Support NeoGAF

[vcc]

Epic shortchanged multiple licensees, including extremely poor support because "fuck you, we got our money". I could say more, but...

To make it short and sweet: Epic was at the right place and the right time when the Renderware Exodus occurred after EA's purchase. Publishers like it when you have an engine you can just pay for and be done - and Unreal was that engine at the time. Source wasn't, and nobody else was, either.

Epic's behavior between that point and the present day should explain to people why so many publishers and developers got themselves off Unreal and spun up their own internal engines.

Silicon Knights' case was totally winnable - but a combination of SK's lawyers being incompetent and Epic having home court advantage due to the contract,

Insufficient support isn't a legal reason to ignore an entire contract even if the contract outlines that support. That hows most folks get into massive trouble in civil law. Gee this guy is 'morally' wrong in my opinion so let me just ignore this binding contract I signed.

What you do is abide by the contract then sue for damage rather than proceed with your own interpretation. It implies he had poor legal counsel throughout or did not seek it.

Epic did what no game developer should EVER participate in, and that is the legal erasure of a video game. They had zero reason to do it, and they did it anyway.

That seems super over dramatic. Stuff like that happens all the time in disputes of all sorts and that resolutions occurs too. There is no 'moral' directive to stop anyone from every doing anything to games. That sounds like the sort of ludicrous teenager logic espoused by a certain group gravely concerned with ethics in hippie indie dev sexual selection.

 

[DangerMouse]

I think Tim is maybe a bit over reacting but I think his heart is in the right place and I dont think anyone should give Microsoft any benefit of the doubt here giving their history.

Someone here already posted the "Embrace, extend and extinguish" stuff right?

Yeah, not sure if it's overreacting so much as speaking out on what could easily be without backlash from people like him. Agreed, given their history many know exactly where they'd be going with this if left unchecked without complaints.

Which is why programs bought on the Windows Store is stored in a closed folder you cannot access under any circumstance and if you do it breaks the programs inside from being updated and also turns out to contain nothing but a ton of encrypted files you can't do anything with.

Oh really? Damn, this is nasty.

 

[Disaster Nebraska]

Holy shit. The issue is not that he voiced a concern.

The issue is that he presented hyperbolic and purely speculative accusations as fact, without any evidence.

This is the exact same accusation from the other thread.

When people were voicing concerns and bringing up past historical trends, those people were accused of making "hyperbolic statements with no evidence".

Sure, if your definition of evidence is "it's not evidence until it actually happens" then yeah we're still waiting for evidence.

But claims of "no evidence" are as knee jerk and hyperbolic as the posts you're quoting.

 

[gamz]

https://twitter.com/TimSweeneyEpic/status/705802742883864576

Never mind chicken little, the world hasn't ended just yet.

Wait. Is he saying he prefers UWP over Win32?

 

[vcc]

Epic's behavior between that point and the present day should explain to people why so many publishers and developers got themselves off Unreal and spun up their own internal engines.

It's more competition from stuff like unity on the low end and on the top end the big publishers don't feel like giving someone else a percentage anymore.

Stuff like frostbite were big internal efforts which probably cost way more than licencing out Unreal but let them have more control and less dependence on a third party.

 

[00ich]

You double click the setup file and go through the UAC prompt like normal. Then this:

And that's it, you now have a UWA app installed and none of us had to go through Microsoft's store. You also don't have to manually enable sideloading since I do that for you programmatically.

If not, then maybe you can see that it's not actually as locked down or as hard to do as people think.

It is an unfair disadvantage and pretty much what Sweeny described. If you can enable sideloading automatically or not is not really the point. The point is, that like amazon or humble bundle on android, you are always a second class citizen in this ecosystem.
The second warning screens is indicative of that in many ways.

