Gaming's Future at MS

Microsoft's big PC plans on GameSpot outlines what they've learned about what the near-future holds as far as gaming goes at the Redmond software giant. Word is there will not be a Direct X 10 (Direct X X?) anytime soon, as they gear up for the release of their next operating system, codenamed "Longhorn." There are also details on plans for a "standard controller," and word that MS wants users to consider gaming to be a primary reason to upgrade to Longhorn. Here's a bit on Longhorn gaming:
As has been rumored, Longhorn will likely include a major overhaul in Window's visual presentation, which may include 3D interface elements. Lester also said it would include a special "My Games" view that would centralize all the matchmaking, control panel settings, patching tools, and game lists and make such tasks much simpler. Microsoft is working on streamlining a number of current technical trouble areas, like the installation process and display drivers, and will centralize game updates through a Windows Update-like patch server. It's also looking into making it possible to run Windows games directly from the CD without installation. Somewhat more straightforward features include adding sophisticated matchmaking into Microsoft Messenger and parental controls over which users can play certain games.
View : : :
7.
 
Re: Longhorn
Mar 10, 2003, 21:53
7.
Re: Longhorn Mar 10, 2003, 21:53
Mar 10, 2003, 21:53
 
Actually, Luka, it's got little to do w/ .Net. Your anti-MS feelings are duly noted, but try actually making a valid, well-founded point next time instead of just ranting.

Actually, there will be far less chance for "things going wrong and plain not working", because the code will be written once, will be better tested than any code in any single game could possibly ever be, and will be far cheaper for developers (and in the long run, us) because each different developer won't have to continue to re-invent the metaphorical wheel every time.

In case you haven't noticed, a variety of MS technologies have VASTLY improved gaming. Most notable are the DirectX technologies. While as a customer you probably think you haven't directly seen or felt any improvement, you have. Games are cheaper (to develop at least), more stable, and more powerful than they were before DirectX. Nobody forced developers to use DirectX. They use it because it's by far the best development platform for PC games out there.

You see, when developers have to keep writing match-making code, or networking code, or patching code, or installation code, or whatever from scratch, it takes a lot of time and a lot of money, and bugs will exist. If you look at most games over the last few years, even today, they are usually patched soon after release to fix the inevitable probelms with these areas of the product. This is because relatively few people have tested the code, and because it's expensive to write code well and robustly.

But when you have code (like, say, DirectX or Longhorn) that literally millions of people will have put their shakespeare-writing ape-hands on, you tend to find and fix these bugs very quickly. And game developers can now either shave off entire parts of their budgest (lowering prices and/or increasing profits), or reallocate those parts of their budget back into what matters -- the game itself.

This announcement is good news for PC gamers, just like DirectX was so many years ago. The transition may be a little awkward (like the DOS to Win95 transition), but eventually we'll all be sighing collectively in relief that we no longer have to worry about this or that, like we're all now glad we dont' have to worry about config.sys and EMS and XMS and those sorts of (now-)obsolete headaches.

