Support NeoGAF

[Burai]

It doesn't work like that, it's not a universal binary, it's a universal codebase / project with the capability for shared and/or platform specific code and / or assets, with a separate platform specific interface for each all within a single development solution.

So you could use reduced size assets for phone, full size assets for PC or a mix of the two if/when required but all using the same codebase, a patch can then either target all platforms, or any single individual platform dependant on need.

The "tweaking for each platform" only really comes down to the need to design an interface for the platforms display, and then dealing with any other platform differences (which should be minor, thats the point of it all being UWP) that may get thrown up.

But what you've described there is effectively two separate games. They have different art assets and there's no way you'd be able to bring all the logic from a console game directly to mobile even if they do share the same codebase.

 

[LukasTaves]

"Anyone can make apps for our closed platform" doesn't make a platform not closed.

"In computing, an open platform describes a software system which is based on open standards, such as published and fully documented external application programming interfaces (API) that allow using the software to function in other ways than the original programmer intended, without requiring modification of the source code. Using these interfaces, a third party could integrate with the platform to add functionality.[1] The opposite is a closed platform."

That's quite a strange quote, that doesn't even make sense in the context really.

It might come as an shock, but uwp is just as open as win32 to the view of the developer. Anyone can make applications for it, and you can sell or freely distribute applications wherever and in any way you like, and you can do without spending a dime to Ms or asking them permission to anything.

The only caveat would be that there aren't as many 3rd party development suites for uwp as there is for win32, but since Ms offers theirs for free, even on other platforms, that's not a big issue.

That was by the way, the gripe Carmack had with uwp.

The other part which generally upset users, is that uwp applications are more restricted than win32 in their current state, both by incompatibility for being a new format, or by the current design. But, as people have been able to even mod store games, I don't see that argument holding water for much longer too.

"Also, how does one distribute UWP apps without the windows store? I've looked around in MSDN and Stack overflow, and I haven't found an answer that doesn't involve side loading or some hacks. And you still need the app to be digitally certified. There doesn't seem to be any clear documentation on this. It only states that you can deploy to the Windows Store. That's not the same as an open platform. Unless you can provide me a link that states something different than what I said, your comment is just false.

Here's what wiki says:

"UWP apps can be downloaded from Windows Store or sideloaded from another device. The sideloading requirements were reduced significantly from Windows 8.x to 10, but the app must still be signed by a trusted digital certificate that chains to a root certificate.[14]"


That's not an open platform.

You distribute freely as you would distribute any .exe. You can even have a fancy graphic installer with you like.

And yes, uwp requires a certificate, but you don't have to use Ms's or any other default trusted certificate source. You can create your own, and the process to install can be done automatically with a uac prompt just like it would require for any win32 application to be installed.

 

[LordRaptor]

It might come as an shock, but uwp is just as open as win32 to the view of the developer. Anyone can make applications for it, and you can sell or freely distribute applications wherever and in any way you like, and you can do without spending a dime to Ms or asking them permission to anything.

You cannot create a UWA without using Microsoft created and distributed software, and without agreeing to Microsofts Terms & Conditions, EULAs and licencing agreements.

You can create a Win32 app without using any MS created or distributed software (including developing a Win32 without running windows at any point in time), without agreeing to any T&Cs, EULAs, Redistribution or Licensing agreements.

 

[KageMaru]

But what you've described there is effectively two separate games. They have different art assets and there's no way you'd be able to bring all the logic from a console game directly to mobile even if they do share the same codebase.

To be fair I don't think anyone is expecting games like Forza 7 to scale from a high end rig down to mobile phones on a single codebase.

However I can see the benefit for indie games like That War of Mine or even games like TT's The Walking Dead series. Instead of writing individual code for PS4/Pro, XBO/Scorpio, PC, and mobile, they potentially can write individual code for PS4/Pro and UWP. For higher end games, they can forgo mobile entirely and focus on PC, XBO, and Scorpio with the same (or very similar) codebase along with the PS4/Pro version. At least that's what I think they hope happens.

If you're going to include a PC or XBO version anyways, it may be beneficial to use this to include the other platform in an easier way.

Honestly I don't see it working out as well as they hope but we'll see.

 

[BlackClouds]

I don't know about you but I welcome the UWP future.

 

[Osiris]

You cannot create a UWA without using Microsoft created and distributed software, and without agreeing to Microsofts Terms & Conditions, EULAs and licencing agreements.

You keep stating things that are patently untrue and you obviously have flawed or very little knowledge of.

I can create, right now, a UWP app with a non-microsoft text editor, and compile with open source tools, without agreeing to any of Microsofts T&C's EULAS or licensing agreements.

Where do you get this rubbish from?

Example toolchain: Any text editor to develop, compiled with .Net Core (Full open source).

Ever think maybe your information is flawed, out of date, and just plain wrong?

Because it is.

