Support NeoGAF

[Zedox]

Sure, but if you don't know anyone who owns a Windows Phone or an Xbox One, there is no real benefit to any system allowing you access to those people.

If you are a regular Pc gamer, I think it is vastly more likely that you have a friends list made up of Steam users so releasing a game that explicitly locks you out of that existing friends list is a net loss, not a net gain.

That's a "if" just like the opposite is a "if".

 

[JaggedSac]

UWP defines 'device families', so an app targeting a device family X has access to all the APIs provided by X. You have 'Universal' (can't do much, but is on all devices) and inheriting from that e.g. desktop, xbox, iot etc. So if you want to target xbox, you select that device family and if the app also has to run on desktop, you need to do some extra work if the api you're using isn't available on the other device family. Depending on what language you use, if it's a .NET language, it is the same code running on both, if it's C++, you'll have multiple compilation targets (x86, arm etc.). All outputs are packaged into the same package, the device will pick the one it can run.

UWP offers some win32 api's, but that's a minor subset.

If you write an UWP app, you thus target the UWP api provided by the device family of choice. This means that if you want to ship it as a normal win32 app, you have to redo all code which utilizes UWP api's as UWP isn't a wrapper around win32, it's an 'alternative'. Also, if you have a win32 app and want to ship it as a UWP, you have to redo all code that utilizes Win32 APIs that are not available in the UWP api provided by the device family of choice.

In practice this means that a lot of code can be re-used (as it's general purpose code, e.g. in the context of games, the scene graph of the 3D engine, data structures libraries, game logic etc.) and some parts have to be re-done, like user interfaces, code that utilizes the device's screen / input etc, or in the context of games: render pipelines, rasterization, I/O etc.

So it's not 'build for UWP' and it runs everywhere. The marketing wants you to believe that, the small print tells otherwise.

If your application is only going to be a UWP(and which is the scenario one means when saying write once run everywhere), you can in fact create a single project in VS, target the platforms of choice and write one set of code. I wouldn't consider coding for different device UIs and features(gps, sensors, etc) as not writing once running everywhere. Seems a strange distinction.

 

[LordRaptor]

That's a "if" just like the opposite is a "if".

I think its fair to say that statistically it is probable that if you have friends with mobile phones they have IOS or Android on those phones, if they are playing PC games they have a Steam account and that if they are a console only gamer they have a Playstation 4, but I will concede that those aren't universal truths.

 

[queequegs__coffin]

That's ok. I'm chuffed enough that it's coming to PC. Good on Microsoft.

 

[LukasTaves]

These are highly questionable benefits for someone who is already a PC gamer and has been for any length of time, not people who are currently Xbox gamers and are thinking about picking up a PC as well.
- I already have a single profile for all my games. Its my Steam account. I've had it for over a decade now. Because the PC is super open as a platform I can even play my EA and Blizzard games through their own launchers while still using my Steam profile.
- All my Mac and Linux friends can play with me too. I can even cross play with IOS and Android friends on some titles.
- All my games auto update and offer notifications, and those communications carry over to the steam phone app

I didn't know about those, so yeah, the benefit is diminished.

However, which games are cross play with mobile? I've been out of mobile gaming for a while, but I remember waiting for them to finally enable Dungeon Defenders cross play with android and never came XD (that I'm aware of)

 

[LukasTaves]

UWP defines 'device families', so an app targeting a device family X has access to all the APIs provided by X. You have 'Universal' (can't do much, but is on all devices) and inheriting from that e.g. desktop, xbox, iot etc. So if you want to target xbox, you select that device family and if the app also has to run on desktop, you need to do some extra work if the api you're using isn't available on the other device family. Depending on what language you use, if it's a .NET language, it is the same code running on both, if it's C++, you'll have multiple compilation targets (x86, arm etc.). All outputs are packaged into the same package, the device will pick the one it can run.

UWP offers some win32 api's, but that's a minor subset.

If you write an UWP app, you thus target the UWP api provided by the device family of choice. This means that if you want to ship it as a normal win32 app, you have to redo all code which utilizes UWP api's as UWP isn't a wrapper around win32, it's an 'alternative'. Also, if you have a win32 app and want to ship it as a UWP, you have to redo all code that utilizes Win32 APIs that are not available in the UWP api provided by the device family of choice.

In practice this means that a lot of code can be re-used (as it's general purpose code, e.g. in the context of games, the scene graph of the 3D engine, data structures libraries, game logic etc.) and some parts have to be re-done, like user interfaces, code that utilizes the device's screen / input etc, or in the context of games: render pipelines, rasterization, I/O etc.

So it's not 'build for UWP' and it runs everywhere. The marketing wants you to believe that, the small print tells otherwise.

The write once/run anywhere marketing mantra is regarding uwapps though. They don't mean that a single project will be able to be easily ported to win32 or even other platforms (though I think they are heading that way as well, they are just not there). But for distributing on the store, it seems really close to write once run everywhere from the little I've seen.

