Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Announces XNA Game Development Platform
Thanks to GameSpot for its story revealing that Microsoft is unveiling its XNA game software development platform later this morning at the Game Developer's Conference in San Jose. XNA is "designed for use with future iterations of all Microsoft game platforms, including Windows, Xbox, and Windows Mobile-based devices" to make simultaneous platform development easier and cheaper, and the company is also expected to announce "Xbox Live-style functionality for billing, security, and matchmaking being made available to Windows developers... [and] the introduction of controllers that are compatible with all Windows and Xbox game players" as part of this move. IGN Xbox has an interview with Microsoft's Jay Allard and Dean Lester which explains XNA as being a cross-platform, evolving toolset that will ensure backwards compatibility, giving the example: "...[if] Adobe was writing an application for Win95, and then WinNT came out there were special features they could take advantages of -- they didn't have to throw it all away and start again." Update: 03/25 00:46 GMT by S : Microsoft has made the official XNA site public, including streaming video from unspecified next-generation games.
Good, they can make xbox2 games backwards compatible!
"This isn't a study in computer science, its a study in human behavior"
Jeepers. Killing a game after spending $3M on developing it? How does a game get that far only to be cancelled?
The Army reading list
I hope this doesn't come into widespread use for games, Deus Ex2 was designed for the xbox, and it shows when you play it on a Windows Pc.
IMO playing a game on different Microsoft operating systems isn't crossplatform... Please don't use crossplatform if you don't mean it.
Until they port directx to mac and linux, it'll be hard for them to use directx and be "crossplatform."
So, basically, my understanding is that if I put together a solid DDoS exploit for Windows using XNA, it will affect XBOX and Windows Mobile devices?
.NET for games. .NET has yet to establish itself anywhere useful except as an architecture for Web Development. That's all back-end.
.NET Mobile Framework (where you can make calls to your heart's delight, but damned if they're implemented) to understand why this will never arrive as hyped.
Moreover, this sounds like
It reads interesting. I see it as vaporware. I can't imagine anything useful coming of this. How could something exploit the power of the next gen X-Box (which appears to be using a non-Intel chip in the future), and still run awesome on Windows?
And porting to mobile devices? One doesn't need to look any further than the slow adoption of the highly broken
The only interesting part is that you see people out in the game development sector (Gabe Newell of Valve, for example) excited about the technology. These are the type of people you'd expect to know better.
-m.
Anyone remember that one? I don't think any games use it these days, right? ;-)
;-)
To be honest, this sounds rather useful, altho in an unfortunately "only for Microsoft developers" way. Porting apps between consoles and computers takes time, a lot of time, simply because portable toolkits don't exist, yet. Standard sets of game controllers between computers and consoles don't sound bad either, altho those have existed for some time.
Being able to write a game once, and with little modification have it running on both a PC and a console, is a Good Thing for developers and users. Lots of fun console games might start becoming available on the PC as well, for those of us that only need to own one game machine.
Of course, certain games will always remain best suited to a particular platform. i.e., playing an FPS with anything but a mouse and keyboard is just sick. Quit trying to make those damn things for consoles, will you?
Microsoft renames DirectX 10 - XNA and the crowd goes wild over nothing.
The more their console acts like a PC, has PC software, and generally offers the same look and sound of a PC title the more the console buyers will stay away. True, there are a few people who see a console as an alternative from buying a pricey computer and having to upgrade, but most console buyers are more interested in what consoles do that PC's can not do. Be it proprietary video hardware, to exclusive games. When a game is out on PC and a console, it is no longer is exclusive. This drove a lot of people away from buying XBox1 in the first place - Why bother getting a console to play games we already have on our PC that does a whole lot more?
I am surprised that more large companies haven't tried to make game development tools. There are a few things that nearly every game has, and that are really hard to do efficiently and quickly (the main game loop, for example). I honestly hope that Microsoft does make this and it does work, because that usually means some OSS people will make a knockoff that I can get for free and use, which will be awesome.
stuff |
.. to the rumours that the X-Box 2 will not have a HD? If MS are really aiming to make their latest dev cross-platform, the X-Box 2 would need to have a hard disk in order to be comparable to the PC.
Happens all the time with software projects. Far better to kill the project at $3million down the tubes than $25 million down the tubes.
I worked as a consultant for a project at a big insurance company. After an estimated $25 million, 1 1/2 years, and 40 people assigned, they killed the project after determining that the vendor's product didn't work well enough to be used in production.
At my current company, we haven't thrown away that much money, but we've killed projects after 1 year of development when they should have been killed after 2 months of feasibility research. But, still better than sinking another year or two and then killing the project.
microsoft IS announcing, not ARE. Get over yourself.
That's where it all began, you know. Treating companies like people.
Aren't companies treated as plurals in the queen's English?
Nice one, American. Corrupt a language, then correct the people who still speak it properly.
All this is, is a new version of DirectX which they commit to making compatible across different flavors of windows (including possible WinCE devices) which also has Xbox Live functionality (I wonder if they'll roll it into Live or The Zone?) The DirectX SDK will be supplemented by these new tools they're talking about, and a new name will get stuck on DirectX.