Why is designed that badly? It could look like the UAC dialog. Your programs looks more friendly already.
Why is not just another line with the UAC dialog? The one that asks to make "changes to your computer" and means an app can do whatever it wants from then on. That's still secure enough for all intends and purposes.
Why is there no system to uninstall a certificate that is linked to an app when I uninstall the app? Why is it a non-clickable link?
Why does it need to install one in the first place? There is a working ecosystem for certificates already. What is the question worth anyway if I cannot see the certificate?

Sideloading is a backdoor for developers and other hackers and not a fully supported way to distribute software for Windows.

 

[Iced_Eagle]

Oh really? Damn, this is nasty.

That part is not true...

Basically, by default only a system account called "TrustedInstaller" has access to the WindowsApps folder. As the admin on the PC you can switch control to your account, give yourself access, but the trick is you need to give control BACK to TrustedInstaller or else things won't install. I've done this and haven't had any issues. If you leave your account as the control account, then things won't install. It's a pain in the butt but takes all of 3 minutes to do.

Wait. Is he saying he prefers UWP over Win32?

This I think is what people did not get out of the article. He doesn't have an issue with UWP's as a programming model. There are actually a lot of benefits to the API set as a whole for developers. Anyone who is less than 24 years old is younger than the Win32 API itself! The API was designed for C and isn't object oriented, and tons of other shit which I won't get into. But it's absolutely ancient and MS can't fundamentally change it without breaking backwards compatibility (which they won't do), and that's why they made UWP in the first place. A brand new API which sits on the kernel and isn't just a wrapper around Win32 like MFC or .NET. From what I've seen, almost all of the complaints people have around UWP's on Gaf have centered around desktop composition, package storage and sandboxing. While there are certainly issues with UWP, rarely will people complain about the actual API from a developer standpoint because it is so much better than straight Win32.

The major issue Tim has is that he is completely against the fact that the only way UWP's can be distributed and updated is via the store. There should be nothing stopping Steam, Origin, UPlay or Epic from selling and distributing UWP's through the store and updating them on their own, so the consumer relationship almost completely excludes MS outside of providing the tools. That's his argument and what he wants to stop. I completely agree with him on that. There's no reason why MS should be the only ones with the key to the castle. UWP's are good for developers, but MS needs to not be the ONLY place you can get them.

 

[Caipirinha]

Another piece in the jigsaw puzzle that is MS leaving the console business and reorienting around another push for PC.

 

[vcc]

Wait. Is he saying he prefers UWP over Win32?

Win32 is a mush of of 3 decades of stuff. His concern was about the business model on the output end rather than the platform itself.

 

[LukasTaves]

so certain people keep saying that //build/ will be interesting.

what exactly would microsoft have to explain/announce at this thing to make all of this stuff okay?

Ms will most likely detail the Redstone 1 update, due the second half this year, which is focused on improving the app platform.

Last year they said there were many things that were possible on win32 that wasn't yet on uwp and that they were trying to implement in a way that is more secure. (Specially regarding system integration, and in between apps, like shell integration, plugins and so on).

IIRC, they mentioned that their goal was to enable the same capabilities all win32 apps have, except for anti viruses and driver providers, which still required a lower level access that they didn't figured out how to give in a secure way)

 

[Costia]

Oh really? Damn, this is nasty.

No. Not really.
You can access the folders. You need to give yourself permissions - same as with a lot of other system folders.
The files are not encrypted.
The files are signed by whoever made them, so if you want to modify them you will have to sign the modified version yourself (which you can do on any windows PC).
Didn't check the updates restriction, but it sounds right. If you modified the code, applying an update that assumes it is working with the original files is probably not a good idea.

So much misinformation is being spread. Looks like some people have an ax to grind with MS.

 

[Dr. Kitty Muffins]

Maybe Valve and Sony should join forces? I can't see how else Sony could counter any other way.

