XNA and Windows 8

The XNA framework for example will not be permitted. A quote from the presentation of developing for W8
http://channel9.msdn...D2011/PLAT-766T (around 36 minutes)

Just a note it's 31 minutes edit: it does come up again around 36, but both the answers are pretty much the same :-p

I am curious about whether he means XNA is not there in DirectX, which makes sense. It would be a huge shame for them to ditch such a useful and generally successful library.

I think the more puzzling thing is that they are implying that they are taking away one of the best features of C# if they don't support xna, as I believe xna is probably the best way to access DirectX features in a managed language. That kind of sentiment takes the wind out of my sails tbh. Somewhat upsetting for fun little weekend prototypes that would usually be fairly trivial to get working and looking good.

edit: Looking more into it, the support for using WinRT seems like there could be some very good wrappers for DX11 into C# that will hopefully do worlds better than the ones we have today. Might make XNA redundant.

There is also something to be said for the XNA team probably not wanting to announce anything if they are still working on it. XNA 5 could very well be a metro style game making machine that just isn't far enough along to confirm :-p

Man that would be a big mistake to drop such a successful and useful tool. However, it fits into MS' latest business plan: Spend asstons of money on new products and then take a dump on them.

They could make XNA the end of game making if they integrated it into Silverlight and made an easy to access marketplace (for PCs).

A small update on someone who attended the CapArea:
http://forums.create.msdn.com/forums/p/91616/553378.aspx#553378

A small update on someone who attended the CapArea:
http://forums.create...378.aspx#553378

So no more XNA or Silverlight? What's the point of having a nice shiny UI if everyone has to program in unmanaged DirectX to make apps for it? The one-up MS had on the competition was an easy to develop on platform. Some of the decisions are mind boggling as of late, two steps backward on this one....

It's not 'no more XNA or Sliverlight', it's just 'no XNA with Metro interface'.

You can still go out and program in XNA and your games will still work, probably for the next 5 years or more, you just won't be being native to WinRT any time soon.

That linked page of that thread is funny, full of 'omg! the sky is falling! my time was wasted! waaaah!' it's silly.

Between MS being the backwards compatibility kings and the fact you have been given over a year's notice that Things Are Going To Change and you won't have access to the most shiney new thing there really doesn't seem to be anything to worry about.

People also need to consider what else is going on in the ecosystem; Windows 8 isn't going to stand alone in being a simple update and the XNA model just might not fit into the Metro style or future updates. Also factor in the next console cycle is Coming Soon[sup]tm[/sup] with unoffical rumblings expecting the beta devkits to be in 3rd party hands by the middle of next year something new which fits the 'modern' APIs and hardware is bound to come along.

XNA is, at heart, fundimentally a DX9 focused API and DX9 is on it's last legs; it was going to die at some point and be replaced, when better than to drop it out when a new OS/hardware/console cycle is kicking off? Now, however you've got a year to consider detangling your 'game play' and 'backend' logic so that if you want to get in on the Metro stuff you can be nice and prepared for it.

Welcome to technology; Things change. Learn to adapt.

Short version; XNA will still work, probably for years to come, you just won't get shiney new toys.

It's not 'no more XNA or Sliverlight', it's just 'no XNA with Metro interface'.

You can still go out and program in XNA and your games will still work, probably for the next 5 years or more, you just won't be being native to WinRT any time soon.

That linked page of that thread is funny, full of 'omg! the sky is falling! my time was wasted! waaaah!' it's silly.

Between MS being the backwards compatibility kings and the fact you have been given over a year's notice that Things Are Going To Change and you won't have access to the most shiney new thing there really doesn't seem to be anything to worry about.

People also need to consider what else is going on in the ecosystem; Windows 8 isn't going to stand alone in being a simple update and the XNA model just might not fit into the Metro style or future updates. Also factor in the next console cycle is Coming Soon[sup]tm[/sup] with unoffical rumblings expecting the beta devkits to be in 3rd party hands by the middle of next year something new which fits the 'modern' APIs and hardware is bound to come along.

