Sorry your browser is not supported!

You are using an outdated browser that does not support modern web technologies, in order to use this site please update to a new browser.

Browsers supported include Chrome, FireFox, Safari, Opera, Internet Explorer 10+ or Microsoft Edge.

AppGameKit Studio Chat / Any plans to Expand Exports to Xbox, Play Station and Switch?

Author
Message
Tobias_Ripper
11
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 24th Mar 2013
Location: REPCONN inc.
Posted: 22nd Apr 2019 04:13
Any plans to Expand Exports to Xbox, Play Station and Switch for Studio?
Eisenstadt Studio: Eisenstadtstudio.com
Composers Page: Milesthatch.net
Zigi
14
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 5th Jul 2009
Location:
Posted: 22nd Apr 2019 12:14 Edited at: 22nd Apr 2019 12:29
I don't think so. Porting AppGameKit to a console would cost lot of money and as long people don't release decent titles for desktop and mobile devices, it is very unlikely anyone from the community actually got serious plans to release anything for game consoles.
Releasing a title on game consoles is not cheap. Most indie titles being released on game consoles after they have success on desktop and mobile and made enough revenue to attempt a release on game console or find a publisher which already got the fees covered and even take care of porting the title to game consoles for you but still the title you have must be a success in order to find a publisher who cover the costs.

Having sad that, after exporting to HTML5 you can technically publish your HTML5 game on Xbox using UWP. In Visual Studio you can create a JavaScript UWP project and then import your HTML5 game then you can publish the game to Xbox One and also to Windows Store. Probably it is the least expensive option because you don't need to buy a dev kit but there is still publishing and license fees to pay on the Xbox. In case of PS and Switch you do need to buy a dev kit which on it own cost $5k or more + licenses and publishing fees. In case the money is not a problem and you are certain you do want to release the game on game consoles, I'm sure you could hire TGC to port AppGameKit to game consoles for you. You can buy the licenses and dev kits and hire TGC to work for you and you would own the console port of AppGameKit, TGC could not release it publicly nor you unless you make a deal with TGC.
But otherwise I don't think it worth the time and money for TGC to port AppGameKit to consoles because it would definitely require to be sold as a separated license but as long nobody release a decent title with AppGameKit, it is unlikely anyone would buy it.

TGC just give Studio away for less than the cost of a AAA game title but even at full price won't be much more expensive. I really don't think TGC have the budget to port Studio to consoles, even if they do, I would prefer to see it spent on features and improvements on desktop and mobile than console port.
Scraggle
Moderator
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 10th Jul 2003
Location: Yorkshire
Posted: 22nd Apr 2019 14:33
Quote: "your post should be pinned to prevent further questions like this."

Not much point in that.
If someone wants the answer to this question they will ask it.

They could, of course, search for the answer instead and they will find this answer and the answers given on the many other occasions that it has been asked.
But people that can't be bothered searching before asking are unlikely to read stickies either.
Ortu
DBPro Master
16
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 21st Nov 2007
Location: Austin, TX
Posted: 22nd Apr 2019 18:03
That's kind of like saying the is no point in making anything sticky because any sticky can also be found by searching and only the people that search first will read the stickies... i don't think that is the case necessarily.

It would be good to include in an FAQ that can be stickied or made readily visible among with similar Q&A regarding tier 2 support.
http://games.joshkirklin.com/sulium

A single player RPG featuring a branching, player driven storyline of meaningful choices and multiple endings alongside challenging active combat and intelligent AI.
Cliff Mellangard 3DEGS
Developer
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 20th Feb 2006
Location: Sweden
Posted: 22nd Apr 2019 23:48
Xbox one should be pretty straight forward and easy when its a stripped down version of windows running as a os.
There is even some pretty plain and simple games in a section on the store with free simple games created by people like you and me.
Dont remember if its called creators corner?


If there is support so is it up to you and me as devs to get the devkits.

If they want to attract indis so is consol support more or less a must have.