 

[LukasTaves]

Having been burned from learning Silverlight, WPF, XNA...developers definitely have reasons to be wary. Only good thing from learning those technologies is that the UWP built off of those (besides XNA...I'll forever miss XNA) technologies so there wasn't a loss in knowledge. My college final exam was making a Silverlight application for a gov't agency. Yea it works, but support for it, gone. So yea, MS has a habit of leaving ish. The ONLY reason why I believe that they won't leave it this time is because how they are betting basically everything on UWP to work and it's been a continuation of WinRT from which they started doing the "universal" stuff. That's the only reason. Otherwise I'll be more skeptical.

Yeah, every one has plenty of reasons to be wary, but it's also easy to see how it's different this time around.

First because all those ventures were abandoned in favor of this single platform push, instead of different fronts for every application type. Secondly because some of those platforms were in conflict with each other, and now there's really a company wide push to develop on all their platforms using this same platform.

Even some of the kirks are not a problem in uwp (like mixing directx and xaml), on the uwp all the available technologies are there to be used together if your app desires.

 

[Maintenance]

I wish Microsoft loyalists would apply this same level of research, fact-finding, and healthy distrust that they're applying to Sweeny - a respected developer - to the PR that Microsoft delivers on a regular basis.

I mean, bravo for the hard work of trying to fact check and all that. The tremendous effort to discredit a third-party developer who really has no horse in this race -- when other people and other developers have voiced similar concerns -- is hollow when barely a fraction of that healthy doubt and fact-checking is given to Microsoft's own promises and behaviors.

It's like I'm living in a PS3-fanboy's revenge fanfiction, where the tables have turned and Xbox has gotten so bad that every action - no matter how terrible - is defended to the death by "Xbots".


This. Seriously.

What value is there in not voicing concern? Microsoft can fix this, their bad plan can become a good one, and everybody wins.

Great post. If people spent one tenth of what they did trying to discredit Sweeney today against Microsoft things would be better.

This is the exact same accusation from the other thread.

When people were voicing concerns and bringing up past historical trends, those people were accused of making "hyperbolic statements with no evidence".

Sure, if your definition of evidence is "it's not evidence until it actually happens" then yeah we're still waiting for evidence.

But claims of "no evidence" are as knee jerk and hyperbolic as the posts you're quoting.

I've dealt with those kind of people lately. "You can't say they are going to act the same way, that's a false equivalence."

How can people be so blind, I don't know.

 

[vcc]

Maybe Valve and Sony should join forces? I can't see how else Sony could counter any other way.

Not sure if Sony cares. They don't really have much of a Stake in what MS does on the PC. Only that if the PC game industry switched to UWP development that MS would get easier ports. But MS kind of hobbled themselves with the multi SKU announcement and using XB1 exclusives to sell the w10 store.

This is more MS trying to compete with Google/Apple at XBoxes expense rather than trying to crush Sony with some daring new strategy. Valve cares because part of competing with Google/Apple for MS is to control a store front.

 

[Respawn]

Hopefully this shocks enough people to open some eyes about the negatives in play here.

Hopefully

 

[rakkadakka]

Wait. Is he saying he prefers UWP over Win32?

He's saying that we should wait and see which is the opposite of his op ed.

 

[Trup1aya]

Are you sure.

Positive.

Currently. UWP has not replaced Win32 As standard, it can't, because it isn't feature complete. So currently there is no disadvantage to developers who chose to interact directly with their customer... Because these developers are still using the old standard.

The CONCERN is that when UWP replaces Win32, the current distribution limitations of UWP will still be present.

According to Sweeney's op-Ed, MS no intentions of lifting these restrictions. They are imposing them simply so developers will have no other recourse than to put apps into the win10 store.

According to MS their intention has always been to have the UWP applications work accross a variety of devices and stores. Their official position on this hasn't changed since UWP was announced.

It's certainly possible that MS has been lying about their intentions all this time. The way the OP-Ed is worded suggests that Sweeny knows they are lying; he presents it as an absolute FACT that they have sinister intentions.

But when he was interviewed by Polygon, he admits: "there is no proof of an evil plan, just a fear". So now he's not talking in absolutles, he's talking about hypotheticals. He has no clue how UWPs will be distributed going forward, he's just CONCERNED about the possibility that things won't change.

