Kyle Schouviller:

Then what's the point in including a networking library in 2.0 at all?

I guess if you don't use it, it would be like we didn't include it from your point of view. For the people who do want to use it, though, we couldn't not include it and have them pretend we did.

There is more to the big picture than we are revealing at this time. Unfortunately, not all the pieces can be put together at the same time. We definitely could choose to wait and deliver it all at once later, but we think it's better to deliver more incrementally so that you get a chance to see us making progress.

Like I said, we know you want more, and we intend to give you more. We just don't have it ready yet.

• You could trust that we know what we are doing, and that step 2 will get filled in before too long.

• Some people will find that what we are providing in step 1 is enough for them to do interesting work (actually I suspect most students and many hobbyists, who are after all our primary customers, will fall in that category) so they can use this productively without even caring about what's coming in step 2.

• You could ignore our steps 1 and 2, and find your own way to 3.
  

The ZMan:

Shaderboy:

Will all users be able to get access to the new networking API, or will we require a signed title with Microsoft?

The Networking API is available to everyone, however there are some extensions to the library to allow commercially signed games to get access to things like achievements which will require you so have a publishing agreement with Microsoft on both PC and/or 360.

One thing of interest that came up on the second day of the networking talk (i.e. NOT the one that was broadcast) is that the networking APIs will NOT be available in the XNA redist. So to run a networked game on 360 OR Windows using the XNA network library will require your end users to have Game Studio 2.0 installed (and therefore one of its dependencies like VS or C# express). In addition your end users will of course need an XBL gold account to play match making games and a creators club membership if they want to run on the 360.

I won't comment or speculate on why since I like being an MVP....

???
So how are we expected to make any money with this, at all?

Kyle Schouviller:

that leaves full VS integration as one of the few truly useful features of GS 2.0.

• Improved Visual Studio integration
• Processor parameters (no more Scale20PercentProcessor, Scale25PercentProcessor :-)
  
• XNA games hosted on a form (great for level editors!)
  
• Use the virtualized GraphicsDevice: no more special code to handle device reset and recreate! (This will make life so much easier)
  

I would like to congratulate the XNA team for all they have done.  I understand you have to crawl before you can walk, and since XNA is not even a year old yet, it is still finding it's legs.  I am more excited than anything to give this Networking bit a try, even if it is not yet mature.  Keep it coming boys ( and girls ).  I'm ready for XNA 6.0.

- Matt D

Shawn Hargreaves:

Step 1: Add networking support.
Step 2: ???
Step 3: Profit!

I love the analogy... very well put :)

Shawn Hargreaves:

• You could trust that we know what we are doing, and that step 2 will get filled in before too long.

• Some people will find that what we are providing in step 1 is enough for them to do interesting work (actually I suspect most students and many hobbyists, who are after all our primary customers, will fall in that category) so they can use this productively without even caring about what's coming in step 2.

• You could ignore our steps 1 and 2, and find your own way to 3.

Righteous Tool:

In XNA Game Studio 2.0, we are still focused on enabling scenarios that no one else can do. Adding a networking API to the Xbox 360 is one of those things. One major utility of the API being there on Windows is that you can use Windows to develop and test your multiplayer games for Xbox 360. After all, every XNA Game Studio user has both a PC and an Xbox 360 console, but not everyone has two Xbox 360 consoles.

Shawn Hargreaves:

Some people will find that what we are providing in step 1 is enough for them to do interesting work (actually I suspect most students and many hobbyists, who are after all our primary customers, will fall in that category) so they can use this productively without even caring about what's coming in step 2.

Shawn Hargreaves:

The key point, though, is that we have noticed the need for a step 2 and are on the case. I happen to feel that, even if it doesn't yet meet your particular needs, what we have in step 1 is still interesting enough to be worth shipping as soon as possible, rather than waiting and not shipping anything at all until every step is complete.

JunkMailer:

This helps me understand the decision. I was surprised when I first read this thread but thinking about it as a 'network API for XNA on Xbox 360' makes more sense. We are already limited with how we can distribute Xbox 360 games until 'step 2' is finished, so it's fine that the Xbox 360 network API is limited in the same way

Kyle Schouviller:

What I saw at Gamefest was a huge push to make professionals aware that XNA can be used for professional game development.  This seems to be supported by the Live support coming with 2.0, and the extra libraries that are apparently available/nearly available for developers to add achievements and such if they've got all the stuff together and are making a professional title with XNA.

That's great, and I hope it all works out - it would definitely help XNA develop further.  However, where does this leave the "primary customers," who are seeing all these features come along that they can't make full use of unless they're developing a professional title?

Shawn Hargreaves:

JunkMailer:

This helps me understand the decision. I was surprised when I first read this thread but thinking about it as a 'network API for XNA on Xbox 360' makes more sense. We are already limited with how we can distribute Xbox 360 games until 'step 2' is finished, so it's fine that the Xbox 360 network API is limited in the same way

That's not a bad way to think about this: in fact the reasons networking is limited on Windows are actually very similar to why distribution of your games (regardless of whether or not they are networked) is limited on Xbox. In many ways, Games for Windows - LIVE is bringing a subset of the Xbox platform over to Windows (a limited and secure platform with a certification process, verified executable and user identities, and access to protected resources such as Live), so the challenges for us to expose those secured platforms to a wider audience are extremely similar.