It's not that it's an unwelcome advance, but it's not much of an advance. Frankly the thing I'm most interested in is "the introduction of controllers that are compatible with all Windows and Xbox game players" which says two things to me. 1> Microsoft will be releasing a controller which will work on Xbox and Xbox 2 (possibly with different pigtails) with a HID driver to match. Note that this might just be the controller S with an official HID driver. 2> The Xbox 2 will continue to use USB, no surprise there but always nice to see a confirmation.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
If Prince of Persia: Sands of time showed us anything, its that the ability to recycle large chunks of code for 4 different platforms results in amazing availability and quality gaming.
What, exactly, are you trying to say here?
(I'm not a programmer, so maybe im not following this properly)
Two things.
1. I have no avid, passionate, deeply ingrained hatred for Microsoft, which, compared to people around slashdot, makes me a Microsoft whore. That said, doesn't this sound exactly like Microsoft is using the fact that most people use Windows on their PCs to further the Xbox2? Essentially, because of DirectX and Windows, MS seems to be considering the PC as a sister platform to the Xbox. Seems to me this is a distinctly unfair advantage over Sony or Nintendo, both of whom obviously do not have an OS to speak of and basically have only one platform to speak of. Seems to me this is dangerous ground for Microsoft to tread, particularly after all the stink in the US they just went through and the whole EU morass that they're going through now.
2. I am no programmer, so perhaps this makes a lot more sense to someone else. But isn't it difficult to co-develop for something that will essentially be an Apple box with something that is Windows? Maybe it's the whole virtual machine thing MS picked up, but it seems kind of unlikely to me. Anyone care to explain?
Let companies make more money by making games easier to port, but at the same time lock them into a Microsoft based system.
Some gaming companies are keeping code portable in order to sell it on PC, PS2, XBOX, etc., and sometimes this leads to a Linux port. If you give management the tools to keep it on multiple platforms (albeit Windows-centric platforms) in half the time, I think it's safe to say that this is going to take a chunk out of potential Linux ports.
The only possible saving grace is that some companies will want to port their games to competing platforms like the PS2, but those games are likely to be console-oriented and as such not as well suited to a PC. Of course there are always exceptions.
MS is once again using it's market penetration to leverage more lock-in. Brilliant move on their part if you ask me.
Cheers
~Dalcius
Rome wasn't burnt in a day.
Usually there is little point in porting console games to PC or vice-versa. Different interface, different market. Sure we all fire up an emulator every now and then, but unless you have a USB gamepad that's really close to the console pad (or a native adapter), well it just doesn't feel right.
Tight handling is one of the most important aspects of game programming. If your jaw drops at the graphics & 5.1 sound but you can't aim for shiat using the d-pad, chances are that game disc will be found in the microwave rather soon. Prime example: Halo vs Turok Evolution (on XBOX). Halo plays great, the joystick aim is non-linear so you can let off more precise shots. Turok plays like shiat, impossible to aim adequately so you die young (and often). Same game on the PC would probably do OK thanks to the mouse.
It's like every other design paradox in the world: you have a limited set of resources that you have to deal with. In the game world this is called Tweaking. Playtest the game; if the mouse aim is awkward, throw in some clever interpolation to smooth it out. If gamepad aim is unruly, try some form of light auto-aim assistance to keep the player focused on progress rather than tedium.
Same thing can be applied to graphics. Stuff that looks good in 640x480 on a tv set will look chunky as hell and over-focused on SVGA, so we throw in some heavy AA and selective blurring.
Worse (in my opinion): Sound. TV sets have sucky paper-cone speakers chosen to adequately represent human voice. Bass/treble is typically weak and so you lose all the neat sound effects. You have to compress your sound to fit mostly within that limited bandwidth. Then there's the other end of the spectrum, people with bigass stereos. What sounded good on the 25" TV with stock speakers, now sounds like an Atari 2600 on the good system. Pan over to the gaming PC. It either has a semi-decent set of 2.1 or 4.1 speakers, so now not only do you want mid-bass but you also want surround effects. More headaches.
Multi-platform game development isn't a science, it's a labor of love. That, or a marketing ploy to pass on 3 poor products instead of one good one. If Microsoft has a solution to all this, they will become GODS whether we like it or not. They certainly now possess the experience and expertise on the topic, and it is a very strategic move to corner the exploding mobile entertainment market (games for non-gamers). They are not to be underestimated.
-Billco, Fnarg.com
Seems to me this is a distinctly unfair advantage over Sony or Nintendo, both of whom obviously do not have an OS to speak of and basically have only one platform to speak of.
So what you're saying is that because Microsoft is making it easier for it's developers to develop for all of its systems, it's a monopoly? It's somehow MS' fault that Sony and Nintendo don't have a computer OS?
I am no programmer, so perhaps this makes a lot more sense to someone else.
Ugh, how is this insightful, mods? No offense to the parent at all, just stupid moderators.
Anyone care to explain?
Absolutely. Basically, you said this: But isn't it difficult to co-develop for something that will essentially be an Apple box with something that is Windows?
You're assuming that what they're proposing is an "Apple Box" (not quite sure what that means). It's nothing fundamentally different from a developing standpoint, the platforms are running stripped versions of Windows. MS is just bringing unified functionality to all of these platforms.
It must be stressed that the news is merely that Microsoft is making it easier for developers of its platforms to cross-develop or be able to jump to another system without too much of a porting hassle. Think XBox2 to PC conversions and vice versa that are simple to implement. This benefits MS since they're now making it easier for developers to bring their games to other platforms which MS owns. PROFIT!