BI Staff, what software development model are you using for DayZ?

[robbyj 77]

BI Staff, what software development model is currently in use for DayZ and has it ever changed over the years? I believe there could be a Harvard course taught just on how staff took a game with a cult like following, made wrong decision after wrong decision since 2013 and then finally walked the original fan base behind the shed to finish the job in 2018 by slapping a fake 1.0 sticker on the game. I am genuinely interested if anyone could offer serious analysis on who called the shots over the years, why core features like base building were put off for so long, and why features such as melee combat are given so much more attention than ranged combat. In a game where all the marketing and pr were literally handed to you, why did you choose to re-invent the wheel?

Edited December 16, 2018 by robbyj

[IMT 3190]

I'm guessing they're using which most companies use these days and that is one of the Agile methods, most likely Scrum.

[robbyj 77]

13 minutes ago, IMT said:

I'm guessing they're using which most companies use these days and that is one of the Agile methods, most likely Scrum.

Reuse-oriented  model which could have been agile would be my guess before they decided to create enscript and what came along with it. But it's like they took the parts that worked, threw them out the window, added features that didn't exist and never replaced the old working parts. 

[IMT 3190]

1 minute ago, robbyj said:

Reuse-oriented  model which could have been agile would be my guess before they decided to create enscript and what came along with it. But it's like they took the parts that worked, threw them out the window, added features that didn't exist and never replaced the old working parts. 

What bothers me the most is that it looks like they keep reimplementing features if something is not up to par. During the development we've had countless features and content rewritten or redone over and over again. For example the recent server browser and status icons. And there are more things, we've had multiple inventory systems, sounds for weapons have been done over and over again, sounds for infected, vehicles have been rewritten and redone a lot of time. It feels like they just Ctrl+A + Delete or Ctrl+Shift+Delete on a file and say we'll start over again. In some cases, that's a good strategy but if you do that with everything, you get what we have been seeing all this time and that is: one step forward, two steps back.

[MaxwellHouse69420 87]

45 minutes ago, IMT said:

What bothers me the most is that it looks like they keep reimplementing features if something is not up to par. During the development we've had countless features and content rewritten or redone over and over again. For example the recent server browser and status icons. And there are more things, we've had multiple inventory systems, sounds for weapons have been done over and over again, sounds for infected, vehicles have been rewritten and redone a lot of time. It feels like they just Ctrl+A + Delete or Ctrl+Shift+Delete on a file and say we'll start over again. In some cases, that's a good strategy but if you do that with everything, you get what we have been seeing all this time and that is: one step forward, two steps back.

Honestly it’s a matter of too many cooks in the kitchen , and none of them want to take responsibility when shit hits the fan .

They have something like 80+ employees , that’s no star citizen 300 but it IS enough to make a working game - but what we got was about 4 years of flip flopping and one year of solid work put towards the beta , but as soon as the beta came it was rushed to full release for “unknown reasons” (read : publishers and big stock holders wanted it so to see profit again finally , even though they say that’s not the case but give no other reason for the rushed presentation).

Overall I have to say their ultimate game plan that would make things run so much more smoothly has dissolved , and they are no longer a well oiled machine with attention to detail like they used to be ; but rather a frazzled unit of devs that just can’t groove together correctly , and we’re seeing the brunt of that burden through countless patches that don’t really fix as much as they break . Maybe they weren’t as transparent as we though they were , maybe they had serious issues when they switched over to the new “and improved” engine of enfusion - maybe it’s not as strong of an engine for dayz stand-alone as they made it out to believe.  

Or maybe they have a huge bug fix patch coming with extra content on top of that - maybe there is a plan and we Just can’t see it yet ... I don’t know but I hope so.

Edited December 16, 2018 by MaxwellHouse69420

[colinm9991 196]

I'm genuinely interested in this thread and where it can go. To be perfectly clear, I am not "flaming" or raging against Bohemia or the DayZ team in the slightest, I, like others here are simply pointing out observations from what we've experienced so far as customers.

 

Why was the server browser recreated?

Why are there in announced breaking changes taking place, such as the server browser now binding to port 2701x whereas previously it was gameport+1? The lack of server documentation doesn't help us understand what the official ports are

Why the many different status dialog updates?

Where is the support and documentation for server hosting? We are in the dark when it comes to issues and it's better to have technical info on a wiki that we can read when deploying instances.

