Adam Miles:

The route taken so far in getting XNA GSE to market has generally been the path of least resistance, supporting the feature set that you could get written and cleared with the legal team in the shortest possible time.

Yes and no. We've been on a pretty agile release schedule, which I'm personally a huge fan of: I'm a big believer in shipping something now, then something better tomorrow, and responding to feedback as you go, rather than waiting years until everything is perfect.

But shipping frequently doesn't always mean taking the path of least resistance. It means figuring out where you want to end up, taking a few small steps in that direction, and then shipping whatever those first steps might be. I still think it is important to make sure those steps are facing in the right direction, though. Even if it was possible to take a larger step in some other direction, that wouldn't be smart in the long run if there was no future path leading on from where that would leave us.

Adam Miles:

I can only imagine what the first meeting must have been like where someone suggested you let anyone and everyone run their own code on the 360, but I imagine it was probably a little bit like the one where someone suggests (although it would hardly come as a surprise) that XNA supports Xbox Live. Both are closed systems, under lock and key, untouched by the grubby code of thousands of overenthusiastic MMORPG-writing bedroom coders.

Surprisingly, adding Live support wasn't very controversial at all! We already have a good understanding of the risks and opportunities involved in exposing closed systems to unsigned developers, and it did take a long time to get that hammered out in the first place, but from where we are now, applying the same approach to new areas of functionality really isn't that big a deal.

There are obviously a lot of details to be worked out (both policy and technical, for instance I just got done writing some code to detect and automatically throttle people who are trying to create and destroy sessions too rapidly in an attempt to DoS the servers) but the broad picture is very much the same. Give you a sandbox, use the same architecture we already have to expose secured access to a subset of functionality, require a subscription to limit this to developers who have explicitly opted in to the Wild West, and keep working on the mythical "step 2" which will someday bring games to the starving masses, ending war, famine, and disease in one masterful stroke :-)

Adam Miles:

given that XNA is already a sandbox I can't see what extra issues networking (without Live) might bring to the table. Once you've trusted someone else's application enough to deploy it onto your 360 it probably isn't going to be of concern that it tries to connect to $porn_website and try and fill your hard drive with "images".

Sure, that makes total sense inside the developer play-pen. But I personally don't want Xbox games to have to stay inside this sandbox for ever. There are already a small number breaking out onto XBLA, and plenty more just waiting for a chance to be unleashed on the wider world.

Does it really make sense to add functionality that only works for developers? I'd personally feel rather annoyed if I finished my game, and got an XBLA publishing deal, only to be told "oh, sorry, you can't publish your game in that state. You have to rewrite it to use this other completely different technology instead".

Note that no Xbox games are allowed to use raw sockets today. This isn't something we have taken away from you: it is something that no native developer has access to. If you want to use networking on Xbox, you use Live. Those are the rules we've given to all the big publishers: it would seem kind of odd if we let unsigned hobbyist developers do something that even EA and Activision aren't allowed!

Also bear in mind that using Live for networking on Xbox doesn't impose any additional restrictions over what you already have. You already can't distribute Xbox games, because you need a subscription, so you have to wait for "step 2" to be completed. Live is just another piece of functionality that follows the existing set of rules: we're not restricting anything more here! If we did expose raw sockets, you'd still need that subscription to run your code, so nothing would change other than you'd have a lower level networking service where you had to somehow host your own servers.

The only new restriction coming in with the Live functionality (which is where this thread started) is on Windows. On Windows, if you don't use Live, you have no restrictions at all, but if you do use Live, you end up in the same situation you are today on Xbox, requiring a subscription and waiting for us to finish "step 2". Nothing changes on Xbox, but Windows becomes more like Xbox if you decide to use Live. Of course on Windows you have other choices available if you prefer not to use Live. It's up to you whether you want to come play in our sandbox by our rules, or go somewhere else and choose your own rules.

The only thing I do not understand is Microsoft's stance on what "step 2" should be.  The way Righteous Tool has described it, it sounds like it is going to be some type of service Microsoft provides to make sure the games are "clean" for the 360.  Any type of hands-on service like this is going to take a lot of time and work by Microsoft.  Tool has brought up that 360 console users expect a different experience and we, as developers, are exempted from that because we know what to expect based on the things we have to install to get our games running on the 360.  It is not out of line to expect savvy 360 gamers who want to play the rawest of raw games to understand what is going on when a game crashes or does not work correctly.

