Support NeoGAF

[Dinky Dino]

I'm increasingly glad Sweeney went in on Microsoft over this, he might not have won over a lot of the people in this thread who seem to strangely give Microsoft the benefit of the doubt at every turn but the articles started a discussion in almost every dev circle I'm a part of and the response is universally the same, people agreeing with Sweeney and viewing these new efforts with a lot more skepticism.

Microsoft is now under immense pressure to deliver at //Build and convince developers of their plans.

Well yea no matter what his opinion was, he brought this to the forefront. It's good to know devs are also agreeing.

Immense pressure though? From my perspective, in the past MS resisted what the consumers wanted and tried to force what they want. They'd rather the entire ship get sunk than give people what they want. It's the reason windows 8 didn't get many adopters at first complaining that the start menu was gone and that it was tabletized. Then 8.1 came out a year later which didn't restore the start menu completely so this already told me a lot. With 10 you have people wanting more control over updates and turning off telemetry.

I don't know what they will do now. Tim has put the spotlight on them and devs won't let anything slide that easy and users are now watching too. On top of that MS seems to be in a tight spot and willing to accept more feedback. Tim's main complaint was the amount of control and switches MS has over that new format. It's not truly open like Win32. Imo, at //build/ MS might try revealing the fact that UWP might have something like controlled vsync and curated mods while ignoring a bunch of other factors and important details that devs will eventually know which might lead to another hot article.

Who here really thinks UWP/UWA will be made as open as Win32 at //build/?

 

[Zedox]

Sweeney has been in talks with Microsoft for 18 months, and you don't have to wait for a private Q&A session at a conference before sharing information on your plans to make a truly open platform out of something you've already commercially launched.

Sure everything could end up fine, but people are right to put pressure on Microsoft and their response that it will all be revealed at Build means there's even more pressure on them at that now.

Uhm, the Q&A sessions are public. There's also a thing called PR. They are weeks away from showing their hand that they plan for months on and someone calls you out about something a couple weeks prior and you just give the deets? I don't think it works that way. I'm not saying what Sweeney said is wrong, I don't like how he worded it, I agree that UWP should be open. But waiting a couple weeks isn't going to kill anyone is it?

 

[Paz]

Uhm, the Q&A sessions are public. There's also a thing called PR. They are weeks away from showing their hand that they plan for months on and someone calls you out about something a couple weeks prior and you just give the deets? I don't think it works that way. I'm not saying what Sweeney said is wrong, I don't like how he worded it, I agree that UWP should be open. But waiting a couple weeks isn't going to kill anyone is it?

They are already commercially launched, he waited 18 months to say anything, so no I don't think asking people to wait for information is an acceptable response from Microsoft.

Last year would have been an acceptable time to outline their plans to create an open ecosystem.

 

[JaggedSac]

Has the Build schedule been posted yet?

 

[Zedox]

They are already commercially launched, he waited 18 months to say anything, so no I don't think asking people to wait for information is an acceptable response from Microsoft.

Last year would have been an acceptable time to outline their plans to create an open ecosystem.

To your second point, fair and I agree.

To your first point he ain't wait 18 months to say something publicly just to say "i'm giving you x amount of time." He admitted in one of the interviews that he saw MS becoming very serious about it with the release of RoTR and Gears, and Quantum Break. If he had concerns about the platform, why didn't he say anything right after launch when no games by MS were released (he kept that privately). The answer is truthfully, he didn't find it as a threat then even though MS has been pushing for UWP for a while. UWP and the Windows Store had been there since Windows 8. This isn't something that came out of the blue. It wasn't until something could potentially hurt his company that he came out and said it "for the platform." I believe Gabe felt the same way but at least he did it right out the gate. None of this discredits Sweeney nor his intentions.

That's not to put no blame on MS here. They definitely should have stated what their intentions are with UWP outside of it being the only format used within the Windows Store. They definitely should keep it open and they should have said this from the beginning of Windows 10 launch as you stated. I 100% agree.

My point is that Sweeney waiting (as you and he stated that he's been in talks about this for 18 months) to talk about this now when he felt threatened by what MS was doing because he saw that they were serious, and MS saying, ok, we actually are open and can you wait a few weeks is acceptable. If he knew for 18 months, he could have made the article then and if MS said: "wait till next year build", yea everyone would rightfully so be upset that they didn't answer in adequate timing. But he didn't, so MS said wait a couple weeks...I find that ok and understandable. In the other case, I wouldn't have. You do state that " he waited 18 months to say anything, so no I don't think asking people to wait for information is an acceptable response from Microsoft", remember, he waited, not the public at large, not like we waited for anything. It's ok that we disagree on that.

 

[CecilRousso]

If they flat out and listed everything then it wouldn't make sense to have build (and they probably wouldn't be able to answer questions that are usually brought up during those Q&A sessions). So with Phil saying, yes, we're open, wait till build to hear details, I think that's a reasonable thing to ask of...especially when it's less than a month away (UWP isn't replacing Win32 in less than a month).

