Slashdot Mirror


Microsoft Demos Three Platforms Running the Same Game

suraj.sun writes with this excerpt from Engadget: "Microsoft's Eric Rudder, speaking at TechEd Middle East, showed off a game developed in Visual Studio as a singular project (with 90% shared code) that plays on Windows with a keyboard, a Windows Phone 7 Series prototype device with accelerometer and touch controls, and the Xbox 360 with the Xbox gamepad. Interestingly, not only is the development cross-platform friendly, but the game itself (a simple Indiana Jones platformer was demoed) saves its place and lets you resume from that spot on whichever platform you happen to pick up."

196 comments

  1. AWESOME! by blai · · Score: 1

    Though he also said the games use the same texture data.
    How much space, then, will a typical cross-platform game take up on my phone?

    --
    In soviet Russia, God creates you!
    1. Re:AWESOME! by recoiledsnake · · Score: 1

      They have low res and high res versions of the content as can be seen in the Visual Studio solution in the video. The phone will use the low res content only.

      --
      This space for rent.
  2. 90% shared code? by YesIAmAScript · · Score: 0

    How about 100%?

    Have you never played a Flash game online? It uses the same code on all platforms and it picks up where you left off even if you switch platforms.

    What's the big deal?

    --
    http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
    1. Re:90% shared code? by inputdev · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I agree, There is nothing special about running with or without a game controller. It sounds like the only thing "new" here is Windows Phone 7 Series. So they got the game to compile for the phone? Whoohoo! Good for them, I never imagined it to be possible.

    2. Re:90% shared code? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Imagine if the browsers were the same across the platforms.

    3. Re:90% shared code? by sourcerror · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Actions script is a dynamic interpreted, and it significantly limits its performance. Writing cross platform c++ code is significantly harder.* (Although, if you use a compilers by the same vendor it makes things easier.)
      I guess this demo was about to showcase their cross-platform gaming libraries. I guess 10% non-shared parts were responsible for the different user-interface controls.

      * I guess it's more likely some c++ libraries with .net bindings.

    4. Re:90% shared code? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      C# and XNA. Not C++.

    5. Re:90% shared code? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Have you ever played a Flash game with a joystick or a gamepad? On any machine without a keyboard or mouse? How about a Flash game that makes use of 3D hardware?

      Yeah, that's what I thought.

      dom

    6. Re:90% shared code? by drinkypoo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Flash is the platform. It's not a particularly efficient one on Windows, let alone any of the places where an inferior knockoff is provided. You can get halfway decent performance on OSX (from what I hear) and you get almost that good of an experience with Linux on x86_64... Or in other words, ugh.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    7. Re:90% shared code? by gbjbaanb · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Nothing is going to be native C++ on Windows anymore. Microsoft is only interested in using .NET, probably C#, for *everything*.

      Its their new lock-in. Developers write in C# and find their code only works on Microsoft platforms. Then they look at their developer tools and features MS has packed in there and think "I don't know/not interested in writing code that works on alternative platforms", as Ballmer grins and rubs his hands together.

      I know the 'real' game studios all use C++, so I understand where you're coming from, but this is MS. This is their new strategy for even more dominance.

    8. Re:90% shared code? by M8e · · Score: 0

      It is possible to play flash games with gamepads if you use joystick 2 mouse or similar program, and some computers don't have keyboards(car-pc, tablets, htpc etc). So yes, yes and no for me.

      But that is not really cross-platform as those where pc's and all where running windows, mod me offtopic for that. But it is possible to remap keys and flash exists on more than one platform("PC", mac, some smart phones and other portible devices) so it is possible to run some flash games on a number of different machines.

    9. Re:90% shared code? by chentiangemalc · · Score: 1, Insightful

      It is not just 'Microsoft' that is interested in using C#, it is developers. It singificantly reduces development time, much less code to manage, and much more difficult to introduce buggy code then using C/C++. I don't know where you get the idea only 'real' game studios use all C++. Many 'real' game studios also use C# In addition on other platforms you can use C# with the mono framework, so it is not locked into Microsoft.

    10. Re:90% shared code? by larry+bagina · · Score: 1

      action script runs on the tamarin VM and is JIT compiled (that's why adobe is taking so long to go 64-bit flash).

      --
      Do you even lift?

      These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

    11. Re:90% shared code? by Anpheus · · Score: 1

      If there was a serious open source competitor to Java/C#, I'd love to hear about it. But right now, there are only open source implementations of either.

    12. Re:90% shared code? by gbjbaanb · · Score: 1

      lol.

      its so much easier to usw that there are a hundred frameworks designed to make writing your C# apps simpler. Think about that.

      Most game studios do use C++, often with a Lua scripting end. Sure there are some C# code used, but so too is javascript, python, and many others. Its not the primary language for games by a long stretch.

      Mono, wake me up when its a) not full of bugs, b) contains all the good stuff C# devs use today.

    13. Re:90% shared code? by volatileDev · · Score: 1

      iPhone... started with no native SDK... learned their lesson and opened it up...

      Anrdoid... same thing...

      etc...

      So high-end mobile game development is done in C++... where the portability and performance is....

      And now to work on MS mobile products it's gotta be C#? Not a great start for attracting top-end mobile game developers...

    14. Re:90% shared code? by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      Ok, how about if we change "Flash" to "C64", "Atari 2600", "NES", or "Genesis". There are a ton systems that both allow joystick/gamepads, and have 100% reusable code. for the games.

    15. Re:90% shared code? by Punto · · Score: 1

      the flash runtime is part of the "game" in this case, and while most of its code is shared between all the ports, some of it isn't.

      --

      --
      Stay tuned for some shock and awe coming right up after this messages!

    16. Re:90% shared code? by thejynxed · · Score: 1

      Adobe has had 7 years to release 64-bit Flash (WinXP 64-Bit, 64-Bit F/OSS operating systems have been around much longer). I don't care what the hell VM or JIT it does, that's freaking unacceptable. No wonder they're about to get their lunch eaten by an HTML upgrade.

      --
      @Mindless Drivel: 100% of Twitter posts ever Tweeted.
    17. Re:90% shared code? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Nothing is going to be native C++ on Windows anymore. Microsoft is only interested in using .NET, probably C#, for *everything*.

      This isn't true. If it was, Visual C++ wouldn't be significantly developed anymore, and nor would be native Win32 APIs.

      In practice, though - Visual C++ 2010 has got a bunch of C++0x features, with more probably to follow in next release; Windows 7 added a new native Ribbon API (to be backported to Vista soon) - not yet replicated on .NET, in fact - and a Web service API for C++ (both client and servers). As .NET gets ParallelFX, VC++ gets Parallel Pattern Library. Etc...

      Managed has its places, and so does native. Both are actively developed. MS is not interested in using .NET "for everything".

      Its their new lock-in. Developers write in C# and find their code only works on Microsoft platforms

      New?

      Pretty much any commercial game you play today, or have played in the last 10 years or so, on PC or Xbox, has been compiled with some version of Visual C++, and will likely not compile with a different compiler.

    18. Re:90% shared code? by I'm+Don+Giovanni · · Score: 1

      C#/XNA will do just fine to create top-end mobile games, as evidenced by the ZuneHD's Project Gotham Racing game, and other 3-D games.

      "Zune HD - 3D Games Demo"

      --
      -- "I never gave these stories much credence." - HAL 9000
    19. Re:90% shared code? by gbjbaanb · · Score: 1

      Yes, I know. I'm a C++ dev myself and I see so much effort being placed in C# (and so much "can we do it in C# please, please can we, can we" from the other devs) that we're most definitely a niche in Microsoft now. Sure VC++ is still developed, but not like the .net tools. Sure, we have WWS (but only for Windows 7/Server 2008r2, you can get it for the older platforms, but it'll cost you a lot of cash).

      And yes, I know of the Ribbon as the MFC thing that no-one else has, but there are lots of them available for WPF now. Once Office becomes more .NET, you'll see the C++ support drag along further behind. Its a shame.

    20. Re:90% shared code? by Philip_the_physicist · · Score: 1

      It is a while since I last looked at it, but doesn't the glib/gobject system provide automatic memory management. It is pretty grotesque to use in C, but a Java/C#-like language could be written to target it (there are some pre-processors, but they aren't really ideal). Its one of thsoe projects that would be worth doing if I had the skill to do it, but I don;t really have time to learn how to do right now (as opposed to posting on /., which is of course a wonderfully productive use of my time).

    21. Re:90% shared code? by Philip_the_physicist · · Score: 1

      The trouble with XHTML5+SVG is that there isn't a good IDE for it, probably because most of the people who care and have the skill to do anything about it like using text-oriented editors, and aren't really interested in making browser games and so on. However, since both Google and Apple would probably quite like to get people to leave flash and silverlight, maybe they should try to get a GSOC (or similar) project going to work on it. There are already FOSS vector-art editors, what is lacking is easily tying in the scripting.

    22. Re:90% shared code? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Yes, I know. I'm a C++ dev myself and I see so much effort being placed in C# (and so much "can we do it in C# please, please can we, can we" from the other devs) that we're most definitely a niche in Microsoft now. Sure VC++ is still developed, but not like the .net tools.

      A rather weird assessment, given that C# (as a language) has significantly fewer major features in .NET 4 / VS2010 than VC++.

      And yes, I know of the Ribbon as the MFC thing that no-one else has

      That is not what I was talking about. It's this. Nothing to do with MFC.