In fact, it would be a very reasonable guess to assume the missing "step 2" involved in distributing Live games on Windows is probably not at all dissimilar to the missing "step 2" that currently prevents you from distributing your games at all on Xbox...

Brandon Bloom:

Kyle Schouviller:

that leaves full VS integration as one of the few truly useful features of GS 2.0.

In the list of new features on the XNA Team Blog, there are a bunch of other features I'm dying for:

• Improved Visual Studio integration
• Processor parameters (no more Scale20PercentProcessor, Scale25PercentProcessor :-)
• XNA games hosted on a form (great for level editors!)
• Use the virtualized GraphicsDevice: no more special code to handle device reset and recreate! (This will make life so much easier)

I think the VS integration will open up lotta possibilities for cool dev tools!  That's one of my major gripe earlier on, so I am thankful that they enabled the other VS for GS.  I was all happy about the networking announcement before I read this thread for the first time.   Now I kinda wish MS had focused more on the dynamic audio apis instead.  Oh well, maybe in the 2.0 Refresh/3.0...

Shawn Hargreaves:

You've all seen the South Park episode featuring the Underpants Gnomes, right?

That's basically what is going on here.

Step 1: Add networking support.
Step 2: ???
Step 3: Profit!

The big difference between us and South Park is that we actually have a plan for step 2, and we have some of our little coding gnomes hard at work on it even as we speak. We just aren't ready to talk about the details in public.

Hah, nicely done, and it's great to see someone with a sense of humor for a change.  ...but here's a question, is step 3 profit for developers or for Microsoft (or both?  ;)

So no direct answer as to why the restriction?  It seems the community has already grabbed the torches and pitchforks and are heading towards the castle.  Is it for security, or to funnel people to the future youtube of games (or both yet again)?

TehOneAndOnly:

I just want a way to send packets easily for now. Then later I can worry about Friends lists, status, etc...

LoneRockstar:

So no direct answer as to why the restriction?

Shawn Hargreaves:

If any developer could make a game on this secure platform, and could distribute it without having to go through a certification pass, how would we prevent them including malware in that game?

How would we ensure the game provides the sort of consistent user experience that our platform is designed around?

How can we take on the burden of policing the service for cheaters, if we don't even know what games are out there, don't know who wrote them, and don't get a chance to check them for basic security problems before they are released?

First off, thanks for the thorough explanation, Shawn.  It really shows the commitment of the XNA team to keep in touch with the community like this.

Well I'm just going to throw it out there then...who says Microsoft needs to police for malware & cheaters?  I mean yes, a 100% trusted and secure service is always nice, but wide-open services (like wikipedia, youtube, myspace, the internet itself) have flourished despite the few "bad apples" that try to ruin it.  Legally, it would be as hard to find Microsoft liable for user-created malware as it would to find an ISP liable if an email with a trojan is sent over their service, or find FedEx liable for delivering a mail bomb.  Of course they screen for those things to try and minimize the amount of problems that come up, but ultimately, the creator/sender is the one who is responsible for what they have created/sent.

It seems to me that there already exist enough methods of screening/policing to open it wide open.  Things could work like this:

1. Someone creates a network game through XNA, which starts off only working with fellow creators club members.  Major things like achievements and access to any potentially dangerous areas are withheld for professional developers.
2. Before being allowed network access for non-creators club users, they have to submit their game to microsoft for a small screening fee (400 points or something) using their creators club name for tracking purposes.  Microsoft then runs a thorough virus scan on the game and certifies it for public use
3. People have fun!
4. Any problems that come up, it should be relatively easy to track down the creator.  Since all games need to be submitted through the creators club account, that obviously means that their XBOX live accounts and creators club accounts will be cut off, resulting in a loss of money as you mentioned earlier.  Since you have to enter your name, phone number, and address, and also pay with a credit card when you set up the accounts, MS can track the person down for legal remedies if that becomes a necessity.

So really, the only thing that needs a little bit of work is setting up #2, everything else is already ready to go. 

I heard something about creating digitally signed executables, which seems dangerous to me.  Is our personal information going to be included in that signature for hackers to pull out?  Don't you already know enough about the creator through the creators club info? 

If the holdup is really to wait until the upcoming youtube of games (yes, we're all still really excited for this!), which will allow a centralized place for all the games to be located and easier tracking of issues, its worth the wait.  I'm just a little nervous about the digital signatures scenario, and am wondering if it is even really necessary.

LoneRockstar:

Legally, it would be as hard to find Microsoft liable for user-created malware as it would to find an ISP liable if an email with a trojan is sent over their service, or find FedEx liable for delivering a mail bomb.  Of course they screen for those things to try and minimize the amount of problems that come up, but ultimately, the creator/sender is the one who is responsible for what they have created/sent.