Well, I remember an old build event, where a colleague of mine went to get an answers about the future of Windows Mobile, since they hadn't talked about that before the release of Visual Studio 2010. And even on build, they refused to answer questions about it. So they have a history of trying to avoid answers when it becomes a bit too tough. Let's hope it's different now.

Windows Mobile was more or less dropped, and Android dominates that segment now.

 

[Zedox]

Well, I remember an old build event, where a colleague of mine went to get an answers about the future of Windows Mobile, since they hadn't talked about that before the release of Visual Studio 2010. And even on build, they refused to answer questions about it. So they have a history of trying to avoid answers when it becomes a bit too tough. Let's hope it's different now.

Windows Mobile was more or less dropped, and Android dominates that segment now.

Yes. I'm not saying what they have done in the past is not wrong. What I am saying is if they respond saying they are open with UWP and wait till build for our answer and we can have a discussion that's in a few weeks, that's ok. If they totally fuck up the discussion at //build/ that's on them and we would truly have something to worry about. They could have easily have not said anything and we would never know if we were going to get an answer or not, but they did and said this is when we can talk about it, it's not far from now. I don't think that's unreasonable.

They do have an image to work on, what's a better way to get developers excited but at a developers conference with good news that you aren't gonna fuck their shit up? I mean, it makes sense and that's what I was getting at with that post. There are business reasons to things as well. We aren't talking to a human being, it's a conglomerate.

 

[wildfire]

Not sure if it has been posted - an interview transcript from Venturebeat with Tim Sweeney taken after Microsoft's response

Lots of clarification for his intentions and thoughts as well as follow up to MS responses, that are somewhat relevant to how wobbly this thread has become.

GamesBeat: He brought up sideloading, and you brought up sideloading as well.

Sweeney: Yes. That needs more scrutiny. Right after Windows 10 came out, I tried to build a UWP app and distribute it and install it from the web as an experiment. I found a lot of roadblocks. For example, having to create a Microsoft developer account and get Microsoft’s permission to develop for their platform. You have to submit your application to Microsoft and be digitally signed with their DRM.

Well that's more than a red flag for me. Now I can see why any developer would be pissy with Microsoft.

Me as a user: I can still download games from my Gog account.

CdProjekt: Now I have to subscribe to MS DRM and get permission from MS as a certified developer to have my software work on Windows 10.


To the end user this stuff is invisible but when you really think about it this violates why you get third party apps.


This is very pernicious. I even like using Google's app store to an extent but there are very valid reasons to have a different platform like Windows and Linux which are open.

 

[FyreWulff]

Not really sure you can call a closed source OS an open system. I'm all for developer choice to release closed or open, by the way, but the only true open system is one that is open source and has multiple competitors having to be interoperable within it contributing code, which right now would be Linux.

 

[dragonelite]

Not really sure you can call a closed source OS an open system. I'm all for developer choice to release closed or open, by the way, but the only true open system is one that is open source and has multiple competitors having to be interoperable within it contributing code, which right now would be Linux.

Given its opensource under the right license.

 

[TBiddy]

Astroturfers would be more understandable, because at least they have something to gain.

Instead we have console fanboyism translated over into a PC-focused discussion, because any criticism of Microsoft is an attack on all Microsoft, so the people who love their Xbox roll up in here to defend the faith.

That's a very arrogant attitude towards people you disagree with.

edit: To elaborate:

Microsoft has no interest in deprecating Win32, as long as UWP isn't up to date, both featurewise and in openness. And the reason is very simple - hundreds of millions of customers would rage. Both business, personal and those in-between would overnight (almost) switch to OSX or Linux.

And yes, I know that Microsofts ultimate game-plan is to own the world and controll all the data, while singlehandedly forcing every developer out there to dump Steam and use the horrendous Windows 10 store, because that's how Microsoft roll. There has been absolutely no indications that they are opening up towards other platforms, like OSX and iOS or even Android.

 

[Durante]

For your scenario to even begin to make sense the entire world almost literaly would just to accept they have no other option other than install the latest Ms OS where the freedom is lost and never look for an alternative which is unimaginable. There's multi billion dollar companies using this OS, relying on the fact it's open, governments even. The reach of the OS is so much bigger than just being used for games.

I don't think you read my example scenario very well. Give it another go:

What boggles my mind is that you think there would ever be an announcement.

Consider this timeline:
2016: Microsoft convinces some early adopters to jump into UWA by leveraging their console exclusives. They also allow others to sell UWA packages - of course only MS-recognized third party dealers.
2017: Project Centennial (that name tells you all you need to know about the future of Win32) works out and makes it relatively simple to package sandboxed "legacy" Win32 apps in UWA.
2018: With the gradual adoption of Centennial, and more and more software offered as UWA -- and of course a healthy dose of marketing -- the format becomes increasingly popular.
2019: Microsoft introduces DirectX12.5, with some additional features. A footnote mentions that these features are not accessible from legacy (read: Win32) applications.
2020: With even wider adoption of UWA, Microsoft adds additional warnings and hassles for (home, not enterprise!) users trying to install Win32 applications.

