New Xbox One exporter is being made by Clickteam

Interesting! lol.. classic ClickTeam.. they work in secret and don't make any noise at all when releasing such a big news item.

I wonder if I could whip up a game in that time frame.. probably not, but I'll see how it goes this weekend!

This is awesome!

Awesome news! I just got an Xbox One to export games to, coincidentally.

I wasn't that interested in getting an Xbox One before... but with the possibility of being able to make games for it... this... might actually give me a reason to be interested in having one. Only thing is, by the time I have one, it will likely already be fairly close to the next console generation, and Fusion 3 may even be out by then for all I know, making the whole thing pointless... Eh, we'll see. XD

Holly Molly this would be super awesome

I actually find this to be disappointing news, I guess. This adds to fragmentization of the engine and strains resources which - in my humble opinion of a forum-posting nobody - should be used to perfect and update the current primary software and the exporters most used by its users (Windows and mobile runtimes, I believe). A small subset of us will now be able to export games to a closed, restricted, uneasy-to-get-in, certification-requiring platform, while features requested for years in the base software seem to be lower priority. But that's just me, I guess.

Totally agree with koobare.

I simply can't understand how they can leave something as fundamental as the Event List Editor buggy and half finished for years, and continually pump resources into exporters instead.

It kind of sounds like a feature creep mentality to be honest: always adding new stuff and often forgetting to finish the old stuff

Lol, happygreenfrog. The next console generation will likely come sometime around 2022. And you think Fusion 3 only "may" be ready by then? Let's hope for all our sake it's ready a bit sooner!

Volnaiskra

Well, with the Nintendo NX coming out early next year, it's kinda hard to say for sure when the next generation is starting... especially since supposedly there are also new versions of the Xbox One and PS4 coming out fairly soon...

However, I can't even be sure if these new systems are even truly going to BE a new console generation... it's kinda hard to say at this point...

We'll know more at E3, but I've heard that Microsoft want to start releasing a "yearly" Xbox, like how Apple release iPhones etc. If this is the case, a Universal Windows exporter is probably fairly future proof for the next 5-10 years.

happygreenfrog: I'm not a console guy so I don't really know much about them, but I believe this generation is generally considered to be marked by the XBoxOne and PS4. I think Nintendo sort of plays by its own timeline, and has been behind in tech specs for a while. I'd assume their upcoming console would be treated as Nintendo's belated entry into this generation.

DaveC: That's interesting about yearly Xboxes. If I was an xbox owner, I wouldn't be happy about that. It seems to muddy up some of the main benefits of having a console: product longevity and 100% reliable compatibility.

Obviously they won't be able to do major hardware upgrades each year, and there'll have to be backwards compatibility for at least a few years' worth of machines (It's not like Xbox users would stand for their library of games to become obsolete every year). So that kind of sounds like you'll get a similar situation to the PC: lots of different users with lots of different machines, and each new game has to cater to various hardware, with mixed results. Maybe Xbox games would need to start having graphics settings like PC games do.

Still, I like that on PC, I can buy a super-expensive multi GPU beast one year, and then play any games I want at max settings for years to come. If I was forced to upgrade every year to play xbox games at their best.....I'd probably buy a PS4 instead

I could be wrong, but it sounds like another case of Microsoft punching above their weight (Hey, Apple can sell expensive hardware each year, so why not us?! Answer: because Apple has legions of fanatical near-religious fans, while Microsoft doesn't)

Yes, I can imagine it working if there was a 18 month contract model, where you essentially pay a subscription and get the new console for free each time. But it would still mean a big price hike for consumers. And it would basically require Microsoft to produce new features at such a rate that they can legitimately drum up a lot of excitement every year. There's a first time for everything I guess, but that just doesn't sound like Microsoft.

It seems to me great news, not only for Xbox One but to games signed for Microsoft's Windows 10 Store.

Friends of Clickteam when exporter, would be on sale?

Totally agree with Koobare and Volnaiskra. This is sort of sad news if it means the limited dev resources of Clickteam are going to divided up even more. If the XNA runtime showed anything (for MMF2), it was that it was probably a bad time to add another exporter into the mix.

Now F3 might be a different matter considering it might be engineered for easier multi-runtime development (meaning for Clickteam, internally). But If this is a F2.5 exporter, I am a little sad. T_T

You know, it's possible that they've been making this for long enough that they decided that turning back at the point they were at was a bad idea. Or maybe they were somehow able to make an easy port of the XNA exporter or something? Because that would explain the existence of this exporter. Or maybe Microsoft payed them.

I bet the only people who know work at Clickteam, and maybe we'll get an answer to why it was made one day. For now, though, I'm just glad that we might be getting a console exporter (and that once it's done, Clickteam MIGHT be able to put more resources towards Fusion 3, and who knows how much that might speed up development, depending on how long the exporter was being worked on).

Quote from koobare

I actually find this to be disappointing news, I guess. This adds to fragmentization of the engine and strains resources which - in my humble opinion of a forum-posting nobody - should be used to perfect and update the current primary software and the exporters most used by its users (Windows and mobile runtimes, I believe). A small subset of us will now be able to export games to a closed, restricted, uneasy-to-get-in, certification-requiring platform, while features requested for years in the base software seem to be lower priority. But that's just me, I guess.

My understanding is exporters is where most of their revenue come from, because they're essentially expansion packs on an already large user base. There's not a lot of monetisation in their business model so exporters clearly need focus to keep the funding rolling in.

That said, I'm disappointed in how the iPhone exporter just got kind of abandoned, my very simple games would never run indentical in iphone and PC, and getting it to export was a hit or miss (partly due to Mac's constantly updating iOS releases that moved much faster than my development time). I felt short-changed on that purchase.

Ryan: I think it depends on the business model Clickteam are aiming for. Up until now, they appeared to be using the traditional model that relies on major releases that generate revenue followed by maintenance updates. Exporters were added in as an ala carte option after this business model was in place. It is kind of confusing now for consumers to understand what sort of model exists these days, since the (appreciated) feature additions with the updates are the sorts of things that the traditional business model would have saved for the next release of the product as an incentive to buy it. As this has gone on for so long, people have become accustomed to all these new features for free, even though that isn't (in my opinion) a good way to add value to purchasing another version of the software. Now the only way to sell a new version of the product is to make it so rich in new features that it is worth the cost or release exporters and extensions that cost money but add very small feature sets.

I know a lot of the user base is either too young or too economically strapped (or too spoiled by the open source age) to be accepting of the traditional software model, but I am on board with it. The real problem seems to be that Clickteam's resources are not big enough to handle major releases in the traditional business model. Their resources are spent mostly on patches and feature improvements. When they want to make a new version of their software, they have to divide their resources, which means the output slows. I am not saying the output isn't of quality. It definitely is. But the reality of the current situation, as far as I am aware, is that any new exporter work means the existing products will take a hit in terms of bug fixes and feature improvements. For better or worse, that is just the way it is.

Just so you know -- We hired a guy to work on specifically on this export module.
Nothing he did slowed work on any other areas of the program.

In fact -- His work on this export module discovered changes that needed to be done on the core runtime and editors.

Another positive fact is the person we hired to work on this export module now is more comfortable with Fusion and various runtimes.
So when he is done with this we can shift his focus to other parts of the software.

So the development of the Windows Universal Runtime is a HUGE positive for everyone even if they have no desire or interest in this module.

We now have another programmer we can use on other aspects of the software when this project is complete.