C’mon, haven’t you ever thought that it would be cool to write a game for the Xbox 360 or Windows, if only you had the time? Microsoft’s new XNA Game Architecture is designed to make game development modular and easy. Throw in developer tools, such as XNA Express, and you have no excuses to create the next DOOM. Matthew David shows why game development is only a few key strokes away.
Introducing Game Development with Microsoft XNA
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSAlert.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
this is why people writes games in direct3d instead of opengl. Not the “interoperability” between the pc and the xbox, but the fact that they try to make things easy for game developers.
Edited 2006-11-19 19:43
The real problems when making a game don’t stem from which rendering api you use.
Just any random schmuck can implement a rendering engine on top of directx or opengl these days.
Implementing one with a good programming interface is harder, and directx doesn’t make it easier than opengl.
But the real thing that game developers should focus on (and too often neglect) is to get the overall architecture of their engine and tools right.
Collision detection, physics, animation, all those things are problems that have been solved numerous times and for which third party middle ware can be used.
However, making it easy to add new kind of objects that can be stored, inserted in the game levels, which can be manipulated and edited in the level editor, and can be manipulated easily through scripts is usually what is hard as hell if the architecture sucks.
Professional game developers very often come with architecture that sucks really badly.
As a programmer working on the level editor and asset management server for a big MMORPG project, I spend most of my time maintaining boatloads of code that load/save data in ad-hoc formats, and code specific to the various objects we need to manipulate in the level editor.
I also continuously repair and hack asset management code because the underlying design is so bad that we keep breaking references between resources.
As I noticed in previous projects as well, those things: data management, storage, and interfacing with scripts are what most issues come from when developing a game.
Another common problem is not to implement the scripting language in a way that makes it really useful, for instance by not using it for all the high level stuff (including menus and the overall workflow of the game)
This is why the second game people write is in opengl, platform lock and architectural limits.
Yet those people are far fewer than the others. Hmm..
You dont have to “Hmm”.. We know why
We know why
Developers, developers, developers, developers, developers, developers, developers, developers, yes!
Edited 2006-11-19 21:58
Developers, developers, developers…
http://www.1wit.com/clips/MicrosoftCEOSteveBalmerDevelopers.wmv
Considering how old and overused that is, hosting it on a domain called “wit” is truly some delicious ironing.
Yeah OpenGL doesn’t come close to providing the ‘complete’ solution that DirectX/Windows does. Sure, writing an opengl game isn’t really that much more work, but why do any extra work at all when you don’t have to?
Edited 2006-11-19 22:03
Can’t put a price on good kharma.
“The result is that Microsoft has created a single form factor solution for hobbyists who want to take their games from the PC to the Xbox 360.”
It says it all.
P.S.: in the mean time, you can have SDL+OpenGL to have your games portable across OS and architectures.
Edited 2006-11-19 22:33
for hobbyists who want to take their games from the PC to the Xbox 360.” only and never go anywhere else.
Now that would say it all.
I do not know why everybody here is comparing DirectX and OpenGL to XNA or even recommending SDL+OpenGL as an alternative to XNA. I recommend to those to actually read what XNA is about and take a quick look at the API. Otherwise you obviously talk about stuff you know nothing about.
In short XNA is based on DirectX but keeps you from writing all that tedious framework code required to manage content and rendering something. Rendering a simple triangle in either DirectX or SDL+OpenGL requires a multiple amount of code compared to rendering complete textured 3D models using XNA.
I have worked in games industry and have been working on game engines using DirectX as well as OpenGL. And let me tell you XNA is really a far step forward in games development. The capabilities of the API even in beta2 are nothing less then impressive. Microsoft is really pulling something off with XNA and it will revolutionize gamedevelopment for sure.
Of course platform independence of XNA would be fantastic and a further plus but I am sure the opensource communinty (possibly the guys behind mono and/or SDL) might work into that direction someday.
Edited 2006-11-19 23:20
Why is he modded down? Because he was right?
No he was modded down, because of his oversight in this:
And let me tell you XNA is really a far step forward in games development.
No, it is a step forward in Microsoft games development.
Let me tell you, if that octopus gets any bigger than it already is, gaming will become the next Windows or Office, i.e gaming the way MS sanctions it.