 

[Zedox]

I didn't know about those, so yeah, the benefit is diminished.

However, which games are cross play with mobile? I've been out of mobile gaming for a while, but I remember waiting for them to finally enable Dungeon Defenders cross play with android and never came XD (that I'm aware of)

I do know of the mobile Age of Empires Castle Siege is on iOS, Windows Phone, and Windows 10 all with cross-play, still don't know why it's not on Android. lol.

 

[LordRaptor]

However, which games are cross play with mobile?

Hero Academy on Steam offers crossplay with mobile, not on Steam Hearthstone does as well.
I know these are both basically asynchronous turn based, so maybe not exactly what you might be looking for, but I don't think real time Pc <-> Mobile interoperability is currently held back by much more than most peoples phones aren't powerful enough to run popular real time games at the moment.

 

[Chucke1992]

Well they are realising on PC in their store. As expected.

LoLat those claims that supporting PC means releasing in steam.

 

[LukasTaves]

Hero Academy on Steam offers crossplay with mobile, not on Steam Hearthstone does as well.
I know these are both basically asynchronous turn based, so maybe not exactly what you might be looking for, but I don't think real time Pc <-> Mobile interoperability is currently held back by much more than most peoples phones aren't powerful enough to run popular real time games at the moment.

I was looking for numbers, to see how widespread the adoption is.

The type of the game, on top of what you said could also be because mobile networks can't provide a great experience and if you are at home or anyway with wifi there's a good chance you'd have another device if you better suited for gaming.

If there aren't many cross play games there could be a few reasons as well, like lack of interest (of both developers and gamers) or toolsets/back end structures not being easy to use or cheap...

If it's the latter, than uwp could bring the live toolset to the table which would add a lot for devs.

 

[jim2point0]

The Windows 10 store installs these games into folders which I, as the sole administrator of my network and my PC, do not have access to.

That's simply unacceptable.

FFS Microsoft....

I bought Rise of the Tomb Raider on Steam so I did not know about this. I'll be avoiding games that are only sold on the Windows store going forward.

 

[Synth]

"We added this entirely redundant, objectively worse way of doing things to what you already had" is not "new functionality" for the customer.

Except it isn't redundant (or even objectively worse)... Sure there's some redundancy between Win32 apps and UWP, much like there's some redundancy between C++ and Java... they'll naturally both require some things in common if they both are to achieve the simple task of producing a working application. However for UWP to actually be redundant, Win32 would need to have an equivalent for everything that it offers... which it quite clearly doesn't, hence why I'm not running Win32 apps on my ARM phone, or opening 16 otherwise processor intensive apps and not having them bleed my tablet/laptop dry because I didn't close the 15 I'm not actively using, or seeing Win32 versions of popular iOS apps that were practically ported automatically etc.

Look, I get that you don't like what UWP apps represent, and that's fine... I'm not going to tell you to like them, or use them or whatever. But you're trying to quantify this with false claims that UWP doesn't present anything new that was lacking with Win32... which is just bullshit frankly. You mean to suggest that if the Windows Store was simply a shop for Win32 applications ala Steam, then it would still have all the same apps it currently does, with the same featuresets (and mobile considerations), and that I'd still have the majority of them on my phone day-and-date with the Windows release? Because if that was remotely true, then why - excluding the cross purchasing - does Steam, the vastly more popular storefront that reaches back to previous Windows version as well not provide this? Surely it would make sense for app developers to publish there before the Windows Store, right? Why's there no Asphalt 8?

The reason is because UWP isn't redundant, and it's offering things that make these applications make sense on the platform... such as it not requiring a completely separate implementation between various devices.

UWP defines 'device families', so an app targeting a device family X has access to all the APIs provided by X. You have 'Universal' (can't do much, but is on all devices) and inheriting from that e.g. desktop, xbox, iot etc. So if you want to target xbox, you select that device family and if the app also has to run on desktop, you need to do some extra work if the api you're using isn't available on the other device family. Depending on what language you use, if it's a .NET language, it is the same code running on both, if it's C++, you'll have multiple compilation targets (x86, arm etc.). All outputs are packaged into the same package, the device will pick the one it can run.

UWP offers some win32 api's, but that's a minor subset.

If you write an UWP app, you thus target the UWP api provided by the device family of choice. This means that if you want to ship it as a normal win32 app, you have to redo all code which utilizes UWP api's as UWP isn't a wrapper around win32, it's an 'alternative'. Also, if you have a win32 app and want to ship it as a UWP, you have to redo all code that utilizes Win32 APIs that are not available in the UWP api provided by the device family of choice.

In practice this means that a lot of code can be re-used (as it's general purpose code, e.g. in the context of games, the scene graph of the 3D engine, data structures libraries, game logic etc.) and some parts have to be re-done, like user interfaces, code that utilizes the device's screen / input etc, or in the context of games: render pipelines, rasterization, I/O etc.