 

[The Shift]

I'm honestly convinced that it won't be a Surface Phone, it'll be a handheld Surface with phone capabilities- see the recent announcement that ARM chips can now run full Windows 10.

Almost there:

http://www.graalphone.com/en/home/

That invokes "The Homer" imagery - kinda want though.

 

[LukasTaves]

But this still doesn't address a lot of problems for developers though. A "universal binary" is great, but when an AAA game is 50GB+, what use is that to mobile and tablet users?

The store is cloud based. It serves the client exactly what it need.

For example, even if you install a .net application from the store it will no longer give you the intermediate bytecode which would require your pc to have the latest .net CLR and compile at runtime. The store now compiles in the cloud for your pc and you already download the correct binary for the specific device you are on.

The same works for assets, the developer sets the device families and the user downloads only what is needed.

How do you optimise your games for each platform? The dev time for that doesn't suddenly reduce just because you only compile once rather than four times. Even on cutting edge tablets, you're effectively going to be playing a different version of Forza to the one on your Xbox. So why go through the impracticality of one app container at one price point?

Just like you would anywhere. UWP allows specific code for each platform, including low level cpu and memory access.

But, on the specifics of games, Ms has been testing for years now, tools and apis for the game to auto scale. Not just resolution and framerate. They have tools for scaling dynamically model quality, texture quality, effects quality, and so on. Of course, some of those requires pipeline changes so it might take a while, but as seen on Forza 6 Apex, Ms already has in place tools to set a target performance and let the game itself decide the quality of each setting considering how much headroom the system has at a given time.

Are Xbox/mobile users going to appreciate having to download large, updated apps over their capped data because you've patched PC code that they don't use?

Updates can be deployed separately. Both mobiles and apps are already doing so. Every once and a while Ms updates either the phone or the pc version of one of their bundled apps, and the update to the other platform takes a while because of known bugs.

In some cases like the photos app, the pc version currently has more editing tools, that are said to being ported to mobile but they are still working on performance and UI.

We've already seen Apple maintain two separate App Stores because even they understand, even with their walled gardens, one size fits all dev tools and shared architecture between iOS, tvOS, watchOS and macOS, that trying to tie desktop and mobile versions of programs into one app container just doesn't work on a practical level. Not least because both publishers and consumers have different price/feature/performance expectations on each platform.

That's what you got wrong. UWP is not one size fits all, that was winRT and Win8.

UWP and Win10 is all about understanding the underlying platform where your app is running and adapt to it, with very specific UI and logic if so is needed.

UWP is answering questions no developer or user was asking and even then many of those are only hypothetical answers. This is a world where PC gaming is ruled by traditional Win32 apps distributed by Valve, where 99% of mobile users are on Android and iOS and where more than half of console users are on PlayStation. Nothing UWP brings helps publishers address any of that so, truly, what is the point?

Wut? Plenty developers ask for unification of platforms. Win32 even is a result of such requests, because before that you had one programming model for desktop windows and another one for server. And for devices that demand is even higher. Just see the entire PDA/Mobile windows history. Or when apple first introduced the ipad, or even now on Android/Chrome OS.

And you are still wrong when you say there's no point, because one of the main drivers of uwp is to bring apps from other platforms easily to it. (And there's also work to bring uwp to those other platforms) while porting them to win32 basically means throwing everything away and starting over. But even if that was the case, there's the fact that developers that already develop win32 apps and games can continue to develop them as uwp and now gain more markets to explore almost for free.

But what you've described there is effectively two separate games. They have different art assets and there's no way you'd be able to bring all the logic from a console game directly to mobile even if they do share the same codebase.

Well, that's basically why uwp is needed.

You want to use a system shell? Very close api and code on both mobile and pc and console. Want to make a direct x call to render something? The same deal. Or receive player input? Connect to xbox Live? Play a sound? Access the storage?

Basically all common interactions are well, common. You can, and should have unique code for every platform, but that's usually low level optimizations and interface logic, both of which are usually a very small part of the codebase.

 

[00ich]

And what I don't understand is why don't people who hate it just ignore windows store and be happy with Steam? Instead of keep whining on every thread.

Microsoft serious about PC gaming is good for everyone.

Microsoft gaming = Xbox gaming,
steam, gog, humble, itch.io = pc gaming

Because if you are not interested in Xbox gaming but PC gaming every step Microsoft takes to extend their vertical integration of pc gaming (from visual studio, direct x, uwp) by exploiting their existing monopoly on desktop os's is a step in the wrong direction.

The best Microsoft can do with their desktop monopoly for pc gamer is to commit to improve the current, open win32 environment with non breaking changes that respect every major stakeholder in it.

Currently they are not doing that. Microsoft is not serious about pc gaming but extending Xbox gaming.

Why would anybody care? Because from Minecraft and Skyrim modding over Mantle to VR Win32's openness has proven to be a great platform for incubating future gaming trends.