People keep complaining about how Linux/*BSD/Mac never offers what MS has, but they never stop to think that they push MS forward with all the money they sink in to it. It is really hard to offer an alternative, if the people clammoring for the alternative are putting their money on the wrong horse.
Ah, so he was modded down for difference of opinion.
Stupidity should be modded down. It is contagious.
C’mon now. I wouldn’t call r_a_trip’s post stupid.
What are you talking about?
XNA is simply an abstraction of DirectX unifying them all under a consistant API.
It’s really easy to get started and eliminated the Fixed Function Pipeline in favor of the Programmable Pipeline.
XNA is the future of Managed Game Programming on Windows.
You guys keep turning this into a “Microsoft Technology Oh n03z it isn’t on [insert OS name here] so it must be evil” when the fact of the matter is it is a great platform regardless of the OS it runs on.
You really need to stop thinking of everything in such a black and white “Windows vs OSS” manner.
I really don’t know what you mean by “Gaming the way MS sanctions it”, Microsoft already owns DirectX and by the looks of DirectX10 if I’m starting to really like the way “MS sanctions it”.
Just give credit where credit is due and stop turning everything into a goddamn OS war. Jesus christ.
I’ll stop complaining as soon as Microsoft provides full disclosure for their products.
You might just as well shut up right now. I for one is very tired of the stupid os wars.
Just because the “OS wars” have been going on for a long time doesn’t mean there isn’t a legitimate basis for them.
Folks who give up and accept product/platform lock-in are part of the problem.
Can you please explain why Microsoft should open up their DirectX / XNA technology?
I cannot see any valid justification for this. There is definately no abuse of monopoly here. People are absolutely free to choose to run OpenGL or other non-Direct X / XNA game products.
Microsoft chooses to improve their technology and platform.. it’s their right and it’d be stupid to not improve over the rivals.
“XNA is the future of Managed Game Programming on Windows.”
Vendor lock-in.
“You guys keep turning this into a “Microsoft Technology Oh n03z it isn’t on [insert OS name here] so it must be evil” when the fact of the matter is it is a great platform regardless of the OS it runs on.”
You surely don’t know anything about history. It always repeat itself.
“You really need to stop thinking of everything in such a black and white “Windows vs OSS” manner.”
With Windows only APIs, it’s just black. There’s no white or other colors.
“I really don’t know what you mean by “Gaming the way MS sanctions it”, Microsoft already owns DirectX and by the looks of DirectX10 if I’m starting to really like the way “MS sanctions it”.”
So would you like only one brand of clothes to choose from?
“Just give credit where credit is due and stop turning everything into a goddamn OS war. Jesus christ.”
Credit to Microsoft’s own tactics to maintain a monopoly? Are you kidding or are you just plain idiot and ignorant? BTW, mentioning a god doesn’t help it.
There are people who really value freedom. Perhaps someday you will get hit by Microsoft’s “our way or the highway” and you will understand.
So would you like only one brand of clothes to choose from?
Nice logical fallacy there buddy. No one is stopping anyone else from developing games using other technologies or platforms. Microsoft is trying to offer the best platform they can for people who choose to use it. They are under no obligation to provide “full disclosure” on their technology either.
Yes. They are under no obligation to do the right thing; that, however, is not much of an argument. Likewise, I am under no obligation to stop lambasting them for their decision.
Remember, it is the “right thing” in your opinion. You are perfectly within your rights to demonize them for whatever you want, but you will be questioned for it.
The problem is not using another framework.
The problem is to use the same framework on a different platform. Not possible (or only through reengineering) with XNA – therefore: Vendor lock-in.
So would you like only one brand of clothes to choose from?
Cultists want only one brand to choose from: the GPL brand. They think the Microsoft is dishonest and evil. They think BSD is slavery etc etc.
Thats why cultists want the GPL mandated. They want mandatory lack of choice.
In licenses, maybe. But the GPLs flaw is NOT “lack of choice”. Please. I’m not a fan of the GPL, but you shouldn’t trash it for the wrong (literally) reasons.
Yeah, it’s also a great vendor lock-in strategy. Frankly, I would rather travel the more difficult path.
