• Announcements

    • khawk

      Download the Game Design and Indie Game Marketing Freebook   07/19/17

      GameDev.net and CRC Press have teamed up to bring a free ebook of content curated from top titles published by CRC Press. The freebook, Practices of Game Design & Indie Game Marketing, includes chapters from The Art of Game Design: A Book of Lenses, A Practical Guide to Indie Game Marketing, and An Architectural Approach to Level Design. The GameDev.net FreeBook is relevant to game designers, developers, and those interested in learning more about the challenges in game development. We know game development can be a tough discipline and business, so we picked several chapters from CRC Press titles that we thought would be of interest to you, the GameDev.net audience, in your journey to design, develop, and market your next game. The free ebook is available through CRC Press by clicking here. The Curated Books The Art of Game Design: A Book of Lenses, Second Edition, by Jesse Schell Presents 100+ sets of questions, or different lenses, for viewing a game’s design, encompassing diverse fields such as psychology, architecture, music, film, software engineering, theme park design, mathematics, anthropology, and more. Written by one of the world's top game designers, this book describes the deepest and most fundamental principles of game design, demonstrating how tactics used in board, card, and athletic games also work in video games. It provides practical instruction on creating world-class games that will be played again and again. View it here. A Practical Guide to Indie Game Marketing, by Joel Dreskin Marketing is an essential but too frequently overlooked or minimized component of the release plan for indie games. A Practical Guide to Indie Game Marketing provides you with the tools needed to build visibility and sell your indie games. With special focus on those developers with small budgets and limited staff and resources, this book is packed with tangible recommendations and techniques that you can put to use immediately. As a seasoned professional of the indie game arena, author Joel Dreskin gives you insight into practical, real-world experiences of marketing numerous successful games and also provides stories of the failures. View it here. An Architectural Approach to Level Design This is one of the first books to integrate architectural and spatial design theory with the field of level design. The book presents architectural techniques and theories for level designers to use in their own work. It connects architecture and level design in different ways that address the practical elements of how designers construct space and the experiential elements of how and why humans interact with this space. Throughout the text, readers learn skills for spatial layout, evoking emotion through gamespaces, and creating better levels through architectural theory. View it here. Learn more and download the ebook by clicking here. Did you know? GameDev.net and CRC Press also recently teamed up to bring GDNet+ Members up to a 20% discount on all CRC Press books. Learn more about this and other benefits here.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Sooker

Is XNA dying and MS forcing to C++?

124 posts in this topic

I really like the XNA/C# combo, although I also really liked the older managed DX/C# combo, and this brings up a small problem imo. I don't imagine that microsoft would kill off XNA, but I would imagine a new version may be released mid-dev-cycle that could cause a fair amount of refactoring on your part (I'm sure I'm not the only one to have been burned by that in the past). If your aim is to create a simple 2D game targetting smartphones/tablets, you could do a lot worse than a C++/GLES combination. For that, you'd need nothing more than a cheap android device (or even a raspberry pi) as a dev kit. Whichever you choose, be sure to wrap your hardware specific sections so you can switch platforms in the future if you need to.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Ultrahead' timestamp='1348413887' post='4982934']
Monogame consumes SharpDX libraries, which supports DX11.1 and lower.
[/quote]

Wrong
[quote name='Alpha_ProgDes' timestamp='1348413660' post='4982931']
But if XNA is killed off officially, will Monogame adapt its XNA to DX10 and beyond?
[/quote]


Monogame uses OpenTK for its graphics which themselves are mono bindings for OpenGL. No directX in monogame anywhere.
2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You said monogame. According to monogames site it uses OpenTK not SharpDx. I can't find anywhere stating that monogame or Armed use SharpDX.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
it makes me always sad to see how some people and companies try to handle languages and libs like religions :(
I like c++, yet for WP7 and Xbox-Indie I'd be forced to one particular language, although there is no reason something else wouldn't run. just like they've tied DX10 to Vista and a lot of morons spread the word "it's for technical reason, superior driver model and..." while every programmer knows that an API is just a thin interface, not really related to a driver model or internal implementations (that's why there is an interface).
While I'm sad for you XNA guys if it would be really true that it 'dies", I hope people learn from it, to not stick to one language, to one api, one lib, especially if it's build solely by one company and their marketing department.
Standards are the way to keep your freedom of choosing what and how you want to develop.

crossing fingers for you XNA fans :)
2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='ProfL' timestamp='1348440138' post='4983037']
especially if it's build solely by one company and their marketing department.
... snip ...
Standards are the way to keep your freedom of choosing what and how you want to develop.
[/quote]

The first part of your post wasn't bad, but that one line was idiotic and trollish.