And so on and so forth. Obviously, there will never be an announcement that they are dropping Win32. That would just be stupid.

At no point in this progression are enterprise or government customers forced to move away from Win32, and yet what we have in the end is a platform where distributing games to consumers as Win32 is far less viable than UWA.

Which individual step I proposed here is unlikely or impossible?

 

[TBiddy]

Which individual step I proposed here is unlikely or impossible?

Sorry for snipping the rest of your post like this.

Your scenario isn't unrealistic, and it's definitely not impossible that it might play out that way. But I think it's unlikely that people will ever adopt the Windows 10 store, for real. Not unless the developers agree to make their games exclusively available on that. And why would they do that, when the sales are much larger on ie. Steam?

 

[krang]

Sorry for snipping the rest of your post like this.

Your scenario isn't unrealistic, and it's definitely not impossible that it might play out that way. But I think it's unlikely that people will ever adopt the Windows 10 store, for real. Not unless the developers agree to make their games exclusively available on that. And why would they do that, when the sales are much larger on ie. Steam?

"Incentivisation".

 

[TBiddy]

"Incentivisation".

Even for Microsoft, that's a lot of money they need to shell out, in order to make all the big studios release their games exclusively on the Windows Store.

 

[wapplew]

Sorry for snipping the rest of your post like this.

Your scenario isn't unrealistic, and it's definitely not impossible that it might play out that way. But I think it's unlikely that people will ever adopt the Windows 10 store, for real. Not unless the developers agree to make their games exclusively available on that. And why would they do that, when the sales are much larger on ie. Steam?

UWA ultimate form, write once release everywhere, every device, Windows 10, iOS, Andriod, Xbox one, Hololens, smart watch, Rift, Vive, phones, smart TV, all of them.
Writing in anything else become redundant.

 

[jelly]

Sorry for snipping the rest of your post like this.

Your scenario isn't unrealistic, and it's definitely not impossible that it might play out that way. But I think it's unlikely that people will ever adopt the Windows 10 store, for real. Not unless the developers agree to make their games exclusively available on that. And why would they do that, when the sales are much larger on ie. Steam?

All Microsoft need is a tipping point. Windows is the dominant OS, so if the store ever gains traction with the masses and gets the right app support, devs dance to one tune, Microsoft's. That's why this needs nipped in the bud not only for games but other stuff.

 

[NesFe]

Just finished reading the new interview (the venturebeat one) and I have to agree with basically everything Tim says. I got a windows 10 laptop a couple of days ago, it was my first experience with win 10 and I was really annoyed with it.

So many inconveniences to disable stuff that are useless for me and shouldn't be forced. I had to spend like 2 hours messing with regedit, services.msc and Powershell to remove most of their bloatware ( data collections, ads, forced updates, Diagnostics tracking, Connected User Experiences and Telemetry, cortana etc.. ). when in windows 7 I could just uninstall or choose to disable said feature. I'm not even sure I disabled all their shit that was eating my bandwidth.

Like Tim says "if you extrapolate that spirit of how Microsoft is running the platform to their strategy with applications etc..." you can see that they are making a more closed ecosystem,

I hope that's not whats going on here, but I don't share the optimism of some of the users posting here with "let's wait and see". You should judge what's there and not what is promised in the future. Once they improve it, then you say 'ok, now it's good'.

 

[TBiddy]

UWA ultimate form, write once release everywhere, every device, Windows 10, iOS, Andriod, Xbox one, Hololens, smart watch, Rift, Vive, phones, smart TV, all of them.
Writing in anything else become redundant.

Is this ironic, or? It's sometimes hard to tell in writing.

All Microsoft need is a tipping point. Windows is the dominant OS, so if the store ever gains traction with the masses and gets the right app support, devs dance to one tune, Microsoft's. That's why this needs nipped in the bud not only for games but other stuff.

Lets say this app store actually gains some traction and starts to gain a majority market share, not only in the gaming market but selling apps in general. Lets then assume, that Microsoft suddenly bans the sales of UWP anywhere else but the Windows 10 store. I don't think that is likely in anyway, but lets for arguments sake roll with it.

How long would you expect it to take, before the US DoJ reopens the old anti-trust case? Using a monopoly to gain an unfair advantage like this would most likely be a clear violation of existing monopoly laws.

 

[krang]

I'm not entirely convinced by UWAs, but I look forward to what //build has to say.

Also, lmao at the guy on Twitter trying to start #GamesForWindowsLiveNeverForget.

 

[OtisInf]

Uhm, the Q&A sessions are public. There's also a thing called PR. They are weeks away from showing their hand that they plan for months on and someone calls you out about something a couple weeks prior and you just give the deets? I don't think it works that way. I'm not saying what Sweeney said is wrong, I don't like how he worded it, I agree that UWP should be open. But waiting a couple weeks isn't going to kill anyone is it?