Then there's the Twitter conversations were we see that perhaps he isn't as knowledgeable about the future of UWP distribution as he had seemed in the op-Ed. He also was wrong about MS' intention to allow distribution of Win32 apps in the win10 store.

In short we all get the concern and it's perfectly warranted given MS' history. But Sweeny has yet to provide any evidence that the scenario he presented was actually on the path to becoming reality. Infact he admits he has no such evidence.

Now he's apparantly likes the things he heard from Spencer regarding UWP openess and is anxiously awaiting more detail at build. Strangely, the article that Phil linked him to came out a week ago.

It's silly that big devs are still in the dark about this some of this stuff. but it's also silly to make wild accusations without facts.

 

[SatelliteOfLove]

I don't think this question is getting answered, but I'll put my best guess towards this strange devil's advocacy is "LOUD NOISES FROM AN EMOTIONAL FACTION I MUST ARGUE WITH THEM" rather than any shilling or fanboyism from the looks of things.

Thank you for the "Zedoxes" of this thread for showing some of the usefullness of the basic functionality of this new UWP format, yet such good things comes saddled with manipulative horseshit, and, may I repeat myself, is the crux of either MS building a walled garden around us or crashing and burning yet again not 3 years after their last flaming wreck.

 

[Dinky Dino]

Honestly, create a little backlash and MS will likely make all the necessary moves to fix the issues currently inherent to their Digital store on W10.

MS seems pretty reactionary this gen, so that'll probably work to our advantage.

Hm reactionary enough to get rid of paid online for their consoles? I don't game on the xbox one but man it would likely take off something fierce if they got rid of the online paywall and replaced gold with more value.

 

[FX-GMC]

snip

Excellent summary.

 

[Costia]

To add to what Trup1aya said.
The only technical thing Sweeney mentions in the article(side loading restriction) to support his argument apparently wasn't true since November.
If anything, it shows MS's willingness to change UWP to fit the devs/costumer needs rather than force their own decision.

 

[SPDIF]

It is an unfair disadvantage and pretty much what Sweeny described. If you can enable sideloading automatically or not is not really the point. The point is, that like amazon or humble bundle on android, you are always a second class citizen in this ecosystem.
The second warning screens is indicative of that in many ways.

Why is designed that badly? It could look like the UAC dialog. Your programs looks more friendly already.

It's just a PowerShell prompt. You've never used PowerShell before?

Why is not just another line with the UAC dialog? The one that asks to make "changes to your computer" and means an app can do whatever it wants from then on. That's still secure enough for all intends and purposes.

Ask MS. They designed it in such a way that PS is required. Like I said in another post, hopefully they make it more presentable and streamlined in the future.

Why is there no system to uninstall a certificate that is linked to an app when I uninstall the app? Why is it a non-clickable link?

There is. Like I said in my post that you quoted, this is just a quickly put together setup file. I made no attempt whatsoever to enable it to be able to uninstall as well, but with some extra work I could. I'm not sure what non-clickable link you're referring to.

Why does it need to install one in the first place? There is a working ecosystem for certificates already. What is the question worth anyway if I cannot see the certificate?

Because that's just how UWAs are designed. The code has to be signed in some way, even if it's just a useless test certificate. But you're right, it's kind of pointless if you can't see it.

Sideloading is a backdoor for developers and other hackers and not a fully supported way to distribute software for Windows

Well keep in mind that when I first started working on the app, one of the main topics of conversation in this thread was from people thinking it was either impossible or otherwise incredibly difficult to actually install UWAs from outside the MS store. The only thing I wanted to see when I started this, was to see just how difficult it was

 

[gamz]

Positive.

Currently. UWP has not replaced Win32 As standard, it can't, because it isn't feature complete. So currently there is no disadvantage to developers who chose to interact directly with their customer... Because these developers are still using the old standard.

The CONCERN is that when UWP replaces Win32, the current distribution limitations of UWP will still be present.

