XNA Framework Simplifies Cross-Platform Game Development
The XNA Framework contains a custom implementation of the Microsoft? .NET Framework and new game-development-specific libraries designed to help game developers more easily create cross-platform games on Windows? and Xbox 360 using the highly productive C# programming language. Using the XNA Framework, game developers will benefit from the ability to re-use code and game assets in developing multiplatform titles, without sacrificing performance or flexibility.
Pigs fly backwards in wintertime as well btw. And you left out the quotes around "cross platform". Reminds me of a certain Aus company (not MF in case anyone is wondering!) claiming their engine was "cross platform". It worked on win95, win98, winME and win2k...
Nothing personal poser, but that's just Microsoft's hype you've posted.
XNA Framework Requires entirely new build processes and expertise for Microsoft-only Game Development
The XNA Framework is a set of wrappers around the same old Microsoft? .NET Framework with some new game-development-specific libraries designed to make game developers entirely recode all libraries, core tools and dev systems for their Windows? and Xbox 360 development using the C# programming language. Using the XNA Framework, game developers will need to buy new source-code-control integration, workflow tools, server and shared-build infrastructure in order to build the same games they've been building for the last few years.
quote:Originally posted by mcdrewski
XNA Framework Requires entirely new build processes and expertise for Microsoft-only Game Development
The XNA Framework is a set of wrappers around the same old Microsoft? .NET Framework with some new game-development-specific libraries designed to make game developers entirely recode all libraries, core tools and dev systems for their Windows? and Xbox 360 development using the C# programming language. Using the XNA Framework, game developers will need to buy new source-code-control integration, workflow tools, server and shared-build infrastructure in order to build the same games they've been building for the last few years.
If this is true.. and if this type of framework is required for the xbox360 development.. Then that would actually be bad for Microsoft in the case that the ps3 and revolution promises to work on your standard proven frameworks.
This introduces a form of elitism where by only the bigger developers would be able to implement the framework due to cost and time. Therefore killing off a whole lot of possible titles for the 360. The smaller companies would look to make games on other systems. In the end Microsoft would be doing a classic Nintendo style development screw up.
This is all based of course on the idea that Nintendo and Sony will allow developers to not implement the new system. ..
I'll say it again though. Sonys success lays in the fact that they let any poor bastard make whatever the hell they want on a PS console. Ive seen some realllly low budget titles.
quote:Originally posted by CombatWombat
nice job I might add - had me going there on first read too :)
It IS a nice job what with the trouble MS seem to constantly get themselves into over misuse of monopoly powers and their business tactics. Caroo, I suggest you read http://www.catb.org/~esr/halloween/ it's a collection of leaked internal MS documents.
from the site quote:
Over time, these memoranda have grown into quite a series. The Halloween Documents I, II, III, VII, VIII and X are leaked Mucrosoft documents with annotations. IV is a satire based on an idiotic lead-with-the-chin remark by the person who was at the time Microsoft's anti-Linux point person; V is serious comment on a statement by the same fool. VI is a takedown of one of the bought-and-paid-for "independent studies" Microsoft marketing leans on so heavily, IX refutes the Amended Complaint by Microsoft's sock puppets at SCO, and XI is a field report from one of Microsoft's marketing road shows. The common theme is that the Halloween Documents reveal, from Microsoft's own words, the things Microsoft doesn't want you to know.
The page is maintained by Eric S. Raymond, who I've mentioned on sumea before: an MS recruiter was foolish enough to offer him a job and he responded with public FLAMES [;)] http://sumea.com.au/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=3240&SearchTerms=how+to+tu…
Hard to say - but I think MS may be about to win the console war and probably will win the home entertainment / media centre one as well as they won the desktop and the office and the browser if so then C# .NET is their preferred platform and that's really all that can be said of it. Anyway - let's see if Sony can make their comeback later in the year they are the only one left that can stop MS taking over practically all end user computing.
I'm a firm beleaver that sony will dominate the console sector as it has with the last 2 generations. Microsoft have the advantage of the early bird tactic but that's only a short term advantage. The Xbox 360 may of made record sales but I predict the PS3 at minimum will have 1 1/2 times as many initial sales in comparison to the 360. Most of those buyers being dedicated playstation players. Remember sonys been in the game for 10 years now. 8-15 year olds back then who grew up on the old systems will be sonys sales boost for the new system.
