Thought as much
What is he wanting a clear commitment regarding? Possibility of them removing non-windows store certs?
-
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
What is he wanting a clear commitment regarding? Possibility of them removing non-windows store certs?
Mihos
Gold Member
Don't let your love of the console get rolled up with their handling of other products. It is entirely possible to love your X-Box and hate Windows Phone. I love my PlayStation, but my Sony TV is kind of crappy.
Their appetite for an app store model is why Windows 8 was designed the way it was... and spawned that horrible RT version. I like Windows 10 a lot, but with things like this, it feels like a second attempt at what they tried with Windows 8.0
In RT, they actively locked out running desktop apps for no other reason than to force the Windows store model.... even though their own Office suite ran on that device fine as a desktop app. The only way for myself to run a desktop style app on RT was a memory hack to flag my software as allowed, and even that exploit was patched out eventually. For people like myself, this UWP just looks like a second attempt at that nightmare.
LukasTaves
Member
He feels that some features will be locked to the store and such people will adopt uwp and end up "locked" to the store as they wouldn't be able to use such features on a 3rd party store.
BleedOrange
Banned
What store you purchase UWP apps doesn't matter at this point. Steam/Oculous/GoG/Origin/Web can all host and sell UWP apps come June.
Mihos
Gold Member
Yeah, like rumble triggers etc.
RT wasn't for people like you. It was for tablets and for people who liked the iOS and Android closed off experience. Obviously nobody wanted it, but there was nothing mischievous going on tho. I mean, why did you buy then?
And then a seamless cut directly to Sony Too. Look at those moves, folks!
Mihos
Gold Member
I develop diagnostic software. Trust me, I hate that piece of crap. But is an example of them locking out something for no technical reason at all.
I am in no way a conspiracy type of guy, but it isn't hard to see that UWP is just another item on a roadmap to get them to another revenue stream.
Wait, you were able to run an x86 app on an ARM device? Without recompiling?
Ah, I see.
RT was intended for Atom processors, it wasn't as if you would have been able to run your win32 apps regardless of the lock out.
RT is an ARM device, desktop applications wouldn't work...
It was locked down from legacy, malware, and plain old security. Basically, as I said like Chrome OS, Android, or iOS. I thought it was great for that purpose. Again, obviously it wasn't for you, but it did exactly as attended.
That is available to all UWP apps. Windows store has nothing to do with that.
Mihos
Gold Member
You compile for ARM, that part is easy. You can't run your code as a desktop app, you have to run it as a metro style app, which is sandboxed to hell. When writing diagnostics applications, that is not the environment you want to be in. The type of issues I would run into sound a lot like the issues people talk about when discussing mods and UWP applications.
The fact the the work around that finally closed that project was keeping a single bit in memory forced to a 0 instead of a 1 is just an example of how arbitrary that lock out was. Also, by allowing their own office suite to run as a desktop app, shows that they can give themselves an unfair advantage over 3rd party if they chose too.
I could go on a rant about locked bootloaders from that time, but I would end up boring everyone to death.
By this logic the Windows 10 Store isn't for PC gamers, since it is offering a similarly closed down experience nobody wants. Yet they keep trying to tell everyone it is.
LordRaptor
Member
They haven't given out any actual details of implementation.
He is the owner of a company that directly depends on Windows as an open gaming platform.
And not just in terms of one off game sales from multiple storefronts; they have a vested interest in start-ups who release their own SaaS titles, such as Hawken or Dirty Bomb, titles that are primarily expected to not be sold via storefronts but via their own startup sites. Titles that would be directly affected by removing the ability to just release an executable directly without requiring the additional expense of having to go via a third party certfication authority.
Right now the actual details of how UWA will work for third parties isn't significantly more than Phil Spencers first tweets about how important Windows as an open platform is, and how they've heard the concerns and will let people know.
No, it's nothing like that. Windows gives you options beyond their store.
So he is concerned about how to deliver and update software via appx packages? Cert stuff is well documented, that is simple and not new. Appx has actually been around for a few years as well.
CRAIG667
Member
But seriously mate, you only have to read through the comments section on youtube or n4g to be totally stunned by the uncalled for hate, it's ridiculous.
civilstrife
Member
Sweeney at the Gamesbeat Summit
- How the Universal Windows Platform is like Facebook and a boiling frog
- How the Universal Windows Platform is like Facebook and a boiling frog
Banjo-Kazooie
Member
We must fight the Tyranny of UWP and the Windows Store!
*He mutters as Epic Games releases Shadow Complex Remastered on the Windows Store*
https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/store/apps/shadow-complex-remastered/9nblggh5ql1h
*He mutters as Epic Games releases Shadow Complex Remastered on the Windows Store*
https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/store/apps/shadow-complex-remastered/9nblggh5ql1h
Also, he is mentioning things that have already been addressed. Mainly the need to have MS approve UWP software in order for a customer to be able to install it. Perhaps we should rewind to //build.
Bits N Pieces
Member
CircleOfFire
Member
Errr, how do you get that from them releasing stuff on the Windows Store? They can still release things there while expressing concerns over what Microsoft might be thinking.
