dhabi, 144534, United Arab Emirates

Saiqa Aleem

Department of Electrical & Computer Engineering, University of Western Ontario, London, ON, N6A 5B9, Canada

Luiz Fernando Capretz

Department of Computing Science, Thompson Rivers University, Kamloops, BC, V2C 0C8, Canada

Faheem Ahmed

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Saiqa Aleem .

Additional files

Additional file 1:.

Appendix A (DOC 114 kb)

Additional file 2:

Appendix B (DOC 313 kb)

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Aleem, S., Capretz, L.F. & Ahmed, F. Game development software engineering process life cycle: a systematic review. J Softw Eng Res Dev 4 , 6 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40411-016-0032-7

Download citation

Received : 16 March 2016

Accepted : 25 October 2016

Published : 09 November 2016

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s40411-016-0032-7

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Software Game
• Online game
• Systematic review
• Development software engineerong proces

Video Game Development Process

How successful games are made, from start to finish.

Anyone with hands-on experience in the video game industry knows the simple fact: game development can be chaotic . But while no amount of planning can fully safeguard you against production bottlenecks or impending deadlines, undertaking a game development project without a plan is a sure way to fail.

Whether you are an AAA game studio or an indie game developer, having a structured game development process is paramount. Let's dive deeper into what this process looks like.

What is video game development?

Game development is the process of developing a video game, from the initial concept to the finished product.

Depending on the game and the studio undertaking the project, this process can take anything from a few weeks to over a decade. It can involve thousands of designers, artists, programmers, writers, and testers, or be carried out by a single indie developer.

Game design vs. game development

Game development and game design are two different terms, though they are often used interchangeably:

Game design refers to the conceptual side of things: the initial vision, the mechanics, the story, the characters, the locations, and so on.

Game development is a broader term that covers game design and additionally includes the technical implementation of the game concepts.

At many smaller game development studios, the same team members wear many hats and are responsible for both fields. At larger companies, however, design and development are often handled separately.

Stages of the game development process

The game development process can be broken down into three main stages .

Pre-production

Pre-production is the planning phase. You may have an amazing idea for a game, but to successfully turn it into a reality you need a detailed plan of action.

The first step is to create a game design document (GDD). It will serve as a blueprint from which your game is to be built. Here's an example of a game design document created in Nuclino , a unified workspace where teams can bring all their knowledge, docs, and projects together. Nuclino can serve as a lightweight game documentation tool , a game development planner , an internal wiki , or a digital asset management platform for game art studios . You can create real-time collaborative docs, allowing you to document, share, and collaborate on anything, from game proposals and storyboards to character profiles and concept art.

Game design document example (Artwork credit: Stephane Wootha Richard )

Pre-production is the stage when the writers, artists, designers, and developers collaborate to determine the scope of the game. That includes coming up with ideas for how the game will function, its characters, its look, and its story. The most basic questions that need to be answered are:

What is the core idea behind the game? How can it be summarized in a compelling game pitch ?

What is the genre of the game?

Who is the target audience?

When and where does the game take place?

Who are the characters?

What is our estimated cost to develop this game?

Will we need to hire game developers or other additional team members?

How will we monetize the game?

What is our estimated timeframe for the launch?

The answers to these questions become the backbone of your game design document. Some details are likely to change over the course of the game development process – keep your GDD as a living document and let it evolve together with your project.

Game storyboard example (Credit: Ubisoft Entertainment )

During the pre-production stage, it’s also common to prototype the environments, characters, control schemes, and other in-game elements. A lot of effort is invested into worldbuilding . Ideas are fleshed out in the form of storyboards, concept art, interface mockups, and so on, to see how they look, feel, and interact with one another.

The production stage of game development is when your studio takes the concepts created during pre-production and turns them into source code and various assets. It's where the bulk of your time, effort, and resources go.

During this stage, several teams work in parallel:

Design. The design team continues their work from the pre-production stage. Working together with the artists, they render character models, craft dynamic and immersive level designs and environments, iterate on the interfaces, and so on. The designs become more detailed and granular, some ideas get refined while others are thrown out.

Programming. Even in case you decide to use an existing game development software or game engine, the programmers will have plenty of work prototyping ideas, incorporating new features, and fixing the bugs introduced along the way. If you are also planning to release an API for your game , your developer team will need to allocate enough additional resources to work on related technical tasks.

3D character model examples (Credit: Maryna Chemerys )

Art, graphics, and audio. Most games require a great number of creative assets. Artists, music composers, and voice actors need to work together with the designers and developers to make sure all elements fit together.

Testing. Making sure the game works as intended is critical. Testers don't wait till the game is finished, they start their work as soon as anything is playable. Early on, testing a game occupies a relatively small amount of time, but as development draws to a close, it requires multiple people working full-time, often relying on QA outsourcing services.

Game production process ( Nuclino )

Post-production

After the final version of the game is released, it enters the final stage of the game development process – the post-production. The main purpose of this stage is game maintenance, which mainly includes:

Bug-fixing. Despite the efforts of testers, most games still contain minor bugs at the moment of their launch. The first few months during the post-production stage are typically spent identifying and squashing these bugs.

New content. Post-production also includes regular software updates for the game, ranging from game-balancing patches to new DLCs.

No two games are the same, and even seasoned game development studios with hundreds of games under their belts often struggle with last-minutes changes, tight deadlines, creative differences, and other challenges. This is the nature of the industry. There are many things that contribute to a game’s success that are not under the developer’s immediate control. Which is all the more reason to make sure you take care of the things that are. And having a structured game development process with clear deadlines and production goals is the most straightforwards way to do it.

