My question is more of a timeline question, than a "why is software ever released broken?" question.
The Gears release seems to have been incredibly rushed, but Gears PC has never had a public ship date, never had a marketing campaign to tie into or any other external commitment that it had to be launched when it was; its timeline was entirely of MS's own choosing.
It's why I question if these answers are forthcoming, why release now? What was the urgency?
e:
I mean, I guess its possible based on what happened to Lionhead that The Coalition were straight up told "You release this week or you're all fucking fired"
You are right In the fact that I'm not adding to the convo but I'm not trolling I was asking why are people mad why are people over reactING and all I got was smart ass answered that didn't give me a reason they just told me to go away like you. You need to learn how to have a conversation with others who don't know. But now that I do know I won't be as ignorant or troll looking as my earlier posts. ThanksNot really this is on how UWP can destimate on what PC is for 20+ years a open platform we are complaining that microsoft wants to do a garden that is closed so we cannot access the files or to mod the games. And you are here more astroturfing and trolling at this part not knowing what it is about. So please type something meaningful adding to the conversation or just go away.
But you guys are acting as if it's the end of the world and as if steam is going to die or something. Just keep playing on steam and ignore the windows store easy as that.
You both are right. The LAST thing we'd want in this situation is to examine Microsoft's PR when they have a well-documented history of saying one thing and doing another, making plans for one thing and changing those plans as soon as it is convenient.Shh... let's all overreact instead!
I'm not spreading any of that, if anything this post was one that answered my question which is why are people so pissed. All I got from everyone else was calling me a fan boy. So thank you I don't care about defending xbox or m's I just didn't understand and was being annoyed by the responses these smart assessment where giving me.
It's about you guys being angry and thinking that UWP is going to suck and the xbox games you want to play will either be trash or not have the same freedom as games from steam.
It's about you guys being angry and thinking that UWP is going to suck and the xbox games you want to play will either be trash or not have the same freedom as games from steam.
Can we just go back to Albert Penello telling us it will be alright?You both are right. The LAST thing we'd want in this situation is to examine Microsoft's PR when they have a well-documented history of saying one thing and doing another, making plans for one thing and changing those plans as soon as it is convenient.
We should not evaluate their most recent PR against their most recent actions to see if they match up, and we definitely shouldn't have any concern that Microsoft's plans might not have consumers' interests at heart.
I think the most reasonable thing to do would be to take Microsoft's PR at face value and to simply wait until they decide to speak again and fill in the details with more PR.
Most people who are still discussing this topic don't really give a shit whether Microsoft has a store or not.
They probably don't even care if Microsoft wants to release their games exclusively through it. What we do care about is Microsoft talking big about UWA being the future of Windows and Win32 being treated as second class and relegated to legacy status. This is especially troubling when Microsoft currently require all UWA be signed by Microsoft themselves before they can be distributed.
If UWA dies, is made more flexible or coexists with Win32 on equal footing, this shouldn't be a problem. Microsoft's messages have been mixed on the subject. For example, they describe the current OWP situation as an open system, a generous reading at best imo. Hopefully we'll find out more at //build.
The only requirement is that the app is signed by a certificate that the computer trusts, either by default or but adding it to the trusted certificates. Signing is done via "signtool.exe" that is included in the windows sdk.
GDC is next week, I expect Microsoft to talk about it then and for us to get some more information about their roadmap for what to expect with UWP and the games that will be coming to it.
Windows 10 is basically two different platforms, one that runs Win32 applications and one that runs UWP applications.
I would be concerned if MS came out one day and said something like DX12 or DX13 will be available only on Windows Store and the UWP platform.
Currently on the market exist commercial games designed on the Win32 API and use the DX12 API for graphics (Ashes of the Singularity for example) outside of the Windows Store (AotS is sold through steam and gog), so there is little to worry about.
UWA apps still have a long way to go and not even the mighty Microsoft Office is using UWP yet. We can only buy Win32 versions (or Win64) of Office from the Windows Store.
On my home I have 2 desktop pcs, one Dell server, two laptops, a Windows tablet and an Xbox One and if I can pay once for a game or an app and through my Live ID can access it on all of these Windows devices then, as a user, I am interested.
I do this on my IOS devices all the time for years, buying software under one ID and share it through my devices, and its very cost effective for my pocket.
Win32 API on the other hand is not going anywhere soon, because all the commercial available software out there is still using it (databases, AutoCAD, Photoshop, Antiviruses etc).
As a developer if, by using Visual Studio 2015 and Xamarin, I can design my apps on one tool and then publish them simultaneously on Windows devices (possible billions of user install base), IOS devices (hundrends of millions) and Android devices (hundrends of millions) then again I am interested.
And project Centennial is trying to bring Win32 applications to Windows Store.
The biggest plus in all of this is that security on the Windows platform will increase exponentially due to the way UWA applications will run (under restrictions as in unix, linux, macos exc).
Win32 has unrestricted access to all the hardware and OS, so if an attacker could find any vulnerability on a Win32 application (for example Internet Browsers) he could do a lot of damage in a Windows PC.
Anyway we shall see, UWP is not even a year old...