What seems to me to be much more expedient is to simply allow anyone to run the XNA Launcher to put games on their 360.  It is already a separate interface from the 360 console dashboard and maintains the separation of official Microsoft content from third party content.  Build a stripped down version of the deployment feature in Visual Studio that resides in a standalone application for "normal" users.  Third party developers distribute their own archives with the things necessary to deploy to the 360.  There are plenty of ways for Microsoft to warn the user about the pitfalls of third party games as well as disclaim any responsibility.  XNA Game Launcher could even pop up a dialog every time anyone without a Creator's Club subscription attempts to run a game, warning them of these things.  You could retain the ability to control developers compiling code for the 360 by breaking the deployment to 360 out of Game Studio and make it a plug-in that Creator's Club subscribers can download.  All of the debugging and remote performance monitoring features would only be enabled with a Creator's Club subscription.

Then, the next step would be for Microsoft to develop the "Youtube of games" functionality with integration into the official dashboard, game submission, regular 360 users running third party games, etc.  The things that take a lot of time and legal wrangling for the average consumer who does not even read game sites on the Internet and bought their 360 at Walmart.

Microsoft has the technology to make this a reality now but it sounds like they are holding out for a solution for the average Walmart user before anything comes out.

Obsurveyor:

What seems to me to be much more expedient is to simply allow anyone to run the XNA Launcher to put games on their 360.  ...

Microsoft has the technology to make this a reality now but it sounds like they are holding out for a solution for the average Walmart user before anything comes out.

IMO a solution for the average Walmart user is the right thing to do. ;) What's expedient isn't always what's right.

Machaira:

Obsurveyor:

What seems to me to be much more expedient is to simply allow anyone to run the XNA Launcher to put games on their 360.  ...

Microsoft has the technology to make this a reality now but it sounds like they are holding out for a solution for the average Walmart user before anything comes out.

IMO a solution for the average Walmart user is the right thing to do. ;) What's expedient isn't always what's right.

I agree. Remember it's all about perception. If enough junk games make it to the 360, it will only give XNA negative press. By refining these games and only allowing the polished, quality titles to make it out to the masses, Microsoft gets to choose how their brand is represented. Again, I not only support this decision, I appreciate it as a consumer.

I already have a "YouTube of games" - it's my PC. I can download crappy games til the cows come home. But if I'm going to spend time on my Xbox 360, sitting on a comfy couch, looking for a game to download and play, I'd really not like to go through 30000 crappy games before finding one that doesn't suck. Odds are after the third or fourth crappy game, I'll stop downloading and never try it again. Now if everyone did that it wouldn't take long before the mighty "Xbox YouTube of games" was disregarded as a big pile of wasted space that everyone ignores and then your game, which you wanted Microsoft to hurriedly put out on Xbox for the world to download, won't get downloaded anyway because of the mass perception that anything in that category is junk and isn't worth the time looking for the good ones.

Nick Gravelyn:

I agree. Remember it's all about perception. If enough junk games make it to the 360, it will only give XNA negative press.

Exactly. It doesn't matter what disclaimers MS puts in front of a crappy game download, all reviewers and gamers will remember is that it was a crappy game.

Machaira:

IMO a solution for the average Walmart user is the right thing to do. ;) What's expedient isn't always what's right.

So how do you address the need to test multiplayer games before a game is ready for this approval system?  There seems to be this expectation that games are going to magically leap from the developers' machines, through Microsoft, into AAA title games for the end user just because of this magic system they are going to come up with.

I do not see how this is an issue of right or wrong either.  I addressed both sets of players, as well as the need for a higher visibility, general distribution system for Microsoft to have control over.

Of course there is the PC but that is not the point here.  What if a developer only wants to target the 360 for the benefits of a stable hardware platform, guaranteed performance, Live networking, etc. that the PC does not offer?

Obsurveyor:

So how do you address the need to test multiplayer games before a game is ready for this approval system?  There seems to be this expectation that games are going to magically leap from the developers' machines, through Microsoft, into AAA title games for the end user just because of this magic system they are going to come up with.

Developers already have access to these tools. With the Creator's Club Subscription and XNA Game Studio (well, when 2.0 rolls out), you'll be able to test to your hearts content.

I do not see how this is an issue of right or wrong either.  I addressed both sets of players, as well as the need for a higher visibility, general distribution system for Microsoft to have control over.

Basically, to me, it boils down like this:
Developers - distribute .ccgame just like always and test. Nothing new.
General user base - wait for magical step 2

Of course there is the PC but that is not the point here.  What if a developer only wants to target the 360 for the benefits of a stable hardware platform, guaranteed performance, Live networking, etc. that the PC does not offer?

