[casual_games] languages... (that's an 's' at the end!)

[Jonas Beckeman]

> [.NET] doesn't provide any obvious
> benefits (unlike, say, DirectX).

As someone else said, the benefit is indirect. Windows apps are normally
much easier and cheaper to build with .NET than with e.g. C++, so I'm
certain more and more "standard" stuff will require the runtime - in most
cases, it's just not cost-efficient to not use it.

One or two free really good games and a decent Photoshop clone, distributed
over the web and with CD+paper magazines, could be all that's needed to get
the installed base up to the high enough percentage where it begins to make
business sense to use .NET for downloadable games.
(MS has been a bit unbalanced in pushing only the corporate side of .NET in
commercials, making it look like a B2B-only toolset to the broad public)


> For downloads, what I want is a small
> standalone package that just works no matter what

Once .NET is in, it could even be that the downloadable games are smaller in
size than they would've been with other technology, because of the enormous
class library - code you normally have to add to the download is already
there in the framework.

As for "works no matter what", I've had no support calls whatsoever that
concerns .NET malfunction in my products. That's not to say it's flawless,
but it is a very stable technology.

/Jonas