What's going to change? UWP was launched last year at //build, its predecessor WinRT before that (I think 2 years?) Ever since this line has been started, it's targeting closed, walled garden software development. This is a core part of its design. If you really expect them to remove that core part of their design, you're overly naive, sorry. It also wouldn't make sense to do so, as it's key for them to have an app distribution model through their store: if that store is taken out of the equation, there's no need for UWP.

MS is *very* good at selling things. Not only products but especially rosy pictures about how things really are. Washingon's spindoctors can learn things from them. //build is a conference where they expose that front and center, year after year. They try to make you believe as if there's no world outside Microsoft, you clearly wonder how all those devs on other platforms get things done and working as they lack all those wonderful tooling and systems.

Last year they made it look like UWP is the best thing since sliced bread. Their fake demos clearly painted a wonderful picture. But as there's no room for details and with MS that's actually the most important part, you don't learn much at //build, only afterwards when the dust settles, people start wondering how / why / what, and the fine print is revealed.

This has been the case for many years now and it would be very strange if they suddenly did things differently this year, *especially* with effectively gutting their app platform and making it effectively useless (because why not stay with win32 then?)

 

[TBiddy]

It also wouldn't make sense to do so, as it's key for them to have an app distribution model through their store: if that store is taken out of the equation, there's no need for UWP.

Last year they made it look like UWP is the best thing since sliced bread. Their fake demos clearly painted a wonderful picture. But as there's no room for details and with MS that's actually the most important part, you don't learn much at //build, only afterwards when the dust settles, people start wondering how / why / what, and the fine print is revealed.

First part isn't exactly true. The app store isn't the only advantage in this. There's also the "Universal" part, which has the potential (however unlikely it is) to increase the number of useful apps on both Windows 10, Windows 10 Mobile, Hololens and XB1 by a vast number. It's probably not going to happen, but that's where they are going with this.

When it comes to //build, you're only partly right. It's true that the keynotes and 'large' presentations tend to only look at the big picture, but if you dive down into the sessions, you'll see some very specific topics.

Of course you're not going to learn how to "Develop Modern Native Applications with Azure Active Directory" (just a random example) in an hour, but //build is obviously not only "fake demos" and what have we.

 

[In Service]

This really should be in the OP

Why is this not in the OP? Completely changes the initial story.

 

[JaggedSac]

"Incentivisation".

They tried that with WP. How well did that work out for them? Lol

 

[LordRaptor]

There's also a thing called PR. They are weeks away from showing their hand that they plan for months on and someone calls you out about something a couple weeks prior and you just give the deets?

But then we're back to wtf were MS thinking with the way they have handled the absolute clusterfuck of the Gears launch.

If they were working to a months long strategic plan, why stealth release a high profile title (a high profile title that Tim Sweeny has a vested corporate interest in performing well) the day it is announced? As a UWA that even the defenders of UWA concede is not currently in a fit state for public version one adoption? On a storefront that doesn't handle basic modern desktop software digital storefront expectations?

If a couple of weeks is all thats needed to assuage any concerns developers and consumers have, why was Gears not held back until then? Or released as a Beta to help finalise last minute teething problems with their overall strategy?

Because it does not look like they have an actual strategy they are not quite ready to disclose. It looks like they just fucked up, and are trying to get a couple of weeks grace time to cobble something together.

 

[Mindwipe]

I thought Sweeney was a lot more plugged in than I gave him credit for. "...the extreme difficulty but possibility, technically, of changing your default browser or video player and other things."

Settings - System - default apps. That's difficult? You can also set it directly from the browser itself lol

Yes, that's difficult enough that 95% of PC users don't do it.

Look at how much marketshare iOS gained for Apple Maps by defaulting it, and that was a product that was literally functionally broken.

 

[Zedox]

What's going to change? UWP was launched last year at //build, its predecessor WinRT before that (I think 2 years?) Ever since this line has been started, it's targeting closed, walled garden software development. This is a core part of its design. If you really expect them to remove that core part of their design, you're overly naive, sorry. It also wouldn't make sense to do so, as it's key for them to have an app distribution model through their store: if that store is taken out of the equation, there's no need for UWP.

MS is *very* good at selling things. Not only products but especially rosy pictures about how things really are. Washingon's spindoctors can learn things from them. //build is a conference where they expose that front and center, year after year. They try to make you believe as if there's no world outside Microsoft, you clearly wonder how all those devs on other platforms get things done and working as they lack all those wonderful tooling and systems.

Last year they made it look like UWP is the best thing since sliced bread. Their fake demos clearly painted a wonderful picture. But as there's no room for details and with MS that's actually the most important part, you don't learn much at //build, only afterwards when the dust settles, people start wondering how / why / what, and the fine print is revealed.