So it's not 'build for UWP' and it runs everywhere. The marketing wants you to believe that, the small print tells otherwise.

Ok, that all makes sense. So I guess the important factor here really is how much of the Xbox One's gaming functionality can be encapsulated in a UWA. It seems like it should logically be the vast majority (if not the entirety) of it really. So whilst you wouldn't get a nearly free UWP implementation of a Win32 game released on Steam, you probably could get something approaching that from a Xbox One version of that same game... especially considering that aspects like the screen, input etc would be generally interchangeable between the two.

 

[diaspora]

Sure, but irrelevant to what I was replying to.

Fair enough.

The "UWA nature" is a fixable problem, anyway.

Absolutely, but until it is, it will be imo justifiably a problem.

 

[Wowfunhappy]

For the record, if you put a game on steam, there are zero obligations for you to sell that game through the steam storefront.
You can generate as many codes for your game as many times as you want, and can sell them anywhere you want.
The only revenue cost to you as a developer where valve explcitly benefit is for sales made directly through the steam storefront.
Selling your game - your game for Steam - via GMG, Humble, eBay, Amazon, your own website, a forum giveaway, your twitch stream, wherever is not prohibited by steam. Steam receives no revenue from those outlets.

Well, Steam gets nothing except more Steam users. Sure, you can sell the game anywhere you want, but in order to play it your users will have to install and begin using Steam. And once Steam is already on your computer and integrated into your daily life, the most logical place to buy future games is going to be via the Steam client itself.

 

[charlequin]

Except it isn't redundant (or even objectively worse)...

For the purposes under discussion it very much is. A framework making it easier for a dev to release a mobile port is completely irrelevant to the topic of how it affects a PC game release. Like: if Quantum Break was being released exclusively as a Winamp plugin, I don't actually give a shit whether Winamp is a good audio player or not; for purposes of that game release, it's just strictly and straightforwardly worse than releasing it as a real Windows program.

You mean to suggest that if the Windows Store was simply a shop for Win32 applications ala Steam, then it would still have all the same apps it currently does

No, I mean I don't care because it's irrelevant. UWA can be great as a framework for mobile apps that can also run on Windows desktop, but I don't actually give a shit; it's 100% downside when applied to full-on PC games, like the one under discussion.

I didn't know about those, so yeah, the benefit is diminished.

The problem Microsoft encountered on their last effort to extend their gaming platform to PC, and which they are encountering again now, is that the PC has offered all the things people think of as modern console conveniences for years and years, and it was just polish and ease of use that were underwhelming. Now that the last 5-ish years have seen such an immense improvement for most of these features in that ease of use factor, the idea of transposing Xbox functionality to the Windows desktop doesn't really impress to someone who is already gaming on PC.

 

[JaseC]

Well, Steam gets nothing except more Steam users. Sure, you can sell the game anywhere you want, but in order to play it your users will have to install and begin using Steam. And once Steam is already on your computer and integrated into your daily life, the most logical place to buy future games is going to be via the Steam client itself.

Even for Steam users, the most logical place to buy games they're firmly interested in is the store offering them at the best price. Western Europeans in particular can often find better prices at retail than on Steam, for instance, to say nothing of discount sites such as GMG and "grey market" outfits like CD Keys. Practically speaking, buying from the Steam Store directly isn't really more convenient unless the refund policy is something you may need to take advantage of.

 

[Wowfunhappy]

Even for Steam users, the most logical place to buy games they're firmly interested in is the store offering them at the best price. Western Europeans in particular can often find better prices at retail than on Steam, for instance, to say nothing of discount sites such as GMG and "grey market" outfits like CD Keys. Practically speaking, buying from the Steam Store directly isn't really more convenient unless the refund policy is something you may need to take advantage of.

And yet, lots and lots of people buy directly from the Steam store. I wonder why that is?

In other words, I think this actually proves my point.

 

[JaseC]

And yet, lots and lots of people buy directly from the Steam store. I wonder why that is?

In other words, I think this actually proves my point.

I think there's a misunderstanding here. I was disputing your assertion that the Steam Store is "the most logical place to buy future games". I don't disagree that the Steam Store is the most likely candidate for future purchases, but doesn't necessarily make it the most logical choice.

 

[Wowfunhappy]

I think there's a misunderstanding here. I was disputing your assertion that the Steam Store is "the most logical place to buy future games". Of course it's the store users are most likely to purchase from.

Ah, makes sense. However, I think your missing the broader point that I was trying to make: Getting Steam installed on more computers (and perhaps more importantly, getting users to actively use it) makes people more likely to buy from the Steam store directly, which Valve takes a cut of.