If you want that guaranteed performance and stability, you have to play by those rules. The only reason it is so stable is because of how restrictive Microsoft is with allowing games out for it.

Nick Gravelyn:

Developers already have access to these tools. With the Creator's Club Subscription and XNA Game Studio (well, when 2.0 rolls out), you'll be able to test to your hearts content.

Of *course* developers can test their own games.  I am talking about developers recruiting non-developers to test their games before it is made available to the general public.

Nick Gravelyn:

If you want that guaranteed performance and stability, you have to play by those rules. The only reason it is so stable is because of how restrictive Microsoft is with allowing games out for it.

I will ask again, framed within an example: A developer is developing a game for the 360 that is based around networked multiplayer, there is no single-player, no multiple players per console.  The only reasonable way to test the game as a hobbyist is to get your game into the hands of others with 360s and Gold subscriptions.  The game is not fit for general distribution and, thus, fails the hypothetical Microsoft test for suitability for the console.  You will never get testers willing to shell out $100 just to test a game for you.  Other developers are not always suitable testers and they have their own things they want to test.

How do you finish your game, without testing, and get it to the state where it will pass the Microsoft test?

Your example of your PC being the Youtube of games is also a misnomer because every one of those games on your PC, you chose to put there.  They were not forced upon you and did not appear on their own.  You went to the site or the store and installed them.  You had complete control and knowledge that you were putting them on your PC.  You chose not to uninstall them when you did not like them and you certainly are not going to stop installing games because your PC has too many to choose from.

Shawn Hargreaves:

Note that no Xbox games are allowed to use raw sockets today. This isn't something we have taken away from you: it is something that no native developer has access to. If you want to use networking on Xbox, you use Live. Those are the rules we've given to all the big publishers: it would seem kind of odd if we let unsigned hobbyist developers do something that even EA and Activision aren't allowed!

Aha! That is the information I did not have.  Some of us not in the industry didn't know the big boys don't get raw sockets either.  Here we are wondering why MS didn't give us the secret sauce, or why MS gave us thousand island dressing instead of secret sauce.  The answer is really "there is no secret sauce".  Now statements like "doesn't make sense to add functionality that only works for developers" makes a whole lotta sense.  Thanks for the clarification.

I agree with Obsurveyor in that it would be great to have "trusted contents, not associated with MS" deployment.  If I just want to share a game between a group of friends, it would be nice to not have to go through MS censors.  Right now, the choices seem to be only

• Any contents, but you have to have CC membership + dev env
• Censored/Policed contents for anyone with Xbox

It would be nice to have a middle group.  Maybe a private area only accessible by people on your friend list?  I guess the price MS is going to charge non-devs for the censored/policed contents will also make a difference.  If it's the same as CC membership, then this is almost moot.

Obsurveyor:

Nick Gravelyn:

Developers already have access to these tools. With the Creator's Club Subscription and XNA Game Studio (well, when 2.0 rolls out), you'll be able to test to your hearts content.

Of *course* developers can test their own games.  I am talking about developers recruiting non-developers to test their games before it is made available to the general public.

That seems like a developer cost. The developer can bring in testers and pay for the extra boxes, Live accounts, and/or CC subscriptions. I'm sure native developers with a dev-kit and a license from Microsoft have some little extras such as being able to allow public beta testing, but that is a benefit of shelling out for the dev-kit so it's likely Microsoft won't remove that benefit from those developers/publishers.

Nick Gravelyn:

If you want that guaranteed performance and stability, you have to play by those rules. The only reason it is so stable is because of how restrictive Microsoft is with allowing games out for it.

I will ask again, framed within an example: A developer is developing a game for the 360 that is based around networked multiplayer, there is no single-player, no multiple players per console.  The only reasonable way to test the game as a hobbyist is to get your game into the hands of others with 360s and Gold subscriptions.  The game is not fit for general distribution and, thus, fails the hypothetical Microsoft test for suitability for the console.  You will never get testers willing to shell out $100 just to test a game for you.  Other developers are not always suitable testers and they have their own things they want to test.

How do you finish your game, without testing, and get it to the state where it will pass the Microsoft test?

Again, it's just an operating cost of being a hobbyist/indie. Big studios have the funds for full benefits and dev-kits as well as the ability to employ dedicated testers. It's unfortunately just something that probably cannot be solved without becoming a licensed Xbox developer.

