›

Net Framework support

TheUndisputedTheUndisputed Posts: 19Member
in ODK (OUYA Developer Kit)
Hello i wood like to ask a ? if this is possible
most of you here nows UNITY game engine wicth runs on mono netframework
and there are support for unity

so my ? is this
link to xamarin.
http://xamarin.com/


can the OUYA Team make a deal with xamarin. that the mono framework and there OpenTK GLES Wrapper is installed by default on the OUYA Console , it save us developers around 20 megabytes of space for our game and apps

allso it brings all the futures of the net platform to the console

Visual basic,c#,cli c++,pyton,delphi net,pascal net , and a lot more

to give the developers the freedom to program

i think this cood easy be done, snes there is support for UNITY

hope you can do it, so manny developers can reuse there code and get games and apps fast on this console

allso the mono xna can be ported as well

best regards

Michael Hansen
Michael Hansen

Comments

  • BalbiBalbi Posts: 198Member
    The biggest issue here is that OUYA would then need to be responsible for keeping this library up to date which could potentially cause conflicts for those running older versions. Just like with Adobe AIR, it's best that the developer is responsible for dependencies that way they have full control over the experience. While 20MB sounds like a lot, it's worth the space knowing that you wont have to worry about a system update destroying your hard work and taking your game offline forcing you to spend resources fixing it.
    Lead Developer of Leroux
  • TheUndisputedTheUndisputed Posts: 19Member
    You are properly right about this,,
    but it will be nice feuture to have

    Michael Hansen
    Michael Hansen
  • KonajuGamesKonajuGames Posts: 560Member
    We have already started on getting MonoGame working with OUYA.

    Currently we have been
    - creating C# bindings for the ODK.
    - trying to get a sample game showing up in the launcher.

    I don't have a dev kit, so I'm using the launcher.apk on my Nexus 7. One night work so far, so it's just getting started.
  • BalbiBalbi Posts: 198Member
    The Launcher on your Nexus 7 is identical to having the OUYA console as far as getting something to launch and stuff.
    Lead Developer of Leroux
  • TheUndisputedTheUndisputed Posts: 19Member
    COOL ,VERRY COOL
    Michael Hansen
  • arcticdogarcticdog Posts: 235Member
    edited January 2013
    KonajuGames said:

    We have already started on getting MonoGame working with OUYA.

    Currently we have been
    - creating C# bindings for the ODK.
    - trying to get a sample game showing up in the launcher.

    I don't have a dev kit, so I'm using the launcher.apk on my Nexus 7. One night work so far, so it's just getting started.

    Sickhead Games (creators of ARMED) are working on this as well.

    Tom Spillman (Sickhead is his company) is one of the main contributors to MonoGame.

    I've started too (and am just slightly behind you in your progress).

    Assuming you planned on sharing your work, if you've made any inroads toward the actual changes to the MonoGame library, you may want to make an announcement on twitter to "MonoGameTeam". That way we don't have too many parallel efforts going on.

    So far, I've heard there's a bootstrap deployment issue on the actual OUYA hardware. I haven't confirmed it myself, but here's the thread about it:

    forums.ouya.tv/discussion/comment/927/#Comment_927
    Post edited by arcticdog on
  • arcticdogarcticdog Posts: 235Member
    :)
    https://twitter.com/Sickhead/status/287306328219713536
  • SickheadGamesSickheadGames Posts: 6Member
    edited January 2013
    No worries.

    KonajuGames and I are working together on this.... he provided me the Java bindings and sent me his working test project.

    The good news is we got it running!

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/sickheadgames/8346738651/in/photostream/

    I figure the bindings and a Visual Studio template for it will appear in the MonoGame repo in the next few days.
    Post edited by SickheadGames on
  • TheUndisputedTheUndisputed Posts: 19Member
    that is cool , verry cool

    keep up the good work

    Michael
    Michael Hansen
  • arcticdogarcticdog Posts: 235Member
    GREAT WORK!  Konaju.. I didn't realize who you were until I saw your twitter account.  This was in good hands all the way around. :)
  • KonajuGamesKonajuGames Posts: 560Member
    MonoGame is a team effort.  Myself and Tom are just two of a larger group.
  • KonajuGamesKonajuGames Posts: 560Member
    Back to the original purpose of this thread, I agree with Balbi that it will be too problematic keeping the installed version of the framework up-to-date.  Especially with Mono for Android being updated fairly often, and Unity not updating so often.  The required versions would get out of step very quickly.