People like the new 360. But their not captivated by it from what I seen. When a new concole comes out and it makes many people buy it regaurdless of cost like the PS2 did back then, you know you dominate the industry.
quote:Originally posted by poser
Hard to say - but I think MS may be about to win the console war and probably will win the home entertainment / media centre one as well as they won the desktop and the office and the browser if so then C# .NET is their preferred platform and that's really all that can be said of it. Anyway - let's see if Sony can make their comeback later in the year they are the only one left that can stop MS taking over practically all end user computing.
C# & .NET may be their preferred platform, but I don't see Microsoft themselves making too much use of it ;-) They also have large legacy codebases in C++, MFC and the Win32 API so they will support that for a long time to come.
The X-Box 360 has a few things not in it's favour, a next generation media drive being one. The PS3 will absolutely dominate the 360 in Japan (and likely around that region) which is quite a sizeable market, so Sony won't be going away soon. Sony is also making a smart move away from proprietary APIs to one right in line with OpenGL, Microsoft requiring C# and .NET would be going in the opposite direction, and a big mistake.
In terms of the home media center, my guess is a company with a device like TiVo will be more successful than both Sony and Microsoft. They both have visions for the "lounge room" that are too far fetched, at least in the near future - which is when I think it will make a difference.
quote:Originally posted by urgrund
In the topic name "...but Aus studios will stay behind" <- what do you mean by that?
Perhaps he means that where a lot of "Microsoft" business IT shops are eating up the "latest & greatest" PR from MS and switching to C# and .NET for development, games companies aren't?
There seems to be a bit of confusion here. From the xna website (http://www.microsoft.com/xna/):
quote:XNA Framework
Microsoft unveiled the XNA Framework at the Game Developers Conference 2006. The XNA Framework is an exciting new development and execution environment which will allow game developers to more easily create games which run on the Microsoft Windows and Xbox 360 platforms. It is being designed with a unified set of class libraries which will allow for maximal re-use of code and assets across target platforms. A custom version of the Common Language Runtime is being built to enable the execution of managed code on an Xbox 360, and at GDC the XNA team showcased some exciting demonstrations of games which were built on an early version of this technology.
So it's just a .Net stack that supports the set of xna common libraries, that runs on the Xbox360. I know from the xbox newsgroups that people have been asking for this, so I think it's great.
lorien: running on win32/win64 and xbox360 sound quite cross platform to me.
bp: What about C# isn't cross platform? You can write an app on windows and have it run on a number of different systems using mono.
Caroo: Microsoft is implementing the framework, you just have the option of using it with C#, or C++ (probably both as well). I see this as being pretty useful for the smaller developers as it is my understanding the xna framework will allow developers to get up and running much quicker. And the xbox live arcade is a great way for smaller developers to get their games out there and available to many people.
CombatWombat: No one is stupid enough to remove support for C++ :)
lorien: How is providing their developers a framework a misuse of monopoly powers? A monopoly of making it easier to work with their own console? And I don't see what this has to do with open source and Eric S. Raymond.
Dragoon: In a way Direct X is a standard of sorts, alot of people use and know it. Sony is playing catch-up by moving to OpenGL ES. Again, you will not be required to use C#, it's just another option.
quote:Dragoon: In a way Direct X is a standard of sorts, alot of people use and know it. Sony is playing catch-up by moving to OpenGL ES. Again, you will not be required to use C#, it's just another option.
Yes it is, but I was referring to the implication that MS would be hypothetically making C# and .NET a requirement or strong preference in the future. It's definately not a standard for game development, or even common in game dev companies.
Redwyre: it doesn't seem cross platform to me. It seems almost like claiming something is cross platform because it runs on x86 Linux, AMD64 Linux, MIPS Linux, PowerPC Linux and ARM Linux. I think it's a minor step up from "cross platform" across the different versions of windows.
I didn't say providing developers with a framework was an abuse of monopoly powers at all, but that MS have a history of abusing those powers (and have been convicted for it and been hit with massive fines over it). Also MS try to lock developers into their products alone and their products alone- I think that's one of the main points of DirectX. It's something to keep an eye on I think.
