Whats the deal with DirectX being owned by XNA?

How come when I go here:

http://msdn.microsoft.com/directx/

I get redirected here:

http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/xna/aa937781.aspx

Is XNA making a move on owning DirectX It seems after reading some basic information on microsoft.com regarding recent statements about XNA and its current goals I'm led to believe that perhaps the whole of DirectX is being cut up and fed to XNA. First DirectShow goes. Now I realize even basic support I had in DirectX 9.0c is not even supported in DirectX 10. Basically I'm gonna have to port a graphics app engine from DX9 to DX10 and have to include DX10, at least some DX9 headers/libs, the seperate DirectShow files, and if I want rumble support for my Wireless XBox360 controller for Windows I need to include XInput because DirectInput doesnt have that support. Anyhow, I'm just curious what the future of DirectX vs XNA is. Who will own who within the next 5 years. If this question is in the wrong forum please redirect.

That explains quite a bit. Thanks. There are a couple things I'd be curious about if you have a chance to find anything out over the next 6 months. First off, suppose I have a basic game engine class structure like this:

AudioServer
- AudioDevice
VideoServer
- VideoDevice
InputServer
- InputDevice

At the time of DirectX 8.1 (circa May 2002) all I needed to add for DirectX hardware support was this:

#include <d3d8.h>

#include <d3dx8mesh.h>

#include <d3dxerr.h>

#include <dsound.h>

#include <dinput.h>

At this point in time with my DirectX 9.0c code, before porting to DX10, I need to add this:

I guess your last point sums up what I'm getting at. Say my applications entire include list were this:

#include <stdio.h>
#include <time.h>
#include <windows.h>
#include <d3d9.h>
#include <d3dx9mesh.h>
#include <dxerr.h>
#include <dsound.h>
#include <dinput.h>
#include <streams.h>
#include <tuner.h>
#include <ks.h>
#include <ksproxy.h>
#include <ksmedia.h>
#include <msxml2.h>

All the headers starting with the letter 'd' are the DirectX SDK. Are all the other files just collectively called the "Platform SDK" If so, does that mean XNA is a child of the Platform SDK, or is it a separate SDK altogether

I would tend to agree with your rules for headers when you are working on a project with 3 or more developers. However, the situation I was describing was a basic app with App.h and App.cpp, and all those headers were the total projects include needs. So basically I was using some basic C headers, a Windows header, DirectX headers, additional headers for what was DirectShow.h as well as some XML header support. The whole app consists of just this. No managed code, no installer, no MFC and no XNA. So given the simple setup, and realizing that up until this point my app was pure C/C++/Windows+DirectX API, now it seems the managed code demon currently with the name "XNA" is starting to snake its way into my code base. :) I guess time will tell if Microsoft forces me to learn C#/XNA/ManagedCode just to get exclusive functionality not offered in the basic Direct*.h/cpp/lib/dll libraries.

I guess my worst fears are being realized. I'm not exactly sure, but from the looks of this new XNA site, it seems DirectX IS being owned and considered a SUBSET of XNA. This is, in my opinion, a recipe for disaster for the independent software developers like myself. I think the problem is that the people running XNA somehow have not taken into consideration that there are 3, not 2, main groups of DirectX developers. First, there are the major game studios. Then there are people like me, independent software developers trying to use our spare time to write a million dollar game/app using DirectX. THEN, there is this new category that they are creating, the "hobbyist/student" crowd, at which XNA is aimed. I guess they are assuming I should fall into the "hobbyist" category. I have followed DirectX since it was called the Game SDK and even WinG and I eventually intend to produce a Windows DirectX C/C++ game which I hope to sell and make millions. Unfortunately, from the way things are shaping up, the people running XNA are creating a situation that will eventually make it undesirable for people used to coding with just Windows/C++/DirectX. I don't want to learn managed code. I know I don't have to, and can continue using DirectX 10 without XNA, but when you start taking down forums in the general DirectX area, like the DirectX 10 forum, and moving them to an XNA specific place, its obvious that DirectX is becoming owned by XNA, and this will only create instability in the native DirectX API. This statement on the XNA site sums it up:

We're delighted to offer you this place where you can learn and share experiences with the XNA family of products. Whether you're using XNA Game Studio Express or the native DirectX tools and APIs, this is the place to come to!...

So in essence, unless I'm reading the above statement wrong, the "native DirectX tools and APIs" are IN the "XNA family of products".

While I believe the idea behind XNA, letting students and hobbyists easily create video games, is a very good idea, I definately don't believe removing the initial DirectX 10 and native forums and putting them as subsets owned by XNA is helpful. I personally don't need/want XNA, which is really just a bloated wrapper of managed code, similar to the DXUT API in its attempt at trying to shield the user from basic DirectX setup code, and I would rather not have to have the forums polluted with tons of questions by XNA newbies regarding basic DirectX native questions. Why can't there be a DirectX native and DirectX 10 section left completely alone on the msdn.microsoft.com/directx/ mainpage (gee, maybe cause XNA already owns that... ) Why does it have to be a subset/child of XNA By doing this, experienced game programmers that work for major game studios are less likely to frequent "student/hobbyist" forums like XNA seeing as how the bulk of the questions will be from inexperienced coders that the XNA platform is targetting. If you've coded games before, and know C/C++, there is no incentive I see to use managed XNA, unless you want to have a slowdown in code. Please keep the forums seperate. Make XNA target "students/hobbyists", and keep a completely seperate section for coders like myself that don't want to have to swim through tons of newbie programming questions. I'd be willing to bet I'm not the only Windows/DirectX coder that feels this way.

That sums it up fairly well and is what I eventually pieced together from the past posts. I guess the main issue is simply the naming and what it conveys to people using the different SDK's. Perhaps MS would have done a better job of showing "no bias" toward any "product/sdk" used for gaming if it had done the simple thing of calling XNA "Game SDK 1.0", and naming DirectX9/10 a child SDK and naming XNA GSE another child SDK. Obviously politics exist in which product gets the most money/attention, and having the same name as the brand does display some bias, even if it wasn't intended. I guess the simple way to solve this riddle is to just display the management budgets for DirectX vs XNA GSE development teams, and the salaries of the management of each product/sdk and that would tell us which is going to be best supported in the near term future. :)