Hence, the post I was actually replying to:

For the record, if you put a game on steam, there are zero obligations for you to sell that game through the steam storefront. [...] Selling your game - your game for Steam - via GMG, Humble, eBay, Amazon, your own website, a forum giveaway, your twitch stream, wherever is not prohibited by steam. Steam receives no revenue from those outlets.

I mean, that's technically true, but Valve benefits hugely from those customers being forced to use the Steam client.

 

[JaseC]

Ah, makes sense. However, I think your missing the broader point that I was trying to make: Getting Steam installed on more computers (and perhaps more importantly, getting users to actively use it) makes people more likely to buy from the Steam store directly, which Valve takes a cut of.

Oh, I'm aware of that and said myself that the Steam Store tends to be the default option. It's just not necessarily the most logical one, if you were to break down the anatomy of a Steam game purchase: price, reliability of product delivery (e.g. receiving your key, from, say, GMG in time to pre-load isn't something that can be guaranteed, but if you have a fast connection or the game is unlikely to have a pre-load, then it's not going to be an issue), ease of purchase (e.g. a few sites, particularly those that deal in resold retail keys, require users to jump through an anti-fraud hoop, but if you're looking to save money, then it might not be a big deal) and the potential need for a refund.

Hence, the post I was actually replying to:


I mean, that's technically true, but Valve benefits hugely from those customers being forced to use the Steam client.

Indeed, which is why it's more than happy to provide keys absolutely free of charge -- Valve benefits indirectly by publishers casting a wider net as it's bound to introduce some new people to the ecosystem. What begins as a purchase outside of Steam is likely to evolve into purchases on Steam itself, games or otherwise, to some degree.

 

[LordRaptor]

I mean, that's technically true, but Valve benefits hugely from those customers being forced to use the Steam client.

All you're really doing is highlighting what a dick move UWA and the Win10 store is though.

If Valve can make a profitable platform by providing the underlying service games are sold on, while still leaving it open enough for other vendors and producers to make money themselves, extrapolate that out to how a company could be profitable owning and selling the operating system all software has to run on while also allowing other vendors to freely sell, create, and distribute software for it.

 

[Synth]

For the purposes under discussion it very much is. A framework making it easier for a dev to release a mobile port is completely irrelevant to the topic of how it affects a PC game release. Like: if Quantum Break was being released exclusively as a Winamp plugin, I don't actually give a shit whether Winamp is a good audio player or not; for purposes of that game release, it's just strictly and straightforwardly worse than releasing it as a real Windows program.

No, I mean I don't care because it's irrelevant. UWA can be great as a framework for mobile apps that can also run on Windows desktop, but I don't actually give a shit; it's 100% downside when applied to full-on PC games, like the one under discussion.

Honestly, at this point I don't really see where you're going with all this. You've gone from claiming that UWP "doesn't provide anything" (without any specified caveats), to acknowledging that it does... but not for real PC games. This line of thought seems much like claiming that indie games on PS4 aren't real games. There's plenty of overlap between "mobile" games and those for PCs and consoles. Take for example Halo Spartan Assault that debuted on mobile, but is simultaneously an Xbox One and Steam release also, in addition to the Windows Store version. Is your point that games simply don't count until they hit a certain budget, or start running off an engine like UE4?

Anyway, let's just pretend that this distinction on gaming software wasn't arbitrary as fuck, and that that ability to easily carry across software from a mobile environment really meant absolutely nothing... you still be wrong here. In this particular case, we're actually discussing an Xbox game.. it's not built distinctly for the PC.. it is a console game by design that's being ported to the PC with the help of the UWP platform making developing software for both platforms a lot easier, the Xbox One is playing the same role that the mobile platforms were in previous examples. So UWP is providing something in this case too, the ability to quickly port a game to PC that was created for the Xbox console.. and this would also work the other way around where a game created as a UWA can see a relatively simple port to the Xbox console. That's not to mention the crossplatform functionality the system provides. If I'm on the Xbox and my brother sends me an invite for Fable Legends, I accept it and the game boots up on the Xbox console and joins his game... if however I'm on the PC and accept that same invite, my Windows 10 version loads up and joins his game. The integration is seamless, and he never even needs to know which device I'm on. Now contrast this with say for example Street Fighter V that I have on Steam... my friend has the PS4 version of the game... he simply cannot invite me in the same manner, as I would be required to be on the PS4 in order to receive it.. and even if I could receive it (lets say by way of the mobile PSN app), I couldn't use this invite to join his game via the PC, because there's no OS level integration. The only way this scenario works is if he uses the bespoke CFN implementation Capcom provides to find me via that.. which is only applicable to me when I actually load into the game itself. And if we then want to play Rocket League? We start the process all over again, with the new bespoke service tying the platforms together (with the added fun that he couldn't directly invite me at all).

Now I can already imagine that you're reading this and thinking "well, I don't give a shit about any of that, all my friends are on Steam"... but that's irrelevant. Just because you don't care about a given set of features, doesn't mean that none are being provided. I don't give a shit about your overlays or mods... but would you take me seriously if I tried to claim the Win32 apps don't provide anything that UWP doesn't? I wouldn't think so.

