Support NeoGAF

[Durante]

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.

Yes, that's what the issue boils down to.

I mean, it's perfectly possible to achieve the stated goals of UWA -- that is, enhanced security and a more modern API -- without taking any control away from the user or limiting distribution. Just look at e.g. GPG package signing.

But that type of positive solution does not achieve the unstated goals of UWA. Yes, those are to some degree speculative, but the existing design points to them being foremost in the designer's mind.

 

[Trup1aya]

Yes, that's what the issue boils down to.

I mean, it's perfectly possible to achieve the stated goals of UWA -- that is, enhanced security and a more modern API -- without taking any control away from the user or limiting distribution. Just look at e.g. GPG package signing.

But that type of positive solution does not achieve the unstated goals of UWA. Yes, those are to some degree speculative, but the existing design points to them being foremost in the designer's mind.

Sure, but you are assuming that the designer never had intentions of restoring controls to the user and removing distribution limitations. There's really no way to tell.

Your also assuming that the 'unstated goals' actually exist and ignoring the possibility that the limitations are a result of the product being incomplete and the need for stop gap measures until it is complete.

 

[LordRaptor]

I have to say todays studio closures to my mind are a +1 in the "MS games division have fucked up and are in panic mode" more than "Just according to keikaku, see our glorious masterpiece unveiled at build"

 

[Nzyme32]

Sure, but you are assuming that the designer never had intentions of restoring controls to the user and removing distribution limitations. There's really no way to tell.

Your also assuming that the 'unstated goals' actually exist and ignoring the possibility that the limitations are a result of the product being incomplete and the need for stop gap measures until it is complete.

Ask yourself, why does "side loading" even need to exist on Windows in the first place, if being completely open to competing services / platforms / Win32 / a theoretical UWP sold by other parties is actually their goal as they state.

There should be no place for "side loading" in an open platform.

Will this change for better / worse, is it temporary, and other questions do not have answers now. Questioning what is going on and have a solid technical specification to thoroughly rule out closing the platform and having UWP be a completely open standard, is something that should be happening right now, pre-emptively, when there are no solid answers and MS are already pushing & marketing products that compete with others, and even the development for further UWAs with no full technical information provided to support their claims. If there is no sign of a proper understanding of the situation and technical information to confirm their directions remaining open once Build has concluded, that's when the full cause for concern comes in.

 

[inm8num2]

Maximum PC put out an article about this.

 

[Trup1aya]

Ask yourself, why does "side loading" even need to exist on Windows in the first place, if being completely open to competing services / platforms / Win32 / a theoretical UWP sold by other parties is actually their goal as they state.

There should be no place for "side loading" in an open platform.

Will this change for better / worse, is it temporary, and other questions do not have answers now. Questioning what is going on and have a solid technical specification to thoroughly rule out closing the platform and having UWP be a completely open standard, is something that should be happening right now, pre-emptively, when there are no solid answers and MS are already pushing & marketing products that compete with others, and even the development for further UWAs with no full technical information provided to support their claims. If there is no sign of a proper understanding of the situation and technical information to confirm their directions remaining open once Build has concluded, that's when the full cause for concern comes in.

I can ask myself all sorts of questions... It'll always result in speculation since I'm not involved in the development of this API nor do I have any comment from someone who is. After Build, I suspect that there won't be any need for speculation.

I never said we shouldn't be questioning things. I'm all for it.

 

[LukasTaves]

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

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?

Indeed I had misread. I still think it's unlikely that they will just drop advances on the win32 without having a proper substitute. But I that point it's just guesswork either way, though, so far, specially compared to win8 Ms is going into the opposite direction of your proposal, that is make the uwp less restrictive as well make it more accessible.

I do think they intend uwp to be that substitute, but they are also covering their asses in case it doesn't. For instance, the uwp is built upon win32, but in many ways acts like a wrapper, so eventually they could replace win32 with something else, or they could add that functionality into win32.

 

[gamz]

Really interesting counter by Peter Bright:

Tim Sweeney is missing the point; the PC platform needs fixing

Sweeney wants UWP to either be destroyed or made "open" in the same way that the traditional Win32 API is "open." This is in three parts: he wants UWP apps to be downloadable and installable from the Web by default (without needing to change any settings or enable sideloading), he wants third parties to be able to create their own storefronts for UWP apps, and he wants it to always be possible for developers to sell directly to users without Microsoft taking a 30 percent cut.

