Shawn Hargreaves:

In other words, we are only doing IDE work to integrate the XNA Framework into the C# project system, and not currently supporting the project systems for any other languages. In the absence of this IDE work, you miss out on exactly two things:

• Content pipeline integration
• The ability to deploy and debug on Xbox 360
  

I totally understand that Microsoft does not want to do any work to help 3rd party compilers from hooking into the XNA framework, but is there scope for 3rd Parties to do that work themselves so that their compilers work with XNA allowing both Content pipeline integration and the ability to deploy and debug on Xbox 360?

If that is unclear I suppose what I'm asking is, will the normal IDEs  ( I'm not talking about Visual Studio Express here ), allow third parties to write plugins that facilitate the use of the content pipeline integration and/or the ability to deploy and debug on Xbox 360 just like the XNA team has done for C#?

Somersault:

I totally understand that Microsoft does not want to do any work to help 3rd party compilers from hooking into the XNA framework,

I wouldn't word that as "don't want to do any work", so much as "have lots of other work that we think is more important" :-)

Somersault:

but is there scope for 3rd Parties to do that work themselves so that their compilers work with XNA allowing both Content pipeline integration and the ability to deploy and debug on Xbox 360?

Sure, I don't see anything stopping anyone doing that. It's a non-trivial amount of work (extending VS at this kind of low level isn't exactly easy) but the VS SDK is available, and we're not using anything private or magical for our extensions, just writing code.

In the Express versions, we do rely on a magical package load key (the Express editions don't support loading arbitrary third party plugins) but in uplevel versions of VS, you can load whatever plugins you like, so the only hard part is filling in the code for those plugins.

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....

The ZMan:

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

lol

Shawn Hargreaves:

In the absence of this IDE work, you miss out on exactly two things:

• Content pipeline integration
• The ability to deploy and debug on Xbox 360

You also lose the project templates and Starter Kits if I'm not mistaken.

The ZMan:

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.

Ummmm, huh?!? :( So we're back to the restriction of having GS?

Machaira:

The ZMan:

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.

Ummmm, huh?!? :( So we're back to the restriction of having GS?

Yes if you want to use networking. If you don't reference the networking assembly then the current rules still apply - your app will run for free against the redist on windows.

As I'm not an MVP I would like to voice my concerns about not including the networking stuff as part of the XNA redistribution on Windows. If I'm a gamer who has no idea about programming but just wants to play a really cool game with my friends, possibly even one I have bought, why in <insert deity>'s name should I have to bother downloading GSE 2.0, I just want to play a game for crying out loud. If the requirement to have GSE 2.0 sticks around, I think quite a few gamers who would probably try out a game on Windows, before buying it on Xbox Live, will be turned off the whole process.

Also what if you don't have an Xbox and therefore and Xbox Live account, does that mean on Windows you can't do match making?

If it's a timing issue, I'd rather have the XNA 2.0 release delayed just so that the Networking stuff is included as part of the redist.
If others agree, please make yourselves heard.

Shawn Hargreaves:

I wouldn't word that as "don't want to do any work", so much as "have lots of other work that we think is more important" :-)

That's what I meant, though I probably worded it badly.

Shawn Hargreaves:

Sure, I don't see anything stopping anyone doing that. It's a non-trivial amount of work (extending VS at this kind of low level isn't exactly easy) but the VS SDK is available, and we're not using anything private or magical for our extensions, just writing code.

In the Express versions, we do rely on a magical package load key (the Express editions don't support loading arbitrary third party plugins) but in uplevel versions of VS, you can load whatever plugins you like, so the only hard part is filling in the code for those plugins.

Excellent, thanks for the clarification. Is there documentation in the VS SDK that shows how one might go about doing it, or is it all a dark art?

Somersault:

Excellent, thanks for the clarification. Is there documentation in the VS SDK that shows how one might go about doing it, or is it all a dark art?

A bit of both...

There's actually quite a lot of documentation (http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/vstudio/aa700819.aspx is probably a good place to start) but the term "black art" certainly still applies to some aspects of the process :-)

Somersault:

As I'm not an MVP I would like to voice my concerns about not including the networking stuff as part of the XNA redistribution on Windows. If I'm a gamer who has no idea about programming but just wants to play a really cool game with my friends, possibly even one I have bought, why in <insert deity>'s name should I have to bother downloading GSE 2.0, I just want to play a game for crying out loud. If the requirement to have GSE 2.0 sticks around, I think quite a few gamers who would probably try out a game on Windows, before buying it on Xbox Live, will be turned off the whole process.