Your example of your PC being the Youtube of games is also a misnomer because every one of those games on your PC, you chose to put there.  They were not forced upon you and did not appear on their own.  You went to the site or the store and installed them.  You had complete control and knowledge that you were putting them on your PC.  You chose not to uninstall them when you did not like them and you certainly are not going to stop installing games because your PC has too many to choose from.

As opposed to the "Xbox YouTube of games" where the games are forced down your throat? Seriously though, just because I downloaded them, doesn't mean I won't automatically associate those websites with bad games. The same will happen on Xbox. Nobody will force you to download those games from the "XNA Marketplace", but that won't stop you from perceiving that area as junk if you download a bunch of crappy games.

As for uninstalling, I'm not sure how that's relevent. My point was that if you want to download a lot of games of varying quality, the PC is great for this. Most Xbox gamers on the other hand expect a level of quality that is common with console gaming. It's not just the developer's responsibility in order to sell units, but Microsoft's to keep their console's reputation high. If they let a bunch of garbage loose for their system, it reflects poorly on both their console and the XNA brand.


Basically it boils down that Microsoft cannot possibly give us hobbyists/indies all the benefits they give to licensed developers or else why would big publishers pay to become licensed developers? XNA has done wonders for development but it isn't intended as a method of having a one-man, un-funded team create some AAA masterpiece. If your game is really that good, pitch it to a publisher, get some funding, and pay the costs to buy more boxes and hire some testers. That's just the reality of Microsoft's position. Encourage the hobbyists/indies without ticking off the licensees.

Obsurveyor:

Machaira:

IMO a solution for the average Walmart user is the right thing to do. ;) What's expedient isn't always what's right.

So how do you address the need to test multiplayer games before a game is ready for this approval system?  There seems to be this expectation that games are going to magically leap from the developers' machines, through Microsoft, into AAA title games for the end user just because of this magic system they are going to come up with.

I do not see how this is an issue of right or wrong either.  I addressed both sets of players, as well as the need for a higher visibility, general distribution system for Microsoft to have control over.

Of course there is the PC but that is not the point here.  What if a developer only wants to target the 360 for the benefits of a stable hardware platform, guaranteed performance, Live networking, etc. that the PC does not offer?

I have no such expectation. The answer is simple - you wait for what MS is going to provide. Again, this kind of stuff doesn't just come into existance overnight. Once the networking piece is released, it's going to take time for developers to integrate it. Multiplayer games don't just get created overnight either. :) I don't expect users to test my game for me. That's the job of the development team, who all will have the capability to distribute the game from their development machine to their 360.

Waruwaru:

Shawn Hargreaves:

Note that no Xbox games are allowed to use raw sockets today. This isn't something we have taken away from you: it is something that no native developer has access to. If you want to use networking on Xbox, you use Live. Those are the rules we've given to all the big publishers: it would seem kind of odd if we let unsigned hobbyist developers do something that even EA and Activision aren't allowed!

Aha! That is the information I did not have.  Some of us not in the industry didn't know the big boys don't get raw sockets either.  Here we are wondering why MS didn't give us the secret sauce, or why MS gave us thousand island dressing instead of secret sauce.  The answer is really "there is no secret sauce".  Now statements like "doesn't make sense to add functionality that only works for developers" makes a whole lotta sense.  Thanks for the clarification.

It's called secret sauce for a reason ;)

http://forums.xna.com/32606/ShowThread.aspx#32606

wow such a hard question ?

right now I am looking at making some small free games in my spare time.

one possible venue is for a local church, for the kids in the youth programs.

so no profit, has to be something they can just load on an xbox and play.

while I am learning the tools I need to know if this option will be possible.

in other areas I might want to do the classic try it buy it model, like the old ID games episode 1 is a free demo, then you buy more later.

I have no big plan to go comercial at this point.   But if that happens that will be ok.

 

Why do you think this is a hard question?

For Windows, you are free to develop and distribute whatever game you want to create. The tools for Windows are free, and you don't need to have a Creators Club subscription to use it. The XNA Framework is a cross-platform API, so whether you learn while developing for Windows or Xbox 360, the API is the same. Therefore, there is no payment and no console required to learn our API.

For Xbox 360, the XNA GSE 1.0 tools do not permit commercial development. The tools are uncompromisingly targeted at game programming hobbyists and enthusiasts. It is not for gamers. There is no way to share Xbox 360 games created with XNA GSE 1.0 with anyone other than another XNA GSE 1.0 user with a valid Creators Club subscription.