Nuclino : Your team's collective brain

Nuclino brings all your team's knowledge, docs, and projects together in one place. It's a modern, simple, and blazingly fast way to collaborate, without the chaos of files and folders, context switching, or silos.

Create a central knowledge base and give your team a single source of truth.

Collaborate in real time or asynchronously and spend less time in meetings.

Manage and document your projects in one place without losing context.

Organize, sort, and filter all kinds of data with ease.

Integrate the tools you love , like Slack, Google Drive, Figma, Lucidchart, and more.

Ready to get started?

• Why Nuclino?
• Apps & Integrations
• Sidekick (AI)

User Research Throughout the Game Development Process

Chris Hugelmann

Contributing author at PlaytestCloud. Currently playing: Lost Sphear & Destiny 2.

As the prominence of user research in the tech industry continues to rise, more and more game development companies are looking to user researchers to improve the player experience within their title libraries. We recently spoke with two research strategists at Outfit7, Anja Arhar and Nives Đorđević. They confirmed for us that user research’s place within the game development life cycle has become much more involved throughout the whole process. What’s more, they said user researchers are better able to enact change throughout the course of a game’s development. This is in stark contrast to how such planning was previously established, whereby user research was generally considered quality assurance (QA), completed at the end of the development cycle, and only as a final pass.

Here, we will discuss how user research plays a critical role in the development of digital games, how that role has changed, and what types of research can be done at each step of the process to benefit your game’s first time user experience (FTUE) and beyond!

In the beginning: User research at the concept stage of development

According to the Nielsen Norman Group [1] , when an organization — or in this case, a game development studio — has reached a certain level of UX maturity, they have successfully integrated a user-centered design process within their UX or user research departments, and throughout their culture and at all leadership levels. This means they have placed adequate trust in user researcher involvement and initiative early on in a game’s development life cycle, have supported their integration into the development team, and have helped them enact positive change at all steps of the process.

As a user researcher, being involved early and often is ideal, and offers up a chance for researchers to assist with decision-making processes, and to steer your game towards better UX through their user research expertise.

Nives and Anja, for instance, pointed out that early on, methods like focus groups [2] allowed their user research team to better understand how the game concept was being perceived, and whether that perception aligned with expectations from the game development team. This was also done with a convenience sample [3] of players who had played previous titles of the game in the past. This allowed the research team to gather qualitative information about the general sentiment of a potential player’s reception to the concept being proposed, allowing the user research team to incorporate feedback from participants such as “needs” and “wants” into categories for further study.

Testing before the build: The importance of pre-production user research

Generally at this stage of the process, ideas are still amorphous and flexible, so being open-minded is key, as is testing all sorts of different concepts, as well as keeping lines of communication between the user research and development teams open.

Additionally, as a game is still in the pre-production state, this is an ideal time to complete a competitor analysis [4] of games that may have similar mechanics or audiences. This exploration allows the design team to catch any potential issues of incongruence between audience and product, as well as to gather feedback on what players want or expect to see, even before they have a working build!

Finally, testing ideas to solidify them into assets in-game is an ideal target for this step, as there is still plenty of flexibility and opportunity for change. As Nives and Anja relayed in their talk, even testing icons with paper prototypes was found to be valuable (not to mention cost effective, thereby improving feedback accessibility) and will continue to aid designers further on in the development process as they learn what works best and what needs improvement.

Research while creating the game: User research during the production phase

While games are being produced, there are usually several benchmarks or milestones that production and development teams utilize to ensure the game is on track to release, and that each step of the development process is up to a satisfactory standard before moving on. Obviously, this method offers user researchers an opportunity to intervene and help the team better understand the overall game experience, knowledge, and usability from a player’s perspective. Nives and Anja described the ways in which detailed, iterative playtesting offers fantastic results during the production phase. Indeed, much of the game will have been fully formulated at that point, with the builds of the game offering players a real glimpse into what the final game will look and feel like.

This phase is important for user researchers on the team, since they can test several different elements of gameplay, including game mechanics, visual design, usability and accessibility issues, iconography, and interface design. As these elements become solidified within different builds, testing early and often becomes vital, and impacts the extent to which valuable feedback makes its way from players to the development team.

One important aspect Outfit7 chose to highlight is the tutorial process: a necessary but sometimes overlooked element of digital games that scaffolds necessary knowledge from the game to the player. In addition to gathering useful qualitative data through a think-out-loud protocol [5] , Nives and Anja mentioned that quantitative data, such as time-on-task to complete tutorials, can be helpful in discern player behavior such as whether players are rushing through the tutorial and will inevitably churn [6] . Additionally, the use of A/B testing [7] when implementing changes to specific parts of the build will allow players to compare and contrast those alterations, and ultimately express their preferences.

Out in the players’ hands: What user research can do during release and post-release

As with many mobile games, Nives and Anja - and the entire team at Outfit7 - focused on the first-time user experience (FTUE) during the production phase of My Talking Tom Friends , to ensure that players understood the game and would continue to play. While FTUE is vital to the success of many digital games, it is also important to understand how players are playing your game in the real-world, and how their play behaviors can change throughout the gameplay process. While many games use data analytics and telemetry data [8] to understand what players are doing, an improved understanding of the qualitative side of how players are feeling is essential.

