....PS3 in 2007???XBOX2 in 2005??

Originally posted by QuDDus
I don\'t see how it couldn\'t be.

That\'s because you aren\'t familiar with console development. The biggest cost in making games is art assets. XNA won\'t reduce those costs by any chance. XNA also won\'t make development magically easier - it will just serve as an API like DirectX which would help the porting process between platforms that share XNA.

In other words, what you are suggesting is that XNA\'s cheaper development costs\'s benefits would outweigh the 100+ million userbase of the PS2 in its peak software momentum and profits. Given the time frame XNA is launching and that art assets make up for the biggest bulk of development, it won\'t cut developers much. Heck, PS2 was already a bitch to program for compared to Xbox\'s DirectX "PC environment" - how many developers jumped ship? That should give you a fair idea...

Second thing being backwards compatible is something that has just taken effect. Many consoles have all survived without having it and it is not something that will make or break your system. It is just a bonus for ppl who throw away there old console.

If your going to keep all those old games then don\'t throw away your system.

Times have changed. Think about all those consumers that have 20+ games stacked away and a 6 year old PS2 dying... it is clear that PS3 will be backwards-compatible. This gives two advantages:

Old games are not lost value. The PS2 which will be close to breaking after extensive usage will only make the backwards-compatible PS3 even more attractive. Most people just have one console in their livingroom and intend it to stay that way.

This in turn gives another benefit: 3rd parties developers know that backwards-compatible is a great thing and therefore also know that there games for PS2 can still be played even on the new system. It\'s added value for them too. And as said, it makes the transition from this generation [PS2] to PS3 smoother.

Sure it\'s not a big deal - but it\'s an important factor none the less.

^ and you said you just didn\'t have it in you for these types of debates anymore.

Hey Seven I get the impression you are a developer and you are hiding ity from us

I want even talk about all the benefits of XNA it all over the web just do a google search or goto microsoft.com
 
I know one thing if a developer can get there games up and running faster and better why wouldn\'t they develope for xbox?

Backwards compatibility may be a good thing but it is not something that a consoles must have to be successful.

The next generation titles have always and will always be the thing that sells the next generation systems.

QuDDus:

Incase you didn\'t notice, I am well aware on what XNA is about and what its benefits are. It is important though to realise that a lot of it is also hyped PR talk and that even XNA has its limits. Microsoft wants to sell XNA - they want people to think it will magically lower costs (which it will to some extent), but certainly not to that degree that it would make an early generation transition more attractive than making big cash on the ending current generation.

Let me explain why the last phase of a generation is often the most profitable stage for developers:
The last phase of a generation is usually in its 5 to 6 year. During this time, developers can look back at around 4 or more years of development, extensive researching and usually up to 3 or 4 games depending on their size. Now after every title that they develop, obviously, experience is gathered, libraries are developed and skills increase just as do art-assets increase. After 3 to 4 years of development, this will be one big bulk of information gathered worth a lot of money. Later games always benefit from previous ones by re-using art-assets and existant libraries to shorten dev-cycles. Good examples are Final Fantasy X-2 or the Getaway 2 which both re-use most art-assets from their previous games. As experience grows in development, development time decreases. At the end of a generation, the art-assets and libraries available reach a considerable amount which will make software cheaper to make and therefore make it even more profitable. Makes sense, doesn\'t it?

So now that we addressed why development is cheaper at the end of a generation, lets look at Microsoft\'s dilema:

Microsoft has turned in big losses with Xbox development, so obviously, they are very keen on ending it as soon as possible while gaining the head-start advantage. This way they hope to get two advantages: Being the first out and having the \'wow\' factor and second, halt Xbox production in favour of new "profitable" Xbox2 systems.

Now lets look at what their problem is: With every new generation that starts, AND regardless of the API used - any new generation is linked with massive intial costs. Why?

1.) New and more powerful hardware. Because art-assets are hardware driven, old art-assets can\'t be used and need to be re-created targeting the new and more powerful hardware.

2.) Old libraries can\'t be used, since they too are optimised for a specific hardware. In other words, no libraries can be re-used or only very basic ones, if any.

3.) New hardware require new ways of thinking and other approaches. This kind of R&D is necessary and costs money and time.

Given these reasons, it is quite obvious that developers dislike console transistions. They are expensive and require time and money. Even with the beauty of XNA, most intial costs aren\'t reduced and therefore, development costs are significantly higher for new consoles than it is for old consoles where 99% of everything previously created can be re-used.

Back to Microsoft\'s situation at the end of next year, developers will be facing a choice: To develop for Xbox2 with high initial costs or profiting on the grounds of cheap software with current generation. Since Xbox2 will not be backwars-compatible, it is more than likely that Xbox production is going to halt fairly soon after Xbox2 launches. In other words, since Xbox1 won\'t be supported anymore, it will be one or the other for most developers. On the contrary, if backwards-compatibility would be there - at least cross porting would be an option. Not having it, nullfies this possibility completely.



What does Xbox2 need to be successful?