      Once Office becomes more .NET, you'll see the C++ support drag along further behind.

      Well, maybe, it's because C++ isn't the best language to write Office add-ins in, and something high-level is better?

      This doesn't mean that C++ is abandoned in places where it makes sense (like, say, game development - to get back on topic).

    23. Re:90% shared code? by sourcerror · · Score: 1

      The JVM is opensource and 96% of the standard libraries as well. (And there's this thing called openjdk.)

    24. Re:90% shared code? by sourcerror · · Score: 1

      Still then, dynamic languages are harder to optimize because of missing type information.

    25. Re:90% shared code? by godefroi · · Score: 1

      So wait... Flash is a great platform, except for on nearly all the computers in the world, where it's not very good, and it's nonexistent on the most popular smart phone in the world, and won't be available on the iPad, and given Apple's stance on it, may not last long on OSX, but hey, it works great in Linux.

      Yeah, that's a glowing endorsement. Let's all develop for Flash!

      --
      Karma: Poor (Mostly affected by lame karma-joke sigs)
  3. Not Cross Platform by Foofoobar · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Technically thats same platform, different devices. Cross platform would be if they had the running on iPhone, Windows 7, Playstation and Linux. THAT would have been impressive (not to mention newsworthy).

    We expect them to be pushing studd across their own platforms. Not news.

    --
    This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is mine.
    1. Re:Not Cross Platform by Vermyndax · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yep, you beat me to it. I was going to comment... how is this cross-platform? It's all Windows technologies and .NET. That's hardly cross-platform. Show it to me on Windows, Linux, Mac, Wii, Xbox and PS3 and that'll be something to post an article about.

    2. Re:Not Cross Platform by DeKO · · Score: 2, Funny

      Remember, one of the definitions of cross platform is that it still works after a system restart.

    3. Re:Not Cross Platform by UnknowingFool · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Funny thing about the "cross-platform" comment is the employee is admitting something that MS has tried to obscure from consumers: Their different product lines are not using the same OS. Techies have long known that Windows Mobile isn't anything like Windows desktop or their Xbox 360 OS. Whereas their competitor Apple is using OS X variants for their computers, iPhone/iPod Touch, and now the iPad, MS has tried to leverage the "Windows" name brand by putting it on different software in name only.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    4. Re:Not Cross Platform by forkazoo · · Score: 1

      Technically thats same platform, different devices. Cross platform would be if they had the running on iPhone, Windows 7, Playstation and Linux. THAT would have been impressive (not to mention newsworthy).

      We expect them to be pushing studd across their own platforms. Not news.

      The device is part of the platform, so it is cross platform, just weakly so. OTOH, I have no idea why you think what you describe would be 'newsworthy.' I can run a GUI app with OpenGL written in python on my Mac, Windows, and Linux PC's of any CPU architecture, and then move the same application to my mobile phone and run it unmodified. It wouldn't be as fast as native binaries for each platform, but if portability is what you really want to show off, then running the exact same thing on each platform is the first level where it starts to get at all impressive.

    5. Re:Not Cross Platform by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Technically, if Mono supported this stuff on Linux, you could use the Windows binary and run it too without changing code.

    6. Re:Not Cross Platform by BitZtream · · Score: 1

      By your definition of platform, sure.

      Unfortunately, you have a strict, non-standard interpretation of 'platform' that doesn't fall in line with pretty much the entire rest of the world.

      MS, and most of the world has come to believe cross platform means hardware platform OR software platform. FreeBSD 7 is one platform, FBSD 8 is another.

      You're definition doesn't match with the majority of the rest of the business world. Its kind of hard for you to communicate effectively with them if you don't understand what they are saying.

      My definition of cross platform is much closer to yours, but ... I never bother using it that way in communication since its unlikely the person I'm communicating with is going to have the same definition.

      I agree, the way its being used in this context is wrong, but you might as well wake up and realize that people don't give a fuck about your definition, they care only about theirs as it applies to them. You go around telling people something isn't cross platform because it won't run on Linux and you're going to quickly get written off as an idiot by the people who matter. Its fine to say it here on slashdot, but do yourself a favor, when you're not surrounded by geeks, keep in mind they may have different definitions for technical things than you do.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    7. Re:Not Cross Platform by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      keep in mind they may have different definitions for technical things than you do.

      Yeah like calling the entire ATX tower case a "CPU". Let an entire industry dumb down terminology based on the ignorance of a subclass of clueless persons with more money than knowledge.

    8. Re:Not Cross Platform by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bleh. 90%. LOL...

      I'm working for a gaming company. We have shared base code for all our games, MORE THAN 90% is the same code for all games, the differences being the way to play the game, as the Wii Remote is definitely not the same as a Windows 7 multitouch screen, and although we could have them all use the same code base, it'd be HORRIFIC to play the exact same games on all platforms.

      Inside the engine, in the innards where the game developers never go, more than 80% of the code is also shared (I would frown saying a precise number, how do I calculate this? number of lines, bytecode, what?) ... and all the development is streamlined and exactly the same for all platforms.

      What are we supporting?

      Mac, PC, Wii, PS3, 360, DS, PSP, Win7 Multitouch, iPhone.

      So 90% code on Windows-based systems? I call astroturf PR mission. Been there, done that.

    9. Re:Not Cross Platform by chentiangemalc · · Score: 1

      Cross platform is software that works on more than one system platform. Does not have to be 'every platform' and does not have to include Linux. This technology is cross platform because it is working across 3 system platforms. Windows Phone Series 7 != Windows and XBOX != Windows

    10. Re:Not Cross Platform by jim_v2000 · · Score: 1

      That sounds insightful, but it's not. First off, PC's, the Xbox, and Windows Mobile devices all run completely different operating systems. There is no common Windows kernel that they all use. So they ALL are different platforms. Second, radically different hardware can be considered to be a different platform even if the OS is the same. The software that you can use on a 3 inch screen is going to be a lot different that what you would use on a 15 inch screen.

      --
      Don't take life so seriously. No one makes it out alive.
    11. Re:Not Cross Platform by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      technically it is different platforms... pc is x86/x64, phone is arm (or whatever embedded platform they choose), and xbox 360 is powerpc... 3 completely different architectures, 3 different oses, just running the same framework... Much like silverlight enables cross-platform applications. Just because all 3 devices are msft doesn't mean they're the same platform in ANY way.

    12. Re:Not Cross Platform by BikeHelmet · · Score: 1

      Not to mention, a lot of titles (like Fable II) only show up on XBox360 regardless of how easy PC-XBox360 development is.

      This really doesn't signal anything.

    13. Re:Not Cross Platform by TrancePhreak · · Score: 1

      By this definition ARM, PowerPC, and x86 are all the same platform. This is inaccurate.

      --

      -]Phreak Out[-
    14. Re:Not Cross Platform by CliffH · · Score: 1

      Aren't all three platforms based on .NET with variances in the build for the specific architecture? They've done in essence what Sun has been trying (and succeeding in numerous ways) of building for one platform and distributing to many. .NET is Microsoft's JAVA. This isn't surprising, it is EXPECTED!!! Ok, done with my rant. Please, move along....

      --
      sigs are like a box of chocolates, they all suck remove the underscores to email me
    15. Re:Not Cross Platform by S.O.B. · · Score: 1

      By that definition Sun did this with Java about 15 years ago and IBM has been doing this with VM since 1972.

      Anyone impressed by this "new, ground breaking technology" from Microsoft should immediately cancel their Slashdot account and tear up their geek membership card.

      --
      Some of what I say is fact, some is conjecture, the rest I'm just blowing out my ass...you guess.
    16. Re:Not Cross Platform by dwarfsoft · · Score: 1

      I think when they referred to "cross-platform" they were referring to it being a "a simple Indiana Jones platformer" on multiple devices. Other than that the cross part is because it's a /. post and they knew somebody would be cross :)

      --
      Cheers, Chris
    17. Re:Not Cross Platform by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      It's cross-platform in a sense that desktop Windows, and Windows CE (Mobile / Phone / ...) are two different OSes. Not "distros", but OSes - different kernels, different userlands, different APIs.

    18. Re:Not Cross Platform by symbolset · · Score: 1

      What he said. Cross platform is not "on every Microsoft platform".

      --
      Help stamp out iliturcy.
    19. Re:Not Cross Platform by jimicus · · Score: 1

      By that definition Sun did this with Java about 15 years ago and IBM has been doing this with VM since 1972.

      Anyone impressed by this "new, ground breaking technology" from Microsoft should immediately cancel their Slashdot account and tear up their geek membership card.

      I dunno. Microsoft finally catching up with the rest of the world is most certainly news.

      It'll be even more newsworthy when they do so in a fashion that isn't completely half-assed.

    20. Re:Not Cross Platform by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exaclty. It is a shame to say that this is portability.
      Here at my work, I developed a true multi-plataform (real different platforms!) 2D game framework (http://www.seedframework.org) in C++ (not .NET trash). It was use to develop a game for Nintendo Wii (a port of the flash casual game Burger Island for MacOSX and Windows). It was developed entirely on Nintendo Wii, but was_ported_ to iPhone in only 1 day (mostly assets re-baking). The shared code is somewhere between 98% and 99%. The diferent code was only the *main* and (pointer) Cursor for iPhone. Better yet, we ported it to Windows, Linux and MacOSX as Framework test case (but that was not published).