XNA is, at heart, fundimentally a DX9 focused API and DX9 is on it's last legs; it was going to die at some point and be replaced, when better than to drop it out when a new OS/hardware/console cycle is kicking off? Now, however you've got a year to consider detangling your 'game play' and 'backend' logic so that if you want to get in on the Metro stuff you can be nice and prepared for it.

Welcome to technology; Things change. Learn to adapt.

Short version; XNA will still work, probably for years to come, you just won't get shiney new toys.

No I get that, but it's bass ackwards in terms of strategy. They had developed a multi-platform environment that was easy to develop for. Why wouldn't that fit into the strategy of Windows 8? Why would you want to go backwards and make it harder for people to develop for your platform? The problem is they're not providing any alternate technology to replace the loss. They're not talking about XNA 5 or Goldlight. I'd think this metro app interface would be the perfect platform for a Silverlight or XNA. You would finally be able to synch all apps from zune/phone/xbox/pc into one marketplace. So yeah you can still use the technology, but what was missing was a good way to distribute the end product. In a world of iTunes, Amazon, Android Market, why leave your developers with nowhere to put their hard work?

To put it another way, I either have to learn a new technology or become my own distributor. If I decide to learn a new technology, I'm now choosing between unproven Windows 8, with MS' horrible track record competing with Apple, or another proven OS with tons of market penetration. Why would I choose DirectX?

To answer the first statement about no XNA with metro interface, if the platform is toting the new interface as the future of PCs, why would I want to continue developing apps that don't use it? You don't have to explicitly stop supporting a tool to kill it. If I wasn't a hobbyist, I would be transitioning to iPhone or Android development to prepare for the future.

If I wasn't a hobbyist, I would be transitioning to iPhone or Android development to prepare for the future.

Wait.. so you are complaining about learning a new API by saying you would learn a new API and whole new ecosystem?

[quote name='ChurchSkiz' timestamp='1317237632' post='4866908']
If I wasn't a hobbyist, I would be transitioning to iPhone or Android development to prepare for the future.

Wait.. so you are complaining about learning a new API by saying you would learn a new API and whole new ecosystem?
[/quote]

I'll rephrase what I see as the choices a current XNA/silverlight developer has:

1. Continue using existing tools, you will have to be your own distributor and you're product won't take advantage of the new features of Windows. No marketplace to sell on...
2. Convert to the new DirectX, you're taking a step backwards in terms of managed code. You're target market is competing against the apple iPad and any new tablets coming to market in the next year and a half. MS has a bad track record in the last few years in this kind of war.
3. Develop for another platform with much greater market penetration in tablets(ie iPad, Amazon, etc.)

#1 has a high overhead cost and weeds out your chance of getting the casual market.
#3 is bad for MS. They're already losing market share to iPads in the PC division, this just makes it worse.

What's attracted me to MS is the vision that I can develop for all the different devices from one platform and most importantly, that it is insanely easy. Comparing iPhone development to Xbox is like night and day. But if making games for an iPhone was as easy as for a Windows phone, you bet your ass I would be pumping out iPhone games every day. So if MS loses that edge of easy development, why would anyone choose that platform willingly? I just can't see why developers would stick around instead of switching over now? And I get the feeling once they start getting a taste of the huge markets that are available on other platforms, they're going to stick around. As a huge company trying to protect a monopoly, I would think this is the last thing you want your developer base doing. They should be trying to get all the current XNA/Silverlight crowd drooling and making converts of the iPhone and Droid developers. It seems to me they are marginalizing all the community developers, which I see as the future of development with the invention of the $1 app.

So no, it doesn't bother me to learn a new API, but it would bother me that I can't use managed DirectX anymore, or rapidly prototype. If I have to go through the hassle of unmanaged code or making my own framework, I will probably start developing for Android instead.

Right, so lets remove money/income/market size from this because frankly if that was even a remotely likely reason to shift platforms then any XNA/SL developer should have jumped ship to Apple some time back; that was/is the market to be in. (Android, as much as I love my own two devices, is just fragmented and I've heard a slight pain to work with. I've never got past setting up the IDE myself, too much bother).

