Microsoft's Real Plan For XNA Gaming Domination? 338
h0tblack writes "While many have heard about the XNA 'game software development platform' from Microsoft's announcements at GDC earlier this year, the full scope of their plans are only just becoming clear. Eurogamer has a surprisingly candid interview with J Allard covering the latest plans from Redmond. XNA isn't a rehash of DirectX tools for the Xbox2, PC and WinCE devices after all, it's a full-on assault on the gaming world, with the prize being complete dominance of the market. The site also has a BitTorrent of the interview, since it was originally recorded in video form."
What now?! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:What now?! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What now?! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:What now?! (Score:2, Funny)
Introductions (Score:5, Funny)
Re:What now?! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What now?! (Score:5, Interesting)
Of course, the heterogeneity of hardware in PCs is one of the cheif draws, in my opinion. While the mainstream blockbusters focus on keyboard and mouse, there are extensive lists of games focused on flightsticks, VR headsets, and other equipment.
Still - this might be a good example for Linux gamedevs to follow - we need a single-package distribution of a gamedev platform to put all the Linux crap together. Right now its all over the place, and each platform has a half-assed implementation of each other platform. O.S. games are absolutely terrible at supporting joysticks, for example.
My wet dream is a real, full-featured, modern O.S. middleware gaming engine. -ogg and s3m for music, a stripped-down python interpreter for script, ogl for 3d, semi-transparent networking, and in-engine design tools, and a nice auto-downloading filesystem using http references right in the package names so downloading is from the package-maker and not bogging down the server on which you're playing.
Re:What now?! (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:What now?! (Score:3, Interesting)
[emphasis mine]
WTF? Have you not been paying attention?
Microsoft have been fscking around with DirectX for the last ten years, and it's still a complete mess. It's taken them 25 years to get an OS even remotely as stable as any UNIX variant you'd care to name. And now they're going to Take Over The World with yet another half-assed, rushed-out-the-door collection of hacks?
You'll forgive me if I remain skeptical.
Schwab
Re:What now?! (Score:5, Interesting)
Windows didn't have to be the best, it had to be good enough at what it does, just like a weed. It moves into a new market, reproduces itself like crazy, strangles any incumbents using whatever means available, then consolidates and preserves the new environment for sustained dominance and access to even more markets.
They did it with desktop OS's, they did it with server OS's, they're doing it with gaming (consider Micrsofts console market position 3 years ago compared to today). Why can't they keep pushing into this new market?
I'm not sceptical at all. I've seen the evidence. This has every chance of success. And to be honest, implementation aside the vision actually sounds pretty good.
The question is, will the open source movement be able to adapt to rival microsoft in this space? Will there be XNA compatible toolsets? Or will they do the same thing they did with DirectX and hold their collective hands over their ears and repeat "I'm not listening!"?
Re:What now?! (Score:4, Informative)
Re:What now?! (Score:3, Informative)
Re:What now?! (Score:3, Interesting)
Microsoft invested in the gaming market quite heavily with DirectX, and DirectX has made PC gaming very uniform and broad reaching, so developers don't have to know what kind of sound card there is and they don't have to know what kind of graphics card there is, the A
Re:What now?! (Score:5, Informative)
http://developer.apple.com/games/sprockets.html
Unfortunately it seems to be only available to OS 9 and below. There doesn't seem to be a version for OS X. AFAIK, Apple now encourages developers to use OpenGL for their games development - OpenGL is very well supported by the platform. However, most developers probably would like to see more resources available.
As I recall, right before Jobs came back to Apple via NeXT, Apple was trying really hard to woo back gaming developers, as at that time, pretty much everyone was jumping ship. That's when sprockets were developed. I remember reading it in a gaming mag circa 1997.
-B
Re:What now?! (Score:4, Informative)
The current version, DirectX 9.0b, is backwards compatible all the way back to version 3, or thereabouts.
Re:What now?! (Score:3, Insightful)
I guess that's why
What other market segment does Nintendo have to fall back on? Do you think they could make massive losses year after year propped up by something else?
Sure, they're all greedy multinational corps etc. but MS definately ha
Choice? (Score:5, Interesting)
Once again, this Microsoft representative is touting choice of hardware platform as a primary advantage of XNA. But in the past Microsoft have also claimed that Windows gives the customer the choice, which is obviously a blatant lie in the same context.
But imagine for a second if Microsoft really did end up getting something like XNA standardised. Then we might see implementations of it on other platforms, even if such implementations are technically illegal (think MP3.) It would make game development cheaper again, and knock-offs of the development environment for these standard games might even open up the market for hobby game development again, which has been more or less shut off for years.
The idea is intriguing but I can't see Microsoft successfully implementing what it looks like they're describing. I suspect that at best, they will tie the damn thing to Direct3D, and everything will fall apart from there.