    21. Re:Not Cross Platform by mdwh2 · · Score: 1

      So a Java application isn't cross-platform, because it's "all Java"?

      A C++ program using SDL and OpenGL isn't cross-platfrom, because it's "all the same technologies"?

      Obviously it's the same technologies, that's what cross-platform means - being able to use the same technologies on multiple platforms.

      Btw, can I run OS X applications on an Iphone? They're always telling me how the Iphone runs OS X, so if this is something that should be expected, and wouldn't be anything special, surely the almighty Iphone can run all OS X applications, and vice-versa, right?

    22. Re:Not Cross Platform by mdwh2 · · Score: 1

      Whereas their competitor Apple is using OS X variants for their computers,

      Two OSs that run the same kernel, you mean. I'm not sure it's obvious if the connection is greater than that between the different versions of Windows.

      MS has tried to leverage the "Windows" name brand by putting it on different software in name only.

      Yes, it's not like Apple would ever do something like that ... except for the fact that "Mac OS" is a brand name that they put on "Mac OS X", sharing nothing but the name - and indeed "Mac" itself is a brandname that's been used for computers that have nothing in common, hardware or software, with the original.

      I don't think there's anything wrong with it - using trademarks is commonplace both in computing (e.g., today's "Pentiums" are just a brandname for a lower end Intel Core Duo, and aren't anymore closely related to the original Pentium) and outside (e.g., car brandnames being used for different kinds of cars). But let's not pretend that Apple are immune to this, or that it's unique to Microsoft.

    23. Re:Not Cross Platform by mdwh2 · · Score: 1

      Is anyone claiming it's the first ever kind of thing like this? It's still news either way. Makes a change to have some actual technology news, instead of just a rumour posted in a blog...

    24. Re:Not Cross Platform by Nethemas+the+Great · · Score: 1

      Actually I believe it does fit the "technical" definition of cross-platform since they are different OSs. However, it does not fit the expectations many of us have of being cross-"organization". If this was a VS project that compiled and worked on Linux PC, iPhone, Playstation, Wii, etc. it would meet "that" expectation.

      Either way, I really don't see what the point of the discussion is. All reasonably designed games/applications that are intended to be cross-platform reuse roughly 90% of their codebase and have 10% that's platform specific. This is nothing more than a marketing department puffing hot air into Microsoft fan boys. There are countless games/applications that run cross-organization platforms/devices and compile with the same compiler (GCC for example) and have been for well over two decades.

      --
      Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once ... with negative results.
  4. Cross-platform? by clang_jangle · · Score: 1

    Interestingly, not only is the development cross-platform friendly, but the game itself (a simple Indiana Jones platformer was demoed) saves its place and lets you resume from that spot on whichever platform you happen to pick up."

    Great! Can't wait til they have this at the BlackBerry app store.

    Oh, you didn't really mean what we normally mean by "cross-platform" then?

    --
    Caveat Utilitor
    1. Re:Cross-platform? by thePowerOfGrayskull · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Indeed. "Cross-platform" for an extremely narrow definition of "platform".

    2. Re:Cross-platform? by v1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      and lets you resume from that spot on whichever platform you happen to pick

      My take was a little different. "oh, so they finally got it to work the way it's expected to work? Congrats.

      1) use the same save game format
      2) use the same controller layout
      3) be network gaming compatible

      is this soooo much to ask?

      --
      I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
    3. Re:Cross-platform? by mdwh2 · · Score: 1

      I see what you're saying, but I'm not sure that means something can't be cross-platform - is something not cross-platform, as long as you can find at least one obscure platform it doesn't work on? E.g., Java isn't cross-platform, because it's not supported on devices like the Iphone/pad or Amiga?

    4. Re:Cross-platform? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1- Blackberry is not "obscure"
      2- The game runs on a *single* platform -- mikrosloth winderrz.

    5. Re:Cross-platform? by mdwh2 · · Score: 1

      Okay but in that case how much market share does a platform need in order to be a requirement for something being considered cross-platform?

      And for 2, does this mean I can run X Box games on my Windows PC, or my Windows applications will run on a Windows 7 phone? They're the same platform, right?

    6. Re:Cross-platform? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right. Same platform, different devices. Cross-platform traditionally means it runs on at least two different OSes, not just multiple versions of the same OS. Microsoft is like that old hillbilly woman in the Blues Brothers: "Oh we have both kinds -- country and western!

    7. Re:Cross-platform? by mdwh2 · · Score: 1

      So does this mean I can run X Box games on my Windows PC, or my Windows applications will run on a Windows 7 phone? They're the same platform and same OS, right?

    8. Re:Cross-platform? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Looks like using a stupid and obtuse OS has made you stupid and obtuse! Cross-platform means what it means, not what you and Ballmer hallucinate it means.

      Dumbass.

  5. ummm...uh..ummm by BlueWaterBaboonFarm · · Score: 1

    That is...uhhh...um...truly a horrible spokesman.

  6. Meanwhile... by Sarten-X · · Score: 4, Insightful

    A simple demo game written on a Fedora system runs perfectly on Ubuntu, Debian, Mandriva, Mint, Arch, and a few dozen others, but nobody paid for a press conference.

    --
    You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    1. Re:Meanwhile... by tepples · · Score: 3, Informative

      A simple demo game written on a Fedora system runs perfectly on [other Linux operating systems], but nobody paid for a press conference.

      Unless the game was developed using the Allegro library. Distributions that switched to PulseAudio broke sound in Allegro games because PulseAudio does not like unsigned 16-bit PCM.

    2. Re:Meanwhile... by dave562 · · Score: 3, Funny

      And the 0.02% of the global video game playing market rejoiced!

    3. Re:Meanwhile... by jim_v2000 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You fail. All of those distributions are still Linux. Windows XP/7, Windows Mobile, and Xbox are not all running Windows. They are all entirely independent code-bases that were developed separately.

      --
      Don't take life so seriously. No one makes it out alive.
    4. Re:Meanwhile... by westlake · · Score: 1

      A simple demo game written on a Fedora system runs perfectly on Ubuntu, Debian, Mandriva, Mint, Arch, and a few dozen others, but nobody paid for a press conference.

      Yeah, well, that's part of the problem, isn't it?

      It's only a slight exaggeration to suggest that the Linux distros that have money, visibility and marketing muscle don't do gaming - or don't do gaming particularly well. PulseAudio fixes and workarounds

    5. Re:Meanwhile... by drsmithy · · Score: 2, Informative

      Windows XP/7, Windows Mobile, and Xbox are not all running Windows. They are all entirely independent code-bases that were developed separately.

      This is not correct. The XBox [360] OS is a Windows NT fork (from Windows 2000, IIRC, or maybe XP).

    6. Re:Meanwhile... by corpsmoderne · · Score: 1

      So, phrased differently, 3 different operating systems, developed by the same company, are so hostile to each other that a team from the very same company had to put a lot of efforts to make a simple demo portable on those systems ? And they are celebrating for that ? Looks like a demonstration of an epic failure from my point of view... And on the other hand, different teams from different companies and organizations are doing this all the time for decades ( can't count the number of projects compiling on all the GNU/Linux flavors, BSD's and basically any vaguely POSIX system around )

    7. Re:Meanwhile... by jim_v2000 · · Score: 1

      15 seconds of research would have saved you from looking stupid.

      From the XBox Engineering Blog:

      "One of the first questions I get when someone hears I work on Xbox is "So, what operating system do you guys use? Windows 2000, right?" I am honestly not sure where the Win2K misperception comes from, but Xbox runs a custom operating system built from the ground up. While our operating system exports many of the same APIs found in Win32 (e.g. CreateThread or WaitForSingleObject), not everything is there. For instance, there is no use for CreateWindow on Xbox - all graphics are done through (our own flavor of) Direct3D."

      --
      Don't take life so seriously. No one makes it out alive.
    8. Re:Meanwhile... by drsmithy · · Score: 1

      15 seconds of research would have saved you from looking stupid.

      I've read that before, I didn't believe it then and I don't believe it now. Even the language of that post makes it clear the answer given isn't completely honest.

      It's been said by Microsoft people before, that the original XBox OS was based off either the Windows 2000 or Windows XP (can't remember which) kernel and core. The XBox 360 OS was then a further development of that. Obviously - as pointed out in that post - significant parts of Windows are unnecessary on the XBox and would not have been included. However, I don't believe for a second that Microsoft had a solid, functional well-tested Operating System, and then chose to write a whole new one from the ground up to provide basically the same functionality. Especially when one considers the time involved (it took 5 years for the first version of NT to be built), the idea of them doing that becomes even sillier. It'd be a massive reinvent-the-wheel project with essentially no justification whatsoever.

    9. Re:Meanwhile... by jim_v2000 · · Score: 1

      So you just like to make things up. Nice.

      --
      Don't take life so seriously. No one makes it out alive.
    10. Re:Meanwhile... by drsmithy · · Score: 1

      So you just like to make things up. Nice.

      No, I like to logically analyse the situation and arrive at a reasonable and understandable conclusion.

  7. So now pc games will be dumbed down to phone level by Joe+The+Dragon · · Score: 2, Insightful

    So now pc games will be Dumbing down to the phone level.
    And If you think that deus ex 2 was bad with that then this may even worse.

    And will this lock out user maps and mods.