This is a strange complaint for two main reasons. The first issue is that the UWP lock-down is, overall, a positive thing. The second is that there doesn't appear to be anything preventing third-party downloads, third-party storefronts, and third-party billing right now.

Why are the UWP restrictions worthwhile? What Sweeney seems to miss is that the PC platform is, for many people, broken, and a lot of people don't actually like it. The "consoleization" of the PC, like the consoleization of the smartphone before it, isn't motivated simply by some desire to seize control of software sales. It's motivated by the desire to make the PC not horrible.

The PC platform has a bad reputation. Malware in all its various types is endemic. Even good software comes bundled with undesirable spyware. Software applications suffer incompatibilities with each other; they suffer incompatibilities with device drivers. Programs do not uninstall cleanly, leaving detritus scattered hither and yon. They also don't upgrade consistently, with every single application having its own patching and updating infrastructure. Even when everything works, upgrading your operating system is prone to breaking it all. These problems may be overstated somewhat by the platform's detractors, but they're all true to at least some extent, and these problems serve only to boost non-PC platforms.

The games themselves aren't the only things that don't follow best practices. Valve's Steam, for example, is notable in that aside from the very first install, it never asks you for Administrator privileges when it downloads games and updates itself. There's a reason for that: during installation, it marks its entire install directory as writeable by any user on the system. That means it can install games and upgrade itself without any intervention, but it also means there's a giant directory of writeable stuff that anyone, and anything, can mess with.

On multiple user systems, this would be disastrous. It would mean that a low-privilege user (a child, say) could overwrite programs that a high privilege user (their parent, say) would then run. It's probably not a problem... probably. But it's definitely not a good practice.

Therein lies the rub. The combined restrictions (and capabilities) of the Store and UWPs make Windows a better platform, forcing developers to clean up their act. Sweeney wants to take away the Store aspect, leaving only UWPs to be a free-for-all in the way that the Win32 platform already is. This would undermine the value proposition of the UWP/Store combo. Microsoft created the store and UWPs to address real problems. They're not whimsical or arbitrary; they're designed to make the PC a better platform. Following these rules has value, and games companies have traditionally been really bad at following the rules.

Sideloading is surely good enough

In the aftermath of Sweeney's post, Microsoft's Phil Spencer made a tweet claiming that UWP is a "fully open ecosystem" that can be supported by "any store."

While many would probably quibble about calling Windows "open," this does seem to be technically true. Windows contains a big switch to control how it uses UWP apps with three settings. The strictest setting, which was the default when Windows 10 originally shipped, will only let you install apps from the store. The middle setting allows you to sideload UWP apps from anywhere, meaning that it can plausibly be used to enable apps from outside Microsoft's store. The apps must still have a digital signature, but they can be signed with any certificate that the system trusts. The third option is developer mode; this allows not just sideloading, but debugging and other developer-oriented capabilities.


This sideload setting is something we've explicitly advocated for, and we're glad to see it added to Windows 10. The Windows 10 November Update, version 1511, went a step further and made this setting the default. The PC as a platform retains its full power, and the user is in full control of what can and can't run, but by default the system is reasonably safe. With this option enabled, direct downloads, third-party stores, and third-party sales are all possible, enabling a putative UWP-compatible Steam, say, that signed all its games with its own signature.
It would be straightforward enough to make this work for apps downloaded from the Web, too. Just make the app's installer add the relevant certificate to the system.

This gives third parties the necessary tools to do what Sweeney wants. And there's certainly a role for third-party stores. Microsoft's rules go beyond the merely technical. They also prohibit certain kinds of adult content, for example, and one can readily imagine third-party stores without "blue laws." The ability to have stores without the same content restrictions, or with different purchasing mechanisms, or which offer their own friend and achievement systems, would make UWP more desirable to more developers.

Edit: Side note Sql server is on Linux now! WTH?!?!?!

 

[Durante]

I'd argue that PC gamers, by and large, don't think PC is "horrible".

Also, you can have all the security advantages of UWP without taking any control available from the owners of software, and without having everyone go through Microsoft to publish software.

GnuPG does it. UWA most certainly doesn't.

 

[Trup1aya]

I'd argue that PC gamers, by and large, don't think PC is "horrible".

Also, you can have all the security advantages of UWP without taking any control available from the owners of software, and without having everyone go through Microsoft to publish software.

GnuPG does it. UWA most certainly doesn't.

