Return of the Amiga 500?
August 31, 2006 12:21 AM Subscribe
Micorsoft has now opened up the xbox 360 to homebrew development via the XNA compatibility framework. Read the XNA "Team blog" for more.
Yeah, on the one hand it sounds good, but really it's a weird little lab rat experiment that the victims programmers have to pay to experience. $99/year, can't sell games, can only share with other people who pay the $99/year entry fee.
On a brighter note, it's better than the Net Yaroze which was far more expensive, and if memory serves, the hardware was borrowed from Sony so they took it all back when they cancelled the project.
+1 for Costikyan's response.
If you want to get into games programming, there are many more free (and simpler) options out there. Right now I'm learning to write J2ME games; total extra cost of development platform, given that I already own a PC: $0.
posted by lowlife at 5:07 AM on August 31, 2006
On a brighter note, it's better than the Net Yaroze which was far more expensive, and if memory serves, the hardware was borrowed from Sony so they took it all back when they cancelled the project.
+1 for Costikyan's response.
If you want to get into games programming, there are many more free (and simpler) options out there. Right now I'm learning to write J2ME games; total extra cost of development platform, given that I already own a PC: $0.
posted by lowlife at 5:07 AM on August 31, 2006
Real progress would be allowing something like XBMC to be openly distributed. Instead, you end up with this bizarre situation where it's open source yet compiled binaries are illegal.
posted by smackfu at 6:29 AM on August 31, 2006
posted by smackfu at 6:29 AM on August 31, 2006
On the one hand, I am quite excited about this. To get to play my own games on a console would be really quite lovely (even if my games aren't particularly good).
On the other hand, the expense and the awkwardness of distribution are really annoying.
I think I'll stick with using Blitz 3d for now. Even with its foibles and annoyances, at least it is cheap and stable
posted by ZippityBuddha at 6:44 AM on August 31, 2006
On the other hand, the expense and the awkwardness of distribution are really annoying.
I think I'll stick with using Blitz 3d for now. Even with its foibles and annoyances, at least it is cheap and stable
posted by ZippityBuddha at 6:44 AM on August 31, 2006
They won't be releasing a version that lets you compile the game for the 360 until the "holiday", which I assume means Christmas. Running games on the PC, as I discovered yesterday, requires a recent video card because it's all done with shaders (which also means you can't just draw a circle on the screen with a single function). The framework only supports XBOX controllers. They haven't rolled out the Content Pipeline yet, which means getting content into your game is also a pain.
It took me hours to just figure out how to display a sprite on the screen. Meanwhile, using Processing I was off and running in no time at all and didn't have to install insane amounts of dev software.
Sucks sucks and sucks. Maybe it will improve over time? I can imagine people will develop libraries to mitigate all these issues.
posted by ddf at 7:54 AM on August 31, 2006
It took me hours to just figure out how to display a sprite on the screen. Meanwhile, using Processing I was off and running in no time at all and didn't have to install insane amounts of dev software.
Sucks sucks and sucks. Maybe it will improve over time? I can imagine people will develop libraries to mitigate all these issues.
posted by ddf at 7:54 AM on August 31, 2006
lowlife writes "Yeah, on the one hand it sounds good, but really it's a weird little lab rat experiment that the victims programmers have to pay to experience. $99/year, can't sell games, can only share with other people who pay the $99/year entry fee."
So, let me get this right -- a developer puts a game together (admittedly at no monetary cost) but in order for this game to be played by anyone else the developer must pay a hundred bucks to Microsoft. And then the only people who can also play this game are other developers who've also paid a hundred to Microsoft, because you can't ship binaries or sell your game.
I think I'm starting to understand why Bill Gates is the world's richest man...
posted by clevershark at 8:05 AM on August 31, 2006
So, let me get this right -- a developer puts a game together (admittedly at no monetary cost) but in order for this game to be played by anyone else the developer must pay a hundred bucks to Microsoft. And then the only people who can also play this game are other developers who've also paid a hundred to Microsoft, because you can't ship binaries or sell your game.