The rest of your post was all good. But this point here, really doesn't have anything to do with the store or UWP.
Actually it does. No one knew the game was releasing till someone found it on the store. Then it had tons of issues, and there were talks about locked specs on your machine. It all was related to the windows store, and how MS was doing a shit job conveying information. It also didn't give a first impression on how closed off the store was, and how locked down Apps and games were. Which goes with how they are being cagey on information on UWA as development platform.
So far it looks one sided with MS being the sole beneficiary, and not outside developers.
Windows 10 is basically two different platforms, one that runs Win32 applications and one that runs UWP applications.
I would be concerned if MS came out one day and said something like “DX12 or DX13 will be available only on Windows Store and the UWP platform”.
Currently on the market exist commercial games designed on the Win32 API and use the DX12 API for graphics (Ashes of the Singularity for example) outside of the Windows Store (AotS is sold through steam and gog), so there is little to worry about.
UWA apps still have a long way to go and not even the mighty Microsoft Office is using UWP yet. We can only buy Win32 versions (or Win64) of Office from the Windows Store.
On my home I have 2 desktop pcs, one Dell server, two laptops, a Windows tablet and an Xbox One and if I can pay once for a game or an app and through my Live ID can access it on all of these Windows devices then, as a user, I am interested.
I do this on my IOS devices all the time for years, buying software under one ID and share it through my devices, and it’s very cost effective for my pocket.
Win32 API on the other hand is not going anywhere soon, because all the commercial available software out there is still using it (databases, AutoCAD, Photoshop, Antiviruses etc).
As a developer if, by using Visual Studio 2015 and Xamarin, I can design my apps on one tool and then publish them simultaneously on Windows devices (possible billions of user install base), IOS devices (hundrends of millions) and Android devices (hundrends of millions) then again I am interested.
And project “Centennial” is trying to bring Win32 applications to Windows Store.
The biggest plus in all of this is that security on the Windows platform will increase exponentially due to the way UWA applications will run (under restrictions as in unix, linux, macos exc).
Win32 has unrestricted access to all the hardware and OS, so if an attacker could find any vulnerability on a Win32 application (for example Internet Browsers) he could do a lot of damage in a Windows PC.
Anyway we shall see, UWP is not even a year old...
Windows 10 is basically two different platforms, one that runs Win32 applications and one that runs UWP applications.
I would be concerned if MS came out one day and said something like DX12 or DX13 will be available only on Windows Store and the UWP platform.
Currently on the market exist commercial games designed on the Win32 API and use the DX12 API for graphics (Ashes of the Singularity for example) outside of the Windows Store (AotS is sold through steam and gog), so there is little to worry about.
UWA apps still have a long way to go and not even the mighty Microsoft Office is using UWP yet. We can only buy Win32 versions (or Win64) of Office from the Windows Store.
On my home I have 2 desktop pcs, one Dell server, two laptops, a Windows tablet and an Xbox One and if I can pay once for a game or an app and through my Live ID can access it on all of these Windows devices then, as a user, I am interested.
I do this on my IOS devices all the time for years, buying software under one ID and share it through my devices, and its very cost effective for my pocket.
Win32 API on the other hand is not going anywhere soon, because all the commercial available software out there is still using it (databases, AutoCAD, Photoshop, Antiviruses etc).
As a developer if, by using Visual Studio 2015 and Xamarin, I can design my apps on one tool and then publish them simultaneously on Windows devices (possible billions of user install base), IOS devices (hundrends of millions) and Android devices (hundrends of millions) then again I am interested.
And project Centennial is trying to bring Win32 applications to Windows Store.
The biggest plus in all of this is that security on the Windows platform will increase exponentially due to the way UWA applications will run (under restrictions as in unix, linux, macos exc).
Win32 has unrestricted access to all the hardware and OS, so if an attacker could find any vulnerability on a Win32 application (for example Internet Browsers) he could do a lot of damage in a Windows PC.
Anyway we shall see, UWP is not even a year old...
You're completely right, and posting on the wrong forum for this sort of logic.
I'm not seeing what any of this has to do with the game running poorly? If it runs poorly, it's a shit port. I don't see how that's a store or UWP issue.
Now something like RoTR not getting VXAO in the new update is a UWP (but not store) issue... but games aren't simply performing like shit as a result of UWP or the store. RoTR shows that a decently ported game runs well enough.
Tomb raider actually had a set PC date. Gears of war for PC did not. And the issues associated with it did little to instill faith of MS's vision of how development for PC going forward would improve through UWA.
It'a ll about first impression and until they convey or discuss UWA and it's future in how it will evolve, lots of people, developers included will be skeptic.
Eh don't expect much at GDC. The info is coming out at build at the end of the month.
Oh I forgot build was soon as well.
I totally understand.I feel like we're kinda talking past each other here. Having a stealth release isn't a Windows Store / UWP issue. It's a MS being stupid issue. If they had stealth released it onto Steam, would it suddenly become a Steam issue, or a Win32 issue?
If this topic is to be discussed, it's not helpful to simply throw anything negative under the banner of the store and UWP simply because it released there. If the issues were related to the store or UWP, then they would impact every release. Those are the issues worth talking about here.