Anja and Nives discussed their usage of diary studies [9] , which, according to their practice, was a new methodology for them. This also spoke to their commitment to iteratively learning more about the method while also learning through the method. As is usually the case, their diary study was meant to look at potential reasons for player churn. Nives and Anja thus created a test plan which involved five days of gameplay at some point over a ten-day timeframe. Participants then recorded their thoughts and feelings during play sessions.

Anja and Nives’ diary study was used in combination with short surveys and wrap-up interviews at the end of the full study protocol. This exploration enabled in-house researchers to better understand player stories, their different playstyles, their feelings surrounding the game, and their motivations behind displayed behaviors, specifically from a player’s perspective.

As a result, developers were then better at referring to specific player needs, not just in terms of more skilled/less skilled players, but in terms of what motivates players, what keeps them engaged, what sorts of time commitments players are willing to use in the game, in addition to other important aspects which can ultimately guide development. These insights can inform future game updates, especially in games as a service (GaaS) [10] models, where player retention is especially important.

Concluding thoughts: integrating user research from the start within the game development process

Game development can be a lengthy, arduous experience, yet it offers a plethora of opportunities for user researchers to improve the experience players have in your game. As Nives & Anja have discussed, user researchers can have a dramatic impact on a game’s development cycle, and they can play an influential role in elevating a game to be the best it can be.

As user experience research becomes more common in the tech industry, it is vital that every part of the team is working cohesively, and that they are communicating every step of the way - ideally starting this process as early as possible. This more than anything will have the greatest impact on both the product and on overall player experience.

Want to start using user research in your game development? sign-up now and start playtesting!

https://www.nngroup.com/articles/ux-maturity-model/ ↩︎

a type of group interview with participants who have similar experiences or behaviors, to gain an understanding of their reactions and responses to predetermined research questions. ↩︎

where a sample is drawn from part of a population because they are easily accessible, though not always representative of the total population. ↩︎

an assessment of strengths and weaknesses, especially in comparison to your own product, of current or potential competitors in the same market space. ↩︎

a methodology that asks the user to engage with the system while actively verbalizing their thoughts and ideas as they are using the system. ↩︎

churn rate or churning is the act of users playing your game and then stopping, ultimately never returning. This is especially notable in the mobile and free-to-play markets. It is the opposite of a retention rate. ↩︎

a type of experiment where two different variants of a similar object/screen are shown to users at random, where the variant is a simple change that might affect user behavior. ↩︎

data that is remotely sent back to the developer from folks playing the game, such as time spent in specific areas, latency between players, and so on. ↩︎

collecting qualitative data from individuals over the course of an extended time period -- called longitudinally -- logging specific information about the activity that is being studied. ↩︎

where developers and publishers provide game content on a continual revenue model, monetizing video games after the initial purchase, or as a way to make money within a free-to-play model. ↩︎

Moderate your first Live playtest

When to use moderated and unmoderated research

Analyzing player interviews - Making sense of the data

Running great player interviews - Making the most of your time with players

Overcome the fear - preparing for your first player interview

• Book A Study
• The Playtest Kit
• The 2023 Playtest Survey
• Find an Games UX Agency or Consultant
• Games UX Jobs
• Talks, Articles & Books
• Free Student Support

Designing a games user research study

Answering research objectives requires selecting the right methods that will reveal players real behaviour. Learn how to design a study that answers usability and games UX questions reliably.

Last updated: January 1, 2021

Answering research objectives requires selecting the right methods that will reveal players real behaviour. In this section learn how to design a study that answers usability and games UX questions reliably.

This is AN EXTRACT FROM THE gAMES USER RESEARCH BOOK

The ultimate resource for aspiring or junior researchers who want to start a career in games. Learn how to run professional quality playtests, improve the UX of games and make games players love.

Start running playtests, getting job interviews, and making games better today.

Learn more about the book

Having gathered research objectives, a user researcher will then create a study that can answer them. This involves:

• Deciding the appropriate method or methods to use
• Creating the tasks or prompts that the player will be given
• Deciding how to capture data generated from the study
• Deciding how to analyse the data generated from the study

The study then gets written down in a  study plan  (or  discussion guide ), which can be shared with the game team and used by the researcher to guide their sessions.

Deciding the right method

Following the kick-off, a user researcher will have a list of objectives that the study would like to learn, such as:

• ‘Do players learn how to use the jetpack?’
• ‘Can players identify the correct strategy for defeating this boss, and beat it?’
• ‘Is the difficulty correct?’
• ‘How does the jump feel?’
• ‘Is this multiplayer map balanced?’
• ‘Do players discover the secondary mode for the weapon?’
• ‘Will players know where to go for their next objective?’
• ‘Do players like the chase sequence?’

These then need to be matched to the right method to answer them. The  next chapter goes into methods in more depth , but one way of grouping them is:

• Behavioural Methods (which uncover what players are doing, whether players understand and can perform tasks as intended)
• Experiential Methods (which explore what players think about the game)

There’s been a long-running debate in the research community about the correct way to describe these groupings, and so the language used will not be consistent across companies. Some synonyms for these are covered in the glossary at the back of the book.

Learning if players understand and can play the game

Some of the example objectives given above are focused on whether a player understands or can do something. These are:

• ‘Do players know where to go for their next objective?’

These objectives would be answered by observing players behaviour and asking questions to reveal their understanding or the behaviour observed. This can then help explain why players are failing to learn or use the abilities that the designer wanted them to.

Balancing a game

Some of the objectives are focused on measuring the player’s experience and comparing it to a predetermined goal. 

These are: 

These would be answered by recording what happens in the game – for example, how many times the player dies, where those deaths are, or which starting position causes teams to win multiplayer games more often. They would then be compared to the experience the designer intended – such as how many times did the designer want the player to fail on this level.