 

To better understand how these decisions are made, it's good to understand if you work in an Agile or waterfall manner, if agile then it's interesting because it seems that the customers are not involved in that feedback loop where we can say if we're not interested in seeing another server browser - to exert your energy in other aspects of the game, though I don't think there's a single game development team that works directly with the customer rather than an internal stakeholder/customer who signs off on features.

[IMT 3190]

33 minutes ago, colinm9991 said:

I'm genuinely interested in this thread and where it can go. To be perfectly clear, I am not "flaming" or raging against Bohemia or the DayZ team in the slightest, I, like others here are simply pointing out observations from what we've experienced so far as customers.

 

Why was the server browser recreated?

Why are there in announced breaking changes taking place, such as the server browser now binding to port 2701x whereas previously it was gameport+1? The lack of server documentation doesn't help us understand what the official ports are

Why the many different status dialog updates?

Where is the support and documentation for server hosting? We are in the dark when it comes to issues and it's better to have technical info on a wiki that we can read when deploying instances.

 

To better understand how these decisions are made, it's good to understand if you work in an Agile or waterfall manner, if agile then it's interesting because it seems that the customers are not involved in that feedback loop where we can say if we're not interested in seeing another server browser - to exert your energy in other aspects of the game, though I don't think there's a single game development team that works directly with the customer rather than an internal stakeholder/customer who signs off on features.

That's what I mean. They did one round of focused feedback, in my opinion they should've done these things more often and earlier in the development as well. But the weird thing is, after they did the focused feedback, they came with some new HUD icons while everyone generally understood what the icons meant. So for some reason they went with entire new icons and according to them that was the result of the focused feedback but the topic itself clearly shows a different result. Sure some things were unclear but that doesn't mean that you need to scratch the icons and make entirely new ones.

As you said, instead of redoing stuff, they can focus their energy on different things.

Edited December 16, 2018 by IMT

[GigiGamer87 26]

8 hours ago, MaxwellHouse69420 said:

Honestly it’s a matter of too many cooks in the kitchen , and none of them want to take responsibility when shit hits the fan .

They have something like 80+ employees , that’s no star citizen 300 but it IS enough to make a working game - but what we got was about 4 years of flip flopping and one year of solid work put towards the beta , but as soon as the beta came it was rushed to full release for “unknown reasons” (read : publishers and big stock holders wanted it so to see profit again finally , even though they say that’s not the case but give no other reason for the rushed presentation).

Overall I have to say their ultimate game plan that would make things run so much more smoothly has dissolved , and they are no longer a well oiled machine with attention to detail like they used to be ; but rather a frazzled unit of devs that just can’t groove together correctly , and we’re seeing the brunt of that burden through countless patches that don’t really fix as much as they break . Maybe they weren’t as transparent as we though they were , maybe they had serious issues when they switched over to the new “and improved” engine of enfusion - maybe it’s not as strong of an engine for dayz stand-alone as they made it out to believe.  

Or maybe they have a huge bug fix patch coming with extra content on top of that - maybe there is a plan and we Just can’t see it yet ... I don’t know but I hope so.

I explain the "unknown reasons", they are this:

You don't have to astound about the state of this 1.0 release build.... Because clearly it's not a 1.0 but still alpha release... They only put a 1.0 version name only to sell next year to PS4 (Sony doesn't allow Early Access game on his store)and also for not take the risk from Steam to delete the game after 5 years of Early Access without a finished release. It's the thruth and devs know this, they won't clearly never admit this but the thruth is this. I have no other answers to explain a 1.0 release rushed in this state (these are the "Unkown reasons").... For not talking about the very bad and poor FPS performance and broken damage system.... And persistence issues

[colinm9991 196]

How often, if ever, do the DayZ developers or development staff actually respond to threads like this?

 

I've had outstanding questions for days, with not even a bat of an eyelid.

[pilgrim* 3513]

23 hours ago, robbyj said:

BI Staff, what software development model is currently in use for DayZ and has it ever changed over the years?

Just for my own interest, I researched this and answered your question a while back in this blog.  (but don't panic, I aint going to do it again) :

Most of the answers are - in fact - in front of you in the dev comments and updates - if you have eyes to see what they are ACTUALLY saying.  Some of the comments are not 'direct' because obviously as an employee there are a range of topics you cannot legally discuss, concerning company policy, even regarding the hardware/software you use in different studios (and how come those different studios work together, and how they are equipped, etc). But the answers are there, if you look and use your intelligence, particularly if you have experience in the industry. A couple of other indications you can find touring around the web, checking technical pages, and also financial /company /personality info.. build yourself a picture. It is not difficult.

