Support NeoGAF

[Argyle]

Actually so is XNA (XBox, Xenon, PC, mobile). Didn't some MS exec say they'd even license it out to Sony/Nintendo if approached?

Heh, I'll believe this when I see it

BTW I don't think XNA has anything to do with the current Xbox. As far as I know the XDK was pretty much a done deal sans bugfixing even before XNA was announced...

 

[Acrylamid]

Sell Madden 2006 across 3 platforms (Xbox, PS2, GC) with royalties to 1st Party
PS2: 3.5 Million units
Xbox: 1 Million units
GC: .4 Million units
GBA: .3 million units
Total Sales = 5.2 Million Units

fixed
(This time, it's no 'my opinion>yours-fixed' )

 

[Lazy8s]

Sea Manky:

Lazy8s says that EA buying Renderware will lead to EA licensing an inferior version to outsiders while using a better version in house to make their software look better.

No, I explicitly mentioned that EA's intentions were not being argued. Knowing them, Renderware will become just another of their parallel operations and won't become much of an issue. They'll probably contribute resources toward improving it from their own development yet not integrate it as the base for their operation.

And he says thank goodness for XNA, which is an "initative" from another very large corporation who has a very long history of using this same tactic of withholding API features from outside developers in the PC software market.

There's always risk that a platform manufacturer will withhold tools/information to give themselves an advantage (like SEGA and Nintendo in the 16-bit generation). The difference here is that the existence of the XDK and Direct X is already a given and that XNA just broadens that. If this was a topic about control of XNA being moved from a small company to Microsoft, the increased potential for danger would apply to them, too.

 

[User 406]

Actually so is XNA (XBox, Xenon, PC, mobile). Didn't some MS exec say they'd even license it out to Sony/Nintendo if approached?

I haven't seen word one about licensing to platforms that aren't running Microsoft OSes. At any rate, that last dig was probably a bad idea since XNA isn't even middleware like Renderware, but just some nebulous "It'll make things better!" FUD attached to what so far appears to be a collection of preexisting Microsoft development tools. But I couldn't resist.

 

[Izzy]

Sounds good since they're both huge PSP supporters.

Eurogamer: Well we're looking at probably Xbox 2 launching at the end of next year in the US, maybe...

Alex Ward: Yeah. Maybe we'll do something for that, I don't know. At the moment though, we're not. We're following the development and we know what's going on, but following Burnout 3 the next thing we'll get to work on really is PSP.

 

[kaching]

No, it doesn't. The Criterion team that focuses specifically on the Renderware side doesn't even get the finalized implementation of a new feature that comes from the game side - from which they'd still have to make into a generalized solution for the toolset - until it's gone through final QA in the game, which happens at the very end of the development cycle.

Lazy, the company could have decided to operate differently. Simple as that. They aren't forced to ship game product before middleware update. They could ship them in lockstep with each other. Or they could choose to ship no game product at all. They could, instead of creating their own game content, contract out their game development talent as support services in conjunction with Renderware licenses. Etc. But, Criterion chose to A) compete with their clients by releasing their own game content and B) release that content out of synch with the company's Renderware product.

This wasn't being argued.

Didn't say it was. Just making sure it wasn't overlooked.

Criterion's game output is too small and limited to be capable of seeing benefit from such a ploy.

I think you've got this the wrong way around - being a smaller developer means that any advantage they can give themselves is bound to have a more significant effect on the outcome for them than for a large company like EA. If first dibs at the latest otpimizations can be measured to give Criterion a $1 sales advantage and the same for EA, who benefits more from that dollar? Criterion, obviously, since it would be a larger percentage of their bottom line.

With more influence comes more responsibility, though, which is why there is more potential for conflict of interest with EA, the biggest publisher, than with Criterion, a small developer.

...

The issue wasn't of their likelihood nor intention to use such tactics. Rather, it was the greater conflict of interest that could arise with someone of their size than with Criterion.

And yet, you seem dismissive of the XNA conflict of interest, simply because it does not involve a move from small company to big company:

The difference here is that the existence of the XDK and Direct X is already a given and that XNA just broadens that. If this was a topic about control of XNA being moved from a small company to Microsoft, the increased potential for danger would apply to them, too.