Discovering if players like a game

Some of the objectives are based around what a player thinks about the game. These are:

These would be answered by discovering what a player thinks, understanding why they think that, and then measuring what percentage of people agree with that opinion. 

Categorising and priotising objectives

When planning a study, the user researcher will review each of the objectives in turn and decide what the appropriate approach would be to answer them. This is done by first categorising the type of research objective it is, and then deciding what method to use within that category. In a real-world games development environment, this requires a bit of pragmatism, and the ideal method might not be possible due to budget or time constraints. Remember that getting some quite good findings to a studio at the right time is much more useful than getting very good findings to the team too late. We look at some ways of speeding up the research process later in the book. 

Prioritising the research objectives will also help with this. Sometimes a study requires different methods that cannot all be ran reliably in a single study. When this occurs work with colleagues to decide which research objectives are more important, and choose the method that best supports those objectives. This will help decide how to assign limited researcher time across mixed-method studies.

Creating the tasks

Having picked the method, the next step is to define how the research objective will be answered. Each research objective will require:

• The task or tasks that will be given to the player to create data
• The way data will be collected

Sometimes the task will seem obvious. If the research objective is ‘can players complete the puzzle?’, an obvious task would be ‘get players to complete the puzzle.’. For some objectives, the task doesn’t even need to be explicitly given to the participant – in longer playthroughs they could be asked to play the game, and the researcher can be alert for the sections they are interested in without prompting the player. This creates more natural behaviour, which is a good thing.

For other research objectives, more specific tasks may be appropriate for the player, such as directing them towards completing specific parts of the game. There are some traps to watch out for when giving defined tasks to players during research studies. 

Avoid biasing players with the tasks

First, be careful about the wording of the task. The words used will impact a player’s behaviour, and could give them information they might not already have had. For example saying ‘please complete this puzzle’ would reveal to players that a puzzle exists. If their issue had been that they didn’t see the puzzle, or didn’t understand it was a puzzle, that issue would then be lost because the researcher has revealed the puzzle exists. Being very nondescript when giving instructions to players is sensible, starting with broad tasks such as ‘please play this section of the game,’, and carefully guiding further as required.

Another aspect to consider when designing the tasks is to recreate knowledge a player would have got from other sections of the game. If the study starts on level two, and misses the tutorials from level one, plenty of usability issues will be caused by missing the tutorials. This isn’t a fair test, and is not creating useful findings – in the final game, players would have experienced the tutorial, and so any issues caused by missing the tutorial can be dismissed immediately.

When writing tasks, make sure to consider what information a player would normally have by this point. Then give that information directly to players, so that the findings from a study are more representative of the real experience players would have. Often tutorials aren’t ready until late in development but can be recreated artificially in a study by the moderator teaching participants the game’s controls and features, or through written handouts. When learning the controls or mechanics aren’t the objective of the study, introducing them manually allows other issues to be discovered. 

Matching objectives to tasks

Each research objective will require one or more tasks. Run through each objective, and decide what those tasks will be. These can then be ordered in a way that will make sense for the player, so that the session flows in a logical order. These can then be documented as part of creating the study plan.

One task can answer more than one research objective (and vice versa!).

Deciding what data to collect

Each task that the player performs will be generating data about their behaviour and opinions, such as:

• What the player is doing in the game – where they go, what items they use, where they succeed and where they fail.
• What the player’s opinion is, and why they are thinking that.

It is through capturing and understanding this data that the research objectives can be answered. When planning a study, it is necessary to anticipate what data will be generated, and how to collect it.

Measuring player behaviour

For each objective, think about how it could be measured. Some objectives are focused on performance or behaviour, and could be measured by observing what players are doing – are they able to complete the section? Do they know where to go? Do they get stuck for a long time? Observations can be performed either by the researcher, or from in-game analytics.

Other objectives are focused around a player’s thoughts, such as do they enjoy the experience, does the player believe it’s too easy or too hard, etc. This data can be captured by getting players to articulate their thoughts or opinions – either through asking them questions verbally, or asking for ratings or comments on a survey.

Understand the design intent

It’s really important with all of these task measurements to make sure that the design intent is understood – what did the designer want the experience to be like. Depending on what the designer wants, dying three times on a level could mean it’s too easy, just right, or too hard. There’s no way to tell which is correct without understanding what the designer wanted to happen. It’s also useful to capture how this made players feel, to allow the designer to assess if their design idea creates the intended experience for players. As a researcher, for each of the things you intend to observe, be sure to define what a good or bad result would look like before the study begins.

Understanding the design intent is essential to discovering usability issues

Capturing enough detail to address issues

It’s also important to ensure that the data captured will give you enough detail to explain what you learned to the development team. As well as noting what occurred, also uncover and note why it occurred. This will require probing players to reveal the reason for their behaviour or opinion. Players may have failed to go the right way; without asking the right questions it won’t be clear whether this is because they failed to see where to go, failed to understand it was where they were meant to go, or whether they understood it was the correct route, but had decided not to go that way for other reasons.

Some of the observations that a researcher should make can be anticipated in the study plan.

Defining what data will be captured, and how it will be obtained, will help prepare for the analysis stage later.

Write down the plan

Having decided what tasks will be set to the player, and how the data will be collected, this can then be used to create the study plan (or discussion guide) which describes the study.

This document can be useful for multiple reasons. The first is that by creating the plan, it gives the researcher confidence that they have covered all of the objectives with appropriate tasks and that the study has no gaps.

