Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft's Real Plan For XNA Gaming Domination?
h0tblack writes "While many have heard about the XNA 'game software development platform' from Microsoft's announcements at GDC earlier this year, the full scope of their plans are only just becoming clear. Eurogamer has a surprisingly candid interview with J Allard covering the latest plans from Redmond. XNA isn't a rehash of DirectX tools for the Xbox2, PC and WinCE devices after all, it's a full-on assault on the gaming world, with the prize being complete dominance of the market. The site also has a BitTorrent of the interview, since it was originally recorded in video form."
Micrsofts plan is a "complete dominance of the market." This is new...
Because, you know, speculation about Microsoft taking over the world is sooo 90's.
Now is the time, if any, for people to start making games work in Linux as best as possible. If something isn't done soon, all the gaming manufacturers will start building games to work with this system and make them completely unusable in Linux.
...Complete domination is never good for the consumer (at least not often, because competition usually spurs innovation). However, I doubt Microsoft will dominate the video game market that easily. I wonder if it'll lead to better games, at least in the short run?
---
Never criticize religion on Slashdot. You will be modded down for "Troll" no matter how factual it is.
Microsoft is slowly learning in the console arena, but one lesson they absolutely need to do to make the XBox2 the dominant player is to get as far as possible from being a PC-Like system, as far away as possible from PC game ports, and keep every single game they can get their hands on exclusive for the life of that particular console if possible. Not just 3 months, but years. They also need to court Japanese developers, strike deals with the larger companies such as Square/Enix, get more games from KOEI, pay large sums for ATLUS to translate games specifically for them. They need niche RPG titles out the ass to pull in the anime geeks, they need to do a LOT to win the minds of all the Japanese gamers that ultimately drive more than half this market right now. And if they can get teams specifically for adding in Live! support to these devs games, its a good start.
Before the Xbox was released, Microsoft tried to sell Sony a development kit that would allow Sony (and their 3rd party developers) to develop games on a standard platform.
;).
If you read the book "Opening the Xbox", Bill Gates was pretty irritated and confused when Sony turned them down flat. Why would they turn down Microsoft? Oh, sure - it would also make these games easier to port to a MS based system in the future - but MS was trying to help Sony!
Anyway. Sony saw through the game. And while XNA might be the greatest thing in the world to folks who want to port games between the Xbox, the PC, the Pocket PC - it's probably not something that Sony and Nintendo give a big rats ass about.
That's not to say that Microsoft's plan is a bad one. When Thief III comes out, I'll probably get the Xbox version. I've got a Pentium 800 as my old "game" machine, and I haven't turned it on for about 6 months now (I made the OS X switch some time ago). The Gamecube, PS2 and Xbox let me play what I want and I don't have to spend $300 - $600 every 12 months to keep up my video card/ram/processor/motherboard/whatever.
MS probably realizes this; I'm willing to bet their seeing higher Xbox sales on Xbox/PC titles (such as Knights of the Old Republic). So for games, I'll expect to see more of their emphasis to the Xbox.
Which is kind of a problem - it's still a major money loser for MS. It could be a winner in the long run, but will that means they'll have to open it up a bit and start letting people use it as a PC like system, which could eat into their PC sales profits? That could be a dual edged sword, since that means people could get used to using a "console" as a computer.
Eh. Either way, I'll just keep my eye on the situation. The best games will rule (which looks to be Nintendo for the next 9-12 months, with some nice looking gems on the other platforms), and I'm not about to give up my Powerbook any time soon
52 Weeks, 52 Religions with John Hummel
The article's author hints that Microsoft's XNA will almost be a "gaming OS". A set of standards that various consumer electronic companies can build consoles for.
This will bring to console gaming the unreliability of the Desktop PC. An often cited benefit Apple has over the PC platform is that it knows its hardware. There are no wild cards. Console game developers have been able to count on this until now. You test and test, on a given company's box and you know your good.
If XNA takes off, look for crashes, due to one Manufacturer cutting corners, or another trying to add a beefier new edition of some chip.
There are some things where standards are great, and being able to commoditize the hardware is a great benefit to consumers. On the other hand gamers, who as a whole have demonstrated a willingness to spend for top of the line systems every few years are probably not looking for a less expensive systems at the cost of quality.
No doubt odds are in favor of something like this winning the mass market. In the mass market, the commodity item always succeeds, VHS over Meta, PC over Mac, etc. _However_, one of the console system may yet survive this if they can succeed in filling a niche in for a superior gaming experience that only a few percent of the market care about and build a fiercly, loyal following. -- Just as Apple Computers exists today.
