Ten points from Gryffindor.
C++ =/= Java. The amount of code conversion that's going to be needed is retarded. The PC/XBL userbases are large enough that there'd never be a lack of players anyway, why bother with cross-platform Minecraft?
Except...Microsoft has already stated that the PC version and the 360 version will be cross platform compatible. That's the only reason I'm saying that you can.
No, because that will be impossible. It will be an arcade game, AND the two are both very different. It's not like they grabbed minecraft from the PC, and just slammed it into XBL.
Ok, first it isn't impossible it just isn't completely used yet. Secondly, yeah they did take the PC version and slam it on xbox, minus/plus some new features but just for gameplay ease, also they said, (don't quote me on this but I did read it somewhere) that you may be able to use a pc an mouse for the version on xbox. If so then it's basically just running it on a good computer with a controller. We'll just have to see. I think it should happen and definitely is possible.
Playing xbox Minecraft on a PC server would be like playing xbox black ops on a pc server. it just doesn't work. They're two completely different games
“Minecraft” (Mojang, Microsoft Studios). Known for its limitless possibilities, “Minecraft” will come to life this winter in a whole new way through the magic of Kinect and also feature cross-functionality between the PC and Xbox 360 versions."
This wouldn't be the first time Microsoft promised cross-platform functionality that was dropped before launch.
Anyone ever heard of... Halo? Originally intended to be a PC/Mac cross-platform game early in development, then switched over to XBox to be the flagship launch title. When the PC version finally came out, it wasn't compatible with the XBox version for online play (still isn't, AFAIK).
Never construe a marketing claim as an ironclad guarantee - only time will tell if you are right after all.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Don't know why you should feel that there's something to learn... it's just a game that you play."
This wouldn't be the first time Microsoft promised cross-platform functionality that was dropped before launch.
Anyone ever heard of... Halo? Originally intended to be a PC/Mac cross-platform game early in development, then switched over to XBox to be the flagship launch title. When the PC version finally came out, it wasn't compatible with the XBox version for online play (still isn't, AFAIK).
Never construe a marketing claim as an ironclad guarantee - only time will tell if you are right after all.
What does that have to do with anything? They never said you could play on the same server with a pc or a mac, let alone with an xbox.
What I'm trying to say with the post I made above is that it's literally impossible to play on the same server with a computer and an xbox because both games use different code and textures. It's like trying to use parts from a Honda to fix a Chevy.
Also Minecraft for XBLA is written in C++ apparently and the PC version is written in Java, so I think that's impossible
You're confusing the coding of the actual app w/ the netcode required for communication. It doesn't matter if its written in BASIC so long as the client is sending the correct packets to modify the correct memory addresses on the server itself (which in turn sends back the packets required to update the client).
I'm not even sure that the server would have to be overly modified to allow cross-platform. The server doesn't care what the client is coded in...so long as it gets all the right data from the client. Code the XBOX version to send the same type packet (length, payload, headers, etc) as the PC version and the bulk of the work is done.
That said, the xbox gui is going to be different where its controller based and not key/mouse...but Minecraft is such a minimalistic game to begin with (this is a GOOD thing!) I don't think console will lose any functionality. You'll just have to do things a bit different to reach the same end.
When the PC version finally came out, it wasn't compatible with the XBox version for online play (still isn't, AFAIK).
That was 100% a marketing thing on MS's end. They wanted Halo to be an exclusive XBOX title AFTER the horse already left the barn (PC version being released), so they pitched a fit and made it a contractural (sp) issue...Bungie HAD to make the two versions incompatible.
that would be good...
Playing with your friend VIA xbox and when you say "I have to go" you take your antroid and BAM, playing again.
This is the perfect game for it too. < 300k executable...MC would REALLY carve a niche out if you can play it seamlessly on EVERYTHING, without sacrificing functionality.
What does that have to do with anything? They never said you could play on the same server with a pc or a mac, let alone with an xbox.
Actually, there were initial promises of cross-platform compatibility as they changed back and forth between which version they wanted to launch - and as they resumed PC development.
The point is, Microsoft is known to make compatibility promises that, for whatever reason, don't come through.
That was 100% a marketing thing on MS's end. They wanted Halo to be an exclusive XBOX title AFTER the horse already left the barn (PC version being released), so they pitched a fit and made it a contractural (sp) issue...Bungie HAD to make the two versions incompatible.
And there's nothing to prevent that from happening again, should they see a reason. Number one reason: Multiplayer. Has it occurred to anyone that XBox multiplayer is exclusive to Gold subscribers and completely managed on Microsoft servers?
