Slashdot Mirror
Japanese Devs Talk 360 Development
Japanese developers have had the chance to work with the Xbox 360, and as Gamespot reports, there are mixed feelings over there. From the article: "...but even with Microsoft's development tools and strong technical support (another aspect for which the developers had kind words), there are still a number of issues game makers face. Many developers consider the system's graphic capabilities 'double-edged.' The Xbox 360 can handle much better looking graphics than previous consoles, but it also requires a lot more effort in development."
Is it so surprising that Microsoft really has an interesting providing developers with good tools and support?
This Space for Rent.
I'm no fan of Microsoft, but to be fair, the complaint about the 360 having better graphics but being more difficult to develop for is going to apply to ALL of the next-gen consoles.
Increasing programming complexity is becoming an issue developers must tackle regardless of platform. With the move to dual core chips, software is going to have to move to be pervasively multithreaded in the future. I know it took me some time to learn how to program (and think/design) in a threaded fashion - and to quit making stupid synchornization mistakes, race conditions, etc. If anything, as a programmer I welcome these new requirements, as it helps me differentiate myself from less skilled programmers. Like everyone else, these game developers are going to have to learn to cope.
..but even with Microsoft's development tools and strong technical support (another aspect for which the developers had kind words)
I find Visual Studio to be one of the worst development environments in existence, and I have never gotten useful technical support from Microsoft. On Windows, one can at least work around that with third party tools, but for something like Xbox 360, the need to use Microsoft tools and to rely on Microsoft support is a big strike against the platform.
There have been a lot of posts in the 360 threads about how the choice to use DVDs for storage (compared to Sony's Blu-Ray discs or HD-DVD) didn't matter. Nobody will fill up a dual layer DVD! Impossible! Doom 3 is only 1.5 gigs!
From the article:
"The volume of data in Enchant Arms won't fit into a single DVD. It's an RPG, so we're thinking it would be inevitable that we release it on two discs," says Takeuchi. "But to be honest, that's even looking grim."
Whoops!
Many developers consider the system's graphic capabilities 'double-edged.' The Xbox 360 can handle much better looking graphics than previous consoles, but it also requires a lot more effort in development."
This is why the capabilities of new consoles aren't fully explored until the 2nd or 3rd generation of games for that console.
I think that press releases like this (I don't really think it's anything but a press release) are intended to keep us from being underwhelmed when the 360 hits the market.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
Wow, another day, another article being used to try and bring down the Xbox 360. Is this seriously going to be happening every day till the PS 3 launches? Every 24 hours there's another article griping about something related to the Xbox 360. I mean, I know we're all supposed to just hate MS and anything they release, but come on. This is ludicrous. From reading today's thread, everyone is pissed about not going to either Blu-Ray or HD-DVD. Wow, Microsoft is being punished for not trying to force an unproven standard down everyone's throat. And can we stop the comparisons to when the PS2 chose DVD. The situations are very different. When the PS2 came out, DVD's were a standard backed by all of the major consumer electronics companies. Everyone was for it. It's not like they were taking some risk. By not picking either Blu-Ray or HD-DVD, MS isn't going to get stuck forcing people to use what could ultimately become a dead standard. And no, multiple disks aren't going to kill anyone. Some of the most popular games for the PS and PS2 were multiple disks. It's not less immersive, and is it really so hard to get up and change once as you play through? (You don't boot off the first disk when you load a game from the second disks save point) Why don't we stop trying to nitpick every little thing about the console. Wait, here's a better idea, let's actually wait till the console releases? Seeing as how very few people have even touched a 360, it seems a bit premature to talk about it like we're experts. And while we're at it, why don't we treat all three systems fairly. I don't see daily articles about the PS3 or the Revolution. Oh that's right, not much is being said because they aren't even close to being released.(Which means that the 360 is the new DC because releasing early = teh l0ssz0rs) But since they aren't MS, everyone knows they are clearly superior. Bah.
Slashdot...it's like Fox news, but without the biased sl...or maybe not.