This has been the case for many years now and it would be very strange if they suddenly did things differently this year, *especially* with effectively gutting their app platform and making it effectively useless (because why not stay with win32 then?)

It must be very easy to read something and spin it to fit what you want to say.

I'm not saying what they have done in the past is not wrong. What I am saying is if they respond saying they are open with UWP and wait till build for our answer and we can have a discussion that's in a few weeks, that's ok. If they totally fuck up the discussion at //build/ that's on them and we would truly have something to worry about.

I don't base it off of nothing. I look at the person who is in charge and what they have done since being in charge. Going open source with a lot of things that they normally don't do (from before 2 years ago when he wasn't in charge), being more collaborative with other companies than everyone is the enemy (Apple conference). If you were to tell me 3-4 years ago under Ballmer that .NET would be going open source, that Microsoft would embrace Linux, also selling VMs of Linux in Azure, Openssh in Powershell, I'd say you'd be crazy, that's not MS at all. They are a more collaborative company than they have been in the past.

So no, I don't think it is out of the question that they wanted UWP to be open. I damn well know that they want everyone to use their store, that's obvious as hell. No one is naïve about that. So sorry, giving someone a couple weeks to talk about something (which was my point) to clarify something isn't a big deal to me. So instead of lambasting a possibility, you should argue the point I was making.

They definitely should keep it open and they should have said this from the beginning of Windows 10 launch as you stated. I 100% agree.

Remember I said this. WinRT/UWP did start under Ballmer but so was the Nokia purchase and we see what Nadella thought about that. I'm not putting it past MS to do the wrong thing, but based off of what I see of the company since Nadella's tenure, I think a couple weeks to answer isn't unreasonable.

But then we're back to wtf were MS thinking with the way they have handled the absolute clusterfuck of the Gears launch.

If they were working to a months long strategic plan, why stealth release a high profile title (a high profile title that Tim Sweeny has a vested corporate interest in performing well) the day it is announced? As a UWA that even the defenders of UWA concede is not currently in a fit state for public version one adoption? On a storefront that doesn't handle basic modern desktop software digital storefront expectations?

If a couple of weeks is all thats needed to assuage any concerns developers and consumers have, why was Gears not held back until then? Or released as a Beta to help finalise last minute teething problems with their overall strategy?

Because it does not look like they have an actual strategy they are not quite ready to disclose. It looks like they just fucked up, and are trying to get a couple of weeks grace time to cobble something together.

Well Sweeney doesn't have that same interest in Gears anymore as they sold it. Don't ask me why they suck at PR. I have no idea why didn't do any marketing for Gears, I guess they wanted the "you don't have to wait, buy it now" type of thing. Also, on the timing of the release, they obviously felt that the game is good enough for regular pc gamers to just get up and play. Holding it back would be even worse as then the devs would have to wait for the tools and the dev on top of them when the return on those features aren't that great. How many times have we seen games not come out in great shape but then updated. I'm not excusing it at all, I think that games should come in a better form, but what I am saying is that this isn't out of the normal for any game company.

I just know that they keep a lot of features and stuff that they are doing with their tools and such for //build/. They always have. I don't care if it looks like they don't have an actual strategy and they need a couple weeks grace time to come up with something, I don't care about that as those type of things change ALL THE TIME in software development (no different than waiting until the last moment to cancel the Surface Mini after having made 10k of them). That doesn't matter if that wasn't their plan but to me, what does matter is that they stated that they are open with it and to wait till build to answer. Them redoing their strategy is on them, I don't care about that.

 

[Mindwipe]

What's going to change? UWP was launched last year at //build, its predecessor WinRT before that (I think 2 years?) Ever since this line has been started, it's targeting closed, walled garden software development. This is a core part of its design. If you really expect them to remove that core part of their design, you're overly naive, sorry. It also wouldn't make sense to do so, as it's key for them to have an app distribution model through their store: if that store is taken out of the equation, there's no need for UWP.

MS is *very* good at selling things. Not only products but especially rosy pictures about how things really are. Washingon's spindoctors can learn things from them. //build is a conference where they expose that front and center, year after year. They try to make you believe as if there's no world outside Microsoft, you clearly wonder how all those devs on other platforms get things done and working as they lack all those wonderful tooling and systems.

Last year they made it look like UWP is the best thing since sliced bread. Their fake demos clearly painted a wonderful picture. But as there's no room for details and with MS that's actually the most important part, you don't learn much at //build, only afterwards when the dust settles, people start wondering how / why / what, and the fine print is revealed.

This has been the case for many years now and it would be very strange if they suddenly did things differently this year, *especially* with effectively gutting their app platform and making it effectively useless (because why not stay with win32 then?)

Well... there are definitely things that are wrong with Win32, and some of the legacy cruft needs to go. If that's better served by a new set or by fixing Win32 is a reasonable debate.

And I can see the point of bringing in default sandboxing, but it needs a workable privilege escalation model to break out of it that is entirely in the user's control.