Do you think that MS is about to allow non-Gold members (i.e., PC players) to freely access servers that XBox players must pay a premium to use?
It's got far less to do with compatibility and everything to do with control.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Don't know why you should feel that there's something to learn... it's just a game that you play."
Do you think that MS is about to allow non-Gold members (i.e., PC players) to freely access servers that XBox players must pay a premium to use?
It's got far less to do with compatibility and everything to do with control.
Yes, because being able to play on a console and not a computer is the premium in my opinion. That and if they mess with a tiny-filesize cheap (by today's standards) game that can be played on pretty much ANY computer out there...people will just not buy the XBL version.
They could pull that w/ Halo because you needed a good, fast gaming rig to play the PC version. Since (in those days) a good gaming rig was over twice the cost of a console...they could do that w/ Halo since there were a lot of people who could afford a $300 xbox and $50 game versus a $1000+ computer.
MC is playable on pretty much any computer as long as the computer 1) turns on and 2) doesn't boot from floppy disks. Trying to do to MC what they did to Halo...it isn't going to do anything other than nerf sales for the XBL version.
How is moving a mouse harder than a thumbstick? Not at all.
The Xbox uses this cool thing called a mic that people can talk into and listen to what other people are saying.
And your last reason makes no sense because mashing buttons aren't different.
You're just another PC snob who wanted to come on the XBLA forum and ruin everyone's dreams. Too bad.
I'm a PC gamer and I don't mind this cross-platform idea. Preferences are preferences. Leave the console fan-boism/wars out of discussions. What I believe the other person was getting at is that they would need to implent an in-game voice chat for PC version to have an efficent chat between the systems. As for joystick/mouse arguement, I prefer a mouse and I care nothing of anyone elses opinion on the matter.
I think cross-platform would be possible, but it will be plauged with fan boi's warring on consoles. Somewhere in there, hopefully some PC and 360 players can connect and enjoy it.
Yes, because being able to play on a console and not a computer is the premium in my opinion. That and if they mess with a tiny-filesize cheap (by today's standards) game that can be played on pretty much ANY computer out there...people will just not buy the XBL version.
They could pull that w/ Halo because you needed a good, fast gaming rig to play the PC version. Since (in those days) a good gaming rig was over twice the cost of a console...they could do that w/ Halo since there were a lot of people who could afford a $300 xbox and $50 game versus a $1000+ computer.
MC is playable on pretty much any computer as long as the computer 1) turns on and 2) doesn't boot from floppy disks. Trying to do to MC what they did to Halo...it isn't going to do anything other than nerf sales for the XBL version.
Halo is hardly demanding on a computer. I was running Halo 2 on a NVidia 7300GT (Not very good), Intel Dual Core @6600 and 4GB of RAM and was pulling 40+ FPS. You can put together a good gaming computer these days with a lot more power than a console for as little as $500. Seeing as most 360 and PS3 systems can go up to $400+, after you get a console with a hard drive worth a damn, it's really a matter of choice. Also, almost all new games cost $60 now because of a market. Back in the day, new PC releases were typically $40 or so because they didn't need to write it to a specific firmware/console.
Really, once more, it's down to preference. If you don't fancy doing a lot of manual work on your PC and having to manage it, a console would suit you better. PC's to me are for people who like to put time into their system. Fanboi's will give any console a negative reflection.
Halo is hardly demanding on a computer. I was running Halo 2 on a NVidia 7300GT (Not very good), Intel Dual Core @6600 and 4GB of RAM and was pulling 40+ FPS.
Halo (the original one), the game we were originally talking about, came out 10 years ago. 10 years ago if you didn't spend at least a grand on a gaming system...it was going to be pretty mediocre.
Halo (the original one), the game we were originally talking about, came out 10 years ago. 10 years ago if you didn't spend at least a grand on a gaming system...it was going to be pretty mediocre.
Not really. I put together my first gaming system on a Nvidia 6300GT, AMD Single Core and 2GB of RAM, and an ASROCK motherboard for around $250. That was about 7-8 years ago. It handled Halo when it came out on PC, it handled larger "demanding" games like WoW and Oblivion. You vastly overestimate how much money you COULD put into a computer. Not every computer needs to be top of the line. You could build an upper-mid powered computer fairly cheap, given you'd have to probably upgrade the RAM or GPU on it a few years down the road to get 2-3 more years out of it.
