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

[Jason Van Anden]

Not to be a sour puss here - but Microsoft always makes a "big push" for
whatever they do.

I started moving to languages that were not dictated by MS post .net. I took
it personally when they switched paradigms so drastically - with the only
clear value added being in the MS column. Their business decision made
software, books, time, IDEs and intellectual capital that I had accumulated
over ten years somewhat obsolete (in the eyes of prospective clients),
requiring me to re-invest time in learning things I was previously expert
in. Their business model is based on occasionally making "big pushes" to
compell developers to become dependent on and buy books, go to conferences,
take classes, but new IDEs, etc... that more often tend to be rebranding of
the same old thing.

For all its worth, I do not make my living creating games - I am a visual
artist (passion) and professional applications developer (job). Given the
choice between learning the new, improved MS paradigms (again) or learning
something completely new, I opted for checking out what else was out there.
This turns out to have been a pretty good move for me, so far. I now program
in Python and Java for love, and (still, stubbornly pre-.net<http://pre-.net>)
MS languages for money.

Jason Van Anden
http://www.smileproject.com


On 10/7/05, Chris Williams <chrisgwilliams at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> MS is making a pretty big push to promote .NET 2.0 (aka 2005) as suitable
> for game development. Was anyone on this list at the Microsoft Meltdown 2005
> conference a few months ago? I was, and they (MS) are pretty excited about
> the possibilities.
>
>
> On 10/7/05, Jonas Beckeman <list at jobe.nu> wrote:
> >
> > > Not only is their hardware old and slow on average
> >
> > I think this argument is a lot about us have different definitions of
> > "casual gamer". I've subconsciously been thinking about those who may
> > play
> > (and buy) casual games, regardless of if they play other games as well -
> > whereas you probably think more about those who would never buy a retail
> > game, right?
> >
> > If so, I'd agree *more* with you about their inclination to install
> > .NET.
> > Still, my guess is that most of the revenue from a casual game does not
> > come
> > from casual gamers. And if you start learning .NET now, when you have
> > your
> > first game ready to launch, chances are quite a few of them will have
> > the
> > runtime installed.
> >
> > It's a bit of a gamble, since we don't know about MS plans to push the
> > technology, but as mentioned they're going to make new efforts at the
> > launch
> > of 2.0.
> >
> > The most important thing before was securing the business market, so
> > they
> > probably didn't want to associate .NET with fun and games, but now that
> > it's
> > pretty much secured, they can afford to go in other directions.
> >
> > /Jonas
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Casual_Games mailing list
> > Casual_Games at igda.org
> > http://seven.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/casual_games
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Thank you,
>
> Chris Williams, Microsoft Partner,
> MCT, MCSD.NET <http://MCSD.NET>, MCAD, MCP, A+,
> GC.NUG President, RV.NUG Founder
>
> Blog: http://blogusmaximus.com
> HA! : http://www.heroicadventure.com
> .nug: http://www.gcnug.org
> .nug: http://www.rvnug.org
>
> _______________________________________________
> Casual_Games mailing list
> Casual_Games at igda.org
> http://seven.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/casual_games
>
>
>


--
Jason Van Anden
http://www.smileproject.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://seven.pairlist.net/pipermail/casual_games/attachments/20051007/9fff5d74/attachment-0001.html