I did this and gave my opinion (you can find that in 2 or 3 places here if you want to).   Naturally it is MY assessment and NOT insider information. BUT it seems pretty clear to me -
= what/why/how =

About 2/3 of the comments/suggestions/questions on the blog are (lets say) fairly off the wall or casual .. may be interesting, funny, but not realistic.. and answers come back from other bloggers. There are several blog staff who pick up on serious stuff and pass it on where it is needed. 

etc etc

Ya know - in 10 minutes MaxwellHouse69420 could find out that BI have 300+ employees, and the large majority are technical staff. He could also find out where their 5 studios are located, what projects they are working on now, what might be coming up, and he could also NOTE that BI (which has expanded enormously in the last 4 years) is a PC based gaming company.. It's development equipment (hardware & software) , which is NOT standardized across the Studios (for reasons that HAVE been mentioned here by Devs) is focused on PC game design but is now being integrated between studios AND "repurposed" to build console games. Technically the PC game (DayZ) is being restructured at the development phase so that the built game (PC) will translate directly to console. Previously a lot of output to the PC game just did NOT translate (and it would be DUMB to build the same game twice for two different platforms) This is a major change in development strategy.  Explains pretty much what folk KEEP ON asking.

er... obviously ??

But bloggers don't want to hear this from me, and don't want to work it out for themselves, they want to have the insider private operation of a private company laid out in explicit detail in public by the employees.. right down from the boardroom plan to the technical specifications of office server & development tools.

Now how many companies actually DO that ?  Anyone know of any ?   

p.s. - BI is the biggest Indy developer in the world ATM. But everybody already knows that, right?  It's here on the blog in open sight, and plenty of other places (jeez, even wikipedia?) I don't see how anyone could have missed it.

BI is an interesting and unusual company with a variegated & unique history. They interest me (that doesn't mean anyone else would be interested). I like their messy chaotic style, their luck, their attitude, their product, their 'abnormality'.. quite a lot in fact. So good luck to them, IMO.  Being an Indy is no barrel of laughs. Those days are over for all Independents. 

 

Edited December 17, 2018 by pilgrim*

[IMT 3190]

20 minutes ago, pilgrim* said:

p.s. - BI is the biggest Indy developer in the world ATM. But everybody already knows that, right?  It's here on the blog in open sight, and plenty of other places (jeez, even wikipedia?) I don't see how anyone could have missed it.

Dead wrong, that would be Mojang. Minecraft has sold about 10 times more copies than all BI games combined.

[pilgrim* 3513]

9 minutes ago, IMT said:

Dead wrong, that would be Mojang. Minecraft has sold about 10 times more copies than all BI games combined.

- by biggest Indy I meant largest staff, as is clear from the context. Over 300 employees this year. Check your facts.

ps - Mojang is owned by Microsoft  (oops)  how Indy is that?

Edited December 17, 2018 by pilgrim*

[colinm9991 196]

26 minutes ago, pilgrim* said:

- by biggest Indy I meant largest staff, as is clear from the context. Over 300 employees this year. Check your facts.

ps - Mojang is owned by Microsoft  (oops)  how Indy is that?

And who owned them before Microsoft?

[IMT 3190]

32 minutes ago, pilgrim* said:

- by biggest Indy I meant largest staff, as is clear from the context. Over 300 employees this year. Check your facts.

ps - Mojang is owned by Microsoft  (oops)  how Indy is that?

You said biggest, not largest. Also, it is owned by Microsoft indeed but it is still developed by Mojang. And with the 300 employees at BI, does that include all subsidiary companies?

Edited December 17, 2018 by IMT

[pilgrim* 3513]

4 minutes ago, colinm9991 said:

And who owned them before Microsoft?

Mojang? You want to know?

If you really NEED the info - HERE'S a RED HOT LEAD. to start you off.  (But don't TELL anybody I put you onto it, OK? this info is hard to find) :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mojang

xxP

[colinm9991 196]

1 minute ago, pilgrim* said:

Mojang? You want to know?

If you really NEED the info - HERE'S a RED HOT LEAD. to start you off.  (But don't TELL anybody I put you onto it, OK? this info is hard to find) :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mojang

xxP

There's clearly a language difference between us, so I'll use <sarcasm></sarcasm> tags from here on in, no offense.