The second line is equally silly. You do realize that C# is ratified as a ECMA standard language right? By your logic people *SHOULD* use C# for exactly this reason.

When it comes to graphics libraries, it was actually being an open standard that caused OpenGL to stumble and DirectX to become king. D3D pre-9 were basically shit, and D3D9 took a number of revisions to get to the point of being better than OpenGL. However, they could move quickly and did, while OpenGL died a slow death by committee. The move to a programmable pipeline is the only thing that saved GL in the end.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='6677' timestamp='1348421442' post='4982973']
You said monogame.[/quote]
Yes, but I was referring to the part of it related to Win8 and WP8. Needless to clarify that I was not referring to OpenGL-based platforms (nor DX9 ones like WinXP).

Thanks Serapth for posting the link.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
To ask a newbie question, aren't we forgetting the desire of most - if not all - of us to maintain a standard cross-platform framework which allows any game developer to keep his or her preferences and deliver to the desired fan base? This is why I believe that the [i]framework[/i] is the area of most competition, not the languages or the software. In order to get at the desired framework, doesn't that beg for an I.D.E., making this really a war of the IDEs?

Isn't this the real issue of the thread under the surface?... I see the competition as creating more demand for open source solutions and any company closing a technology is only excellerating the demand for open source solutions for people to continue using XNA or any other technology.


Clinton
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='kd7tck' timestamp='1348084857' post='4981801']
I have heard rumors from the grapevine, some people I know who work at microsoft are saying there is a replacement for xna comming.

I personally feel they will be bundling it with the next version of directx, basicaly a metro version of xna.
[/quote]

The DirectXMath.h Library that ships with VS 2012. I believe that's what you're talking about. It also has Triangletest collision, BoundaryBox collision tests, and other functions. I'm currentlying using DirectXMath.h and DirectXPackedVector.h inside the game editor. Additional notes, VS 2012 Ships with D3D11.1.

In my previous attempts at XNA 4.0 - I kinda liked it, it was easy but some complaints from others say the FBX Pipeline blows.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Serapth' timestamp='1348440709' post='4983042']
[quote name='ProfL' timestamp='1348440138' post='4983037']
especially if it's build solely by one company and their marketing department.
... snip ...
Standards are the way to keep your freedom of choosing what and how you want to develop.
[/quote]

The first part of your post wasn't bad, but that one line was idiotic and trollish.

The second line is equally silly. You do realize that C# is ratified as a ECMA standard language right? By your logic people *SHOULD* use C# for exactly this reason.

When it comes to graphics libraries, it was actually being an open standard that caused OpenGL to stumble and DirectX to become king. D3D pre-9 were basically shit, and D3D9 took a number of revisions to get to the point of being better than OpenGL. However, they could move quickly and did, while OpenGL died a slow death by committee. The move to a programmable pipeline is the only thing that saved GL in the end.
[/quote]

What saved openGL ultimately was that directx only runs on microsoft devices. Mac/Unix/Linux/Android/PS3.... All use OpenGL.

Directx only became king because microsoft partnered with game companies and funded hundreds of game titles in the late nineties. They flooded the markets with windows only games and this set the standard from that point onward. Edited by kd7tck
2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='kd7tck' timestamp='1348466683' post='4983118']
What saved openGL ultimately was that directx only runs on microsoft devices. Mac/Unix/Linux/Android/PS3.... All use OpenGL.
[/quote]

All good... you know, part form the fact that Android uses OpenGL|ES (aka OpenGL's saner relation) and the PS3 doesn't use GL at all.
(An OGL|ES layer exists for the PS3 but no one in their right mind uses it...).

