XNA GS 4.0 is Here!
by Giuseppe De Francesco · in Torque X 2D · 09/09/2010 (6:43 pm) · 64 replies
Hi guys,
Kathleen Sanders has cleared the timeline doubts about XNA GS 4.0 here.
This is most likely to mean that by the end of the year we won't be able to publish XBLIG games using XNA GS 3.1 (just like it happened with the passage from 3.0 to 3.1).
I believe a heads-up on this matter was in order.
Cheers,
Pino
Kathleen Sanders has cleared the timeline doubts about XNA GS 4.0 here.
This is most likely to mean that by the end of the year we won't be able to publish XBLIG games using XNA GS 3.1 (just like it happened with the passage from 3.0 to 3.1).
I believe a heads-up on this matter was in order.
Cheers,
Pino
About the author
In the software eng. field since 1981, in charge of R&D during last 10 years. IEEE Senior Member (and volunteer).
#42
09/13/2010 (9:06 pm)
4.0 XNA is an update. A deep one, but an update all the same. Microsoft knows better than throwing all the code out (now). Netscape is probably the best known example of a successful company at the top going to the sheer bottom by a re-write. Any seasoned developers knows that unless you have UNFIXABLE issues, a re-write is usually the worst of both choices. In some cases, it make sense. 20 years have passed, you are still running off an old decrepit server that is showing sign of dying and there is no simple way of porting the logic to more recent languages. Fine. Or you are faced with a spaghetti monster of epic proportions. Fine. But I have seen Torque X's code and it isn't either by a LONG shot. Because of that, the re-write seems like a VERY poorly thought out idea at the very best.
#43
XNA GS 4.0 is mostly a refactoring of 3.1 with the addition of the WP7 set of API. You can reduce the whole set of API the WP7 or split your code using conditional pragmas (Reach or HiDef). Refactoring they got rid of all the useless/old stuff. Microsoft has not rewritten XNA.
Torque X has many issues and part of the Core should be heavily refactored, still it's a working engine at its present state. IA business goal should be to keep its presence on the existent markets AND start new ones as well. Letting down a well established market for a new one which most likely will be a flop makes no sense to me (and here I speak as a manager and business-man).
09/13/2010 (9:29 pm)
@Darrel: XNA GS 4.0 is mostly a refactoring of 3.1 with the addition of the WP7 set of API. You can reduce the whole set of API the WP7 or split your code using conditional pragmas (Reach or HiDef). Refactoring they got rid of all the useless/old stuff. Microsoft has not rewritten XNA.
Torque X has many issues and part of the Core should be heavily refactored, still it's a working engine at its present state. IA business goal should be to keep its presence on the existent markets AND start new ones as well. Letting down a well established market for a new one which most likely will be a flop makes no sense to me (and here I speak as a manager and business-man).
#44
09/14/2010 (2:22 am)
Pino what is your opinion of XBLIG? Some people say its a complete failure. I personally am optimistic about XBLIG.
#45
XBLIG is good just for Microsoft because they got the 30% of all anyway. From an Indie point of view XBLIG is not really good, but it's all we got so... Problem is that because of too weak peer review rules there is too much shovelware and too many (cr)applications so the vast majority of Xbox users don't even care to have a look at the Indie Channel anymore. Now the channel "features" 1290 titles and we all know that half of them are making users go away.
So with a reduced user-base publishing on XBLIG isn't great at all... but it's all we have. Then... if you can't get in the top 20 within the timeframe your title is in the "New Arrivals" you won't sell anymore. That's natural, but the situation is made worse by the reduced user-base.
Titles like "Tank Battle" by Gameloft (now in review for the second time after we failed it) might drive some press interest back to the channel, but those big studios have a terrible attitude, despising the Peer Review system by not even answering on the review forum, so they show that they just want to try to get published on Xbox avoiding the XBLA Certification fee (or they got rejected) so they expect us to pass their game just because they are big... maybe they are not aware that we didn't pass many times even Microsoft's own game (KODU Game Lab) so... pity... the presence of that (and other) well known studios could really be good for the service :(
09/14/2010 (9:28 am)
@John: XBLIG is good just for Microsoft because they got the 30% of all anyway. From an Indie point of view XBLIG is not really good, but it's all we got so... Problem is that because of too weak peer review rules there is too much shovelware and too many (cr)applications so the vast majority of Xbox users don't even care to have a look at the Indie Channel anymore. Now the channel "features" 1290 titles and we all know that half of them are making users go away.