We've been very straightforward with what you are allowed to do with the software, who it is for, and what our goals are.

Your questions are not about XNA Game Studio Express. If they are, they've already been answered in the documentation and the forums and in blogs, etc.

Rather, I must assume you are asking about what is coming in the future. You seem to be demanding answers about what's coming in the future because you need to know whether you should keep spending money to learn the API. Stop right there. You don't need to spend any money to learn our API, or experiment with it, or even to develop and sell games with it. The rules change when you want to target Xbox 360. If you want to target Xbox 360 with XNA GSE 1.0, you cannot sell your games, and no one can play them without first making the same "investments" that you did.

When we release XNA GS 2.0, it won't include any way to share your Xbox 360 games with anyone but other XNA GS 2.0 users with a valid Creators Club subscription. In the future, we will introduce new products with different rules and capabilities. So if XNA GS 2.0 doesn't yet have what you are looking for, then you have to wait for something after that.

We can't say exactly what's coming later, or when the things we want to do are going to be available. Your reasons for asking are exactly why we won't say. You want to make what is basically a business decision on promises we make about the future. Since we can't guarantee that we'll keep any promises we make, it's better if we say nothing at all. This way, you can't blame us for any business decision you make based on something we wrote in a forum.

My advice is to take XNA Game Studio at face value. If you feel it is worth using *now*, whether for free or after paying the subscription, then I hope you enjoy it. If you don't feel it is worth using now, then maybe you'll re-evaluate it again in the future when we have more to offer.

 

Fig:

http://forums.xna.com/32606/ShowThread.aspx#32606

wow such a hard question ?

It wasn't because the question was hard that I sent you to this thread, it was because this thread already has the official answers from Microsoft and because the FAQ forum is for FAQs not discussions on GE features...

As Nick, and now Stephen has said - there are no plans announced to do what you require, Microsoft are well aware of what  people want and tell us they are working the many issues to get there. Alternatively you are free to choose any of the other homebrew console development platforms available ;-)

Wow - what a thread.

I've spent an hour going through this and I think I can summarise what I've learnt.

Use XNA GSE to develop games on Windows, but not commercially. There are no extra limitations to what the games are capable of.

You can also test out your games with XBOX 360 providing that they are non-networked games. The only networking that will be available in the near future is based on Live (possibly a subset of it).

If your games are good enough to sell, and you want a commercial deal, go to a publisher, and show them what you've done. If you get a deal you rework your code to make it fully compliant with what's required by the publisher.

IMO Microsoft have done a great job in providing a staring point for games developers to understand what's required to create today's 3D games. The attraction for me is I get a stable platform (a selected tool set), tested and trusted, with a great community, and all the tools and tutorials to get me up and running for minimal cost.

Yes I'm just a newbie at games programming, but have over 27 years IT knowledge, and have seen a great many changes in that time.

Trust for me is the biggest and most important thing that Microsoft has. And for MS to risk this is asking too much of them.

                                                                                    - . -

I played FARCRY instincts for a year or so on Xbox Live and the ability to download content and share content with other users and get comments back whilst playing a game was tremendous.  There was no rating system, except you could see where games had many players and those that had a few.  When you managed to join a game with lots of players, the map would normally be pretty good to amazing.  When you joined games with 1 or 2 players it was more potluck, but if it was good enough to hang around in, maybe more players would join.  Pretty soon you got to know those users who created great content and looked out for them on XBL.

If this model is extended to XBOX 360 and have indie-developed content made available to normal XBL users, some sort of rating system - optional feed back - could be posted back by the player.  This would provide aspiring games developers some much needed kudos - assuming its positive, or the opportunity to reflect on what might be required to improve their offering.

As any ordinary 360 user,  I would want to know that my 360 was still as safe to use as it was before I downloaded a game, i.e. credit card details were secure from malware; and that anything I downloaded would not be able to interfere with the normal 360 panes, or spoof them etc. Maybe some indicator on the 360 showing that non-commercially signed content was active.

As C# is being used and MSIL being produced, it shouldn't be impossible to create the sandbox environment on the normal users 360, for the indie developer's game to play in - by restricting the api set available to them, that will run on the 360.   It would be nice if members of the CCO could decide if the game they download should run in the sandbox or native.

Freedom requires responsability and trust. Freedom without responsibility is anarchy. Freedom without trust is fear.

The ZMan:

Fig:

http://forums.xna.com/32606/ShowThread.aspx#32606

wow such a hard question ?