I think I'm starting to understand why Bill Gates is the world's richest man...
posted by clevershark at 8:05 AM on August 31, 2006
I'm mostly with Microsoft on this issue.
I don't think anyone was expecting them to just open up the 360 so that anyone could burn CDs that would run on it. It would take about 3 minutes before MAME got ported over, and not much longer before hacks to run pirated games appeared. Which would scare off big name game companies and then kill off hardware sales, etc.
So Microsoft wants to control what gets run on the machine. Being the people who distribute the content is certainly a good way of doing that. For everything that gets published, I'm sure MS has to do code audits or disassemblies or whatever and make sure this isn't some sort of trojan/save editor/cheat/hack or whatever as well. I'd be surprised if they manage to break even off $99/year.
Also they don't want you writing an Uno clone that competes with their version or Uno, etc.
When you buy into a closed system like the XBox 360, you are making a deal with the devil. Microsoft needs to protect their interests and letting unverified code run on that machine would be a diaster for them. Even as it is I bet people will sneak all sorts of mischief through this system and MS will tighten it up even more after a couple of games sneak through with some hidden "features" that Microsoft missed when they published it.
posted by mragreeable at 9:18 AM on August 31, 2006
I don't think anyone was expecting them to just open up the 360 so that anyone could burn CDs that would run on it. It would take about 3 minutes before MAME got ported over, and not much longer before hacks to run pirated games appeared. Which would scare off big name game companies and then kill off hardware sales, etc.
So Microsoft wants to control what gets run on the machine. Being the people who distribute the content is certainly a good way of doing that. For everything that gets published, I'm sure MS has to do code audits or disassemblies or whatever and make sure this isn't some sort of trojan/save editor/cheat/hack or whatever as well. I'd be surprised if they manage to break even off $99/year.
Also they don't want you writing an Uno clone that competes with their version or Uno, etc.
When you buy into a closed system like the XBox 360, you are making a deal with the devil. Microsoft needs to protect their interests and letting unverified code run on that machine would be a diaster for them. Even as it is I bet people will sneak all sorts of mischief through this system and MS will tighten it up even more after a couple of games sneak through with some hidden "features" that Microsoft missed when they published it.
posted by mragreeable at 9:18 AM on August 31, 2006
I found ddf's response interesting...
1) recent video card: GOOD! DirectX9c is an excellent baseline for the future ... I bought an (AGP 8X) 7600GS last month and it's apparently Good Enough.
2) Only supporting XBOX controller would be GOOD! $40 at amazon.
3) The missing content pipeline is the biggest gotcha so far; making this and alpha and not a beta.
4) The 'insane amounts of dev software' are:
The latest DirectX 9 SDK
Visual Studio Express C#
CF .Net Framework 2.0
Each of these is an integral part of the Goodness of this offering. I've been waiting on Sony's latest iteration of their Net Yarouze!, hopefully Java and OpenGL ES, but Microsoft is coming out of the gate with their industry leading stuff (Managed DirectX >> OpenGL + whatever other API Sony cobbles together, Visual Studio is the one industry standard, and the .net framework has got a lot of support stuff).
The details of binary distribution are not finalized yet... but this thing is starting out rather impressive and I think will become even more so over time... It's like Microsoft has taken *everything* good they've done over the past 10+ years and wrapped it in a box for me.
posted by Heywood Mogroot at 9:21 AM on August 31, 2006
1) recent video card: GOOD! DirectX9c is an excellent baseline for the future ... I bought an (AGP 8X) 7600GS last month and it's apparently Good Enough.
2) Only supporting XBOX controller would be GOOD! $40 at amazon.
3) The missing content pipeline is the biggest gotcha so far; making this and alpha and not a beta.
4) The 'insane amounts of dev software' are:
The latest DirectX 9 SDK
Visual Studio Express C#
CF .Net Framework 2.0
Each of these is an integral part of the Goodness of this offering. I've been waiting on Sony's latest iteration of their Net Yarouze!, hopefully Java and OpenGL ES, but Microsoft is coming out of the gate with their industry leading stuff (Managed DirectX >> OpenGL + whatever other API Sony cobbles together, Visual Studio is the one industry standard, and the .net framework has got a lot of support stuff).