MS don't have a monopoly; when it comes to smartphones they hardly register vs iPhone or Android so there is nothing for them to protect. I'm willing to bet the XNA developer base isn't a massive factor for their PC platform either and if no one was jumping on WP7 for games then why worry about the compatibility? X360 is another matter but the next iteration of that will probably be out in 2013 and that will have DX11+ class hardware in it which needs a rethink/rebuild of XNA anyway so you'd lose compatibility there.

But, and heres the thing, //Build was not a game developer focused event; if was about Windows 8, about the CORE libraries of it and the CORE interface. XNA is none of those things so it's not surprising they don't have any details to hand about 'the future'.

If they were going to talk about anything 'XNA related' then it'll be at something like Gamefest.

So, the situation for XNA isn't getting any worse than it is now, so all the 'omg! the sky is falling!' is just an over the top reaction to MS announcing change. A few months ago everyone was crying over JScript being the 'only way to do a UI!' and that 'C++ would be dead on Win8' and so would .Net, and 'omg! all our time has been wasted!!'; //Build comes along and oh look! .Net is front and centre, C++ is front and centre and yes, JScript and HTML5 is in there too!

And let me ask you; What would you have prefered? "No comment" and then on Win8 release day 'oh, btw XNA Games won't be able to plug into the Metro UI!'? Or a years warning that something was going to change to get ready for it?

Your managed development isn't compromised either; SlimDX gives you managed access to DX11 if you want to drop XNA as a backend. Maybe you'll have to write a few loading routines and a game loop but frankly that is trivial stuff; hell if you don't want to do it all on your own apprently there are a few XNA developers out there who want a backend, why not work together and spread the load a bit?

Frankly it's just another round of over the top reaction from a bunch of developers who apprently haven't been watching technology's progress over the last 15 years. Fear of change I guess... probably have that extended period of stability with XP and DX9 made everyone forget technology comes and goes...

*shrugs*
Get over it.

To put it another way, I either have to learn a new technology or become my own distributor. If I decide to learn a new technology, I'm now choosing between unproven Windows 8, with MS' horrible track record competing with Apple, or another proven OS with tons of market penetration. Why would I choose DirectX?

I think Microsoft have quite a bit more market share than Apple...

(In you mean only in mobile phones, true, Microsoft aren't doing great. But then on market share, there are better platforms than Apple too, anyway.)

To answer the first statement about no XNA with metro interface, if the platform is toting the new interface as the future of PCs, why would I want to continue developing apps that don't use it? You don't have to explicitly stop supporting a tool to kill it. If I wasn't a hobbyist, I would be transitioning to iPhone or Android development to prepare for the future.[/quote]Well, if you think that everyone's going to be using IPhones instead of computers, sure. I really hope not...

Anyhow, Apple have a long history of ditching technology and APIs when it suits them, whilst Microsoft are pretty good on giving long support with backwards compatibility. It seems odd to bring them up, of all companies, as a better alternative here.

2. Convert to the new DirectX, you're taking a step backwards in terms of managed code. You're target market is competing against the apple iPad and any new tablets coming to market in the next year and a half. MS has a bad track record in the last few years in this kind of war.

What track record? We've yet to have a non-phone tablet war.

MS haven't done well with their mobile OS, but Windows 8 isn't a mobile OS. MS have done very well with Windows, of which 8 is a continuation, including on mobile devices like netbooks (which are the same market as tablets - we don't categories phones by whether they have a physical keyboard or not), despite Linux having a head start.

3. Develop for another platform with much greater market penetration in tablets(ie iPad, Amazon, etc.)[/quote]Windows has a far bigger market share.

#3 is bad for MS. They're already losing market share to iPads in the PC division, this just makes it worse.[/quote]I've not seen any evidence that MS have _lost sales_ as a result of the IPads? Note, it's a fallacy to look at simple market share in a growing market - when new products are added to a market, it's expected that the market share of the existing products must fall, even if their sales are actually increasing. The IPad's market share will fall as new Android tablets come put.

So if MS loses that edge of easy development, why would anyone choose that platform willingly?[/quote]Maybe same reason people write IPad and IPhone games when they had tiny market share, and there have always been larger platforms.