Sure it is vendor lock-in, but that does not change the fact that XNA is a great leap ahead in games development. Development of a framework even remotely capable of what XNA and the associated toolchain can do would take you several hundred thousand bucks and 1000 of hours of work. Considering the costs and pressure in gamedev, this is the right way to go and offers smaller studios and freelance teams the ability to produce and focus on creative gameplay instead of reinventing the same technology time and again.
Furthermore why should MS invest into porting it to other platforms. The API should be replicable for capable OSS developers anyways and is not entirely dependent on DirectX. In theory a XNA compatible API could be build on GL as well.
On a side note concerning portability, MS offered Sony to contribute and use XNA for their Playstation line of products when it was first publicly announced (in 2004 IIRC).
BTW The triangle rendering part was just an example of how much less code it takes to do the same thing in XNA compared to DX/GL. Processor performance is relatively cheap todays development hours are not. Additionaly the performance of XNA/.net/managed code is not that bad if you get your code right.
Edited 2006-11-20 00:32
> Processor performance is relatively cheap todays
> development hours are not.
Man, how I hate this line of thought. “Development hours” are the excuse for having layer upon layer wrapped in a layer ad infinitum, and that’s why today’s gajilion-flops computers don’t feel significantly faster than the computers of ten or twenty years ago. The developers’ time is expensive, sure, but they will spend it only once. The game, however, will run, hopeffuly, millions of times, pissing off thousands of users because their new USD 500,00 8800 power guzzler won’t run their favorite game at max settings..
It’s quite easy to solve that.
Just release the games optimized for specific GPU’s.
Like <title> 8800 version, or <title>x1950 version, etc.
Or how about paying triple or more for the game in order to get 2-3 fps more on the hardware you have.
Or how about accepting the reality that “max settings” is there so that the game will look better on future hardware, instead of setting current hardware as the upper limit.
Amen
It’s not a vendor-lock in strategy. They’re only tools.
Get over it. And stop it with your unfounded hate.
Unless Microsoft release it for other platforms it IS vendor lock-in.
It is only vendor lock-in because the competition cannot produce anything that can match it. If they tried to do that, instead of just trundling out the same old monopoly argument, then perhaps this alleged so-called lock-in wouldn’t happen.
Nope. It is vendor lock-in if the solution cannot be moved to other platforms.
App/game dev can port to another platform using another set of tools/APIs. There is no vendor lock-in.
There _is_ vendor lock-in since you cannot port the set of tools/APIs. You are effectively locked-in.
There isn’t any vendor lock-in since you can replace the APIs with another set (I.E. OpenGL and D3D).
It’s still in your head.
It is vendor lock-in unless replacing the API can be done with simple search’n’replace (and only a few characters each place). Since this isn’t the case, we have vendor lock-in.
No, it’s not. Contracts make vendor lock-in. Not tools.
Incorrect. Vendor lock-in happens if you cannot easily move your data from one platform to another platform.
Since moving a XNA-based project to another platform requires major rewrites we effectively have a vendor lock-in.
EOF.
Content can be easily switched between different APIs. Still no problem.
Not if the APIs are very different
Unless the developper gets off his ass and ports it’s to another 3D API then he wants the program to run only on the platform chosen first.
It’s not vendor lock-in. They’re only tools. He can port his game to another platform if so wished. Many games are run on many consoles (including XBox).
It’s still unfounded hatred for MS…
I don’t hate MS, and my post clearly shows that. I have even written that the Windows desktop in certain areas have been (or are) lightyears ahead of Gnome/KDE and OS X.
You use the same tired and debunked arguments against MS. Using your logic, tying an app to KDE libs is vendor lock-in because it won’t use GNOME libs.
They have never been debunked.
There is no Vendor Lock-in with KDE. It is impossible to create vendor lock-in with open source, since you can port the libs to any platform, without having to change the application.
The problem is you don’t understand the meaning of Vendor Lock-in.
They have been debunked. The supposed problem keeps coming up because people can’t get MS to do what they want. Too bad.
Games are ported from console to console to PCs all the time. There is no vendor lock-in. It’s all in your head.
So they have been debunked because you say so? The problem keeps coming up due to poor interoperability. Poor interoperability is due to vendor lock-in. It _is_ getting better with MS, but they still have a long way to go.