I think things are going to rough until good middleware emerges maybe 6 to 12 months after the 360 launches. The PS2 was difficult to get a handle on at first too, but eventually developers got it as their knowledge and tools improved. It's really a big open question though as to whether the 360 and the PS3 could have been designed to be easier to develop for and have greater performance potential. It will be interesting to see how hard or easy the Revolution will be to develop for, but I think from here on out, most developers will be more dependent than ever on smart and capable middleware. Oh, that middleware is really going to be expensive too!
Hopefully, a year after launch we'll all be complaining about all of the sequels and ports on the 360 rather than glitches and buggy games!
To the making of books there is no end, so let's get started
While indeed the increased performance and data processing capabilities of the next-gen consoles demands more and better art and content judging by expectations, leveraging middleware like UE3 or Renderware takes a lot of stress of the devs, allowing them to be very near to the cutting edge technology-wise allowing more ressources to be spent on design and content.
Additionally, to make use of the increased processing power without increasing costs and needed time too much I expect procedural content to experience a quite significant rise in popularity. UE3 even supposedly contains tools for static and dynamic procedural content creation, which while leveling the content quality a bit allows for more content which benefits teams without all the manpower they'd need. And procedural content tools have a lot of research and development yet to be done to improve their quality, but it will happen. I think game development will be more about giving all the content a context and designing an experience again.
Oh, well, whatever happens, I think it's going to be interesting.
If MS is providing decent tools, the real problem is developer laziness...Learning a new toolset may be a daunting task, but without that kind of advancement we would all still be programming in assembly. The only way for us to advance technology is to build on our predecessors achievements.
(This is assuming that the tools provided are powerful and useful)
Well the article is contradicting what you are saying. Japanese developers ARE saying that the Xbox 360 is developer friendly. The revolution
I hope nintendo does make a comeback, but it's way too premature to say they will.
Despite whatever problems the multicore architecture brings up, the Japanese developers interviewed in the magazine all seem to agree that the Xbox 360 is developer-friendly, with one of the main reasons being that the development environment is based on Direct X. The developers also spoke highly of the Xbox 360's development kit for its array of tools, including Visual C++ programming support and flexibility in recycling the programs that they've created. "For example, if we had two projects going on, [the Xbox 360's development environment] would allow us to take different program components created from the two teams and merge them into a single software [application]. That wasn't possible up until now," explained Cavia chief producer Takuya Iwasaki, who is currently studying the console's hardware for an upcoming project. "Also, once we create a game, we can take parts of it and build it into a new game. So if we make a program to display an ocean wave, we can use it again and again."
#####Free and Open Source Game Directory#####
Well it actually is not contradictory to my statements. You are missing the fact that DirectX and the tools made available HAVE NO built-in access to the multiple cores and do none of the work here for the developer. So basically the quote you selected states how happy they are that they can reuse code... something that has been available to programmers for many many years. That's just silly.
The cores are what developers are laughing at, they are fairly useless for most anything useful.
Most of the developers I am personal friends with and close to work for smaller developers and they are all balking at the costs associated with the 360 and PS3, a few are working on some projects for these systems but are eagerly awaiting Nintendo's release of more information so that they can quickly transition if it indeed meets the assumed criteria.
This is no small isolated case, after speaking with a fair number of developers they are totally not on board with Sony or Ms in this round. Except for the developers that Sony and MS have courted (mainly very large companies who receive special treatment) Most developers are not seeing this round as profitable and are waiting to make a quick move to the Revolution hardware as it is a much more known and stable base to develop for. Similarly a few console projects I know of have changed to PC-only releases due to these same factors.
I'm not claiming Nintendo is going to do anything they have said, just that most dev's I've spoken with are watching it very closely to match with their needs and looking to move very fast.
http://teasphere.wordpress.com - A little spot of tea
But what makes you think that the Revolution will be any more easier to develop for. The Revolution is going to have multiple cores and it is going to be more powerful than the Gamecube. So developers WILL have to create better graphics and learn to work with a multicore chip (all complaints given about the PS3 and Xbox 360).
Multicore development for games is a new concept for most developers and it's something they HAVE to face. Right now, multicore chips seem to be the only way to get more performance from CPU's and developers will have to adapt to this to remain competitive.