The details of binary distribution are not finalized yet... but this thing is starting out rather impressive and I think will become even more so over time... It's like Microsoft has taken *everything* good they've done over the past 10+ years and wrapped it in a box for me.
posted by Heywood Mogroot at 9:21 AM on August 31, 2006
I don't think anyone was expecting them to just open up the 360 so that anyone could burn CDs that would run on it.
They don't want Xbox360s being turned into the equivalent of Mac Minis, because they lose hundreds of dollars per unit. Money is made from licensing developers tools and the "rights" to distribute games on the platform, not to mention maintaining the online gaming and content distribution system. There's absolutely no profit (and, in fact, huge losses) from driving hardware sales alone.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 10:04 AM on August 31, 2006
They don't want Xbox360s being turned into the equivalent of Mac Minis, because they lose hundreds of dollars per unit. Money is made from licensing developers tools and the "rights" to distribute games on the platform, not to mention maintaining the online gaming and content distribution system. There's absolutely no profit (and, in fact, huge losses) from driving hardware sales alone.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 10:04 AM on August 31, 2006
Wow. The Xbox 360 becomes the easiest console for normal people to develop on, has official support from the company that made the console, makes it so all this development can be done without modifying the console, and makes it comparitively easy to distribue these homebrew programs. What do people do in response? Attack it.
Perhaps people would rather just not have any means to develop for the 360? Is that a BETTER option?
What needs to be done to get approval here? Go around distributing free devkits to anyone who wants one?
posted by evilangela at 10:54 AM on August 31, 2006
Perhaps people would rather just not have any means to develop for the 360? Is that a BETTER option?
What needs to be done to get approval here? Go around distributing free devkits to anyone who wants one?
posted by evilangela at 10:54 AM on August 31, 2006
The way I understand it, anyone can develop and run the games on Windows. If you pay the fee, then you can run it on your 360. The price is a little high for casual game developers, but the ability to run homebrew games on a modern (non-portable) console is fantastic. It also sounds like there's a way to get your game featured on Xbox Live Arcade, but I don't think they have the details worked out yet. This really has a lot of potential.
posted by Sibrax at 11:22 AM on August 31, 2006
posted by Sibrax at 11:22 AM on August 31, 2006
What needs to be done to get approval here? Go around distributing free devkits to anyone who wants one?
Allowing people who aren't XNA subscribers to download and play the games at a price set by the developer. It's a shame, too, because outside of that basic fact this is perfect.
posted by Ryvar at 11:39 AM on August 31, 2006
Allowing people who aren't XNA subscribers to download and play the games at a price set by the developer. It's a shame, too, because outside of that basic fact this is perfect.
posted by Ryvar at 11:39 AM on August 31, 2006
Let me get this straight:
I can spend months developing a game, but MicroSoft has the final say over whether it will ever reach an audience?
And if MicroSoft says 'no', there's nothing at all I can do about it?
If that's the case, I predict that this will be good for a small community of "wow, I can draw pixels on the screen" enthusiasts that swap code among themselves, but people hoping to create a game others actually play will look elsewhere.
I mean, the whole attraction of map-making and modding is that others can appreciate your creation.
posted by spazzm at 2:55 PM on August 31, 2006
I can spend months developing a game, but MicroSoft has the final say over whether it will ever reach an audience?
And if MicroSoft says 'no', there's nothing at all I can do about it?
If that's the case, I predict that this will be good for a small community of "wow, I can draw pixels on the screen" enthusiasts that swap code among themselves, but people hoping to create a game others actually play will look elsewhere.
I mean, the whole attraction of map-making and modding is that others can appreciate your creation.
posted by spazzm at 2:55 PM on August 31, 2006
And if MicroSoft says 'no', there's nothing at all I can do about it?
you can release it for PC. Or put it in an arcade cabinet and charge 25c per play. Or bring your xbox to a publisher and demo it in person. Or ...
This is not about competing with the pros, it's about learning the skillz and toolchains in becoming a pro.
10+ years ago I had the great luck of getting OJT in this 3D stuff (I was doing hw textured 3D in late 1995); looking over what Microsoft is giving away now is simply mind-blowing to me... if I were choosing my own technologies I would choose these exact things, except perhaps going with NV over ATi (for purely chauvinistic reasons).
If you want to become a 3D programmer, Microsoft is giving you one hell of an entré (sp?) here.
posted by Heywood Mogroot at 6:59 PM on August 31, 2006
you can release it for PC. Or put it in an arcade cabinet and charge 25c per play. Or bring your xbox to a publisher and demo it in person. Or ...
This is not about competing with the pros, it's about learning the skillz and toolchains in becoming a pro.
10+ years ago I had the great luck of getting OJT in this 3D stuff (I was doing hw textured 3D in late 1995); looking over what Microsoft is giving away now is simply mind-blowing to me... if I were choosing my own technologies I would choose these exact things, except perhaps going with NV over ATi (for purely chauvinistic reasons).
If you want to become a 3D programmer, Microsoft is giving you one hell of an entré (sp?) here.
posted by Heywood Mogroot at 6:59 PM on August 31, 2006
If you want to become a 3D programmer, Microsoft is giving you one hell of an entré (sp?) here.
Yeah, but why not just do PC development? Does C++ not work any more? What's the deal?
What would be sweet is if someone were to release an "open" console, and perhaps only charge for DRM keys. Let people hack it, do whatever they want to the hardware and not license or control it in any way. Like a cheap standardized entertainment PC.
posted by delmoi at 8:27 PM on August 31, 2006
Yeah, but why not just do PC development? Does C++ not work any more? What's the deal?
What would be sweet is if someone were to release an "open" console, and perhaps only charge for DRM keys. Let people hack it, do whatever they want to the hardware and not license or control it in any way. Like a cheap standardized entertainment PC.
posted by delmoi at 8:27 PM on August 31, 2006
Does C++ not work any more? What's the deal?
once you go 'dynamic language', you don't go back... IMV/HO/E, C# : C++ :: C++ : C.
Plus from what I see they've got some smart people working on the middle-ware solutions (XNA) that are very helpful in building a complete product.
Let people hack it, do whatever they want to the hardware and not license or control it in any way
With today's consoles, the hardware is subsidize by software sales. Microsoft's price for their console is $400 ... an equivalent card from ATI (the X1900XT perhaps) is $330+.
Basically this box is the iMac GS that I wished Apple had been able to move itself to make. I still have hopes that Sony will realize a similar cheap PC platform that Kutaragi has alluded to, but IM grizzled V Microsoft has got one helluva compelling set of proprietary advantages here: Managed DirectX frameworks, Visual Studio, C#, the custom ATI architecture, the triple-core IBM G5 w/ Altivec II, hell, even the cool xbox 360 controller.
If I were cherry-picking technologies to make my own private dream platform, I'd take all of those, hands-down.
posted by Heywood Mogroot at 9:00 PM on August 31, 2006
once you go 'dynamic language', you don't go back... IMV/HO/E, C# : C++ :: C++ : C.
Plus from what I see they've got some smart people working on the middle-ware solutions (XNA) that are very helpful in building a complete product.
Let people hack it, do whatever they want to the hardware and not license or control it in any way
With today's consoles, the hardware is subsidize by software sales. Microsoft's price for their console is $400 ... an equivalent card from ATI (the X1900XT perhaps) is $330+.
Basically this box is the iMac GS that I wished Apple had been able to move itself to make. I still have hopes that Sony will realize a similar cheap PC platform that Kutaragi has alluded to, but IM grizzled V Microsoft has got one helluva compelling set of proprietary advantages here: Managed DirectX frameworks, Visual Studio, C#, the custom ATI architecture, the triple-core IBM G5 w/ Altivec II, hell, even the cool xbox 360 controller.
If I were cherry-picking technologies to make my own private dream platform, I'd take all of those, hands-down.
posted by Heywood Mogroot at 9:00 PM on August 31, 2006
<amiga_fanboy_rant>
"Return of the Amiga 500" - wtf? How *dare* you draw such a comparison! :)
</amiga_fanboy_rant>
posted by Chunder at 1:17 AM on September 1, 2006
"Return of the Amiga 500" - wtf? How *dare* you draw such a comparison! :)
</amiga_fanboy_rant>
posted by Chunder at 1:17 AM on September 1, 2006
Wow. that Costikyan dude has a whole lot of anger.
First of all, and most importantly, I've not seen anything indicating that Microsoft will claim ownership over games created using this system.
Secondly, this isn't for him, so I don't understand why he is so upset it doesn't suit his needs. "Today, this very instant, you can embark upon the creation of your own -commercial- game." is simply not true for a wide variety of people who are inexperienced or lacking resources, such as students or hobbyists. Microsoft has priced and structured this to clearly indicate this is to give those kind of people the chance to develop on a homogenous, very-cutting-edge platform (though, admittedly, crippled, efficiency-wise, by C#). A few years ago, for me, somthing like this would have been the most awesome thing ever.
Sony (not Sega, as Costikyan writes) had something similar with Net Yaroze, and with PS2 Linux, but both came pretty late in their platforms' lifespans.
This is a wonderful opportunity for people to have fun and build marketable skills, with a side benefit that it could incubate a couple of future games. It's also a good chance for Microsoft to vet their new middleware/content XNA/C# what-have-you technologies, and try to build acceptibility for them in the game development market.
As a final note, Nintendo does not have a monopoly on innovation with their Wii Conroller. In the upcoming generation, Microsoft innovated with Live, and Sony innovated with Cell, to give two examples.
posted by blenderfish at 3:54 AM on September 2, 2006
First of all, and most importantly, I've not seen anything indicating that Microsoft will claim ownership over games created using this system.
Secondly, this isn't for him, so I don't understand why he is so upset it doesn't suit his needs. "Today, this very instant, you can embark upon the creation of your own -commercial- game." is simply not true for a wide variety of people who are inexperienced or lacking resources, such as students or hobbyists. Microsoft has priced and structured this to clearly indicate this is to give those kind of people the chance to develop on a homogenous, very-cutting-edge platform (though, admittedly, crippled, efficiency-wise, by C#). A few years ago, for me, somthing like this would have been the most awesome thing ever.
Sony (not Sega, as Costikyan writes) had something similar with Net Yaroze, and with PS2 Linux, but both came pretty late in their platforms' lifespans.
This is a wonderful opportunity for people to have fun and build marketable skills, with a side benefit that it could incubate a couple of future games. It's also a good chance for Microsoft to vet their new middleware/content XNA/C# what-have-you technologies, and try to build acceptibility for them in the game development market.
As a final note, Nintendo does not have a monopoly on innovation with their Wii Conroller. In the upcoming generation, Microsoft innovated with Live, and Sony innovated with Cell, to give two examples.
posted by blenderfish at 3:54 AM on September 2, 2006
though, admittedly, crippled, efficiency-wise, by C#
'Cripple' is too strong a word, I believe. C# has enough hackery options (as does Java via JNI) to help maintain performance thanks to the Pareto principle, and at this point I don't think there will be a significant performance delta between Pro C++ code and hobby C#/MDX (but I could be wrong).
posted by Heywood Mogroot at 10:21 AM on September 2, 2006
'Cripple' is too strong a word, I believe. C# has enough hackery options (as does Java via JNI) to help maintain performance thanks to the Pareto principle, and at this point I don't think there will be a significant performance delta between Pro C++ code and hobby C#/MDX (but I could be wrong).
posted by Heywood Mogroot at 10:21 AM on September 2, 2006
« Older Exquisite anatomy: the art of medical models | Multi-faceted Rumsfeld Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by Iridic at 12:28 AM on August 31, 2006