It's an unfortunate thing, but I'm sure, like a non-GSE distribution model for Xbox, it's something that Microsoft is looking into.

Also what if you don't have an Xbox and therefore and Xbox Live account, does that mean on Windows you can't do match making?

You can sign up for a Windows Live account. They are actually one in the same. An Xbox Live account will work on Windows Live and vica versa. You pay $50 a year for both access points. Note that Windows Live does require Vista though.

If it's a timing issue, I'd rather have the XNA 2.0 release delayed just so that the Networking stuff is included as part of the redist.
If others agree, please make yourselves heard.

Rather than stir the masses in the forums, the best way to approach this is file a suggestion on the Connect site. People can vote up the suggestion if they find it important and then it will officially surface to Microsoft's radar.

The ZMan:

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).

My jaw literally dropped at that comment...

Not giving a legal option for networking DLL's would be a terrible move. If it didn't cause swarms of people to break the license and redistribute the DLL's with their game, they would likely forget XNA and move to another platform, or not using XNA Networking API at all.

Michael Coles:

Not giving a legal option for networking DLL's would be a terrible move. If it didn't cause swarms of people to break the license and redistribute the DLL's with their game, they would likely forget XNA and move to another platform, or not using XNA Networking API at all.

This would indeed cause a great loss of interest from hobbyist/academists, and would push XNA towards being a framework for commercial XBLA games only.

The ZMan:

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.

The talks at Gamefest made it very clear that networking will be really awesome.  However, they also made it pretty clear that it's going to be very difficult to play networked games (requiring GSE installed, since the redist won't contain the networking libraries), meaning there will be few people playing them, which makes networking almost a waste of time.  It seems that it will also require an Xbox Live Gold account and Creators Club membership to do any internet-based matchmaking, which is a huge bar to anyone just wanting to play games.

What is the goal of including networking if it's not going to be of any use other than just to learn how it's done?  We need the networking libraries at the very least included with the Redist.  Past that, some easier way for people to play these games is absolutely required - nobody's going to touch my little game if they have to pay over $100 just to try it out (assuming they don't have Gold or CC).

I posted this on Connect if you'd like to vote about the issue:
https://connect.microsoft.com/feedback/ViewFeedback.aspx?FeedbackID=293671&SiteID=226

The ZMan:

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....

I'm an MVP (not XNA though) and that's never stopped me... however I think that at this point this is a clear indication that Microsoft still has not figured out how to handle redistribution. This is a very sore issue. Besides, 2.0 still requires that you have GS installed to deploy a .ccgame to the Xbox 360, so no change there. I guess it will simply make it even harder to redistribute on Windows. When I asked Microsoft, I was assured they were looking into the many Windows redistributables issue, so hopefully that will include networking.

In any case I really think they'll reconsider this decision since as soon as the 2.0 beta hits the Web, some people will find ways to break the redistributable apart to package the networking bits too in setup kits. Better that Microsoft do it than us hacking it...

The ZMan:

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... [snip]

Assuming of course this is entirely true, and I see no reason to disbelieve The ZMan, that decision (whether forced upon 'you' or not) is just crazy. One of the big complaints that no end of people have brought up already is that the barrier to getting someone playing your game on the PC (let alone the 360) is too high. XNA redist, .Net 2.0, while unavoidable, are painful enough, but to install an IDE to play a networked game...

Adam Miles

Disclaimer 1: Yes, my thoughts are on the Connect thread.
Disclaimer 2: We can only "complain" *ahem* based on the little information we have, and often waiting until things are confirmed / set in stone is often too late to voice concerns. So if the above information is wrong and I/we are speculating too much, we only do it because we want XNA to be as great as possible and want people playing the community's games.

 

Michael Coles:

Not giving a legal option for networking DLL's would be a terrible move. If it didn't cause swarms of people to break the license and redistribute the DLL's with their game, they would likely forget XNA and move to another platform, or not using XNA Networking API at all.

