3 ms·

Well they already killed their XNA framework...

by Mikeb85 13y ago

pjmlp 13y ago
Regardless how much XNA was praised, it was a indie only thing. The majority of professional studios still use C++ based engines. Unity is the Microsoft's endorsed replacement for XNA, as announced in the Visual Studio 2013 release keynote.
- CmonDev 13y ago
  Unity is not for everyone though. There is a lot of hobbyists who prefer writing games instead of scripting ready-made chunks. Also it has a lot of warts (nothing is ideal): http://t-machine.org/index.php/2013/12/27/2014-entity-systems-what-are-your-unity3d-questions-and-problems/#comments http://t-machine.org/index.php/2013/12/27/2014-entity-system... XNA is a good public image making tool, not just an API. https://twitter.com/search?q=%23becauseofXNA&src=hash https://twitter.com/search?q=%23becauseofXNA&src=hash MonoGame is unfortunately still lacking an own content pipeline.
  - pjmlp 13y ago
    Since I am comfortable with C++, I tend to play around with engines with C++ bindings. I rather use C++ than being stuck in .NET 3.5, without any more modern C# goodies. As for scripting ready-made chunks, I guess one has to decide if they want to make a game or a game engine.
    - CmonDev 13y ago
      "I rather use C++ than being stuck in .NET 3.5, without any more modern C# goodies" - I use all modern C# features with XNA - what is the issue (except for async/await maybe)? "I guess one has to decide if they want to make a game or a game engine" - exactly, but there should be a choice. XNA being a framework rather than engine provided such a choice in a high-level way.
      - pjmlp 13y ago
        > I use all modern C# features with XNA - what is the issue (except for async/await maybe)? The libraries are also important and they are stuck on .NET 3.5 offerings. Another problem is the old version of Mono they are using, which doesn't not have the JIT and GC improvements of more recent versions. This is what I was able to gather from online sources, when wondering if it was worth the time and space to install it.
- Mikeb85 13y ago
  > Regardless how much XNA was praised, it was a indie only thing. The majority of professional studios still use C++ based engines. Unity is the Microsoft's endorsed replacement for XNA, as announced in the Visual Studio 2013 release keynote. Doesn't matter. Goodwill is important, Microsoft is big enough they can afford to maintain 1 library.
  - pjmlp 13y ago
    If you ever worked in a big corporation, would know that doesn't work like that.

Well they already killed their XNA framework...

by Mikeb85 13y ago

Well they already killed their XNA framework...

pjmlp 13y ago

Regardless how much XNA was praised, it was a indie only thing. The majority of professional studios still use C++ based engines. Unity is the Microsoft's endorsed replacement for XNA, as announced in the Visual Studio 2013 release keynote.

CmonDev 13y ago
Unity is not for everyone though. There is a lot of hobbyists who prefer writing games instead of scripting ready-made chunks. Also it has a lot of warts (nothing is ideal): http://t-machine.org/index.php/2013/12/27/2014-entity-systems-what-are-your-unity3d-questions-and-problems/#comments http://t-machine.org/index.php/2013/12/27/2014-entity-system... XNA is a good public image making tool, not just an API. https://twitter.com/search?q=%23becauseofXNA&src=hash https://twitter.com/search?q=%23becauseofXNA&src=hash MonoGame is unfortunately still lacking an own content pipeline.
- pjmlp 13y ago
  Since I am comfortable with C++, I tend to play around with engines with C++ bindings. I rather use C++ than being stuck in .NET 3.5, without any more modern C# goodies. As for scripting ready-made chunks, I guess one has to decide if they want to make a game or a game engine.
  - CmonDev 13y ago
    "I rather use C++ than being stuck in .NET 3.5, without any more modern C# goodies" - I use all modern C# features with XNA - what is the issue (except for async/await maybe)? "I guess one has to decide if they want to make a game or a game engine" - exactly, but there should be a choice. XNA being a framework rather than engine provided such a choice in a high-level way.
    - pjmlp 13y ago
      > I use all modern C# features with XNA - what is the issue (except for async/await maybe)? The libraries are also important and they are stuck on .NET 3.5 offerings. Another problem is the old version of Mono they are using, which doesn't not have the JIT and GC improvements of more recent versions. This is what I was able to gather from online sources, when wondering if it was worth the time and space to install it.
Mikeb85 13y ago
> Regardless how much XNA was praised, it was a indie only thing. The majority of professional studios still use C++ based engines. Unity is the Microsoft's endorsed replacement for XNA, as announced in the Visual Studio 2013 release keynote. Doesn't matter. Goodwill is important, Microsoft is big enough they can afford to maintain 1 library.
- pjmlp 13y ago
  If you ever worked in a big corporation, would know that doesn't work like that.