That computer lasted me a good 5 years before I put up to a larger system to handle games today. With a refund check I plan to make a $550 gaming computer that will last me a good while. My father built a top-line gaming system in 2002 that played almost anything at the time he willed it to. $400. You don't need to always get the highly-overpriced cards or hardware, you don't need to drop $200 on the OS when there is the same thing without office and what not for half the price. Companies hardly do it now, but you could purchase the same GPU at two different prices. They use to make cards that were pretty bare besides the essentials, and cards that had a lot more such as multiple monitor slots, more counter-heating and such. The main difference you see today is the RAM.
I'm just going to agree to disagree. The fact remains that I'll put GOOD money on Xbox and PC versions playing together in a cube-shaped nirvana.
Plus I have to pee real bad, otherwise I'd debate more.
I'm not trying to convince you of anything. I'm stating you didn't need $1000+ to put into a computer. I am all for cross-platform, as I've said before.
You enjoy that urination. And enjoy it well, my friend.
Yes, because being able to play on a console and not a computer is the premium in my opinion.
You completel misunderstand what I mean by "premium". Apparently you don't realize that XBox Live requires a Gold subscription to play ANY XBox games online. They are not going to let people play on a Microsoft server for free just because they are connecting via the PC. For one thing, that's not how MS works - they don't give away for free what others must pay for. Not to mention, if they did, the XBox players would justifiably have a gripe.
It's got nothing to do with the hardware - it's the business model.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Don't know why you should feel that there's something to learn... it's just a game that you play."
You completel misunderstand what I mean by "premium". Apparently you don't realize that XBox Live requires a Gold subscription to play ANY XBox games online. They are not going to let people play on a Microsoft server for free just because they are connecting via the PC. For one thing, that's not how MS works - they don't give away for free what others must pay for. Not to mention, if they did, the XBox players would justifiably have a gripe.
It's got nothing to do with the hardware - it's the business model.
I didn't misunderstand anything. I simply don't agree with you :smile.gif:
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Except...Microsoft has already stated that the PC version and the 360 version will be cross platform compatible. That's the only reason I'm saying that you can.
Ok, first it isn't impossible it just isn't completely used yet. Secondly, yeah they did take the PC version and slam it on xbox, minus/plus some new features but just for gameplay ease, also they said, (don't quote me on this but I did read it somewhere) that you may be able to use a pc an mouse for the version on xbox. If so then it's basically just running it on a good computer with a controller. We'll just have to see. I think it should happen and definitely is possible.
This wouldn't be the first time Microsoft promised cross-platform functionality that was dropped before launch.
Anyone ever heard of... Halo? Originally intended to be a PC/Mac cross-platform game early in development, then switched over to XBox to be the flagship launch title. When the PC version finally came out, it wasn't compatible with the XBox version for online play (still isn't, AFAIK).
Never construe a marketing claim as an ironclad guarantee - only time will tell if you are right after all.
What does that have to do with anything? They never said you could play on the same server with a pc or a mac, let alone with an xbox.
What I'm trying to say with the post I made above is that it's literally impossible to play on the same server with a computer and an xbox because both games use different code and textures. It's like trying to use parts from a Honda to fix a Chevy.
You're confusing the coding of the actual app w/ the netcode required for communication. It doesn't matter if its written in BASIC so long as the client is sending the correct packets to modify the correct memory addresses on the server itself (which in turn sends back the packets required to update the client).
I'm not even sure that the server would have to be overly modified to allow cross-platform. The server doesn't care what the client is coded in...so long as it gets all the right data from the client. Code the XBOX version to send the same type packet (length, payload, headers, etc) as the PC version and the bulk of the work is done.
That said, the xbox gui is going to be different where its controller based and not key/mouse...but Minecraft is such a minimalistic game to begin with (this is a GOOD thing!) I don't think console will lose any functionality. You'll just have to do things a bit different to reach the same end.
That was 100% a marketing thing on MS's end. They wanted Halo to be an exclusive XBOX title AFTER the horse already left the barn (PC version being released), so they pitched a fit and made it a contractural (sp) issue...Bungie HAD to make the two versions incompatible.
Playing with your friend VIA xbox and when you say "I have to go" you take your antroid and BAM, playing again.
Also, Subscibe to my Youtube channel: ChileanCrafter
This is the perfect game for it too. < 300k executable...MC would REALLY carve a niche out if you can play it seamlessly on EVERYTHING, without sacrificing functionality.
Actually, there were initial promises of cross-platform compatibility as they changed back and forth between which version they wanted to launch - and as they resumed PC development.
The point is, Microsoft is known to make compatibility promises that, for whatever reason, don't come through.
And there's nothing to prevent that from happening again, should they see a reason. Number one reason: Multiplayer. Has it occurred to anyone that XBox multiplayer is exclusive to Gold subscribers and completely managed on Microsoft servers?