I'm glad they're not paranoid or anything (Score:5, Funny)
Better hurry (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Better hurry (Score:2)
Re:Better hurry (Score:2, Insightful)
Paranoia (Score:2)
Re:Better hurry (Score:5, Insightful)
Now is the time, if any, for people to start making games work in Linux as best as possible. If something isn't done soon, all the gaming manufacturers will start building games to work with this system and make them completely unusable in Linux.
What!? Do we have to try and make *everything* run great on Linux just because Microsoft has entered (or is expanding) a certain line of business? Sure, [L|*]nix is great for lots of stuff, but do we always have to pull out the Linux sword and slash at MS' knees just because they're breathing? (Keep reading before modding me down.)
Don't forget, MS already owns the PC gaming platform market (the PC itself) for the most part. In comparison, they only have (I'm guessing) 30-40% of the console gaming platform market with the Xbox.
As long as computers receive electricity, there will probably be *thousands* of gaming manufacturers (read: indies) developing for a wide range of systems. In fairness, I think your comment is in reference to the mainstream developers and publishers. But hey, if you were them, and you wanted to stay in business, earn a profit for shareholders, etc...: Would you develop for a relatively small niche market accustomed to getting stuff for "free"? OR, would you develop for an installed base in the millions who are accustomed to paying $30-$50 per title?
BTW: I'm all for indie game developers -especially on Linux. I still believe thats where a lot of the great *game play* still originates. Graphics, mo-cap, glitz, and licensed music is neat, but I STILL appreciate the feel of my Asteroids and Lunar Lander ships! (Yes, I know they didn't originate on linux, but you know what I mean. :-)
Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
Could of course be that they think their is a market, there isn't, could be they think it will win them customers, it doesn't. OR just maybe these companies don't enjoy they idea of being locked onto a OS made by a company that is DIRECTLY competing with them and has a very long history of wiping out competition.
It has far less to do with promoting linux as not ending up in the pockets of Microsoft.
For now DirectX is pretty open and you have the half-life people saying that the PC is for them more profitable because of the lack of license fees wich are needed for console titles. If MS every comes to truly own the gaming world how long do you think this will last?
You are living in a dream world. Small independent game companies are going bust. The Xth rehash of ancient games does NOT count. It is the orignal new stuff that is getting more and more owned by the BIG companies. Companies that can afford a string of money losing titles without going out of business. Would you enjoy a future where games are owned by only the big boys? I wouldn't.
Why bother - not everybody wants Linux for games ! (Score:2, Insightful)
Why is there an assumption that Linux won't be successful if high FPS games aren't available for it ?
I don't care to play games under Linux (as I don't play games in general, they just don't hold my attention for some reason (probably biological)), so I don't care whether commercial games are supported. To me, Linux is already successful, and has been since I first started using it in 1993, as it has done everything I've wanted it to do.
"Success" is a relative word, and is used to measure something agai
Re:Why bother - not everybody wants Linux for game (Score:5, Interesting)
To a small extent, the success of games on Windows has put a lot of Windows PC's into the home, and by extension of familiarity, a lot of Windows PC's on managers desks and throughout companies.
Apple tries very hard at the same tactic - ever wonder why there are so many Macs in schools? Because Apple practically gives them away there.
If Linux was the premiere gaming OS, and only lamerz used Windows for gaming (not the case at the moment), Linux proliferation in single PC families would dramatically increase. Imagine if 80% of homes with PC's were running Linux, because the best gaming experience was on Linux. We can then also imagine a change in the reputation of Linux in other PC industries.
I suggest, then, that Linux would experience more success than currently if it were a better gaming platform.
Re:Why bother - not everybody wants Linux for game (Score:3, Informative)
From my experience, the machines at work dictate what people buy for home, not the other way around. In fact, a very large club the DOS/Windows market used against Macs and other systems were that they were "toy" systems focused mainly on gaming, whereas the PC was a "business" system that tacked on gaming as a
Re:Why bother - not everybody wants Linux for game (Score:3, Insightful)
i mean take myself as an example
i have windows on my primary machine for the sole reason that i am a gamer
if games worked on Linux i would never install windows again
and id say that there are a lot of people who are in the same situation so with that in mind making linux better for gaming will make it more successful because you win over the gamers who dislike windows
Re:Better hurry (Score:5, Informative)
Granted, linux isn't exactly the OS of choice for the hardened PC gamer, but I don't see any cause for doom and gloom.
Re:Better hurry (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Better hurry (Score:3, Interesting)
But how much will the SDK cost? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:But how much will the SDK cost? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:But how much will the SDK cost? (Score:2)
My original point stands...kinda....
Re:But how much will the SDK cost? (Score:2)
Well... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Well... (Score:5, Insightful)
Not likely. Yet Another Game Development Library(tm) isn't going to change the industry's inability to greenlight an original design, try something genuinely new, or stop making one sequel after another.