They are pretty adamant about not forcing people to go through ms to publish software. Might as well wait and see what they say at build on this matter

 

[Durante]

They are pretty adamant about not forcing people to go through ms to publish software. Might as well wait and see what they say at build on this matter

What about the other part of the equation, actually conveniently letting the user of a system decide which applications they want to give which rights to, and to actually let them fully access the data and execution state of their owned programs if they so choose? Because I've heard nothing about that, and since I'm not Tim Sweeney or Gabe Newell that's actually the far more important part to me.

 

[Trup1aya]

What about the other part of the equation, actually conveniently letting the user of a system decide which applications they want to give which rights to, and to actually let them fully access the data and execution state of their owned programs if they so choose? Because I've heard nothing about that, and since I'm not Tim Sweeney or Gabe Newell that's actually the far more important part to me.

Yeah, that's the more important part to me too. But again, the platform is in its infancy. My issue is not that they are sand boxing, my issue is that the sandbox is too small and users don't have the ability to let applications of their choosing outside of the sandbox...

Still, I don't see why this couldn't be something that is added in later. Also, while dissapointing, I can imagine development priorities that would prevent this functionality from making it into the earliest versions of the API. If I get indication that these issues won't be addressed prior to Win32 being replaced. I'll get my pitchfork out. I can atleast wait until their developer conference before behaving as if the worst case scenario is a reality.

 

[FrozenCell]

Ars' usual suckup article http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2016/03/tim-sweeney-is-missing-the-point-the-pc-platform-needs-fixing/

 

[LukasTaves]

Really interesting counter by Peter Bright:

Tim Sweeney is missing the point; the PC platform needs fixing









Edit: Side note Sql server is on Linux now! WTH?!?!?!

I'm a little torn myself on the points this raises. I do think that many things regarding Pc are archaic and that a machine is way better than us at handling some tasks. For instance, file management. Why do we have to use an file/folder metaphor dated back to old libraries were remembering the physical location was the only way to retrieve a file?

By now we should have a system that would index the shit out the file, even our interactions with it in emails, social networks and so on, and offer human like semantics for retrieving that file (For instance, I would like to get the photo that I took while on vacation, posted online, and my good friend Paul commented on Facebook).

But at the same time some of these conveniences come in the way of having direct control over what happens on your computer.

 

[DeepEnigma]

Ars' usual suckup article http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2016/03/tim-sweeney-is-missing-the-point-the-pc-platform-needs-fixing/

Is there a graph to show it, or should I not read too much into it?

 

[gamz]

Ars' usual suckup article http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2016/03/tim-sweeney-is-missing-the-point-the-pc-platform-needs-fixing/

If you read it he makes a ton of really good points, and if you know anything about Peter Bright he's certainly no suck up. Like at all!

 

[aeolist]

If you read it he makes a ton of really good points, and if you know anything about Peter Bright he's certainly no suck up. Like at all!

i agree that bright is a smart guy who can make good points, but disagree that this is one of them

the article is basically "yes they want to make windows into iOS but that's fine because people like iOS and there are some benefits"

he also brings up some valid problems with the current windows security and app model that do not require something as limiting as UWP to solve

 

[QaaQer]

Really interesting counter by Peter Bright:

Tim Sweeney is missing the point; the PC platform needs fixing









Edit: Side note Sql server is on Linux now! WTH?!?!?!

Bright is a cheerleader, not a serious commentator.

If you read it he makes a ton of really good points, and if you know anything about Peter Bright he's certainly no suck up. Like at all!

lol.

 

[gamz]

Bright is a cheerleader, not a serious commentator.

He's not. Brad Sams and Paul Thurrott are also really good and criticize when need be.

Sometimes I think they are too harsh.

 

[Omaer]

And if this happens then I will be moving to Linux or back to windows 7.

Should have never left it man. It good to have multiple OS's. I.e. 1) W7, 2) Linux Ubuntu/Mint/Debian, 3) Tails, 4) Steam OS & 5) W10. That way you get the best of all worlds. And as for phones & tablets just have an android device & a W8 device.

 

[Crayon]

Why are the UWP restrictions worthwhile? What Sweeney seems to miss is that the PC platform is, for many people, broken, and a lot of people don't actually like it. The "consoleization" of the PC, like the consoleization of the smartphone before it, isn't motivated simply by some desire to seize control of software sales. It's motivated by the desire to make the PC not horrible.

This article is some olympic class pole-riding.