Extending Xbox to the PC doesn't add anything new to gaming. You could still play everything on an Xbox.

 

[justsomeguy]

But what you've described there is effectively two separate games. They have different art assets and there's no way you'd be able to bring all the logic from a console game directly to mobile even if they do share the same codebase.

E: Answered in a post above better. I'm going back ti sleep

 

[00ich]

But, on the specifics of games, Ms has been testing for years now, tools and apis for the game to auto scale. Not just resolution and framerate. They have tools for scaling dynamically model quality, texture quality, effects quality, and so on. Of course, some of those requires pipeline changes so it might take a while, but as seen on Forza 6 Apex, Ms already has in place tools to set a target performance and let the game itself decide the quality of each setting considering how much headroom the system has at a given time.
...
And you are still wrong when you say there's no point, because one of the main drivers of uwp is to bring apps from other platforms easily to it. (And there's also work to bring uwp to those other platforms) while porting them to win32 basically means throwing everything away and starting over. But even if that was the case, there's the fact that developers that already develop win32 apps and games can continue to develop them as uwp and now gain more markets to explore almost free

The "pipeline changes" are the fundamental opposite of porting them easily. At some point you don't talk about apis but a full middleware you are programming to. It's unity only with not as many targets to deploy onto.
I bet that a port of forza to PlayStation is financially unattractive and will end up being technically disappointing.

Is there a larger game that is uwp and deployed for android?

 

[LordRaptor]

You keep stating things that are patently untrue and you obviously have flawed or very little knowledge of.

Um, no, I am stating how things actually currently are, not Microsofts aspirational goals for what they want.

You cannot build a UWA without using MS tools, and you cannot use the UWA framework without agreeing to MS EULA.

Here are MSDNs latest documents on beginning development for UWAs.

Whats this newer information that I am out of date on?
I mean, you must have a link handy as you are calling me a liar without any supporting evidence of that claim.

e:
And because I've played this shell game before with people saying "You can totally do that!" as wholy interchangeable with "MS said on stage at a presser that thats how theyd like things to work in the future!"; post the how to.
Post the step by step guide for developers to do this.

Because I can post the step by step guide from MSDN supporting my claim.

 

[Osiris]

Um, no, I am stating how things actually currently are, not Microsofts aspirational goals for what they want.

You cannot build a UWA without using MS tools, and you cannot use the UWA framework without agreeing to MS EULA.

Here are MSDNs latest documents on beginning development for UWAs.

Whats this newer information that I am out of date on?
I mean, you must have a link handy as you are calling me a liar without any supporting evidence of that claim.

e:
And because I've played this shell game before with people saying "You can totally do that!" as wholy interchangeable with "MS said on stage at a presser that thats how theyd like things to work in the future!"; post the how to.
Post the step by step guide for developers to do this.

Because I can post the step by step guide from MSDN supporting my claim.

Microsoft recommends VS for obvious reasons, but it is not required, it's recommended becuase it's the best (and only, until Rider releases) IDE for .Net development, and only masochists still compile from the command-line.
(Unless you need the flexibility, don't come at me CLI devs! )

You can build UWP apps without VS by using the Roslyn .Net compiler tools.



Notice that last sentence?, just before the nuget commands?

Lets let an image from Microsoft put any doubt to rest:

Roslyn can be used for compilation of any C# code, including that which targets UWP, Roslyn is being used by JetBeans Project Rider and they are currently adding UWP support (Including a GUI XAML editor) into their non-Microsoft IDE.
But you don't need to wait for Rider (Still in very early beta, too much is missing still for me to use it.), you can use the .NET Core command-line interface tools to compile a UWP app.

You wouldn't want to though, the toolset is still largely undocumented, and writing the complete application (including all the necessary mainifests etc.) in a text editor would be unnecessarily laborious.

But it can be done, legally, and without any requirement to accept any T&Cs or EULA.

 

[LordRaptor]

But it can be done, legally, and without any requirement to accept any T&Cs or EULA.

License
By downloading the .zip you are agreeing to the terms in the project EULA.

So a bunch of hoops to jump through, to use bleeding edge workaround code, to end up agreeing to the EULA anyway.

And that's a draw because....?

 

[LukasTaves]

The "pipeline changes" are the fundamental opposite of porting them easily. At some point you don't talk about apis but a full middleware you are programming to. It's unity only with not as many targets to deploy onto.
I bet that a port of forza to PlayStation is financially unattractive and will end up being technically disappointing.

Is there a larger game that is uwp and deployed for android?

Pipeline changes to have auto scaling assets. You can still have the good old fixed number of presets and simply set a target to any of those presets, and them for a console version you set those assets into an specific setting that might not match any of these presets just like it is today.