[quote]
Directx only became king because microsoft partnered with game companies and funded hundreds of game titles in the late nineties. They flooded the markets with windows only games and this set the standard from that point onward.
[/quote]

OpenGL was still the renderer of choice in the late 90s and very early 2000s; I was still playing Counter Strike on the[s] source engine [/s] Half-Life engine using OpenGL as late as 2001, UT's OpenGL renderer was better than the D3D one of the time and iD was still pushing OpenGL solutions. D3D9 came out, stopped doing dumb things and the ARB utterly failed to bring matching functionality for some time (look up the history of the VBO and FBO extensions for example of features which massively lagged D3D due to IHV infighting) and have managed to stumble time and time again (OpenGL2 & OpenGL3 being the big ones, the last being the one which finally made me go 'screw this noise..' and swap to using D3D).

(edit: correction to my earlier brain fart with regards to HL/Source engine confusion) Edited by phantom
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='ProfL' timestamp='1348440138' post='4983037']
I like c++, yet for WP7 and Xbox-Indie I'd be forced to one particular language, although there is no reason something else wouldn't run.[/quote]

Correct, you can use C++ on the XBox... if you are willing to pay for all the certification fees to make sure your game doesn't do something its not meant to do.

Using .Net let MS sandbox XNA apps so they couldn't run riot over your console, which are generally completely locked down devices, and gave people a chance to release games on it. Now I think some of it was very broken (for example most of the floating point power of a 360's CPU is in the vector units and their SIMD operations, however last I checked this wasn't exposed) however it is still a chance you wouldn't get without dropping thousands of dollars to have tested etc which raises a massive barrier for entry.

Welcome to the reality of wanting to run untrusted code on what is effectively a 'trusted' platform - you either get things signed or play in the sandbox.
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='phantom' timestamp='1348480563' post='4983164']
[quote name='kd7tck' timestamp='1348466683' post='4983118']
What saved openGL ultimately was that directx only runs on microsoft devices. Mac/Unix/Linux/Android/PS3.... All use OpenGL.
[/quote]

All good... you know, part form the fact that Android uses OpenGL|ES (aka OpenGL's saner relation) and the PS3 doesn't use GL at all.
(An OGL|ES layer exists for the PS3 but no one in their right mind uses it...).

[quote]
Directx only became king because microsoft partnered with game companies and funded hundreds of game titles in the late nineties. They flooded the markets with windows only games and this set the standard from that point onward.
[/quote]

OpenGL was still the renderer of choice in the late 90s and very early 2000s; I was still playing Counter Strike on the source engine using OpenGL as late as 2001, UT's OpenGL renderer was better than the D3D one of the time and iD was still pushing OpenGL solutions. D3D9 came out, stopped doing dumb things and the ARB utterly failed to bring matching functionality for some time (look up the history of the VBO and FBO extensions for example of features which massively lagged D3D due to IHV infighting) and have managed to stumble time and time again (OpenGL2 & OpenGL3 being the big ones, the last being the one which finally made me go 'screw this noise..' and swap to using D3D).
[/quote]

The source engine didn't come out until 2003 when it was stolen by hackers, I have no idea where you got 2001. Valve and ID have always been open source friendly, some of their early games where openGL because they wanted to port them some day. Just because early directx was garbage doesn't mean it wasn't heavily used. As I recal most OpenGL games made back then where also D3D, if need be. The few years where the infighting did hold it back is over with now. It only lasted a couple years and I feel the vendors learned allot from it.

OpenGL will always be around regardless of it's slight ineriority to Directx, all becuse it runs on almost everything. Yes I an OpenGL fan admit directx is slightly better, ...just slightly.

By the way I love OpenGL|ES, I always assumed it was openGL. My bad on that.
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Serapth' timestamp='1348440709' post='4983042']
[quote name='ProfL' timestamp='1348440138' post='4983037']
especially if it's build solely by one company and their marketing department.
... snip ...
Standards are the way to keep your freedom of choosing what and how you want to develop.
[/quote]

The first part of your post wasn't bad, but that one line was idiotic and trollish.[/quote]don't be harsh, maybe you just haven't got it.