Re:Well... (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't you understand? In Playstation vs. Xbox vs. GameCube, Playstation II sales are 71.3million, Xbox at 13.7million, and GameCube at 13.9million. With 75% market share, most developers are interested in getting their titles on the Playstation platform first, and Xbox or GameCube or both second. But when MS brings out the next version, the developers are presented with this option: Develop your game for the Xbox, and it's also ready for Windows! So now instead of looking at Xbox vs Playstation market share, they're looking at Xbox + Windows vs Playstation. And with Windows XP alone at 210 million units sold, the tables are quickly reversed on Sony. This is Microsoft yet again leveraging their monopoly on the desktop to beat the competition, instead of developing a truly superior product.
Re:Well... (Score:5, Insightful)
PC games don't port well to consoles, and vice versa.
I'm sorry, but it's just a reality. PC games are made to utilize the mouse. Console games are made to utilize the controler. I've never, ever played a PC game on a console that played well (quake 3 on dreamcast anyone?). On a console, it is laborious to put in any data, even naming your characters in final fantasy, while this task (and a multitude of others) are easy on a PC. Not to mention the whole mouse thing. Moving your little cursor around the screen on a console is annoying and time consuming, and nigh impossible without a good analog stick. On a mouse it's second nature. The only port that was even playable was knights of the old republic, and even its interface on the PC was really annoying (compared to a similar game like NWN). And it's not even genres. Games developed for the console stay on the console. For instance, Splinter Cell. Playable on console, unplayable on PC. You had to click a mouse button to go forward. That works for airships in FF9 wher the button is the X on the controler, but not when it's on the mouse.
I wouldn't be too worried. Console and PC games are so vastly different, and created around a different concept of human-computer interaction, that I think it will be a while before the ability to port your game to PC is a huge factor. It will remain what it is now - a way to get a little more revenue without much work, but that only fills a niche market and isn't a major part of the revenue model.
~Will
Re:Well.. (Score:3, Interesting)
WHere did you get that from? I only played through Splinter Cell last month, and you certainly didn't have to hold down a mouse button to move. Can't say I had any problems playing with keyboard + mouse, it all felt pretty natural to me.
Re:Well... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Well... (Score:5, Insightful)
MS will do ANYTHING it can to defeat the competition. And it will use any cludge, any leverage, threat or intimidation to do so. I didn't see anything in that article implying that XNA will be a free and open standard that anyone can use without permission.
Wanna bet the license fees will be under NDA and depend on how nice you are to MS and if you have any naughty ties to MS's competition.
Previously:
Oh My! You want to sell computers with linux/beos/etc pre-installed? Shoot, looks like we'll have to renogotiate your license agreement.
New and Improved with XNA:
Oh My! You want to release a linux/mac/etc client with your game? Shoot, looks like we'll have to renogotiate your license agreement.
Unless XNA becomes independent of MS, it will eventually be used as a weapon. This IS about domination.
Re:Well... (Score:2)
You have to buy a new DVD player every 5 months (it doesn't matter which brand), because the read speed of the laser in your current one isn't enough for the new Enhanced Image Quality(tm) movie, because the size of individual frames is now larger then your DVD player can stream in a second.
YAY!
The good thing about consoles is this: hardware consistency.
Unlike a PC, there is rarely ever more than 1 hardware configuration to cater for, and thus a game can be made to push that one
Again? (Score:3, Funny)
Correction (Score:4, Funny)
"Gee, Bill what do you want to do tonight?"
"The same thing we do every night Steve. Try to take over the world!"
Suprisingly Candid? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Suprisingly Candid? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Suprisingly Candid? (Score:2)
I don't recall Toohey donating billions to medical research...
While Ayn Rand was an incredible author, she wasn't beyond structuring situations to her advantage, either...
No doubt she would have had the greatest admiration for Mr. Gates.
Embrace and Extend..... (Score:3, Funny)
Not enough exclusives, and they wont go anywhere. (Score:5, Insightful)
Microsoft is slowly learning in the console arena, but one lesson they absolutely need to do to make the XBox2 the dominant player is to get as far as possible from being a PC-Like system, as far away as possible from PC game ports, and keep every single game they can get their hands on exclusive for the life of that particular console if possible. Not just 3 months, but years. They also need to court Japanese developers, strike deals with the larger companies such as Square/Enix, get more games from KOEI, pay large sums for ATLUS to translate games specifically for them. They need niche RPG titles out the ass to pull in the anime geeks, they need to do a LOT to win the minds of all the Japanese gamers that ultimately drive more than half this market right now. And if they can get teams specifically for adding in Live! support to these devs games, its a good start.