However, for a developer that wants to target many devices configuration, potentially from phones, to consoles and a high range of PCs you might want to use an auto scalable solution so the platform itself knows the asset quality best suited to it, and there are now tools that help you with that. Not just on uwp I might add, but they have been adding those tools and features right to their IDE years from now. This will actually save time specially in the long run after your studio adhere to a new content pipeline, because you no longer have to adapt the asset manually to the target platform.

 

[LukasTaves]

e:
And because I've played this shell game before with people saying "You can totally do that!" as wholy interchangeable with "MS said on stage at a presser that thats how theyd like things to work in the future!"; post the how to.
Post the step by step guide for developers to do this.

Because I can post the step by step guide from MSDN supporting my claim.

When talking about certificates for instance, I'm not talking about anything Ms has shown in a conference or that will come in the future.

But uwp relies on the same certificate store that windows has for years, and I know for a fact that anyone can create a valid certificate and that end users who trust you can install that certificate so your applications become trusted.

And I know that because I already worked in project for a company that required any software to run on their machines to be certificated, even when in development.

 

[Osiris]

So a bunch of hoops to jump through, to use bleeding edge workaround code, to end up agreeing to the EULA anyway.

And that's a draw because....?

What, you expect no license at all and just public domain software?

Now who is being ridiculous?

Your requirements on that front would have even Richard Stallman laughing at you, now please go and find me a compiler on any platform with no license at all.

 

[LordRaptor]

What, you expect no license at all and just public domain software?

Your requirements on that front would have even Richard Stallman laughing at you.

Now who is being ridiculous?

I don't know, you're apparently changing your argument from "you're totally misinformed, No EULA required" to "You're totally ridiculous to expect no EULA".

If I don't live in the US, it is not unreasonable to not expect to be bound by US customs regarding where I can distribute software.
If I am creating software it is not unreasonable to expect that I can redistribute required libraries as part of my executable, not as a seperate required installer (a common gripe with PC games based on MSs redistribution policies)

But please, continue to tell me how ridiculous and uninformed I am and how great UWA is.

 

[sugarhigh4242]

SteamOS, please.

 

[retardedrockstar]

I don't see the problem there. Maybe devs will finally start moving over to UWP.

and gamers over to consoles then...

 

[Deadbeat]

and gamers over to consoles then...

If MS cant have the pc market, they will make sure noone can.

 

[FrontalMonk]

I feel like I'm missing a really important part of the puzzle here. Is there any reason for people to develop for UWP unless they want to have a game that runs on W10 and XB1 with minimal port stress? Because that seems like what this is designed to do. Any dev worth their salt that actually wants to get that PC gaming pie isn't going to use this because it inherently limits their audience since it won't be for Win7/8 users, so literally the only thing that's going to happen here is UWP will be the sole domain of Microsoft developed products like Gears and KI.

This other argument about EULAs seems asinine by comparison. Who is going to only develop for half of PC gamers?

 

[LordRaptor]

I feel like I'm missing a really important part of the puzzle here. Is there any reason for people to develop for UWP unless they want to have a game that runs on W10 and XB1 with minimal port stress? Because that seems like what this is designed to do.

UWA is (was) designed to make it easy for people already developing Windows applications to port those to mobile devices, with the expectation that MS can leverage their popularity in the desktop space to gain traction in the mobile space.

For whatever reason, the Xbox team decided to choose UWA as their format for AAA traditional Pc gaming, despite the format never being intended for that and the storefront being unsuitable for that.

The time involved in making an actual PC title not in UWA is the same time involved in making a UWA for PC version of a previously Xbox only title, because the two platforms are fundamentally not interchangeable.
So as you say, there is zero incentive for a developer to choose to do that when they could spend that same amount of time making that same title as a W32 application where they get none of the downsides and can sell it on a marketplace that actually buys games.

e:
And I brought up EULAs, because - as a PC gamer myself - one of the hurdles to full BPM mode with just a controller is that any title utilising DirectX or VC++ (which are many) cannot just 'one click install' by providing the actual files used to develop the title, because due to MS EULA and redistribution policies (which have not changed) you cannot provide those files yourself, you must run an MS installer to check for those files, which is a clunky and unnecessary step that exists solely because MS like to hold major point revisions of things like DirectX hostage to a new major point OS version.

They could change this, which would be a very easy QoL improvement for the installation process of a number of Pc games.
They won't change this.

 

[Durante]

What, you expect no license at all and just public domain software?

Now who is being ridiculous?

Your requirements on that front would have even Richard Stallman laughing at you, now please go and find me a compiler on any platform with no license at all.

All compilers have licenses. At the same time, most don't have EULAs. You can download, install and run both GCC and LLVM/Clang without agreeing to any EULA.

 

[sugarhigh4242]

They could change this, which would be a very easy QoL improvement for the installation process of a number of Pc games.
They won't change this.