Do you think that MS is about to allow non-Gold members (i.e., PC players) to freely access servers that XBox players must pay a premium to use?
It's got far less to do with compatibility and everything to do with control.
Yes, because being able to play on a console and not a computer is the premium in my opinion. That and if they mess with a tiny-filesize cheap (by today's standards) game that can be played on pretty much ANY computer out there...people will just not buy the XBL version.
They could pull that w/ Halo because you needed a good, fast gaming rig to play the PC version. Since (in those days) a good gaming rig was over twice the cost of a console...they could do that w/ Halo since there were a lot of people who could afford a $300 xbox and $50 game versus a $1000+ computer.
MC is playable on pretty much any computer as long as the computer 1) turns on and 2) doesn't boot from floppy disks. Trying to do to MC what they did to Halo...it isn't going to do anything other than nerf sales for the XBL version.
I'm a PC gamer and I don't mind this cross-platform idea. Preferences are preferences. Leave the console fan-boism/wars out of discussions. What I believe the other person was getting at is that they would need to implent an in-game voice chat for PC version to have an efficent chat between the systems. As for joystick/mouse arguement, I prefer a mouse and I care nothing of anyone elses opinion on the matter.
I think cross-platform would be possible, but it will be plauged with fan boi's warring on consoles. Somewhere in there, hopefully some PC and 360 players can connect and enjoy it.
Cross-platform isn't new. MS already attempted it once, as this Eurogamer article explains. Plus there are already a few cross-platform games out there now.
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/ms-killed-pc-xbox-cross-platform-play
Halo is hardly demanding on a computer. I was running Halo 2 on a NVidia 7300GT (Not very good), Intel Dual Core @6600 and 4GB of RAM and was pulling 40+ FPS. You can put together a good gaming computer these days with a lot more power than a console for as little as $500. Seeing as most 360 and PS3 systems can go up to $400+, after you get a console with a hard drive worth a damn, it's really a matter of choice. Also, almost all new games cost $60 now because of a market. Back in the day, new PC releases were typically $40 or so because they didn't need to write it to a specific firmware/console.
Really, once more, it's down to preference. If you don't fancy doing a lot of manual work on your PC and having to manage it, a console would suit you better. PC's to me are for people who like to put time into their system. Fanboi's will give any console a negative reflection.
Halo (the original one), the game we were originally talking about, came out 10 years ago. 10 years ago if you didn't spend at least a grand on a gaming system...it was going to be pretty mediocre.
Not really. I put together my first gaming system on a Nvidia 6300GT, AMD Single Core and 2GB of RAM, and an ASROCK motherboard for around $250. That was about 7-8 years ago. It handled Halo when it came out on PC, it handled larger "demanding" games like WoW and Oblivion. You vastly overestimate how much money you COULD put into a computer. Not every computer needs to be top of the line. You could build an upper-mid powered computer fairly cheap, given you'd have to probably upgrade the RAM or GPU on it a few years down the road to get 2-3 more years out of it.
That computer lasted me a good 5 years before I put up to a larger system to handle games today. With a refund check I plan to make a $550 gaming computer that will last me a good while. My father built a top-line gaming system in 2002 that played almost anything at the time he willed it to. $400. You don't need to always get the highly-overpriced cards or hardware, you don't need to drop $200 on the OS when there is the same thing without office and what not for half the price. Companies hardly do it now, but you could purchase the same GPU at two different prices. They use to make cards that were pretty bare besides the essentials, and cards that had a lot more such as multiple monitor slots, more counter-heating and such. The main difference you see today is the RAM.
Plus I have to pee real bad, otherwise I'd debate more.
I'm not trying to convince you of anything. I'm stating you didn't need $1000+ to put into a computer. I am all for cross-platform, as I've said before.
You enjoy that urination. And enjoy it well, my friend.
Check your spelling if you want people to take you seriously.
Secondly, check the forum rules for "no flaming."
personally, i am not a pro "gammer", so i am all for cross-platform gaming- a lot of my friends own ps3,s if only i could play with them...
You completel misunderstand what I mean by "premium". Apparently you don't realize that XBox Live requires a Gold subscription to play ANY XBox games online. They are not going to let people play on a Microsoft server for free just because they are connecting via the PC. For one thing, that's not how MS works - they don't give away for free what others must pay for. Not to mention, if they did, the XBox players would justifiably have a gripe.
It's got nothing to do with the hardware - it's the business model.
I didn't misunderstand anything. I simply don't agree with you :smile.gif: