News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Why bad scientific code beats code following “best practi... by ben_jones on Sunday August 28, 2016 @06:12PM (#12378790)
They're allowed to do it because of the emphasis on "shipping" and the complete lack of "maintaining" that they have to do afterwards. Most games on release are complete shit for a reason, with very few modern exceptions. Hell it isn't uncommon for a studio to outsource ports and expansions. Making their code someone else's problem is not something non software devs should aspire to.
Re:Why bad scientific code beats code following “best practi... by vvanders on Sunday August 28, 2016 @06:22PM (#12378827)
Except there's these things called game "engines" that have can have lifecycles of 10+ years(Unreal and ID comes to mind).
Re:Why bad scientific code beats code following “best practi... by ben_jones on Sunday August 28, 2016 @07:30PM (#12379062)
"Give a man a game engine and he delivers a game. Teach a man to make a game engine and he never delivers anything."

Most game developers do not build game engines.

Re:Why bad scientific code beats code following “best practi... by yoklov on Monday August 29, 2016 @04:19AM (#12380682)
All of the cited developers do, however.