But as you say, that's just not what Microsoft seem interested in doing. And if it is things like the obfuscation of files within UWP needs to be opened up. But then it's no use for Xbox One (unless you want cheating to go through the roof). Microsoft have themselves in a terrible mess, IMO.

 

[Trup1aya]

But then we're back to wtf were MS thinking with the way they have handled the absolute clusterfuck of the Gears launch.

If they were working to a months long strategic plan, why stealth release a high profile title (a high profile title that Tim Sweeny has a vested corporate interest in performing well) the day it is announced? As a UWA that even the defenders of UWA concede is not currently in a fit state for public version one adoption? On a storefront that doesn't handle basic modern desktop software digital storefront expectations?

If a couple of weeks is all thats needed to assuage any concerns developers and consumers have, why was Gears not held back until then? Or released as a Beta to help finalise last minute teething problems with their overall strategy?

Because it does not look like they have an actual strategy they are not quite ready to disclose. It looks like they just fucked up, and are trying to get a couple of weeks grace time to cobble something together.

When was build scheduled? They do it every year. I can't really see how they are cobbling something together in response to Sweeney.

I don't see how game releases indicate a conspiracy. There are plenty of moving parts, and sometimes timetables don't line up right. Companies, unfortunately, release software before it's ready all the time (it's annoying as fuck)

In an ideal world UWP would have been feature complete in time for the launch of Windows 10 and we'd have log gotten a detailed look at the planned 'openness' by now or we'd know with certainty they there are never opening it up.

 

[TBiddy]

Yes, that's difficult enough that 95% of PC users don't do it.

Look at how much marketshare iOS gained for Apple Maps by defaulting it, and that was a product that was literally functionally broken.

How much marketshare does Edge and IE11 have?

Apple Maps had some issues, but wasn't broken. No need for the hyperbole.

 

[LordRaptor]

I don't see how game releases indicate a conspiracy.

I'm saying the opposite; I'm attributing the games divisions actions to incompetence, not to malice.
That's actually the more generous towards MS attitude.

Companies, unfortunately, release software before it's ready all the time (it's annoying as fuck)

And that is usually the result that a high profile marketing campaign has already been enacted and a ship date cannot alter.
A title that the general public does not even knows exists, let alone been given a hard v.1 release date for can very easily slip a couple of weeks if all that is required to resolve core issues is a couple of weeks.
Or if there are load issues that have to be tested in the wild, again, it would have been very easy to release a Gears multiplayer beta, closed or open, it doesn't really matter, to stress test in a live environment, with the couple of weeks until full strategy is unveiled not disclosed.

 

[nephilimdj]

But then we're back to wtf were MS thinking with the way they have handled the absolute clusterfuck of the Gears launch.

If they were working to a months long strategic plan, why stealth release a high profile title (a high profile title that Tim Sweeny has a vested corporate interest in performing well) the day it is announced? As a UWA that even the defenders of UWA concede is not currently in a fit state for public version one adoption? On a storefront that doesn't handle basic modern desktop software digital storefront expectations?

If a couple of weeks is all thats needed to assuage any concerns developers and consumers have, why was Gears not held back until then? Or released as a Beta to help finalise last minute teething problems with their overall strategy?

Because it does not look like they have an actual strategy they are not quite ready to disclose. It looks like they just fucked up, and are trying to get a couple of weeks grace time to cobble something together.

Surely you can see thats a catch-22, MS promotes this game, they are the devil using money to promote it and lock people in. They dont, they are the devil.
Promoting GFWL on Vista with media events, shows, magazine.. drove people insane.

 

[Mindwipe]

How much marketshare does Edge and IE11 have?

Apple Maps had some issues, but wasn't broken. No need for the hyperbole.

Apple Maps in the UK was missing cities. It identified major civic monuments as kebab shops. In some cases data was so out of date it actually required travelling back before the invention of the mobile phone. It contained listings for tube stations that shut down shortly after WWII. It was functionally broken.

 

[LordRaptor]

Surely you can see thats a catch-22, MS promotes this game, they are the devil using money to promote it and lock people in. They dont, they are the devil.
Promoting GFWL on Vista with media events, shows, magazine.. drove people insane.

Its beyond people being annoyed at an attempt at vendor lock in by MS; Gears was not ready to be released publically. UWAs are not ready as a Win32 replacement. The Windows Store is not ready as a modern digital storefront for desktop software.

It is difficult for me to believe that nobody at MS knew any of these things.
It is difficult for me to believe that all of these things can be fixed within a couple of weeks.
It is difficult for me to believe that if there is a solution coming soon, that unannounced software could not have been held back until that solution was available.

 

[TBiddy]

Apple Maps in the UK was missing cities. It identified major civic monuments as kebab shops. In some cases data was so out of date it actually required travelling back before the invention of the mobile phone. It contained listings for tube stations that shut down shortly after WWII. It was functionally broken.

No it wasn't. There's a huge difference between "not working" (functionally broken) and "not up to date". You didn't answer the other part of my post, about Edge/IE11, btw.