According to Sweeney's op-Ed, MS no intentions of lifting these restrictions. They are imposing them simply so developers will have no other recourse than to put apps into the win10 store.

According to MS their intention has always been to have the UWP applications work accross a variety of devices and stores. There position on this hasn't changed since UWP was announced.

It's certainly possible that MS has been lying about their intentions all this time. The way the OP-Ed is worded suggests that Sweeny knows they are lying; he presents it as an absolute FACT that they have sinister intentions.

But when he was interviewed by Polygon, he admits: "there is no proof of an evil plan, just a fear". So now he's not talking in absolutles, he's talking about hypotheticals. He has no clue how UWPs will be distributed going forward, he's just CONCERNED about the possibility things won't change.

Then there's the Twitter conversations were we see that perhaps he isn't as knowledgeable about the future of UWP distribution as he had seemed in the op-Ed. He alway was wrong about MS' intention to allow distribution of Win32 apps in the win10 store.

In short we all get the concern and it's perfectly warranted given MS' history. But Sweeny has yet to provide any evidence that the scenario he presented was actually on the path to becoming reality. Infact he admits he has no such evidence.

Really great breakdown.

 

[Dinky Dino]

Not sure if Sony cares. They don't really have much of a Stake in what MS does on the PC. Only that if the PC game industry switched to UWP development that MS would get easier ports. But MS kind of hobbled themselves with the multi SKU announcement and using XB1 exclusives to sell the w10 store.

This is more MS trying to compete with Google/Apple at XBoxes expense rather than trying to crush Sony with some daring new strategy. Valve cares because part of competing with Google/Apple for MS is to control a store front.

Maybe. But sony is definitely looking to sell as a service as well given their vue type service. Though they're the type that would prefer making their own hardware and perhaps custom os than placing anything on microsoft's operating system tbh. I guess things are still sort of the same other than MS making use of it's pc side as well and having a bunch of software ready for users to use through apps. I'm also unsure of whether sony is okay with complete BC on all their systems.

 

[InsaneTiger]

Positive.

Currently. UWP has not replaced Win32 As standard, it can't, because it isn't feature complete. So currently there is no disadvantage to developers who chose to interact directly with their customer... Because these developers are still using the old standard.

The CONCERN is that when UWP replaces Win32, the current distribution limitations of UWP will still be present.

According to Sweeney's op-Ed, MS no intentions of lifting these restrictions. They are imposing them simply so developers will have no other recourse than to put apps into the win10 store.

According to MS their intention has always been to have the UWP applications work accross a variety of devices and stores. There position on this hasn't changed since UWP was announced.

It's certainly possible that MS has been lying about their intentions all this time. The way the OP-Ed is worded suggests that Sweeny knows they are lying; he presents it as an absolute FACT that they have sinister intentions.

But when he was interviewed by Polygon, he admits: "there is no proof of an evil plan, just a fear". So now he's not talking in absolutles, he's talking about hypotheticals. He has no clue how UWPs will be distributed going forward, he's just CONCERNED about the possibility things won't change.

Then there's the Twitter conversations were we see that perhaps he isn't as knowledgeable about the future of UWP distribution as he had seemed in the op-Ed. He alway was wrong about MS' intention to allow distribution of Win32 apps in the win10 store.

In short we all get the concern and it's perfectly warranted given MS' history. But Sweeny has yet to provide any evidence that the scenario he presented was actually on the path to becoming reality. Infact he admits he has no such evidence.

Good job. That sums up what I have been trying to say. There is always a concern when to comes to corporations and their business practices. Especially for Microsoft given their history. Whatever conversation he had with Phil and Microsoft in the past he obviously felt that he didn't get a satisfactory answer and felt the need to go public. I don't know Tim or Phil personally but I'm sure this something that will be worked out. But I can understand his concern.

Thank you.

 

[Angry Fork]

The lengths people are willing to go to give the benefit of the doubt to Microsoft is kind of amazing. Judging intentions on a case by case basis without taking into account their history is baffling to me.