Secondly, it can be used to guide the session itself, and the researcher can refer to it when running sessions to prompt them on the questions to ask. Lastly, it can be useful to show to others – note-takers or other researchers working on the study to encourage consistency between how the sessions run.

Create the study plan

This can be created as a word document, using Google Docs or Microsoft Word. Some sections that may be useful to include, for referring to in the session, are:

• Recapping the research objectives
• The times sessions are booked for
• Pre Interview
• Task 1: Tutorial
• Task 2: Introductory Level
• Task 3: Car Chase Scene
• Post Interview
• The introductory information for participants – e.g. explaining consent, the study, what data will be collected. This can often be templated, and more information will come later in the book.
• The tasks and prompts that will be given to participants, with the data that will be captured, using the format described above.
• Scripts for pre- or post-session interviews

This might look something like this: 

With the study plan created, a researcher has a lot of admin ahead to ensure the study runs as planned. Before covering that, we will look in more depth at some potential methods that might be used in a games user research study to answer research objectives.

Ready to finally start your games user research career?

Every month, get sent the latest articles on how to start a career in game development, and find games user research jobs.

Plus get two free e-books of career guidance from top games companies

Meet the author

Steve Bromley is an expert user researcher, who works with studios of all sizes to run playtests , and integrate user research into the game development process .

Keep Exploring

Scope your studies to increase research impact

How to scope games user research studies for impact – uncovering the context for decision making, and setting sensible objectives.

How to budget for games user research

How much does user research cost, what to budget for user research, and how best to spend the budget you have to de-risk game development.

How to run moderated playtests

Be ready for your first moderated playtest – and decide whether it’s the rigth method for you.

Master Games User Research

Free monthly new articles teaching playtesting & how to be a games user researcher. Join the most interesting conversations about games user research, discover job opportunities, and be introduced to new ways to think about game development.

• Tour Solutions Resources Pricing
• Contact Sales
• START FREE TRIAL
• All Industries >

How to Write Game Development Proposal: A Complete Guide 

Landing a game development project doesn’t happen overnight unless you’re someone who’s been in the industry long enough. To gain a client, you will need to know how to create a game development proposal to submit.

But what does a winning proposal look like? How do you convince prospective clients to hire you to develop the game they have in mind?

Table of Contents

How to Draft a Game Development Proposal

The trick to winning a new client depends on how strong your proposal is. To make sure you’re writing it properly, you will need to follow these steps:

Create an executive summary

First of all, the document needs to have a  convincing executive summary . This is where you provide an overview of the proposal’s details. To do this, you will need to highlight the following details:

• What problems the proposal aims to address
• Who will benefit from the game development process
• What are the required resources
• What is the projected budget and timeline
• How can you measure the game’s success
• What is the Return on Investment (ROI) projection 

The executive summary you write should be strong enough to captivate your target client. 

Explain the background 

Give a look into the project’s background with your game development proposal creation process. Will you be providing end-to-end development solutions for the game? Or will it only cover specific steps?

Some points you can include in this section are:

• A deep dive into the client’s pain points in creating the game
• What the issue has already addressed
• Who has tried to address the issue before you
• Any existing research that has already been published
• Why this past research was unable to fix the problem

A good practice in preparing this part of the document is to keep it to one page. 

Present your solution

After getting to know the client’s pain points, you can start presenting a solution in creating his game. This section of the document needs to be strong enough to convince him.

Some key elements that you can cover in this section of the document are:

• A vision statement
• A detailed project schedule
• Roles and responsibilities of the team members
• Tools and methods for progress tracking and reporting

This is your chance to demonstrate how your planned approach can be put to fruition. You can sample an old game that you created to get an idea. 

Define the deliverables

In this part of the document, you will need to clearly define what you hope to achieve with the project. This is an important part of drafting a game development proposal since clients want a clear expectation of the project.

You will need to clearly identify what your deliverables are, such as:

• A fully functioning application
• Training material
• A comprehensive report, plan, or policy
• The prototype
• Creative works

When you present your deliverables, your potential client gets a clear idea of what to expect from the game’s progress. It will allow them to see how well you have understood their vision. They can also see whether you’re both on the same page. 

Secure your resources

After addressing your prospective client’s pain points, you will need to let him know what you need. This is where you clearly define what resources you need. 

This can include things like:

• Project budget
• Cost breakdown
• Resource allocation strategy

Requesting the resources you need for the project can be tricky. But it’s an important piece of information that you need to include in the proposal.

A good rule of thumb is to put this part of the proposal close to the end. This is so you do not overwhelm your prospective clients. Your proposal needs to entice them first before you can get them to say yes.

End with a conclusion

Lastly, your document needs to wrap up the proposal in a presentable manner. Since this is your last hurrah, you need to pay attention to how you’re writing your game development proposal. 

In this section, provide a visual look into the key metrics of the project:

• Gross margin
• Break-even analysis
• Return on investment analysis
• Cost-benefit analysis

You can use charts and graphs to make this part of the document easier to understand. 

Use a Game Development Proposal

Demonstrate how you plan to measure metrics so that your client knows how actionable the proposal is. You can use a template to help you prepare the document. 

Game Development Proposal

How Fill Can Help With Your Game Development Proposal

If you’re confused about how to create a game development proposal from scratch, this shouldn’t be a struggle with Fill. We offer a variety of templates that you can easily edit with the information you need to provide. 

Once you’re done customizing the document, you can send it to prospective clients for an online signature. Create an account today so you can start crafting your proposal.