Yeah, for me this was always the main appeal of the SteamOS project. Windows is just unsuitable as a livingroom interface. I'm a Steam loyalist, but if MS simply bundled the Xbox One UI into Windows 10, that could be pretty disruptive. I think Valve would have to respond quickly with improvements to Big Picture Mode. Maybe quicker than they're actually capable of.

 

[boneyjangles]

This seems kinda ludicrous to get upset about.

In terms of playing the "big experience demanding games" on a typical desktop gaming PC, any kind of improvement you would get form the OS freeing up resources for a gaming application, will be microscopic to non-existent. 15-20 years ago there was an argument for disabling, and tweaking the OS to be more lean that I don't think is relevant any more.

Now when you have noises about moving to ARM, and the inevitable move of windows in general to low powered laptop/tablets as the primary PC devices, I can see the use of this. It's about maximizing gaming performance/impact on less powerful devices.

There is a strange view that it's the steam way or the hightway, I totally don't get this, Sure it's OCD to have all your games in one place, but that's it really. I don't care blizzard games aren't on there or whatever, in fact I kinda like not having to launch and dig through whatever myriad of pop up spam steam is going to throw at me when I launch. Steam isn't some perfect paradise.

But at the same time, I understand Valves desire to make steam more platform neutral and less windows dependent, and I understand MS's desire to get a slice of windows gaming market sales. Neither are upsetting or bad for the PC gamers.

 

[FrontalMonk]

UWA is (was) designed to make it easy for people already developing Windows applications to port those to mobile devices, with the expectation that MS can leverage their popularity in the desktop space to gain traction in the mobile space.

For whatever reason, the Xbox team decided to choose UWA as their format for AAA traditional Pc gaming, despite the format never being intended for that and the storefront being unsuitable for that.

The time involved in making an actual PC title not in UWA is the same time involved in making a UWA for PC version of a previously Xbox only title, because the two platforms are fundamentally not interchangeable.
So as you say, there is zero incentive for a developer to choose to do that when they could spend that same amount of time making that same title as a W32 application where they get none of the downsides and can sell it on a marketplace that actually buys games.

And since we all know how popular Windows Mobile is, this is likely to be about as important as GFWL, which is to say it's going to be a blip on the radar other than the occasional XB1->PC port. Just like how everyone bitched about Origin/uPlay, and now it's just ignored except for the occasional EA/Ubi game worth playing.

 

[outunderthestars]

Called it!

Into the trash it goes.jpg

ditto.

 

[cakely]

This seems kinda ludicrous to get upset about.

In terms of playing the "big experience demanding games" on a typical desktop gaming PC, any kind of improvement you would get form the OS freeing up resources for a gaming application, will be microscopic to non-existent. 15-20 years ago there was an argument for disabling, and tweaking the OS to be more lean that I don't think is relevant any more.

Now when you have noises about moving to ARM, and the inevitable move of windows in general to low powered laptop/tablets as the primary PC devices, I can see the use of this. It's about maximizing gaming performance/impact on less powerful devices.

There is a strange view that it's the steam way or the hightway, I totally don't get this, Sure it's OCD to have all your games in one place, but that's it really. I don't care blizzard games aren't on there or whatever, in fact I kinda like not having to launch and dig through whatever myriad of pop up spam steam is going to throw at me when I launch. Steam isn't some perfect paradise.

But at the same time, I understand Valves desire to make steam more platform neutral and less windows dependent, and I understand MS's desire to get a slice of windows gaming market sales. Neither are upsetting or bad for the PC gamers.

I don't think people are upset, or "mad" as mentioned earlier in the thread.

There was interest in Game Mode. It's potentially a performance increase for PC games, and everyone likes the sound of that.

I think there's disappointment that that performance increase is only going to be for games that use the UWP framework, because there's a very limited number of those compared to the huge library of Win32 games currently available.

 

[Zedox]

I don't think people are upset, or "mad" as mentioned earlier in the thread.

There was interest in Game Mode. It's potentially a performance increase for PC games, and everyone likes the sound of that.

I think there's disappointment that that performance increase is only going to be for games that use the UWP framework, because there's a very limited number of those compared to the huge library of Win32 games currently available.

I don't understand the disappointment when that's not what Game mode was about in the first place. It's a dev tool (according to the article)

 

[boneyjangles]

Also, anyone remember when steam started out? People were out with pitchforks, defending the norm of downloading and installing game point releases manually from random websites. The mass stupidity is now long since airbrushed over.

 

[Zedox]

Also, anyone remember when steam started out? People were out with pitchforks, defending the norm of downloading and installing point releases for games manually from random websites. The mass stupidity is now long since airbrushed over.

Don't bring that up...it's the same arguments people have had for the past year...*sigh*

 

[Armaros]

Also, anyone remember when steam started out? The masses were out with pitchforks, defending the norm of downloading and installing point releases for games manually from random websites. The mass stupidity is now long since airbrushed over.