 

[...Scatter...]

The lengths people are willing to go to give the benefit of the doubt to Microsoft is kind of amazing. Judging intentions on a case by case basis without taking into account their history is baffling to me.

What about their history of being an open platform since DOS? Do you think we should ignore that or give them the benefit of the doubt?

 

[Faustek]

I don't think the W10 store is mature enough to make W32 applications go anywhere. And it's not like MS is going to block W32 apps in the future (they are not that stupid). So it's a bit hyperbole here but I see where he is coming from.

They have tried to block other APIs than their own before. I don't give them the benefit of the doubt these days. Then again I don't really think anyone remembers Joel Spolsky. Damn I doubt anyone remembers what *Gaben* said a year ago even though it has been said many times since XP was a thing.

 

[FyreWulff]

What about their history of being an open platform since DOS? Do you think we should ignore that or give them the benefit of the doubt?

Go look up the Halloween memos and their "open" XML format they rammed through ISO. Which includes compatibility instructions like "behaves like Word 97".

I don't think MS has any conspiracy, but it's well documented that people should verify first, and then trust them.

 

[RunLikeH3LL]

The lengths people are willing to go to give the benefit of the doubt to Microsoft is kind of amazing. Judging intentions on a case by case basis without taking into account their history is baffling to me.

So then judge their intentions by how they have embraced developing on competing platforms and have been listening to feedback lately. Many changes to insider builds have come from user feedback.

 

[Dinky Dino]

To add to what Trup1aya said.
The only technical thing Sweeney mentions in the article(side loading restriction) to support his argument apparently wasn't true since November.
If anything, it shows MS's willingness to change UWP to fit the devs/costumer needs rather than force their own decision.

True but he said they were talking about it over 18 months so you gotta wonder why MS is still releasing games in this state. So either they are testing if they can get away with it or they just don't have the resources to make the necessary changes in more than 18 months? 18 months is a lot of time so even I gotta wonder what was up to not even allow custom wheels in forza apex.

Well whatever what Tim did is call out MS to see if they will do something about it or not so that's good for devs and us users alike. I don't see anything wrong if MS makes the changes. Then everyone's on the same page and buying games on their store without arguing which is the best thing right? Which makes me wonder why anyone would be against Tim putting a little pressure on MS. In the end it benefits them the most as they will only gain positive praise and less people will be against them once the limitations are removed.

 

[roadrunn3r]

With all this, I also can't simply understand there are people actively defending Microsoft and their choices and above all, think what MS does is done for the best of all of us. No, *every* action MS takes is solely for their bottom line. Every action. It's not for you, not for the man / woman in the street, not for helping the poor etc., but for making them more money than they do now, today and in the future.

You will be accused of being too consumer biased. Yes that is apparently a thing around here as I discovered and I don't know if I should cry or laugh. (or both)

 

[vcc]

Maybe. But sony is definitely looking to sell as a service as well given their vue type service. Though they're the type that would prefer making their own hardware and perhaps custom os than placing anything on microsoft's operating system tbh. I guess things are still sort of the same other than MS making use of it's pc side as well and having a bunch of software ready for users to use through apps. I'm also unsure of whether sony is okay with complete BC on all their systems.

Companies do stuff to make money in some way. Not sure if lining up in this way with valve would make Sony money or the opposite. Valve aligning with Sony.

 

[gamz]

The lengths people are willing to go to give the benefit of the doubt to Microsoft is kind of amazing. Judging intentions on a case by case basis without taking into account their history is baffling to me.

Have you been following the company the past few years?

 

[Dinky Dino]

Companies do stuff to make money in some way. Not sure if lining up in this way with valve would make Sony money or the opposite. Valve aligning with Sony.

Sony's in a good position now to draw up such an alignment since more people seem to trust them over MS. It'll be interesting to see what they do. The other thing I've been wondering is if Sony can afford to keep up with Microsoft's plan. MS is clearly still much richer and able to take such risks and funding and marketing a modular console while handling the OS side as well across both the pc and xbox one. But Sony doesn't tend to fall behind even if they have less to work with.