Re:Not enough exclusives, and they wont go anywher (Score:5, Insightful)
The whole point of XNA is provide a solid common library, which focuses on common game development tasks. This allows different platforms to very easily interoperate, but does not make it significantly easier to port games to other platforms. For instance, making a set of games that share the same game world and are all Live aware becomes quite simple, but porting a Xbox version of that same game to PC does not suddenly become a simple task.
I don't see how people are jumping to the conlusion that providing XNA and reference designs is economically infeasible. Certainly Microsoft would like to create a reference design platform in the future. Yes, Microsoft thinks this can start with with XNA. Yes, it's a good idea.
The whole pointing in having a reference design is to increase interoperability, reduce development time, and reduce development cost. If another company makes a device using a reference design, it won't take your suggested 3 months to port a game to run on this new device -- it will take zero months, zero weeks, zero days, zero hours... no time at all since it will run on that device immediately.
You don't have to rewrite anything in a PC game to have your game run a different manufacturer of GeForce 4 cards -- it works on the reference design boards, it works on Asus boards, it works on Hercules Guillemot boards, and it works on everyother board based on the NVIDIA reference design. Does this fact suddenly make NVIDIA foolish for abandoning their board manufacturing business in favour of performing just the design tasks and chip fabrication? ATI seems to be following a similar plan these days as well -- platform and reference design work.
If Bob decides to buy and use a reference design for MasterBlasterSuperConsole, he's essentially creating a MasterBlasterSuperConsole -- not another platform. Say the original MasterBlasterSuperConsole designers still sell their version of the MasterBlasterSuperConsole and everyone likes Bob's MasterBlasterSuperConsole better. The consumers proceed to buy more of Bob's than the original by a large margin. Are the designers of the original sitting on the street crying? No, they're taking in a killing from Bob's MasterBlasterSuperConsole since he has to pay the original designers a very significant percentage of his profits to them. Is Bob upset? Not really, he didn't have to design much -- just copy the reference design and add a few tweaks here and there.
There are a lot of companies that operate in this fashion -- ARM in one of the largest microprocessor developers in the world without even selling microprocessors. IBM also licences out it's microprocessor designs to other companies (the Power architecture seen in PowerPC, amongst others, is a good example). Ericsson isn't loosing any sleep from becoming increasingly a design house, providing specifications and reference designs to companies that specialize in mass production. There has literally thousands of companies that do business in this very fashion with great success.
Microsoft and Sony have been doing this for decades in various different industries -- it's one of the reasons they have been so exceptionally successful. I wholely agree with Allard, it's just a matter of when this will happen.
Re:Not enough exclusives, and they wont go anywher (Score:3, Insightful)
But you say "kicking ass" like it's a definitive win for them, which it most definitely is not. The original PlayStation was Sony "kicking a significant amount of ass" back in the day. MS hasn't come close to that sort of coup.
A "full-on assault on the gaming world"? (Score:2)
Re:A "full-on assault on the gaming world"? (Score:5, Interesting)
Sorry, I wasn't aware that the Xbox was actually doing well in some places. I live in Japan, where the Xbox is selling about as well as, say, cowpies. The most recent sales data I found was here [pcvsconsole.com]; the PS2 and GBA are running about neck-and-neck, both beating the Xbox by about a factor of 100 (yes, one hundred). In recent weeks [pcvsconsole.com] the Xbox is facing a serious challenge from the PSOne.
So maybe Microsoft can establish an American standard, but no way are they in shape to take on Sony here.
You forget (Score:3, Interesting)
Sony is a Japanese company. Nintendo is a Japanese company. For all they have international branches, you damn well better believe the Japanese market still has importance.
If anything, I'd say Microsoft is tapping the market of people who don't play the kind of games available on the Sony/Nintendo(/Sega) systems, so I doubt Sony or Nintendo have anything to worry about anyway. I have no problem with Microsoft going after their own market. After all, the majority of games released on Japanese consoles
News: Cookie cutter games soon to be easier (Score:4, Interesting)
Echoes of Before the Xbox (Score:5, Insightful)
If you read the book "Opening the Xbox", Bill Gates was pretty irritated and confused when Sony turned them down flat. Why would they turn down Microsoft? Oh, sure - it would also make these games easier to port to a MS based system in the future - but MS was trying to help Sony!
Anyway. Sony saw through the game. And while XNA might be the greatest thing in the world to folks who want to port games between the Xbox, the PC, the Pocket PC - it's probably not something that Sony and Nintendo give a big rats ass about.
That's not to say that Microsoft's plan is a bad one. When Thief III comes out, I'll probably get the Xbox version. I've got a Pentium 800 as my old "game" machine, and I haven't turned it on for about 6 months now (I made the OS X switch some time ago). The Gamecube, PS2 and Xbox let me play what I want and I don't have to spend $300 - $600 every 12 months to keep up my video card/ram/processor/motherboard/whatever.