Mono is as doomed as Wine I think: MS products are constantly changing, Mono and Wine play catch up the whole time. That's not saying they aren't amazing efforts- the Wine team have boasted about aiming at "bug for bug compatibility" with windows...
quote:lorien: running on win32/win64 and xbox360 sound quite cross platform to me.
No, see if it ran on MIPS, PS3, Revolution, ARM etc it'd be cross platform. But it doesn't so it isn't.
quote:bp: What about C# isn't cross platform? You can write an app on windows and have it run on a number of different systems using mono.
The fact that there isn't a version on most platforms?
quote:lorien: How is providing their developers a framework a misuse of monopoly powers? A monopoly of making it easier to work with their own console? And I don't see what this has to do with open source and Eric S. Raymond.
Unless by "monopoly" you mean "half of Sony's market share", then its pretty obvious they don't have anything even close to it.
As for open source, I think MS has a lot to do with it... Hear me out: Open source exists and thrives because there is a critical mass of people making it. The only way that can happen is if powerful hardware is affordable and available to all. And MS has driven the demand for powerful hardware sky high because their software requires it.
That lets the Linux guys build powerful boxes at affordable prices. Of course not only are they completely ungrateful, they actually have the audacity to complain that MS software is bloated. Personally, I'm glad it is, otherwise economies of scale wouldn't work to let me by HW at these amazingly low prices.
quote:Dragoon: In a way Direct X is a standard of sorts, alot of people use and know it. Sony is playing catch-up by moving to OpenGL ES. Again, you will not be required to use C#, it's just another option.
Sony isn't playing "catch up", they're easily the market leader, whether you like it or not. And they got there without any GL or DX nonsense. Hello, its a console, you know, a fixed architecture, you don't need to abstact the hardware, that's the whole damned point.. !?
pb
pb said: quote:?Sony isn't playing "catch up", they're easily the market leader, whether you like it or not.?
I don't think it was really meant as a reference to market share but to developer ease-of-use when it comes to developing for the platform. However if any developer believes that this in itself is a justification to claims that the X360 will win the next-gen race... I would say that they are delusional and such claims are nothing more than wishful thinking on the part of developers, and hype from Microsoft.
Games are a consumer-driven market, not a developer-driven market nor a platform-driven market.
If the majority of consumers end up with a PS3, and there is no evidence to suggest that this will be anything other than that, with the current-gen market shares around: PS2 91.6 million, XBOX 21.9 million and GCUBE 19.4 million units worldwide ? based on the last set of figure I could scrape together, and I point out that the PS2 has twice as many as both the XBOX and GCUBE combined. Then it does not matter if developers or even publishers prefer developing for X360 because it is perceived as less ?alien? to their old-school PC development sentiments and their for has a higher ?ease-of-use? due to familiarity ? as I think that a lot of PC developers found the transition to console development easier because of the XBOX and it similar hardware and OS combo to a PC, so the learning curve was not as severe as the PS2, and therefore they became XBOX fan-boy converts, as did perhaps many PC gamers, which may make up a majority of their consumer base.
What does not matter is whether the developers find the X360's ease-of-use better development wise than the PS3's ease-of-use. What matters is consumer-base, and what they care about in the way of new products, is their ease-of-use in utilising them ? speaking only within the context of ease-of-use as there are other factors to success like: brand-image / reputation. Consumers do not care how hard or easy it is to make a game for a platform, all they care about is how easy or hard the platform is to use from the ?ease-of-use? context / Point-of-View.
In existing brands, what also matters is established consumer-base, and their loyalty to your brand based on the quality of the product, titles and service, and your ability to maintain this ?reputation? with good marketing. And the size of your market-share.
If you think that all those that bought a Playstation, then bought a Playstation 2 are all of a sudden going to buy a X360 just because it doesn't have as impressive hyped-up hardware and because it has been released early severely affecting the life-cycle of existing platforms and revenue streams from these, not to mention catching a lot of developers with their pants down by pre-empting next-gen a year or two before it was due.
Then I think you should try to face reality, as you are only deluding yourself into yet again believing what you want to believe rather than what you need to believe.