Who cares if the potential for danger has increased or not if the potential was already high? My point from the beginning of this thread has been that this conflict of interest that everyone is suddenly wringing their hands about has been rife at all levels of the game industry for years. If you're going to be worried about the potential conflict of interest, why tolerate it at any level?

 

[Mr_Furious]

I'd like to see Take-Two pull all Renderware-enabled development from GTA: San Andreas or any of their other high profile Criterion-fueled games. It's just not gonna happen.

Any game that is currently using Renderware will continue to do so, since the fee has likely already been paid.

There's no doubting that Renderware is the most popular middleware solution available today. All I'm saying is that it will be a difficult and expensive transition for devs/pubs to switch to another middleware solution for their games, regardless of the stage of development.

Its entirely possible (and good for the industry) that another middleware solution will emerge that will likely be just as good, if not surpass, EA/Criterion's future offerings. That may not be until 2005/2006 though.

First off, when did I say that current devs can drop Renderware from their games being developed? If you read my post carefully, I'm saying that it's never too late to investigate other options once current devs are completed, especially with the more powerful engines springing up from the companies I mentioned before. [/brokenrecord]

 

[cybamerc]

Actually so is XNA (XBox, Xenon, PC, mobile). Didn't some MS exec say they'd even license it out to Sony/Nintendo if approached?

XNA is not middleware!

 

[MaddenNFL64]

:O

WTF is the big deal again?

EA is cool. Criterion is cool. Both equal more cool. We all win.

 

[Mr_Furious]

:O

WTF is the big deal again?

EA is cool. Criterion is cool. Both equal more cool. We all win.

Depending on how EA decides to handle their Renderware business other developers may lose.

 

[Jonnyboy117]

:O

WTF is the big deal again?

EA is cool. Criterion is cool. Both equal more cool. We all win.

Madden 64 didn't have the NFL license.

 

[MaddenNFL64]

Madden 64 didn't have the NFL license.

NFLPA is good enough . I just put the NFL for continuity with the rest of the series. I know it wasn't in the title.

 

[Lazy8s]

kaching:

Lazy, the company could have decided to operate differently.

They couldn't very well operate a game division at all if it was continually interrupted to serve the licensees of a different division. The operation of the Renderware team is independent and not contingent upon the contributions of the game division anyway.

I think you've got this the wrong way around - being a smaller developer means that any advantage they can give themselves

The main benefit that tactics like these can accomplish is in improving the brand image from the consistently higher standard of quality in the titles versus those of competing licensees. The more product that is released, the more this can be taken advantage of.

And yet, you seem dismissive of the XNA conflict of interest, simply because it does not involve a move from small company to big company

That move is, of course, the subject of this topic. Dismissive of Microsoft's control, no - it's just a separate topic. EA's control of a platform is certainly not inherently worse than any other large company's.

If you're going to be worried about the potential conflict of interest, why tolerate it at any level?

It's not a question of tolerance; it's an unavoidable consequence. Doesn't mean the risk isn't increased when a larger company comes into the picture.

 

[Matlock]

I haven't seen word one about licensing to platforms that aren't running Microsoft OSes. At any rate, that last dig was probably a bad idea since XNA isn't even middleware like Renderware, but just some nebulous "It'll make things better!" FUD attached to what so far appears to be a collection of preexisting Microsoft development tools. But I couldn't resist.

Perhaps it's because you didn't look.

June 09, 2004 - At the ELSPA Games Summit in London, Microsoft's corporate VP Peter Moore called out to Sony and Nintendo for them to follow their XNA model. As Microsoft's way to provide "a global software development platform" for Xbox, Windows and other devices, the goal of XNA is to make game development much easier. According to gamesindustry.biz, Moore believes that this model will help pave the way for more creativity in games by keeping down the ballooning budgets for current titles.

And yes, my M.O. is to pick with what I percieve to be weaknesses with people's posts. Mostly yours.

 

[kaching]

Dismissive of Microsoft's control, no - it's just a separate topic.

