-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
GI.biz: Microsoft needs to clarify gaming vision (UWP)
- Thread starter Man
- Start date
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.
XboxGo2Skype
Banned
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. Thanks
Disaster Nebraska
Banned
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.
We did advise you of why. I don't think your responses have much to say in the other direction. They have made many anti-competitive moves in the past. So much of the details around the UWP plays into that history and you don't think we should be concerned. Well we think you are wrong and don't have much to say in response.
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.
For some reason this seems like an accurate analog to Microsoft: Too Many Cooks
Papacheeks
Banned
Have you been paying attention to people who have been on gaf in these similar threads? Some of them are developers dude.
And you talking to a wall, and not listening what people are trying to tell you, that you should go and take a gander at the other threads.
Uno Venova
Banned
Can we just go back to Albert Penello telling us it will be alright?
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...
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...
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.
Eh don't expect much at GDC. The info is coming out at build at the end of the month.
This man now speaks for me
Papacheeks
Banned
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.
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.
Thanks for your thoughts and insights. Appreciated.
You're completely right, and posting on the wrong forum for this sort of logic.
I can't roll my eyes hard enough at posts like these. Microsoft has a long and well-documented history of anti-competitive behavior. Fearing the worst is absolutely reasonable when it comes to them.
What's the worst that can happen with an outcry, anyway? Why is it so awful?
Papacheeks
Banned
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.
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.
Oh I forgot build was soon as well.
GDC will have some announcements but not the whole of what UWP means as it's more than just games. //build/ is 2 weeks after GDC. We will get some information for game developers (obviously) so things like vsync, overlays and stuff could be talked about then. That's what I would expect.
Papacheeks
Banned
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.
TheHellsLord
Member
I don't see what you mean by MS's silence on UWA. Basically all the information on what can and can't be done using that technology is out there. Basically all the information can be found here: https://dev.windows.com/en-us/games/develop
As far as their goals with UWP are concerned. UWP is Microsoft's way of moving Windows forward. It's a programming model that can fit on different types of devices and enforces certain programming patterns that tend to give users a better experience (e.g. asychronous I/O). However they need to show programmers that it's a viable plattform: e.g. mature enough to build big projects with. That's where I think those recent releases on the Windows Store come in. It's about proving to developer's that everything you need to build a AAA game is available inside the UWP.
Another facet of course is the Windows Store as it's unproven as well. If Microsoft manages to generate sales using those Games it has a Halo effect for regular software development as well - as it shows that the user base is there that will purchase more than just mobile apps.
Alright, yea. I think I get where you're coming from here as well now.
Basically, if Gears hits the store and runs like ass, then a whole bunch of people will simply assume it's a problem with universal apps, even if that's not the case... so the negativity surrounding Gears has an adverse effect on the perception of the store and Windows apps. This I can agree with. I don't think we should be assigning that blame in this thread however, as we do know better than that, and "don't rush flagship releases" isn't useful in regards to actually improving the areas that UWPs and the store are lacking in. We're not (or at least shouldn't be) concerned with the perception the store and UWPs have here... but more how they actually function, and what they do. What they're not currently doing is destroying the performance of games in comparison to a Win32 release, and developers will know that regardless of a bad port launching there.
Some there most likely, but didn't they specify //build where we'd learn more?
Silence would be saying nothing at all. They responded very quickly to Sweeney's assertions that it would be open, available to use by any store, and we'd learn more at //build.
People can wait 3 weeks to get the full story.
Dyson Industries
Banned
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
AncientDiety
Banned
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.
AncientDiety
Banned
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.
I think there is a reasonable line where we neither defend the indefensible not jump on things for no reason.
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.
roadrunn3r
Member
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.
win32 is open by default
uwp is closed by default
even if microsoft extends the capability of uwp it will not ever reach the point where it is really comparable to win32, this is by design. they can poke some more managed holes in the sandbox but the sandbox is still there.
there's upsides for security with this approach and downsides for flexibility. it means that microsoft will always have more control over your uwp applications than your win32 ones. it means that wanting to do things they haven't approved will be based on security holes that will be plugged and break functionality. it means that the path to decreasing competition and consolidating power in the PC market is wide open to them.
//build will not change these fundamental facts unless microsoft is willing to entirely throw out the most fundamental design philosophy for the most important project they've debuted in the last 20 years.
uwp is closed by default
even if microsoft extends the capability of uwp it will not ever reach the point where it is really comparable to win32, this is by design. they can poke some more managed holes in the sandbox but the sandbox is still there.
there's upsides for security with this approach and downsides for flexibility. it means that microsoft will always have more control over your uwp applications than your win32 ones. it means that wanting to do things they haven't approved will be based on security holes that will be plugged and break functionality. it means that the path to decreasing competition and consolidating power in the PC market is wide open to them.
//build will not change these fundamental facts unless microsoft is willing to entirely throw out the most fundamental design philosophy for the most important project they've debuted in the last 20 years.
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.
well the important thing is that you found a way to make yourself feel superior to both sides
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
I can't believe how much energy is wasted on those knocking fellow gamer/consumers in defense of the infallible MSFT with their copious track record.
Thanks for the correction. I was getting my information from articles and not my own research. The following is from Microsoft's documentation:
Microsoft said:
This is weird because it's exactly what Tim Sweeney suggested be allowed in his most recent article on the subject. Maybe I misread what he was saying. It's not great that it's referred to as "side-loading", but at least it can be done without Microsoft as an intermediate.
EraErr0r1
Member
A Microsoft "Steambox" that utilised a complete Windows 10 Desktop AND a "Big Screen Mode" (current X1 interface) which booted X1 games natively would be a perfect fit for me.
The flexibility to have multiple PC stores and programs available alongside the traditional console format is perfectly feasable. Microsoft could release an updated Xbox One to accommodate these features and not alienate previous customers as the games would work on either X1 console.
Particularly if Microsoft are going to give away free PC versions of their first party titles with the Xbox edition, I can't see why they shouldn't take this path. A great way to differentiate themselves from Sony's PS4 in which they're flailing terribly.
The flexibility to have multiple PC stores and programs available alongside the traditional console format is perfectly feasable. Microsoft could release an updated Xbox One to accommodate these features and not alienate previous customers as the games would work on either X1 console.
Particularly if Microsoft are going to give away free PC versions of their first party titles with the Xbox edition, I can't see why they shouldn't take this path. A great way to differentiate themselves from Sony's PS4 in which they're flailing terribly.
LordRaptor
Member
I'm going by what others have said, I didn't buy it and have no intention of ever buying anything on the Win 10 Store as it currently is.
If it was a smooth launch, I've been misled.
I'm not sure if you are not following my point, or if you're unaware of how the publishers - developer relationship works;
Gears is an MS published game, and they had complete control over its release date. If they wanted to they could delay it as long as they wanted or even cancel it completely.
The Coalition would have been paid on a work-for-hire contracted basis over the course of the development, usually in the form of milestone payments from the publisher at contractually obligated intervals by demonstrating contractually obligated progress.
The timeline of Gears being released without any previous indication that it exists, or any prior marketing to build an audience for it prior to release is entirely on the Publisher, in this case MS themselves.
Similar threads
- Locked