[pilgrim* 3513]

12 minutes ago, IMT said:

You said biggest, not largest. Also, it is owned by Microsoft indeed but it is still developed by Mojang. And with the 300 employees at BI, does that include all subsidiary companies?

sorry friend - I'm deadly bored with this off topic conversation. Let's talk about something technical ? - "Software Development Model" for instance ?
Same advice to colinm9991 - Mojang had 12 employees when it was bought by Microsoft, if either of you are interested. BI has not been bought by anybody.

Edited December 17, 2018 by pilgrim*

[colinm9991 196]

28 minutes ago, pilgrim* said:

Same advice to colinm9991 - Mojang had 12 employees when it was bought by Microsoft, if either of you are interested. BI has not been bought by anybody.

Bottom line is, we're asking what development process is used that elicits the redesign of systems and UI's which are already functioning, because what ever the business model I double a product owner or business analyst would happily sit down and agree to yet another rewrite or redesign.

 

We, the customers, are asking why that's the case and exactly what assurances we have as customers, now this game is released, that our money spent which made us customers, is being put toward valid product delivery - of which we have every right to ask.

 

I have absolutely no problem with Bohemia Interactive, and I certainly don't need to research their history to ask them any sort of question, not do they have to discuss private company policies, but waterfall & agile aren't exactly risky information to share now are they, considering there are endless amounts of companies who share this publicly - it's a methodology, not intellectual property. Sharing this information is very much equivalent to a proper roadmap, got a link to the most recent and most up to date roadmap? If you're interested, I've searched.

 

P.S: Mojang actually had 41 employees when they were acquired by Microsoft

Edited December 17, 2018 by colinm9991

[robbyj 77]

4 hours ago, pilgrim* said:

in 10 minutes MaxwellHouse69420 could find out that BI have 300+ employees, and the large majority are technical staff. He could also find out where their 5 studios are located, what projects they are working on now, what might be coming up, and he could also NOTE that BI (which has expanded enormously in the last 4 years) is a PC based gaming company.. It's development equipment (hardware & software) , which is NOT standardized across the Studios (for reasons that HAVE been mentioned here by Devs) is focused on PC game design but is now being integrated between studios AND "repurposed" to build console games. Technically the PC game (DayZ) is being restructured at the development phase so that the built game (PC) will translate directly to console. Previously a lot of output to the PC game just did NOT translate (and it would be DUMB to build the same game twice for two different platforms) This is a major change in development strategy.  Explains pretty much what folk KEEP ON asking

Restructuring DayZ at the development phase is a bad idea. PR was on lock. Marketing was on lock. Other games in the genre couldn't hold a candle to DayZ Mod. If the flagship isn't a shining beacon of excellence, no one will give the rest of the fleet a second look. Why sacrifice the choke hold on the PC world for unproven waters? (Not assuming you defend BI here, my reply was in reference to your post but open to all for response)

Edited December 17, 2018 by robbyj

[colinm9991 196]

40 minutes ago, robbyj said:

Restructuring DayZ at the development phase is a bad idea.

Though, I do agree with their redesign of the engine as I think it suits the genre, and I'm quite happy about the OOP language they've chosen to implement over SQF, which in my opinion is a dreadful outdated language.

[pilgrim* 3513]

1 hour ago, robbyj said:

Restructuring DayZ at the development phase is a bad idea. PR was on lock. Marketing was on lock. Other games in the genre couldn't hold a candle to DayZ Mod. If the flagship isn't a shining beacon of excellence, no one will give the rest of the fleet a second look. Why sacrifice the choke hold on the PC world for unproven waters? (Not assuming you defend BI here, my reply was in reference to your post but open to all for response)

I won't say I disagree with you  ..
1 - it is true that consoles are the big market now (that's for sure)
2 ) - it is also true that BI ventured into the console market in 2001 with a port of Operation Flashpoint to Xbox but "they didn't understand consoles" (someone said at the time)  and it almost bust the company totally (I hear) - they lost a lot of time and money, changed working relationships.  They have stayed away from consoles since then - up til now.  That's a very short version of the story of BI & BIS and the company growth and change, though. Other stuff happened too.

My opinion: I think we'll hear sertious "unexpected"  breaking news soon, inside the next month or so.
only IMO - this just my own thought.

