If he unequivocally said it was great he would look like an idiot since he threw a tantrum a month ago.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Tim Sweeney:MS wants to monopolise games development on PCand we must fight it
- Thread starter ekim
- Start date
If he unequivocally said it was great he would look like an idiot since he threw a tantrum a month ago.
Thanks for the links. I cant watch right now as I am currently at work but I will check them out when I am able.
As far as Tim's reaction goes while he does seem happy with some of the developments like one click apx boots and certifications he is skeptical of some of the wording around some of the announcements. It seems he feels things were vague enough that they could easily leave room for specific app functions being locked to Windows 10 store which would definitely not be what he considers to be an open development platform. Going by what hes said so far he seems to be looking at in depth before committing to a conclusive comment either way. I'm sure he will release an official conclusion once hes done pouring over all the details/info. I'm looking forward to reading that whenever it arrives.
This is such a horrible comment. The only one throwing a temper tantrum in this equation is you. Grow up.
I am certainly curious about which platform functions are going to be available to non-Windows store apps. For example, they have added some additional functionality for syncing notifications between devices(Android included) and this can use their cloud infrastructure. Will this be available to all UWP platform apps regardless of whether they were grabbed from the store. Definitely curious to see how all that shakes out. I would hope they would at least provide hooks to tie another service in place.
ieptbarakat
Member
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend_and_extinguish
If MS gets their way, it's only a matter of time.
Hasn't he been a vocal opponent of Windows being the de facto gaming platform due to its monopolistic nature?
Coming from you after the "The Division" debacle, this is quite rich.
Damn, nobody's letting that one go.
Yea hopefully he can get some further clarification on the features locked to the Win 10 store versions provided they do indeed exist. Personally I'd imagine anything that relies on their own server infrastructure would probably tied to their store.
The Division debacle where I pointed out deceptive advertising and people jumped on me like I was the problem instead of calling out the company behind the advertising for their bullshit tactics? Yea shame on me for that. And congratulations for posting something completely irrelevant to the thread. You sure proved I'm the problem here.
Its cool if ppl wanna paint me as "The Division" Boogeyman they can go right ahead. Im happy to be known as the guy who dared to question "the Division." The truth will out.
In many ways it already has
Also doesnt change the fact hes contributing nothing to the discussion going on in this thread. Nor did the person he seems offended I called out.
Windows 7 (64-bit) and Windows 10 (64-bit) are the #1 (34.21%) and #2 (34.01%) OSes on Steam right now. Linux is less than 1%, Mac is 3.4%.
If gaben was really mad about UWP/Win10, don't you think he would have jumped in as soon as Tim published his rant a few weeks back?
Especially since more than a third of his customers are on Win10?
Maybe he will and he's just been too distracted launching SteamVR.
You completely missed the point, not that it surprises anyone really.
You acted like a kid with a persecution complex when "everybody was out to get you" a threw a hissy fit. This was the behavior I was depicting.
With that said, you should probably try to be less condescending to the other posters, it would probably help get your points accross better. And please, still playing the "The truth will come out" card? Like, really?
potatohead
Member
Hm yea well... funny thing you say there.
MS does shit gold bricks. Those are called dividends. Which go to their shareholders every month.
Unfortunately most MS customers are not shareholders, so they aren't treated like shareholders, and don't receive these golden shit bricks.
I would say that giving everyone owning Win7, 8 and 8.1 (businesses excluded) a free copy of Windows 10 is prety unheard of and quite nice to their customers.
Anyway people have been saying that Microsoft was going to close up windows since Windows 98 and the pentium signature code way back in the 90s, it's nothing new and probably won't change.
it's kind of tiring to see people just link to that without saying how it would actually work in their examples.
I was responding to direct attacks on me that is completely different form coming into a thread and posting the sort of childish attacks the person I mentioned did. Anyone reading that thread can see what happened and while I may have overreacted it is also obvious that people were jumping all over me for creating the thread simply because it reflected negatively on a game they were excited for. Its clear as day. What I did was in response to personal attacks. It not at all analogous to the comment I mentioned.
Its my belief people have to earn respect. When somebody does something thats disrespectful they dont get any. Feel free to disagree with that if you want but my comment was not without cause or merit. Hence why rather than adress the coment itself you instead resorted to questioning my character because you knew the other party's comment was disrespectful and childish.
It also doesn't change the fact that you brought a completely different and irrelevant topic in a thread entirely unrelated to said topic. Unlike yourself I've been actually participating in the ongoing conversation whereas you popped in to take a whack at me because I made a mean comment. Seems clear to me which has more value as far as the contents of this thread are concerned.
By the way "the truth will out" is actually a literary reference meaning the truth will eventually bear witness to right and wrong. It has a more nuanced and logical meaning than "the truth will come out."
Regardless this is all pointless to the discussion at hand. If you have an issue with me personally or the comments I have made you can either address me via PM or contact a mod. There is no reason to further sidetrack thread with this dredged up drama.
He sort of already has. He responded during MSs first attempts at integrating an OS level storefront. His big push back was SteamOS which appears to have landed with all the strength of a wet noodle all things considered. So given the result of his last efforts I'm sure hes weighing things very carefully this time around before he and his company act in any capacity.
justsomeguy
Member
This is a large chunk of what he wanted.