  8. Re:90% shared code? so what? by Karlt1 · · Score: 3, Informative

    i've been writing code across many platforms with 100% code reuse - more importantly, not using a runtime - all my applications are native. just write a few basic entry points; put the platform specific points in a library and then all your applications link against this. you then end up with native binaries for each platform - just distribute. this is not news - most developers have been able to do this for years (including myself). i can build applications for windows, linux, macosx, iphone, windows mobile, symbian series 60/uiq, palmos, moblin, maemo et al by doing this and i've been doing it since 2003.

    Let's see where to start....

    1. If you are writing different libraries for each platform -- that's not 100% code re-use
    2. You're not "just distributing" the same binary for each platform.
    3. What are you using for graphics, sounds, storage, etc. on each platform?
    4. You're doing this without a bunch of #ifdef's?
    5. How are you accounting for different screen resolutions, graphics hardware, touch capabilities, and other hardware difference?

    I've never programmed games for either the PC or mobile but I do write boring old business apps for Windows Mobile industrial devices. I'm able to target Windows Mobile and take the same app and run it flawlessly on the desktop -- without a recompile.

  9. Profit maximization by imfeldma · · Score: 1

    So..., does this mean they'll sell me the same game x times?

    Nothing new, you have to pay their tax everytime you buy a new machine already. It's the continuation of their business model. The new thing is introducing a cloud that, omg, allows you to take your data with you.

    1. Re:Profit maximization by Tim+C · · Score: 1

      So..., does this mean they'll sell me the same game x times?

      Only if you choose to buy it x times.

  10. Re:90% shared code? so what? by maxume · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If you have platform specific bits, you merely have very high code reuse, not 100% code reuse.

    --
    Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
  11. internet drm will kill cell phone games as costs a by Joe+The+Dragon · · Score: 0

    internet drm will kill cell phone games as costs are very high for data in some areas and I don't think the cell phone networks will like phones that are on the network 24/7 useing data.

  12. "Cross Platform" by Lord+Lode · · Score: 0, Troll

    Ok, if it doesn't run on any non-Microsoft platform, it's not cross platform. Nice try Microsoft. Better luck next time.

    1. Re:"Cross Platform" by Simon80 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The headline should read "Microsoft Demos Three Microsoft Platforms Running the Same Game".

    2. Re:"Cross Platform" by Gadget_Guy · · Score: 1

      Nice try Microsoft.

      It was not Microsoft who claimed that it was cross platform. They were never trying for that. Eric Rudder explicitly said in the video how this was a demonstration of the "commonality of the platform across all of their offerings". This was just a demonstration of that, plus the use of the Live services to link that save games (which was the only thing that got any audience reaction).

      The integration over the net sounds like a nice feature, but if it cannot also save locally then this is just another version of the Ubisoft DRM - where the game won't work without contacting their servers.

    3. Re:"Cross Platform" by sourcerror · · Score: 1

      Hey, have you ever heard the expression "Microsoft Standard"? (I.e. we do it this way, are big enough to ignore anybody, let alone share the specs.)

    4. Re:"Cross Platform" by Simon80 · · Score: 1

      I would not have thought that that expression would be commonly understood, but let's just say I'm familiar with the concept.

  13. Cross platform? by owlstead · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Oh, my god, he's displaying this and he has all these #ifdefs and "copies of projects" within his workspace and a "shared resources" folder for the game. Is that the future of cross platform? That's more like the PAST of cross platform. The way to do this is to create interfaces for the same object and implement that using different devices. What you don't want, ever, is to have all this different execution paths through your code using #ifdefs to instruct the compiler to compile each and every one of them separately.

    1. Re:Cross platform? by Simon80 · · Score: 1

      Amen, mod parent up. This advice isn't Microsoft-specific, it's simply the right way to go in general.

    2. Re:Cross platform? by pitdingo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yeah, i do not get it. What is so special about this? Looks primitive to me, and you still do not have a cross platform solution yet. I can make that game even easier and truly cross platform....HTML, Javascript and CSS. Sure there needs to be some hacks to support broken browsers like IE, and yeah it will run in a slow browser like IE, but it the same code runs on Windows, OSX, GNU Linux, Iphone OS (touch, ipad, iphone), Blackberry, Windows BMW 7 Series (sorry could not resist), Solaris, Palm Web OS, etc...

    3. Re:Cross platform? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, it's the future of *Microsoft's* cross-platform strategy. A truly great improvement over their old "print out the source code, take a picture of it, fax the picture to yourself and then type the code in again" strategy.

    4. Re:Cross platform? by syousef · · Score: 1

      Oh, my god, he's displaying this and he has all these #ifdefs and "copies of projects" within his workspace.

      You clearly missed the #ifdef MARKETING_BULLSHIT

      --
      These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
    5. Re:Cross platform? by jonbryce · · Score: 1

      There is no way you are going to run that game in Pocket IE for Windows Mobile 6.1.

    6. Re:Cross platform? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I guess you've never actually used XNA, but feel qualified to talk about it regardless.

      The reason you have ifdefs in XNA projects are not because you need to ifdef everything from the graphics API to the networking API and so on. The ifdefs exist, because the different platforms it works across have different capabilities. You do not have an XBox 360 controller on Windows 7 phones, and you do not have a touch screen or keyboard on the XBox 360, the fact is the platforms DO have differences and they simply have to be catered to one way or another, the method used really works just fine and has no disadvantages- go and actually have a play with XNA rather than just whining about it.

      The doesn't detract from the fact though, that all your rendering, networking, audio, concurrency, IO, physics, game code and so forth are shared between them.

      A lot of people are talking it down as been there done that, but has it really? Well no, it hasn't. The great thing about Xbox live is the profile system and how everything connects back to it- they're just taking that across other platforms, you should be able to buy a game on XBox live arcade and play it wherever you are and that's the goal, simply put this hasn't really been done yet. The closest we've had are flash games and other web based games, but they're limited in performance, and are limited in ability. Even the likes of Steam hasn't stepped away from Windows yet, and only just seems to be creeping across to the Mac, there's no sign of it going to Linux, or phones, or media players, or consoles any time soon, if ever. This is a big deal, because it means you can continue to play your games wherever you are, and it makes it piss easy for developers to do it, you no longer need graphics abstraction layers and so forth like you used to.

      Really, if this is not cross platform, and if this is the way of doing things in the past then tell me, where can I find a phone, console, and computer that let me play the same game and move between them without having to manually copy saves, without having to buy a different copy of the game for each platform, without having to care about anything technical, and which makes full use of graphics hardware and isn't some crippled web implementation of something.

      What's that you murmured? no such thing currently exists. So this IS in fact a major step forward? thought so.

      I love how Slashdot goes idiotic about things when Microsoft is involved, but if this was Apple they'd be masturbating all over the screen because Apple has created something else that "just works" even though when it's Apple it's inherently crippled, and uses a dated horrible language like Objective C.

    7. Re:Cross platform? by pitdingo · · Score: 1

      Who said anything about Windows Mobile 6.1?

    8. Re:Cross platform? by mikael · · Score: 1

      Oh, if only you had not posted as anonymous coward, I could have dazzled you with my wisdom...

      You do not have an XBox 360 controller on Windows 7 phones, and you do not have a touch screen or keyboard on the XBox 360, the fact is the platforms DO have differences

      We can appreciate that. But you should not allow the API to the hardware to go beyond the input classes of your game. There is always going to be a point where the hardware events (keyboard press/release, controller press/release) are read or processed as an event call and converted into user-input events (PLAYER_CROUCH PLAYER_JUMP PLAYER_FIRE). You are still going to do this just to support custom keyboard configurations, especially since not everyone has a QWERTY keyboard either. Even the DOS games support custom keyboard configurations.
      Custom controllers are still going to have to be mapped to input events. It shouldn't be too difficult to have some function call to return the console system type and then use some C++ to generate the relevant derived class to handle those input events.
      The old fashioned way of writing a game was to read the controllers directly. Your main loop cons

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    9. Re:Cross platform? by owlstead · · Score: 1

      You can work fine without #ifdefs anyway you spin it. If you control the platform then you should have an API that lets you explore the capabilities of the system. After that it is as easy as switching in the classes.

      It's not the time anymore where a virtual call takes so much of your CPU that you have to revert to #ifdevs. And if you still need #ifdefs because the capabilities do not map to specific modules/classes then the design is worthless.

      At my company we've banned #ifdefs except for very specific cases. Having the software compile on a different platform certainly is not one of them. You don't have to program XNA to see that this is the sane way to do things.

    10. Re:Cross platform? by jim_v2000 · · Score: 1

      YAY! Let's lecture the mutlibillion dollar software company about how to make software in a veiled attempt to show other Slashdotters how much we know about the RIGHT way to program!

      You can collect your gold star on your way out.

      --
      Don't take life so seriously. No one makes it out alive.
    11. Re:Cross platform? by JasterBobaMereel · · Score: 1

      Where can I find a computer (OS) console and phone all made by the same company .... there is only one Microsoft, all allegedly run "Windows", and give the same (or similar) experience, and all were designed to be compatible with each other.... so my question, is why did this not work before?!

      --
      Puteulanus fenestra mortis
    12. Re:Cross platform? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "The ifdefs exist, because the different platforms it works across have different capabilities."

      I might not have worked with XNA yet, but this either depicts a poor image about XNA or your ability to explain. Different capabilities should be handled by different interfaces, there's no need for ifdefs in an OO language in any case. Correct me if I am wrong.