 

[LordRaptor]

I'm on the PC and accept that same invite, my Windows 10 version loads up and joins his game. The integration is seamless, and he never even needs to know which device I'm on. Now contrast this with say for example Street Fighter V that I have on Steam... my friend has the PS4 version of the game... he simply cannot invite me in the same manner, as I would be required to be on the PS4 in order to receive it.. and even if I could receive it (lets say by way of the mobile PSN app), I couldn't use this invite to join his game via the PC, because there's no OS level integration.

I will take any bet you care to dream up that not having OS level join a friend integration with someone playing a PC and a PS4 game is a problem that not only UWA doesn't solve, but that it never even acknowledges as a problem.

 

[Synth]

I will take any bet you care to dream up that not having OS level join a friend integration with someone playing a PC and a PS4 game is a problem that not only UWA doesn't solve, but that it never even acknowledges as a problem.

Doesn't solve shit on the PS4 side... but I'm not sure why that's relevant? I didn't make any claims that it cures cancer and achieves world piece... just that it does some shit that doesn't work without it. Crossplatform ecosystem integration with PSN isn't one of those (and likely wouldn't even be something MS can implement without working directly with Sony).

 

[MUnited83]

Honestly, at this point I don't really see where you're going with all this. You've gone from claiming that UWP "doesn't provide anything" (without any specified caveats), to acknowledging that it does... but not for real PC games. This line of thought seems much like claiming that indie games on PS4 aren't real games. There's plenty of overlap between "mobile" games and those for PCs and consoles. Take for example Halo Spartan Assault that debuted on mobile, but is simultaneously an Xbox One and Steam release also, in addition to the Windows Store version. Is your point that games simply don't count until they hit a certain budget, or start running off an engine like UE4?

Anyway, let's just pretend that this distinction on gaming software wasn't arbitrary as fuck, and that that ability to easily carry across software from a mobile environment really meant absolutely nothing... you still be wrong here. In this particular case, we're actually discussing an Xbox game.. it's not built distinctly for the PC.. it is a console game by design that's being ported to the PC with the help of the UWP platform making developing software for both platforms a lot easier, the Xbox One is playing the same role that the mobile platforms were in previous examples. So UWP is providing something in this case too, the ability to quickly port a game to PC that was created for the Xbox console.. and this would also work the other way around where a game created as a UWA can see a relatively simple port to the Xbox console. That's not to mention the crossplatform functionality the system provides. If I'm on the Xbox and my brother sends me an invite for Fable Legends, I accept it and the game boots up on the Xbox console and joins his game... if however I'm on the PC and accept that same invite, my Windows 10 version loads up and joins his game. The integration is seamless, and he never even needs to know which device I'm on. Now contrast this with say for example Street Fighter V that I have on Steam... my friend has the PS4 version of the game... he simply cannot invite me in the same manner, as I would be required to be on the PS4 in order to receive it.. and even if I could receive it (lets say by way of the mobile PSN app), I couldn't use this invite to join his game via the PC, because there's no OS level integration. The only way this scenario works is if he uses the bespoke CFN implementation Capcom provides to find me via that.. which is only applicable to me when I actually load into the game itself. And if we then want to play Rocket League? We start the process all over again, with the new bespoke service tying the platforms together (with the added fun that he couldn't directly invite me at all).

Now I can already imagine that you're reading this and thinking "well, I don't give a shit about any of that, all my friends are on Steam"... but that's irrelevant. Just because you don't care about a given set of features, doesn't mean that none are being provided. I don't give a shit about your overlays or mods... but would you take me seriously if I tried to claim the Win32 apps don't provide anything that UWP doesn't? I wouldn't think so.

Lol, I love the magical " makes ports easier". No, it doesn't. Like, at all. The Xbox One game is not a universal app. You're not running the Xbox game universal app to run the game, its it own port. Wanna know how easier being a universal app on PC helped on doing the port? It didn't.

 

[JaggedSac]

Honestly, at this point I don't really see where you're going with all this. You've gone from claiming that UWP "doesn't provide anything" (without any specified caveats), to acknowledging that it does... but not for real PC games. This line of thought seems much like claiming that indie games on PS4 aren't real games. There's plenty of overlap between "mobile" games and those for PCs and consoles. Take for example Halo Spartan Assault that debuted on mobile, but is simultaneously an Xbox One and Steam release also, in addition to the Windows Store version. Is your point that games simply don't count until they hit a certain budget, or start running off an engine like UE4?