It wasn't because the question was hard that I sent you to this thread, it was because this thread already has the official answers from Microsoft and because the FAQ forum is for FAQs not discussions on GE features...

As Nick, and now Stephen has said - there are no plans announced to do what you require, Microsoft are well aware of what  people want and tell us they are working the many issues to get there. Alternatively you are free to choose any of the other homebrew console development platforms available ;-)

Really ?

WOW.

Ok Guys I get it, a customer who spends his money buying microsoft hardware and software, who sells clients on microsoft based solutions and systems, who has been doing that for 20 years + is told he is asking for to much to soon.

WOW what a way to keep a customer. seems to me like what I am asking about is something that should have been resolved on the first phase of brainstorming and designing the product. why that did not happen i do not know. 

what I do know is my question is valid and not unreasonable. Oh well ....

Up front, I'm not trying to be argumentative or aggressive.

While I do believe what you are asking is indeed valid, the fact that you seem to think it should have been the first step is indeed a bit unreasonable. Before Microsoft should have bothered with end-user distribution for Xbox 360, they had to first solve how to get developers the tools and figure out the API. They had to be sure developers had the ability to make the product first. Then later they could add in the ability for end-users to play it. If they had started with end-users and announced this big community games distribution, it would have fallen flat on its face since there wouldn't have been any games.

Microsoft has stated that they have a plan. It probably did come up in that first brainstorming session. However brainstorming and safely implementing such a system are two very different things. They have said they have a plan so the first part is done, but they have to figure out how to not only handle all the technological issues safely, but also avoid any negative press as a result of poor games, social issues such as games involving racism, swearing, or sexual content, and then the legal issues arising from the inevitable copyright issues of XNA developers cloning games as well as parent's threatening to sue over the games containing the inappropriate content. There are lots of things to such a process. XNA has only existed for a year, so I do believe it is too soon to be demanding that there be an end-user distribution system in place for a previously completely closed platform. They are making progress, but the first had to make sure the developer community was in place to back their efforts.

I do believe Microsoft is taking all the correct steps with XNA. If you disagree then as many have said, you are welcome to use other game development and other console homebrew technologies to make your games. Or if you like the XNA API you can always choose to stick with Windows development where you are free to distribute your games however you please.

Fig:

Really ?

WOW.

Ok Guys I get it, a customer who spends his money buying microsoft hardware and software, who sells clients on microsoft based solutions and systems, who has been doing that for 20 years + is told he is asking for to much to soon.

WOW what a way to keep a customer. seems to me like what I am asking about is something that should have been resolved on the first phase of brainstorming and designing the product. why that did not happen i do not know. 

what I do know is my question is valid and not unreasonable. Oh well ....

You're spinning this in such a misconstrued way it's hardly worth arguing with you. Here's how this conversation seems to have gone so far...

Us: Here is XNA GSE 1.0. It allows students, hobbyists, and enthusiasts to make Xbox 360 games for their own personal use. It does not allow Xbox 360 games to be made for commercial purposes or for the general public.

You: How do I use XNA GSE 1.0 for commercial purposes?

Us: You can't. It is not for commercial use.

You: OMG, are you telling me I can't use this for commercial purposes? Do you guys even know what you're doing? What about people who want to use it for commercial purposes?

Us: It is not for commercial purposes. If you want to develop games for Xbox 360 that can be played by anyone, you have to get a publishing deal through the standard channels, and it won't be with XNA GSE 1.0.

You: Wow, XNA GSE 1.0 is only good for students, hobbyists, and enthusiasts to learn, experiment, and play around with. I don't get it. You guys obviously have no idea what you're doing.

Nobody is saying you're asking for too much. We're saying that today, we don't have a product with the features and capabilities that you are asking about. We've said that we are working on creating a new product with these features and capabilities, but we aren't ready to disclose a timeline for availability of said new product.

*If* you paid for anything with the impression that you could use XNA GSE 1.0 for any sort of business related to Xbox 360 games, then you misunderstood what the product was for, and we are trying to help you understand that it was never intended for such a purpose. We intend to create and release such a product, but XNA GSE 1.0 isn't it.

I understand that you are disappointed that we don't have a product today that meets your needs. You are obviously frustrated that it isn't available. Your feedback is appreciated, and we will take it into consideration as we continue to work on new products and services.

 

Nobody is saying you're asking for too much. We're saying that today, we don't have a product with the features and capabilities that you are asking about. We've said that we are working on creating a new product with these features and capabilities, but we aren't ready to disclose a timeline for availability of said new product.