Might hint at the crypto marketing coming down the pipe. "PC was a mistake."

 

[Beautifully Shaped Monsters]

Really interesting counter by Peter Bright:

Tim Sweeney is missing the point; the PC platform needs fixing

Edit: Side note Sql server is on Linux now! WTH?!?!?!

Uhm.... This is horrible.

And who is this Bright guy? Just because he is in love with his smartphone, doesn't mean that's the direction we should take.

Anytime a loop is needed to jump through to get free access to your computer it gives an unfair competitive advantage for Microsoft.

The PC platform doesn't need fixing, so much as Microsoft needed to clean up their act, which they have largely done.

Windows XP and before were horrible messes, security wise and architecturally. This were due to bad decisions and wrong assumptions going back to the DOS days. These problems have been incrementally addressed over the last 10 years, we might not be 100% there yet, but making a closed wall garden, even it has a side entrance, is not the solution we need.

 

[Omaer]

"PC was a mistake."

- Hayao Miyazaki

 

[QaaQer]

He's not. Brad Sams and Paul Thurrott are also really good and criticize when need be.

Sometimes I think they are too harsh.

He needs access to ms pr and people. AT accepts MS advertising. MS needs friendly reporting. You know, typical corporate media symbiosis.

I stopped reading him after his reviews of win8 and win8 phone, which sounded like pr. "Win Phone 8: A Magnificient Platform" or some such. bleh.

 

[gamz]

He needs access to ms pr and people. AT accepts MS advertising. MS needs friendly reporting. You know, typical corporate media symbiosis.

I stopped reading him after his reviews of win8 and win8 phone, which sounded like pr. "Win Phone 8: A Magnificient Platform" or some such. bleh.

Nah. If you follow these guys on twitter and in articles when shit isn't right they blast MS. Bright is always busting MS on twitter.

 

[QaaQer]

Nah. If you follow these guys on twitter and in articles when shit isn't right they blast MS. Bright is always busting MS on twitter.

Maybe, but that article you posted and my memories say different. :shrug:

 

[roadrunn3r]

Why are the UWP restrictions worthwhile? What Sweeney seems to miss is that the PC platform is, for many people, broken, and a lot of people don't actually like it. The "consoleization" of the PC, like the consoleization of the smartphone before it, isn't motivated simply by some desire to seize control of software sales. It's motivated by the desire to make the PC not horrible. The PC platform has a bad reputation. Malware in all its various types is endemic. Even good software comes bundled with undesirable spyware. Software applications suffer incompatibilities with each other; they suffer incompatibilities with device drivers. Programs do not uninstall cleanly, leaving detritus scattered hither and yon. They also don't upgrade consistently, with every single application having its own patching and updating infrastructure. Even when everything works, upgrading your operating system is prone to breaking it all. These problems may be overstated somewhat by the platform's detractors, but they're all true to at least some extent, and these problems serve only to boost non-PC platforms.

Haha, this is ridiculous, is this guy for real? Just tell me it's a joke article to soften the drama and I would believe it.

 

[Dictator93]

Really interesting counter by Peter Bright:

Tim Sweeney is missing the point; the PC platform needs fixing

If I were an idiot, I would write this.

 

[Nzyme32]

If I were an idiot, I would write this.

Well he is the resident Microsoft author for the website.

 

[José Mourinho]

Haha, this is ridiculous, is this guy for real? Just tell me it's a joke article to soften the drama and I would believe it.

What part of the text which you decided to highlight is laghhable? How are these not valid issues/concerns for real people who are not power users?

There's a reason why everybody and their dog is comfortable with and likes using their smartphones/tablets.

 

[QaaQer]

What part of the text which you decided to highlight is laghhable? How are these not valid issues/concerns for real people who are not power users?

There's a reason why everybody and their dog is comfortable with and likes using their smartphones/tablets.

It's no wonder nobody uses windows or pcs anymore.


But more seriously, the pc is a general computing device that allows any type of code to be run, and that is where the power comes from. Once those things are changed or diminished, so is the platform. Having an open general computing platform isn't the most profitable way of doing things, and that is the motivation for change, not the desire to make PCs grandma friendly.

 

[roadrunn3r]

What part of the text which you decided to highlight is laghhable? How are these not valid issues/concerns for real people who are not power users?

There's a reason why everybody and their dog is comfortable with and likes using their smartphones/tablets.