Personally I don't see it as a separate topic, but if you're going to claim such, it would help if it wasn't the very first thing you posted in this thread

Other than that, I'm not really sure what we're arguing about at this point.

 

[Lazy8s]

This topic is about the implications of the EA-Criterion deal, specifically the control over Renderware going from a small developer to the largest publisher. That's why XNA, an initiative to combat the rising complexity and redundancy in next-generation software development, was mentioned as an effort to slow the growing reliance on always turning to middleware (which would, of course, still be useful for more specific aspects of development implementation since XNA isn't a middleware suite). There wasn't any argument that Microsoft's - or with any big manufacturer in general - support of Xbox licensees and their own Xbox game development somehow presented less potential for conflict of interest.

 

[inpHilltr8r]

XNA is not middleware!

It's vaporware.

 

[kaching]

I know what the topic itself is about, Lazy. I'm just not quite sure what we were still going in circles about.

 

[User 406]

And yes, my M.O. is to pick with what I percieve to be weaknesses with people's posts. Mostly yours.

And once again in your eagerness to find fault with me to make yourself feel better, you screw up over semantics. What are you now, 0 for 4?

June 09, 2004 - At the ELSPA Games Summit in London, Microsoft's corporate VP Peter Moore called out to Sony and Nintendo for them to follow their XNA model.

This is clearly not an invitation for Sony and Nintendo to license XNA tools. What it is is more of the same posturing Microsoft has made of late, where they have been insinuating that only they understand that software is key, and saying that Sony is overly focused on hardware. This of course is a complete reversal of their stance earlier this generation when it was all about "the power of the Xbox". So publically calling on their competitors to follow their model is just FUD to make people think that they're on the right path, and their competitors arent, and that they're so unselfishly concerned with the industry that they genuinely want their competitors to be as enlightened as they are.

Bullshit.

This smacks of the same condescending "we must change the tone" rhetoric Republicans in congress spouted after four years of mudslinging during the Clinton administration.


Anyway, better luck next time, Matlock.

 

[Matlock]

And once again in your eagerness to find fault with me to make yourself feel better, you screw up over semantics. What are you now, 0 for 4?

And you can't tell a joke from a serious statement, even whenever I go to the lengths of tossing in a wink to make it blaringly obvious.

This is clearly not an invitation for Sony and Nintendo to license XNA tools. What it is is more of the same posturing Microsoft has made of late, where they have been insinuating that only they understand that software is key, and saying that Sony is overly focused on hardware. This of course is a complete reversal of their stance earlier this generation when it was all about "the power of the Xbox". So publically calling on their competitors to follow their model is just FUD to make people think that they're on the right path, and their competitors arent, and that they're so unselfishly concerned with the industry that they genuinely want their competitors to be as enlightened as they are.

By following the model, it could very well mean using the same ideas. XNA, by most accounts, is a standardization of hardware and software support to make it easier to port from the PC to Xbox. Now, with the "You should join us" speech, it can be easily inferred that they want their grubby paws dipped firmly into Sony and Nintendo's pies.

Or, as an old interview states...

IGN: Who are you technology partners then? How do you handle licensing?

J Allard: The licensing thing will be handled partner-to-partner. Some vendors will go Source-code license, some will go binary obejet6 only, some will do a hybrid, and some will do custom deals. I think it's imperative that you leave the tools' system in a very competitive state. It's a meritocracy today. No one game is developed on one tool and that's not going to change. We just want to make it a lot easier. The business model will remain very different depending on who you are and how you're licensing.

I can be clear about our business model. We're not building a tools business -- it's about licenses. On Dean's side of the house, it's about selling Windows licenses; one my side of the house, it's about collecting game licenses. That's our business model. By rationalizing our platforms, we're hoping to increase the flow of triple-A content on both platforms and allow the creators to take the most advantage of their respective platforms.

IGN: How do Sony and Nintendo fit in to this?

J Allard: They haven't called.

Lots of ways to take that, but it can be fairly assumed that Microsoft wouldn't pass up a quick buck.