[quote name='phantom']Right, so lets remove money/income/market size from this because frankly if that was even a remotely likely reason to shift platforms then any XNA/SL developer should have jumped ship to Apple some time back; that was/is the market to be in. (Android, as much as I love my own two devices, is just fragmented and I've heard a slight pain to work with. I've never got past setting up the IDE myself, too much bother).[/quote]I would add that I don't see Apple were the obvious choice based on market size, especially with so much competition due to the bandwagon. Symbian was the number one platform during its lifetime of up to earlier this year, and is easy to develop for (Qt). It's a shame if Android isn't so easy - but Apple require a custom Apple PC to develop on, so isn't straightforward either.

So having said that, I'm even more in agreement with your basic point - market size isn't an issue, because it was never the issue for developing for the IPhone in the first place.

[quote name='ChurchSkiz' timestamp='1317240329' post='4866927']
2. Convert to the new DirectX, you're taking a step backwards in terms of managed code. You're target market is competing against the apple iPad and any new tablets coming to market in the next year and a half. MS has a bad track record in the last few years in this kind of war.

What track record? We've yet to have a non-phone tablet war.

MS haven't done well with their mobile OS, but Windows 8 isn't a mobile OS. MS have done very well with Windows, of which 8 is a continuation, including on mobile devices like netbooks (which are the same market as tablets - we don't categories phones by whether they have a physical keyboard or not), despite Linux having a head start.
[/quote]

Zune vs iPod - utter failure
WP7 vs iPhone - utter failure
W8 vs iPad - ???

W8 might not be a mobile only OS, but that is certainly the market they are targeting.

3. Develop for another platform with much greater market penetration in tablets(ie iPad, Amazon, etc.)[/quote]Windows has a far bigger market share.
[/quote]

Not in terms of casual app development. AFAIK no one is making a living writing $1 apps for the PC. iPhone/Android/Xbox live opened up a huge new market for casual developers to make money. This is only going to expand. I don't think the PC is dead, or anywhere close, but certainly casual users are trending more to tablets and phones than personal computers.

#3 is bad for MS. They're already losing market share to iPads in the PC division, this just makes it worse.[/quote]I've not seen any evidence that MS have _lost sales_ as a result of the IPads? Note, it's a fallacy to look at simple market share in a growing market - when new products are added to a market, it's expected that the market share of the existing products must fall, even if their sales are actually increasing. The IPad's market share will fall as new Android tablets come put.
[/quote]
Microsoft already released information about declining PC sales. Meanwhile iPads sales are going through the roof. It's hard to prove that directly but with 9m sales a quarter of iPads it would be a hard case to say they aren't losing customers. Here's a good rundown from some insiders from the annual meeting: http://minimsft.blogspot.com/ .

This isn't an MS vs Apple competition, it's about W8 vs ALL the competition in the new tablet market before a W8 launch. Adding Android or Blackberry OS only increases the likelihood that W8 sales will lower. In a competitive marketplace where vendors are pushing updates hard and fast, Microsoft is a slow-moving behemoth that will not win the war unless it alters its execution.

So if MS loses that edge of easy development, why would anyone choose that platform willingly?[/quote]Maybe same reason people write IPad and IPhone games when they had tiny market share, and there have always been larger platforms.
[/quote]


Well look at WP7. If WP7 required a special piece of hardware to develop for and no toolkit (like XNA or silverlight), do you think you would see more than a handful of apps for it? There just isn't enough market share in WP7 to make it worth it on its own. W8 should utilize the synergy between xbox and wp7 (or wp8). Make it so you can push out an app for one platform and distribute it to all the platforms, all from one marketplace. They are the only company with the availability to have a cross-platform market for PCs, tablets, phones, MP3 players, media centers, and consoles. I was expecting that to be the front and center message of W8.

Zune vs iPod - utter failure
WP7 vs iPhone - utter failure
W8 vs iPad - ???

I think it's too soon for WP7 vs iPhone talk. WP7 nokia handsets aren't even out yet, and I still prefer the WP7 OS to android or iPhone even though I don't have one. My carrier doesn't have any WP7 phones.