LordRaptor
Member
Do we need to cover this again?
Currently nobody can do this.
There are no current design specifications or technical documents on how to do this.
It has been suggested that this will be covered in the summer when the anniversary build is publically released but to say this is 'covered' is factually inaccurate.
Apparently it does have to be covered again. Unless of course you think they will not allow any software that is signed by an approved cert to be installed at will. There has been documentation on cert signing software for quite a while now on msdn. It will not be some drastically new process for UWPs. The implication of his statements of a draconian future of only MS approved software is factually incorrect at this point.
LordRaptor
Member
It doesn't matter what I (or you) 'think' will be the process, currently there is no process.
It is therefore not 'addressed'.
<Dislosure: I work for Microsoft>
The fact that Tim is still harping on this is really fucking confusing to me.
At BUILD and even before BUILD this year, Microsoft addressed literally every single thing that Tim complained about. Every single suggestion Tim made in this:
http://venturebeat.com/2016/03/10/epics-tim-sweeney-heres-how-to-keep-windows-an-open-platform/
Is now truth. Or it was already truth before BUILD (and before Tim's original rant) but Tim was misinformed.
The fact that Tim is still harping on this is really fucking confusing to me.
At BUILD and even before BUILD this year, Microsoft addressed literally every single thing that Tim complained about. Every single suggestion Tim made in this:
http://venturebeat.com/2016/03/10/epics-tim-sweeney-heres-how-to-keep-windows-an-open-platform/
Is now truth. Or it was already truth before BUILD (and before Tim's original rant) but Tim was misinformed.
It has been "addressed", it just hasn't been "implemented".
BleedOrange
Banned
Signing a codebase is nothing new, and relying on a Chain of Trust is nothing new. It's been covered in detail on multiple operating systems and distribution platforms. I guess if you think the Chain of Trust details may be different in this case then I guess you could have concerns.
At this point his 'concern' is just basically tantamount to concern trolling in order to spread FUD.
Night Angel
Member
And how many times has MS said one thing and done another? At this point, I think Tim is well within his rights to continue beating the drum. Once the fixes are actually implemented, he would be stupid to continue.
The proof is in the pudding. The concerns he raised have not be addressed yet, MS has just promised to address them.
Who knows what limitations or restrictions will actually exist when the promised solutions are actually implemented.
Microsoft have a habit of announcing something without elaborating on the details, and then when it actually comes to launching what they have announced, there are restrictions or limitations that were entirely glossed over in the initial announcement, severely limiting it's utility.
Recent examples would be the "Any Xbox One is a devkit", or "We are now allowing cross platform multiplayer".
LordRaptor
Member
So when I was told "wait for the anniversary release" regarding this:
those people were wrong, and it is possible to do this right now?
How do I do this right now? Whats the MSDN article describing this process?
this is not "concern trolling"
Dictator93
Member
Dyson Industries
Banned
Microsoft hasn't addressed shit. Promising something and actually doing it are two different things entirely, and we have a long running historical record of what Microsoft's promises are actually worth.
BleedOrange
Banned
You can download the Anniversary Update SDK here and start exploring. If you're actually interested in the implementation of Code Signing and Chain-of-Trust for UWP apps then you should sign up to be an insider and start asking people in the know.
Pretty much this.
Only a fucking fool would give MS the benefit of the doubt at this point.
LordRaptor
Member
Yes, I want the MSDN documentation thats not for Windows Store executables
So both I and any potential customers of this hypothetical application have to be enrolled in the Insider program and be using unstable preview builds of Windows.
Thats not what I consider to be 'addressed'.
One and the same.
BleedOrange
Banned
You're asking for documentation on a process that is slated to be implemented in a future update to Windows 10. To be a part of the implementation and documentation process for this feature you can become a Windows Insider and offer feedback, and ask questions, to the very people developing the feature.
Maybe you and Tim Sweeney should do that? If you're actually concerned.
LordRaptor
Member
no, its not the same at all.
So you will agree that the future is not the present?
BleedOrange
Banned
If you want to be reductionist and pedantic? Then sure, yes. If you would like to offer constructive feedback and be part of the development process for this feature then I have offered you a solution.
Edit:
Furthermore, here are the twitter handles for the Group Program Lead for the UWP App Model, and the Dev Lead for the team as well. The two speakers who detailed the coming improvements that so much concern is being expressed about:
https://twitter.com/andrewclinick
https://twitter.com/chendrixson
If anyone could get you the information you seek. It's them. Maybe hit them up?
That is where the anniversary update comes in. The process for signing the app is exactly what I posted. Which is what I thought you wanted a link to. Obviously it isn't currently checking the certs against the approved provider roots at this time without manually added the cert to the local store.
LordRaptor
Member
Lovely, we can all agree that we won't say things like "there is a solution".
Iced_Eagle
Member
That has nothing to do with the discussion at hand.
BleedOrange
Banned
Yes, now we should all move on to expressing similar concern about other platforms that are abusing their closed status in anti-consumer ways.
About that EA Access on PSN......
Similar threads
- Poll