Ok, I know this will not be an easy thing to implement or even wanted. I've been thinking about this for like the past year so it's not because of the recent details of sales data. These are my thoughts.

Community Games need more exposure.
Games For Windows Live need more users.

My idea (which I'm sure the XNA team has at least discussed amonst themselves) is having games that are submitted to the XBLCG service also to go the GFWL service for download (trial and full). Once you (customer) buy one copy, you own it for both platforms (granted you have the same gamertag for both which you should).

Cons:

• Malware on the PC side (you know there are people who just want to ruin experiences out there)
• Users who don't own a 360 controller for PC or don't have the wireless thingy. (Of course the developer could support keyboard/mouse or something but could still complicate things)
• Would need each game to be peer reviewed for both platforms (hopefully there could be some automation for detecting some malware but you know how hackers are)
• XNA network stack is not redistributable for GFWL.
• The GFWL team doesn't seem interested in independent development.
• <will be added to list by you guys>

Pros:

• The XNA Framework already has the ability to build the same game for both platforms so for developers to create the game for both platforms is trivial at most (imho).
• Community Games will be easier to find and navigate through. (A search bar is easier than holding "down")
• GFWL can get more users on the service (ad money for MS...)
• Community Games will be faster for users to try on GFWL (since most of them will already be on the computer at the time when they see an ad or link for it)
• CG exposure for the sheer number of window users.
• <will be added to list by you guys>

XBLCG has alot of potential and yes, the updates that most developers want (that I've seen) are in the framework and less on platform availability but I think this would be a great idea, granted implemented correctly. I just want this platform to succeed and I think with time (even if this idea is not implemented), this service can become great.

Your thoughts?

The Zedox:

Community Games need more exposure.
Games For Windows Live need more users.

How should a week platform help a dead platform and the other way around? :)

You forgot another Con:

XNA network stack is not redistributable for GFWL.  So if your community game has network ability in it, you will have to have a different network code for the windows version.

This is an issue Valhyre runs into as our main target was PC not 360.  It runs great on a PC and has keyboard controls as well as stand alone server application.  The issue comes in that the only people who can play it are those who already have the xna studio installed. 

I wish Microsoft would allow GFWL and CGs to communicate and play nice together. 


But you idea is nice for those applications that dont rely on network communications.

GFWL is easy for a person to get and seeing that alot of people don't see CG on xbox and they say it in the forums ALL the time (and comments), it would be easier for them to try it on their computer then trying to find it on their xbox and THEN trying the demo. I will definitely say that you would see more people download a trial of a CG game on a computer than on xbox (as of right now).

Devilduck:

I'll add that to the list (one of the many that I forgot to add). There are alot of complications that would go along with it, I'm not doubting that. A con would be making sure that it's playable on both platforms. I'm saying that if you wanted your game to be on both platforms, you would have to support it for both.

I went to one of the G4WL talks at GDC - getting into the program is like getting an Xbox dev kit - they just don't seem interested in indie developers IMO.

There is a paid, certification process to get signed to run and while they don't do this for profit its obvious they do it to excersize quality control. Mind you I think right now there is agrand total of 12 games so it doesn't seem too much of a success my my measure - I guess they must have a different one.

We will have to see what the future brings I suppose... maybe one day we will get Games for Zune Live too ;-) [Yes thats a joke, No I don't know anything]

I see. Well, I guess that kinda kills my idea. I still think that it would help both platforms (12 games...uh yea). I didn't know getting into GFWL was like that, I personally thought it was MS going to game companies to get those games (seeing that they only have that amount of games and Steam is killing them) but I guess I was wrong. Well, maybe if we have some people talk to some people...;). I mean, look at Xbox Live, same deal (but they did have a profitable platform). Who knows. I'm just throwing ideas out there cuz I would personally like having someone buy one version of my game and have it for both (2 for 1...it's like going to buy something from Food Lion).

is there a viable deployment option for XNA games for the PC?

This is an area I've thought of tackling a number of times. I had dreams of creating either a nice WinForm or WPF application that let users browse the available XBLCG titles (screenshots, videos, and links to the Xbox.com marketplace) as well as letting developers submit to the service a link to a Windows demo or complete version. I've always approached it from the standpoint of just drawing more to XBLCG, so games that are not in XBLCG (i.e. PC only games) were not something I was planning on supporting.

I figured having a nice, attractive application that let users browse all the latest of XBLCG with a nice presentation and ease of use would be great. Being able to tie in Windows versions of the games as demos or full versions would be a nice bonus to toss in as well.

But alas, such a project requires a lot of time of which I don't have much I want to devote to it. Maybe someday...