    13. Re:Cross platform? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      owned.

  14. How is this news? by salesbot · · Score: 1

    people have been doing this for years via XNA... that crappy indiana jones games is the demo platformer that comes with XNA and compiling for XBOX, Windows, or Zune is just a series of #ifndef XBOX blahblah #endif... save/resume files that work on all platforms isn't impressive: text files have worked on lots of platforms for a while now ;)

    1. Re:How is this news? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Better yet, the Indiana Jones platformer is the XNA Game Studio "demo game."

  15. Platform = HARDWARE platform by owlstead · · Score: 1

    For those nerds equally confused, I'm pretty confident that they just mean the hardware platform, since all devices seem to be using some kind of Windows & .NET. So the software platform is more or less the same. It just shows how you can store and load save games from the .NET using different hardware platforms.

    1. Re:Platform = HARDWARE platform by spire3661 · · Score: 1

      Dont justify their intentional obfuscation

      --
      Good-bye
    2. Re:Platform = HARDWARE platform by Sarten-X · · Score: 1

      Even so, how is it news? I could understand if Apple were to show OS X running well on non-Apple hardware, and implying that it may be legally allowed in the future. That's news. Windows and Windows programs have been running on myriad hardware combinations for years, with few problems (if we ignore Vista). This is not news.

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    3. Re:Platform = HARDWARE platform by crazycheetah · · Score: 1

      ME.

  16. Just make it happen for Civilization 5 by FunkSoulBrother · · Score: 3, Funny

    Make it happen for Civ 5, so I can play the same game on the TV at home, switch to the laptop when the wife wants to watch TV, then switch to the phone in the bathroom at work! My life would be complete.

    1. Re:Just make it happen for Civilization 5 by Bat+Dude · · Score: 1

      Bugger civ 5 let's see them do it to WOW that would be .. Well! WOW.

    2. Re:Just make it happen for Civilization 5 by santax · · Score: 1

      Video Girls Strip-poker would probably benefit from this too! Come to think of it, so would my marriage.

  17. They've got their head in the sand by PaladinAlpha · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I can see where this is news for Microsoft, king of platform-specific APIs. For those of us accustomed to developing using, say, SDL and OpenGL, this isn't news at all, as a properly written program using said libraries will need literally zero changes between several platforms. The input bit is tricky, but 90% reuse is low, I would think.

    1. Re:They've got their head in the sand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The input bit is tricky, but 90% reuse is low, I would think.

      Because you sure know what you're talking about! You're in the games industry and have ported code from platform to platform. Oh, wait, you're not and you have no idea what you're talking about. Because if you were (or paid attention at all to the industry), you would know that there are development houses that are dedicated to porting between platforms. Sure, your little SDL spinning teapot works everywhere, but have you ever tried porting something that is non-trivial? Didn't think so.

      Is this MS thing the coolest fucking thing ever? Not really, but it's better than the Windows-dependent shit that they've been making for years. Things like Unreal, Unity or Rage are awesome, but no independent developers have access to running those on non-PC platforms. So yes, this is actually cool. Not that you give a shit, because SDL can do that, right? Oh, wait.

      Posting as AC because this will get modded flamebait, because it mostly is. Then again, I'm sick of this stupid /. armchair developer crowd acting all high-and-mighty because "yeah, that's trivial." Guess what, morons: it's not (that's part of why the games that you all pirate are so expensive).

      In short: shut the fuck up unless you have the slightest clue.

    2. Re:They've got their head in the sand by PaladinAlpha · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'm going to ignore the mostly inflammatory content of your post, because there is a valid point in there -- that the complexity of a lot of operations are underestimated by those unfamiliar when they are heavily exposed to the end product. On that count, I agree.

      However, in this instance, at least, the concern is misplaced. I do have experience with cross-platform development, including any game-related subsystem you care to name (video, audio, mouse/kb/controller input, networking, file/data access, et cetera). The problem IS a trivial one if it is planned and accounted for, rather than a last-minute decision.

      For 99% of development studios, it goes something like this: use DirectX, porting is a nightmare. Use SDL/OpenGL, porting is changing less than 5% of your code (and for non-'exotic' applications, 0%). Some things are -designed- to allow portability; it should be no surprise that they enable it. This is quite simply a field that UNIX-alikes have been dealing with for a long time, and Windows applications have not.

    3. Re:They've got their head in the sand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sigh mod this parent up, he may be flame bait but he is definitely correct. Equally sick of the slashdot armchair developer crowd, armchair sysadmin crowd, etc.

    4. Re:They've got their head in the sand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On Slashdot they ARE devs and admins. Someone disagrees with you - spare us the ad hominems and get over it.

  18. And? by nataflux · · Score: 1

    This isn't really a big deal, all they had to do was create an environment that can run on multiple platforms, and then run the game under that environment.

  19. Takeing civ 4 as guide no phone will have power ru by Joe+The+Dragon · · Score: 1

    Takeing civ 4 as guide no phone will have the power run it at any good speed also the small screen will make it hard to play.

  20. What I would love is... by BlackBloq · · Score: 1

    Give me a portal to my xbox360 and make the device a good gamepad,with all the controls there. Being able to play MW2 on a portable phone/psp type device would rock!

  21. Virtual Machine? by wmspider · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Wow, they actually got a .NET program working on several different microsoft operating systems! Now, seriously, where's the news? .NET runs on a virtual machine. It's just like showing a Java game that "magically" works on several differnet PLATFORMS (and with Java they can be called platforms, a program running on several different microsoft products can hardly be called cross-platform).

    1. Re:Virtual Machine? by TrancePhreak · · Score: 1

      I said it before and I'll say it again, you seriously consider ARM, PowerPC, and x86 the same platform? If you're a programmer I want your license revoked.

      --

      -]Phreak Out[-
    2. Re:Virtual Machine? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Wow, they actually got a .NET program working on several different microsoft operating systems! Now, seriously, where's the news? .NET runs on a virtual machine. It's just like showing a Java game that "magically" works on several differnet PLATFORMS (and with Java they can be called platforms, a program running on several different microsoft products can hardly be called cross-platform).

      Well, I can see one obvious difference. Say, can you write a game in Java that will readily run on any of the major gaming consoles out there, with no need for the player to muck around with anything (like, say, installing Linux on PS3)?

    3. Re:Virtual Machine? by wmspider · · Score: 1

      I'm just saying that .NET adds an abstraction layer, which was already supposed to make this kind of "cross-platform"-programming possible. That's why I mentioned Java. With Java, you can get a program running on, for example, Windows and Linux, since you "compile it" platform-independent, and then run your intermediate language on a virtual machine which in turn is compiled for the specific platform and calls specific API functions. If you have an intermediate layer with a defined language where, for example, you can call a function CreateWindow(size, whatever) and you don't have to worry what that function really does (in terms of OS) or what architecture it was compiled for, then you can't really say you made a breakthrough by making a "cross-platform-app". The real effort was made porting the .NET framework, not making an app that runs on top of it.

  22. With New Hats! by UnknowingFool · · Score: 0

    That reminds me of the Simpsons episode where Lisa comes out with a new doll called Lisa Lionheart. In response to this the Malibu Stacy company wheels out new Malibu Stacy dolls. Well not really new. They just have new hats.

    Right now MS is desperately trying to keep their mobile developers. Most of them are leaving for other platforms because there is far more potential to make money. Their mobile platform has been stagnant for a long time in IT years. With Windows 7 Phone a year away and the quiet acknowledgment that Windows 7 Phone Apps will not run Mobile 6.5 apps, MS is trying everything they can to keep developing from abandoning the platform. "Look you can make one version of a game that will run on Mobile, XBox, and desktop. Isn't that neat?"

    --
    Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
  23. Re:90% shared code? so what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So you are saying you are a Java programmer?

  24. What about the Zune HD? by chrismsummers · · Score: 1

    Its interesting that they did not also show it on the Zune HD as "Platformer" is also available for it as well.

  25. The same old shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    when it runs on linux, unix or CBM then I'll be impressed

  26. Cross platform - maybe not so awesome by perpenso · · Score: 1

    I'm sure cross platform (as in computer/console/handheld) can work well for some games but for many games I expect it will not be awesome. There is an inherent imbalance between the platforms, for example input devices. In games where precise control offers an advantage, say a shooter, a player with a mouse may have an advantage overs someone with a controller. Can the game be designed to level the playing field by introducing automatic assistance in aiming , yes, but that limits a players ability to prevail with better skills. Balancing some cross platform games may require too many compromises to make it fair across platforms.

    --
    Perpenso Calc for iPhone and iPod touch, scientific and bill/tip calculator, fractions, complex numbers, RPN

    1. Re:Cross platform - maybe not so awesome by ToasterMonkey · · Score: 1

      In games where precise control offers an advantage, say a shooter, a player with a mouse may have an advantage overs someone with a controller. Can the game be designed to level the playing field by introducing automatic assistance in aiming , yes, but that limits a players ability to prevail with better skills

      Rifles in the real world are much less accurate than a mouse. I'm a little tired of hyper accurate mouse targeting "skills" being the centerpiece of shooter mechanics. How about some more strategy? Console games have been branching out with soldiers, planes, trucks and tanks, all of which adapt well to gamepads. Even games with 100% auto-aim can work, look at Warhawk. How can you even say "skill" when everyone has different machines running at different frame rates with different mice, and differing network latencies?

      Sorry to everyone who thinks they have mad mouse "skills", but hitting a moving target at a distance _should_ be hard, and increasing movement speed to compensate for hyper accurate aim is f*cking retarded. Yah, those games are fun, but please don't say it's a level playing field, it's not, it's incredibly elitist.