So with a reduced user-base publishing on XBLIG isn't great at all... but it's all we have. Then... if you can't get in the top 20 within the timeframe your title is in the "New Arrivals" you won't sell anymore. That's natural, but the situation is made worse by the reduced user-base.
Titles like "Tank Battle" by Gameloft (now in review for the second time after we failed it) might drive some press interest back to the channel, but those big studios have a terrible attitude, despising the Peer Review system by not even answering on the review forum, so they show that they just want to try to get published on Xbox avoiding the XBLA Certification fee (or they got rejected) so they expect us to pass their game just because they are big... maybe they are not aware that we didn't pass many times even Microsoft's own game (KODU Game Lab) so... pity... the presence of that (and other) well known studios could really be good for the service :(
#46
From an independent developer stand point is it commercially viable to use it as portal to sell? With its limited market, solely developing for XBLIG might limit potential sales due to the reason Pino pointed out.
I cannot speak from experience from this yet though and I do remember reading about XNA dream build competition winners such as Weapon Of choice by Mommy’s Best Games generating quite good sales, 10,000 at 400 MS points!
I suppose it’s all in your goals, if you have a great game idea and its cost effective, porting to other platforms may also help with sales while using XBLIG. Look at PopCap Games!
From an education stand point, I personally believe XBLIG is an excellent way to allow students and hobbyists to go through the process of game creation. Myself and four other student’s from my previous university have just finished polishing our final year project and it’s about to go into review.
We also entered into the Game Republic student show case. XNA and XBLIG have allowed us a platform (albeit a small one) to peruse our dreams! It may not lead to multi-million pound sales but it’s a step in the right direction.
Probably a topic for another thread ;-)
09/14/2010 (11:27 am)
I think it’s a bit of a mixed bag. From an independent developer stand point is it commercially viable to use it as portal to sell? With its limited market, solely developing for XBLIG might limit potential sales due to the reason Pino pointed out.
I cannot speak from experience from this yet though and I do remember reading about XNA dream build competition winners such as Weapon Of choice by Mommy’s Best Games generating quite good sales, 10,000 at 400 MS points!
I suppose it’s all in your goals, if you have a great game idea and its cost effective, porting to other platforms may also help with sales while using XBLIG. Look at PopCap Games!
From an education stand point, I personally believe XBLIG is an excellent way to allow students and hobbyists to go through the process of game creation. Myself and four other student’s from my previous university have just finished polishing our final year project and it’s about to go into review.
We also entered into the Game Republic student show case. XNA and XBLIG have allowed us a platform (albeit a small one) to peruse our dreams! It may not lead to multi-million pound sales but it’s a step in the right direction.
Probably a topic for another thread ;-)
#48
And although Sunburn is just a lighting/rendering engine at the moment, their next update (allegedly when xna4.0 officially drops) is supposed to have level/entity editing along with many many other features. Also, no crazy licensing schemes!
My best guess is that they're trying to position themselves to replace torque this fall. And if they deliver on all of their new features, then I'll gladly throw them my $$$ rather than IA.
09/14/2010 (2:36 pm)
Flat Red Ball isn't "out of the box" complete. But, it does take you through the steps to create your own editor and basic engine. This lets you be a little more flexible than torque allows. But it DOES take a lot of work to get a basic start going.And although Sunburn is just a lighting/rendering engine at the moment, their next update (allegedly when xna4.0 officially drops) is supposed to have level/entity editing along with many many other features. Also, no crazy licensing schemes!
My best guess is that they're trying to position themselves to replace torque this fall. And if they deliver on all of their new features, then I'll gladly throw them my $$$ rather than IA.
#49
FYI: The community team porting 3.1.5 to 4.0 has been established and is at work (still no words from IA about let us access their dismissed porting test).
~Pino
09/14/2010 (9:25 pm)
Hey guys,FYI: The community team porting 3.1.5 to 4.0 has been established and is at work (still no words from IA about let us access their dismissed porting test).
~Pino
#50
09/14/2010 (10:28 pm)
The Editors are also a significant point. I've read their post on it, but having access to them, do you think it would be possible to gut them from their licensed lib and port them? I've done a good amount of porting in c++ and could try my hand if it could help move them to the community.
#51
the editors situation is difficult.