Well I'm excited things are shaken up since I was getting bored of the usual console cycle of 5-7 years before a jump.

 

[mcrommert]

Sony's in a good position now to draw up such an alignment since more people seem to trust them over MS. It'll be interesting to see what they do. The other thing I've been wondering is if sony can afford to keep up with Microsoft's plan. MS is clearly still much richer and able to take such risks and funding and marketing a modular console while handing the OS side as well across both the pc and xbox one. But sony doesn't tend to fall behind even if they have less to work with.

Well I'm excited things are shaken up since I was getting bored of the usual console cycle of 5-7 years before a jump.

They aren't doing a modular console...phil confirmed he didn't mean that in majornelsons podcast

 

[Dinky Dino]

They aren't doing a modular console...phil confirmed he didn't mean that in majornelsons podcast

Could you link me? I figured modular as in users can't upgrade it but you can take it to a store or shop where a trained employee will open it up with special tools and swap parts for you. Seems to be the best way to tackle it as the gpu tends to need the upgrade most times.

Are they planning on replacing the entire thing like iphones? Seems like a waste.

 

[vcc]

Sony's in a good position now to draw up such an alignment since more people seem to trust them over MS. It'll be interesting to see what they do. The other thing I've been wondering is if Sony can afford to keep up with Microsoft's plan. MS is clearly still much richer and able to take such risks and funding and marketing a modular console while handling the OS side as well across both the pc and xbox one. But Sony doesn't tend to fall behind even if they have less to work with.

Well I'm excited things are shaken up since I was getting bored of the usual console cycle of 5-7 years before a jump.

The big question is if MS is still interested as they had other goals for the XBox idea and tablets/smartphone invalidated the entire premise (control home computing).

The 360 was when MS was invested and spent that money. The XB1 is MS scaling back their commitment.

What I believe they will do regardless of how the UWP and w10 store does is convert the XBox tech into a set top box to fight Google/Apple and more or less exit the console biz. The console game is expensive and the return on investment middling.

 

[Bitch Pudding]

The lengths people are willing to go to give the benefit of the doubt to Microsoft is kind of amazing. Judging intentions on a case by case basis without taking into account their history is baffling to me.

People who don't know the past are condemned to repeat it, right? But let them, I say. It's their money going down the tube, not mine.

Sweeney has forgotten more about UWP than most of us know about it. I have no doubt that he chose his words wisely. Doubting his words while at the same time defending MS' PR, that's really amazing.

But well, at the end it's all much ado about fucking nothing. Because no matter how many and what kind of games MS throws at their Windows Store, it is doomed anyhow. Lack of content, high prices, bad reputation, even worse pedigree, restrictions and limitations. Put all that together and you now why a one-legged squirrel on a German motorway has a higher chance of survival than their vision.


Also, your avatar is fucking creepy. Shouldn't have watched that movie when I was 6 years old...

 

[nephilimdj]

Not sure why this cycle endlessly comes up, we had it with Vista, Gabe with Win8, Win10 again.
Putting your IP on your store exclusivly is not a sign of the sky falling.

 

[RunLikeH3LL]

Not sure why this cycle endlessly comes up, we had it with Vista, Gabe with Win8, Win10 again.
Putting your IP on your store exclusivly is not a sign of the sky falling.

It is more fun to keep the 90s Microsoft hate train chugging.

 

[Sydle]

Could you link me? I figured modular as in users can't upgrade it but you can take it to a store or shop where a trained employee will open it up with special tools and swap parts for you. Seems to be the best way to tackle it as the gpu tends to need the upgrade most times.

Are they planning on replacing the entire thing like iphones? Seems like a waste.

https://soundcloud.com/xbox/mnr-564-phil-spencer-the-1

Around the 35 minute mark

 

[Hockeymac18]

Go look up the Halloween memos and their "open" XML format they rammed through ISO. Which includes compatibility instructions like "behaves like Word 97".