MS probably realizes this; I'm willing to bet their seeing higher Xbox sales on Xbox/PC titles (such as Knights of the Old Republic). So for games, I'll expect to see more of their emphasis to the Xbox.
Which is kind of a problem - it's still a major money loser for MS. It could be a winner in the long run, but will that means they'll have to open it up a bit and start letting people use it as a PC like system, which could eat into their PC sales profits? That could be a dual edged sword, since that means people could get used to using a "console" as a computer.
Eh. Either way, I'll just keep my eye on the situation. The best games will rule (which looks to be Nintendo for the next 9-12 months, with some nice looking gems on the other platforms), and I'm not about to give up my Powerbook any time soon
that would be spurts of progress.. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Echoes of Before the Xbox (Score:5, Interesting)
This fits in with Microsoft, who, despite their continual involvement, do not want to be a hardware company. They're making a loss on the XBox just to get a major foothold in the gaming industry, we've known this for a while.
The interesting thing is that we haven't seen exactly what the long term goal of Microsoft is with the gaming market. Now we can see. They want a stranglehold, and they're doing embrace and extend.
Stage 1: Xbox and XBox 2. Sell these puppies at a loss. Everyone gets a pretty good console (at least equivalent to the next in the market) for next to nothing. Everyone is using XBox. (Not yet achieved but getting there). A Microsoft device in every home, as it were.
Stage 2: XNA. Make all the gaming platforms interdependent through a Microsoft controlled set of standards. Market penetration is immense, especially because we assume XNA runs all the old DirectX games plus all the new XNA exclusive titles (see how many gaming franchises MS owns nowadays?). Consumers love choice. Websites will be contrasting Panasonic XNA consoles to Alienware XNA PC's to Nokias new XNA gamephone, all of which run the latest GTA, Evercrack, Counterstrike, Doom, EA sportsgames, everything. Microsoft on every gaming device in every home.
Stage 3: Control. Just like every other market MS has controlled, kill the competition, embrace, extend, litigate, leverage, and stretch the law as hard as it goes to keep picking up royalties and license fees for XNA and XNA licensed platforms.
Genius, if you ask me. Evil perhaps, but there's a reason Bill Gates can drop $1000 on the ground and not pick it up because he makes more money by ignoring it for the whole time it would take to bend over.
Re:Echoes of Before the Xbox (Score:3, Insightful)
That said, Microsoft has had a history of being willing to lose on two or three generations of products to come out on top. Hopefully Sony and Nintendo don't get too arrogant, their continued viability in the game market may depend on staying sharp and making the right choices.
Expands Gaming Rather than Controls it (Score:4, Insightful)
Just some food for thought about the possibilities.
No longer will be a locked down platform (Score:5, Interesting)
This will bring to console gaming the unreliability of the Desktop PC. An often cited benefit Apple has over the PC platform is that it knows its hardware. There are no wild cards. Console game developers have been able to count on this until now. You test and test, on a given company's box and you know your good.
If XNA takes off, look for crashes, due to one Manufacturer cutting corners, or another trying to add a beefier new edition of some chip.
There are some things where standards are great, and being able to commoditize the hardware is a great benefit to consumers. On the other hand gamers, who as a whole have demonstrated a willingness to spend for top of the line systems every few years are probably not looking for a less expensive systems at the cost of quality.
No doubt odds are in favor of something like this winning the mass market. In the mass market, the commodity item always succeeds, VHS over Meta, PC over Mac, etc. _However_, one of the console system may yet survive this if they can succeed in filling a niche in for a superior gaming experience that only a few percent of the market care about and build a fiercly, loyal following. -- Just as Apple Computers exists today.
Re:No longer will be a locked down platform (Score:3, Interesting)
So have consumers. People almost expect a crash or two when working on a document, but can you imagine how pissed a fourteen year old would be if his console crashed during the best score of his little life?
Console manufacturers won't be embracing this idea at all. Bill can blow his longhorn all he wants, but I don't see Sony or Nintendo going the way of the do-do anyt
Re:No longer will be a locked down platform (Score:3, Interesting)
I think this XNA stuff is some pretty cool "Out Of The Box" thinking, but ultimately I want to game on my big screen TV in my living room. I don't have time to "play" at work or
Re:No longer will be a locked down platform (Score:3, Interesting)
Apple is an unusual example, because they're not really about the hardware. Apple is all about the OS. You take away the OS and it's just not an Apple anymore, it's just a PC with really nice hardware. Apple just have a very strange hardware/software bundle experience going on. OS/X has increased Apple's market share, from what I can see at the e
Not an awful idea but bad with who's creating it (Score:4, Insightful)
It's all about synergy... (Score:2, Interesting)
The console markets are flourishing. While there are still many poor quality games, they are fewer in quantity due to the extra cost involved in making console titles available (platform fees, development kits) as well as the certification requirements for each platform.