*If* you paid for anything with the impression that you could use XNA GSE 1.0 for any sort of business related to Xbox 360 games, then you misunderstood what the product was for, and we are trying to help you understand that it was never intended for such a purpose. We intend to create and release such a product, but XNA GSE 1.0 isn't it.

I understand that you are disappointed that we don't have a product today that meets your needs. You are obviously frustrated that it isn't available. Your feedback is appreciated, and we will take it into consideration as we continue to work on new products and services.

 

the last bit is exactly right, I am totaly lost that a whole product was built that can not really go very far on the xbox side of things.  I was under the (perhaps mistaken) impression that the limitations of the GS product were "temporary" and that a later update (GS 2.0 that works with Visual Studio Pro) would open the door.

from my POV this current situation should be very very short term.  IMHO at least 75% of the point of having the GS product and the creators club that has to paid for is to target the xbox as a platform for a new crop of games for the xbox.

that only works if the games can be re-distributed to non-developers.

I guess it's as if I was told that say C# express reqired me to give the source code away and was not for developing apps to sell... if that were the case then it would be of no use unless if was for students only.

I totaly 100% agree that there are issues with keeping the standards up, dealing with legal issues as mentioned (content of a demeaning / racial orm other bad stuff)

but I do not want to wait forever to hear what the plan is.

I do not think I was "Demanding" an immidiate answer, but yes I am "asking" what the plan is, so that I can make my own plans.

for example:  if I want to build some free games in my spare time to give out for the xbox and using xna in some form will that ever be possible? not a sales deal, just a giveaway.

is that "On the radar"?

and I think that others are interesting in this also....  for example on this post: http://channel9.msdn.com/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=357044

one C9 member asks:

"

For the next release, I hope they're going to get rid of the Creator's Club membership requirements. I understand why it's there, of course, but I'd still like to be able to share stuff to non-devs, too. Also, I was reading about the networking possibilities, and requiring people to get both a CC membership and an XBox Live Gold membership is a bit much.

"

so while the folks here may see this as ground already covered there are at last a few folks (perhaps many) who are as confused as I am about where MSFT is going with this thing.

and I do not want to walk off a cliff -- I like to see where the road is leading.

Fig:

the last bit is exactly right, I am totaly lost that a whole product was built that can not really go very far on the xbox side of things.  I was under the (perhaps mistaken) impression that the limitations of the GS product were "temporary" and that a later update (GS 2.0 that works with Visual Studio Pro) would open the door.

Yes, they are temporary. No, GS 2.0 will not yet remove those limitations. In this case, the temporary limitation happens to be for more than one year. That doesn't mean it is never going to change.

Fig:

for example:  if I want to build some free games in my spare time to give out for the xbox and using xna in some form will that ever be possible? not a sales deal, just a giveaway.

Yes, if you want to share the game with people who have XNA GSE 1.0 installed, and have an active Creators Club subscription. Otherwise, no.

Fig:

is that "On the radar"?

Yes. We've been working on it since before XNA GSE 1.0 was released. The obstacles are mostly not technical, and the amount of time it will take to resolve all the issues and deliver a working solution to the public has never been well-defined. Any "simple" method of sharing that you might think we've overlooked is either wrought with risk of enormous legal liability, or places a huge maintenance tax in both time and money upon Microsoft. Having these things is a non-starter for us. Avoiding these things takes lawyers and business people. They don't give estimates the same way engineers do.

Fig:

and I think that others are interesting in this also....  for example on this post: http://channel9.msdn.com/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=357044

Yes, other people are asking similar questions, and our answer is always the same. For now, you cannot play XNA GSE-created games on the Xbox 360 without a Creators Club subscription. We are working on something that will change that. We aren't saying when it will be available. It will not be with the release of XNA GS 2.0.

Fig:

so while the folks here may see this as ground already covered there are at last a few folks (perhaps many) who are as confused as I am about where MSFT is going with this thing.

I invite you to wait and see. You do not need to make any investment until we offer something that you feel is worth it. In fact, I would ask that you do not make any investment based on speculation or unannounced products or services. It takes no effort at all to dismiss our current offering and wait.

In the meantime, XNA GSE 1.0 provides a fun and approachable way to learn about game programming.

 

Stephen Styrchak:

Fig:

the last bit is exactly right, I am totaly lost that a whole product was built that can not really go very far on the xbox side of things.  I was under the (perhaps mistaken) impression that the limitations of the GS product were "temporary" and that a later update (GS 2.0 that works with Visual Studio Pro) would open the door.