Now all that shit said, I really do not favour either one of these platforms, if the market research supported the X360, which mine does not, then I would focus development on that platform ? hell, I own an XBOX, not a PS2 ;). Hell, if the market research suggests that the Revolution would dominate this generation of gaming consoles, I would back the bitch and develop for it.
In the case of the Revolution, the reality is that it is a long-shot, a wild-card, that may not be an iPod but rather another Nintendo Virtual Boy ? a gimmicky and painful failure, and when I say painful, I mean to use: eye and neck-strain.
The iPod was successful as it allowed people a relatively simple way to use and play MP3s in a portable device, its innovation was ease-of-use ? along with style and good marketing - targeting the average consumer, creating a product that clearly would be in demand because there was a demand in such a device; ease-of-use along with style, is something Apple has a reputation for with their Macintosh systems. I fail to see how the Revolution is analogous to this and will recreate such success, and see the ?innovative? controller as being rather gimmicky, nor, do I see it as being that innovative compared to something like the PS2 eye-toy or other peripherals ? sing-star, buzz, etc ? for innovative game play, as these added to the wheel with something easy-to-use, not reinvented it.
The Nintendo controller to me does not look to have such ease-of-use with its wand thing and VR spin-off controller thing. To me that reads as: takes a while to get used to, and, will lead to cases of RSI and lawsuits for Nintendo ? I'm actually surprised no one has done so already for the hideously deforming qualities of the GBA on the average person's hands :/
I think this is why when people speak of next-gen, they refer to the X360 and PS3 but don't even bother to mention the Revolution ? but hey, it is a wild-card and may prove many wrong, including me, and make a lot of Nintendo fan-boys rather happy :p.
And so my rant on next-gen comes to and end.
I would love to see the Revolution make a successful name for it. Truly I do. And while each of us has have 6 different theories on why Nintendo is falling in the home console market [and frankly all those theories are true most of the time.] Nintendo?s death will be assured unless it starts to take it's market seriously game wise.
They've pretty much given up on the Game cube. And their main "die-in-the-ass" point with that system was simply that they where making gimmicks, not games. Every third game to come out on the G-cube and DS lately has been Mario based and frankly that?s what?s killing them. Sony and Microsoft are relatively new competitors and don't relay on a character as deeply as Nintendo does. X-box has halo. But their only up to game no3. How many Mario games are out there? He's a cool character and all. But he lost his charm after Mario 64.
This is not to say their not trying. With the revolution sporting the ability to emulate old Nintendo consoles they will need to relay less and less with a mascot. Although the controller might become the new systems Frankenstein?s monster if they make it the default controller. As i said. gimmicks - not games.
You can tell Nintendo is trying to cling to what they think will be innovation and something fresh for buyers. But in a business where so many games are cross-console made and market share is really in the end determined by the number of games you can get developed on your system you don't really get that luxury. Innovation is great for side projects and gimmicky products [eye-toy , dance mat]
But you want solid fundamentals to support those gimmicks. That means a standard controllers, Machine Specs that don't go to under the competitors and NOT being dependant on a mascot that isn't all that popular anymore.
WE hope and prey Nintendo will conform and get back that market share. But as for me. I'd say there doomed to go the way of the SEGA
I think I recall that the Revolution will be able to use GCUBE controllers as well as play GCUBE titles. That and being able to play older classics, and if the price point is low, like $200 AUD, then it may see me buying one eventually so that I can play the old GCUBE titles and Nintendo classics which I have heard about but not played, along with the half-decent titles released using the new controller ? most will probably be third-party mutton dressed up as lamb under the guise of ?innovation,? or at least that is my impression.
But, it will not be my main console at all, but will sit along side of it ? and it may lose out to the X360 to be honest.
Perhaps for that reason it may do reasonably well, perhaps better than the GCUBE, but, being able to play the odd title that came out only on the GCUBE, especially compared to next-gen titles on the PS3 and X360, isn't perhaps going to be incentive enough for consumers ? beyond Nintendo Fan-boys ? as the graphics have aged, and due to this, the gameplay has diminished ? I mean let's face it, a lot of titles without their graphics, would not be anywhere as interesting or ?innovative? as first thought compared to a real next-gen quality title, as it was the wow-factor of ?graphics? that sold the title in the first place.