Sounds like a great idea (you can never have too much exposure for your games)! Here's my thoughts:

• What if I don't want to release my Xbox game on Windows (don't want to support keyboards, don't want to rework networking etc)? This should be completely optional.
• What if I want to release on PC but not on Xbox (don't have an Xbox for testing, want to use Windows libs etc)? For this to work the two would have to be completely independent. Now having cross over games would be great, but I seriously doubt every developer would support both platforms, unless it was enforced.
• PCs open up a new can of worms... Sure we devs usually have the latest nVidia 10,800 Ultra ZOMG 4gb edition video card that supports Shader Model 20.1, but what about Joe Gamer with his lowly 7600 GT? How can Peer Reviewers possibly test a good enough combination of hardware to make sure it runs for most people?
• One game that has malicious code in it and the service gets a bad name, no matter how strict the testing is (it could always be foiled, maybe short of a full source code review, and then it's no longer 'Community' anything) or how swiftly we ban the Creator. One 'game' that nukes someone's hard drive or steals their passwords, and a lot of people would probably forget the service.

I'm sure those can somehow be addressed. I think that a Windows version of Community Games would be phenomenal, but I'm not holding my breath for when/if we see such a thing.

[edit]: I don't think I made this clear.. This wouldn't support GFWL at all; network code would have to be written using 3rd party libs or System.Net. Then we bypass all the certification problems that come up with that - GFWL would be the Windows equivalent of XBLA, and we'd have Community Games For Windows Live (or some other acronym).

Well, I thought that it would only be optional what platform you would want your game in. The review process would be a whole different beast. I mean, the malicious software is the biggest thing to me because I know MS doesn't want more people hacking everything. The good enough video card thing would be in the specs of the description but that's up to the creator. Xna does have a min. shader model anyways so cards would have to at least support that. Yes, the malicious software is the biggest thing.

Fervent Interactive:

is there a viable deployment option for XNA games for the PC?

Other than using Live (which is not allowed) WIndows installer is a tried and tested poduct used by many, many apps every day...

If you meant distribution then you are on your own - there's not central place for folk to find an play games. That place is dominated by steam and flash portals

With our lovely market lately though, I don't think it would be an entirely terrible decision to allow Steam to distribute XNA for PC games. I'm sure someone in the business side of things already had this idea and thought it well through though, so if it hasn't happened yet it probably won't happen soon.

I know several people have tried to contact Valve regaarding Steam and XNA games and they have never even replied - so I don't think its high on their list. Feel free to try again though.

The ZMan:

Fervent Interactive:

is there a viable deployment option for XNA games for the PC?

Other than using Live (which is not allowed) WIndows installer is a tried and tested poduct used by many, many apps every day...

If you meant distribution then you are on your own - there's not central place for folk to find an play games. That place is dominated by steam and flash portals

Yeah I just meant a nice installer that will package everything up nice and neat so that it will install and run on a pc.  I will find someone to distribute or ill just make a website on my own and try to get traffic moving in that direction.

Aquatilis:

With our lovely market lately though, I don't think it would be an entirely terrible decision to allow Steam to distribute XNA for PC games. I'm sure someone in the business side of things already had this idea and thought it well through though, so if it hasn't happened yet it probably won't happen soon.

The reason why I think MS decided to do Xbox games first is because (it's something they can control more) and because getting more people on the xbox platform (developing on a console for just 99 bucks a year...unheard of). Marketshare is everything. I'm sure that XNA team has thought about this just that they probably want to focus on the xbox and get the 3-tier level of games (Retail (AAA), XBLA (AA), CG (A...F? lol)) going. They are also forward thinking for the next generation knowing that user created content is the next thing for console games. So getting to it first before Sony and Nintendo get into it was big for them. I just think that this will help "failing" (GFWL) platforms and make another platform stronger. This is of course my opinion.

Even though I develop and do most of my debuging on the PC, my experience with trying to distrubute a PC port of my game was bad. Frustrated users gave up during the long .Net install process, users did not meet system requirements (mostly for Shader support), or even when they did, graphics cards didn't support the widescreen resolution setup for me game. Anyone that thinks just building your game as a PC game and calling it a day is dreaming. Microsoft no doubt took these issues into consideration and determined the XBox route to be far, far easier.

The testing to would have to be much more strickt too if releasing for Windows... lots and lots of hardware issues that can arrise, dealings with third party software/controllers, etc. I'm not sure they'd be willing to put such a large task on the community like they do now because if games were deployed that were overly buggy, it will ultimately look bad on Microsoft.

Yea, it's a great task to try to figure out how to do testing but I still believe in it and belive that it can be done. Oh and with the system requirements, that's apart of ANY PC game, just as is install things. I would just have users forcefully install .Net stuff when you get GFWL that way you don't have to worry about that and only requirements. Resolution stuff is up to the developer as well, 800 x 600 support would have to a default as I believe every card supports that (unless you live a in a hole). Like I said earlier that testing is a different beast.

I can come up with ALOT of reasons for why it can't work or why it would be alot of work but I am 100% that it can be good for CG in general. Another way for users to play my game that's centralized in the MS platform just makes life easier for me. I should have went to that career fair (at NC State) when MS was there and try to get an intership for XNA and put my input somewhere...too bad I know my GPA is too low, oh well, I should be graduating in Dec...anyways, off topic. Oh wells. I mean, I think that yea it's a risk but so was XCG in general in my opinion it needs work and I'm just giving an example of where they can expand.