Its beyond people being annoyed at an attempt at vendor lock in by MS; Gears was not ready to be released publically. UWAs are not ready as a Win32 replacement. The Windows Store is not ready as a modern digital storefront for desktop software.

I don't think anyone is arguing with you there.

 

[Trup1aya]

I'm saying the opposite; I'm attributing the games divisions actions to incompetence, not to malice.
That's actually the more generous towards MS attitude.




And that is usually the result that a high profile marketing campaign has already been enacted and a ship date cannot alter.
A title that the general public does not even knows exists, let alone been given a hard v.1 release date for can very easily slip a couple of weeks if all that is required to resolve core issues is a couple of weeks.
Or if there are load issues that have to be tested in the wild, again, it would have been very easy to release a Gears multiplayer beta, closed or open, it doesn't really matter, to stress test in a live environment, with the couple of weeks until full strategy is unveiled not disclosed.

Yeah I don't disagree that there were a ton of fucked up decisions made and/or sloppy execution

I'm just not convinced it indicative of an overall conspiracy. It's gotta be tough getting software teams across all operating divisions to simultaneously combine their efforts and still meet deadlines.

I think they were going to release SOMETHING at that press conference, as the shock drop is sort of becoming customary with MS events. Seems like Gears was furthest along, but UWP wasn't far enough along to match it.

Its beyond people being annoyed at an attempt at vendor lock in by MS; Gears was not ready to be released publically. UWAs are not ready as a Win32 replacement. The Windows Store is not ready as a modern digital storefront for desktop software.

It is difficult for me to believe that nobody at MS knew any of these things.
It is difficult for me to believe that all of these things can be fixed within a couple of weeks.
It is difficult for me to believe that if there is a solution coming soon, that unannounced software could not have been held back until that solution was available.

I don't think anyone on here disputes any of these points.

We know UWP isn't ready to replace Win32. Microsoft knows it... That's why Win32 is still a thing. It will be a thing at least until UWP is ready, and probably for sometime after that.

We know the Win10 store is not ready. But that's a function of UWP not being ready.

The launch of gears is yet another PC game released prematurely.

None of these issues are indicative of a conspiracy. Just indicative of a corporate culture that has embraced the "Early Access" model, which is becoming quite common in the industry, for better or worse.

Spoiler

worse

I also don't think many, if any, of these things will be fixed in a couple of weeks. But we should atleast get an idea of what these fixes will be, and maybe a timetable.

 

[Mindwipe]

No it wasn't. There's a huge difference between "not working" (functionally broken) and "not up to date". You didn't answer the other part of my post, about Edge/IE11, btw.

It's a maps app! If it doesn't know where things are and gives false information then it is functionally broken.

I didn't answer Edge part because I'm at work and I thought I'd go and have a look for sources. And sure, every trend has exceptions - but IE11 lost marketshare as a direct consequence of the browser ballot anti-trust action IMO.

I would wager that MS Edge probably has a huge uplift on IE11 on clean installs rather than upgrades actually, but I don't have evidence to back it up.

 

[LordRaptor]

I think they were going to release SOMETHING at that press conference, as the shock drop is sort of becoming customary with MS events.

From a PR point of view, saying "Ultimate Gears multiplayer only public beta available right now, retail release coming soon" would have been significantly less damaging, no? It might even have been received well.

Basically I don't think the Xbox division understand the PC platform well enough to be in charge of Windows gaming, and that the 'solutions' they - I imagine - are right now frantically rushing to put together are going to cause an even bigger shitstorm than the non-solution they have right now.

 

[TBiddy]

It's a maps app! If it doesn't know where things are and gives false information then it is functionally broken.

I didn't answer Edge part because I'm at work and I thought I'd go and have a look for sources. And sure, every trend has exceptions - but IE11 lost marketshare as a direct consequence of the browser ballot anti-trust action IMO.

I would wager that MS Edge probably has a huge uplift on IE11 on clean installs rather than upgrades actually, but I don't have evidence to back it up.

So when on of the largest mapping companies in the world (Nokia) took about a year to add a new Danish highway to their maps, it was also "functionally broken"?

Regarding Edge/IE11, the point was that if the built-in alternatives suck, people will find something else.

 

[Trup1aya]

From a PR point of view, saying "Ultimate Gears multiplayer only public beta available right now, retail release coming soon" would have been significantly less damaging, no?

Basically I don't think the Xbox division understand the PC platform well enough to be in charge of Windows gaming, and that the 'solutions' they - I imagine - are right now frantically rushing to put together are going to cause an even bigger shitstorm than the non-solution they have right now.

Maybe you are right, but again, it's speculation.

I think the Xbox team is also hand strung by what corporate at large wants to do with the platform and their management of the timetable.

I'm sure everyone at Xbox would have prefered to have Gears launch be a shining moment for Xbox PC gaming. But they've gotta be inline with all of the other Cogs in the machine (no pun intended). THAT is exactly why games get released in unexeptable states.