If i want at a later stage to expand as a indi so would it else mean i leave agk as a tool and use a other tool.
psychoanima
5
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 19th Jun 2018
Location:
Posted: 23rd Apr 2019 15:07
Developing for Switch would be better investment in my opinion, if you scroll trough nintendo store and search for indies you will see what I mean.
Kevin Cross
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 15th Nov 2003
Location: London, UK
Posted: 23rd Apr 2019 15:46 Edited at: 23rd Apr 2019 15:54
Quote: "... and as long people don't release decent titles for desktop and mobile devices, it is very unlikely anyone from the community actually got serious plans to release anything for game consoles."


I guess you could argue that if it doesn't have more export options it's probably really only going to be used by the lone indie and hobbyist. Most of whom do not have both the artistic and programming skill to create a "decent title". I couldn't create a visually attractive product on my own, so would need at least one other person to work with. And if I was getting that serious then I probably would look at tools that has more export options to increase earnings in order to continue working with that second person.
OryUI - A WIP AGK2 UI Framework
Zigi
14
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 5th Jul 2009
Location:
Posted: 23rd Apr 2019 20:36 Edited at: 23rd Apr 2019 20:47
Quote: "if it doesn't have more export options it's probably really only going to be used by the lone indie and hobbyist.. I probably would look at tools that has more export options to increase earnings "

I can see where you coming from but porting to consoles and maintaining that port would be a huge investment in time and money.
We are talking about lot of money to spend only on dev kits, licenses and publishing fees that not everyone realize. We are talking about a 5 digit number spent on licenses and tools only + actual development costs. It is a totally different league, we are talking about the playground of the big players of the industry who spend millions on their games. TGC and AppGameKit is not ready for that in my opinion. A console port would definitely also require to be sold as a separated license for $800/project or /year or something like that. It would be definitely not as cheap as a one time payment of $50. My point is, as long nobody release a successful title on the desktop and mobile which is still very popular among gamers and profitable even for big studios, I don't think anyone would buy a console license so it would be a waste of time and money that could be better spent on features and improvements on desktop and mobile.

Regarding indie titles on console, the only reason the console market did open the gates for indies is that many indie titles did make $500k to $1million USD revenue which is a decent amount of money even for AAA studios and it did open the eyes of Sony, Nintendo and Microsoft but it did not lower the costs of developing for consoles. As I mentioned many indie titles being released on consoles AFTER they were successful and did make enough revenue on desktop and in case you got the money, you can pay all the licenses and fees then you CAN also hire TGC to port AppGameKit for you if you are really serious about releasing your game on consoles. If you do so, you could also make a deal with TGC so they can release the console port that you fund the development of and in return you get revenue share from selling licenses, it could benefit all of us and could work. But TGC to use their own budget to port AppGameKit to consoles, I can't see the point at this moment and time I really don't.

There is maybe 1 bright star on the horizon regarding console gaming for indies though, the AtariVCS:
https://atarivcs.com/

It is very likely never going to be real, the release not going smooth, but if it ever going to see the sun it could be huge because it is going to be an OPEN Linux powered proper game console that anyone can develop games for but within the specifications of the console as usual unlike it was with Steam Machines and the hardware is going to be way more powerful than the Ouya was. It is going to compete with PS and Xbox. So in case Studio going to be able to export to Linux, then it is going to have a very good chance to be able to target the AtariVCS too and since Linux gaming is becoming very serious with more and more AAA titles being released each year and getting better graphics drivers from both AMD and Nvidia the future of AtariVCS as a Linux powered gaming console is actually pretty bright in my opinion as we already have some decent titles on Linux and so I'm sure we are going to see some of them on the AtariVCS.
If it going to be released, open console gaming that Steam Machine and Ouya was promising may going to be real finally that is going to be more accessible to AppGameKit and indie developers with small budget. All we need to do is wait and develop some decent games for PC and by the time our game is ready, the AtariVCS may also going to be around and all we need to do is ask TGC to add support for the controllers and done we are ready to target a decent game console with a click of a button.
Tobias_Ripper
11
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 24th Mar 2013
Location: REPCONN inc.
Posted: 24th Apr 2019 01:26 Edited at: 24th Apr 2019 01:36
[quote=]To be honesty I find the whole argument of Porting Games to other Consoles being a huge expense to be irrelevant noways as with modern engines it has never been easier to do multi-platform development. Aside from some minor dependencies to set up (like android or linux) and many companies giving out free dev kids if you go through proper channels and procedure - the cost of porting a game to a different platform is only a drop down menu selection away (in your engine). This not including licensing or publishing expenses which would most likely be covered from your kick-starter / Early Access (which only work if you market properly).