It's no surprise that first-gen games will not be able to take advantage of all features of a console. It happens every generation. However, as developers get familiar with the milticore concept and development tools mature, things will definitely improve. Microsoft is at least offering a way of easily transitioning, but Im betting Sony and Nintendo are going to offer the same thing. Difficulty of programming never stopped the PS2 from dominating.
How about when the first console with a Quantum CPU appears. I bet game developers will really complain about that because, as I understand, quantum programming is A LOT different than the traditional programming we use today. Developers should stop complaining a start programming.
#####Free and Open Source Game Directory#####
Your reply shows that you have never done console development or worked in this industry. Every console release is generally met with some grumbling about some feature or other. This is normal and expected. The amount of grumbling this round is to a magnitude never before seen. And the thing is that it is not the programmers complaining the loudest. Everyone is affected by these new systems. Budgets, Time constraints, debugging, art, optimization, and programmers. These are all massive concerns and are not similar to anything ever before.
This jump in costs is exponential, and pushes most dev's out of contention to even begin to develop for these systems. They are turning away and not playing along. What is happening is that developers are having to pick ONE console and only develop for it. Factor 5 was one of the first to make this move. Multiple cores is one thing, 7 non-standard semi-cores that are specialized and not optimized for any particular use is another. Again you just don't understand what the reality is of these systems.
The Revolution is different, again, no matter which company you like you cannot deny the differences. The system is built on almost identical hardware to the GC, just faster. The GC dev tools were fantastic! ask any developer, they were phenominal. Sony's were and are again not so hot overall. MS is right in the middle. This is not opinion it is fact, again, irregardless of where your loyalties lie.
Nintendo has made a specific point to aim for smaller developers (even indie/individuals) because they know that the other players have painted themselves into a corner costwise and have pushed a lot of small-mid sized devel's away. They will regain a large number of third-party devels. Personally I know of three who had produced for PS2 and are not renewing licensing agreements in favor of the Revolution NO MATTER what their final licensing looks like. These are big money companies with a good bit of clout, to make a unknown comitment like that in any business is a pretty bold statement. And one Nintendo is well aware of at this point and will do everything in their power to gain.
The Nintendo development tools, costs, and licensing will indeed be much lower than the others. How much so, no one knows yet. But they are commited to this new angle, and to think they won't nail it is absurd. Nintendo has undergone a massive restructuring successfully and are pretty well positioned for this battle. They are very sleek, focused, and determined. They are the hungry dog, and will come out of this with quite a growth spurt. You can discount my claims, but my understanding and interaction with this industry afford me information most won't be seeing for some time. I have no crystal ball for Nintendo, but I do have insight to the 360 and PS3 and I have seen enough to easily see the trends and current happenings.
http://teasphere.wordpress.com - A little spot of tea
You're right I've never done any console development, but you can't deny the fact that ALL consoles are taking the same direction as far as multicore computing, so the Revolution is going to suffer from the same difficulties as the other consoles. Even if thier development tools are familiar (live the Xbox and Xbox360 dev tools are familiar) they still have to worry about multicore programming and creating higher detailed games.
All complaints regarding cost of development have been been regarding spending more time creating higher detailed games and the multicore programming. But developers do not have to create better graphics and they do not have to use all the core's on a console which will save them money. A good game does not need to have the best graphics. The downside to this is that consumers DO get influenced when a game looks "photorealistic," and all those "simple" looking games might not get the attention they deserve so the devolpers feel like they have to go the extra mile to compete.
So far it seems that the Revolution is going to be the least powerful system. If it only offers a minor leap to what the Xbox can offer (let's hope it does not) then its going to be hard for Nintendo to compete. Who's knows if thier "revolutionary" controller will help them out or not, but since I know nothing about it I can't take it into account.
Nintendo is not the only one going after smaller developers, through the Xbox live market place you will be able to purchase games from much smaller developers so smaller developers do not need a huge investment to get into gaming.
Factor 5 has developed for one console for years so it's not surprising that they just chose to develop for PS3. I bet that decision had to do more with Sony paying for an exclusive deal than Factor 5 not wanting to go multiplatform. Im hoping the Nintendo will reveal more about the Revolution at TGS, I dont think all this mystery is helping them on the consumer side.