Yes we should compare Microsoft in 2017 to Steam over a decade ago, and this is obviously Microsoft first run at PC Gaming and a online store.

Don't bring that up...it's the same arguments people have had for the past year...*sigh*

yes dont bring it up because it looks even more stupid to compare Steam of old to MICROSOFT, WHO STILL CANT GET IT RIGHT AFTER A DECADE with a prime examples of how to do it right layed in front of them.

 

[Ghost]

Funny how long the terrible decision to force universal apps to go through the store in Windows 8 has poisoned people's minds against doing away with Win32.

If they'd just done it right in the first place and made it exactly as open as Win32 was it would probably have been a done deal by now. Goes to show you how far (backwards) the business side of things has come over the years, they can't introduce anything without adding a way to make money from it (even if they then have to spend 5 years rolling back all the restrictions and taking all the potential monetisation out to get anyone to use it).

 

[Lothars]

Also, anyone remember when steam started out? People were out with pitchforks, defending the norm of downloading and installing game point releases manually from random websites. The mass stupidity is now long since airbrushed over.

There is a difference between how Steam was handled at launch than Microsoft has handled. One has supported and updated and One has dropped support for one application now to have the windows store.

Microsoft deserves no benefit of the doubt from this and deserves cynicism until they can prove otherwise.

 

[Zedox]

yes dont bring it up because it looks even more stupid to compare Steam of old to MICROSOFT, WHO STILL CANT GET IT RIGHT AFTER A DECADE with a prime examples of how to do it right layed in front of them.

Steam is doing exactly what Windows Store is doing or the other way around? I'm definitely under the impression that they have hugely different goals in mind, but w/e.

 

[Armaros]

Steam is doing exactly what Windows Store is doing or the other way around? I'm definitely under the impression that they have hugely different goals in mind, but w/e.

More like not even meeting the standards of a online store in 2010 much less 2017?

but W/E. Continue to miss the point so you can say that Microsoft deserves a fourth chance and they REALLY MEAN WELL this time.

 

[Spartancarver]

This should be a good way to get developers to move up to UWP. Makes sense.

I don't see the problem there. Maybe devs will finally start moving over to UWP.

I think I found the 2 people who were playing CoD IW on the Windows Store edition.

 

[cakely]

I don't understand the disappointment when that's not what Game mode was about in the first place. It's a dev tool (according to the article)

Here's the original article from the first GAF topic about Game Mode.

http://m.windowscentral.com/microsoft-bringing-new-game-mode-windows-10-enhanced-pc-gaming-experience

Microsoft is working on a brand new "Game Mode" feature for Windows 10 that will enhance the PC gaming experience by minimizing resources used by running apps to almost nothing and allocating freed up resources to the game, making it run faster, better and smoother overall.

You posted in that original thread, so I'm assuming you read the article. Based on that, it sounds Game Mode would improve game performance, doesn't it? Well, that's why some people are disappointed that it's only for UWP.

 

[KageMaru]

Here's the original article from the first GAF topic about Game Mode.

http://m.windowscentral.com/microsoft-bringing-new-game-mode-windows-10-enhanced-pc-gaming-experience



You posted in that original thread, so I'm assuming you read the article. Based on that, it sounds Game Mode would improve game performance, doesn't it? Well, that's why some people are disappointed that it's only for UWP.

That article was edited and corrected quickly though. Some people are ignoring things just to bitch and troll.

 

[Dinky Dino]

I think whats been touted as 'game mode' is a form of hardware abstraction that solves the PC performance disparities with cross-platform (PC & Console) games, i.e. by enabling "game mode" (via API's during development) devs will be able to "lock" a PC into a known performance profile that matches their consoles provided it meets certain requirements & minimizes the O/S overhead to the same overhead of consoles.as a method to solve the issues early PlayAnywhere games had with differing performance, which would make even "finalizing" as you put it unnecessary, and even enable true, full cross-platform mutiplayer gaming across both platforms.

We'll see, looking forward to GDC

Well the same article went on about it keeps "95% of the existing project code intact" even for scorpio so I assume they still have to put some degree of work into each platform since the pc version often has more graphical options and different UIs when it comes to mouse and keyboards. It's still interesting to see whether they will succeed or not or if the pc versions of these apps will be any good. I mean the opposite could happen and it could be just a lazy way for devs to put things on pc while stuff like the scorpio would be alright since it uses a single configuration. Though on the other hand it could cut down work for devs on the pc side. It's a good thing win32 is still the most popular with steam just in case this doesn't work out.

 

[Nzyme32]

Also, anyone remember when steam started out? People were out with pitchforks, defending the norm of downloading and installing game point releases manually from random websites. The mass stupidity is now long since airbrushed over.