Yes, they are temporary. No, GS 2.0 will not yet remove those limitations. In this case, the temporary limitation happens to be for more than one year. That doesn't mean it is never going to change.

Fig:

for example:  if I want to build some free games in my spare time to give out for the xbox and using xna in some form will that ever be possible? not a sales deal, just a giveaway.

Yes, if you want to share the game with people who have XNA GSE 1.0 installed, and have an active Creators Club subscription. Otherwise, no.

Fig:

is that "On the radar"?

Yes. We've been working on it since before XNA GSE 1.0 was released. The obstacles are mostly not technical, and the amount of time it will take to resolve all the issues and deliver a working solution to the public has never been well-defined. Any "simple" method of sharing that you might think we've overlooked is either wrought with risk of enormous legal liability, or places a huge maintenance tax in both time and money upon Microsoft. Having these things is a non-starter for us. Avoiding these things takes lawyers and business people. They don't give estimates the same way engineers do.

Fig:

and I think that others are interesting in this also....  for example on this post: http://channel9.msdn.com/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=357044

Yes, other people are asking similar questions, and our answer is always the same. For now, you cannot play XNA GSE-created games on the Xbox 360 without a Creators Club subscription. We are working on something that will change that. We aren't saying when it will be available. It will not be with the release of XNA GS 2.0.

Fig:

so while the folks here may see this as ground already covered there are at last a few folks (perhaps many) who are as confused as I am about where MSFT is going with this thing.

I invite you to wait and see. You do not need to make any investment until we offer something that you feel is worth it. In fact, I would ask that you do not make any investment based on speculation or unannounced products or services. It takes no effort at all to dismiss our current offering and wait.

In the meantime, XNA GSE 1.0 provides a fun and approachable way to learn about game programming.

 

 

Thank you for taking time to explain, I know there are legal issues.

I hope the legal issues are worked out as soon as possible.  it seems like the basic tech is in place, the tools are ready ( or ready enough) and the final barriers are in the legal process and the staffing for this.

what I would like to see:

I pay a moderate fee (like the 99 yearly creators club) and get the following options:

XNA Live Arcade:  like the current Live Arcade but targeted at XNA , goes thru a review process to be published.

XNA Direct Publish:  allows for content that does not merit Live Arcade but does pass some kind of review.

have each title "signed" with a digital signature that is associated with the game creator club program.

so that if for example I made a game that had inapropreate content MSFT could trace it back to me and do what was needed.

have needed disclamers on XNA based games that Microsoft did not create and does not own the works of the author.

I was developing with .net from day one, I saw the potential of .net from the first betas.

I see XNA as the .Net for the XBOX and as having a huge possible positive impact when the final issues are overcome.

so with that in my sights I am rather eager to get on with it.

The things you ask for, like a review process, and the legal issues they would have by letting anyone download your stuff, would easily cost more than a "moderate fee" of $99 would warrant. If you search for this topic this has already been gone over and at the moment they said there is just no way due to legal issues.

Lord Ikon:

The things you ask for, like a review process, and the legal issues they would have by letting anyone download your stuff, would easily cost more than a "moderate fee" of $99 would warrant. If you search for this topic this has already been gone over and at the moment they said there is just no way due to legal issues.

 

from what I have read in several places Microsoft does not approve any game for the XBOX unless they review it.

so I expect that to continue.

I guess I should re-phrase my statement:

I expect MSFT to require this as part of the publishing process based on current information I have seen thus far.

I would welcome an open publish option with a MSFT disclamer if they can get that thru legal.

for example as pointed to by the MSFT FAQ's http://www.microsoftcasualgames.msn.com/developers_xla.htm

that track requires a MSFT review to publish on XB LA

 

doint you all get bye now xna is not for windows now,  but after spring realease 2008 xna is for windows

right now xna is for xbox360

build your game a get it publish at xbla then you make the xna team happy

"please do'it course xna dossen come cheap for microsoft thay have bugets on xna fromawork"

the goal here is xbox360 15 millions online players wating for you game at spring 2008 and the best of it all is the aprove and quality test is free the first time you submit 

develop your game a get is publish on xbla so we can" start up youtube for games on xboxlive acade" you are part of history my frend

that was the things that has been set a gamefest 2007 i was there "xna games for fun and proffit"  

and there will be no "pro and hoppyist edition" onley one dest "game studio 2.0" 

the first game will be realease at spring 2008 on xbla and windows

hope this help

mike