1000+ people showing up to MS campus from around the world? Would they be covering the costs themselves, or MS? I'm sure devs would LOVE being treated like this from MS, just so things would be 0.0001% less likely to leak to the press. NDAs are in place now, but they are broken from time to time. "Y’know, Things Break." Fair enough, not too unreasonable. Either way, I don't think it would be smart to rely 100% (or even 80%-90%) on your 1st party developers for this. I think you're not understanding what it takes to develop a video game. I would not be surprised if it wasn't difficult to take something coded for a PC and get it up and running on Durango (or 360...or Xbox 1 for that matter...which was maybe even more of a PC than Durango will likely be). The problem is that with games, you need to not only be able to port the code, but you need to optimize the code to run well on the target platform. It is no good if the Durango version of the game runs @ 10 FPS and is missing 10% of the visual effects from the "PC version." To put it another way, how do you think Halo 5 (or whatever) will perform on a low-end/mid-range Windows phone? Easily porting engines/tech/games isn't really that new or that big of a deal. This wasn't even too tough with PS3. UE3 was ported in a couple of months after receiving the initial PS3 devkits. But even still today, there are things about it that aren't well optimized for the PS3 (or rather, developers don't optimize UE3 to work well on PS3). Same applies to the 360 as well. Games are (typically) designed to use as much of the available resources as possible. Other applications don't necessarily work this way. A word editor doesn't need to take advantage of 8 cores, 8GB of RAM, a 1.8 TFLOPs GPU, etc. It just needs to perform well enough (to a certain point), and as long as it does so on said platform, everything is good (regardless of whether it is consuming 60% of resources or .60%). For games, if the target hardware isn't being highly utilized, something's wrong. You can't really solve this with tools or some kind of fancy framework. Developers have to know what the specs are so they can design their game around them. They don't know whether they should be planning for a 4 TFLOPs GPU or a 1 TFLOPs GPU. An 8 core x86 CPU, or some exotic proprietary CPU. 8GB of DDR3 RAM or 4GB of GDDR5 RAM (and everything between). Game design can be very different depending on what the specs actually are (imagine designing for 4 TFLOPs, but only getting 1TFLOPs). Nevermind not knowing about Kinect 2 and whatever else MS might try to push with Durango. Now you might be saying to yourself that all MS has to do is give developers a target spec, early software tools (similar to the final tools), and then let them get to work on that (spend 12-18 months on that, then optimize it on final hardware). For example, maybe they could build a PC with an AMD quad core CPU (Bulldozer), 8GB-12GB of DDR3 RAM, and a AMD 7000 series GPU (or Nvidia equivalent). And you'd be correct. This is an alpha devkit, and devs have had them for a while. However, off-the-shelf parts can only go so far. Both machines appear to be going much more traditional than previous consoles, but there will still be certain "exotic" aspects to these consoles. You can't really emulate the ESRAM that will likely be in Durango for example (know of any PC motherboards with this? Or can you just put "ESRAM = true" in code, and things will magically be optimized?). And given that it is a pretty major part of its design, you'd like to be able to have it in place early on so you can optimize your rendering pipeline for it. Hence beta/near final kits that have custom motherboards being available 9-12 months before launch (maybe/hopefully sooner).
No way Microsoft launches with this. Digital distribution fixes this issue without the bad PR. Sure many games will still by the disks, but that will change over time. Steam is a perfect example. You don't need 1000 people to show up to learn how to code for a new system.They can share only as-needed information that wouldn't reveal very much about the hardware. Have you looked at the architecture leaked? It's simply a 64-bit PC. Coding for it won't be much different than coding for a PC, with the exception of cookie-cutting it to whatever platform restrictions they may or may not put in. I know exactly what it takes to make a video game. I've developed on Game Maker, Unity, Source, XNA and Unreal. I've never personally shipped a game, but I've met and interviewed plenty of people that have... and I've had three different game ideas in development myself since 2005 as a hobby. I also religiously follow the indie game scene and have for more than a decade, and I back and buy indie games even more so now with KickStarter and Steam Greenlight. I've read tens of thousands of developer blog entries in my time. Making video games is much easier than people think, because the information to do so and the frameworks are readily available. Now making a polished and fun game or a blockbuster billion dollar franchise with hundred person teams is a big deal, but the concepts are exactly the same. You need an engine, art, physics, AI, sounds, music, story, testing, marketing and distribution. These are the basics regardless of game size. I don't think you understand how similar the new Xbox platform will be to an actual PC. Gone are the days of unique console hardware. XNA as a platform is open and available to anyone who wants to develop a game now for Xbox 360. Tens of thousands of indie developers have done so. Now, Microsoft has OPENLY stated that XNA will not have new versions, which is clear evidence that they are going in a new direction for developers. The next Xbox will have better hardware than 75% of PCs on the market. Devs will have no problem up-scaling their code to utilize that hardware. The threads are already in place to limit it, for "minimum spec" machines, unleashing the hounds is far from difficult if the groundwork has already been laid. It doesn't take much time to implement graphics settings on PC titles (low, medium, high, ultimate, etc). Most games released on consoles are ported from another version. If the game isn't an exclusive, developers generally start with the PC version and then port it to consoles. That won't change with the next Xbox, it'll actually make it easier because they are doing away with OpenGL and XNA. Developers have never had trouble developing for Xbox, because Microsoft has the best developer tools and support tin the world. It isn't' even close. I know, because I write 3-5 thousand word articles on it all the time.