        Also, two men with rifles at melee distance should either result in a very short gunfight or a brawl if they are both out of ammo; not a prolonged gunfight. *sigh* starts making own game...

      Balancing some cross platform games may require too many compromises to make it fair across platforms.

      I agree.
      Same game with three wildly different input devices is going to suck badly at two of them regardless of mouse/kb/touch/gamepad etc.

    2. Re:Cross platform - maybe not so awesome by mobby_6kl · · Score: 2, Informative

      Rifles in the real world are more accurate than they are made to be in the games. For instance, IRL it's possible to hit a person-sized target at 300 meters with a simple M-16, while in a game, you'd be happy to do that at 100m, and might even need some optics to pull that off. So yeah, it's already hard to hit a moving target a at a long distance, there's no need to also have to fight an inferior input device while doing this.

      Also, in any "realistic" game like Rainbow Six or SWAT two people bumping into each other at close range will almost instantly result in at least one corpse, not a prolonged gunfight. I'm sorry if that's not something your console allows you to experience, it's great fun and leads to very tense and exciting matches :D

    3. Re:Cross platform - maybe not so awesome by NouberNou · · Score: 1

      ArmA2 + ACE2 mod. Doesn't get much more real than that with out signing your name someplace.

    4. Re:Cross platform - maybe not so awesome by pcolaman · · Score: 3, Interesting

      There are a good number of people I know (including a few riflemen in the Marine Corps) who would most definitely disagree with your first statement. It's more of a matter of the ability of the shooter, not the accuracy of the rifle. The US Military has some highly accurate rifles, when put in the hands of the right shooter.

    5. Re:Cross platform - maybe not so awesome by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      It's not just military marksmen. When I was at school, being more than one bullet diameter away from what you're aiming at was considered pretty poor even with the Number 8 target rifle, which was the least accurate thing we shot in the school range and didn't have a telescopic sight. That equates to sub-pixel accuracy in a typical shooter. Of course, this wasn't shooting from the hip, but a lot of games like Counterstrike aren't either - you're mainly shooting from a steady position.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    6. Re:Cross platform - maybe not so awesome by Calinous · · Score: 1

      Operation Flashpoint had a "cross-hair" that resembled real life iron sights. Very interesting touch - and it worked somewhat like in real life, too.

  27. cross-platform != monoculture by bl8n8r · · Score: 1

    this isn't cross-platform, it's an example of an incestuos codebase. Cross-platform means your code can cross os boundaries too. Java, python and perl are examples of cross-platform computing.

    --
    boycott slashdot February 10th - 17th check out: altSlashdot.org
    1. Re:cross-platform != monoculture by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The example works with the current builds of Mono & MonoXNA too.

  28. Re:90% shared code? so what? by BitZtream · · Score: 0, Troll

    Depending on what you're doing, most if not all can be accomplished with OpenGL and GLUT.

    I most certainly have the source to a pong clone that will compile on OSX, Linux, FreeBSD, and Windows out of the box. Not even an ifdef.

    Of course, EVERYONE uses 'frameworks' unless they are writing raw assembly and not using any linker libraries.

    From my standpoint, there is no platform specific code, unless you count the command line required to start the build (its simple, single source file, didn't even bother with a makefile)

    Screen resolutions are irrelevant to me, it just scales, if you were to put it on an iPhone, you'd need good vision, but thats easy enough to remedy without special treatment for the iPhone if you choose to give up things on desktop PCs.

    Graphics hardware and input differences are taken into account by using OpenGL and GLUT. Note, these are native on OSX, OpenGL is native in windows, GLUT not so much, of course neither are native in FBSD or Linux, but again, everyone uses frameworks of some sort. So MS calls them Frameworks and I call them shared library, while technically different they are for practical purposes the same thing.

    I'm able to target Windows Mobile and take the same app and run it flawlessly on the desktop -- without a recompile.

    Most certainly wrong, you are not able to do so. You may move the binary and run it, but it most certainly IS being recompiled. Thats part of what the Common Language Runtime does, unfortunately you're confusing MS marketing with reality, this leads me to believe you know even less about development than you realize. I could actually do the exact same thing as you are doing with C# source code and a wrapper to kickstart the process. It'd have to be a .NET wrapper since getting a batch file to run on WinMo isn't something you can do out of the box.

    From my perspective, I've dealt with #1, 3, 4 and 5. I can do #2 with a java wrapper probably if I thought it mattered, but it really doesn't, its just not that big of a deal right now. It'd be nice to move across platforms without anything special, but currently it would be retarded. Games (and 'business apps' typically have different resource requirements for diffferent platforms like this. Its retarded to include 3 gigs of ultrahigh resolution textures, lightmaps and models when publishing to a mobile device. When one texture has about 12 times the resolution of the screen, its rather pointless. You're going to distribute multiple packages anyway so your PC users can have their 3 gigs of high res textures and you're going to distribute one for your WinMo users that have 5 megs of textures and models that are more than high enough resolution for display on your 320x240 postage stamp screen. Effectively making the quest for #2 fucking retarded.

    My point is that really, none of this shit matters to anyone serious.

    This shit from Microsoft is entirely to get crappy incapable programmers using MS dev tools to produce more things that businesses are tied into using MS platforms for. We can sit around and debate it, but the only people who think this is different are those that don't understand development in general, and those are EXACTLY the people MS wants to hit with this sort of thing.

    I'm sorry, what was the point?

    --
    Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
  29. Re:90% shared code? so what? by ardiri · · Score: 1

    If you are writing different libraries for each platform -- that's not 100% code re-use

    sure it is. if you use libc - is that code re-use? i have done a library for a generic platform for developing on top of. it is a library; that as a developer you dont have to write - you just use it.. just like openGL, libc, mathlib et al

    You're not "just distributing" the same binary for each platform.

    unless there is a universal "thick binary" standard; you are going to have to ship different binaries. thats how it is.

    What are you using for graphics, sounds, storage, etc. on each platform?

    graphics - you can generically define graphic sets based on DPI. scaling, layout design. it is not difficult to play with different resolutions. as for audio; worst case; you have PCM audio.

    You're doing this without a bunch of #ifdef's?

    yes!

    How are you accounting for different screen resolutions, graphics hardware, touch capabilities, and other hardware difference?

    very good design. :)

    but seriously - a good architect design can allow you to dynamically detect, load and work with functionalities across platforms. abstraction is dangerous - as it typically defines a common denominator. like web technologies are being dynamic in the way they work (ref: RESTful) - you can do the same with programming.

    i've been working with mobile platforms for 10+ years and i've played with almost every platform out there. i avoid .NET and Java like the plague for mobile applications - the end results are very slow and just doing deliver what i want from a programming environment.. sure, i need to do more effort - but the results are better.

    this is what i do for a living as well. if you want to discuss more offline - you can reach me via the contact me section on my website.

  30. M$ is universal. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just like the World Series entirely inside the US.

    Is it my mistake or all three said "platforms" doen't include Linux?
    Or Mac OS X?
    Or *BSD?
    Or Solaris?
    Or Symbian?
    Or Android?
    Or Iphone?
    Or Maemo?
    Or ReactOS?
    Or PS3?
    Or Wee?

    Well, I omitted Amiga and others, but the picture is clear: they're having a ball inside their parking lot.

    So, basically, if I ever buy one of these fine M$ products, does it get convenient to buy the others?

    What a novel idea!

  31. Re:90% shared code? so what? by ardiri · · Score: 1

    90% shared code? so what? (Score:-1, Troll)

    is it me - or are some of the slashdot moderators total idiots? either apple or microsoft fan boys. when i was your age you were probably still in diapers. obviously they miss the point. oh well.

  32. Only player 1 by tepples · · Score: 1

    I agree, There is nothing special about running with or without a game controller.

    Other than that it's the only choice for players 2, 3, and 4. Only player 1 can use a keyboard and mouse.

    1. Re:Only player 1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only poor people play split screen.

  33. Re:So now pc games will be dumbed down to phone le by Darkness404 · · Score: 1

    No, rather PC games are becoming console games because that is what gives publishers the most revenue. Why keep supporting a game with user maps when you can release a new game with a few new weapons and maps and charge the full price? Why allow for mods when you can release DLC?

    --
    Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
  34. The second paddle by tepples · · Score: 1

    I most certainly have the source to a pong clone [for OpenGL and GLUT] that will compile on OSX, Linux, FreeBSD, and Windows out of the box. Not even an ifdef.

    What controls are used for the second paddle in this Pong clone? If a gamepad, then since when does GLUT support gamepads? If another computer, then since when does the same networking code work without modification (not even WSAStartup()) on Windows?

  35. Re:So now pc games will be dumbed down to phone le by gbjbaanb · · Score: 1

    Its already started - Supreme Commander 2, which I hoped would be a perfect extension of SupCom1.. turns out to be dumbed down game designed specially for the XBox. I've heard comments from people that they won't even bother pirating it, let alone buying it.

    This is the new world order - dumbed down for the phone is next.

  36. Re:90% shared code? so what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    These days we make the point instead of mocking those less intelligent than us who don't see it, grandpa.

  37. No text-to-speech in XNA by tepples · · Score: 1

    as for audio; worst case; you have PCM audio.