#####Free and Open Source Game Directory#####
I really wish I understood where you seem to thing the Revolution will be multi-core. By all accounts so far it will not be.
Also your asumptions about art and difficulties outside of programming are false. Take a look at the mandate from MS. Where all games have to be created in HD, 4xAA, and run at no less than 60fps AT ALL TIMES. This is a requirement to even produce for the 360. I'm not sure if you are aware but barely any games produced to date meet these standards, let alone an entirely new architecture, and the rest of the concerns such as debugging and tweaking. These all may not seem like much to you, but to developers this is unneeded added cost and time not to mention pretty much screwing ports and multi-console releases.
The Revolution claims to be twice as powerful as current gen consoles. The 360 and PS3 have turned out to be... about twice as powerful as current gen systems. So your assumption that it will be so slow are completely unfounded.
Similarly your idea that small developers are going to take to Xbox Live is way off base. The costs associated with this type of development are far outside the scope that Nintendo is talking about. It's apples and oranges.
Factor 5 and about 5 or 6 other developers have also came out and publicly made similar claims. Developers goals are to get their game on as many systems as possible, hell handhelds, PDAs and cell phones are even desired. The fact that they are having to choose a side because of development costs and difficulties IS A BAD THING. It's bad for gamers, it's bad for the industry, and it's bad for the developer. No one wins here, not even Sony or MS in the long run because gamers will buy their console based on a few exclusives instead of the overall leader.
I could go on and on, you simply don't see things from a realistic standpoint. I would simply like to end this debate by saying, keep an eye on how things actually turn out and remember how right you thought you were. I guess, myself, Gabe Newell (of valve), Factor 5 (who also did rogue squadron if you forgot conveiniently), and numerous others must all be crazy to think as we do... but maybe not.
http://teasphere.wordpress.com - A little spot of tea
There are plenty of PC games that run at higher resolutions than 1280x720 and run way above 60fps. And 60fps is not a requirement, only 720p and 4xAA. A bump in resolution and flipping a switch to turn on AA will not increase your costs. All next gen systems should handle 720p with ease, but AA is another story. However, the Xbox 360 GPU has the embedded DRAM needed for 4xAA with virtually no performance drop.
Developers for Xbox 360 and PS3 are running devkits that do not have all the features of the final hardware and even with that developers are saying that those systems are more than twice as powerful. All the Nintendo revolution specs are as of right now rumors, but I'd be very surprised if Nintendo did not go multicore.
I know Factor 5 (they been Nintendo exclusive since the first Rogue Squadron and the PC doesnt count) made Rogue Squadron and they did an amazing job with it which is my reasoning why their decision to go PS3 only is more based on Sony wanting exclusivity then on development costs. If they were really worried about development costs then they would've stuck with Nintendo. Gabe Newell can complain all he wants about the difficulties but if his company doesnt exploit the hardware then other companies will. He does have a point regarding the HD on the Xbox 360.
Ultimate the consumers will decide what developers have to do. PS2 was the most difficult, but it sold the most units and got the best developer support. If the Revolution comes out after the 360 and PS3 and those systems sell well then Nintendo is going to have a harder battle.
#####Free and Open Source Game Directory#####
Top add to your point, adding AA as a requirment to 360 games isn't a very big deal. ASFAIK because if it's unified memory arcitecture, the 360 can render 4xAA without much trouble.
Nintendo has been making a profit since n64. They're just sick of being 3rd. They've alreaday proved with the DS that with a lower price point and great software they can be a leader in the marketplace. Currently there has been a million more DS' sold in Japan than PSPs.
Factor 5 went with PS3 because they need a ton of horsepower for Thornado and the next Rouge Squadron. Silicon Knights went with 360 for Too Human because they're emphasizing content and storyline over gameplay. Nintendo's philosophy of simplicity and game design contridicted these developers vision.
I think that Nintendo is only company who is truly expanding the market. MS claims to be doing so, but that appears to only be true in as much as they're taking it away from Sony. Show me all the Nintendo gamers who are "quiting" for someone else. Elecktroplankton and Nintendogs are perfect examples of their expansion.