There's a reason why consoles exist and those type of people who think a PC is horrible shouldn't have a PC. Why do you insist on something that's not made for you. That's why you have alternatives and that's why choices are a good thing.

Trying to make the PC a console or worse a mobile style ecosystem is not only laughable but one of the most stupid and absurd things I can think of. If you like closed systems, get yourself a closed system and stop trying to ruin it for the rest of us who don't want to.

 

[m_dorian]

Why is the PC horrible?
Who are these people, apart from MS financial executives, that think PC system is broken?

Last time i checked, I was ok, with how things work and only have some minor annoyances from MS new OS.
The editor of Arse Techica voices some security concerns how ever malware and spyware problems seems to me as a lesser threat than a total environment control from an unreliable and greedy company. At least for most of the time, me and million other pc users have minimized threats from malware, spyware and virus programs but to escape from a control freak company that wants to dominate to my PC's OS means i have to change OS.
I trust my antivirus program developer more than i trust MS to do the right thing and it is their responsibility to change that. With actions and with PR stuff like the ones MS is so fond of.

 

[Glasshole]

Why is the PC horrible?
Who are these people, apart from MS financial executives, that think PC system is broken?

Last time i checked, I was ok, with how things work and only have some minor annoyances from MS new OS.
The editor of Arse Techica voices some security concerns how ever malware and spyware problems seems to me as a lesser threat than a total environment control from an unreliable and greedy company. At least for most of the time, me and million other pc users have minimized threats from malware, spyware and virus programs but to escape from a control freak company that wants to dominate to my PC's OS means i have to change OS.
I trust my antivirus program developer more than i trust MS to do the right thing and it is their responsibility to change that. With actions and with PR stuff like the ones MS is so fond of.

Intentional or typo?

I agree with you, however. You cannot bind so much power to MS alone, it's not their responsibility to change that.

 

[Vinc]

PCS being the tech equivalent to the wild west in the world of software is what made Windows successful in the first place. You can't sell the cake and eat it too.

 

[TBiddy]

If you read it he makes a ton of really good points, and if you know anything about Peter Bright he's certainly no suck up. Like at all!

No need to read this article. It's from ArsTechnica and is positive against Microsoft. Clearly, it's biased, bought and/or full of BS.

Seriously though, I don't think any of the last 10-15 posters actually read it. They didn't bother counting it, at least.

 

[DeepEnigma]

No need to read this article. It's from ArsTechnica and is positive against Microsoft. Clearly, it's biased, bought and/or full of BS.

Seriously though, I don't think any of the last 10-15 posters actually read it. They didn't bother counting it, at least.

Don't read too much into it... wait for the graph.

So that author is worried about spyware? Isn't Windows 10 itself a gigant piece of Spyware? Not sure UWP will help there.

How did he ever get by on every consumer computer product sine the dawn of the internet?

MSFT should lock down everything ... reason ... spyware or something, Cortana told me so. ;P

 

[CecilRousso]

So that author is worried about spyware? Isn't Windows 10 itself a gigant piece of Spyware? Not sure UWP will help there.

 

[anothertech]

I have major issue with this. I mean, ms thought they dominated the console space completely last Gen, and look at where they were trying to take consoles with the Xbone reveal. Hard to forget I know, but their original forced DRM policies and online requirements were so bad they had to 180 their entire plan including hardware requirements (Kinect) just to stay relevant to the next Gen.

With the amount of power they have in the PC space, I can definitely see them trying to implement something in a similar fashion regardless of consumer concern. It's as if They've been setting this up since Windows 8 with forced UI changes that they had to 180 on with win10.

Not good at all.

 

[DeepEnigma]

I have major issue with this. I mean, ms thought they dominated the console space completely last Gen, and look at where they were trying to take consoles with the Xbone reveal. Hard to forget I know, but their original forced DRM policies and online requirements were so bad they had to 180 their entire plan including hardware requirements (Kinect) just to stay relevant to the next Gen.

With the amount of power they have in the PC space, I can definitely see them trying to implement something in a similar fashion regardless of consumer concern. It's as if They've been setting this up since Windows 8 with forced UI changes that they had to 180 on with win10.

Not good at all.

This has been their MO since inception, and was more apparent with EEE. The fact that people are trying to silence those, or be like, but THIS TIME it is different, is quite, questionable.

It was only 3 years ago around this time we were all up in arms. Then again, there were 'people' even then on the pro-DRM/Always Online shitshow. smh

Enjoy some of their products and software, but it always seems like we have to keep them in check every 'new idea' they come up with.