Yes calling Gears a beta, and launching the full version when it and the tools are ready would have been a much better move. But this isn't the first time where I think I would have made better decisions for PR than the folks hired for the job.

 

[JaggedSac]

Its beyond people being annoyed at an attempt at vendor lock in by MS; Gears was not ready to be released publically. UWAs are not ready as a Win32 replacement. The Windows Store is not ready as a modern digital storefront for desktop software.

It is difficult for me to believe that nobody at MS knew any of these things.
It is difficult for me to believe that all of these things can be fixed within a couple of weeks.
It is difficult for me to believe that if there is a solution coming soon, that unannounced software could not have been held back until that solution was available.

Are there people that think these things will be fixed in a couple weeks? Or are there people curious about what MS' redstone wave 1 updates to the UWP are, and what their roadmap is at build?

 

[gamz]

That's just the way the business works now. Get the product out there and use the rapid release schedule Google started to add to it and/or fix shit.

 

[TBiddy]

Are there people that think these things will be fixed in a couple weeks? Or are there people curious about what MS' redstone wave 1 updates to the UWP are, and what their roadmap is at build?

I don't think anyone in this thread expects that no, so I'm not fully sure what and who LordRaptor is arguing.

It's quite obvious, that there will be major improvements to UWP in the coming months, some of which will probably be shown at build.

 

[LordRaptor]

Are there people that think these things will be fixed in a couple weeks? Or are there people curious about what MS' redstone wave 1 updates to the UWP are, and what their roadmap is at build?

I don't think anyone in this thread expects that no, so I'm not fully sure what and who LordRaptor is arguing.

I'm not intentionally trying to put arguments in peoples mouths, or misrepresent peoples positions; I was under the impression that there are people in this thread who legitimately believe that the case Tim Sweeney has put forward as a problem will have a solution presented at //build/, but that cannot be broadly explained to people who share these concerns right now for PR reasons.

 

[Movalpolos]

There is not nearly enough damage control in this thread.

"Just give them some time."

Okay, did my part. Round up the troops.

 

[gamz]

I'm not intentionally trying to put arguments in peoples mouths, or misrepresent peoples positions; I was under the impression that there are people in this thread who legitimately believe that the case Tim Sweeney has put forward as a problem will have a solution presented at //build/, but that cannot be broadly explained to people who share these concerns right now for PR reasons.

Build is in a couple of weeks. Relax. We will get a roadmap for sure.

 

[TBiddy]

I'm not intentionally trying to put arguments in peoples mouths, or misrepresent peoples positions; I was under the impression that there are people in this thread who legitimately believe that the case Tim Sweeney has put forward as a problem will have a solution presented at //build/, but that cannot be broadly explained to people who share these concerns right now for PR reasons.

It's my impression that a lot of the arguments presented by Sweeney is based on uncertainty, guesswork and what have you.

As for features I don't think we will see an updated API which allows for G-Sync, mGPU etc. at //build, but there will most likely be a roadmap, or at least estimations.

 

[krang]

It's my impression that a lot of the arguments presented by Sweeney is based on uncertainty, guesswork and what have you.

As for features I don't think we will see an updated API which allows for G-Sync, mGPU etc. at //build, but there will most likely be a roadmap, or at least estimations.

I think that's probably his point.

 

[Trup1aya]

I'm not intentionally trying to put arguments in peoples mouths, or misrepresent peoples positions; I was under the impression that there are people in this thread who legitimately believe that the case Tim Sweeney has put forward as a problem will have a solution presented at //build/, but that cannot be broadly explained to people who share these concerns right now for PR reasons.

Oh.

I think build will provide the opportunity for MS to explain, in detail, what the UWP program will mean for publishers and developers who have questions about openness of Windows going forward.

Considering what build is, and what it always has been, there's a good chance that MS would have been addressing many of these concerns, with or without Sweeney's Op-Ed peice.

I expect another shock-drop, with some much needed API updates being released on that day. I also expect a roadmap which will detail items that MS recognizes need fixing, and maybe provide a timeline for fixes.

For me personally, if Build comes and goes without such a roadmap being presented, and without MS showing understanding of the communities concerns and a willingness to address those concerns with fixes, then I'll pick up my pitch fork.

 

[Zedox]

Oh.

I think build will provide the opportunity for MS to explain, in detail, what the UWP program will mean for publishers and developers who have questions about openness of Windows going forward.

Considering what build is, and what it always has been, there's a good chance that MS would have been addressing many of these concerns, with or without Sweeney's Op-Ed peice.

I expect another shock-drop, with some much needed API updates being released on that day. I also expect a roadmap which will detail items that MS recognizes need fixing, and maybe provide a timeline for fixes.

For me personally, if Build comes and goes without such a roadmap being presented, and without MS showing understanding of the communities concerns and a willingness to address those concerns with fixes, then I'll pick up my pitch fork.

That's how I feel about it.