    That's not the worst case. The worst case is XNA's solution "XACT", where you have to precompile all audio assets into your solution. You can't synthesize audio at runtime, which means no chance of text-to-speech.

    i avoid .NET and Java like the plague for mobile applications

    Then how do you target BlackBerry and Android, both of which use Java? Or how do you justify to your boss the lost sales from not targeting these platforms?

    1. Re:No text-to-speech in XNA by ardiri · · Score: 1

      Then how do you target BlackBerry and Android, both of which use Java?

      android - NDK (native development kit)
      the library portion i provide is actually still Java; but with JNI calls to the real meat of the code.

      Or how do you justify to your boss the lost sales from not targeting these platforms?

      i support android - i have demo versions in place - so, thats not an issue. as for justifying it to my boss? i am my own boss - justified. but you do raise a valid point.

  38. Re:internet drm will kill cell phone games as cost by Darkness404 · · Score: 1

    Fragmentation will kill cell phone games before networks do. The reason why gaming has thrived on consoles is because it takes the guesswork out of knowing how a game is going to play. PC gaming has always had flaws where no one knows -how- their game is going to play. So the system requirements recommend a 3 Ghz P4 CPU, ok, would a 1.6 Ghz Pentium Dual Core run it? What about an 2.7 Ghz Sempron? The same thing is going to happen to cell phone games, especially on simi-open platforms such as Android and Windows Mobile, while it might be easy to give out the 3 models of iPhones and the 3 generations of iPod touches, what about the million different names for the same Android phone? The T-Mobile G1 is known in some parts as the HTC Dream or the Era G1, and that is just one of the many Android phones. Mix that with different capabilities (a G1 is going to have different capabilities than a Nexus One which is going to be different than a Motorola Backflip) and you have a platform where you don't know if something as demanding as a game is going to work well or at all and who wants to spend money on a download that might not work.

    --
    Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
  39. Only 90% of the code in common? by argent · · Score: 4, Interesting

    God almighty, their code base is more fragmented than I ever imagined.

    Even at the worst of the "UNIX wars", if you had to rewrite as much as 10% of your code to get it to run on (say) AIX, SunOS, and System V that meant you'd done a really bad job of isolating the platform-specific parts of your code. If Microsoft can't keep their code bases in sync when they control all of them and they have incentive to do so, they're really slipping.

    1. Re:Only 90% of the code in common? by chentiangemalc · · Score: 1

      keep in mind this is for 3 completely different hardware types....this is why there is 10% of unshared code, to account for changes in the hardware.

    2. Re:Only 90% of the code in common? by BoppreH · · Score: 1

      Remember that this is a Flash game-like project. 10% of a small code is acceptable, considering that the platform specific code is more or less fixed in relation to the project size.

    3. Re:Only 90% of the code in common? by argent · · Score: 1

      Color me unimpressed. Device-dependent APIs were embarrassing in the '80s.

    4. Re:Only 90% of the code in common? by sleeponthemic · · Score: 1

      There are enough zealots on this site to be unimpressed, regardless of the achievement. They're the type of people who'd be "unimpressed" if you had a microsoft mobile platform running WoW with a "pathetic" 90% code sharing.

      --
      I record my sleeptalking
    5. Re:Only 90% of the code in common? by argent · · Score: 1

      If you were running a new version of WoW on all platforms that had been rewritten from scratch in a brand new API designed specifically to be portable, yes, I would be disappointed that they had to write 10% device-specific code. Or *any* device-specific code.

  40. Worthless by hduff · · Score: 1

    Unless it can run on OSX and Linux as well, a consumer game is NOT 'cross platform'. Apparently, their development platform needs some work.

    --
    "I believe in Karma. That means I can do bad things to people all day long and I assume they deserve it." : Dogbert
    1. Re:Worthless by dziman · · Score: 1

      cross-platform doesn't mean all platforms. it means some other platform.

    2. Re:Worthless by chentiangemalc · · Score: 1

      The definition of cross-platform is software that works on more than one system platform. Doesn't have to include OSX and Linux.

    3. Re:Worthless by kalirion · · Score: 1

      And unless you can speak German and Chinese, you are not multilingual, right?

    4. Re:Worthless by Dan667 · · Score: 1

      or maybe the microsoft brain washing of their developers is working too well...

  41. Our core management platform is cross-platform, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    it runs on anything with a Java 5 or better JRE.

  42. Re:Takeing civ 4 as guide no phone will have power by FunkSoulBrother · · Score: 1

    Well, in all seriously, I don't care what they do to it graphically. The game would be just as much fun if a grassland was a unanimated green square, mountains were gray, etc. Civ 1 was 320X200 wasn't it? My phone has a better screen, and more processor/RAM than my 486/33 where I played Civ1. I have no idea how CPU intensive the math that calculates all the moves and AI logic is in Civ4 though.

  43. cross platform by McGiraf · · Score: 1

    cross platform:

    Windows, Windows and Windows.

    yipee!

    1. Re:cross platform by chentiangemalc · · Score: 1

      Windows Phone Series 7 != Windows XBOX != Windows

    2. Re:cross platform by McGiraf · · Score: 1

      It's all different versions of Windows.

    3. Re:cross platform by jim_v2000 · · Score: 1

      Actually, they're not. The Xbox OS and Windows Mobile share nothing in common with the version of Windows on your desktop.

      --
      Don't take life so seriously. No one makes it out alive.
    4. Re:cross platform by McGiraf · · Score: 1

      Of course, but that's an easy one and it proves nothing. The Windows version on my desktop does not exist, so it as nothing in common with everything.

    5. Re:cross platform by landswipe · · Score: 1

      Of course they share something, they're all rooted and I mean rooted in glorious COW... Character Oriented Windows... The precursor to Win16/Win32/WinCE and NT which is running on Xbox.

  44. Re:90% shared code? so what? by Karlt1 · · Score: 1

    Depending on what you're doing, most if not all can be accomplished with OpenGL and GLUT.

    And you said you could target Palm. Palm just released a native SDK for the WebOS a few days ago. OpenGL is not public yet for the Palm Pre and doesn't work on most Windows Mobile devices -- especially not the industrial ruggedized devices. Exactly how many of those platforms that you bragged about above have you actually programmed for?

    I most certainly have the source to a pong clone that will compile on OSX, Linux, FreeBSD, and Windows out of the box. Not even an ifdef.

    So how well did the Pong clone work on the iPhone? the Palm Pre? Windows Mobile?

    Of course, EVERYONE uses 'frameworks' unless they are writing raw assembly and not using any linker libraries.

    Yes everyone does use frameworks -- but none of those frameworks are as seamless or cross platform as you imply.

    From my standpoint, there is no platform specific code, unless you count the command line required to start the build (its simple, single source file, didn't even bother with a makefile)

    So how do you handle the difference between the touch screen interface of the iPhone/iPod Touch and non touch screen devices?

    Screen resolutions are irrelevant to me, it just scales, if you were to put it on an iPhone, you'd need good vision, but thats easy enough to remedy without special treatment for the iPhone if you choose to give up things on desktop PCs.

    And you have a poorly thought out app that no one would want...

    Graphics hardware and input differences are taken into account by using OpenGL and GLUT. Note, these are native on OSX, OpenGL is native in windows, GLUT not so much, of course neither are native in FBSD or Linux, but again, everyone uses frameworks of some sort. So MS calls them Frameworks and I call them shared library, while technically different they are for practical purposes the same thing.

    And you're still not taking into account text entry, hardware that doesn't support OpenGL, etc. Have you actually written any software for the iPhone or Windows Mobile?

    Most certainly wrong, you are not able to do so. You may move the binary and run it, but it most certainly IS being recompiled. Thats part of what the Common Language Runtime does, unfortunately you're confusing MS marketing with reality, this leads me to believe you know even less about development than you realize. I could actually do the exact same thing as you are doing with C# source code and a wrapper to kickstart the process. It'd have to be a .NET wrapper since getting a batch file to run on WinMo isn't something you can do out of the box.

    Who ever said anything about batch files?

    My point is that really, none of this shit matters to anyone serious.

    This shit from Microsoft is entirely to get crappy incapable programmers using MS dev tools to produce more things that businesses are tied into using MS platforms for. We can sit around and debate it, but the only people who think this is different are those that don't understand development in general, and those are EXACTLY the people MS wants to hit with this sort of thing.

    I'm sorry, what was the point?

    So what platform are we suppose to use? I did the whole C things for a decade, played around with Objective C, and for low level programming I still use C on WinMo. C# and the whole .Net platform is a godsend compared to C.

  45. Cross platform windows development by fireman+sam · · Score: 1

    This story reminds me of a text book I once purchased that was about cross platform programming using windows. What I failed to realize until after I purchased it was that the platforms were Windows 95, 98, NT 3.51 and NT 4. Also what is so impressive about saving data that is not dependent on the platform, or are microsoft still simply dumping memory and calling it a file format?

    --
    it is only after a long journey that you know the strength of the horse.
    1. Re:Cross platform windows development by dziman · · Score: 1

      Hardware is also part of the platform, is it not?

  46. Abstraction by dziman · · Score: 1

    If you're writing cross-platform code, which may even use different APIs, there will still be more high level code than low level code (in quantity). A lot of this depends on the design of the abstraction that helps adapt between the platforms. With this in mind, I can easily see 90% being obtainable on ANY complex system where there is a lot of high level code.

    What Microsoft is likely referring to is that they don't have to change 90% of their low-level code too. This means they have pushed the abstraction further down into the low-level code using directx et al.

