Support NeoGAF

[gamz]

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.

Gamers never complained about backwards compatibility because they always had it. Windows always had it for games and applications. Let not take credit for it.

 

[gamz]

I don't like being forced to use the Windows store for exclusives when it's still very raw and missing basic features.

Then don't use it. It's their games for their store. Wait until it improves to suite your needs or don't use it. Nobody is forcing you to play the games.

 

[Riddick]

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 doesn't have a long history of royally screwing competition, developers, consumers, everyone really, to get ahead.

 

[Deleted member 325805]

Then don't use it. It's their games for their store. Wait until it improves to suite your needs or don't use it. Nobody is forcing you to play the games.

Do you work on the store or what? Jeez.

 

[JaggedSac]

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.

You have misunderstood. Code doesn't have to be activated on MS store.

 

[LukasTaves]

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.

As a general rule, ms wants developers using their services and development tools. Specially for cloud they see it as one of their core business.

With that mentality it just makes no sense for them to lock cloud features and other services from developers.

Also there's a great chance a developer will have his app on the win store and available some where else as well. If the developer is forced to offer exclusive features to the store version it most likely will mean he will not use those features at all.

Ms ultimate goal is to have again everyone developing on their platform, but this time even if it means developing for competitors. To achieve that goal in the very least have to outdo whatever the developers are already using otherwise no one would switch.

 

[LukasTaves]

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.

And how would that would extinguish the competition since for universal apps to become successful among developers they need to be sold at other stores as well?

 

[LukasTaves]

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:

In what way uwp benefits ms that win32 doesn't?

Ms is pushing uwp because it's a more modern platform that already has built in support to many oftheir services.

It's also a platform that allows developers on windows to make apps for windows and other platforms very easily, so even if a developer develops for another platform it would be using ms services and chances are that he could eventually develop for windows as well since it would be cost and time effective.

That's what ms has to gain from uwp being adopted, not locking down development altogether and ensuring that the competition has to go through settings and anything that could scare users away.

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.

But it doesn't.

 

[RexNovis]

As a general rule, ms wants developers using their services and development tools. Specially for cloud they see it as one of their core business.

With that mentality it just makes no sense for them to lock cloud features and other services from developers.

Also there's a great chance a developer will have his app on the win store and available some where else as well. If the developer is forced to offer exclusive features to the store version it most likely will mean he will not use those features at all.

Ms ultimate goal is to have again everyone developing on their platform, but this time even if it means developing for competitors. To achieve that goal in the very least have to outdo whatever the developers are already using otherwise no one would switch.

And how would that would extinguish the competition since for universal apps to become successful among developers they need to be sold at other stores as well?

In what way uwp benefits ms that win32 doesn't?

Ms is pushing uwp because it's a more modern platform that already has built in support to many oftheir services.

It's also a platform that allows developers on windows to make apps for windows and other platforms very easily, so even if a developer develops for another platform it would be using ms services and chances are that he could eventually develop for windows as well since it would be cost and time effective.

That's what ms has to gain from uwp being adopted, not locking down development altogether and ensuring that the competition has to go through settings and anything that could scare users away.

But it doesn't.

Wow at triple posting. What the hell? That's a first.

 

[JaggedSac]

As a general rule, ms wants developers using their services and development tools. Specially for cloud they see it as one of their core business.

With that mentality it just makes no sense for them to lock cloud features and other services from developers.

Also there's a great chance a developer will have his app on the win store and available some where else as well. If the developer is forced to offer exclusive features to the store version it most likely will mean he will not use those features at all.

Ms ultimate goal is to have again everyone developing on their platform, but this time even if it means developing for competitors. To achieve that goal in the very least have to outdo whatever the developers are already using otherwise no one would switch.

Good points.

 

[KonradLaw]

You have misunderstood. Code doesn't have to be activated on MS store.

But you need to register as developer. Is that "once you get it, you have it forever" kind of deal, or can MS revoke your registration?

 

[Krakn3Dfx]

Has anyone else scanned through this thread and thought "God, gamers are right moaning unpleasable sods"

Just wondering.

No offence intended but it just seems like their is a lot of hate and toxicity in this community lately?

Yeah because hasn't earned that or anything, right?

Worst post.

 

[Mindwipe]

But you need to register as developer. Is that "once you get it, you have it forever" kind of deal, or can MS revoke your registration?

MS can revoke your registration, and any code you have signed using that certificate, at any point, for any reason.

 

[Kael]

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.

because gamers always look to the negative first and base their 'facts' on assumptions.

 

[Kael]

Yeah because hasn't earned that or anything, right?

Worst post.

actually his comment is dead on.

 

[LordRaptor]

MS can revoke your registration, and any code you have signed using that certificate, at any point, for any reason.