This is a great name for a band
Allow me to introduce you to a timeless classic.
As a consumer, I'm seeing zero upsides to these "universal apps". Halo 2 and Shadowrun 2006 failed to push GFWL and Vista, wouldn't really mind a repeat here. I'm not one of the two people who own a Windows phone, I don't have an Xbox, I play games on the PC. What's the upside? I can see the upside for Microsoft's failing phone and console platforms, I'm not really seeing it for consumers.
I wonder what this will mean for software people use to actually get work done. What would a UWP version of Matlab, AutoCAD or Photoshop be like? Nobody's going to run those on their fucking phone.
While youre right that this does cover a chunk of his objections, theres also some details that are still a bit vague that could be an issue. From what I understand thus far going by whats readable online theres some confusion around about specific features being locked to UWPs that are featured in the Windows Store ecosystem along with a few other things. We still need some confirmation on some things before we can claim all his concerns were addressed. Id imagine hes in the process of trying to get that confirmation before he makes a statement.
I think this is MSs biggest issue right now. They are failing to make this a compelling platform for consumers. Especially with the notable issues every single flagship UWP release has had thus far. They haven't really made a compelling argument to most consumers as to why this platform is a compelling or even worthwhile option to consider. If they want to see the level of adoption they seem to want without heavy handed plays like what Tim voiced objection to with UWP they really need to start offering customers exclusive features that they find appealing.
RIght now UWP is fraught with compatibility and performance issues for a variety of scenarios and applications. Its simply not a viable option for taxing applications like the ones you mention currently. I really wonder why MS opted to force out a seemingly nascent platform instead of waiting till it matured a bit more. It breeds a lot of negative sentiment and concerns for consumers when it is the source of so many issues. It reeks of a very short term focused and that is definitely not what should happening when you are trying to launch both a new storefront and a new development platform in an existing open and highly competitive market.
ieptbarakat
Member
It's pretty simple though, really.
For example with Microsoft allowing UWP programs to be launched through Steam, they first embrace the current market and allow it's competitors to use the same features as they do. After that, they can start incentivizing consumers and developers to focus exclusively on UWP applications to gain a larger foothold in the marketspace while still running off the goodwill of an open market. Then finally if they get a large enough marketshare of UWP users, Microsoft could wean them off using their competitor's storefronts under the guise of outdated tech and features while having a storefront of established UWP titles to back it up. The end result would likely fracture Steam's popularity with larger publishers and the monopoly of the marketplace would shift firmly into Microsoft's hands.
therealbigrich
Member
When I see that embrace, extend and extinguish wiki link I think should MS not have a plan to become more successful?
There is more than one way to skin a cat not all of them involve the wholesale destruction of other platforms, companies and jobs. Generally speaking a business plan for sucess should not rely on the assisted execution of their competition it should rely on making their own product more appealing and thus expanding their own user base and expanding profit margins on their products so as to ensure increasing profitability over time.. That has historically never been MSs modus operandi.
therealbigrich
Member
assisted execution does sound bad but if a company allows that I can see them deserving what they get . I understand it makes to want a company just make a better product and just rely on that but it rarely works that way . All I really ever see is companies making commercials tearing down the competition and seems to just be the way it is
justsomeguy
Member
Looks like that's what tim sweeney is saying
Signs are pointing to that being the case but I would encourage you to wait for an official confirmation from a third party source (such as Tim Sweeney) before saying as much.
No he says that is what has been implied by MS and that he will look further into it. Give him some time to get some confirmation and then we can see for sure either way.
Edit: Looks like there is still signing required but that it can be done via tools others than MSs own
unless I am misreading his tweet.
Still waiting for the promised followup statement from Sweeney for further clarification.
Compare the release and continued development of Chrome or firefox to the implementation of Internet Explorer and you'll notice a stark difference. You're being purposefully reductive/obtuse. Microsoft has a storied and well documented history of success via exploiting unfair advantages over the competition as opposed offering a competitive product via compelling or innovative features.
Bigmac1910
Member
Very good example, this is what Tim is afraid of, and rightly so.
That feature is allowing their apps to be sold on different storefronts? But the established UWP titles are on other storefronts so it would essentially be competition? what outdated tech could they come at competing store fronts with and how would that be any different than Steam offering features that Origin doesn't have?
you're essentially saying that's it a bad step for MS to even allow UWP to be sold on other storefronts.
that sounds more hopeful than an actual thing. company's business plans absolutely want to innovate on what their competitors are doing, do it better than them and get their marketshare.
Arstechnica did a reasonable write-up of why UWP is probably a good thing.
http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2016/03/tim-sweeney-is-missing-the-point-the-pc-platform-needs-fixing/
I'm happy to see MS evolving their OS. They seem hell-bent on making it the place to be for developers (even effectively including a native Linux environment shortly), it's good to see them fight for our money.
It seems to be agreed that MS shouldn't be trusted with running everything on Windows via a closed app-store.... so why are we all seemingly so happy to see Valve claim ownership of all games via Steam?