  47. Thats nothin by mrwolf007 · · Score: 1

    i already wrote native code that works with 100% shared code on different plattforms!

    Yeah, on both Intel and AMD!

  48. Game complexity is the deciding factor. by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

    The simpler the game, the easier it is to pull it off. E.g. a game that only needs one button and basic OpenGL, is very easy to port everywhere.

    --
    Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
  49. Re:internet drm will kill cell phone games as cost by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Already happened with J2ME-based games. Despite most phones using the same JVM, you can never be sure if certain features are available on a particular phone, what quirks it'll have, how it'll perform, whether or not it'll have enough memory, and so on. The solution is basically to have different versions of a game for different classes of phone, buy lots of phones, do lots of testing, and have plenty of special-case code to handle quirks of particular phones.

    It's not impossible to do. It just creates an unreasonably high barrier for entry. That goes with the other unreasonably high entry barriers - dealing with networks, dealing with phone manufacturers, dealing with signing, and so on.

    That's why the only J2ME phone games are from large, pre-existing publishers. No-one else can afford to do it.

  50. Why Is This News Again? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I see games running on three platforms all the time--XP, Vista, and 7. There's cross-compatibility at work for ya!

  51. I count one platform by thetoadwarrior · · Score: 1

    Playing something on 3 windows based machines isn't cross platform.

  52. Sounds about right by Punto · · Score: 1

    our game engine has about 10% of platform specific code, and it runs on about 6 platforms (and we actually count windows, linux and mac as 1). it's actually pretty standard. especially in this case, probably all the input, filesystem, memory, threading apis are pretty much the same (they're probably still doing 3 different renderer implementations). is anyone really impressed by this?

    --

    --
    Stay tuned for some shock and awe coming right up after this messages!

  53. What R U some sort of FUCKING FOOL !? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fuck you man, I say, fuck you! You must be some kind of fool, you. WM is no worse than it ever was, no worse than it ever was.

    1. Re:What R U some sort of FUCKING FOOL !? by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      What kind of MS apologist are you? WM has pretty much been stagnant since 5.0. Even you admit that. While their competitors like Blackberry, Apple, Google, and even Palm have been making advancements, MS has stood still with incremental and cosmetic upgrades since 2005.

      Now MS is finally making advancements to their mobile platform. But any apps you may have developed in the past for WM will not work. It isn't a simple recompile either. Windows 7 Phone is expected to finally launch in December at best but no word is definite yet. So as a developer do you stick with 6.5 or move to 7? Or would it be easier to go to another platform like Android, Palm, or Apple where all the excitement (and money) seems to be.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
  54. #if PATFORM by FirstTimeCaller · · Score: 1
    Ok, I actually think this is kind of cool. But I would quibble about the way they use #if's on the code. In general, you should avoid #if PLATFORM (the video shows #if WINDOWS_PHONE) and instead do the conditional on a particular feature. So instead:

    #if WINDOWS_PHONE
    #define ACCELEROMETER_SUPPORTED
    #define TOUCH_SUPPORTED
    #endif
    :
    #if ACCELEROMETER_SUPPORTED
    :
    #endif
    :
    #if TOUCH_SUPPORTED
    :
    #endif

    This makes life easier when touch becomes a popular feature on laptops and desktop computers, for example.

    --
    Wanted: witty unique signature. Must be willing to relocate.
  55. Re:90% shared code? so what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, your point was just stupid and pointless. "Whoopdy do, I can run a compiler on different platforms, what's so great about this new-fangled thing?!".

    What's new, dimwit, is these are big, full featured games and in this particular domain this is something people haven't been able to efficiently do until now - phone, PC, console with 90% shared code.

  56. What would you do if you had a million by kimvette · · Score: 1

    Q. What would you do if you had a million compilers?

    A. Two chips at the same time

    --
    The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
  57. Poor people by tepples · · Score: 1

    If your game is not rated M, it will have plenty of poor people among its players. This is because in developed countries with child labor laws, kids are poor people who rely on an allowance from their parents or below-minimum-wage seasonal lawn care work during the summer. It's better to sell 1 copy of a game for 800 Microsoft Points than not to sell any copies at all.

  58. So.... by mjhacker · · Score: 1

    ...they were running Final Fantasy XI?

  59. really only 90%? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I work on cross platform games for ps3/xbox/windows, and am quite unimpressed by the 90% number. In my experience, even including ps3 specific spu code paths, platform specific code accounts for maybe 2% of all our code. If you count scripts as code, then more like 1%. The number of programmers actually working in this code is less than 10%. We use a single visual studio project for all platforms.
    We can save games to a network server and reload them on any platform. These things are not hard to do compared to actually making a game.

    As far as mobile platforms go, the amount of work required to make art that meets vastly different memory footprints and performance limits while still looking good eclipses any programming work required.

  60. Hello? It's a presentation to developers. by I'm+Don+Giovanni · · Score: 1

    Even shows the code loaded into Visual Studio. He's not talking to "consumers". And since when did Microsoft ever claim, even to consumers, that all there OSes were the same on all devices? Consumers couldn't care less about whether a phone OS is the same as a PC OS.

    --
    -- "I never gave these stories much credence." - HAL 9000
  61. This isn't new? by Eraesr · · Score: 1

    Why is this special? This Indiana Jones demo (sourcecode, artwork and everything) is installed automatically as a demo project in Visual Studio when you install XNA. Only difference is that the current XNA release supports Zune instead of Windows Mobile 7, but I guess Windows Mobile 7 and Zune don't differ that much as a platform.

  62. Re:Hello? It's a presentation to developers. by jimicus · · Score: 1

    Even shows the code loaded into Visual Studio. He's not talking to "consumers". And since when did Microsoft ever claim, even to consumers, that all there OSes were the same on all devices? Consumers couldn't care less about whether a phone OS is the same as a PC OS.

    Technically Microsoft haven't claimed that it was the same OS on all devices.

    They've used a similar name for totally different products and let ignorant tech "journalists" (if you can call them journalists) do the rest. Though I note they haven't exactly gone out of their way to correct these tech "journalists".

  63. Re:So now pc games will be dumbed down to phone le by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 1

    I never got far in Deus Ex 2, but I really would have liked to. 7 minute level loads on a PC which was top-of-the-range at the time is just outrageous.

    Still, you've mentioned Deus Ex, and now I'm going to have to hunt for the installation disk...

    --
    Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
  64. The correct comparison by DrYak · · Score: 1

    The same Linux demo could also be compiled on *BSD, and other unix-like environment (as long as SDL is available).

    Windows XP/7, Windows Mobile and XBox might be different, but they all share some code (Xbox being a fork of NT/2000, for example), and present some common API (just the way all POSIX-compliant unices behave comparatively).

    (But in fact, the same demo game could also be recompiled for the above Microsoft platforms, and a few games consoles, thank to the openness of SDL).

    --
    "Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
    1. Re:The correct comparison by jim_v2000 · · Score: 1
      --
      Don't take life so seriously. No one makes it out alive.
  65. Wow... blast from my past! by Petersko · · Score: 1

    "A simple demo game written on a Fedora system runs perfectly on [other Linux operating systems], but nobody paid for a press conference."

    "Unless the game was developed using the Allegro library. Distributions that switched to PulseAudio broke sound in Allegro games because PulseAudio does not like unsigned 16-bit PCM."

    Am I the only one who totally had a "tried to game on linux" flashback when I read this?

  66. Says Microsoft by DrYak · · Score: 1

    The XBox is not a fork of Windows at all.

    Says in 2006 the Microsoft which want to show itself as a serious console and want to demarcate from PC platform. (I haven't kept up to date with their latest info)

    Back in 2001, in every interview (including sources mentioned here on /.) the XBox1 developpers were telling that XBox1's OS is a cousin of the windows family, with pretty much the same amount of evolution between it and Win2k, as the amount which went between WinXP and Win2k.
    Of course, back then, they where whoring to catch as many developers as possible, and it was in their interest to present the Xbox1 as "a Windows variant, with a different, fullscreen D3D-oriented interface".

    Now, let's look at it : Xbox1's system exports Win32 apis and Direct3D (but no windowing, although nobody give a damn about that on a console). In my book, that's enough to qualifiy (from a potential developers point of view) as sufficiently Windows-alike.
    (Xboy 360 is further down on this branch of the evolutionary tree, but still share as much API as possible)

    Windows CE also export similar API (although a different kernel underneath), so after a recompile and some tweaking, it's possible to get the same source-base working on it too.
    (And some lazy ports of games for Dreamcast were done that way, targeting the available Windows CE platform, instead of the native Katana platform (or the homebrew KOS) )

    Ergo : Saying that a game is "cross-platform" because it runs on 3 different flavours of Windows, is akin to saying that some software which runs both on Linux and *BSD distros is "cross-platform".

    Real cross platform would be working on several completely different platforms. Like working on Windows, Mac OS X, GNU/Linux, Android, etc...
    Which, incidently, *is* possible to achieve using technologies such as SDL and OpenGL.
    (And for the record, will also be possible on webOS palm smartphones, according to the info available on their "plugin-development kit")

    But that's not something you'll ever hear from Microsoft, because *gasp* it's a standard which could be used on non-Microsoft controlled source of revenue !

    --
    "Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
  67. meh by Dan667 · · Score: 1

    wake me when that is Linux, Windows, and Apple cross-platform. Windows phone and the xbox are just underpowered computers with microsoft os.