The Main savings here are re-development / porting savings as a solo developer.

When an engine offers multi platform development right out of the box, you can switch to the Multi-platform development mindset where you create a game with these platform capabilities in mind, writing scalable code from the get go.
Now with that in mind. It's impossible if the engine does not give you that opportunity in the first place.

From my years as a Web Developer I can tell that there's a certain parallel that can be drawn here to drive my point above.
If you start with a Desktop Website and only after it's done and launched you decided to make a Mobile Friendly Design port then you will quickly find yourself in a world of pain trying to adapt and change existing styling rules to accommodate small mobile device screens. However if you're setting your website with keeping that mobile compatibility in your mind then the amount of work that goes into it, comes down to be very minimal. All you do is use design practices that can be easily adjusted scaled across any device size.

Nowdays doing a Desktop Only oriented design is only suitable when you're never planning on porting at all. But if there's even a slight possibility of perhaps porting it later then
Using Scalable Design will always trump Arranging a separate Project Port Venue.

Not to mention updating multiple the game across platforms (patches, DLCs, Updated Content, New Content) is once again infinitely easier to do when the game is made in the engine that supports multi-platform export, Heck just look at doing multiplatform with AppGameKit Tier 1 and Tier 2. No-one enjoys re-writing Java into XCode in Tier 2.

As an example;
My flagship game project was designed to be an easy console port, it's user interface is programmed to be scalable across desktops and consoles right from the get go. Only change one variable and instead of keyboard shortcuts you see Xbox or PS controller icons. The Character movement unifies keyboard and game-pad input so you can use either to control your character right from the get go. This took me only one extra function in the movement code to now have full support for controllers. Even though I have an i5 and a Ryzen 7 PC, I still develop my games on a Core 2 Quad Q8300 rust bucket simply because if the game runs fine on this PC, it'll run just a fine on any other modern hardware or console. Adding all of these things and more later, would have been a bitch to handle and would have cost way more time and money as a complete separate port project.


But all of these benefits are null if the engine does not even give you the option to publish to consoles.

I'd like to have the option to expand later on with the same engine by utilizing scalable designs NOW. And if the engine does not permit it, I find myself looking at other engines that did take the time, budget and planning to implement it.


This also may come into question of what kind of a developer are you. Are you the Full Time Studio working on projects that feed your families or do you do this as a hobby with hopes of making something that will some day allow you to quit your job and do this for a living. To be honest the benefit of AppGameKit beconing even more multi-platform will benefit ALL of us.

I hope my point did not come across as snarly, absolutely no intention for it to seem that way.
Eisenstadt Studio: Eisenstadtstudio.com
Composers Page: Milesthatch.net
haliop_New
User Banned
Posted: 24th Apr 2019 06:44
+1.

Better export options, more overall users, more console needed export ability users.

why not create an export to Unity? and save all of this trouble... then let Unity devs handle the maintenance...
once it is being able to load up on Unity in some fashion until getting it right(with updates), AppGameKit and AGKS becomes

AppGameKit - PC/Mac/Linux(right?) Mobile/Android/Ios/Raspberry and HTML5 (which I found ways to run my games extremely smoothly with sometimes even 60 fps...more like 50... :/ )

AppGameKit with UnityExportPlugin -(InBox)PC/Mac/Linux(right?) Mobile/Android/Ios/Raspberry and HTML5 (UnityExportPlugin)XBOX/PS4/PS3/PS5/Stadia (which will probably be available someday), SWITCH, WII and everything else Unity can export to)

if you can turn the agc file into valid script and Unity options/features even if you keep it simple without the extra stuff, then you can manipulate under Unity and export, you still keep TGC small and efficient as you do not need to take care of all those extra device capabilities, but you do get them all)
Tobias_Ripper
11
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 24th Mar 2013
Location: REPCONN inc.
Posted: 24th Apr 2019 07:03
Only problem is that surely Unity Licensing is going to be piggybacked onto both TGC and us developers with that strategy. If that's the case then cut out the middle man and just develop straight in Unity.