..14 years ago from a tiny company that had next to no infrastructure or expertise, attempting something that hadn't been done before with no previous examples of the forthcoming issues. Without doubt Valve / Steam had major failings up till about just prior to EP1 release in 2006. I preffered the "old fashioned way" back when WON was around because it was all I knew, and Steam was abysmal since it couldn't scale to fit the number of users.

But of course, MS deserves some slack since they are at the same scale and technology as back then, as a company of the same size doing such a service for the first time.

 

[LordRaptor]

Also, anyone remember when steam started out? People were out with pitchforks, defending the norm of downloading and installing game point releases manually from random websites. The mass stupidity is now long since airbrushed over.

Its more like remember when MS announced that 24 hours without internet made your Xbox 1 a brick, and people defended how a mandatory internet connection to use your consumer electronics device at all was the glorious inevitable future.

Until it clearly fucking wasn't.

 

[Candescence]

As a developer, UWP doesn't offer me anything of substance that Win32 doesn't already provide, along with unacceptable drawbacks.

Firstly, UWP locks me out of the entire non-W10 market, which, according to Steam, is still half the damn PC market, and that's really only because of practically illegally aggressive free upgrade push MS did, and according to sources from Lionhead, W10 adoption was not remotely as good as MS expected. So you still need to have another binary outside of the Windows Store, but why bother with putting your program on a store nobody uses? So no point using UWP for that reason, then.

Secondly, Windows Phone is practically dead, and pretty much all major engines already port to both PC, console and mobile anyway, so that's moot as well. But you don't get anything to help with porting to non-Windows platforms, so that's hardly a benefit, especially if you're already using an engine/framework that already supports everything UWP does and more. Also, anyone who is actively developing a game for PC, console and mobile simultaneously is a fucking madman for a variety of reasons. Just saying.

Thirdly, the "security advantages" are kind of moot when the main storefronts already check for malware and such, and modders can do, far far less with your game. That's also a big point against it.

So... The big points for UWP are this so-called "extra security" and being able to port between PC, Xbox and WP more easily (but doesn't make it easier for porting to other platforms)? Um... I don't see the point.

 

[Zedox]

More like not even meeting the standards of a online store in 2010 much less 2017?

but W/E. Continue to miss the point so you can say that Microsoft deserves a fourth chance and they REALLY MEAN WELL this time.

Miss the point? Hey, if you don't care for what they are doing, you don't have to give them any chances. No one said you have to like them. I'm not here trying to convince anyone, people will have their opinion. Keep putting words in my mouth in what you think I'm trying to do since you know everything about my intentions.

Windows Store isn't up to snuff to other stores, that's not some hidden knowledge or something me or others are refuting. The two applications/webfronts do serve different purposes with a lot of overlap. It's not out of the question that you can compare the two because there is overlap but understanding what each are trying to achieve and how they go about doing it also needs to be known accurately.

Windows Store is tied to the Universal Windows Platform, and with that, it will have shortcomings because that platform itself isn't mature and in the same vein MS hasn't designed it in a way that is beneficial for all user types (namely gaming) as that is one of goals for the Windows Store. That isn't something that is new. If you are interested in what they are doing and you aren't happy with where they are, you would have to be patient. If you aren't interested in what they are doing, ignore.

It seems like to me that you aren't interested in what they are doing, so why are you acting so butthurt? GFWL? Oh, you mean that thing that was created by another team to actually compete with Steam directly and was all about gaming and had nothing to do with the platform underneath? Yea, it sucked for how MS at the time treated their customers and their support for that platform. I can understand the disdain for the company because of it.

Well, I'm sorry that I don't view a company that has changed since that time as the same company that came out with GFWL (where that team actually competed with Xbox). I don't hold grudges especially when I see a lot of change in a company and their leadership executives. You can if that's your opinion and your viewpoint.

Steam's primary focus is gaming store and community (though they have ventured to do other things). They aren't going anywhere. They have a mature product. The storefront has undergone a lot of changes over the years. They were built on top of Win32 when it started out and then ventured off to being platform agnostic. They weren't built on an immature platform. If Steam wanted to, they could build a UWP app and still deliver what they are today but you can bet that there would be shortcomings because of the platform underneath it. Maybe one day they will. Who knows.

My thing is, building an app on an immature platform vs. building an app on a mature platform will yield different and obvious results.

Here's the original article from the first GAF topic about Game Mode.

http://m.windowscentral.com/microsoft-bringing-new-game-mode-windows-10-enhanced-pc-gaming-experience



You posted in that original thread, so I'm assuming you read the article. Based on that, it sounds Game Mode would improve game performance, doesn't it? Well, that's why some people are disappointed that it's only for UWP.

Yes, that is totally correct, but if you read the article from the OP in its entirety and not just going off of what that article stated, you would have a clearer understanding of what Game Mode is. Being ignorant when people have stated what it truly is (and I posted the whole article in the thread because of it) is not a good reason to still be disappointed in something that doesn't exist.