LoneRockstar:

I heard something about creating digitally signed executables, which seems dangerous to me.  Is our personal information going to be included in that signature for hackers to pull out?  Don't you already know enough about the creator through the creators club info? 

If the Windows signing works similarly to the xbox, theres no personal information involved.  Without going into details, it's not a way to track the creator, its just a way to ensure that the binary code is not changed by third parties after signing.

LoneRockstar:

It seems to me that there already exist enough methods of screening/policing to open it wide open.  Things could work like this:

1. Someone creates a network game through XNA, which starts off only working with fellow creators club members.  Major things like achievements and access to any potentially dangerous areas are withheld for professional developers.
2. Before being allowed network access for non-creators club users, they have to submit their game to microsoft for a small screening fee (400 points or something) using their creators club name for tracking purposes.  Microsoft then runs a thorough virus scan on the game and certifies it for public use
3. People have fun!
4. Any problems that come up, it should be relatively easy to track down the creator.  Since all games need to be submitted through the creators club account, that obviously means that their XBOX live accounts and creators club accounts will be cut off, resulting in a loss of money as you mentioned earlier.  Since you have to enter your name, phone number, and address, and also pay with a credit card when you set up the accounts, MS can track the person down for legal remedies if that becomes a necessity.

So really, the only thing that needs a little bit of work is setting up #2, everything else is already ready to go. 

virus-scan != (!malware && quality)

LoneRockstar:

It seems to me that there already exist enough methods of screening/policing to open it wide open.  Things could work like this:

1. Someone creates a network game through XNA, which starts off only working with fellow creators club members.  Major things like achievements and access to any potentially dangerous areas are withheld for professional developers.
2. [...]
3. People have fun!
4. [...]

So really, the only thing that needs a little bit of work is setting up #2, everything else is already ready to go. 

Exactly! The thing that needs work is the part between 1 and 3. As we said, we are working on that part. Unfortunately, even what you described would not be simple, and couldn't be done quickly.

Let's just entertain your "simple" scenario for a minute...

LoneRockstar:

Before being allowed network access for non-creators club users, they have to submit their game to microsoft for a small screening fee (400 points or something) using their creators club name for tracking purposes.  Microsoft then runs a thorough virus scan on the game and certifies it for public use

Here are a couple questions I have about this solution:

1. Where does a Creator submit his game?
• If it's a website, someone needs to design and build the website.
• If it's open to international submissions, how many languages does the website have to be in?
2. What does a Creator submit?
• The game in binary form, or source code?
• If source code, how long should someone spend trying to compile it if it doesn't work on the first try?
• Is there a limit to the size of the game? What if a Creator submits a 4GB game?
• How much storage do we need? What if 10,000 people submit games of the max size?
• How does the Creator know what problem to fix before resubmitting if his submission was dead on arrival?
• Do we keep the 400 points if we spend time looking at the game, but it doesn't work?
3. How long do we spend verifying the game?
• We are only getting 400 points. That doesn't pay someone's salary for very long...
4. What does "Microsoft certification" mean?
• Are we liable for copyright or other intellectual property rights infringement?
• Does certification mean we condone the content? Consider what people might think if the content is offensive to certain individuals or groups? What if it's illegal in some countries but not others?
• Are we liable if a game we certified turns out to be malicious?
5. What makes a "certified" game able to access the additional features that uncertified games can't?
• Think about this again in terms of what is submitted.
• Think about this in terms of how the developer did not test the submission with achievements or leaderboards, or anything else restricted, turned on. How does Microsoft know any of those features will work after certifying it?
• What will prevent a "certified" game from being modified by a hacker to gain access to the things that only certified games get access to?
6. How does a Creator pay for the submission?
• Points are great, but how do you use points on a website?
• How do you buy the points to populate your account?
• How many people do we need to hire to handle disputes?
7. How many times can a Creator submit a game and fail?
• What if the Creator is trying very hard to get malicious content certified?
• What if the Creator is a newbie who doesn't understand that it's a malicious third-party physics engine that is flagging his game as uncertifiable (for example)?
• Should the cost eventually go up, or stay the same?
8. How many people do we need to hire to support this submission process?
9. How do we not hemorrage money through this business?
10. How do we revoke a game that we later find to violate some terms of certification?
11. What are the terms of certification?
12. Once a game is certified, how do users get it?

Some of these questions can be addressed with time and manpower, while other require attorneys and legal experts to weigh in. Others require business people to find a way to make the whole venture sustainable. And finally, some need technical solutions to be designed and implemented.

Unfortunately, we can't just fire up FrontPage and slap together a submission website over the weekend. There are a few more pieces involved, and not all of them are technical.

Nick Gravelyn:

There is pretty much no way around Microsoft hand checking files before they go up to scan for bugs, glitches, malware-issues, and quality which will cost them lots of money. I don't have any ideas on how to make this possible or cheap for them, but as a consumer I know that's what I would expect downloading these games.