To be honest if I am paying extra for software to gain the ability to get my games onto Switch, Xbox and Play Station, I'd much rather give all of that money straight to TGC

So with that being said. Someone has to take the first step. Just like VR Development, It takes entrepreneurs to get out of the comfort zone and simply put faith and effort into the platform to make the platform flourish. It's like a Garden, you reap what you sow.

Benefits for TGC to do Console Exports?
Market AGKS as a truly competitive Multi Platform Engine and expand the market where they can promote their software. Gamedev in AppGameKit doesn't get any simpler thatn Tier 1. And With the arrival of Vulcan, it's gotta be a good selling point.

I'm gonna slap my game into oblivion with AGKS branding when it comes out.
Eisenstadt Studio: Eisenstadtstudio.com
Composers Page: Milesthatch.net
Tobias_Ripper
11
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 24th Mar 2013
Location: REPCONN inc.
Posted: 24th Apr 2019 07:10 Edited at: 24th Apr 2019 07:11
*duplicate reply*
Eisenstadt Studio: Eisenstadtstudio.com
Composers Page: Milesthatch.net
Zigi
14
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 5th Jul 2009
Location:
Posted: 24th Apr 2019 18:55 Edited at: 24th Apr 2019 19:18
Quote: "Benefits for TGC to do Console Exports?
Market AGKS as a truly competitive Multi Platform Engine "

Nobody argue that but you guys must realize that TGC is a small company with only 2 or 3 developer and relatively small budget that is simply not enough for game consoles.
Quote: "From my years as a Web Developer I can tell that there's a certain parallel that can be drawn here to drive my point above.
If you start with a Desktop Website and only after it's done and launched you decided to make a Mobile Friendly Design port then you will quickly find yourself in a world of pain trying to adapt and change existing styling rules to accommodate small mobile device screens."

As a web developer I'm sure you can realize that how much pain it can be and how much effort it is when you need to maintain multiple codebases for different browsers and devices. Only because we can target multiple platforms with a click of a button with Tier1, TGC do need to do hard work to maintain the codebase of all platforms and personally I find it amazing that TGC was able to support so many platforms with Classic. Windows, Linux, macOS, iOS, Android, Fire OS, Raspberry, HTML5 both 32 and 64bit architecture and on the top of that with a "code once and deploy everywhere" solution that is truly amazing and also the IDE being available for Windows, Mac and Linux. It is with a single developer working on Classic in full time. Even if TGC would have the budget to port AppGameKit to game consoles, wondering how much more a single developer could handle and does it worth it maybe to have 1 more developer on board just to maintain the console ports. I know you guys immediately say YES!, the problem is, you say it with EMPTY hands. You got nothing, you haven't released a single game that was truly a success and would like to release it to consoles. It easy to say "I want this, I want that, I want everything just in case I would need it" but TGC can NOT afford to develop technologies "just in case" people need it. TGC must work on projects that people actually need. Now as I mentioned it is easy to say yeah I want to target consoles, but do you really have something that can be released on consoles? Remember that consoles also have quality control and cost tons of money.

Seriously I am not against having AppGameKit for consoles only would like to help you guys realize WHY it is not going to happen because it won't. TGC just give away their latest tool practically for free, I really don't think TGC can afford a console port "just in case" someone need it.
Target desktop and mobile and even web browser should be enough, these are still very popular platforms and can make some decent revenue and after you did make some revenue and you still want to publish your game on consoles, you can consider Xbox through UWP and HTML5 and you can definitely hire TGC to port AppGameKit for others for you if you want to stick with AGK. But if you are certain at this very moment you do want to target game console and do realize the costs involved and Xbox with UWP and HTML5 is not enough then using AppGameKit would be a mistake for many reasons and you want to go with either Unity, Unreal, GameMaker Studio, Godot or MonoGame.