    It is better to accept the cost of including the required parts of the runtime with your app.
  • arcticdogarcticdog Posts: 235Member
    edited January 2013
    KonajuGames said:
    MonoGame is a team effort.  Myself and Tom are just two of a larger group.
    Yes. It's truly a great effort of a lot of people.  You, Tom and Dean just happen to be the ones that stick out the most in my mind.  Perhaps because you're the most vocal. :)  Here's a shout out to all the rest of you though.. HOLLA! (Yeah.. I can't pull that off)


    KonajuGames said:
    Back to the original purpose of this thread, I agree with Balbi that it will be too problematic keeping the installed version of the framework up-to-date.  Especially with Mono for Android being updated fairly often, and Unity not updating so often.  The required versions would get out of step very quickly.

    It is better to accept the cost of including the required parts of the runtime with your app.
    Agreed.  And due to the linking step during deployment, only the code needed is included when your app finds its way to a device.  According to Xamarin's docs, it is typically way less than the 15MB of the entire framework.  Somewhere around 2MB, I think.

    Remember that OUYA's store is not Google's.  So the 55 MB limitation might not be here.  And that's recommended especially if they want us to develop true HD content.  If they wanted to undermine Google Play in that way (i.e. not require expansion files in order to go to 2 GB), it might be a lot more attractive to make bigger games here first, and ports to Google Play later.
    Post edited by arcticdog on
  • noctnoct Posts: 122Member
    arcticdog said:
    Remember that OUYA's store is not Google's.  So the 55 MB limitation might not be here.  And that's recommended especially if they want us to develop true HD content.  If they wanted to undermine Google Play in that way (i.e. not require expansion files in order to go to 2 GB), it might be a lot more attractive to make bigger games here first, and ports to Google Play later.
    Given that the OUYA is always connected via Ethernet or wifi, there's really no reason to have a limit below 2GB.
  • KonajuGamesKonajuGames Posts: 560Member
    ...except for the limited on-board storage. :)
  • BalbiBalbi Posts: 198Member
    noct said:


    arcticdog said:
    Remember that OUYA's store is not Google's.  So the 55 MB limitation might not be here.  And that's recommended especially if they want us to develop true HD content.  If they wanted to undermine Google Play in that way (i.e. not require expansion files in order to go to 2 GB), it might be a lot more attractive to make bigger games here first, and ports to Google Play later.



    Given that the OUYA is always connected via Ethernet or wifi, there's really no reason to have a limit below 2GB.
    I hope other developers don't expect everyone to be always online. While its great for product security, that kind of DRM is almost always a deal breaker.
    Lead Developer of Leroux
  • Killa_MaakiKilla_Maaki Posts: 504Member
    It's not unreasonable to assume the console will be connected at all times to the internet, since after all it is a download-only console. Just sayin'.
    You didn't remember the plot of the Doctor Who movie because there was none; Just a bunch of plot holes strung together.
  • arcticdogarcticdog Posts: 235Member
    KonajuGames said:
    ...except for the limited on-board storage. :)
    Storage is cheap, and presumably OUYA storage isn't limited to on-board.  Is that really an impediment for anyone anymore?
  • arcticdogarcticdog Posts: 235Member
    Balbi said:
    arcticdog said:
    Remember that OUYA's store is not Google's.  So the 55 MB limitation might not be here.  And that's recommended especially if they want us to develop true HD content.  If they wanted to undermine Google Play in that way (i.e. not require expansion files in order to go to 2 GB), it might be a lot more attractive to make bigger games here first, and ports to Google Play later.
    Given that the OUYA is always connected via Ethernet or wifi, there's really no reason to have a limit below 2GB.
    I hope other developers don't expect everyone to be always online. While its great for product security, that kind of DRM is almost always a deal breaker.
    I agree with you Balbi.  I've pushed for offline DRM via application encryption.  But the way the IAP calls are shaping up seems to imply that persistent internet connectivity is going to be a requirement. 

    One could maybe write an expirable local cache of the purchased items to deal with that, but that might matter if the OS requires a call home to OUYA for some reason outside of the apps themselves.
  • DelpeeDelpee Posts: 120Member
    arcticdog said:


    KonajuGames said:

    ...except for the limited on-board storage. :)

    Storage is cheap, and presumably OUYA storage isn't limited to on-board.  Is that really an impediment for anyone anymore?

    Wouldn't think so, most people have a spare USB stick lying around which they can plug in (I assume this is supported).
    ~ Yuri van Geffen (Portfolio)
  • Killa_MaakiKilla_Maaki Posts: 504Member
    Yep, I actually plan on laying down $30 or so for a 160G USB hard drive and a USB hub :D
    You didn't remember the plot of the Doctor Who movie because there was none; Just a bunch of plot holes strung together.
Sign In or Register to comment.