 

[DarienA]

By following the model, it could very well mean using the same ideas. XNA, by most accounts, is a standardization of hardware and software support to make it easier to port from the PC to Xbox. Now, with the "You should join us" speech, it can be easily inferred that they want their grubby paws dipped firmly into Sony and Nintendo's pies.

The thing I don't get about this speech is this. By saying follow us are they saying Sony and Nintendo should create tools to make it easier to ports titles from the PC to their respective systems?

I say why the fuck bother? I don't see any compelling PC titles that I just HAVE to play on my home console quite honestly... That who chasing the PC developers was MS attempt to bolster their 3rd party support... Sony doesn't have a problem with 3rd party support and Nintendo... hell they go their own path....

 

[Matlock]

Darien: I'm assuming that having standardized system design across all platforms would allow most everything to go multiconsole (if the software makers so desired) and make the console market more like the home theatre market.

Or, quite simply, everything would be a commodity.

 

[DarienA]

Darien: I'm assuming that having standardized system design across all platforms would allow most everything to go multiconsole (if the software makers so desired) and make the console market more like the home theatre market.

Simply put I find it HIGHLY unlikely that MS has now created a tool that allows you to create software easier on their platform and makes it easier to port the title to other competing platforms.

I find the fact that you actually suggested that to be incredibly humorous.

Is it possible? I guess.

Likely? You'd have a hard time convincing me so.

 

[Matlock]

Hey, I'm just guessing and gleaning from the PR-speak here. Although, you're missing a vital point, which is much like the Criterion situation. If MS owns the scheme to do this, much like EA owning Renderware, their competitor's goods would be more easily made...but...but!

They'll still get money out of it.

 

[User 406]

And you can't tell a joke from a serious statement, even whenever I go to the lengths of tossing in a wink to make it blaringly obvious.

Yes, I can tell a real joke from a CYA joke from a stalker who got caught out before. Try following me up with genuine ideas and not semantic nitpicking sometime.

GN: How do Sony and Nintendo fit in to this?

J Allard: They haven't called.

Lots of ways to take that, but it can be fairly assumed that Microsoft wouldn't pass up a quick buck.

It can be fairly assumed that you're grasping at straws, and that a flippant comment during a PR interview is not a commitment to actually licensing it out.

 

[Deleted member 284]

So I guess we should start seeing a lot more games on the MacOS and Unix platforms thanks to the power of XNA right?

 

[Lazy8s]

Sea Manky:

What it is is more of the same posturing Microsoft has made of late, where they have been insinuating that only they understand that software is key, and saying that Sony is overly focused on hardware. This of course is a complete reversal of their stance earlier this generation when it was all about "the power of the Xbox".

Every manufacturer brags about the "power" of their machine in some way or another relative to their launch. Coming out last, it has to be an important part of brand strategy in a technologically driven field. But, as with any other company not completely shortsighted and especially with MS whose empire is built on it, it's always been about the software/network/application/whatever non-physical implement.

People that claim Microsoft somehow changed their thinking buy too easily into brand image and miss the fact that the Xbox platform is and always has been one based on the incarnation of their proprietary, standardized API.

 

[jarrod]

It can be fairly assumed that you're grasping at straws, and that a flippant comment during a PR interview is not a commitment to actually licensing it out.

Ufortunately you just asked for a "word" concerning MS licensing out XNA, not a "commitment".

 

[Matlock]

Ufortunately you just asked for a "word" concerning MS licensing out XNA, not a "commitment".

Thanks for pointing that out, Jarrod.

 

[User 406]

And the semantics horseshit continues... =_=

 

[DarienA]

Hey, I'm just guessing and gleaning from the PR-speak here. Although, you're missing a vital point, which is much like the Criterion situation. If MS owns the scheme to do this, much like EA owning Renderware, their competitor's goods would be more easily made...but...but!

They'll still get money out of it.

It's pretty convenient that EA just picked up Criterion....lord knows what reasoning you'd use to back up this line of thinking.

The EA deal is too new to know what's going to happen there... so it's a bit early to use that as an example. From what I understand it still has to be approved.