 

[AncientDiety]

Why does everything from Ars Technia seem like a PR piece from MS? That article is awful.

 

[TBiddy]

This has been their MO since inception, and was more apparent with EEE. The fact that people are trying to silence those, or be like, but THIS TIME it is different, is quite, questionable.

I don't think anyone are trying to "silence" anyone. It's a debate on a forum, like anything else.

 

[DeepEnigma]

I don't think anyone are trying to "silence" anyone. It's a debate on a forum, like anything else.

If you are speaking for yourself, then by all means...

However, there are those that are. Do not say 'anyone is not', because there is handful that try to stifle and derail the debates every chance they get. And anyone who has been paying attention for the past week, from thread start to finish, those people are now cemented in the Gaf brain.

 

[RealityCheque]

I read the Ars article and have to say that I have never experienced any of the negative issues that they flag as being part of PC gaming.

Drivers always work, updates are fast and pretty invisible and I've never had any viruses or malware. But they write about these things as though PC users are constantly ducking and weaving as these fatal bullets fly at them.

Seems a little disingenuous that they have to fall back on this murky reasoning. If those are the primary reasons to recommend UWAs then they are, from my POV, pretty flimsy.

 

[gamz]

If you are speaking for yourself, then by all means...

However, there are those that are. Do not say 'anyone is not', because there is handful that try to stifle and derail the debates every chance they get. And anyone who has been paying attention for the past week, from thread start to finish, those people are now cemented in the Gaf brain.

Indeed! I expected it, but for the most part it's been fairly interesting. Derails aside.

 

[dhonk]

I read the Ars article and have to say that I have never experienced any of the negative issues that they flag as being part of PC gaming.

Drivers always work, updates are fast and pretty invisible and I've never had any viruses or malware. But they write about these things as though PC users are constantly ducking and weaving as these fatal bullets fly at them.

Seems a little disingenuous that they have to fall back on this murky reasoning. If those are the primary reasons to recommend UWAs then they are, from my POV, pretty flimsy.

Gotta agree there.

 

[gamz]

I read the Ars article and have to say that I have never experienced any of the negative issues that they flag as being part of PC gaming.

Drivers always work, updates are fast and pretty invisible and I've never had any viruses or malware. But they write about these things as though PC users are constantly ducking and weaving as these fatal bullets fly at them.

Seems a little disingenuous that they have to fall back on this murky reasoning. If those are the primary reasons to recommend UWAs then they are, from my POV, pretty flimsy.

Eh...I can see the point. PC's are still prone to cesspools of malware and crappy companies dodgy install tactics. It's still pretty awful actually. A safe, secure, centralized store controlled by MS is really, really needed.

 

[DeepEnigma]

I read the Ars article and have to say that I have never experienced any of the negative issues that they flag as being part of PC gaming.

Drivers always work, updates are fast and pretty invisible and I've never had any viruses or malware. But they write about these things as though PC users are constantly ducking and weaving as these fatal bullets fly at them.

Seems a little disingenuous that they have to fall back on this murky reasoning. If those are the primary reasons to recommend UWAs then they are, from my POV, pretty flimsy.

Ars can be chalked up as MSFT PR at this point. Weren't they also pro pre-180 Xbox One?

Fuck that noise. And with the reaching in that article, again, fuck that noise.

But, Don't Read Too Much Into It™

 

[AncientDiety]

I read the Ars article and have to say that I have never experienced any of the negative issues that they flag as being part of PC gaming.

Drivers always work, updates are fast and pretty invisible and I've never had any viruses or malware. But they write about these things as though PC users are constantly ducking and weaving as these fatal bullets fly at them.

Seems a little disingenuous that they have to fall back on this murky reasoning. If those are the primary reasons to recommend UWAs then they are, from my POV, pretty flimsy.

It's Ars...they seem hell bent on making MS look good at every turn.

 

[Dinky Dino]

I have to say todays studio closures to my mind are a +1 in the "MS games division have fucked up and are in panic mode" more than "Just according to keikaku, see our glorious masterpiece unveiled at build"

Most of those studios were kinect based which was stated to not be supported by MS in the future so that made sense. From what I've been seeing from few users who said they played the fable legends beta, they claim it wasn't very good. Could be true or false but MS might just be cutting losses and perhaps redistributing focus on another IP people might want more. I sure didn't see many people excited for it beforehand rather people who wanted fable 4.