I don't think MS has any conspiracy, but it's well documented that people should verify first, and then trust them.

The problem here is we can't verify anything yet. We don't know what their plans are.

And that's the point some of us are making - not that we shouldn't criticize or give MS the benefit of the doubt - but that we should at least see what the hell their ultimate plans/solutions (if any) are for these criticisms before we start jumping into hyperbole mode.

What I mean by that is it's one thing to say:

"I'm concerned with the potential for how this platform can be used in the future, especially as it relates to the openness of the Windows platform and how other storefronts will be affected"
vs.
"MS wants to monopolize games development on PC-and we must fight it" (thread title)

To me, there's a difference in implication there - the first is hypothetical and is definitely worth discussing and the second feels like a response to a solid plan that is very well understood (which we don't have, at least in any public way, yet).

With Build a few weeks away, it would make complete sense if that stuff is addressed there, and as such perhaps the hyperbole could wait for AFTER that event?


NOW, if after you see their plan, it's as terrible as people are speculating - then, yeah, please crtiicize/boycott/flame away. Just like once we saw what their plans (as vague as they were) for their always online thing were - the internet exploded rightly in that regard. And MS being a business reacted accordingly. If this is as terrible as some are speculating, then I'm sure MS would react - they are a business after all (and if their clientele won't accept the changes they want, they will react).


I just personally think it's a waste of time discussing "what ifs" in intellectual circles over and over again. We can debate endlessly what MS' past (which may or may not really be the best indicator of future events based on the internal changes that have happened there structurally in the last few years) means in regards to the potential misuse of this platform - but at the end of the day, we still know jack about how this will ultimately work, how it will affect windows programs, and what their final plans ultimately are.

Of course, this is a forum and we're free to discuss whatever we want - but I personally like to judge something once I fully understand what's going on.

 

[jaypah]

It is more fun to keep the 90s Microsoft hate train chugging.

I don't think that's fair. There are people with legitimate concerns about what MS is doing with Windows going forward. The bullshit starts when you mix that with posters who obviously don't like MS/like another company more and posters who love MS and will defend them no matter what. That's when you get important topics being used for dumbass fanboy fodder by people with the same agendas that we watch them show up with every day.

 

[therealbigrich]

The lengths people are willing to go to give the benefit of the doubt to Microsoft is kind of amazing. Judging intentions on a case by case basis without taking into account their history is baffling to me.

I think people just want some type of proof or example why we should be mad at the company in question . Most companies with a long history I'm sure had ups and downs .

 

[Zedox]

I don't think this question is getting answered, but I'll put my best guess towards this strange devil's advocacy is "LOUD NOISES FROM AN EMOTIONAL FACTION I MUST ARGUE WITH THEM" rather than any shilling or fanboyism from the looks of things.

Thank you for the "Zedoxes" of this thread for showing some of the usefullness of the basic functionality of this new UWP format, yet such good things comes saddled with manipulative horseshit, and, may I repeat myself, is the crux of either MS building a walled garden around us or crashing and burning yet again not 3 years after their last flaming wreck.

Wow. lolol. I literally laughed at this.

 

[Disaster Nebraska]

It is more fun to keep the 90s Microsoft hate train chugging.

Nah, trusting Microsoft to create a fair and open platform without questioning them or asking for details or challenging their choices would be like to give BP access to the Gulf with a polite warning of "we'd like you to not spill this time, please"

 

[Silent Chief]

Have you been following the company the past few years?

Xbox always online DRM and the viral nature of Windows10?

 

[RunLikeH3LL]

Nah, trusting Microsoft to create a fair and open platform without questioning them or asking for details or challenging their choices would be like to give BP access to the Gulf with a polite warning of "we'd like you to not spill this time, please"

Windows isn’t a fair and open? Along with platforms like Azure that are extremely open and developer friendly?