Which is a practical necessity for any secured system.

because gamers always look to the negative first and base their 'facts' on assumptions.

If you can't be bothered to read the thread, please don't imply people aren't dealing in facts but assumptions.

 

[riflen]

But you need to register as developer. Is that "once you get it, you have it forever" kind of deal, or can MS revoke your registration?

Registering as a developer is not sinister. I don't think they hold any sway over you. If your account was deactivated for some reason, you could just sign up again using a different email account. Not sure what you're worried about here. It's in their interests to get developers to develop for Windows.

 

[LukasTaves]

Wow at triple posting. What the hell? That's a first.

Sorry

 

[Krakn3Dfx]

because gamers always look to the negative first and base their 'facts' on assumptions.

A lot of us look at company history.

The attempts to wash away Microsoft's long, checkered past are hilarious though, thanks for the giggle.

 

[Krakn3Dfx]

actually his comment is dead on.

Given your post history, I can see why you'd think so.

 

[MUnited83]

Has anyone else scanned through this thread and thought "God, gamers are right moaning unpleasable sods"

Just wondering.

No offence intended but it just seems like their is a lot of hate and toxicity in this community lately?

Complaining about anti-consumer policies and pointing out corporation plans to close a platform is "hate and toxicity" now.

because gamers always look to the negative first and base their 'facts' on assumptions.

Funnily enough all the facts seem to have been based on facts so far. Good try though.

Given your post history, I can see why you'd think so.

Lol, that's amusing. I'm not surprised in the slightest.

 

[gamz]

Complaining about anti-consumer policies and pointing out corporation plans to close a platform is "hate and toxicity" now.


Funnily enough all the facts seem to have been based on facts so far. Good try though.

And assumptions are??

 

[oldergamer]

Why not change the thread title since Sweeny changed his opinion?

 

[KonradLaw]

Registering as a developer is not sinister. I don't think they hold any sway over you. If your account was deactivated for some reason, you could just sign up again using a different email account. Not sure what you're worried about here. It's in their interests to get developers to develop for Windows.

For now. But this opens up room for incredible abuse down the road

 

[SPDIF]

Complaining about anti-consumer policies and pointing out corporation plans to close a platform is "hate and toxicity" now.

Well to be fair, from the recent Build presentations it doesn't seem that they're doing that. Unless you subscribe to the theory that at some point in the future MS are going to release some big update that will kill all non-store apps, I don't think you have too much to be concerned about.

But you need to register as developer. Is that "once you get it, you have it forever" kind of deal, or can MS revoke your registration?

Do you? As far as I'm aware you only have to do that if you want MS to sign your app and have it put up in the Windows Store. If all you want to do is develop your app, have it signed by a third-party CA and then make it available to download from your website, you don't need to be registered at all.

 

[LukasTaves]

Yes, I believe this is the case, apart from registering as a developer. Here's Microsoft's documentation:





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.

There's no need to sideloading anymore.

That was required up until the current build. For the anniversary update they are enabling uwp installers.

 

[KonradLaw]

Do you? As far as I'm aware you only have to do that if you want MS to sign your app and have it put up in the Windows Store. If all you want to do is develop your app, have it signed by a third-party CA and then make it available to download from your website, you don't need to be registered at all.

That sounds better. But doesn't Microsoft pick CAs?

 

[JaggedSac]

But you need to register as developer. Is that "once you get it, you have it forever" kind of deal, or can MS revoke your registration?

1 year. I think you only need that if you plan on deploying to the store. I dont think it keeps you from building the appx, I could be wrong though.

 

[riflen]

That sounds better. But doesn't Microsoft pick CAs?

Microsoft and Apple and Google and everyone has a process by which CAs can register to have their root certificate installed into the OS' trusted store. They do choose, but there is no charge, just a pretty comprehensive submission process. This fact doesn't really matter in this context and is a fair and sensible way to handle certification.
Microsoft choosing to not allow Verisign or Entrust or whomever to be trusted by default on their platform would be a blindingly stupid move that benefits no-one. Even then, Microsoft cannot stop end users from installing any root certificate they wish.

 

[M3d10n]

I don't like being forced to use the Windows store for exclusives when it's still very raw and missing basic features.

I didn't like using Steam either for exclusives back in 2004, but here we are.

 

[KonradLaw]

Microsoft and Apple and Google and everyone has a process by which CAs can register to have their root certificate installed into the OS' trusted store. They do choose, but there is no charge, just a pretty comprehensive submission process. This fact doesn't really matter in this context and is a fair and sensible way to handle certification.
Microsoft choosing to not allow Verisign or Entrust or whomever to be trusted by default on their platform would be a blindingly stupid move that benefits no-one. Even then, Microsoft cannot stop end users from installing any root certificate they wish.