Andria is a seasoned content writer, specializing in document management solutions and HIPAA compliance, providing valuable insights for businesses and professionals alike.

Manage contracts, forms and eSignatures effortlessly.

Related Stories

How to Create Form 8594 With Fill’s Customizable Template

Learn how to create form 8594 using Fill's customizable template feature. Make tax form completion effortless with Fill—a robust and secure eSignature app.

How To Write Accounting Services Proposal: A Beginner’s Guide and Free Template

This article aims to provide information on how to write accounting services proposal. Find out how to draft an effective proposal that will win more clients.

The Importance of Writing a Clear and Accurate Rent Receipt

In this blog post, we will discuss the significance of writing a clear and accurate rent receipt. We will explore the legal implications of a poorly written receipt and provide tips on how to create a comprehensive and error-free document.

Get great articles direct to your inbox

We’ll never share your details with third parties. View our Privacy Policy for more info.

This feature is currently only available from a desktop computer.

UX Research Plan Cheat Sheet to Understanding Games User Research

The Acagamic Tip Tuesday #56

In today’s newsletter, you’re going to learn how to navigate the basics of games user experience.

Understanding how to bridge the gap between design intent and user needs for the created artifact can immensely benefit your game design process and you stakeholders. This knowledge empowers designers to make informed decisions and evaluate the intended effect of their decisions. It ultimately enhances the gaming experience for users and can significantly boost the overall success of a game.

Unfortunately, many people underestimate the importance of user research in games or struggle to make actionable progress due to several barriers.

Lack of Domain Knowledge

Often, people don’t fully comprehend the unique nuances and requirements of the gaming industry and its stakeholders. Here are 4 primary reasons development teams tend to falter in game UX design and user experience research:

• Lack of familiarity with gaming : Understanding the language and mechanics of games is vital. You can’t effectively research without engaging in the medium you’re studying. UX practitioners, expert user researchers, UX researchers, and UX teams focused on research and design of games, all ask research questions focused on this relevant product or service. Your background may be in user interfaces, user behaviours, or human-computer interaction (HCI), maybe even gamification, but it’s essential to understand experience design in games.
• Neglecting the emotional aspect of gaming : Unlike usability research for applications where efficiency is key, games require a balance of challenge and enjoyment. Overlooking this can lead to ineffective research.
• Underestimating the importance of designer’s intent : Successful user research in games requires a deep understanding of the designer’s vision and goals. Analytics (or even if you organize content in heat maps) don’t provide insights on game mechanics without this.
• Challenges of the secretive nature of the gaming industry : The highly confidential nature of game development can hinder the application of conventional user research methods.

Worry not, my friend. You can overcome these hurdles in every project and become proficient in user-centered UX practices. Here’s how UX research helps, step by step:

1. Immerse yourself in the world of gaming with user research methods

Understanding the language and mechanics of games is crucial to conducting effective user research. By immersing yourself in the gaming world, you get a firsthand experience of what gamers go through.

For instance, if you’re studying an adventure game, play it. Understand the challenges players face (maybe even collect user feedback, a researcher might use surveymonkey for popular forms, do some qualitative research project or playtests), the rewards they seek, and the journey they undertake. If working with other groups of people playing, ask them questions. This first-hand experience will provide invaluable insights that can be a way to learn and guide your research. Keep in mind that every project is different.

2. User research helps understand the emotional UX aspects of gaming

A common mistake researchers make is treating game UX research like usability testing for web applications. The objective of a game isn’t necessarily efficiency—it’s enjoyment. Wireframes (or even information architecture and card sorting) can help make better game UIs, but interaction design to test assumptions for actual users with different goals is more important to build the right thing.

To help you understand, consider a scenario where a player is battling a dragon in a game. The player might not want to slay the dragon quickly because the process—casting spells, using weapons—is enjoyable (for a range of people). As a researcher, understanding this emotional aspect of gaming is critical to capturing the user’s experience accurately.

3. Develop a UX research plan of the designer’s intent

The key to successful player experience research is understanding the designer’s intent. This understanding is the bridge between design intent (the problem space of design decisions) and the created product or feature.

Let’s take an example: a designer may intentionally create a difficult to find passage in a game to challenge the player. As a user researcher, you may flag this as a problem, thinking players are unable to find it. However, if this difficulty aligns with the designer’s intent, it’s not a problem. Understanding the designer’s intent can help you better identify actual issues that hinder the gaming experience.

By following these steps, you’ll be well on your way to conducting effective games user research, improving the gaming experience, and ultimately contributing to the success of the game.

Lennart Nacke, PhD

Hey there, I am a Professor and the Research Director of the HCI Games Group at the University of Waterloo in Canada. I am a world-leading expert on what makes games engaging and how we can use them to improve products, systems, and services. My research is widely discussed and recognized by the New Yorker, Forbes, MIT Technology Review, CTV News, New Scientist, The Daily Mail, PC Gamer Magazine, and elsewhere. I have edited a textbook on Games User Research and authored hundreds of academic articles in gamification, user experience research, human-computer interaction, and game design.

Privacy Policy · Terms

Project planning for solo game developers

by Chris Estevez | Oct 29, 2015 | Blog | 16 comments

I was a solo game developer myself when I came up with the idea of HacknPlan, it was something I really needed in order to organize my work the way I wanted.  Maybe I’m a control freak, but I really believe a proper work methodology and planning is key to make a serious project a success , no matter how big it is or how many people work on it. I had been working for some time using Scrum at my full time job as software engineer, when I decided to start applying a more structured methodology to my game development projects. It was a complete game changer . It wasn’t Scrum of course, because that methodology is hardly applicable to one person or even a small team (at least as it is defined, it has some overhead in “bureaucracy”), but I took some of the important concepts of agile methodologies and created a custom process for my specific case. The result? A huge improvement on time efficiency, clearer goals, less errors and forgotten stuff and, more important, a permanent feeling of progress and achievement that boosted up my motivation.