[quote]The second line is equally silly. You do realize that C# is ratified as a ECMA standard language right? By your logic people *SHOULD* use C# for exactly this reason.[/quote]that's worth nothing. It's still just one company that is driving it and owning the rights. similar to Java, where there are even big communities, even google added it to Android, with knowledge of Sun. Now that Oracle owns the java rights, the game completely changed, a lot of those communities are ignored by them and companies that use Java get sued. Even C# was born as MS was sued for extending Java in their J++ with their own extensions, although everyone can do that by writing java beans. A standard by just one company driving it, producing tools etc. -> that should deserve your judgment of "idiotic and trollish"

[quote]When it comes to graphics libraries, it was actually being an open standard that caused OpenGL to stumble and DirectX to become king. D3D pre-9 were basically shit, and D3D9 took a number of revisions to get to the point of being better than OpenGL. However, they could move quickly and did, while OpenGL died a slow death by committee. The move to a programmable pipeline is the only thing that saved GL in the end.
[/quote]DX7 was good and even DX6 was quite useable. but you still hear a lot of developers (hardware and software guys), that DirectX (11) is just less bad, it's not really what most people want. Most HW vendors are not happy about how MS dictates features and API, and also how slow it is to add any feature. There are also random restrictions and arbitrary features that don't represent the HW at all, e.g. half a dozen types of unordered access buffers. But I have big doubts DX superpassed OGL because of standard vs non-standard. There are a lot of standards, like most of the W3C ratified, that work out quite well.
This thread of people being afraid MS could kill their beloved XNA is the proof. There is nobody worrying that the STL or Boost or OpenGL or HTTP or... might die or might diverge completely because of one company. it might die if the support ends because it's no longer used, but not because this one big company kills it.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='phantom' timestamp='1348480898' post='4983165']
[quote name='ProfL' timestamp='1348440138' post='4983037']
I like c++, yet for WP7 and Xbox-Indie I'd be forced to one particular language, although there is no reason something else wouldn't run.[/quote]

Correct, you can use C++ on the XBox... if you are willing to pay for all the certification fees to make sure your game doesn't do something its not meant to do.
[/quote]I'm afraid you're mixing up something, to a big degree!
running in a sandbox/VM is not related to the language of your source code at all, there are a dozen languages that can compile to CLI used by .net ( check out [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_CLI_languages"]http://en.wikipedia....f_CLI_languages[/url] ),
you could just as good compile c++ to an IL compatible with the VM they run on xbox like you can with c#. e.g. Adobe's Alchemy compiler allows you to compile c++ code for the Flash VM. it runs about 10times faster than Action script code, yet it's just as secure as AS written programs.
A VM is nothing else than a virtual CPU (or rather a whole system, but as for the language, just the cpu matters), it's not an interpreter or something for some particular language, it reads op-code by op-code and executes it. it does not know anything about the source, nor the compiler used.


[quote]
Welcome to the reality of wanting to run untrusted code on what is effectively a 'trusted' platform - you either get things signed or play in the sandbox.
[/quote]the trusted platform or sandbox is not .NET. Microsoft doesn't read over megabytes of assembly/opcodes during their TRC checks to validate native code, that would simply not work out. MS is keeping the 'client' binaries in an protected area that is separated from the OS by hardware (nearly every modern CPU works this way). If you would not call any system functions, you could in fact do whatever you want (as long as there is no HW bug), you'd not escape the protected area and you'd not be able to do any harm to the Xbox.

There are exploits to escape this protection on every OS, buy abusing programming bugs in the system functions. but there are also exploits for VM/Sandboxes. it's really not related to the language of the source. there is a simple proof, you can also create a disassembler that converts a compiled binary into the source code for any other (Turing complete) language and compile it again and run it. One I've used for c++ to java: [url="http://nestedvm.ibex.org/"]http://nestedvm.ibex.org/[/url]

please, feel free to proof me wrong, but so far the language limitation doesn't seem like a technical reason.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Krypt0n' timestamp='1348498415' post='4983235']
I'm afraid you're mixing up something, to a big degree!
running in a sandbox/VM is not related to the language of your source code at all, there are a dozen languages that can compile to CLI used by .net ( check out http://en.wikipedia....f_CLI_languages ),
[/quote]
Well the only problem there is that the xbox uses the .net compact framework which has an altered compiler. VB.net and C# just seem to be the ones with the closest to full function compiler. I'm pretty sure that if you found a decent compiler for lets say Boo (no real reason) that it would still play nicely on the xbox.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='kd7tck' timestamp='1348486650' post='4983182']
The source engine didn't come out until 2003 when it was stolen by hackers, I have no idea where you got 2001.
[/quote]

Sorry, that was a brain-fart on my part : I meant Half-Life Engine.
(Although Source is just the evolved HL Engine but that's just splitting hairs ;))

[quote]
Valve and ID have always been open source friendly, some of their early games where openGL because they wanted to port them some day. Just because early directx was garbage doesn't mean it wasn't heavily used. As I recal most OpenGL games made back then where also D3D, if need be. The few years where the infighting did hold it back is over with now. It only lasted a couple years and I feel the vendors learned allot from it.
[/quote]

I don't quite know why you think were Open Source friendly from; while iD have indeed released older engines as open source for some time they were closed to the point where you weren't allowed to use their tools to create levels for your own game. Valve have no Open Source pedigree that I can think of; they might put out some papers but I can't ever recall them throwing source out into the open.

iD's games started off life as software rendered, the move to OpenGL came later with GLQuake being released around the time of Win95 and the rise of the Voodoo cards; back then it was OpenGL or Glide : D3D was about but not widely used although MS were trying to push it. Valve get involved due to their licensing of the OpenGL based Quake engine (which then got some of the Quake2 upgrades) which is why it was primarily a software/gl based engine at the time. This had nothing to do with wanting to port things, this was just the state of technology at the time.

Some games did gain D3D support, HL and UT did indeed have D3D renderers but for a long time they were rubbish when compared to the OpenGL based ones - slower and lower image quality tended to be their hallmarks while OpenGL, and indeed the Glide based renders, were much nicer to look at. (I accidently used D3D to render CS once... I very quickly went back to OpenGL as it was simply better at the time).

The ARB infighting lasted long enough to scupper at least 2 OpenGL versions and slow development down which is what ultimately has done OpenGL in when it comes to AAA development cycles - in a world where D3D is king and the better API (in the form of D3D11) the desire to use OpenGL is low unless you want to port and then its saner to put a layer over your API and target D3D on windows anyway as thats where the stability and speed remains (as well as the tools).

[quote]
OpenGL will always be around regardless of it's slight ineriority to Directx, all becuse it runs on almost everything. Yes I an OpenGL fan admit directx is slightly better, ...just slightly.
[/quote]

OpenGL needs to stay around and it needs to be strong to force development; if not things will stagnate. Right now it is still lacking the former (being able to run on minority platforms of Linux and OSX isn't, in the AAA sense, much of a draw; if we can drop XP/DX9 support when the market is still 10%+ the sub-10% combined apprent market of Linux and OSX has no real draw for the engineering cost).

I used OpenGL for a good 8 years before switching; up until DX9 it really was a case of 'whatever floats your boat' API wise - but with the GL3.0 fuck up I gave up on the ARB being able to do something sensible with OpenGL and thus my move to D3D land where things are nicer and given I've always just run a windows system (Well, I did play with linux for a while and concluded 'meh' some years back) there was no great loss.

[quote]
By the way I love OpenGL|ES, I always assumed it was openGL. My bad on that.
[/quote]

Well, as I said, OpenGL|ES makes sense - it is the saner, stripped down, relative.
Hell, if OpenGL Longs Peak had happened then chances are I'd be using OpenGL myself still.. but it didn't and because of that I still refuse to trust the ARB will do somethinig sane any time soon and thus just watch OpenGL stagger forward from a distance...
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='6677' timestamp='1348501268' post='4983248']
Well the only problem there is that the xbox uses the .net compact framework which has an altered compiler. VB.net and C# just seem to be the ones with the closest to full function compiler. I'm pretty sure that if you found a decent compiler for lets say Boo (no real reason) that it would still play nicely on the xbox.
[/quote]I'd be happy if everyone would agree with you, that this is the only problem. there is no compiler yet. (usually there are all kind of bogus arguments, like security, or endianess, or compatibility, or...).

( maybe that whole talk that Profl started could be branched out, I feel like we are abusing a valid thread. )
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I wan't xna 5, with dx11 support... I don't want to use c++, had a very traumatic experience in it. Sad to hear is either dying in on-going support or even dead already.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Sooker' timestamp='1348504054' post='4983261']
What do you think is better. Choosing Monogame or the low level SharpDX?
[/quote]
Depends on the aim. As a straight XNA replacement then Monogame. If you want to get closer to the hardware etc then SharpDX. There is also OpenTK if you would rather have cross platform (openGL for mono/.net) although I don't think its actively developed anymore. Edited by 6677
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0