PS3

[VeTaL]

First one xD

 

Well, the question is next: what about PS3 support? I'd read that it would be supported by LE 3.

[Mumbles]

I believe the official line was "maybe" to PS3 support - but certainly not from the word go...

[Josh]

I don't have a PS3 developer license so I can't do this, but it's certainly a possibility in the future.

[VeTaL]

Great.

[Josh]

Even if it was supported, how would you possibly use that? Do you have a PS3 dev license?

[VeTaL]

I'm thinking about buying it, so i wanted to know if its support in LE is planned in the future.

[Josh]

Buying the PS3, or a dev license? You can't get a dev license unless you meet certain requirements.

[tournamentdan]

How about xbox. I think I remember a maybe there also.

[Josh]

It's the same story on XBox. Do you have a developer license?

 

It's too bad they only offer pure C# programming on XNA. C# would be fine for game code, but so many underlying libraries are written in C++. You'd think the console makers would learn from the success of the iPhone and open up their platform to developers.

[VeTaL]

Josh, we are at the stage of giving our game documents to investor.

Thats why i'm asking about planning LE support of PS3 - if its planned, we can add this to documents and then we would see, if we can later buy ps3 dev kit.

[TheoLogic]

It's the same story on XBox. Do you have a developer license?

 

It's too bad they only offer pure C# programming on XNA. C# would be fine for game code, but so many underlying libraries are written in C++. You'd think the console makers would learn from the success of the iPhone and open up their platform to developers.

 

IPhone development is free, publishing not . Same as Android and WP7 tbh.

XBox idd has XNA, which is better as nothing at all. It's fairly easier to get a XBox dev license than PS or Nintendo...

[Rick]

It's too bad they only offer pure C# programming on XNA.C# would be fine for game code, but so many underlying libraries are written in C++

 

I'd be shocked if you ran into something that C# can't do that C++ can actually. I'd venture to say .NET has more library support and functionality than C++, and it's easier to setup and use too. That's saying something for a framework that is a baby when compared to C++. That's why it' so popular though.

[TheoLogic]

I'd be shocked if you ran into something that C# can't do that C++ can actually. I'd venture to say .NET has more library support and functionality than C++, and it's easier to setup and use too. That's saying something for a framework that is a baby when compared to C++. That's why it' so popular though.

 

C# isn't cross platform . But I agree, as far as functional requirements, C# can do almost (except for hardware handling) everything C++ can do. The main difference is how you do it. C# doesn't offer machine performance. Don't go and tell me it does, because it doesn't at all:

I'm almost shipping a game for WP7 (XNA), which I have previously released for Nintendo DSi (C++). The lower end DSi is faster (same game logic) as the WP7 version. I had to do some caching and GC trickery to avoid lag while ingame.

[Rick]

C# isn't cross platform

 

Sorry I didn't say this, but I meant in the context of on the XBox but Mono makes C# cross platform too, it's just not MS official.

 

I for sure agree that on mobile devices C# isn't the best way to go. For consoles and PC's that have more processing power to spare it's great, but for mobile devices where you are fighting for every single piece of processing power you can I agree it wouldn't be ideal at all.

[Josh]

You can't write an engine in C#. It would be horribly slow.

 

If the end user could only use C# for XNA programming, that would be okayish, but there's no way I can rewrite the whole engine just for one platform. I doubt they would allow Lua either, and that it is pretty bad.

 

The consoles are sort of a chicken/egg problem, but I predict once we have a mature LE3 product, it won't really be that hard to gain access to the dev kits. It's a harder sale when I have a product that's in development, and no history of console game development. I would have preferred to include consoles in development from day one, but I think it will work out okay. I can use the initial sales from LE3 on other platforms to hire console specialists for the port when we're ready.

[Rick]

The framework runs on a version of the Common Language Runtime that is optimized for gaming to provide a managed execution environment.

 

You could, you'd just need a better virtual machine that is optimized for gaming as opposed to using the default one.

 

I doubt they would allow Lua either, and that it is pretty bad.

 

Bad for LE because of how it's take on Lua but not bad for everyone. C# can do anything Lua can, which is why engines like Unity use it for it's scripting language. C# is a scripting language.

[Josh]

We use Lua. That isn't going to change.

[Rick]

Yeah, I agree. If you goal is to hit as many platforms as you game Lua is the way to go.

[TheoLogic]

You can't write an engine in C#. It would be horribly slow.

 

If the end user could only use C# for XNA programming, that would be okayish, but there's no way I can rewrite the whole engine just for one platform. I doubt they would allow Lua either, and that it is pretty bad.