Anyway, let's just pretend that this distinction on gaming software wasn't arbitrary as fuck, and that that ability to easily carry across software from a mobile environment really meant absolutely nothing... you still be wrong here. In this particular case, we're actually discussing an Xbox game.. it's not built distinctly for the PC.. it is a console game by design that's being ported to the PC with the help of the UWP platform making developing software for both platforms a lot easier, the Xbox One is playing the same role that the mobile platforms were in previous examples. So UWP is providing something in this case too, the ability to quickly port a game to PC that was created for the Xbox console.. and this would also work the other way around where a game created as a UWA can see a relatively simple port to the Xbox console. That's not to mention the crossplatform functionality the system provides. If I'm on the Xbox and my brother sends me an invite for Fable Legends, I accept it and the game boots up on the Xbox console and joins his game... if however I'm on the PC and accept that same invite, my Windows 10 version loads up and joins his game. The integration is seamless, and he never even needs to know which device I'm on. Now contrast this with say for example Street Fighter V that I have on Steam... my friend has the PS4 version of the game... he simply cannot invite me in the same manner, as I would be required to be on the PS4 in order to receive it.. and even if I could receive it (lets say by way of the mobile PSN app), I couldn't use this invite to join his game via the PC, because there's no OS level integration. The only way this scenario works is if he uses the bespoke CFN implementation Capcom provides to find me via that.. which is only applicable to me when I actually load into the game itself. And if we then want to play Rocket League? We start the process all over again, with the new bespoke service tying the platforms together (with the added fun that he couldn't directly invite me at all).

Now I can already imagine that you're reading this and thinking "well, I don't give a shit about any of that, all my friends are on Steam"... but that's irrelevant. Just because you don't care about a given set of features, doesn't mean that none are being provided. I don't give a shit about your overlays or mods... but would you take me seriously if I tried to claim the Win32 apps don't provide anything that UWP doesn't? I wouldn't think so.

Street Fighter V seems to have a good crossplatform implementation

Those that buy both of those versions have a good experience where their progress and such carries over right?


Just got through listening to the Bombcast where Brad was complaining about it. Not even able to use the same name, lol.

 

[Synth]

Lol, I love the magical " makes ports easier". No, it doesn't. Like, at all. The Xbox One game is not a universal app. You're not running the Xbox game universal app to run the game, its it own port. Wanna know how easier being a universal app on PC helped on doing the port? It didn't.

Well ok. If you say so.

Street Fighter V seems to have a good crossplatform implementation

Those that buy both of those versions have a good experience where their progress and such carries over right?

Just got through listening to the Bombcast where Brad was complaining about it. Not even able to use the same name, lol.

Yea, a CFN ID is platform specific.. so when you create one on the PC release, it won't be applicable if you later buy the PS4 version, and vice versa.

 

[MUnited83]

Well ok. If you say so.

Feel free to prove otherwise, i'd love to see what you come up with that magically makes porting from Xbox One to PC easier.

 

[JaggedSac]

Yea, a CFN ID is platform specific.. so when you create one on the PC release, it won't be applicable if you later buy the PS4 version, and vice versa.

Sounds great. Does progress and skill ranking carry over in Rocket League if one buys both the PC and PS4 version?

 

[etta]

Feel free to prove otherwise, i'd love to see what you come up with that magically makes porting from Xbox One to PC easier.

Well, for one, the DX12 API is universal.

 

[MUnited83]

Well, for one, the DX12 API is universal.

And the DX12 API is exclusive to universal apps since when exactly?

 

[etta]

And the DX12 API is exclusive to universal apps since when exactly?

Wouldn't it make sense if they designed the UWA architecture to implement and take advantage of their own API?

 

[Synth]

Feel free to prove otherwise, i'd love to see what you come up with that magically makes porting from Xbox One to PC easier.

In all honesty, I can't prove that for something like Quantum Break specifically (it's not like I'm on the dev team)... but logically if you aren't restricted from offering a "full PC game" as a UWA (which is kinda the point of this whole thread), then this would apply to both (all) platforms, with there being specific areas of the implementation that would need to change between different versions (so an Xbox version wouldn't allow the user to toggle graphical settings, a mobile game would use lower quality assets and effects, etc), but all using the same core base. So a game provided as a UWA on Windows 10 can also be provided as an UWA on Xbox One, and vice versa... Quantum Break may or may not have been created in this manner (just as earlier WIndows Store apps weren't), but the possibility for it to have been is kinda the whole point... and is what's relevant to someone stating that UWP provides nothing new.

Conversely, can you prove that it doesn't make it any easier? "Like, at all"?

Sounds great. Does progress and skill ranking carry over in Rocket League if one buys both the PC and PS4 version?

I have no idea about that one tbh. You can't do crossplatform parties between the two though. You basically have to do the oldschool "set up a server.. give your friend the name and password" thing.

 

[notaskwid]

Sounds great. Does progress and skill ranking carry over in Rocket League if one buys both the PC and PS4 version?