-Scott
http://www.MediaJive.com/


This comment was edited on Mar 10, 22:01.
Date
Subject
Author
1.
Mar 10, 2003Mar 10 2003
2.
Mar 10, 2003Mar 10 2003
19.
Mar 11, 2003Mar 11 2003
47.
Mar 11, 2003Mar 11 2003
51.
Mar 11, 2003Mar 11 2003
3.
Mar 10, 2003Mar 10 2003
4.
Mar 10, 2003Mar 10 2003
6.
Mar 10, 2003Mar 10 2003
  ....
 7.
Mar 10, 2003Mar 10 2003
 Re: Longhorn
8.
Mar 10, 2003Mar 10 2003
10.
Mar 10, 2003Mar 10 2003
11.
Mar 10, 2003Mar 10 2003
12.
Mar 10, 2003Mar 10 2003
15.
Mar 10, 2003Mar 10 2003
21.
Mar 11, 2003Mar 11 2003
31.
Mar 11, 2003Mar 11 2003
18.
Mar 11, 2003Mar 11 2003
34.
Mar 11, 2003Mar 11 2003
55.
Mar 11, 2003Mar 11 2003
    Re: Longhorn
16.
Mar 10, 2003Mar 10 2003
17.
Mar 10, 2003Mar 10 2003
23.
Mar 11, 2003Mar 11 2003
24.
Mar 11, 2003Mar 11 2003
    Re: Longhorn
25.
Mar 11, 2003Mar 11 2003
     Re: Longhorn
28.
Mar 11, 2003Mar 11 2003
    DrEvil
30.
Mar 11, 2003Mar 11 2003
     Re: DrEvil
32.
Mar 11, 2003Mar 11 2003
      Re: DrEvil
33.
Mar 11, 2003Mar 11 2003
      Re: DrEvil
42.
Mar 11, 2003Mar 11 2003
      Re: DrEvil
48.
Mar 11, 2003Mar 11 2003
       Re: DrEvil
57.
Mar 11, 2003Mar 11 2003
     Re: DrEvil
58.
Mar 11, 2003Mar 11 2003
      Re: DrEvil
59.
Mar 11, 2003Mar 11 2003
60.
Mar 11, 2003Mar 11 2003
61.
Mar 11, 2003Mar 11 2003
        Re: Message to Satyricon
62.
Mar 11, 2003Mar 11 2003
         Re: Message to Satyricon
27.
Mar 11, 2003Mar 11 2003
40.
Mar 11, 2003Mar 11 2003
50.
Mar 11, 2003Mar 11 2003
    Re: Longhorn
52.
Mar 11, 2003Mar 11 2003
     Re: Longhorn
53.
Mar 11, 2003Mar 11 2003
      Re: Longhorn
5.
Mar 10, 2003Mar 10 2003
9.
Mar 10, 2003Mar 10 2003
13.
Mar 10, 2003Mar 10 2003
14.
Mar 10, 2003Mar 10 2003
20.
Mar 11, 2003Mar 11 2003
22.
Mar 11, 2003Mar 11 2003
26.
Mar 11, 2003Mar 11 2003
29.
Mar 11, 2003Mar 11 2003
35.
Mar 11, 2003Mar 11 2003
36.
Mar 11, 2003Mar 11 2003
37.
Mar 11, 2003Mar 11 2003
38.
Mar 11, 2003Mar 11 2003
39.
Mar 11, 2003Mar 11 2003
41.
Mar 11, 2003Mar 11 2003
     Re: No subject
43.
Mar 11, 2003Mar 11 2003
44.
Mar 11, 2003Mar 11 2003
45.
Mar 11, 2003Mar 11 2003
46.
Mar 11, 2003Mar 11 2003
67.
Mar 11, 2003Mar 11 2003
54.
Mar 11, 2003Mar 11 2003
56.
Mar 11, 2003Mar 11 2003
63.
Mar 11, 2003Mar 11 2003
85.
Mar 12, 2003Mar 12 2003
86.
Mar 12, 2003Mar 12 2003
87.
Mar 12, 2003Mar 12 2003
89.
Mar 13, 2003Mar 13 2003
90.
Mar 13, 2003Mar 13 2003
91.
Mar 13, 2003Mar 13 2003
92.
Mar 13, 2003Mar 13 2003
93.
Mar 13, 2003Mar 13 2003
94.
Mar 13, 2003Mar 13 2003
95.
Mar 13, 2003Mar 13 2003
96.
Mar 14, 2003Mar 14 2003
         Re: Valve's Steam anyone?
64.
Mar 11, 2003Mar 11 2003
65.
Mar 11, 2003Mar 11 2003
68.
Mar 11, 2003Mar 11 2003
69.
Mar 11, 2003Mar 11 2003
70.
Mar 11, 2003Mar 11 2003
71.
Mar 11, 2003Mar 11 2003
72.
Mar 11, 2003Mar 11 2003
73.
Mar 11, 2003Mar 11 2003
77.
Mar 11, 2003Mar 11 2003
78.
Mar 11, 2003Mar 11 2003
79.
Mar 12, 2003Mar 12 2003
83.
Mar 12, 2003Mar 12 2003
       Re: Edit message #59
84.
Mar 12, 2003Mar 12 2003
        Re: Edit message #59
81.
Mar 12, 2003Mar 12 2003
82.
Mar 12, 2003Mar 12 2003
       Re: Edit message #59
102.
Mar 16, 2003Mar 16 2003
       Re: Edit message #59
103.
Mar 16, 2003Mar 16 2003
        Re: Edit message #59
104.
Mar 17, 2003Mar 17 2003
         Re: Edit message #59
105.
Mar 17, 2003Mar 17 2003
         Re: Edit message #59
88.
Mar 13, 2003Mar 13 2003
66.
Mar 11, 2003Mar 11 2003
74.
Mar 11, 2003Mar 11 2003
75.
Mar 11, 2003Mar 11 2003
76.
Mar 11, 2003Mar 11 2003
80.
Mar 12, 2003Mar 12 2003
97.
Mar 14, 2003Mar 14 2003
98.
Mar 14, 2003Mar 14 2003
99.
Mar 14, 2003Mar 14 2003
100.
Mar 15, 2003Mar 15 2003
101.
Mar 15, 2003Mar 15 2003
106.
Mar 17, 2003Mar 17 2003
107.
Mar 17, 2003Mar 17 2003