 

The consoles are sort of a chicken/egg problem, but I predict once we have a mature LE3 product, it won't really be that hard to gain access to the dev kits. It's a harder sale when I have a product that's in development, and no history of console game development. I would have preferred to include consoles in development from day one, but I think it will work out okay. I can use the initial sales from LE3 on other platforms to hire console specialists for the port when we're ready.

 

I agree with this. You can accomplish great things in C# XNA (rising rock - athmos for example, some people I know), but it's very specific, and you need to know a great deal about C#, asset management and the memory management to get it working at decent framerates...

About LUA, I see it more as a service to non experienced developers or artists. Don't take this wrong, I think LUA is a good idea until some points, but there isn't anything you can do in LUA you can in C# or C++. LUA is just easier, a good level of abstraction for those who need it .

[tournamentdan]

You can't write an engine in C#. It would be horribly slow.

 

If the end user could only use C# for XNA programming, that would be okayish, but there's no way I can rewrite the whole engine just for one platform. I doubt they would allow Lua either, and that it is pretty bad.

 

The consoles are sort of a chicken/egg problem, but I predict once we have a mature LE3 product, it won't really be that hard to gain access to the dev kits. It's a harder sale when I have a product that's in development, and no history of console game development. I would have preferred to include consoles in development from day one, but I think it will work out okay. I can use the initial sales from LE3 on other platforms to hire console specialists for the port when we're ready.

I will have to agree here. Like Josh has stated before. Sony can be picky on who they give a license to, but I am sure they are like everybody else and like to make money. If you make a kick bum game for the PC I am sure they will jump on the band wagon.

[Mumbles]

Are Sony that picky? Didn't Naughty Alien have a screenshot of a modified LE working on the PS3 like 9 months back (as in, before the rollback)?Anyone else remember it?

[Richard Simpson]

Are Sony that picky? Didn't Naughty Alien have a screenshot of a modified LE working on the PS3 like 9 months back (as in, before the rollback)?Anyone else remember it?

Yeah I remember something like that, Although I thought that was using another engine? I may be wrong though.

[Pixel Perfect]

It was, he had written his software with a level of abstraction from the actual game engine, so he could port it easily to Leadwerks or Phyre from what I remember.

[Brent Taylor]

You can't write an engine in C#. It would be horribly slow.

 

If the end user could only use C# for XNA programming, that would be okayish, but there's no way I can rewrite the whole engine just for one platform. I doubt they would allow Lua either, and that it is pretty bad.

 

Oh you can certainly write an engine in C#. But as mentioned, it does take a decent amount of knowledge to get it running at acceptable speeds. Admittedly, the same can be said about an engine written in C++. A crappy programmer is going to produce crappy code, not matter the language used.

 

As for Lua, actually you're going to find Lua can be used for XNA dev. There's a .NET port of Lua that works just fine on the compact runtime.

 

But whether you should even consider porting to XNA is a pretty easy question. Are you looking to target Indies for console dev, or professionals? Unfortunately "both" isn't much of an option here, considering dev kit requirements. In addition, if you were to port to XNA, is there enough interest to warrant the time spent rewriting the engine from scratch?

[TheoLogic]

Oh you can certainly write an engine in C#. But as mentioned, it does take a decent amount of knowledge to get it running at acceptable speeds. Admittedly, the same can be said about an engine written in C++. A crappy programmer is going to produce crappy code, not matter the language used.

 

As for Lua, actually you're going to find Lua can be used for XNA dev. There's a .NET port of Lua that works just fine on the compact runtime.

 

But whether you should even consider porting to XNA is a pretty easy question. Are you looking to target Indies for console dev, or professionals? Unfortunately "both" isn't much of an option here, considering dev kit requirements. In addition, if you were to port to XNA, is there enough interest to warrant the time spent rewriting the engine from scratch?

 

You could indeed write an engine in C#, but it doesn't only takes a decent amount of knowledge but also involves some magic and hackery. The big problems with C# are the GC (duh) which will collect at the moments you don't want to. To fix this, you need some trickery to collect when you want, and it's very easy to get this wrong. On mobile devices for example, even that isn't enough and you will need some caching mechanisms to avoid lag while ingame. Another issue is that you can't do any meta programming at all. This is what offers the machine level performance to C++, compile time optimizations!

Nevertheless, there are some teams who really get it right like rising rock games. All depends on the developers.

That last statement is due for all languages; in C++ it is easier to not shoot you in the foot, but if you do you blow your whole leg off... I could say that C# prevents you to shoot yourself in the foot, but you will anyway, to get it like you want to.

 

Now porting LWE to XNA? Well it would be a pretty good idea, but not a priority. You won't get the performance to run LWE graphics like we know them (especially on low(er) end devices) so we should cut in supported features. If LWE is ported, this should be done supported by LWE to avoid multiple versions like we have with C# atm.