Developers here, What impact does XNA have?

[Bobbler]

If thats your Logic then RSX and CELL should be cannon fodder as well

I think you are missing it completely -- I never said that XNA wouldn't deliver a boost in whatever they were claiming a boost in.

You don't think RSX and Cell were named as such because of marketing? They sound high tech and powerful, thats how they get named. RSX sounds like something fast (isn't there some sporty Nissan RSX?), the Cell sounds like something that is alive, smart, and possibly part of something a lot bigger.

It doesn't mean they won't perform (just like XNA, as I said a few times now), but they serve a dual purpose when they get a fancy name like that. A lot of times the name sells the product. That is part of what marketing is about -- if you can sell a product based on the name alone, you have essentially won.

Look at iPods -- they aren't substantially better than anything else out there, infact there are products that cost less and give the same functionality -- however, they aren't named iPod.

 

[ecliptic]

They put a lot of effort into telling people (people who have no idea what an IDE is even) how XNA is going to revolutionize game development. It's marketing hype -- Hell I hear people spew out shit about how Xbox360 is going to be the best because of XNA.

You do realize the XNA was announced at the Game Developers Conference...

This was the goal MS had. Developers would be happy with a marginal improvement, so they didn't have to revolutionize anything -- just hype it up and give it a fancy 'acronym' for a name. It served a dual purpose.

Yet there are developers that have seen it and tested it. Sorry but XNA isn't for nor is it even pushed towards your average consumer. They are pushing it for developers. Matter of fact the only time we hear about the XNA now adays is if a developer mentions it or it comes up in a Q&A and Allard has to reply.

Are you trying to tell me something named XNA in this day and age isn't used as marketing? You need to open your eyes... RSX? Athlon FX? DirectX? etc... etc... If it was purely for development and for developers, it would have not warranted a name that the public would want to hear about.

Were you even around when XNA was announced? It's biggest advantage was that it reduces costs for developers.

The average public hasn't heard about it. X360 MTV special didn't mention it. The only people who know about it are hardcore gamers that spend their free time on videogame forums and the developers.

In addition, I didn't say it was only a marketing gimmick -- All I said was it 'could' provide only a marginal boost in development abilities and it would be good, however, that wasn't the only goal of XNA (as obvious by the fact that they went silly with marketing when info was first being released).

The primary focus for XNA is to reduce costs.

 

[cthellis42]

For reference, I apologize for my earlier comments and thinking I could smooth things over with one who so obviously wants to stir things up.

 

[Bobbler]

(Too long... stuff/quotes/stuff/etc)

I really don't know what to tell you; you missed a lot of what I was talking about, apparently.

Not one of those responses actually discredits anything I said, so I'm not quite sure why you bothered posting... but, I'll bite.

1) The rumor of XNA and the website has been around since before GDC. (Just because it hadn't been announced before doesn't mean MS wasn't working it's marketing muscle).
2) The name XNA isn't for the developers. It's for the hardcore forum user that talks about stuff out of their ass and sees XNA and thinks "WOW that sounds cool!" (well, some developers may be influenced by the name and MS)
3) Yes, I was around when it was announced, I was around before it was announced and continue to be around after it has been announced. I don't see why this has anything to do with anything I said.

The average consumer isn't the one that talks the most -- it's the forum users that see XNA and think it's hot shit without knowing what it is (regardless of if it's good or not).
4) Where did I say it wasn't? I said boost in development abilities which usually means cost reduction.

You can keep trying if you want... It doesn't change how marketing works, though.

What is so hard to understand? When you name a product something like XNA it is for marketing (the name is, at least). Visual Studio 2005 GDE (things like that) would have been a name that wasn't targeted at getting into gamers heads -- however, when you name something XNA you are targetting the public; it is short, it is catchy and it hints at something deeper (XNA vs DNA + DirectX?).

I repeat: this is how marketing works.

You need to stop taking this as an attack on XNA and realize I never said XNA wouldn't be worthwhile -- I did however point out a small fact that XNA was aptly named to find it's way into the head of the (hardcore mostly, as you pointed out) consumers (which are, oddly enough, the ones who spend the most money and the one who talks the loudest on forums/to friends/ etc).

 

[Shifty Geezer]

As I understand it XNA was a marketting maneouvre.

MS release publicly that XB360 will be really easy to develop for, because of their amazing XNA system. The forums erupted with talk of 'PS3 suxxorz. It's too hard to program. XB360 has XNA - even my gran can write Halo3 in a week, XNA is soooo cool!' (yes, I saw that happening )

I asked what XNA was at that point, I think here even. It's all the existing DirectX tools, with no changes, collected under a single name. There was no new software or new tools.

What's the point in rebranding a set of existing products, if not for marketting? If it was for marketting, did it work? I'd say yes, because forum talk believed XNA was someting new and great for writing games. (I'm saying they're not, but Joe Public wasn't aware of the tools MS already had. Consolidating them under one title gives a buzz-word to introduce the concept to the masses)

Now maybe there's a long term goal for XNA, and new tools with better interactivity are in the works, but at the moment if you d'load the DirectX SDK, it's got an XNA label (so I hear from a friend) without working any differently to DirectX without the XNA label.

What contribution does XNA have to development? From what I hear, no different to MS's previous tools before this rebranding. Though I'm not a dev using these tools, and you should ignore my opinion if that's all you want (I sjipped this thread first off becuase I wasn't a dev), I'm pointing out what the devs here are replying with is no different to what I've heard from people using, certainly tools from the XNA environment, even if not the complete set.