Yes, I did post in that original thread and I do understand why you would be disappointed at the title of this thread based off of that...but one should read to get better understanding. That's like getting news from headlines and not reading but being so strong willed about something you really have no idea what it's about.

 

[cakely]

That article was edited and corrected quickly though. Some people are ignoring things just to bitch and troll.

My quote was from the article as it reads right now, I don't remember the original article well enough to remember the edits.

 

[Diablohead]

Also, anyone remember when steam started out? People were out with pitchforks, defending the norm of downloading and installing game point releases manually from random websites. The mass stupidity is now long since airbrushed over.

Before 2009 I was on a pentium 4 pc with 768MB of ram and as steam was becoming it's own thing it was having performance issues with games for me, I was one of those moaning people and wished that their newer games did not use steam to function.

Once I bought a core2duo pc in 2009 that all changed, I think most modern pc's are ok with background processes like that now.

 

[Zedox]

My quote was from the article as it reads right now, I don't remember the original article well enough to remember the edits.

He incorrectly assumed you posted form the article in the OP and not the article from which a lot of this information came from. That's what happens when you don't click into and read information from links .

 

[Armaros]

Miss the point? Hey, if you don't care for what they are doing, you don't have to give them any chances. No one said you have to like them. I'm not here trying to convince anyone, people will have their opinion. Keep putting words in my mouth in what you think I'm trying to do since you know everything about my intentions.

Windows Store isn't up to snuff to other stores, that's not some hidden knowledge or something me or others are refuting. The two applications/webfronts do serve different purposes with a lot of overlap. It's not out of the question that you can compare the two because there is overlap but understanding what each are trying to achieve and how they go about doing it also needs to be known accurately.

Windows Store is tied to the Universal Windows Platform, and with that, it will have shortcomings because that platform itself isn't mature and in the same vein MS hasn't designed it in a way that is beneficial for all user types (namely gaming) as that is one of goals for the Windows Store. That isn't something that is new. If you are interested in what they are doing and you aren't happy with where they are, you would have to be patient. If you aren't interested in what they are doing, ignore.

It seems like to me that you aren't interested in what they are doing, so why are you acting so butthurt? GFWL? Oh, you mean that thing that was created by another team to actually compete with Steam directly and was all about gaming and had nothing to do with the platform underneath? Yea, it sucked for how MS at the time treated their customers and their support for that platform. I can understand the disdain for the company because of it.

Well, I'm sorry that I don't view a company that has changed since that time as the same company that came out with GFWL (where that team actually competed with Xbox). I don't hold grudges especially when I see a lot of change in a company and their leadership executives. You can if that's your opinion and your viewpoint.

Steam's primary focus is gaming store and community (though they have ventured to do other things). They aren't going anywhere. They have a mature product. The storefront has undergone a lot of changes over the years. They were built on top of Win32 when it started out and then ventured off to being platform agnostic. They weren't built on an immature platform. If Steam wanted to, they could build a UWP app and still deliver what they are today but you can bet that there would be shortcomings because of the platform underneath it. Maybe one day they will. Who knows.

My thing is, building an app on an immature platform vs. building an app on a mature platform will yield different and obvious results.



Yes, that is totally correct, but if you read the article from the OP in its entirety and not just going off of what that article stated, you would have a clearer understanding of what Game Mode is. Being ignorant when people have stated what it truly is (and I posted the whole article in the thread because of it) is not a good reason to still be disappointed in something that doesn't exist.

Yes, I did post in that original thread and I do understand why you would be disappointed at the title of this thread based off of that...but one should read to get better understanding. That's like getting news from headlines and not reading but being so strong willed about something you really have no idea what it's about.

So all in the end, You expect me to trust them with no real reason to. Telling me what Microsoft hope to do, is not a reason for me to have any patience with them.

And you tell me to ignore what Microsoft is doing when they are directly sticking their head back into the pool and demanding we listen to them? When Microsoft still have their controls over PC Gaming with DirectX and how their Windows updates affect games?

 

[LordRaptor]

If Steam wanted to, they could build a UWP app and still deliver what they are today but you can bet that there would be shortcomings because of the platform underneath it. Maybe one day they will. Who knows.

My thing is, building an app on an immature platform vs. building an app on a mature platform will yield different and obvious results.

The point isn't that UWA is immature, so early adopters will struggle with teething issues; DirectX 12 is also immature, but developers are more than happy to grapple with it because it has tangible benefits for doing so.

The problem is that UWA is missing expected features by design. It's not bugs that need fixing, or not yet implemented developer requests; it is working as originally intended.
It makes a lot of sense to have encrypted program files for your mobile banking app, for example.

The mistake is using UWA for traditional desktop games, which its clearly not intended to be used for, and thats a mistake that literally cannot be fixed without fundamentally compromising the entire purpose UWA was created for in the first place.