Software. And what does it need to get software? Developer support. Obviously, it will have the support of its own 1st and 2nd party developers. Will they be enough to kick of Xbox\'s2 launch though? Even if yes, 3rd parties will still be given the choice if to support the new 1+ million base of Xbox2 or the 100+ million PS2 base (which would also be considerably cheaper). And given that Xbox wasn\'t even close to a leading console, one has to wonder, why would any developer even consider deving for xbox2 in favour of \'old generation platforms\' if the future is still uncertain by any means? On the other hand, once PS3 launces, PS2 will halt, but the software will still be usable with the PS3. This gives developers the freedom to still develop for old generation.

So to cut things short: XNA is great! Will it cut costs? Yeah, sure. Of art-assets? No. Will it make next generation development cheaper than current generation? Hell no. Not by any chance. The biggest strength of XNA is basically for portings from XNA to XNA. This could help the Xbox2 -> Xbox3 transition, but anything beyond that is just wishfull thinking on the believer or MS PR talk without much substance.

But isnt high developing cost something Sony will have to face as well when the PS3 is released???

Originally posted by seven
QuDDus:

Incase you didn\'t notice, I am well aware on what XNA is about and what its benefits are. It is important though to realise that a lot of it is also hyped PR talk and that even XNA has its limits. Microsoft wants to sell XNA - they want people to think it will magically lower costs (which it will to some extent), but certainly not to that degree that it would make an early generation transition more attractive than making big cash on the ending current generation.

Let me explain why the last phase of a generation is often the most profitable stage for developers:
The last phase of a generation is usually in its 5 to 6 year. During this time, developers can look back at around 4 or more years of development, extensive researching and usually up to 3 or 4 games depending on their size. Now after every title that they develop, obviously, experience is gathered, libraries are developed and skills increase just as do art-assets increase. After 3 to 4 years of development, this will be one big bulk of information gathered worth a lot of money. Later games always benefit from previous ones by re-using art-assets and existant libraries to shorten dev-cycles. Good examples are Final Fantasy X-2 or the Getaway 2 which both re-use most art-assets from their previous games. As experience grows in development, development time decreases. At the end of a generation, the art-assets and libraries available reach a considerable amount which will make software cheaper to make and therefore make it even more profitable. Makes sense, doesn\'t it?

So now that we addressed why development is cheaper at the end of a generation, lets look at Microsoft\'s dilema:

Microsoft has turned in big losses with Xbox development, so obviously, they are very keen on ending it as soon as possible while gaining the head-start advantage. This way they hope to get two advantages: Being the first out and having the \'wow\' factor and second, halt Xbox production in favour of new "profitable" Xbox2 systems.

Now lets look at what their problem is: With every new generation that starts, AND regardless of the API used - any new generation is linked with massive intial costs. Why?

1.) New and more powerful hardware. Because art-assets are hardware driven, old art-assets can\'t be used and need to be re-created targeting the new and more powerful hardware.

2.) Old libraries can\'t be used, since they too are optimised for a specific hardware. In other words, no libraries can be re-used or only very basic ones, if any.

3.) New hardware require new ways of thinking and other approaches. This kind of R&D is necessary and costs money and time.

Given these reasons, it is quite obvious that developers dislike console transistions. They are expensive and require time and money. Even with the beauty of XNA, most intial costs aren\'t reduced and therefore, development costs are significantly higher for new consoles than it is for old consoles where 99% of everything previously created can be re-used.

Back to Microsoft\'s situation at the end of next year, developers will be facing a choice: To develop for Xbox2 with high initial costs or profiting on the grounds of cheap software with current generation. Since Xbox2 will not be backwars-compatible, it is more than likely that Xbox production is going to halt fairly soon after Xbox2 launches. In other words, since Xbox1 won\'t be supported anymore, it will be one or the other for most developers. On the contrary, if backwards-compatibility would be there - at least cross porting would be an option. Not having it, nullfies this possibility completely.



What does Xbox2 need to be successful?

Software. And what does it need to get software? Developer support. Obviously, it will have the support of its own 1st and 2nd party developers. Will they be enough to kick of Xbox\'s2 launch though? Even if yes, 3rd parties will still be given the choice if to support the new 1+ million base of Xbox2 or the 100+ million PS2 base (which would also be considerably cheaper). And given that Xbox wasn\'t even close to a leading console, one has to wonder, why would any developer even consider deving for xbox2 in favour of \'old generation platforms\' if the future is still uncertain by any means? On the other hand, once PS3 launces, PS2 will halt, but the software will still be usable with the PS3. This gives developers the freedom to still develop for old generation.

So to cut things short: XNA is great! Will it cut costs? Yeah, sure. Of art-assets? No. Will it make next generation development cheaper than current generation? Hell no. Not by any chance. The biggest strength of XNA is basically for portings from XNA to XNA. This could help the Xbox2 -> Xbox3 transition, but anything beyond that is just wishfull thinking on the believer or MS PR talk without much substance.

while you tried to make a good case the logic is flawed. If you think developers will not make  games for xbox2 thats pure speculation and a great deal at that. I doubt MS would launch there next gen system with no developer support.

Thats wishful thinking right there. Nobody is saying developers will not make games for ps2 still. But to say they won\'t produce games on xbox2 which still being built on familure hardware is just wrong.