Companies developing games for consoles will not be using XNA. The major game companies will keep using directx and SDL/OpenGL. That’s not the problem. The problem is the extension of the market – a market that will be locked in since they cannot easily port their games.
dylansmrjones: You want MS to develop a cross platform framework because GPL dicks can’t develop one?
Well tough shit buddy, that ain’t going to happen. Keep whining.
Secondly, no matter how much you whine, game developers will chose better tools, so if GPL can’t offer a better one, again touch shit:)
Ahh it must suck to be a GPL fanatic living life with substandard duplicates?
CrazyDude0: can you highlight me in no more than 50 words what is the idea behind XNA and how it would help me make games more easily, and why it is such an awesome toolkit?
Why don’t you read the linked article?
I did.
It is devoid of content.
Besides, since you seem so convinced that it’s the best thing since sliced bread, I thought you knew what makes it so good.
Edited 2006-11-20 20:11
You want MS to develop a cross platform framework because GPL dicks can’t develop one?
No, I don’t “want” MS to do so. Nor have I written anything that could possibly be interpreted that way. Au contraire. I am merely noticing that we have a new situation of vendor lock-in.
Well tough shit buddy, that ain’t going to happen. Keep whining.
I am not whining. I am merely noticing, we have a new risk for vendor lock-in. Personally I think Microsoft is spending its resources in the wrong areas. MS should spend more on fixing the obvious flaws in its desktop implementation. If MS did that Windows would be a killer OS. Instead it’s merely another terribly flawed Desktop OS.
Secondly, no matter how much you whine, game developers will chose better tools, so if GPL can’t offer a better one, again touch shit:)
Only amateurs will be using XNA. The great ones will be using the same tools, due to the need for cross platform development. However, amateurs outnumbers the pros and will lead to a vendor lock-in situation. This is unfortunate. I am still not whining. Merely noticing. It doesn’t ruin my sleep to see XNA around. There is already XNA-like frameworks under the GPL. Tough shit, right?
Ahh it must suck to be a GPL fanatic living life with substandard duplicates?
I’m not a GPL fanatic. I prefer that license, but it’s not particularly important. I have a lot of proprietary software installed on my machine (this post is written in K-Meleon on Win2K3 Server – a combination of GPL’ed software and proprietary software). I don’t consider proprietary software evil, nor do I consider FLOSS technological superior due to the licenses. Some open source solutions are great, other FLOSS solutions suck. The same goes for proprietary solutions.
You, however, is quite a zealot and a troll. Always against FLOSS and always praising MS – without the slightest hint of independent thought.
If XNA requires .NET and you to use C# for game development, then it isn’t a big step forward. It may seem a little easier at first, but as you worked in the games industry you already know that rendering a triangle is not the most complicated or tedious thing about game development. Even if it were, there’s a lot of frameworks out there to make it easier, that don’t require directx of .NET. It won’t revolutionize anything, it will make games just a bit more easier to develop, but it will require enormous ammounts of memory and processor to make a complex game work on normal machines.
I’m sick of you guys who think .NET based technologies are the top of the top and a must have. It’s only another lock-in created by Microsoft to prevent game companies from developing PS3 or WII games. It may seem easier at first, but if game companies commit to SDL+OpenGL+other framework they will get more beneficts having a broader market.
And without this supposed lock-in you can more easily make games for both PS3 and Wii?
I do not see what you are complaining about.
Why stick to something that isn’t as good when you can actually innovate something (yes, Microsoft is actually innovating here).
There is no innovation here on the part of Microsoft. They are merely creating a new area for Vendor Lock-in. That’s the only area Microsoft has ever innovated in.
Most games developers wants to be free from all that hoola-boola called Game API. They will be happier with SDL/OpenGL or just plain directX.
XNA is primarily a gift for those of you, who cannot handle abstract thoughts.
dylansmrjones: I know you hate microsoft but don’t let the hate cloud your judgement.
Microsoft has built the new platforms and they are building a new cool game development framework for that.
How is it any different from all the various frameworks you get. Sorry if Linux doesn’t have a good framework don’t ask Microsoft to stop developing one.
You are so biased in your thoughts that instead of crediting people who worked hard, you flat out say they are doing all for just vendor lockin.
At least learn to be honest and give credit where it is due.
Now mode me down as you always try to do:)
CrazyDude0, I don’t hate Microsoft. I dislike the management but I don’t hate the company. I dislike the business tactics from MS, due to the complete lack of ethical standards.