To be honest, Microsoft establishing a true "
3DO?!? (Score:2)
world domination? (Score:5, Interesting)
and no, any replies pointing out how microsoft has taken control of other markets in the past (really only windows and office) are not insightful, they're redundant!
They Lack Soul (Score:3)
Everything online? Not likely (Score:5, Insightful)
Quoting the article:
J Allard: [...] Fast forward four or five years when every game is online
Maybe it's just me and my 20some-year gaming history, but I don't see single-player games going away anytime soon. Online games are fine if you have a few (or several) hours to blow, but if you just want something to relax with for 15 or 30 minutes I doubt that's what you're looking for.
Plus, of course, there's the entire commuting/riding/etc contingent. This may not be such a big deal in the US, where if you're moving, you're usually driving, but here in Japan, it's typical to have 1-2 hours of "dead time" a day on trains, buses and the like. Plenty of people play games during this time (one of the latest rages is "Gyakuten Saiban"--"Turnaround Court Case", I guess--and I can't decide whether that's a bad thing, but that's a different story); but who's going to go to all the bother of logging into an online service when they'll have to drop out as soon as they leave the train?
Re:Everything online? Not likely (Score:5, Insightful)
Online games are huge but usually equire enormous time commitment. Many occasional gamers like to spend an hour or two a week (say) playing games. With most MMORGs or online FPSs this is impossible, you either play all the time or not at all, especially since there is a monthly fee associated with it. If you play occasionally you either get your butt kicked all the time or you can't keep up with your friends.
My theory is that online multiplayer games will saturate their audience pretty soon, if it hasn't happened already. How many MMORGs can you play at once?
Re:Everything online? Not likely (Score:3, Interesting)
Online games are huge but usually equire enormous time commitment. [...] If you play occasionally you either get your butt kicked all the time or you can't keep up with your friends.
I'm having exactly that experience in FFXI (which, FWIW, isn't as bad as others since it doesn't have general PvP). To be honest, most of the reason I still play at all is because of friends who also play--even if I can't play with them, I can pretend the game doubles as an IRC client and chat with them while I play with oth
Re:Everything online? Not likely (Score:3, Insightful)
MS has failed once already with "Talisman" (Score:5, Informative)
The idea of Talisman was that each frame of a game is very much like the next one. In fact, rather than render the next frame from scratch, it might be possible to do projection of the previous frames image to get the next frame. Even if this couldn't be done for the whole image, it could certainly be done for part of it. For example, in a flight simulator, even if the ground is not flat, it is piecewise flat, and those pieces could be 2D-transformed from one frame to the next without the expense of full 3D rendering.
Microsoft hired the best people in the field of DVE (digital video effects) including Steve Gabriel and Alvy Ray Smith, almost certainly to work on this project. Steve Gabriel built the Ampex ADO, the first high-quality digital video effects machine, in the early 80's. Alvy Ray Smith wrote the Siggraph paper on 2-pass transforms, the foundation upon which the ADO is built.
Well. It turns out [winnetmag.com] that rendering texture-mapped polygons can be done very very quickly indeed, and the analysis necessary to "save" time using the Talisman ideas was exceedingly complex and expensive. In the best case, Talisman might have sped things up by a factor of 2 -- about six months time given the fervid pace of graphics board development.
I don't think of this as particularly reassuring, though -- Microsoft usually fails a couple of times before achieving domination. Perhaps Talisman was Rev 1, and XBOX is Rev 2...
Thad Beier
XNA Business Model (Score:5, Insightful)
Sound strategy? (Score:2, Funny)
So... (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm skeptical. (Score:5, Interesting)
1) How would it be different from Windows? If it's just a set of standards, protocals, and software that can run on a ton of different types of hardware, how exactly is it different from Windows, or Linux? Is the console release cycle replaced by incremental PC-style upgrades? If so, I'd have to mark that has a huge disadvantage. I do not want to have to upgrade my console system. I don't particularly that every 2-5 years I drop another $150-200 on a new console and peripherals, if I don't have to spend $500 and build an entire machine every several years. The beauty of console systems is that they Just Work, no having to check "system requirements", no driver conflicts, ect. Far from creating a "standard" for developers to follow to improve game stability, ect., they now are encouraged to write code that may run on multiple platforms.
2. Do we really need to play Halo on a cellphone, hand-held game console, PDA and refridgerator? For some games I could imagine that having some functionality/interaction with the actual game would be nice, but I would fear this would become a serious distraction to developers who often seem to have a difficult time just creating a single stable, fun game. Even with a set of "standards" being introduced, it's more work for the developer to build the kitchen sink into their game. I question how many gamers would actually have the time and inclination to take advantage most of these features... is it going to increase sales of games that much? I fear it could eat into developer resources that should be spent creating a good game. It shouldn't be that hard to develop a good game for a three different platforms as long as each of those platforms don't vary in terms of hardware or software configuration at all (as is currently the case.)
3. Do we really trust Microsoft to do a good job? Microsoft has a poor track record for producing stable and secure products. Though I've been skeptical of the idea of trojans, ect. that spread through gaming consoles up until now, I would not be surprised if in several years we saw a worm reap havoc because too many people didn't run "XFS Update" often enough.
4. Is this legal? Microsoft is a monopoly. DirectX is a part of Windows, which is essentially the subject of their monopoly. Outright admitting that they are attempting to dominate the market with a standard that they own, and using their existing "clout" with DirectX, ect. seems to me to raise a few red flags. What I find ironic is the guy talks about the consumers not having a choice--since when has that ever been a concern of Microsoft's? And I do think I have a coice. For console systems, I can choose a GameCube, or a PlayStation 2, or an X-Box. On any of those systems I can choose from a multitude of games from a multitude of developers. Or I can choose to game on a PC (which I can build myself or buy from any number of OEMs), running Windows or Linux. Or I can choose to game on a Mac. Is this not choice? If a substantial number of these options were replaced by XNS, just how is my choice broadened? I do not understand.
Not really trying to be a Microsoft basher, but I'd be expressing some serious doubts even if it were Nintendo (and I'm something of a fanboy) proposed something like this. The fact that it's Microsoft makes me even more skeptical.
Key to XNA will be backwards compatibility (Score:2)
How exactly is Joe Gamer going to feel when his 500 bucks worth of XBox games (some of which writ
A public reaction to Sony & IBM's recient news (Score:2)
"Cell" is the code-name for an advanced microprocessor under development by Sony, IBM and Toshiba. The technology uses massive data bandwidth and floating point capabilities, coupled with a parallel processing architecture, to deliver what IBM said will be a
Re:A public reaction to Sony & IBM's recient n (Score:2)
because it's looking like it'll require pain staking manual optimization to make ti look good. The PS2 architecture is still competative if your willing to put int he effeort to manage all the proccessors. Having a machine with 4 identical proccessors will be equally complex. Only a
Re:A public reaction to Sony & IBM's recient n (Score:2)
because it's looking like it'll require pain staking manual optimization to make ti look good. The PS2 architecture is still competative if your willing to put int he effeort to manage all the proccessors. Having a machine with 4 identical proccessors will be equally complex. On
Huge opportunity for MS (Score:2, Insightful)
The reason for this is simple: Microsoft's proprietary graphics and sound APIs are lightyears ahead of rivals and open source.
Windows destroys Linux when it comes to 3D graphics and sound. It's a combination of hardware support and mature APIs. Windows also destroys the Mac on price/performance ratio because of open hardware.
Now Microsoft wants to essentially take the m
Re:Huge opportunity for MS (Score:5, Informative)
As for 3D hardware audio, you may be right. However, I dunno how the ALSA support for this is.
And, it is not true that DirectGraphics is light years ahead. See the features of OpenGL 1.5 and compare it with Direct3D9 - there is no "better" one, it's a draw.
The Two Primary Strengths of Consoles... (Score:3, Insightful)
Console graphic programmers know exactly what hardware they will be dealing with, and what that hardware is capable of. They can test and tweak to refine the framerate and level of detail, and push the hardware to its limits.
Likewise, consoles and their games do not require configuration, multiple driver versions, or myriad other things that PC gamers need to deal with.
Having a dozen different consoles that support this standard would mean that games that perform well on some might not do so well on others. Developer testing and standards adheretion should rule out complete incompatibility, but it would still be no small deal of trouble for the consumer.
But then, the consumer is never high on Microsoft's list of concerns. The hardware at this point is largely irrelevant; while the leap from the graphically inadequete Nintendo 64 and Playstation to their next generation counterparts was a marked improvement, the generation after will benefit from no such revolution.
Graphic evolution only props up consoles for so long; eventually the graphics become largely ignored, and the gameplay and art design take the forefront.
I have been on a retro kick lately, and playing 8 and 16 bit games. In those days game designers had just enough machine to have decent graphics but not enough for a game to rely on them without anything interesting behind them, although plenty of games tried.
While graphics have advanced quite rapidly in the past decade, gameplay is progressing much more slowly. Which certainly makes sense; whereas art is a factor of time and hardware, game design is a much more complicated beast to wrangle with.
Hopefully those in charge will realize that graphics are nearing a glass ceiling, and will sllow more freedom to game designers to make interesting and unique gameplay experiences, rather than relying on the old assumption that polygon and texture layers directly relate to sales.
This exists, and it's called Renderware (Score:5, Interesting)
Renderware is billed as a "universal game engine", more or less. Actually, it's the physics engine from Mathengine, an AI engine from Knyogon, a rendering engine, and an audio engine, which more or less play together. There's also a generic level editor, a build tool, and a configuration management system for all the game assets. All the major target platforms are supported.