This wouldn't be to learn how to code, especially since they can likely use the same tools/engines they're using this generation. This would be to work on Xbox games on Xbox devkits with knowledge of what the next Xbox is capable of doing (and what MS would like developers to focus on). My whole point with this is that these guys have to know what the hardware is capable of, not how to code in some kind of framework. You might be suggesting that MS can just tell a few guys a few important pieces of information (e.g., 64-bit x86 AMD 8-core processor), and those guys can go back to their development teams and start work. But that's exactly what I'm suggesting is going on (or likely something easier on both ends). And with this, you get leaks since not everything can be contained to a building in Seattle. Again, you're hung up on getting something up and running on a platform, but not actually have it take advantage of the hardware. Kind of the 90% of the work takes 1% of the effort, and 10% of the work takes 99% of the effort kind of thing. What happens if these guys spent 12 months targeting a 4 TFLOPs GPU (maybe assuming that can use half of that for advanced physics integral to the core gameplay)? Or even a 100 GFLOPs GPU? You can scale effects down/up, but the results won't be that great (either a slideshow that runs in 320x240, or a boring/sterile looking game that runs in 4K @120fps). Again, my only point is these guys have to know roughly what specs they need to target for their games. They will definitely be using PCs to start the work, but they need to know what the target specs are. You can't simply change a few lines of code 6 months before release and expect your game to take full advantage of hardware you previously had no knowledge about (e.g., imagine using deferred rendering, then finding out a console will rely heavily on EDRAM/ESRAM for graphics). This doesn't really have anything to with the tools available, but just keeping developers in the loop. These PC comparisons don't really apply to a console. You build a PC game and have it scale "good enough" to various hardware configurations because that is acceptable in the PC space. You don't have to maximize every configuration (i.e., those guys with $2000+ PCs), and you don't have to worry about crappy performance on lower end machines. On consoles, you have to achieve visuals that push the hardware to its limits (unless you want to be embarrassed by Naughty Dog, Bungie, Turn 10, Polyphony, etc.), and you have to make sure performance meets a certain limit (likely mandated by MS). No 640x480 games with no AA and 15fps framerates should be release on a console (unless we're in the PS1/N64 era). Wonder if they use devkits to begin the work?
In my opinion the PC comparisons are completely relevant, especially since the new console is simply a PC. Getting the most out of a console is usually only reserved for exclusive titles, as ported games never get the due diligence. Those exclusive developers will have more than enough information. The people that need to know, will know. Simple as that. Microsoft handles developers better than any other company on the planet.
