or perhaps jump on the Microsoft hype-train:
http://www.gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?section_name=dev&aid=3587
http://www.gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?section_name=dev&aid=3587
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Moore says Sony and Nintendo should get their own XNA
- Thread starter daMandus
- Start date
OG_Original Gamer
Member
He has a point.
Some good comments. I don't know where Sony will be headed next gen. I'm not too worried about Nintendo--I think the diffculty of wrangling good performance out of the N64 scared them into a mode of thinking that puts ease of development at the top their priorities.
I thought it was interesting that Moore jumped on the IP thing. There definately needs to be more discussion about it before games become absolutely nothing more than marketing tools.
I thought it was interesting that Moore jumped on the IP thing. There definately needs to be more discussion about it before games become absolutely nothing more than marketing tools.
There wan an interview yesterday with Shane Kim (he took Fries spot) where he was saying something along those lines. MS wants to move the war from hardware to software (the strengths of MS and Nintendo). Nobody really wants the 5 year hardware cycle... and I think the real reason Xenon is coming as soon as possible is so MS can get out from underneath the costly Xbox.
I expect that the next gen consoles will last 7 years or more.
I expect that the next gen consoles will last 7 years or more.
I'd agree that they need to embrace their own kind of XNA-like tools, but not XNA itself. It just seems like somehow, Microsoft would find some way to give themselves an advantage in that situation (not a knock against Microsoft, just common sense).
But yeah, especially as the developing costs go up, there's going to have to be some kind of standard.
But yeah, especially as the developing costs go up, there's going to have to be some kind of standard.
akascream said:
Seriously, and once again I'll admit that I haven't been following the whole XNA disclosure... but what's the difference between XNA and other high level API's that are used to develope games currently i.e. Renderware... Havok...
jedimike said:
Nice dig. Care to fill everyone in on how Blinx kicked Sony's ass? I'd say all three are doing very well in software content development. And if you're talking about tools, then I'd have to admit I've never heard anyone mention Nintendo's software creation tools.
I think the problem for a great many innovations is not so much whether they are cost-effective to produce but rather whether they are profitable...
Frankly, this is the bottom-line as I currently see it regarding XNA right now. MS is the one that has gotten themselves into a little trouble by overextending themselves with some of their game projects and have been forced to take a step back and reconsider their approach. It's no wonder they want to trumpet that better tools are needed when they're delaying their sports franchise for a year, cancelling publishing contracts on multiple projects and setting the devs afloat to fend for themselves or simply ceasing development althogether. The company who really seems to need XNA most at the moment is...Microsoft.
My guess is that the only difference is that XNA is from MS, and it's their own brand of tools.
While Renderware can be applied to many different platforms, XNA is used only for the PC and MS's next gen console(s). Obviously it would be finely tuned to both of these formats, and to the hardware components that power them. I don't think that XNA will do much more than Renderware.
I can't disagree there. But at the same time it looks like many developers are using existing engines to produce games. How many games will be based on the UT 2004, DOOM 3, and HL 2 engines? If Quake 2/3 and UT are anything to go by (and factoring in the increased advancement of hardware/software tech)...it looks like a good dozen at least. It's the obvious trend, and while MS would like to avoid the problems they faced this gen, I'm sure there are other developers who'd like to as well.
Tools like XNA, and whatever Sony is coming up with, seem like a logical step in the right direction. 10 years ago they would give developers hardware to work with. Now it's hardware and software, to (hopefully) drastically reduce development costs and time.
I forgot to mention that the next Xbox looks to be more like a console rather than a PC-in-a-box. Meaning that the kind of ease you had porting from one to the other no longer exists. But XNA seems to rectify that. So despite having vastly different architectures, porting from one to the other should be simple and easy.
neptunes said:
As I understand the idea behind XNA that is the whole point. It's a middleware to connect tools from different third party developers (of tools), and then to be used by other third parties developing games.
Microsoft is not planning on providing all the specific tools for 3d modelling, physics engines and so forth. They want to get a fixed architecture so different development tools can work in harmony.
neptunes said:
Now you're seeing Microsoft's actual goal for their presence in the video game industry. Let companies with actual hardware backgrounds make all of the consoles, and just sit back and rake in cash from everyone using Microsoft software.
I don't expect Microsoft-branded hardware beyond Xenon, but that's just my two very meager cents.
Norse
Member
Another feature of XNA is the ease of use when making a game for both PC and the next xbox. Not just the console itself.
As far as MS not making hardware after xenon, only its success, or lack there of will hold that answer.
xna could also be looked at as a cost saving way for pc developers to jump on the xenon bandwagon. 1 tool, 2 platforms. I am sure some pc devs out there are already giving console(xenon) editions of nextgen games a thought. They would be silly not to.
-Norse
As far as MS not making hardware after xenon, only its success, or lack there of will hold that answer.
xna could also be looked at as a cost saving way for pc developers to jump on the xenon bandwagon. 1 tool, 2 platforms. I am sure some pc devs out there are already giving console(xenon) editions of nextgen games a thought. They would be silly not to.
-Norse
You know, ever since XNA was announced, I've read everything from "it's an API", to "it's middleware", to "it's a set of development tools" to "it's a way for different development tools to work together" and more. Some people are convinced that XNA will revolutionize game development. But does anyone here actually know what XNA is?
This sounds an awful lot like the same kind of FUD that originally sprung up around .NET. When .NET was first announced, it was touted as the Next Big Thing, but nobody seemed to be able to pin down exactly what it was. All kinds of technologies and software products were nebulously tied to it. Somehow, it was going to have a major effect on everything.
Well, the exact same kind of buzz is what's popping up around XNA. It's a revolutionary new software initiative, it will make games run faster, it will make developers lives easier, and so on. But looking at the XNA FAQ, about the only concrete information is that XNA includes DirectX, Visual Studio, and other Microsoft development resources that already exist. The rest of it is primarily either pie-in-the-sky fluff or swipes at Sony.
It's a bit hard to understand how interoperability between certain development tools is going to revolutionize game development, when we already have development tools that can read each other's file formats and work together. Sure, there's always room for improvement, but to claim that this is a sudden paradigm shift in the industry from hardware to software is, well, FUD.
And that's what Microsoft is best at.
This sounds an awful lot like the same kind of FUD that originally sprung up around .NET. When .NET was first announced, it was touted as the Next Big Thing, but nobody seemed to be able to pin down exactly what it was. All kinds of technologies and software products were nebulously tied to it. Somehow, it was going to have a major effect on everything.
Well, the exact same kind of buzz is what's popping up around XNA. It's a revolutionary new software initiative, it will make games run faster, it will make developers lives easier, and so on. But looking at the XNA FAQ, about the only concrete information is that XNA includes DirectX, Visual Studio, and other Microsoft development resources that already exist. The rest of it is primarily either pie-in-the-sky fluff or swipes at Sony.
It's a bit hard to understand how interoperability between certain development tools is going to revolutionize game development, when we already have development tools that can read each other's file formats and work together. Sure, there's always room for improvement, but to claim that this is a sudden paradigm shift in the industry from hardware to software is, well, FUD.
And that's what Microsoft is best at.
D
Deleted member 284
Unconfirmed Member
DarienA said:
MS doesn't get a check.
Kobun Heat
Member
"When Microsoft came into the video game business, they approached it from the perspective of a hardware company. Which is funny, because they're a software company." - Shigeru Miyamoto
open_mouth_
insert_foot_
I don't even know what it is, but I know for a fact that XNA is awesome. It's right up there with the Internet and space travel.