--Aaron Greenberg
I don't like the idea of Microsoft controlling gaming but maybe they're on to something. This could help small developers because they won't have to create a new game for every platform on a limited budget. I think it's an ingenious idea, I just wish it wasn't done with continued world domination in mind.
Jesus people! this is competition! It's good that these companies compete. If microsoft blows nintendo and sony out of the console market, then start complaining. last time I checked, both of those companies were still kicking Xbox's ass. I know the idea around here seems to be to bitch whenever microsoft does something, but in this case they're still trying to gain market share, not kick everyone out. I think these complaints are premature.
and no, any replies pointing out how microsoft has taken control of other markets in the past (really only windows and office) are not insightful, they're redundant!
Quoting the article:
J Allard: [...] Fast forward four or five years when every game is online
Maybe it's just me and my 20some-year gaming history, but I don't see single-player games going away anytime soon. Online games are fine if you have a few (or several) hours to blow, but if you just want something to relax with for 15 or 30 minutes I doubt that's what you're looking for.
Plus, of course, there's the entire commuting/riding/etc contingent. This may not be such a big deal in the US, where if you're moving, you're usually driving, but here in Japan, it's typical to have 1-2 hours of "dead time" a day on trains, buses and the like. Plenty of people play games during this time (one of the latest rages is "Gyakuten Saiban"--"Turnaround Court Case", I guess--and I can't decide whether that's a bad thing, but that's a different story); but who's going to go to all the bother of logging into an online service when they'll have to drop out as soon as they leave the train?
Microsoft has tried to revolutionize the gaming world through radical software redesign once before, in the mid-to-late 90's, with a project called Talisman. Microsoft had assembled a team of CG scientists that ripped the heart out of the industry, and they put them to work on this project.
The idea of Talisman was that each frame of a game is very much like the next one. In fact, rather than render the next frame from scratch, it might be possible to do projection of the previous frames image to get the next frame. Even if this couldn't be done for the whole image, it could certainly be done for part of it. For example, in a flight simulator, even if the ground is not flat, it is piecewise flat, and those pieces could be 2D-transformed from one frame to the next without the expense of full 3D rendering.
Microsoft hired the best people in the field of DVE (digital video effects) including Steve Gabriel and Alvy Ray Smith, almost certainly to work on this project. Steve Gabriel built the Ampex ADO, the first high-quality digital video effects machine, in the early 80's. Alvy Ray Smith wrote the Siggraph paper on 2-pass transforms, the foundation upon which the ADO is built.
Well. It turns out that rendering texture-mapped polygons can be done very very quickly indeed, and the analysis necessary to "save" time using the Talisman ideas was exceedingly complex and expensive. In the best case, Talisman might have sped things up by a factor of 2 -- about six months time given the fervid pace of graphics board development.
I don't think of this as particularly reassuring, though -- Microsoft usually fails a couple of times before achieving domination. Perhaps Talisman was Rev 1, and XBOX is Rev 2...
Thad Beier
I love Mondays. On a Monday, anything is possible.
I can't see why Microsoft are going to charge extortionate fees or demand additional royalties for using something like this. Look at the model for Visual Studio. Does it make development easier? Yes. Do MS expect royalties from distributables? No. Does it tie you in to using Windows? Yes. The purpose of XNA is to make it easier for people to create games on Microsoft platforms. MS then make money on the OS or, in the case of consoles, from the sale of the game itself (just like Playstation get money from every PS game sold). Seems pretty transparent to me and hopefully good news for the smaller development studios.
When Sony and EA have huge market share it's okay, but as soon as MS wants to be competitive it's sinister? They have to make a profit in gaming or get out and this is just another step in that path. Would it be better to just have Sony or Nintendo running gaming or have strong competition?
What's the deal with being online?
Online games are huge but usually equire enormous time commitment. Many occasional gamers like to spend an hour or two a week (say) playing games. With most MMORGs or online FPSs this is impossible, you either play all the time or not at all, especially since there is a monthly fee associated with it. If you play occasionally you either get your butt kicked all the time or you can't keep up with your friends.
My theory is that online multiplayer games will saturate their audience pretty soon, if it hasn't happened already. How many MMORGs can you play at once?
1) How would it be different from Windows? If it's just a set of standards, protocals, and software that can run on a ton of different types of hardware, how exactly is it different from Windows, or Linux? Is the console release cycle replaced by incremental PC-style upgrades? If so, I'd have to mark that has a huge disadvantage. I do not want to have to upgrade my console system. I don't particularly that every 2-5 years I drop another $150-200 on a new console and peripherals, if I don't have to spend $500 and build an entire machine every several years. The beauty of console systems is that they Just Work, no having to check "system requirements", no driver conflicts, ect. Far from creating a "standard" for developers to follow to improve game stability, ect., they now are encouraged to write code that may run on multiple platforms.