Because Valve earn their position in the market by doing a good job, rather than by leveraging their position as platform holder to stack the deck in their favour.
Valve also have a variety of competitors keeping them on their toes.
A good point, but MS can't make us buy from their store, they will have to earn our trust. Even if they don't it will make other stores like Steam compete harder for our attention.
I haven't forgotten the bitter vitriol when Half Life 2 was released and it had to phone home to activate, I think the terror about UWP is closely related and will amount to nothing. I'm as happy to buy (license?) games from Steam as I am from MS.
The idea that MS would lock down Windows so that we couldn't side-load apps seems crazy to me, that would be suicide for the entire OS. Windows' strength is that it isn't iOS and they are fully aware of it.
RedSparrows
Member
To me the end result is more problematic than the method.
Eh, Valve used Half Life 2 as leverage to get people to install Steam. They play the game same as everyone else.
Without HL2 it's unlikely Steam went anywhere because it was a shitshow for years. Crashing, bugs, friends list straight up not working at all. But you had to be on it to play the Hottest PC Game Of The Time.
KonradLaw
Member
I'm not. I try to buy from GOG.com or directly from devs as often as I can and I hope Oculus won't loose against SteamVR.
I like my pcgaming market varied
moniker
Member
Maybe I'm misunderstanding your post, but how is that unheard of? All other major OSes have free upgrades, businesses included, and with no time window limit for upgrading.
I wouldn't say Valve does a good job, I'd just leave it as they do their job and they're the biggest. Honestly I think current Valve is shit as a company. Shit at maintaining their store by allowing absolute shit on the store, shit at customer service, shit at communication, shit on their tangent side products like SteamOS and even their controller app, shit, shit, shit. They're competent at best. What sets them apart is everything is on Steam, being first mattered there.
But, on the flip side, Microsoft has a proven track record of not just being "meh" but actively working to fuck and fucking over customers and their history is littered with examples of bad behavior. I wouldn't say that Valve's earned any trust but I would say that Microsoft has earned the people's mistrust.
But the 'competitor' (Win32) is their own product xd
undu
Member
One that doesn't bring them as many benefits as UWP and the windows store. I don't see what's 'xd' about it.
Oh, yes. Here's an example:
That ars-technica article keeps mixing thing betweeen PC "issues", what Microsoft wants to do with his ecosystem and the uwp applications themselves.
michaelius
Banned
Even if UWPs are sold through 3rd party webstores that doesn't solve the issue.
As long as any code sold will need to be activated on MS store then Microsoft will be able at any moment to revoke that policy.
I seem to remember that Ars Technica was one of the few websites to defend Microsoft xbox one used game policy.
As for Valve too rhetoric - well one company is Valve - people who on their own saved PC gaming in dark times of x360 lauch. On the other hand is Microsoft - company which actively tried to kill PC gaming and compay which tried to chargé pc gamers for online gaming.
With Valve I know they are genuine , with Microsoft I know they wouldn't care even one bit if Xbox One wasn't failure.
As long as any code sold will need to be activated on MS store then Microsoft will be able at any moment to revoke that policy.
I seem to remember that Ars Technica was one of the few websites to defend Microsoft xbox one used game policy.
As for Valve too rhetoric - well one company is Valve - people who on their own saved PC gaming in dark times of x360 lauch. On the other hand is Microsoft - company which actively tried to kill PC gaming and compay which tried to chargé pc gamers for online gaming.
With Valve I know they are genuine , with Microsoft I know they wouldn't care even one bit if Xbox One wasn't failure.
As far as I can tell, it doesn't. You can self sign or sign with any CA root, just like you can already do with win32 apps.
CecilRousso
Member
No, not in this thread. The discussion here is a very valid topic, and a very good one to have. The mistrust and cynicism people are having against Microsoft is something they themselves have built.
LordRaptor
Member
The "moaning miserable sods" are the reason PC gamers enjoy backwards compatibility on the vast majority of titles spanning well over a decade along with their free online gaming.
roadrunn3r
Member
Well lets suppose something bad is in the future of your preferred platform (which by a quick look in your case seems to be the xbox). People will fight it cause they have an attachment to the platform and that's how it should be for a consumer and only a good thing. Then here it comes lets say someone who has no interest in your platform and tells you that you are all some "entitled moaning unpleasable sods" and you should just be happy with everything that comes your way otherwise you are just toxic. Is that perspective clear enough for you?
Yes, I believe this is the case, apart from registering as a developer. Here's Microsoft's documentation:
Microsoft said:
I don't believe it does. Anyone can distribute a UWP application how they wish without Microsoft being involved in its distribution. However, this is called sideloading and I don't think that UWP offers many benefits as far as PC games as we know them are concerned.
Which is at odds with the real world. Supporting Linux like never before and opening their apps like never before. They just dropped bash into their OS. I mean...
D
Deleted member 325805
Unconfirmed Member
I don't like being forced to use the Windows store for exclusives when it's still very raw and missing basic features.
CecilRousso
Member
Those are good things, but you don't wipe out years of mistrust and bad behaviour that easily, and there are things with UWP that again makes the mistrust grow.
Similar threads
- Poll