For myself - I LIKE DayZ on PC..   really like it .. but I'm not a managing director with a heap of wages to pay every month, ya know? Just the daily running costs of a technology company are Serious Money. This is why the Indies are getting massacred by the Disney / Soney / Etc Megacorps. -  An average blockbuster - film or game - 25% or 30% of the budget goes on advertising.  Standard.  Only 2/3 of the budget is even spent on how good the programmers are or how great the ideas are, or the CGI or the development technology.  A BIG chunk is spent on plugging it to the masses. That doesn't make it a better game, it makes more people buy it. And you can pay that staff from some other budget, you can scrap a game, you can buy or sell talent, you can try it out see if it brings in cash or not, fast, or slow over the next couple of years, or you can dump it and bring out Version II next year, scrap it for Version III 18 months later .. it's no BIG worry. It's "just a game".

You got to ask yourself (if you run a specialist games company) how many folk are playing on Xbox tonight.. compared to PC ?   And add PS4 to that.   Figures aren't official (they won't tell ya), but :  Xbox One - around 39+ million units to april 2018, and PS4  around 80+ million units ?? - that gives you a market of 120 million players ATM - this Christmas - IF you sell to consoles.  

xxP

Edited December 17, 2018 by pilgrim*

[emuthreat 2837]

This is all so interesting.  And also moot.

It's pretty easy to read between the lines.  People complain about new features that they don't think needed adding or changing, and say the devs are just doing this to appeal to the console market.  The devs say "no we aren't" and they are still telling the truth, because they feel the changes will benefit PC players as well...

After 5 years of excruciatingly hard work for marginal visible gains (almost to .62 content pairty), who can blame them for trying to port all this new work into two new markets and get a much welcome infusion of cash?  It's a no-brainer.

You think someone selling sandwiches out of a truck is going to refuse service to customers in vehicles if they are both a larger market and they have seen their pedestrian sales plateau over the last couple years?  Only if they WANT to leave money on the table.  Which nobody in their right mind does.
So all they gotta do is reconfigure a few things; like making pedestrians order from the rear of the truck and dine on the blind side, and get some safety barriers n place so the cars can drive by the main window.  Sure it's a change, and maybe even minor inconvenience for the original customers.
But who cares as long as everyone gets their lunch and the business stays afloat?

It should be obvious what has happened over the last two years in particular, at least on a large scale.  The minutia of the whys are perhaps less obvious and even less so anybody's business besides the studio's.

Yeah, I'm still bummed about persistence being borked.  Yeah I think it was silly to label it 1.0 in this state.  And yeah, I think I understand why they needed to do it anyways....  it's not like they didn't have any feedback on the subject, and I don't think they did it as a big FU to their supporters.

I'm gonna go dump some milk on my counters, and try to remain stoic about it.

 

[pilgrim* 3513]

On 12/17/2018 at 8:18 PM, colinm9991 said:

waterfall & agile aren't exactly risky information to share now are they,

for those who haven't heard of "Waterfall" & "Agile"

"Waterfall"
The waterfall model is a relatively linear sequential design approach for certain areas of engineering design. In software development, it tends to be among the less iterative and flexible approaches.
The waterfall development model originated in the manufacturing and construction industries; where the highly structured physical environments meant that design changes became prohibitively expensive much sooner in the development process [compared to software engineering].
When first adopted for software development, there were no recognized alternatives for knowledge-based creative work.
= seriously obsolete in software development

"Agile"
Agile software development is a theoretical approach to software development,  such that requirements and solutions evolve through the collaborative effort of self-organizing and cross-functional teams and their customer /end user. It advocates adaptive planning, evolutionary development, early delivery, and continual improvement, and it encourages rapid and flexible response to change.
It is useful and natural,  for only very small startup developers to use this technique instinctively.

1) In the BI structure, the "self-organizing" development team's only 'customer' is BI itself. This is to a large extent their INTERNAL practice.
2 ) End users are not a stable group with defined common ground, and their desires and expectations change through time, sometimes irrationally, users are in flux and sometimes in strong disagreement, improvements are moot, and changing factions seek fundamentally different outcomes.

= For "Agile", to be cost effective, except at minimal scale and with payback time not a consideration (eg spare-time indies and modders), requires the specific preliminary targeting of a single "end user" group, and developing to their taste alone, deliberately ignoring other possible interests or users. It is useful [for instance] for the production of mass popularity games of low complexity (Lowest Common Denominator games) and Apps.  This renders "Agile" a simple, non-flexible technique, useful for outsourcing.

xxP

=IMO, naturally =

 

[robbyj 77]

On 12/17/2018 at 8:53 PM, emuthreat said:

This is all so interesting.  And also moot.