What has changed that would make you move to another platform?

There are already tons of options for you to add networking into your Windows games. On the Xbox 360, there are absolutely none.

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.

As well, the network API for Windows can still be used by anyone who has XNA GS 2.0 installed. That means if you are sharing games using ccgame packages, then you can go ahead and include networking because the only people who have the tool to unpack the game already have XNA GS 2.0.

We are working on a system for you to share your games, for both Xbox 360 and Windows, with non-Creators. Unfortunately, it will take some time. It's not a technical or resource issue, so we can't just give the dev team a few more weeks to "finish the Windows implementation." There is policy and licensing and other things involved that I don't know anything about.

We understand that you wanted more -- and we intend to eventually give you more -- but we also hope you are happy with the things that we are including in the 2.0 release. There are a lot of new features to enjoy!

 

Righteous Tool:

As well, the network API for Windows can still be used by anyone who has XNA GS 2.0 installed. That means if you are sharing games using ccgame packages, then you can go ahead and include networking because the only people who have the tool to unpack the game already have XNA GS 2.0.

This is the exact problem - we're already sharing our games via other means than ccgame packages.  That's what the redist is out there for, right?  We're also working on solutions to really help the community distribute their own games (I just started a project called XNA Arcade that installs all prerequisites for XNA and then just lets people download the games).  However, if networking isn't included in the redistributable with 2.0, we don't even have the option to redistribute our networked games to normal people (even if we include a disclaimer saying "you'll need a gold account and cc to play this online") - aside from rolling our own networking, which defeats the purpose of including networking in 2.0.

A gold account and creator's club are just money, and for people who really want to play our games (or even other games on Windows Live), that's not an issue (though still annoying).  However, tell them they need to install an IDE, and they're going to turn around right away saying "it's too technical, I can't figure this out."  I know it's not that hard to download and install VS and GSE, but why should it be required at all?  What's the reasoning for saying "as long as you download VS and GSE (which are free), you can play with networking, but otherwise you're out of luck."  So really, it's saying that VS and GSE are now pretty much the new redistributables if you want to have networking in your game, and with the huge file size and the technical nature of the programs, nobody's going to want to get all that installed just to play a game.

We're all really happy with what's being offered in XNA 2.0, but there's just a couple of things that don't make sense, such as networking not being included in the redistributable.  It's like saying to community developers, "go ahead and make your games with networking, but we don't want anyone but other developers to play them."  What's the reasoning behind that?

Righteous Tool:

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.

Agreed.

Righteous Tool:

After all, every XNA Game Studio user has both a PC and an Xbox 360 console, but not everyone has two Xbox 360 consoles.

Why does every GS user have an Xbox 360? I know some that don't...

Righteous Tool:

As well, the network API for Windows can still be used by anyone who has XNA GS 2.0 installed. That means if you are sharing games using ccgame packages, then you can go ahead and include networking because the only people who have the tool to unpack the game already have XNA GS 2.0.

The vast majority of games I come across as being freely distributed online are in Zip/Rar files, not ccgame, so much so that I've never actually used/downloaded a ccgame before. It's for that reason that arguing that having networking as part of GS 2.0 (rather than the redist) is fine because people will be using GS 2.0 to unpack your ccgame seems like a flawed argument to me. I download a rar, it unzips to that directory, I double click the .exe, none of which requires having any knowledge Game Studio exists, only that you already have the XNA Redist and .Net 2.0 installed.

Adam Miles

EDIT: Began writing before seeing Kyle's post, so it does echo his to some extent.

In any case I really think they'll reconsider this decision since as soon as the 2.0 beta hits the Web, some people will find ways to break the redistributable apart to package the networking bits too in setup kits. Better that Microsoft do it than us hacking it...

Breaking the redist apart and including DLLs has never been a technical problem, its just that its its a EULA violation to do so and doing so means that people end up with rogue XNA DLLs all over their machine which are a nightmare to patch if they ever need fixing by MS.

I have no idea if and how MS follow up on EULA violations but its not something I want to get a lawyer letter about.

The ZMan:

In any case I really think they'll reconsider this decision since as soon as the 2.0 beta hits the Web, some people will find ways to break the redistributable apart to package the networking bits too in setup kits. Better that Microsoft do it than us hacking it...