However, I can clearly see  this is a commonly neglected topic  when it comes to solo devs, small indie teams and people starting up. If people already have experience as developers or in other related fields, they are more likely to use some sort of planning methodology, but when it comes to young or unexperienced people just learning game dev from scratch, this is normally a completely new world. You could just take a look at any game development community and see how many questions or posts you find regarding project management or production compared to technical or marketing stuff. But this is of course normal: when someone learns game development, they do it from passion and vocation, and what everyone wants to do is to code challenging features or create amazing graphics and, at the end of the day, have a cool game to be proud of.

Coming back to the solo dev topic, I’d say this is the kind of dev that is more likely to use no project planning methodology. I’ve seen many people use just paper and pencil to keep an immediate To-Do list and that’s it. I completely agree that if your project is so so (SO) small or you are just prototyping this is fine. Otherwise, not having a proper methodology could lead to problems in the long run you maybe don’t see when you are starting out, when all you want to do is adding more and more cool features to your game as soon as they come to your mind.

Ok, so… what is a good project planning methodology for a solo game developer? These are some good practices you could try.

Break your work into smaller pieces

And then take these smaller pieces and break them again, as if they were Pang! balls.

One of the most common reasons for people to leave a project is they get overwhelmed once they really understand the amount of work they are really facing . This is of course more noticeable on solo game developers, since all the responsibility falls on their shoulders. By splitting your big task (your game) into smaller ones (phases, iterations, milestones, or whatever you call them) and then splitting them again into more detailed pieces (tasks or user stories…), you finally get a set of work units that are manageable, easy to accomplish and short to complete . Then you can focus on each of them individually and forget about the big task in the meantime; your objective becomes the completion of that piece of work and only that. This is good to avoid distractions and to perceive your progress as you complete each of them.

Tip:  Try to define your tasks in a way that they produce a clear outcome, something you can see and/or touch. This way the perception of progress is bigger and also the organization of the work is more meaningful. Try to define tasks from of the point of view of what they add to the project and why from a high level perspective. Example: having a task called “Implement player movement” is better than having a task called “Create a PlayerController class that moves the Actor depending on the input” (you can always have more detailed technical tasks, but is good to keep the high level one too).

In HacknPlan, we provide Milestones to create versions or iterations of the game. You can use them to do the big split of your game into phases. It’s also good to put deadlines into those milestones: they help you to have a clear goal and will motivate you to work harder to accomplish it.

So, does this mean that I need to write down everything that I need right from the start? Well, not necessarily, what takes us to the next point.

Planning the agile way

It took a long time for the management world to find a better approach than waterfall, where everything had to be defined and detailed in a sealed monster document from day one. That approach is what we call agile methodology , which is a buzzword these days that many people completely misunderstand (especially business people). Agile doesn’t mean no planning nor is an excuse to throw the first idea you have to the developers and expect them to do it immediately because they are agile. Agile means planning in a clever way, accepting and assuming that requirements change , priorities change and any project, no matter how conservative and clear it seems, has many uncertainties. It means accepting the real world as it is instead of living in a fantasy world where everything you put in a document will magically become real with no flaws and no incidents whatsoever, like if we were magicians that can predict every little thing that could happen during a 1 or 2 years long project, day after day. I bet that never happened in the whole history of project management.

Reducing the scope to our topic, being agile would mean not planning every single aspect of our game from day one. You would fail for sure. Does this go against the whole concept of GDD and all that? Nope, but you need to understand the GDD is not a fixed document where every page written is a contract. It needs to be iterative, improved and detailed as development goes on. A good approach could be:

• Define the high level of your game, the mechanics, the game itself, prototype it and get a clear vision of what you want to make . Then specify that into a first version of your GDD.
• Then split your project into small pieces, let’s say versions or milestones. Each one of them is a goal itself, like a project inside your project . The outcome should be something clearly defined, like “Alpha: Playable version with basic mechanics and 1 full level” or “Beta 1: First world, full mechanics plus menus”. Think of each of them as a reduced version of your game instead of an unfinished one.
• Once you have that, pick them one by one and split them again into high-level tasks . Is not necessary that they are highly detailed, they need to reflect the high-level functionality of your game that will be implemented. As we said, you don’t need to know every single detail you will implement at this moment.
• Let’s start working on the project! Take the first milestone, take the high-level tasks you have inside, and split those tasks again into smaller and more detailed ones. Now is the moment to care about the details, and have a clear and well-defined set of things to do, because from now on until the completion of the milestone, you will be 100% focused on it, forgetting about the rest. This is what we could call a planning session , and it is very important that you have dedicated time for this, so you are really focused on it. If you plan things as you go while developing or working on something else,  you can commit errors or lose sight of the big picture.
• After you finish the milestone, you can then enrich your GDD with new things you got from that iteration, review the big picture to add things you detected are needed based on your recently acquired knowledge, plan you next milestone and keep going. For each one you complete, you will have a really important goal achieved and you will be a step closer to your final objective. And more importantly: you will know more about your project than when you started, so you can use that knowledge to review your previous assumptions and adapt them.