2. Do we really need to play Halo on a cellphone, hand-held game console, PDA and refridgerator? For some games I could imagine that having some functionality/interaction with the actual game would be nice, but I would fear this would become a serious distraction to developers who often seem to have a difficult time just creating a single stable, fun game. Even with a set of "standards" being introduced, it's more work for the developer to build the kitchen sink into their game. I question how many gamers would actually have the time and inclination to take advantage most of these features... is it going to increase sales of games that much? I fear it could eat into developer resources that should be spent creating a good game. It shouldn't be that hard to develop a good game for a three different platforms as long as each of those platforms don't vary in terms of hardware or software configuration at all (as is currently the case.)
3. Do we really trust Microsoft to do a good job? Microsoft has a poor track record for producing stable and secure products. Though I've been skeptical of the idea of trojans, ect. that spread through gaming consoles up until now, I would not be surprised if in several years we saw a worm reap havoc because too many people didn't run "XFS Update" often enough.
4. Is this legal? Microsoft is a monopoly. DirectX is a part of Windows, which is essentially the subject of their monopoly. Outright admitting that they are attempting to dominate the market with a standard that they own, and using their existing "clout" with DirectX, ect. seems to me to raise a few red flags. What I find ironic is the guy talks about the consumers not having a choice--since when has that ever been a concern of Microsoft's? And I do think I have a coice. For console systems, I can choose a GameCube, or a PlayStation 2, or an X-Box. On any of those systems I can choose from a multitude of games from a multitude of developers. Or I can choose to game on a PC (which I can build myself or buy from any number of OEMs), running Windows or Linux. Or I can choose to game on a Mac. Is this not choice? If a substantial number of these options were replaced by XNS, just how is my choice broadened? I do not understand.
Not really trying to be a Microsoft basher, but I'd be expressing some serious doubts even if it were Nintendo (and I'm something of a fanboy) proposed something like this. The fact that it's Microsoft makes me even more skeptical.
This has very little to do with porting games at all -- XNA doesn't particularly make it much easier to port a game to a different platform. The author of the article on Eurogamer makes some far fetched comments to that effect; which seems to indicate he has no idea what development is like, or what XNA will really provide.
The whole point of XNA is provide a solid common library, which focuses on common game development tasks. This allows different platforms to very easily interoperate, but does not make it significantly easier to port games to other platforms. For instance, making a set of games that share the same game world and are all Live aware becomes quite simple, but porting a Xbox version of that same game to PC does not suddenly become a simple task.
I don't see how people are jumping to the conlusion that providing XNA and reference designs is economically infeasible. Certainly Microsoft would like to create a reference design platform in the future. Yes, Microsoft thinks this can start with with XNA. Yes, it's a good idea.
The whole pointing in having a reference design is to increase interoperability, reduce development time, and reduce development cost. If another company makes a device using a reference design, it won't take your suggested 3 months to port a game to run on this new device -- it will take zero months, zero weeks, zero days, zero hours... no time at all since it will run on that device immediately.
You don't have to rewrite anything in a PC game to have your game run a different manufacturer of GeForce 4 cards -- it works on the reference design boards, it works on Asus boards, it works on Hercules Guillemot boards, and it works on everyother board based on the NVIDIA reference design. Does this fact suddenly make NVIDIA foolish for abandoning their board manufacturing business in favour of performing just the design tasks and chip fabrication? ATI seems to be following a similar plan these days as well -- platform and reference design work.
If Bob decides to buy and use a reference design for MasterBlasterSuperConsole, he's essentially creating a MasterBlasterSuperConsole -- not another platform. Say the original MasterBlasterSuperConsole designers still sell their version of the MasterBlasterSuperConsole and everyone likes Bob's MasterBlasterSuperConsole better. The consumers proceed to buy more of Bob's than the original by a large margin. Are the designers of the original sitting on the street crying? No, they're taking in a killing from Bob's MasterBlasterSuperConsole since he has to pay the original designers a very significant percentage of his profits to them. Is Bob upset? Not really, he didn't have to design much -- just copy the reference design and add a few tweaks here and there.
There are a lot of companies that operate in this fashion -- ARM in one of the largest microprocessor developers in the world without even selling microprocessors. IBM also licences out it's microprocessor designs to other companies (the Power architecture seen in PowerPC, amongst others, is a good example). Ericsson isn't loosing any sleep from becoming increasingly a design house, providing specifications and reference designs to companies that specialize in mass production. There has literally thousands of companies that do business in this very fashion with great success.