It's pretty easy to read between the lines.  People complain about new features that they don't think needed adding or changing, and say the devs are just doing this to appeal to the console market.  The devs say "no we aren't" and they are still telling the truth, because they feel the changes will benefit PC players as well...

After 5 years of excruciatingly hard work for marginal visible gains (almost to .62 content pairty), who can blame them for trying to port all this new work into two new markets and get a much welcome infusion of cash?  It's a no-brainer.

You think someone selling sandwiches out of a truck is going to refuse service to customers in vehicles if they are both a larger market and they have seen their pedestrian sales plateau over the last couple years?  Only if they WANT to leave money on the table.  Which nobody in their right mind does.
So all they gotta do is reconfigure a few things; like making pedestrians order from the rear of the truck and dine on the blind side, and get some safety barriers n place so the cars can drive by the main window.  Sure it's a change, and maybe even minor inconvenience for the original customers.
But who cares as long as everyone gets their lunch and the business stays afloat?

It should be obvious what has happened over the last two years in particular, at least on a large scale.  The minutia of the whys are perhaps less obvious and even less so anybody's business besides the studio's.

Yeah, I'm still bummed about persistence being borked.  Yeah I think it was silly to label it 1.0 in this state.  And yeah, I think I understand why they needed to do it anyways....  it's not like they didn't have any feedback on the subject, and I don't think they did it as a big FU to their supporters.

I'm gonna go dump some milk on my counters, and try to remain stoic about it.

 

Dayz was hanging off a cliff and the only thing that could save it was a well timed 1.0 release. Telling the world you are out of early access is synonymous with saying, "I'm ready to compete with the world, I'm of quality to be displayed to the masses". Blasting a siren to invite media, streamers, reviews, & critics knowing damn well the game can't hold a candle to any title on the market was simply the most bone-headed decision I have ever had the misfortune of watching unfold on in my life. And all in the name of selling a few copies to unaware players? You have to really not care about your brand to let your reputation be torn to pieces by every online gaming author who can get their paws on a keyboard in the sake of a quick cash grab. 

 

To use your sandwich analogy you could set up to sell to cars busses planes and trains but the second someone tries your sandwich and finds out its terrible they won't be buying another. So congratulations you sold a few extra sandwiches now everyone who bothers to read a review knows to steer clear of your shop. Wasted money on all the extras without improving the core product.

Replace elon musk with dayz 1.0 in this clip. this is the point im trying to make

 

*writing this at 5am hope it makes sense

Edited December 20, 2018 by robbyj

[robbyj 77]

On 12/18/2018 at 3:39 PM, pilgrim* said:

for those who haven't heard of "Waterfall" & "Agile"

"Waterfall"
The waterfall model is a relatively linear sequential design approach for certain areas of engineering design. In software development, it tends to be among the less iterative and flexible approaches.
The waterfall development model originated in the manufacturing and construction industries; where the highly structured physical environments meant that design changes became prohibitively expensive much sooner in the development process [compared to software engineering].
When first adopted for software development, there were no recognized alternatives for knowledge-based creative work.
= seriously obsolete in software development

"Agile"
Agile software development is a theoretical approach to software development,  such that requirements and solutions evolve through the collaborative effort of self-organizing and cross-functional teams and their customer /end user. It advocates adaptive planning, evolutionary development, early delivery, and continual improvement, and it encourages rapid and flexible response to change.
It is useful and natural,  for only very small startup developers to use this technique instinctively.

1) In the BI structure, the "self-organizing" development team's only 'customer' is BI itself. This is to a large extent their INTERNAL practice.
2 ) End users are not a stable group with defined common ground, and their desires and expectations change through time, sometimes irrationally, users are in flux and sometimes in strong disagreement, improvements are moot, and changing factions seek fundamentally different outcomes.

= For "Agile", to be cost effective, except at minimal scale and with payback time not a consideration (eg spare-time indies and modders), requires the specific preliminary targeting of a single "end user" group, and developing to their taste alone, deliberately ignoring other possible interests or users. It is useful [for instance] for the production of mass popularity games of low complexity (Lowest Common Denominator games) and Apps.  This renders "Agile" a simple, non-flexible technique, useful for outsourcing.

xxP

=IMO, naturally =

 

agile really calls for rapid software development and software that can respond quickly to changing requirements without excessive rework. customer involvement? sure. incremental delivery? if delivering the same version week after week with different sounds or colors counts, yes. people over process? all i see is people leaving, maybe not a good team to begin with. embrace change? no. maintain simplicity? no. overall i'd give their agile score badly damaged PU scope / 10