No it doesn't, you use your Steam account or your PSN account. There is not a specific Rocket league account as far as I know.
I know your goal here, but this is 100% up to the developers. A Realm's reborn account is unified between PC, PS3 and PS4. If SFV is not, that's because Capcom wanted it that way.

 

[roadrunn3r]

Wouldn't it make sense if they designed the UWA architecture to implement and take advantage of their own API?

If you are implying that DX12 should be exclusive to UWAs (somehow), nope that would not make sense at all.

Otherwise win32 can "take advantage" of DX12 already as well so what's your point?

 

[Pokemaniac]

In all honesty, I can't prove that for something like Quantum Break specifically (it's not like I'm on the dev team)... but logically if you aren't restricting from offering a "full PC game" as a UWA (which is kinda the point of this whole thread), then this would apply to both (all) platforms, with theer being specific areas of the implementation that would need to change between different versions (so an Xbox version wouldn't allow the user to toggle settings, a mobile game would use lower quality assets and effects, etc), but all using the same core base. So a game provided as a UWA on Windows 10 can also be provided as an UWA on Xbox One, and vice versa... Quantum Break may or may not have been created in this manner (just as earlier WIndows Store apps weren't), but the possibility for it to have been is kinda the whole point... and is what's relevant to someone stating that UWP provides nothing new.



I have no idea about that one tbh. You can't do crossplatform parties between the two though. You basically have to do the oldschool "set up a server.. give your friend the name and password" thing.

It really isn't safe to assume that the game is being provided as a UWA on Xbone. While the system does have the capability to run those, they are generally run in a separate VM from actual games. We know that the system does make a distinction thanks to the initial announcements. Since native Xbone software is segmented off into it's own thing, it really isn't safe to assume that it uses the same API/packaging format as standard windows store apps, especially because Xbone predates UWA.

 

[JaggedSac]

I have no idea about that one tbh. You can't do crossplatform parties between the two though. You basically have to do the oldschool "set up a server.. give your friend the name and password" thing.

Seems like a nice to have for a UWP then as I think cross platform saves/progress/cheevos/parties/messages are made pretty much trivial by the platform.

 

[notaskwid]

Seems like a nice to have for a UWP then as I think cross platform saves/progress/cheevos/parties/messages are made pretty much trivial by the platform.

Read my post.

 

[JaggedSac]

Read my post.

Yep, 100% up to each and every developer to make their own solution.

 

[notaskwid]

Yep, 100% up to each and every developer to make their own solution.

Those conveniences you talk exist because everything is using the Live servers. If a developer wants to put their games on Steam/Playstation/Nintendo ecosystems then what?

 

[MUnited83]

In all honesty, I can't prove that for something like Quantum Break specifically (it's not like I'm on the dev team)... but logically if you aren't restricted from offering a "full PC game" as a UWA (which is kinda the point of this whole thread), then this would apply to both (all) platforms, with there being specific areas of the implementation that would need to change between different versions (so an Xbox version wouldn't allow the user to toggle graphical settings, a mobile game would use lower quality assets and effects, etc), but all using the same core base. So a game provided as a UWA on Windows 10 can also be provided as an UWA on Xbox One, and vice versa... Quantum Break may or may not have been created in this manner (just as earlier WIndows Store apps weren't), but the possibility for it to have been is kinda the whole point... and is what's relevant to someone stating that UWP provides nothing new.

Conversely, can you prove that it doesn't make it any easier? "Like, at all"?



I have no idea about that one tbh. You can't do crossplatform parties between the two though. You basically have to do the oldschool "set up a server.. give your friend the name and password" thing.

The game is not being published as a UWP on Xbox One ¯_(&#12484_/¯

 

[Sydle]

The game is not being published as a UWP on Xbox One ¯_(&#12484_/¯

You may want to do a bit of reading on the UWP Bridges. MS is making a lot of tools that make it easier to port iOS, Win32, WinRT, et al code.

Any game written for Xbox One still was written on top of Windows.

 

[JaggedSac]

Those conveniences you talk exist because everything is using the Live servers. If a developer wants to put their games on Steam/Playstation/Nintendo ecosystems then what?

Then we are where we are now. There just happens to be one more option. One that provides that functionality for you. And the platform will likely in the future be a buy once play either place scenario for a number of games, all games published by MS.

 

[vasametropolis]

If Microsoft had used a higher profile game as the guinea pig, they would be way more likely to sway even the most die hard, anti-UWA, anti-Windows store PC player to the dark side for at least one dip. Choosing Quantum Break seems like a mistake when just about ANY Halo title would have done the trick. I'm not really sure I can make sense of their strategy... well I can, but I don't think Quantum Break is going to bring people to the Windows store in droves like Halo or Gears 4 might. If their plan is to drive Windows store adoption despite issues it presents to a reasonable set of PC players, they could be doing MUCH better. I love Remedy and I'd love to play Quantum Break on PC (not saying I won't), but what a weird title to choose, especially when you know people will be divisive about buying it based on history with GFWL and everything else in this thread.