Breaking the redist apart and including DLLs has never been a technical problem, its just that its its a EULA violation to do so and doing so means that people end up with rogue XNA DLLs all over their machine which are a nightmare to patch if they ever need fixing by MS.

I have no idea if and how MS follow up on EULA violations but its not something I want to get a lawyer letter about.

I never said *you* would do it... I just said "some people". And yes, you are right, it will cause a nightmare of fragmented rogue XNA DLLs, which is why I think Microsoft should reconsider leaving the networking bits out.

Since the Microsoft guys are lurking around today, can one of them at least explain *why* networking is not in the redist?

Kyle Schouviller:

It's like saying to community developers, "go ahead and make your games with networking, but we don't want anyone but other developers to play them."  What's the reasoning behind that?

Unfortunately, I agree, it sounds like that's what we are saying. You cannot use the XNA networking API to develop a commercial game, even if that "commercial" game is free. On Windows, you are free to use any other networking API, and in fact many options already exist for you to do so. The ability to create networked games has always been available for Windows. If you want to redistribute your games to a mass market, then for now I suggest you use another networking library.

Networking aside, we haven't announced anything that will help with redistribution of your games. We know it is a problem, but if you don't use our networking API on Windows, nothing has changed (which I know is still a problem). We are working on a system to enable developing and distributing commercial games for both Xbox 360 and Windows using XNA Game Studio. I don't know how long it will take, because I'm not involved in that, and I can't comment on the business decisions regarding redistribution because I don't know anything about that, either.

 

Adam Miles:

Righteous Tool:

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.

Agreed.

Righteous Tool:

After all, every XNA Game Studio user has both a PC and an Xbox 360 console, but not everyone has two Xbox 360 consoles.

Why does every GS user have an Xbox 360? I know some that don't...

Sorry about that. I meant that in the context of my sentence about developing games for Xbox 360. Everyone who develops a game for Xbox 360 has both a PC and a console.

Adam Miles:

Righteous Tool:

As well, the network API for Windows can still be used by anyone who has XNA GS 2.0 installed. That means if you are sharing games using ccgame packages, then you can go ahead and include networking because the only people who have the tool to unpack the game already have XNA GS 2.0.

The vast majority of games I come across as being freely distributed online are in Zip/Rar files, not ccgame, so much so that I've never actually used/downloaded a ccgame before. It's for that reason that arguing that having networking as part of GS 2.0 (rather than the redist) is fine because people will be using GS 2.0 to unpack your ccgame seems like a flawed argument to me. I download a rar, it unzips to that directory, I double click the .exe, none of which requires having any knowledge Game Studio exists, only that you already have the XNA Redist and .Net 2.0 installed.

I didn't mean that as an argument for why we don't allow redistribution. In fact, I was thinking of saying that we effectively added networking for Xbox 360 only, but I changed my mind when I thought of the many ccgame packages I've seen shared. For people doing that, the networking API is just as cool on Windows as on Xbox 360. If you are not, then it isn't. I agree.

Again, I can't comment on why we don't allow redistribution. I can only speculate, like you, which isn't terribly productive.

I was hoping to shine a positive light on this discussion, rather than try to convince you the negatives are not negative. :-)

 

Righteous Tool:

Unfortunately, I agree, it sounds like that's what we are saying. You cannot use the XNA networking API to develop a commercial game, even if that "commercial" game is free. On Windows, you are free to use any other networking API, and in fact many options already exist for you to do so. The ability to create networked games has always been available for Windows. If you want to redistribute your games to a mass market, then for now I suggest you use another networking library.

Then what's the point in including a networking library in 2.0 at all?  It seems like the only use for it will be exploration, or development of XBLA games.  It looks amazing, but also completely useless if nobody can play games made with the networking portion of XNA.

So without networking being truly useful (since it's limited to developers, who won't make a large enough population to probably even get a 16-person game running), that leaves full VS integration as one of the few truly useful features of GS 2.0.  I'm excited for networking, but I'd have thought that with it being such a big feature there'd have been more efforts to make it actually accessible, instead of just an academic feature (i.e. we can make games with networking, but nobody can actually play them, so effectively, there's no networking in 2.0 if we want to make games for people to play (which is really the point of making games, right?)).