Actually, something like Godot does could be done which is, 3rd party could port AppGameKit over to consoles, maintaining the port and sub-license only the console port to us. So TGC would take care the core Vulkan engine, the IDE and the desktop, mobile and web platforms and a 3rd party could license all this to port over to game consoles and sub-license it to us. Only need to find someone with enough money and technical skills to do it and be interested investing money in to a console port of AGK. But TGC unlikely going to do it. Not now anyway.
Tobias_Ripper
11
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 24th Mar 2013
Location: REPCONN inc.
Posted: 25th Apr 2019 01:12 Edited at: 25th Apr 2019 01:25
Quote: "As a web developer I'm sure you can realize that how much pain it can be and how much effort it is when you need to maintain multiple codebases for different browsers and devices. "


You completely missed my point. The point is that is NOT difficult to write for multi-platform if you use multi-platform oriented functions and practices right from the get go. Now If you use FireFox Web Engine Specific Styling functions (programming for one specific platform) then of course it's going to be difficult to also create a Chrome Compatible Design after the fact. That is basically your game port analogy. However if you use the new universal functions like universal style-sheet commands then you kill two birds the one stote.

However it took web designers and developers effort to create the universal engine functions to ensure compatibility. If they didn't bother taking that first step, then the burden falls onto us instead. This is the point I was trying to make.

I agree that TGC is a small team and that's why I'm more than happy to back any supporting kick-starter to make this expansion happen. Everything that comes next expansion and marketing to become self sustained and self sufficient.

Now I do not agree with the Just In Case term here. If you're making a game that goes to PC first then the chances of you will absolutely be porting it to consoles should it pick up. keyword here "Should it Pick Up" which depends solely on the developer of the game, not TGC.

And with that said, If my game can't make it after I've been working on it, then I don't get to prosper and engine doesn't get to prosper. BUT there is at least a chance that it might. If the engine does not even offer the option to port then the TGC stands to lose because I'll be looking elsewhere for an engine the DID take the effort and time to provide the ports and should the game make it, the engine that stands to prosper is the one that offered me the features I needed. Needless to say I'm promoting AppGameKit with my game releases so perhaps if it does make it then it prospers and the console ports might become a reality. Especially with Vulcan Capabilities. Those screen-shots and demos are console level presentations.

Look at parallels to VR. Few Devs Want to create games for VR because few people own VR headsets... and few people want to buy VR Headsets because few developers create games for VR. Somebody in this equation needs to step up and take the leap into the industry. It's garden and you reap what you sow.

PS: sublisencing the proting procedures could work. As long as we get access to the ability to do consoles in SOME sort of a way with AGK. However frankly again, If I'm paying extra, I'd rather have TGC get the full financial perk
Eisenstadt Studio: Eisenstadtstudio.com
Composers Page: Milesthatch.net
Santman
12
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 15th Sep 2011
Location: Inverness
Posted: 25th Apr 2019 01:18
So it's been said here already, and I've said before......but I don't think console export is at all a priority for AGK.

Sure, it would be awesome......but you need a dev kit, which can cost thousands. Now, looking at the AppGameKit user base (no slight here intended), theres a good proportion are hobbyists, such as myself. The cost of artwork alone means I'll never release a commercial product of note (even basic 3d assets can cost thousands up front), let alone sound, design, script.......I would challenge that AppGameKit has any users that could aim for this.

Now let's round that in TGC.....its asking them to make an ENORMOUS investment in the software, time and cost wise. Granted, some could be offset by making game guru also export, but that would also add time and cost. This would only pay off if significant quality products released to drive new users to AppGameKit to offset the expense in sales, or they went down a licence fee model such as unreal. And they would instantly be compared to unreal and unity and, despite the mushroom video, I firmly believe would not be a fair comparison.

So from a business perspective, I cant see it ever even being viable, let alone considered.
Rick Nasher
6
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 25th Jul 2017
Location: Amsterdam
Posted: 25th Apr 2019 10:15 Edited at: 25th Apr 2019 10:16
What about this then?

https://www.xbox.com/en-US/developers/creators-program/

Didn't go through it all but looks like is ready-set-go.