I usually don’t mod you down. I mostly mod up people (even cpuguy and other ms-cultists).
According to me GPL is unethical. If i have tons of money or enough money so i can work in free time, should i give away my time in such a way that people lose jobs?
GPL is like some rich people working in their free time screwing up needy software engineer’s jobs.
In stead the true ethical world is BSD where people work in their spare time and give it totally free to others something which others can use to prosper.
At least the software i develop in my free time i always give under BSD so if not me but other can prosper if possible by commericializing it. I don’t hate them or anything, it is like donation to me.
But GPL is, hey i am giving you 10$ but make sure you don’t use these 10$ because you need to give them back. Yeah nice.
GPL is bad for software industry. The day GPL generate more software jobs than Microsoft or creates more powerful and better tools, we will talk.
Now i know people will mod me down even if they just simply disagree with my opinion and that is why i dislike GPL fanatics. They are pretty intolerant to criticism.
I shouldn’t reply to such an obvious troll, but here goes.
You first accuse people writing GPL code to steal the job of people who do it for a living.
Then you say “The day GPL generate more software jobs than Microsoft or creates more powerful and better tools, we will talk.”
So which is it? If GPL doesn’t make better tools than Microsoft, then why would it steal people’s jobs?
In any case, everyone is entitled to distribute their stuff as they see fit. If I want people to contribute back if they use my work, then so be it. If it doesn’t suit you, just don’t use my work.
If my work, as a hobbyist, endanger people’s business, then they don’t deserve to have that business in the first place.
If I work on GPL stuff and I’m founded by a company, then I’m doing it for a living and the company I work for does invest money into developing something, and they do manage to get money out of it, probably selling services. Not that in that case, any other company can sell services around the same product and they don’t have to contribute to its development.
By the way, it’s funny how you seem to consider only Microsoft when you think about proprietary developers – I guess you don’t care about those working for other companies.
In any case, to go back to the subject at hand, the video game industry would be better off, as a whole, to move toward an open source development model.
Most of the technology is the same across games, and video game companies simply suck at building technology (except a few random exceptions like id software and the like), in great part because it always ends up being hopelessly tied to the current project’s goals and schedule.
A cooperative development of tools and frameworks would prevent any one to force shortcuts being take in the implementation for the sake of their own project.
And the true business of game development companies is to sell content, not technology. They should focus on that.
GPL or LGPL could be workable for most of the technology used in about every game, although it would require to break through the skull-thickness of the industry, especially control-freak console manufacturers.
Edited 2006-11-20 14:29
Just from the fact that you call me an ‘ms-cultist’ shows exactly how biased you are.
Actually not. I am not particular biased. I’m no more for or against MS, than I’m for or against Stallman or the GPL.
I’m somewhere in the middle of the positions, instead of you who are a MS-apologist, or moulineuf, who’s clearly a GPL-advocate.
Only in two areas do I have a clear bias. Bloated software (code-wise bloat) and software patents. Software patents and code-wise bloat are not issues here, therefore I cannot possibly be biased
See, you do it again.
I post the truth, nothing more, very rarely put opinions up.
Hey, I could write that as well.
I post the truth, nothing more, very rarely put opinions up. Now we’re even.
Fact is, you mostly put up opinions, either directly or indirectly. Nothing wrong in that, but fact is you are always critical of FLOSS and never critical of MS. I, however, praise and critisize both camps, so eventhough I have opinions, I am also neutral in regard to the camps. And exactly that makes me unbiased. Biased is not having an opinion. Biased is always being on one particular side, even if you don’t put opinions up (this can however be done indirectly by posting the “truth”).
Please, show me where I am praising MS or putting down FLOSS.
Most games developers wants to be free from all that hoola-boola called Game API. They will be happier with SDL/OpenGL or just plain directX.
Then there is no problem; if developers don’t like it, then they just won’t use it.
troll.
There is no innovation here on the part of Microsoft.
The cult does not own a dictionary. They refuse to even consider that their propaganda may be lies. So they threw away all their dictionaries so they can’t look up the word innovation.
These are not people you would trust in a data center to make rational decisions.
If you would like to go over a program written using C++ with DX and C# with XNA and compare the level of abstraction present in both I think your audience would love to see the decrease in abstraction present in the latter as illustrated by you.
The level of abstraction is not the motivating factor, nor even the presence of a “game api” since most developers do not work on engine code and thus are always subject to “game apis,” but that interoperating with managed code in the lower level aspects from unamanged code that will compose the rest of the engine is simply not worthwhile when the platform interface is such a small part of a game. It would be a reversal of abstraction, where higher-level languages are usually used to describe high-level aspect of the game, since there is almost no chance that any studio is going to just start coding everything in C#. If there’s a big resurgence in arcade games, there might be more interest.
XNA is a gift to Microsoft’s games division, since I am sure that their hope is that it will sell more 360s by reducing the conceptual barrier to entry of development. If it sells more copies of Visual Studio in the process, that’s icing on the cake.
.Net (Mono portable runtime) has it’s use in accelerating scripting in games, but I’d never use it for anything lower-level than that.
XNA? It’s another Microsoft attempt at locking-in developers into DirectX so that games are only made for Windows and X360, and as hard as possible to port to OpenGL (=PS3, Wii, Linux, OSX). Not going to happen (MS had chance, once, to kill OGL in games but idSoftware prevented this almost single handedly).
I think Sony should release to masses their PS3 DevKit and turn it into equivalent of XNA. Not sure how it compares to MS offerings though, but I think it is more complete thing than most other kits.
come on guys, they’re not forcing anyone to use XNA. it’s yet another game programming framework aimed to lower programming time and learning threshold, like many others before, both commercial and free.
all in all, like other projects of this kind, it will help alot in allowing people to get their ideas into playable form. for Microsoft this is naturally about easing game development on their platforms while propagating the use of DirectX, nothing wrong with that!
that said, I can’t see many commercial games written for the XBox360 using this. consoles are locked in hardware and thus locked in performance. and in meeting the nextgen demands for graphics and framerate you really need to squeeze the best out of the machine.
japanese developers really excel at this, which they have proven again and again by pushing the PS2 to it’s limits. true, it’s much easier developing using a high-level api, but if you want to get the raw power out of the machine, you will have to adjust your code to the hardware, and not the other way around.
and for the nextgen console games, where incredible graphics and smooth framerate is expected, you won’t have the luxury of losing performance through wrappers upon wrappers of generalized functionality and the overhead of managed code. of course, I’m talking about titles aiming to push the envelope here, not space invaders.
for the hobbyists in particular, this will be a great way to get their ideas across with minimal effort. but it’s not ‘innovative’, like someone said. there are tons of simplified api’s for this kind of thing, and even complete languages specifically aimed at games programming, many of them cross platform.
XNA deprecates support for a lot of DirectX. It’s sort of a disappointing side-step from MDX for the PC-side, and I guess you can think of it as a manged framework for the 360 that happens to work on the PC. It isn’t a replacement for DX and it doesn’t do that much to spread the adoption of DX. If it’s meant to spread anything it’s meant to spread the adoption of .NET, perhaps into universities via increasing-numbers of game development courses.
In a game that will be ported to many platforms the back-end details are abstracted away. Reliance on this particular managed runtime makes this a bit problematic, so I doubt that you will see any movement to the platform by any studio looking to make money. Hobbyists hoping to make the next Geometry Wars or independent developers that don’t care about reaching the widest audience are already salivating for it, but they aren’t exactly going to spell doom and gloom for Sony or Nintendo.
It seems that the only thing that Microsoft could actually do that wouldn’t spark angsty Interweb posts is to close up shop and send out checks to its stockholders.
I have no idea what XNA is, because whenever I hear about it, it’s in vague terms like “XNA makes things easier”.
Or awesome articles like the one linked is this news that contains a whole paragraph of vague statements per page.
So, how does XNA makes development easier? By pointlessly wasting processing power by making things run on a JIT compiler to get a gimmick binary-level portability? Or is there more to it?
As a programmer who mostly targets the Windows platform, I’m really glad that Microsoft is concentrating on improving what the Windows platform offers in terms of APIs.
For those of you that use Mono to target the *nix platforms, you might be interested in Mono.Xna — it is compatible to the front-facing XNA API, but the back end is done wholly on cross platform technologies.
Mono.Xna: http://www.taoframework.com/Mono.Xna
Back in the mid nineties, I remember finding a large number of FPS games that were made using a popular game creation kit of the time (can’t remember the name, unfortunately). It seemed like a neat idea, I even considered purchasing it myself – but then I played some of the games made with it. With a few exceptions, the games left a definite “amateur-hour” impression. I don’t hold much hope that the results of Microsoft’s solution would be much better.
And on top of that, there’s the tendency Microsoft has to give less knowledgeable users more than enough rope to hang themselves. Compare PowerPoint with something like Keynote (not to drag this into the platform wars) – PPT is clearly more flexible, but the flexibility tends to lead to “I have a hammer, suddenly everything looks like a nail” syndrome in inexperienced users. Aka, “Why am I using you using 15 different transitions and an animated background? Because I can, of course!”
Which leads me to idly muse… is there some sort of Microsoft Film Director package that is secretly licensed to Uwe Boll, Paul Anderson, and Michael Bay? It would certainly explain quite a lot.
That’s a good point. A product where you may seem the same thing occur is Adobe Photoshop. Flexible, but inexperienced users tend to produce the same end results, that look very amateurish. However, is that really that much different from any other “power” product? (I wouldn’t consider Powerpoint a “power” product though.)
However, is that really that much different from any other “power” product? (I wouldn’t consider Powerpoint a “power” product though.)
That’s correct, but there’s another detail: Photoshop has never, to my knowledge, been marketed as a product for Joe Blow end user. Microsoft, on the other hand, regularly does things like market FrontPage as a tool that will let anyone create a professional webpage, regardless of whether or not they have clue-one about designing and building a website.
One of the things that makes a game unique is that fact that each one is implemented slightly differently from the next. If game creation becomes nothing more than (warning: metaphor ahead) dragging and dropping from a clip-art collection, it’s not something I’m looking forward to.
I think that is over-simplifying things. Have you ever used XNA or are you familiar with how it works?
It’s not a “drag and drop clipart” type thing or even close. It’s a complete framework.
I’m not sure you’re familiar with metaphors, the word “becomes” nor logical implications.
Edited 2006-11-20 04:31
My use of quotes was meant to imply that I wasn’t taking those words literally. Sorry for the mixup.
What we need to do is ignore the pro GPL crowd here. I bet most of them are not serious programmers. They just think being pro GPL is cool.
I bet the true programmers even if they work on Linux will praise a good effort from Microsoft. I have hardly seen Linus bash Windows.
Microsoft is going right on where it matters. They are going after developers and if developers like their tools, ofcourse you will see way more games on XBOX and windows than other platform.
If they made a really cool tool well i think we should say Kudos to them. Just like when they screw up we bash them, similarly when they do good, we should praise them.
Otherwise it is not Microsoft who is dishonest, it is this GPL fanatics who are dishonest.
By the way i am not familiar with graphics programming at all but i work on network drivers and NDIS kicks some good ass. The whole DDK and documentation and the tools make it so much easier to do kernel mode programming on Windows. It is like one stop shop, you get DDK, you get all the cool tools like prefast, verifier, SDV and the awesome samples and documentation.
I don’t think Linux has equivalent of that.
Please feel free to mod down now:)
Edited 2006-11-20 05:32
I remember playing games made by amateurs using “game development kits” back in the 90s. To give a quick idea of my memories of their quality, I’ll summarize my thoughts on XNA with a quote from Ripley in Aliens:
“Take off and nuke them from orbit. That’s the only way to be sure.”
Ahhh humour – how refreshing
+1
Engine Companies like ID, Valve or CryTek will always program using the most low level API available (OpenGL or DirectX or whatever). And big game companies will continue to license the above mentioned game engines.
But this is for small companies and amateurs that do not have the manpower to write their own engine and not the money to purchase one of the major engines.
I think it is quite neat, because it lets smaller companies focus on gameplay. I do not expect to see any major title using this in the next 5 years. But I would expect to see many small, fun, arcade style games developed with this.
For the OSS people complaining about this: just offer a better API that is also crossplatform, and small game developers will flock to it. But don’t expect people to use OpenGL/OpenAL/SDL just because it runs on linux.
When I started programming seriously, I switched to linux because it had the better development tools. So it is really quite simple: have the best development toolchain, and people will use your platform.
are out in full force.
Notice the words: monopoly, vendor lock-in…
Old unfounded hatred of MS…
Grow up fellas. It’s only software.
Yup, the trolls are out.
ronaldst, NotParker, eMagius and CrazyDude0 just to name a few cultists
EDIT: Using words like monopoly and vendor lock-in does not equal hatred. It equals criticism. I am no more critical of Microsoft than I’m critical of Redhat or Stallman.
Edited 2006-11-20 15:47
Nah, I am not the one complaining about something that is entirely fictious. There is no problem here.
Now just admit it that you’re an MS hater. I was one once too.
I don’t hate Microsoft. This is quite obvious from my posts about the implementation of desktop metaphors, mail handling in Vista, desktop search, and from my profile. If you look at my posts about Windows 2003 Server, you can see I don’t hate Microsoft.
I don’t see why you’d need to throw around personal attacks, especially as I hadn’t even posted in response to your outrageous claims. Are you still pissed that I called your bluff on the statistics you pulled out of your ass on the file format issue? Or just perturbed that I prefer OpenBSD to Syllable?
In any case, we get that you have a vested interest in everything being GPL compatible. That’s what your criticism of XNA boils down to, yet again — that Microsoft must make its framework open-source (which is the only way it could be ported to every niche platform you want supported). It adds nothing to the discussion to point out in every thread that Microsoft’s new solution is not GPL-compatible. We know that.
I don’t have a vented interest in everything being GPL. I’m surprised you think I want everything to be GPL. I can personally find several areas where the GPL would be unwelcome in my eyes. Toolkits, frameworks, kernels, libraries in general – pretty much anything not directly end user related would benefit directly from not being GPL. I’m not ready to consider RMS a madman, but I do agree he’s taking it a bit too far. OTOH, FLOSS does have certain superior elements in its development style – but it certainly has some weaknesses as well.
The GPL _can_ be beneficial in regard to end user applications, but so can many other licenses. You know very well that I have a lot of MS software installed, and am using them on daily basis (especially VS2005).
I am not aware that I have bluffed in any way in regard to file formats and statistics. Perhaps you’re thinking about the Ogg Vorbis debate? Clarification would be nice
I have clearly stated that I don’t want MS to open source XNA. I’ve merely warned that it’ll most likely lead to vendor lock-in, and as such should not be used if you want to develop true cross platform games.
I have nothing against you preferring OpenBSD over Syllable or SkyOS or any other OS. Feel free to choose. OpenBSD is a wise choice btw. However, considering your posts I doubt you’ve ever used anything besides Win ME and XP Home.
BTW:
Using XNA isn’t GPL-incompatible. Nor have I stated it is. One might add that GPL-incompability has nothing to do with interoperability and vendor lock-in. And nothing prevents people from writing GPL’ed applications using XNA.
Did I miss something or was there only approx three small paragraphs of text per page and 95% of each page were ads? I stopped reading after three pages as it was a waste of my time. What a crap site.
Since XNA Express is essentially free (a whole 99$) the barrier to using XNA Express is inconsequential.
Therefore the barrier to leaving XNA Express and using another tool set is not cost. The barrier would be that the features for XNA Express make it too compelling to leave and switch to another product.
Therefore it is the fact that the features are compelling is what makes the cultists hate it.
Whatever you use and whatever platform you target, you’re not going to become the next iD writing your very own 3d engine in your bedroom. An IDE does not a great game make. Next time you play a game, click on that bit that says “credits” and have a read. How many people are there? How many of them are programmers? That’s right. You need content to make a game.
If you’re a small developer or just a hobbyist, probably your best bet at the moment is to develop Java games for mobiles. The likes of Tetris and Pac-man do quite well in that market. A little imagination and some moderate artistic skill could still go a long way there. And you don’t have to worry (so much) about cross-platform issues.
There are lots of things that can be done in game with a limited amount of content, or procedurally generated content.
There are also plenty of off beat things that no one in the awfully conformist video game industry would ever try, some of them which don’t require large amount of content.
One of the most fun network multiplayer game I ever played was Atomic Bomberman. This is not the kind of things that require huge amount of man-power and time to deliver.
Developing amateur games on PC is not irrelevant.