 

[dLMN8R]

If Microsoft had used a higher profile game as the guinea pig, they would be way more likely to sway even the most die hard, anti-UWA, anti-Windows store PC player to the dark side for at least one dip. Choosing Quantum Break seems like a mistake when just about ANY Halo title would have done the trick. I'm not really sure I can make sense of their strategy... well I can, but I don't think Quantum Break is going to bring people to the Windows store in droves like Halo or Gears 4 might. If their plan is to drive Windows store adoption despite issues it presents to a reasonable set of PC players, they could be doing MUCH better. I love Remedy and I'd love to play Quantum Break on PC (not saying I won't), but what a weird title to choose, especially when you know people will be divisive about buying it based on history with GFWL and everything else in this thread.

That's why it's good the PC version is a freebie for anyone who preorders on Xbox One.

 

[Synth]

It really isn't safe to assume that the game is being provided as a UWA on Xbone. While the system does have the capability to run those, they are generally run in a separate VM from actual games. We know that the system does make a distinction thanks to the initial announcements. Since native Xbone software is segmented off into it's own thing, it really isn't safe to assume that it uses the same API/packaging format as standard windows store apps, especially because Xbone predates UWA.

Yea, this is true I guess. It's not really a safe assumption I suppose that because a PC can run a specific class of UWA, that the Xbox would also qualify as being able to run it in a comparable form. It's probably best to await more details regarding how such apps are allowed to run on the console.. as the Xbox OS and the current Windows OS separation for the console could either be a case of restricting what apps can run concurrently with a full game, or may be a hard limitation on the resources that can be used for any application, even if run exclusively. So it's probably fair to say that the DX12 commonality is probably more important than the UWP functionality when relating to Xbox ports (which would indeed apply to Win32 as well). I would be surprised however if they were making such a push for this, to then have the Xbox side of the equation so heavily crippled by limiting it to the ~10% resources a snapped app is afforded. This would make sense to have a completely different subplatform is UWP implied a significant performance sacrifice... but this doesn't appear to be the case when considering the release of RoTR, which has been anecdotally cited as running better as an UWA than a Win32 application, even with the lack of exclusive fullscreen. The Xbox One predates Windows 10 and commercial UWAs, but it doesn't predate MS' very public push towards the format.

The other stuff still stands though regardless, so "it provides nothing" wouldn't be true under any scenario really.

The game is not being published as a UWP on Xbox One ¯_(&#12484_/¯

True... and afaik nothing currently is. However not screaming "hey, this is a UWA" on your AAA retail game doesn't seem like much of a smoking gun tbh, and certainly doesn't really suggest that the platform it runs under bares no resemblance to that of a UWA. This is also somewhat the case for Windows 8 or Windows Phone apps that were not UWAs, but shared a lot between the platforms, making the porting process mostly painless. You may recall that MS clearly stated that the best way to get ahead in regards to developing for the Xbox whilst people were waiting to get themselves into ID@Xbox, was to develop for Windows 8. That would seem a bit pointless if the platform would then invalidate all their work, or they'd have only the same console resources that are being afforded to an app like Netflix.

 

[vcc]

Any think about the directionality of the 'unified platform'. Seems to me that UWA is a bridge for iOS style avalanche of low effort games to make it onto the platform. With the Surface being the lowest common denominator.

I think some folks have a over rosy projection of how this will go; including what it means for the XB1.

 

[LukasTaves]

The game is not being published as a UWP on Xbox One ¯_(&#12484_/¯

Well, obviously. The game was in development years from now, the universal platform was finished late 2015 with win 10, and they may very well be behind porting it to the xbone (since we didn't have any universal app running on it yet). No dev in their right mind would port the game a few months from release.

That's probably why Ms said they didn't announced for pc earlier, because not even they knew if they would be able to port in time for pc.

 

[Stumpokapow]

If Microsoft had used a higher profile game as the guinea pig, they would be way more likely to sway even the most die hard, anti-UWA, anti-Windows store PC player to the dark side for at least one dip. Choosing Quantum Break seems like a mistake when just about ANY Halo title would have done the trick. I'm not really sure I can make sense of their strategy... well I can, but I don't think Quantum Break is going to bring people to the Windows store in droves like Halo or Gears 4 might. If their plan is to drive Windows store adoption despite issues it presents to a reasonable set of PC players, they could be doing MUCH better. I love Remedy and I'd love to play Quantum Break on PC (not saying I won't), but what a weird title to choose, especially when you know people will be divisive about buying it based on history with GFWL and everything else in this thread.

I agree. Just as Halo 2 sold the world on Games for Windows Live, so too could a 9 year late port of Halo 3 sell the world on Games for Windows 10.

 

[diaspora]

A UWA version of Halo 6 wouldn't convince people to embrace game sandboxing/containerization much less an old as balls port of Halo 3.