Microsoft and Sony have been doing this for decades in various different industries -- it's one of the reasons they have been so exceptionally successful. I wholely agree with Allard, it's just a matter of when this will happen.
Renderware is billed as a "universal game engine", more or less. Actually, it's the physics engine from Mathengine, an AI engine from Knyogon, a rendering engine, and an audio engine, which more or less play together. There's also a generic level editor, a build tool, and a configuration management system for all the game assets. All the major target platforms are supported.
In general, none of those components are considered the best in their class. When you look at the titles supported, you don't see any of the top 10 games. But there are time-to-market advantages in buying them all your tools from one vendor. That's the sort of thinking that attracts Microsoft.
So if you want to see what XNA would be like, check out Renderware.
You're wrong. It is not difficult to create 3D programs in Linux. Just use SDL or ClanLib and you're set. It is in fact just as easy as programming OpenGL in Windows. I'm doing this right now, coding OpenGL stuff in Anjuta, and it is doing very well. And, I have a Radeon 9600...
As for 3D hardware audio, you may be right. However, I dunno how the ALSA support for this is.
And, it is not true that DirectGraphics is light years ahead. See the features of OpenGL 1.5 and compare it with Direct3D9 - there is no "better" one, it's a draw.
This sig does not contain any SCO code.
Once again, this Microsoft representative is touting choice of hardware platform as a primary advantage of XNA. But in the past Microsoft have also claimed that Windows gives the customer the choice, which is obviously a blatant lie in the same context.
But imagine for a second if Microsoft really did end up getting something like XNA standardised. Then we might see implementations of it on other platforms, even if such implementations are technically illegal (think MP3.) It would make game development cheaper again, and knock-offs of the development environment for these standard games might even open up the market for hobby game development again, which has been more or less shut off for years.
The idea is intriguing but I can't see Microsoft successfully implementing what it looks like they're describing. I suspect that at best, they will tie the damn thing to Direct3D, and everything will fall apart from there.
Karma: It's all a bunch of tree-huggin' hippy crap!
You make it sound like COM, COM+, ActiveX were each complete revolutions that required the programmer to start from scratch, rather than providing additional functionality that builds on an existing model. To suggest that every new advance requires (at least) months of work to be junked is a bit of a stretch. I also question the presence of DDE on the first list as it's quite a different fish (given that everything else there is your good ol'e OLE family tree).
Fr0dicus meet sarcasm, sarcasm, fr0dicus. I'll leave you two to get acquainted.
To a developer, easy cross-platform compatibility is great. But compatibility among platforms in different markets is priceless.
I love free stuff. If I can get cross-platform development for free (or close), I'll take it. The ability to create a substantial application and have it run well on Windows, Mac OS, and Linux means I can reach a greater audience. But what XNA promises is almost impossible to resist: the ability to develop a substantial game that runs on your desktop, in your livingroom, and on your keychain -- three large markets that do not directly compete.
Applications drive an operating system; a stack of exceptional programs give consumers a reason to buy your OS. A complaint I've long had with Palm is that they haven't made it easier to develop for Palm OS. Microsoft gives its development environment away for free. In fact, it's possible to develop simple games concurrently for Windows Desktop and Pocket PC. If XNA can make it possible for a small studio such as mine to develop our more complex offerings concurrently for Windows and Pocket PC, will I care about Palm OS, Mac OS, or Linux?
What I'd like to see from companies such as Apple and PalmSource are environments like Torque, which makes it possible to write for Windows, Mac OS, and Linux by abstracting each environment. But Torque is really an ad-hoc solution (in both senses of the term); it's not a hollistic system, and it's not supported by the OS vendors. Though an awkward combination, if it were possible to develop substantial applications for Mac OS, Palm OS, and Windows, I might. But if XNA allows me to develop substantial applications for Windows, Pocket PC, and the Xbox concurrently -- three different, juicy markets -- that's even better.
We're indie. We're working on our 14th game.
It wants to own the entire standard of gaming across every platform.
Microsoft's managers still hang on to the silly dream that they can create a single platform that works for everybody. They can't. First, technically, people have needs and interests that are far too diverse to be served by any single platform. Second, even if it was technically feasible, any market like that is far too large not to attract competition--that's, after all, the purpose of a free market economy.
The only way any company can maintain dominance in a market like Microsoft does is through monopolistic practices. Microsoft could get away with that once because they succeeded when people didn't understand what was happening--but that isn't going to work again, under the scrutiny of competitors and anti-trust enforcement.
Well that's a little out of context. This whole topic is about gaming, and therefore Linux's success in gaming. I suggest, in order to make this more useful for you, that gaming has a spill on effect into new markets.