This is made even more glaring with the older back-catalogue titles. Anyone who has played a classic will know that how they remember the game is not what they end up playing when they take a trip down memory lane. As their perceptions of the game have been ?updated? to today's standards in game mechanics, graphics and tech in general ? and what probably made more than one title ?cool? back then wasn't its ?gameplay? but rather its graphics, which are quite frankly utterly shit compared to today's standards, not to mention the questionable ?gameplay? :/.
I am in somewhat agreement with Caroo. I think the whole Mario thing is the problem as it represents their ?kiddy? approach to the gaming market ? not to mention a tired one. Anyone that disagrees with that should ask themselves why the original Playstation has done so well and why the GCUBE has done so bad ;)
But personally, I couldn't care less whether Nintendo goes under or not.
I think Sega has more right to be still kicking and releasing consoles that Nintendo ? Sega Dreamcast for instance. Personally I have always hated Nintendo games for the kiddy factor ? and have found the quality of the gaming experience in general, lacking compared to other platforms. At the end of the day, if a company like Nintendo, who managed to sell an inferior product in the way of the Gameboy over a superior one in the Atari Lynx in the initial handheld wars ? killing the Atari Lynx. Can't evolve with the times and ends up going extinct because of it, well... they have only themselves to blame and I can not think of it happening to anyone more deserving :)
But hey, that is my cynical opinion ;)
Just have to point out one more thing about .NET and C# - it is very end user cross platform when you consider you can program content for all mobile devices and internet browsers using it. I think there will be a convergence of home media centres and pay on demand and games and virtual reality style stuff over the next 10 years that may see consoles either become integrated or the platform for future home media centres - MS knows this and they will fight one hell of a fight for this world as it will probably also include streaming internet tv / phone i.e. totally integrated. In the long run I'm not sure Sony are really up for this fight - the mother of all end user computing fights.
quote:Originally posted by poser
Just have to point out one more thing about .NET and C# - it is very end user cross platform when you consider you can program content for all mobile devices and internet browsers using it. I think there will be a convergence of home media centres and pay on demand and games and virtual reality style stuff over the next 10 years that may see consoles either become integrated or the platform for future home media centres - MS knows this and they will fight one hell of a fight for this world as it will probably also include streaming internet tv / phone i.e. totally integrated. In the long run I'm not sure Sony are really up for this fight - the mother of all end user computing fights.
To call C# and .NET cross platform is choosing a *very specific* definition of cross platform. It's called smoke and mirrors.
J2ME is a standard for mobile devices (they number in the hundreds of millions), even C++ works on at least an order of magnitude more than C# (a far cry from all?). Not one mobile phone from the various manufacturers devices I've programmed on supported C#.
An assembly program written to run on only one computer and no other can also serve up any content to any web browser. What's your point?
I agree convergence will happen, but only if DRM doesn't take too much of a hold. See http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060322-6434.html
Apple are spitting chips at being told to cross license their DRM, they call it "state-sponsored piracy". So no iTunes for your PSP, or likely your media center device (unless it's an Apple) in the future.
The real reason DRM is so big is not piracy (which it is very poor at stopping), it's vendor lock in and potential monopoly status and profits.
MS may win, but if they do I think it will be because they bought someone who did, not because they did it on their own.
:-)
First it was Jacana and I agreeing about something, now it's Dragoon and I agreeing about something... This site is getting strange...
Poser, have a look at http://parrotcode.org "one bytecode to rule them all". Parrot is a multi-language VM and series of Just Too Late (tm) compilers for different CPUs that seems to be shaping up to be the open source world's answer to .Net
When Microsoft gets someone to say that something is the "preferred platform" for anything, it's not worth a grain of salt.
Let's just remember back when they said that visual studio 2005 was the ideal environment for making HL2 mods... 6 months later you STILL couldn't compile the source code on it.
[QUOTE=lorien]Poser, have a look at http://parrotcode.org "one bytecode to rule them all". Parrot is a multi-language VM and series of Just Too Late (tm) compilers for different CPUs that seems to be shaping up to be the open source world's answer to .Net[/QUOTE]
Parrot's been a promise that's been a long time coming and ... well, it's still not here.
I believe Mono is the open source community's response to .NET :)
[?][:0][:(!][V][:(]