Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Says PS3 Linux Not 'Competitive' To XNA
nz17 writes "Gamasutra has a preview of its upcoming interview with Dave Mitchell, Director of Marketing for Microsoft's Game Developer Group. In the interview Mitchell dismisses Linux on the PS3 as a game creators' solution and has said, 'What we [at XBox] are focused on doing is providing great tools at a free or low price point that are going to enable consumers to be absolutely successful at creating games for both the Windows and the Xbox 360 platforms.'"
I've been using XNA for a while, and it's really a good effort by Microsoft. Easy to develop with, and exposes a pretty nice amount of the graphics and audio hardware. Compare this to PS3 Linux, which apparently doesn't even have accelerated 3D, and it's hard to argue with him - what Net Yaroze was a couple generations ago is now XNA - and much cheaper to boot.
Plausible conjecture should not be misrepresented as proof positive.
Well, the reason linux can't access the video chip in the PS3 is because Sony locked it out. I don't know that there is a way around it. If there is, I'm sure somebody will find it. But that's a limitation that Sony put in, not one of drivers or linux itself.
11 was a racehorse
12 was 12
1111 Race
12112
It's more robust than that.
.FBX format, which can be exported by tools such as 3D Studio Max and its free cousin, GMax. The .X format is text-based and very straightforward, so it is easy for other modelling software companies to add support for the format, and some free file translators are already available."
.NET frameworks and the lower-level game interfaces such as DirectX. Programmers call routines in the XNA game library that activate 3D screen modes, create polygons, paint textures on 3D meshes, play sounds, and interface with control devices such as joysticks or the Xbox 360 game controller."
From the FAQ:
"The XNA Framework Content Pipeline, a set of tools that allow developers to more easily incorporate 3D content into their games"
From an Ars Technica Article:
"3D models come in a dizzying variety of formats, depending on what tool has been used to create them. In order to make it easier for developers to create their own content, Microsoft has announced that SoftImage has added support for the XNA's native ".X" format to their Mod Tool 4.2 software, a free version of the company's popular 3D modelling program. In addition, the XNA software supports the Autodesk
From the same article:
"Microsoft hopes to help by providing subscribers to the XNA service access to the "XNA Creators Club," which includes a large database of free 2D and 3D art, models, and textures. Developers can use these assets as-is free of charge in developing their own games, or modify them to suit their purposes."
Again, from Ars Technica:
"XNA acts as a bridge between the
http://arstechnica.com/articles/xna.ars/1
http://msdn.microsoft.com/directx/xna/faq/
Let's all work together to bust the FUD.
Yep, it's been confirmed by Sony just a few days ago that at least for the moment RSX was locked out of PS3 Linux because of security concerns. That's a big disappointment, but it looks like the framebuffer device will be fast enough for HD videos. It's "just" a matter of someone optimizing ffmpeg for Cell I guess.
For games though, it's a bad news. Let's hope Sony will update the hypervisor to allow RSX access for Linux.
No. To everything.
XNA is an input and graphics interface wrapper, like Direct X but sits 1 tier higher. It also provides some objects to store typical things every game engine designer has to write for a new game engine so that you don't need to reinvent the wheel. It is NOT a template for 2D games. XNA is NOT a game engine. There is NO restriction on art content. You can include whatever models and textures you want. It's even a piece of cake to include vector and pixel shaders.
In fact, the demo game provided with XNA is a 3D game. Styled like the old spacewars games. 3D and 2D are both easily doable on XNA. Why you may be seeing more 2D than 3D is simple. Indie game developers are not often artists, and it is far simpler to create a 45x45 animated gif of a player, than it is a 2 million polygon, parallax and normal mapped, skeletal player model. Not that 3D art needs to be nearly that complex...but in a 2D world, people don't expect the things they have become accustomed to after all the triple-A game titles, with the budget of a small Hollywood movie.
If you indeed did "look into it" you saw a few screenshots and derived your judgment solely from that.