My 2 cent's was with what this article and MS's silence on UWA as it comes to developers. And UWA is part along with these game releases as a whole to their plan moving forward.
Will 32apps get categorized as legacy and not run properly like gears of war on the store? Or will MS take the time to develop the platform like they say will evolve over time.
I totally understand.
My 2 cent's was with what this article and MS's silence on UWA as it comes to developers. And UWA is part along with these game releases as a whole to their plan moving forward.
ANd seeing as Gears was a flag ship title they develop now, and own, with it's issues that are all PC based. It paints a negative light, and was the jumping off point for tim sweeney. All this literally was within 1 week. ANd the state gears of ware relased on their new said store which UWA will use for storefront, goes hand in hand.
People, developers included unless MS speaks up, are having a hard time believe in this so called vision. The shitty port/release goes hand in hand, in how UWA could impact games on the store, if not fully developed for applications both still 32, and 64 bit.
Will 32apps get categorized as legacy and not run properly like gears of war on the store? Or will MS take the time to develop the platform like they say will evolve over time.
GDC is next week, I expect Microsoft to talk about it then and for us to get some more information about their roadmap for what to expect with UWP and the games that will be coming to it.
I totally understand.
My 2 cent's was with what this article and MS's silence on UWA as it comes to developers. And UWA is part along with these game releases as a whole to their plan moving forward.
Fuckin' BINGO. It's beyond foolish to give them the benefit of the doubt with such an atrocious track record.PC gaming seems to be in a pretty healthy state right now, so I'm not sure what dire and urgent circumstance meant that this sledgehammer of a solution (that cooincidentally fulfils MS business goals far better than it does consumer needs) was so desperately needed before all those features were actually implemented.
I don't think you read the link that you postedSweeney's rant was in fact an overreaction, he even basically owned up to it.
https://mobile.twitter.com/TimSweeneyEpic/status/705802742883864576
I'd rather wait til the full story is out there before yelling that the sky is falling.
Fuckin' BINGO. It's beyond foolish to give them the benefit of the doubt with such an atrocious track record.
I don't think you read the link that you posted
It is, but as you can see in this thread, people rush into these threads to defend their mega corporation as if they cared about them. It's beyond weird.
Some of us are just more level headed, don't care for the drama based on speculation and fear mongering, and want more details before taking a position.
Some of us are just more level headed, don't care for the drama based on speculation and fear mongering, and want more details before taking a position.
Level headed means being concerned when MS does stuff like this imo. Benefit of the doubt should be earned, and MS has defnitely not earned it.
If MS hadn't responded to Sweeney basically telling him his concerns will be relieved shortly then I could see the justification for it. That's not reality though.
Clearly there's more to the story than what we know, or even what Sweeney knows, and it's just days away. Level headed to me would be keeping Sweeney's concerns in mind, which are perfectly valid, and waiting for the rest of the story before digging your heels into the ground on the potential issues.
Plot twist: Sweeney has his own plans of a walled garden so he feels threatened by MS plans.
Why should we wait to discuss and express concerns over an already released platform? I'll never get this argument. What you call "level headed" to me is a very passive/naive behavior while ignoring the last 10 years of MS's history with PC gaming.
"Yes but we should hear the other side of the story." Well we are all here waiting for MS to explain in a very CLEAR manner what they intend to do with PC gaming.
Till then we will express our perfectly valid concerns as we have done in every thread on this matter.
As a consumer what should worry you more is the defense force which is hyperactive in these type of threads with people never posting in a PC related topic before and junior members with 18 total posts (each one of them on this topic). This is a LOT worse than a few people expressing their concerns on the future of the open PC platform.
Clearly it's been an evolving platform and there are changes coming that address exactly what you guys are talking about. There will be a lot more substance to debate in 20 days actually based on facts. I just can't believe how much energy is being spent on either side trying to convince the other side that they're wrong. You're all just guessing.
Clearly it's been an evolving platform and there are changes coming that address exactly what you guys are talking about. There will be a lot more substance to debate in 20 days actually based on facts. I just can't believe how much energy is being spent on either side trying to convince the other side that they're wrong. You're all just guessing.
That is false. (bolded)
I quoted this person on another site.
Someone here on GAF also has shown that you can install a UWP (that is wrapped by some win32 calls...and yes totally dependent on win32 as of right now) and distribute it without the need of Microsoft. Sideloading is enabled by default with version 1511 so this is possible and easily done. That's all i'm going to say.
Microsoft said:From the Packaging tab, you can enter publishing data. This is where you can choose which certificate to use to sign your app. All Universal Windows Apps must be signed with a certificate. In order to sideload an app package, you need to trust the package. The certificate must be installed on that device to trust the package.
What all was a clusterfuck? What issues exactly? Are you speaking of the things I listed in my previous post?
Also, even internal studios have budgets and need to bring money in.
Microsoft may have no plans or intention of slaughtering the goose that lays such golden eggs; but if it's going to keep hanging around the barn with a meat cleaver in its hands, it needs to start explaining itself much more clearly, directly and honestly than it has been up until now.