 

[Mefisutoferesu]

I'll chime in as well... even though I'll say much the same thing Shifty and Bobbler have been saying. XNA is more marketing than anything else. THough as I understand it there are some rather immediate plans to add a cuple new facets in the form of XACT and PIC... if I recall their names correctly.

XACT is supposedly some sort of audio creation tool set and PIC has to do with debugging. Something about collecting the information occuring on screen at any one moment, so that you can "pause" the code execution and get some info on what's going on, which should enable you to more efficiently debug.

Everything else is the same old same old that was available for the Xbox.

 

[ecliptic]

(Too long... stuff/quotes/stuff/etc)

I really don't know what to tell you; you missed a lot of what I was talking about, apparently.

...or you simply can't comprehend my post.

Not one of those responses actually discredits anything I said, so I'm not quite sure why you bothered posting... but, I'll bite.

Discredit what exactly? How can an opinion be discredited?

1) The rumor of XNA and the website has been around since before GDC. (Just because it hadn't been announced before doesn't mean MS wasn't working it's marketing muscle).

Rumors are just that, rumors. Rumors come out all the time because when you're revealing stuff to outside sources, they have a tendency to not keep their mouth shut.

2) The name XNA isn't for the developers. It's for the hardcore forum user that talks about stuff out of their ass and sees XNA and thinks "WOW that sounds cool!" (well, some developers may be influenced by the name and MS)

The average consumer isn't the one that talks the most -- it's the forum users that see XNA and think it's hot shit without knowing what it is (regardless of if it's good or not).

Fanboy ammunition is not marketing. Matter of fact short of the fact that it is going to be easy to develop for, XNA hasn't come into any fanboy arguements I have seen.

What is so hard to understand? When you name a product something like XNA it is for marketing (the name is, at least). Visual Studio 2005 GDE (things like that) would have been a name that wasn't targeted at getting into gamers heads -- however, when you name something XNA you are targetting the public; it is short, it is catchy and it hints at something deeper (XNA vs DNA + DirectX?).

So when the Army comes out with "XCO" acronym, they are simply trying to publicise a crystal-controlled oscillator?

I repeat: this is how marketing works.

You need to stop taking this as an attack on XNA and realize I never said XNA wouldn't be worthwhile -- I did however point out a small fact that XNA was aptly named to find it's way into the head of the (hardcore mostly, as you pointed out) consumers (which are, oddly enough, the ones who spend the most money and the one who talks the loudest on forums/to friends/ etc).

... and the most knowledgeable.

As I understand it XNA was a marketting maneouvre.

MS release publicly that XB360 will be really easy to develop for, because of their amazing XNA system. The forums erupted with talk of 'PS3 suxxorz. It's too hard to program. XB360 has XNA - even my gran can write Halo3 in a week, XNA is soooo cool!' (yes, I saw that happening )

Fanboy ammunition, which doesn't effect anything.

I asked what XNA was at that point, I think here even. It's all the existing DirectX tools, with no changes, collected under a single name. There was no new software or new tools.

What's the point in rebranding a set of existing products, if not for marketting? If it was for marketting, did it work? I'd say yes, because forum talk believed XNA was someting new and great for writing games. (I'm saying they're not, but Joe Public wasn't aware of the tools MS already had. Consolidating them under one title gives a buzz-word to introduce the concept to the masses)

First you make an assumption, then you asssume that assumption is real.

Fact is, it's not just DirectX tools. The fact is, XNA is not even done.

Q: What tools do developers get with XNA?

A: XNA tools will include DirectX and the High-Level Shader Language (HLSL), XACT, PIX and the Xaudio API, in addition to other development tools such as Visual Studio.

Now maybe there's a long term goal for XNA, and new tools with better interactivity are in the works, but at the moment if you d'load the DirectX SDK, it's got an XNA label (so I hear from a friend) without working any differently to DirectX without the XNA label.

XNA is not out. XNA Studio doesn't even ship till next year.

Q: When will the XNA Studio ship?

A: Our goal is to deliver it to the industry next year

What contribution does XNA have to development? From what I hear, no different to MS's previous tools before this rebranding. Though I'm not a dev using these tools, and you should ignore my opinion if that's all you want (I sjipped this thread first off becuase I wasn't a dev), I'm pointing out what the devs here are replying with is no different to what I've heard from people using, certainly tools from the XNA environment, even if not the complete set.

Maybe you should quit listening to uninformed people.

Q: Is XNA Studio different from XNA?

A: Yes. XNA Studio is the primary development environment for the XNA platform and will be the first product to ship under the XNA brand.

 

[jimpo]

It's called marketing.

And what exactly is the problem with that? Software / games development does not exist in vacuum. Without marketing, there would not be any projects. Why is it that anything marketing-related is seen as antichrist? How would it be better if XNA would be named something less sexy?

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Ecliptic : The original poster wasn't asking about XNA Studio, but people currently using XNA. And XNA does exist, because MS showcased demos written with it (their existing tools).

So in response to 'What does XNA bring to development?' the answer is, at the moment, nothing much. Or do you disagree? To answer 'What will XNA Studio bring?' no-one can make a fair assessment.

 

[Coola]

I had a chance to interview the General Manager of XNA - it's not very techy, more personal but it may help somewhat.

http://www.xbox365.com/news.cgi?id=GGGriLLdHL04290937

 

[AlNom]

Thanks!

 

[Inane_Dork]

I think the PC is the side most affected by XNA so far. PIX is really shaping up in the DXSDK, for instance. On the console side, there isn't much movement. That's kind of unfortunate, but in comparison, PC development was the one lagging behind, not Xbox development.