So, does this mean that there's a possibility of somebody making UWP app and deplying it against Microsoft's wishes as long as user downloads it and runs it? Can I install root cerficate on my own? Even one that has never been aproved by MS in any shape or form?

 

[M3d10n]

That sounds better. But doesn't Microsoft pick CAs?

You really should read more about how root certificates work. Yes, they do pick, because they must bundle trusted root certificates into the OS so it can verify them offline. The same way as browsers such as Chrome and Firefox "pick CAs" for trusted SSL certificates and Windows XP/Vista/7/8 "pick CAs" for win32 .exe and driver signing. Actually, UWPs used the same application signing certificates used today by ye olde .exe files.

So, does this mean that there's a possibility of somebody making UWP app and deplying it against Microsoft's wishes as long as user downloads it and runs it? Can I install root cerficate on my own? Even one that has never been aproved by MS in any shape or form?

Yes, as long as the root certificate is installed in your system, it's valid. If you create your own certificate, it works. That's how it works during development, for example. Corporations can use this, for example, to create apps that only work on their own PCs, which have their own self-signed certificates pre-installed.

There's no need to sideloading anymore.

That was required up until the current build. For the anniversary update they are enabling uwp installers.

Sideloading is still there for unsigned/selfsigned stuff, like on Android.

 

[Skinpop]

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...

this is exactly how their embrace extend extinguish schemes always start.

 

[Mindwipe]

Which is a practical necessity for any secured system.

This sort of security is inherently dangerous.

It's not so much Microsoft you should be concerned about, it's governments using this system to wipe out software they don't like by legally forcing certificate revocation.

If it were a UWA it would literally only be a matter of time until Russia tried to do this the TOR installer package for example.

 

[cakely]

If he unequivocally said it was great he would look like an idiot since he threw a tantrum a month ago.

What an irritating thing to say. Tim Sweeney brought up some valid concerns with UWP, and juvenile insults are what you decided to bring to the discussion.

 

[M3d10n]

This sort of security is inherently dangerous.

It's not so much Microsoft you should be concerned about, it's governments using this system to wipe out software they don't like by legally forcing certificate revocation.

If it were a UWA it would literally only be a matter of time until Russia tried to do this the TOR installer package for example.

Do you even know what you're posting about? Signing executables, a time-tested way to tell end-users they actually came from the source they downloaded them from and weren't tampered with, is now "dangerous"? Is SSL (which also uses certificates) dangerous too?

What an irritating thing to say. Tim Sweeney brought up some valid concerns with UWP, and juvenile insults are what you decided to bring to the discussion.

The concerns were valid, but the daily sarcastic Twitter posts were a bit childish.

 

[Skinpop]

Why not change the thread title since Sweeny changed his opinion?

I'm reading his twitter right now and I see no evidence of him changing opinion.

 

[Tfault]

As a general rule, ms wants developers using their services and development tools. Specially for cloud they see it as one of their core business.

With that mentality it just makes no sense for them to lock cloud features and other services from developers.

Also there's a great chance a developer will have his app on the win store and available some where else as well. If the developer is forced to offer exclusive features to the store version it most likely will mean he will not use those features at all.

Ms ultimate goal is to have again everyone developing on their platform, but this time even if it means developing for competitors. To achieve that goal in the very least have to outdo whatever the developers are already using otherwise no one would switch.

No MS ultimate goal is to get gamers on a subscription service ala Xbox on the PC. This from Microsoft just this month.

Now the second one that you would think about is our gaming business. So we've talked a lot about bringing gaming to PCs. Outside of search PC gaming is one of the most interesting post-monetization, once you buy a PC what do people spend on, directly or indirectly, search is certainly one, gaming is another and so our ability to bring an incredibly strong brand in Xbox to a subscription idea that crosses from the console to the PC to whatever device you choose to do, whether it be AR, VR, as well, right. You have to think about having that brand and that franchise to expand. And so I don't truly think about -- it's not truly PC monetization, but that's at its core, right, is to be able to make that transition with our efforts.

PC subscriptions is where it's at...coming our way soon!

 

[therealbigrich]

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.

I'm not suggesting MS doesn't do those things I'm suggesting that most businesses do

 

[LukasTaves]

Sideloading is still there for unsigned/selfsigned stuff, like on Android.

Yeah, I mean for other stores and whatnot. They can now compete with Ms more directly without requiring users to do anything unorthodox which could drive users away.

No MS ultimate goal is to get gamers on a subscription service ala Xbox on the PC. This from Microsoft just this month.



PC subscriptions is where it's at...coming our way soon!

Which boils down to people using ms services. Xbox Live, Office 365, Skype, Azure... Most of Ms products/services now offer some kind of subscription services.