Avoid multitasking

This is very important for a solo developer.

You have to do a lot of tasks: programming, game design, art, maybe sound if you’re really talented… and it’s ok, this is what going solo is about. But don’t do more than one at the same time . And I’d say even more: try to group them as much as possible and work the most time you can on the same topic.

Doing more than one thing at once could lead you to errors and can affect your concentration.  This cannot always be avoided, I understand. But just try to minimize it as much as you can, try not to move from programming to drawing something as soon as an idea or inspiration comes to your mind, it will affect your performance for sure. Each time you switch from one thing to another, there is a context change cost that makes this process inefficient; that’s why having a separate time for each thing is very beneficial for your performance and your organizational health. Try to have dedicated days for each different task category and see if your performance improves.

One of the core features of HacknPlan comes as a solution for this problem: the kanban panel separated by technical categories. I used to create different boards for each category when I was a solo dev using another tool, so I thought: why not implement this by design? The goal is to be able to focus in what you are doing at the moment without being distracted by the rest of the pending work.

When you are just a guy working from your bedroom, is easy to think that you don’t need to stick to any specific process and you are okay with just writing down some notes. Maybe you’re right, there is no written rule regarding what has to work for you. At the end of the day, this is about inspecting and finding what is the approach that best suits you. However, a structured and well-defined process is always a good thing, you can improve it with your experience, try new things, evaluate yourself and just try to do better and better every time. It will help you to work with others too, in case you leave the lone wolf route one day. You will have a common methodology to follow that you could also refine with time and experience. Even though you think my suggestions don’t work for you, try to use this as a way of re-evaluating your working process and thinking of ways to improve it. Because nothing is perfect, right?

Are you a solo game developer and are you trying any of these tips? Share your experiences!

Happy planning!

16 Comments

I found this article really helpful and I was shocked that there were no comments on it!

Thank you for writing this out. I’m sure many self taught programmers like myself run into a wall once things start to get complicated – I certainly do sometimes – and this is a great simple roadmap/process out of that.

I’m about to sign up and try out your site because I enjoyed this so much. Thanks again!

As a solo developer I always found out that every article, methodology or tutorial regarding this topic out there was written thinking on teams, and many people just assume there is no need for a structured planning methodology for lone wolves. However, I developed a method over the years that allowed me to be more organized, efficient and reliable, and that is what I try to share here. I hope that you and many other people find it useful and helps you to success.

Thanks for reading!

Great article. Thanks for laying out some concrete steps as well as your work on this site.

Thanks Damian!

You’re awesome! Thank you!

Great article!

I read this article with great pleasure. It is in itself a simple advice, but it is important to get somewhere. Thank you for sharing your advice with us. Jan D

I’ve found HacknPlan on twitter some days ago. Actually, i’m using your tool to make a game project for the first time. I’ve always look for some way to organize and manage all tasks from a game in a agile approach. Your tool solve all of my problems. HacknPlan is a fantastic tool, and make the project seems so clear! I’m very excited using this and finally with hope to make my games right – and in a more professional way.

Thanks a lot!

Btw, excelent article!

PS: sorry for bad english, not native

This is great! Thanks for writing this.

Chris. Dude. Man. If you are a game dev, and you understand the dangers of multitasking, why have you created a system where boards are all subdivided into categories?.. Instead of the OTHER way around. Why can’t I organize the project the way I want? There is no flexibility inside a board, I can’t use my own logic, I can’t have boards inside boards inside boards, so on.. and any task can only be moved between 4 elements. Look at Trello. I can have an ART board that includes Lists which I can custom name such as.. Creature Art, Plants Art, VFX, Shaders, Creature Animation, so on.. I’m stuck with Trello cuz it doesn’t support time logging. And I’m stuck with HackNPlan cuz it’s so rigid. There’s also almost no customization when it comes to what I can show or hide in Tasks.. And I can’t get rid of that dreadful Planned InProgress Testing, so on..

Hi, can I use the image in the article for a twitter header?

Great Article CHRIS ESTEVEZ, it was really awesome to know how to manage stuff, I am a software developer too and know how these methods work, but to implement them in my solo task is a big challenge

I am trying a one month small project and im going to try project planning like this. Hopefully this works for me because I sometimes have problems committing to projects.

Looked up ways to help plan out my game development and while this wasn’t exactly what I was looking for, it was what I needed to see. Very good article. Thank you for your insights!

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

• Understanding vertical slicing | HacknPlan - […] (if you don’t plan your work like this but you’d like to try, I recommend you to read this…
• IoT Unit 14 – TEE IN 3D - […] https://hacknplan.com/project-planning-for-solo-game-developers/ […]
• IOT – Lukes game blog - […] https://hacknplan.com/project-planning-for-solo-game-developers/https://www.nicoespeon.com/en/2016/01/kanban-game-development-trello/ […]
• Games and Animation assignment 2 – Lukes game blog - […] Project planning for solo game developers […]

Submit a Comment Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Submit Comment

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

•  We're Hiring!
•  Help Center

Game Development

• Most Cited Papers
• Most Downloaded Papers
• Newest Papers
• Save to Library
• Last »
• Mobile Game-based Learning Follow Following
• Digital Game Based Learning Follow Following
• Unity3d Follow Following
• Game-based Learning Follow Following
• Game Design Follow Following
• Mobile games Follow Following
• Rafael Sanzio Macedo Porto Follow Following
• C# Programming Follow Following
• Practice Based Approaches to the Study of Knowing Follow Following
• Framework Follow Following

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• Academia.edu Publishing
•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024