The 2D editor is written in Torque Game Builder (Torque 2D) Professional edition so if IA decides to disclose the source that can be allowed to TGB Pro licensees only... IMO is pointless. Porting from TGB Pro to C# or C++ isn't viable because takes less time to rewrite a new one.
The 3D editor uses a licensed lib which could easily eliminated with only one problem: the docking facility... that can't be ported so the alternative is to rewrite the main form, not a big task indeed but it's time consuming because a lot of code refers to it. But the real problem with the 3D editor is that it's not really working. One example: if you add to your actor a component in charge of loading the animations from files, and then you code that loading part the editor cannot load the scene file anymore because it can't find the animations. This happens with a lot of stuff so that editor can be used only to put the basic level together, but once you are actually working on the components you cannot edit the scene any longer. It's not worth fixing for there are a lot of similar issues. The 3D editor shall be rewritten anew to be able to use it.
In relation to the mere port from XNA 3.1 to 4.0 there are no problems because I can make the changes (just to the ContentNodeGenerator I think) and make the new binary available. I haven't looked at this yet because it's a low priority task but it's a trivial thing... not even sure if the project scheme has changed in VS 2010 compared to VS2008 because I don't use that system (xml access) in my tools, I use DTE access which is way more effective.
09/14/2010 (11:12 pm)
@Olivier: the editors situation is difficult.
The 2D editor is written in Torque Game Builder (Torque 2D) Professional edition so if IA decides to disclose the source that can be allowed to TGB Pro licensees only... IMO is pointless. Porting from TGB Pro to C# or C++ isn't viable because takes less time to rewrite a new one.
The 3D editor uses a licensed lib which could easily eliminated with only one problem: the docking facility... that can't be ported so the alternative is to rewrite the main form, not a big task indeed but it's time consuming because a lot of code refers to it. But the real problem with the 3D editor is that it's not really working. One example: if you add to your actor a component in charge of loading the animations from files, and then you code that loading part the editor cannot load the scene file anymore because it can't find the animations. This happens with a lot of stuff so that editor can be used only to put the basic level together, but once you are actually working on the components you cannot edit the scene any longer. It's not worth fixing for there are a lot of similar issues. The 3D editor shall be rewritten anew to be able to use it.
In relation to the mere port from XNA 3.1 to 4.0 there are no problems because I can make the changes (just to the ContentNodeGenerator I think) and make the new binary available. I haven't looked at this yet because it's a low priority task but it's a trivial thing... not even sure if the project scheme has changed in VS 2010 compared to VS2008 because I don't use that system (xml access) in my tools, I use DTE access which is way more effective.
#52
09/15/2010 (5:40 am)
Quote:The 2D editor is written in Torque Game Builder (Torque 2D) Professional edition so if IA decides to disclose the source that can be allowed to TGB Pro licensees only... IMO is pointless. Porting from TGB Pro to C# or C++ isn't viable because takes less time to rewrite a new one.Sigh. That is what I was afraid of. I have put up with these stupid builder bugs for almost two years that it has gotten to the point that I have this unrelenting urge to fix them myself, which I probably will never get the opportunity to do. Argh! And just yesterday all the doors and switches in my level disappeared because I forgot to fully close the builder and restart it after I deleted some old ones.
#53
Thanks Derek, Eric, Tom & C. ;)
09/15/2010 (11:10 pm)
UPDATE (cross post): I've just received access to IA SVN repository containing their internal port to GS 4.0 (the one Tom mentioned). I've been also authorized to share the source so the CEV porting workgroup now has a very good reference to help during the process. Stay tuned... Torque X 4 CEV will be with you soon ;) Thanks Derek, Eric, Tom & C. ;)
#54
A little taster?
Splash Screen
09/16/2010 (12:47 pm)
Excellent news Pino! I'm looknig forward to TX 4 CEV!A little taster?
Splash Screen
#56
09/16/2010 (1:44 pm)
Oh I didn't realise! oops!
#58
09/16/2010 (1:51 pm)
Well if IA approve we can add it to the community resources. It could be be used for tutorials :-)
#59
09/16/2010 (2:20 pm)
Tim, email it to Eric, see what he says ;)
#60
With CEV 4.0, will this allow us to publish to Windows Phone 7? Or should I just wait for IA's version?
09/16/2010 (2:38 pm)
Just a question: With CEV 4.0, will this allow us to publish to Windows Phone 7? Or should I just wait for IA's version?
Associate Giuseppe De Francesco
DFT Games Ltd