I dont think Seven was absolute when he said no support for XBOX2.He ment minimum support compared to expected or satisfactory I believe.

...

If you think developers will not make games for xbox2 thats pure speculation and a great deal at that. I doubt MS would launch there next gen system with no developer support.

I didn\'t say no support. In fact I even mentioned that 1st and 2nd party developer will support Xbox2 from the very beginning and was talking on behalf of most 3rd party developers that are multi-platform as they are ultimately the majority of developers around.

But to say they won\'t produce games on xbox2 which still being built on familure hardware is just wrong.

Familiar hardware? You call 3 double core IBM CPU with a custom ATi GPU card familiar to what is in Xbox? :rolleyes:

Fact is, the new hardware will see a tenfold+ increase in every aspect and this will force developers to make new art-assets, new R&D, new optimised libraries for their development. That is, if you want next generation games to appear on next generation hardware.

Nobody is saying developers will not make games for ps2 still.

The point is, costs in making games for current generation opposed to Xbox2 development will be so different, it will ultimately come down to a decision. Xbox2 doesn\'t need \'average\' games to make an impact - it needs big quality games or franchises. I am questioning how many developers will actually support Xbox2 with high quality titles.


The ultimate question is, why would a developer support Xbox2 with an uncertain future with high quality expensive software if lots more profit can be made on current generation as art-assets, libraries and existant R&D can be re-used?

No one is disputing the fact that some will be able to do both (the article even suggests this) - it\'s the quality software that matters and the majority of developers will have to make a choice. Given this choice and the points I listed above, most of them will probably take the "wait and see" approach - and this will be very bad for Microsoft, as they will be loosing out the big "impact" they need and at the same time need to stand ground on Sony building up hype for PS3.

It’s all rather redundant anyway because the Game boy advance DS is due for release in 2005 so I know where my money will go

Something that is still unanswered....doesnt high development cost count for every next generation console?I mean if XBOX2 is released  earlier that probably means art assets, libraries etc will evolve before PS3\'s or the next Nintendo\'s.Which will result to lower costs later for XBOX2 but higher for the other consoles that will be released earlier

Unicron!;

High development costs is for any new platform that arises. The difference is, once PS3 launches, current generation will end as PS2 production will halt soon after and developers will have to move on as consumers \'upgrade\' to next generation. Given that Xbox2 is trying to force new generation to happen earlier, I wouldn\'t expect many consumers to support XBox2 from the beginning but rather "wait and see". For those that do start earlier though, there will be a headstart.

Development costs between PS3 and XNA shouldn\'t be all too different. XNA may have an advantage as does Xbox development compared to PS2, but the bulk still lies in art-assets which is more or less hardware independend. The biggest factor will be mindsahre and therefore expected userbase.

Originally posted by seven
Unicron!;

High development costs is for any new platform that arises. The difference is, once PS3 launches, current generation will end as PS2 production will halt soon after and developers will have to move on as consumers \'upgrade\' to next generation. Given that Xbox2 is trying to force new generation to happen earlier, I wouldn\'t expect many consumers to support XBox2 from the beginning but rather "wait and see". For those that do start earlier though, there will be a headstart.

Development costs between PS3 and XNA shouldn\'t be all too different. XNA may have an advantage as does Xbox development compared to PS2, but the bulk still lies in art-assets which is more or less hardware independend. The biggest factor will be mindsahre and therefore expected userbase.

Like always thats just your opinion and a flawed one at that.
And first and second party support is a given on xbox2. So I don\'t even understand why you put so much attention towards that. I  assumed that you meant third party support from the start. Everyone already knows they will 1st and second support.

Guessing and speculating that no third party will support xbox2 til sony who knows when decides to end the cycle of ps2 which at this times is being rumored in 2007.

Like always thats just your opinion and a flawed one at that.

Of course these are all opinions. If everything were fact, we wouldn\'t even be arguing! On the other hand though, I wasn\'t stating my own opinion, just arguing the articles perspective and agreeing with the author of that article since it is very accurate and reflects the market situation. If you find that opinion (and mine that is agreeing with it) flawed, please point out why.

Guessing and speculating that no third party will support xbox2 til sony who knows when decides to end the cycle of ps2 which at this times is being rumored in 2007.

Uh oh. You are putting words in to my mouth here. I never stated no 3rd party support (and neither did the article) - we were explicitly arguing about support in which it would benefit Microsoft with Xbox2 and allow them to make a serious impact and make their early launch worthwhile. The article states valid concerns, stating that the approach as Microsoft is going to use it, may backfire for the reasons stated above in the article and the ones listed and explained in more detail in my post.

It all boils down to one question, which btw, you haven\'t answered yet:

Why would a developer support Xbox2 with an uncertain future with high quality expensive software if lots more profit can be made on current generation as art-assets, libraries and existant R&D can be re-used?

I\'ll be looking forward to your answer. Cheers.

But games although fewer will be appearing on XBOX2 till PS3 arrives.That means some developers will already start developing on those art assets and libraries which will reduce costs to some extend while PS3 will have to do what XBOX2 did before.