The PC comparisons are not relevant because PC gamers won't be playing games on the Xbox with "PC game" expectations. On top of that, the new Xbox, while PC-like, will have major differences from traditional PCs (no GDD5 for video RAM, ESRAM likely, custom processors, etc.). The original Xbox was more PC-like, and it didn't work like you're describing. As for multiplatform games not taking full advantage of the hardware, you're correct (although I think understating how much they still optimize their games). But to that, I still ask how are these guys even knowing what to target period? Usually, they'll take two target platforms (PS3/360, Orbis/Durango, etc)., then build an engine that works well on both (some optimizations for both configurations). With neither console being released, how would these guys accomplish this task? I suppose they could just build a PC game, and if Durango happens to work with their engine, they could put out a crappy port in 6 months. But a lot of multiplatform games aren't developed like that (a large number of console multiplatform games aren't even designed to be released on PC). Even ignoring all that, if you just look at 1st party developers (plus Epic/Crytek/etc., who need to build tools for developers, including those at MGS), they STILL wouldn't be able to keep that contained to one building. That would be thousands of developers, working all over the world. For my earlier argument, it doesn't really matter whether we're talking MGS studios or 3rd party. You're right that the people that need to know, will know. But I think this number is much bigger than you seem to be implying. And with more people, there will be a higher percentage of leaks. Definitely a much larger number than what was involved with Surface IMO. This isn't really worth discussing anymore. EA, Activision, Take Two, Epic, Crytek, etc., have all had Durango devkits for months now (probably more like years, but just to be conservative). They know roughly (if not exactly) what specs will be in the next Xbox. They're building games with the target specs in mind (optimizing their games for whatever specs those are), and some of them might even have near-final hardware (allowing them to test their engine's performance with ESRAM, etc.). Those that are further ahead in development will be invited to show off their games/tech demos whenever MS is ready to unveil the new Xbox (likely within a few months), and while 1st party studios will likely make up a large percentage of that number, 3rd party studios will undoubtedly be involved as well. This is how platforms are launched.
I'd disagree. They bought out a lot of developers and dismantled them in the last 6 years. What is Rare doing these days?
Acquiring IP is completely different than how they handle the developer community. Rare would have been nowhere without them anyway, they would have gone the way of THQ.
Probably not worth debating that claim. Several different aspects to that claim, and each one could be claimed for an argument. Of the big 3, MS is the best at providing tools, documentation, and just an overall good development environment. But when it comes to something like XBLA policies, or how they act as publishers to their own studios (closing several down, pushing strong PC teams to make Xbox games of a specific IP/genre, etc.), they could use some work (Sony and Nintendo are a little better in this area, although Sony's been pretty brutal to their studios here recently). Quite frankly, I think each of them have some pretty glaring issues with how they treat developers, and I wouldn't really give them too much general praise.
The console divisions should have completely different goals than the games divisions, but they are one in the same with all three companies for the most part. If they could separate the two they'd all have more success with games... but it would be a tough sell to shareholders due to increased overhead and spending. Bungie made grade games for Xbox, because they were their own entity and didn't have to worry about appeasing management that had no clue how to run a successful game development company or IP.
There are way too many words in this thread -- this is the internet -- if you can't scale it back to about two sentences you should just leave.
I am not a game dev, but I think Microsoft makes the best development tools. VS is just much better to use than anything based on eclipse, and xcode + objective C just suck.
We were discussing back and forth, you don't have to read it. LOLCATS are that way ->. I don't think there is any debate that Visual Studio is the best IDE environment. Google's development tools for Android are an absolute joke... I wouldn't even know where to begin to develop for Nintendo or Sony, although I've read Sony is a nightmare to start.
Well, I looked over there, but I didn't see LOLCATS I just saw incredible discussions of why gun control laws will make America a better country.
Digital Foundry has put out an article comparing the specs of Orbis and Durango (not much new, but a nice summary of the info out there): http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/df-hardware-spec-analysis-durango-vs-orbis Bolded a few things I thought were interesting. Also this bit of info for those of you who doubt a lot of this leaked information: Sounds like Sony has much improved their developer tools/resources (I did hear good things about Vita development, though didn't realize the tools might have been the best out there). PS4 and PSVita definitely seem to differ from the PS2 and PS3 designs (though might compare nicely to PS1 actually). Still doubt they'll match MS in this area, though allowing developers more access to the "metal" should big a pretty big advantage when it comes to overall visuals. Can't wait to see what SSM, Naughty Dog, GG, etc., can come up with on a "crappy" Radeon 7850ish GPU (given what they've done with a crappy 7600/7900 GT).
Just a small blurb and not all that exciting, but brings about an interesting point about next-gen development and specifically UE4: http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=512736 (source is Edge, but using NeoGAF as online source for it) I recall reading Take Two and Ubisoft (I believe) saying they didn't expect their development costs to skyrocket with next-gen games. The industry definitely couldn't handle another increase like this past generation, so I guess that's good. Though I wonder if that means they might scale back a bit on what they can do (e.g., keep using old engines instead of developing new technology).
Bah! I post a small blurb, then shortly after, BIG WALL OF RUMORS! Not a fan of Kotaku, but since I posted Edge and other unlikely rumors, here you go: http://kotaku.com/5982986/we-know-all-about-the-next-xbox-from-someone-who-says-theyve-got-one (ugly quoted text here, but click the link for better formatting and extra info/pictures)