To a small extent, the success of games on Windows has put a lot of Windows PC's into the home, and by extension of familiarity, a lot of Windows PC's on managers desks and throughout companies.
Apple tries very hard at the same tactic - ever wonder why there are so many Macs in schools? Because Apple practically gives them away there.
If Linux was the premiere gaming OS, and only lamerz used Windows for gaming (not the case at the moment), Linux proliferation in single PC families would dramatically increase. Imagine if 80% of homes with PC's were running Linux, because the best gaming experience was on Linux. We can then also imagine a change in the reputation of Linux in other PC industries.
I suggest, then, that Linux would experience more success than currently if it were a better gaming platform.
I am government man, come from the government. The government has sent me. -- G.I.R.
The problem I have is with the game companies themselves because making money from games and having a constant supply of good quality games are mutually exclusive.
For starters, I don't understand why there is a necessity to constantly re-invent the wheel and create gaming engines from scratch just about each time a new game is released. Surely it would be better to throw out the source code to current gaming engines to the Internet community to see what enhancements get added as a result - sure, keep the level design, textures, etc. for a specific commercial game that uses that engine under wraps so that, as a game company, you can make money from it.
One advantage that consoles have over a PC is that developers for a console platform must constantly "push the envelope" to get the console to do more and more as time goes on - this, in turn, creates better, more efficient coding. On the PC, the expectation is that users simply upgrade hardware to meet the requirements of a new game, no games developers get long enough with a particular, say, graphics chipset to fully understand what they can get it to do and, as a result, we, the end users, end up with sloppily coded games that need constant upgrades to get them to work properly.
My point is that we need a return to the good old days of the Commodore 64, ZX Spectrum & Amiga when it was possible for "bedroom programmers" to create good quality games. Sure, games were much smaller then but that's why game development environments like XNA, SDL, etc. exist now in order to cut down the development times. What would really put games development back into the hands of single programmers or small groups of game designers, is having access to the core engines as well so that the most important aspect of game design, the initial good idea for a game design, can become tangible much easier.
Incidentally, I don't, for one minute, expect this to happen because there are far too many concerns about making money (which is why money and good games are mutually exclusive in my view) but it would be good to see the games buyers become a lot more discerning when it comes to purchasing games.
Sure, we all own games that we feel were worth the money and that provide us with good entertainment but I guarantee most game players have spent far more money on disappointing games than good ones.
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
Could of course be that they think their is a market, there isn't, could be they think it will win them customers, it doesn't. OR just maybe these companies don't enjoy they idea of being locked onto a OS made by a company that is DIRECTLY competing with them and has a very long history of wiping out competition.
It has far less to do with promoting linux as not ending up in the pockets of Microsoft.
For now DirectX is pretty open and you have the half-life people saying that the PC is for them more profitable because of the lack of license fees wich are needed for console titles. If MS every comes to truly own the gaming world how long do you think this will last?
You are living in a dream world. Small independent game companies are going bust. The Xth rehash of ancient games does NOT count. It is the orignal new stuff that is getting more and more owned by the BIG companies. Companies that can afford a string of money losing titles without going out of business. Would you enjoy a future where games are owned by only the big boys? I wouldn't.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Sony really, really need to do something about the quality of their tools. I've spent the last two years on a game that runs on the XBox and PS2. The XBox tools are just amazing -for example you can click on a pixel and see a dissasembly of the shader that produced it.
:(
The Sony tools are hideous. Well, the debugger has a nice graphical frontend provided by a third party and is fairly slick and fast compared to Visual Studio, but the compiler and libraries provided are terrible - a patched up gcc 2.9.5 which has a prediliction for internal errors when the array indexing operator [] is used creatively , and that doesn't always optimise away empty constructors. And the libraries provided - at least initially were slow, and crufty and not suitable for game use. At least now, two years after the release of the PS2, Sony provides some decent middleware.
They MUST get developer tools right from the off with the PS3 - especially if it has 8 CPU's. I really, really hope they do. I'd hate to see my market swallowed by the Beast. At present it's economical to develop for the PS2 without needing a single Windows liscence. I hope it stays that way
/usr/games/fortune > ~/.signature
Sorry, I wasn't aware that the Xbox was actually doing well in some places. I live in Japan, where the Xbox is selling about as well as, say, cowpies. The most recent sales data I found was here; the PS2 and GBA are running about neck-and-neck, both beating the Xbox by about a factor of 100 (yes, one hundred). In recent weeks the Xbox is facing a serious challenge from the PSOne.
So maybe Microsoft can establish an American standard, but no way are they in shape to take on Sony here.