Windows 8 I think will have it's strongest pull because it isn't just a tablet os. I love the idea of having a simple touch based OS that also has all the features of my windows desktop. I am pensive given M$'s every other OS history, but the concept makes tons of sense to me. I also recently bought a windows 7 tablet recently for similar reasons, in that for $300 more I got a desktop replacement convertible tablet.

Not in terms of casual app development. AFAIK no one is making a living writing $1 apps for the PC.[/quote]
rusrs? There are $1-5 apps EVERYWHERE online.

Microsoft already released information about declining PC sales. Meanwhile iPads sales are going through the roof. It's hard to prove that directly but with 9m sales a quarter of iPads it would be a hard case to say they aren't losing customers. Here's a good rundown from some insiders from the annual meeting: http://minimsft.blogspot.com/ . [/quote]
They aren't losing customers. The market is expanding at a faster rate than their percentage marketshare is decreasing. At the least their number of new customers every year is staying just about the same.

Well look at WP7. If WP7 required a special piece of hardware to develop for and no toolkit (like XNA or silverlight), do you think you would see more than a handful of apps for it? There just isn't enough market share in WP7 to make it worth it on its own. W8 should utilize the synergy between xbox and wp7 (or wp8). Make it so you can push out an app for one platform and distribute it to all the platforms, all from one marketplace. They are the only company with the availability to have a cross-platform market for PCs, tablets, phones, MP3 players, media centers, and consoles. I was expecting that to be the front and center message of W8.
[/quote]
This I agree with. I am continually surprised by how M$ products don't cooperate more simply; though they do better than most other products. It still makes sense that it should be a 100% painless process to have all your M$ products talking to each other.

oh hahahahah I write 'M$'... hahahah I'm so witty... hahahahaha....



christ on a bike.

oh hahahahah I write 'M ... hahahah I'm so witty... hahahahaha....

I write M$ because it's 7 characters shorter than microsoft and people know exactly what I'm talking about. It has nothing to do with me thinking I'm witty or anything derogatory toward the company. Get the knots out of your panties.

MS is short for Microsoft. M$ is more normally short for "Microsoft, that evil empire who actually had the audacity to, get this, make money in an emerging market and create actual jobs and money circulation. OH TEH NOES!!! Quickly, Linus, circle jerk!!!"

You may not have meant it that way but it has become kind of synonymous with that on these fora.

MS is short for Microsoft. M$ is more normally short for "Microsoft, that evil empire who actually had the audacity to, get this, make money in an emerging market and create actual jobs and money circulation. OH TEH NOES!!! Quickly, Linus, circle jerk!!!"

You may not have meant it that way but it has become kind of synonymous with that on these fora.

MS is also short for mississippi, miss, and masters of science. I just write M$ because it's less ambiguous in most of my conversations where it isn't quite as obvious what "MS" might stand for and over time my fingers just hit M$ whenever I think of Microsoft faster than it would take me to slow down and correct it.

I'm actually a huge fan of microsoft, and even if you read my post it's fairly pro-microsoft except for the fact that I used a dollar sign instead of an S.

MS is also short for mississippi, miss, and masters of science. I just write M$ because it's less ambiguous in most of my conversations where it isn't quite as obvious what "MS" might stand for and over time my fingers just hit M$ whenever I think of Microsoft faster than it would take me to slow down and correct it.

There's no ambiguity in this context.

If you want an abbreviation which won't get you accused of trolling or being petty, I recommend using "MSFT".

[quote name='way2lazy2care' timestamp='1317418945' post='4867741']
MS is also short for mississippi, miss, and masters of science. I just write M$ because it's less ambiguous in most of my conversations where it isn't quite as obvious what "MS" might stand for and over time my fingers just hit M$ whenever I think of Microsoft faster than it would take me to slow down and correct it.

There's no ambiguity in this context.

If you want an abbreviation which won't get you accused of trolling or being petty, I recommend using "MSFT".
[/quote]

That's not the point I made. "I just write M$ because it's less ambiguous in most of my conversations where it isn't quite as obvious what "MS" might stand for and over time my fingers just hit M$ whenever I think of Microsoft faster than it would take me to slow down and correct it." As I didn't expect people to get their panties in a bunch over a dollar sign when I'm pro microsoft, I didn't really care enough to correct it at the time.