In general, none of those components are considered the best in their class. When you look at the titles supported, you don't see any of the top 10 games. But there are time-to-market advantages in buying them all your tools from one vendor. That's the sort of thinking that attracts Microsoft.
So if you want to see what XNA would be like, check out Renderware.
Re:This exists, and it's called Renderware (Score:4, Informative)
You mean "besides GTA III"?
Does this weird out anybody else? (Score:3, Interesting)
Going to put on my Microsoft-is-evil hat here and ask, how the heck do they know this? A possibility: when connecting to xbox live, it sends the id of the box along with which video connections you are using. Jimmy's xbox was using analog video yesterday, now it's connected on component video, he must have changed to his dad's plamsa screen.
1.85 rooms... what a bizarre stat to pull out of your ass and throw out there.
Dident Microsoft Already try this and fail? (Score:3, Interesting)
Wasent the MSX standard in Japan just this - a set of standards that companies could build their game- system to play MSX cartridges.
obviously don't understand the market (Score:2)
This means one of two things to me: either MS doesn't understand the market which is composed of hardcore gamers (ie, people that like gaming largely because of this so-called obsolescence, and the perpetual upgrades in graphic quality that it causes), or these hard-core gamers are no longer a significant part of the gaming market.
Given the rash of titles I've seen over
Nobody understands... (Score:2, Interesting)
Bill Gates quote from the XNA page (Score:2)
A Boon for Developers (Score:5, Interesting)
I love free stuff. If I can get cross-platform development for free (or close), I'll take it. The ability to create a substantial application and have it run well on Windows, Mac OS, and Linux means I can reach a greater audience. But what XNA promises is almost impossible to resist [ev1.net]: the ability to develop a substantial game that runs on your desktop, in your livingroom, and on your keychain -- three large markets that do not directly compete.
Applications drive an operating system; a stack of exceptional programs give consumers a reason to buy your OS. A complaint I've long had with Palm is that they haven't made it easier to develop for Palm OS. Microsoft gives its development environment away for free [microsoft.com]. In fact, it's possible to develop simple games concurrently for Windows Desktop and Pocket PC [develant.com]. If XNA can make it possible for a small studio such as mine to develop our more complex offerings [dejobaan.com] concurrently for Windows and Pocket PC, will I care about Palm OS, Mac OS, or Linux?
What I'd like to see from companies such as Apple and PalmSource are environments like Torque [garagegames.com], which makes it possible to write for Windows, Mac OS, and Linux by abstracting each environment. But Torque is really an ad-hoc solution (in both senses of the term); it's not a hollistic system, and it's not supported by the OS vendors. Though an awkward combination, if it were possible to develop substantial applications for Mac OS, Palm OS, and Windows, I might. But if XNA allows me to develop substantial applications for Windows, Pocket PC, and the Xbox concurrently -- three different, juicy markets -- that's even better.
yes, that sums up Microsoft's problem (Score:5, Insightful)
Microsoft's managers still hang on to the silly dream that they can create a single platform that works for everybody. They can't. First, technically, people have needs and interests that are far too diverse to be served by any single platform. Second, even if it was technically feasible, any market like that is far too large not to attract competition--that's, after all, the purpose of a free market economy.
The only way any company can maintain dominance in a market like Microsoft does is through monopolistic practices. Microsoft could get away with that once because they succeeded when people didn't understand what was happening--but that isn't going to work again, under the scrutiny of competitors and anti-trust enforcement.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Quality, not quantity.... (Score:2, Insightful)
but i really feel that the console market is different to the PC one in alot of ways, and maybe MS (having not done so well in it) are trying to change it into something they think they know, and have more experience in (i.e. the PC market). all the way that article, that is what was running through my mind.
the thing about the console market is that there is more soul in the games
XBox vs PS2: Quality of developer tools ... (Score:5, Interesting)
The Sony tools are hideous. Well, the debugger has a nice graphical frontend provided by a third party and is fairly slick and fast compared to Visual Studio, but the compiler and libraries provided are terrible - a patched up gcc 2.9.5 which has a prediliction for internal errors when the array indexing operator [] is used creatively , and that doesn't always optimise away empty constructors. And the libraries provided - at least initially were slow, and crufty and not suitable for game use. At least now, two years after the release of the PS2, Sony provides some decent middleware.
They MUST get developer tools right from the off with the PS3 - especially if it has 8 CPU's. I really, really hope they do. I'd hate to see my market swallowed by the Beast. At present it's economical to develop for the PS2 without needing a single Windows liscence. I hope it stays that way
Re:Technology (Score:4, Informative)
Re:How does one become a console programmer? (Score:3, Insightful)
Nick