Not to mention:
https://github.com/Microsoft/xbox-live-samples
Santman
12
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 15th Sep 2011
Location: Inverness
Posted: 25th Apr 2019 13:08
I didnt read it fully, but the firs think needs to have Xbox live built in, and it looks like you build it in their environment using stick libraries and c......doesn't look like you can upload an app but could be wrong.
Santman
12
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 15th Sep 2011
Location: Inverness
Posted: 25th Apr 2019 13:12
It raises a point about PC though......ago is rubbish for PC deployment. Apart from the fact that any crash, or deletion of the byc file, leaves a user looking at the AppGameKit player, theres numerous other issues but mainly:

No media protection
You can't run more than one app (without multiple media folders as that's the default BYC location) for a launcher
No steam integration (without plug ins)

I think if they polished up how the PC version compiled, built the bytecode file into the .exe with a selectable icon etc then that's a bigger priority.....dbpro did this, so I can o ly assume agk doesn't as advertising.
PHeMoX
6
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 9th Jan 2018
Location:
Posted: 26th Apr 2019 17:56
Another thing developers usually underestimate in terms of console versions of a game is how there tends to be a huge list of things the game has to abide by, whether technical performance (being able to run without crashing / closing 'for days', admittedly unsure about the exact 'rule' but you will get the point) combined with supporting specific achievements or social feature support. It may not always be as straightforward as having your game code compile on a different platform and automatically detect a resolution.

And trust me, I'd like nothing more but to also release games on Switch. But the investments from perspective of TGC are unlikely to be worth it at this point, contrary to proper mobile support.
Kevin Cross
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 15th Nov 2003
Location: London, UK
Posted: 27th Apr 2019 01:14
I think it's one of those things that would be settled with a yes/no from TGC. Otherwise you'll see the same question asked over and over again. I've seen quite a few requests for Switch and you wonder whether or not TGC have considered it.

Of course if console exports aren't a viable/profitable option for them then that's cool. I don't know the costs or the time it would take to get AppGameKit to do that and maybe it wouldn't be used by many people for it to be worth investing time into.

But at the end of the day more export options can only look attractive to new developers and new buyers into AppGameKit is obviously good for TGC. I don't create games and probably won't but I love the idea of writing once and deploying to many. It's so simple with AppGameKit, and knowing that I could deploy to loads of platforms would rope me in if I was new and looking for a language to work with
OryUI - A WIP AGK2 UI Framework
SpecTre
Developer
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 24th Feb 2003
Location: UK
Posted: 28th Apr 2019 00:18
Well I have read all these comments and really the way I look at it is, if you build it then they will come. They being the devs who will release on console.
Most people who use AppGameKit won't be able to afford a release on console but you forget the ones who don't use AppGameKit at the minute and can.
It probably won't be easy to incorporate and not in the short term with Studio being developed but if you look at Gamemaker then they do a 12 month license for console release for about 1K.
There has got to be some money in it there for TGC to make.
As it stands, if you want to develop a long term game that will take 2 to 3 years to make and will eventually release on console then you are not going to use AppGameKit, end of.
What you will do is reach for Unity or Gamemaker, etc.
If on the other hand TGC said, yes they will commit to console but in 12 months time, then some devs who don't use AppGameKit at the minute might just start trying it, knowing that when the game is ready for release, consoles will be an option and they haven't wasted there time.
The more options and different devs that use AppGameKit can only be a good thing.


Cybermind
Valued Member
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 28th Nov 2002
Location: Denmark
Posted: 3rd May 2019 10:55
I have several games that I would like to release on consoles. Some things have been improved since the videos of the game I post here were made. Right now I am missing NAT punch through for TCP connections, I can do it for UDP now because of a recent update of AppGameKit C. I will switch to AppGameKit S at some point. Pixel Killers is a side project, I have a much bigger title under development in AppGameKit C, and a few more side projects. 4 different people with serious skills and education have contacted me recently to work with me, they will even do it for free (I am much humbled by this, and I hope I can deliver what they expect).




13/0

Login to post a reply

Server time is: 2024-04-18 13:36:55
Your offset time is: 2024-04-18 13:36:55