XNA - Microsoft's Next Claim to Fame

[Ruined]

Good article

http://archive.gamespy.com/gdc2004/xna/

Microsoft held the first major keynote of Game Developers Conference 2004. While many speculated that the company would use the time to discuss Xbox Next, it wasn't to be. Instead the company unveiled its XNA program. While the news wasn't what millions of gamers wanted to hear, it might be more significant to the gaming industry. If Microsoft has its way then XNA will allow developers more time to work on the creative and innovative aspects of game making, rather than struggling with the technological facets.

To kick things off, senior vice president Robbie Bach gave a brief state of the industry analysis. He felt that gaming has been enormously successful and is a big part of pop culture, but a whole new set of challenges is facing the business. The advancing hardware, increased consumer expectations, larger number of features, and the rising costs of development are making game creation a difficult process. As an example he pointed to the average costs of game development in 1982, 1994, and 2004; the numbers have soared from $100,000 to $1,000,000 to $5,000,000, respectively.

Bach used the example of Cinerama, which was an amazing movie technology that debuted in the '50s. While the tech was far and away superior to anything else, it ultimately proved to expensive and too difficult to implement en masse. This is a possible danger for gaming according to Bach. Although Cinerama was superior to standard movies, ticket prices remained the same. As an analogy he pointed to game costs, which haven't increased nearly as much as the cost to develop them. The solution Microsoft is proposing is XNA. The program potentially removed many of the technological hurdles of game development. Bach claimed that 80 percent of development effort is in construction, leaving only 20 percent for creation. With XNA, the percentages can be reversed.

Advertisement
To talk about the specific of XNA, vice president J Allard addressed the audience. He positions XNA as a next-generation software platform that integrates many technological innovations. It's an industry-wide initiative that requires the participation of many players, from developers to middleware vendors to publishers. He equated it with Microsoft's Win32 architecture, which helped unify the PC platform. With XNA, developers will have an easier time developing for PC, Xbox, and Windows Mobile devices.

In the near future, every game developed for Microsoft will be through XNA. And already, many big names are getting involved. Already announced as XNA partners are Epic, Valve, Factor 5, Havok ,Crytek, and Criterion. The way I see it, XNA offers unique advantages for developers, middleware vendors, and consumers. Let's break them down one by one.


XNA blends several aspects of DirectX and Xbox development. While the specific aren't really applicable or interesting for consumers, the key is that developers and consumers will have a more uniform experience. For the former, one set of tools if all they'll need. For the later, they'll have a unified online experience on PC (similar to how Xbox Live is for console gamers) and standard controller for all platforms.

For developers, XNA potentially cuts down on development time, while simultaneously allowing for more time in the creative portion of development. Developers will be able to pick and choose from various XNA parts to build their vision. Whether it's a physics engine a sound system or a shader language, developers won't have to worry about mixing and matching potentially conflicting technologies. If the tech is XNA enabled then it will work together seamlessly. Microsoft equated the system with Lego toys. You can buy all kinds of Lego parts to build your ultimate dream and you never have to worry about them not fitting together.


Middleware vendors have a lot to gain as well. After all, they create the building blocks for XNA. By making their wares compliant with an industry-wide standard, the sales and licensing potential for various middleware goes up dramatically. As much as we see Criterion's Renderware or Havok Physics in games, developers still have to do some customization with the middleware to ensure it works with every other technical aspect of the game. As their goods are standardized, it becomes easier and more appealing for developers to use them.

Last not but least is that part that most of you care about. For consumers, XNA allows for the potential to see more high-quality games in a quicker fashion. The less developers have to worry about tech, the more time they'll have to focus on the aspects that dazzle us all. And what gamer wouldn't want more awesome games faster? With XNA, everyone wins.

[Enzian]

It sounds like MS is now horning in on the game engine business, with plans to license it to anyone who wants it. That's good - the more vendors, the better.

If it's everything MS would like us to believe, than what they say is true - 80% creative, 20% technical is possible, and gamers could see innovative games, faster.

But, what would really happen?

Sure. An occasional breakthrough game would be created from the building blocks MS provides. Of course, with Legos you may build the Taj Mahal - but it always looks like Legos. There will be an XNA sheen glossing any game that uses it, and gamers will become complacent with that look and feel and alternatives will seem fresh by comparison.

But, that's the occasional benefit. What would happen much more often is that more shit titles will get pushed out the door, quicker. Without any technical hurdles, EA could distribute the latest movie-to-game tie-in in record time with neither creative or technical energy spent!! Nothing but timely profit.

But, surely MS would drop the licensing costs (as is their MO) to attract developers. They'll attract every gaming start-up, and for every innovative game, we'll have 50 shitboxes. Call it the Sony Syndrome.

It's not all bad, don't get me wrong. Matter of fact, there's more good to it than bad.

But the bad is there. And it sucks. It sucks at $50 a pop.

[Engineer_J]

Something like this needs to be done to lower costs, but I don't know if MS is the one to do it, many developers will feel like MS is trying to shoe in another "operating system" on consoles.