And I'm sure subs are coming to Pc, but I doubt we will see them charging for online play again.

 

[Tfault]

Yeah, I mean for other stores and whatnot. They can now compete with Ms more directly without requiring users to do anything unorthodox which could drive users away.



Which boils down to people using ms services. Xbox Live, Office 365, Skype, Azure... Most of Ms products/services now offer some kind of subscription services.

And I'm sure subs are coming to Pc, but I doubt we will see them charging for online play again.

Well you certainly have more faith in MS than I do. I suspect that once they have enough users tied into the MS 'ecosystem' on PC they will, just as Sony did with the PS4.

Time will tell.

 

[Trup1aya]

Well you certainly have more faith in MS than I do. I suspect that once they have enough users tied into the MS 'ecosystem' on PC they will, just as Sony did with the PS4.

Time will tell.

Unlike with Sony, it wouldn't make business sense to charge for multiplayer again.

If you want to play MP on a Sony platform you have no choice but to use PSN.

The PC market is different. If MS charges for MP, people will simply get their games elsewhere. History has already shown than the market rejected the idea. They stand to make more money by not charging.

If MS actually finds success at getting people into their ecosystem, I think they'll be more interested in keeping them in the ecosystem than pushing them away with a paywall.

I'm sure they will try to push subscriptions, but they'll be of the GWG, Origin Access variety.

 

[Tfault]

Unlike with Sony, it wouldn't make business sense to charge for multiplayer again.

If you want to play MP on a Sony platform you have no choice but to use PSN.

The PC market is different. If Xbox live charges for MP, people will simply get their games elsewhere. History has already shown than the market rejected the idea. They stand to make more money by not charging.

If MS actually finds success at getting people into their ecosystem, I think they'll be more interested in keeping them in the ecosystem than pushing them away with a paywall.

I'm sure they will try to push subscriptions, but they'll be of the GWG, Origin Access variety.

But we can assume a lot of the games will be Windows store exclusive which means that you will not be able to play them elsewhere.

 

[LordRaptor]

This sort of security is inherently dangerous.

It's not so much Microsoft you should be concerned about, it's governments using this system to wipe out software they don't like by legally forcing certificate revocation.

If it were a UWA it would literally only be a matter of time until Russia tried to do this the TOR installer package for example.

Any trust based security system has to be able to revoke trusted suppliers at any moment so that security breaches can be swiftly dealt with. It's perfectly legitimate, and a necessity that once trust has been established it is not permanent regardless of circumstance.

If you want to attack their policy on the grounds that they have declared themselves the trusted authority, and that all trust must necessarily involve them, rather than, say, the formation of a genuinely independent company agnostic committee made up of major stakeholders whose sole responsibility is the issue and integrity of trust certificates, that is a much more valid line of criticism.

The fact that such a committee does not exist, and major stakeholders in the platform were only informed about UWAs after the fact, with certification of trust by external bodies only now being addressed, and the details being particularly vague, should expose the lie that UWAs are a thing people outside of MS really want to happen.

 

[Nzyme32]

Thought as much

 

[Kael]

A lot of us look at company history.

The attempts to wash away Microsoft's long, checkered past are hilarious though, thanks for the giggle.

so what you are saying is that MS will never be allowed to try to be pro consumer? And why does sony never get the same treatment. They have pulled off a lot of crap in the past. They have been sued, fined, broken the law many times. Lied, etc etc.

But when its sony its always yay.

 

[tuxfool]

so what you are saying is that MS will never be allowed to try to be pro consumer? And why does sony never get the same treatment. They have pulled off a lot of crap in the past. They have been sued, fined, broken the law many times. Lied, etc etc.

But when its sony its always yay.

Please don't bring that Sony too nonsense here.

This has nothing to do with them, the PC isn't a console.

 

[LordRaptor]

so what you are saying is that MS will never be allowed to try to be pro consumer? And why does sony never get the same treatment. They have pulled off a lot of crap in the past. They have been sued, fined, broken the law many times. Lied, etc etc.

But when its sony its always yay.

When we're gaming on Sony BSD as our operating systems, then maybe what you are saying has anything approaching relevance to this topic.

 

[Saintruski]

so what you are saying is that MS will never be allowed to try to be pro consumer? And why does sony never get the same treatment. They have pulled off a lot of crap in the past. They have been sued, fined, broken the law many times. Lied, etc etc.

But when its sony its always yay.

What does sony have to do with any of this?

Thought this was about PC being an open platform?

 

[Zojirushi]

Did they somehow adress the fact that, mods and stuff aside, basic UWP/W10 store usability is still fucked?

Not being able to select individual folders for the apps to install to is absolutely crazy, let alone folder access.