Support NeoGAF

[Krejlooc]

However that is not the situation today and with easy access to UWP sideloading would most likely mean that alternative stores can still exist even if a switch to UWP occurs.

That does nothing to combat the issue of mindshare, which is what everyone is going on about. It's a central component of their Embrace, Extend, Extinguish strategy. This stuff has been going on for decades now.

 

[SPDIF]

So his main complaint is the fact users have to click 4-5 times in the settings to turn on sideloading. It seems a little hyperbolic to then turn that into "Microsoft wants to monopolise games development on PC". As long as sideloading is enabled there's nothing stopping a game developer creating a UWA and making it downloadable from their own website.

 

[Theanine3D]

Yes. SteamOS is the solution to monopoly.......

SteamOS benefits Linux in general. Games ported to Steam OS will usually run on other distros, like Ubuntu, because SteamOS is literally just a modified Debian Linux. The amount of games now playable on Linux has skyrocketed since Valve started their SteamOS efforts. Nvidia and AMD have also been pressured by Valve to improve Linux gfx drivers.

Valve is unlikely to lock down Steam games and prevent them from running on other distros, because they're dependent on the open source community for the entire OS, which is really just Debian. Any attempt to not play nice would immediately be met with massive backlash.

 

[Gemüsepizza]

Of course they're not going to stop other companies from releasing .win32 in their own app store.
They might however try to slowly move the standard from .win32 to UWP which would allow Microsoft to be in a similar sits to Android and Google Apps.

How can they "move the standard from .win32 to UWP"? Can you explain this to me?

The fact that this article is coming from someone with close ties to Microsoft, who discussed about this subject directly with Microsoft for a year and half, should be a good indication that this is not a conspiracy drivel.

There is no evidence in this text that Microsoft is planning anything like what you are suggesting. It is pure speculation.

 

[Pantaghana]

In response to Sweeney’s allegations, Kevin Gallo, corporate vice president of Windows at Microsoft, told the Guardian: “The Universal Windows Platform is a fully open ecosystem, available to every developer, that can be supported by any store.

They have a strange definition of "fully open."
Unless I, the end user, can modify the software it's not fully open.

 

[tuxfool]

Thanks for the patronising wording, I am fully aware of how to write networking code but thanks for the tip.

The point I was making is, are the Xbox Live APIs restricted only to those apps that going to ship through the store, which is what people are worrying about.

Or could I write an Xbox Live integrated app and ship it on steam?

I'd say nobody gives a shit about XBL integration in particular. If anything, they're worried about it being forced into an overlay, even when undesired.

 

[Krejlooc]

I think there's a lot of "I don't understand this, but Sweeney says so, so it must be right" in this thread.

You never responded to this:

I'm almost afraid to ask this, but which "aggressive, selfish policies" are "hurting" our hobby?

For the record, if you put a game on steam, there are zero obligations for you to sell that game through the steam storefront.
You can generate as many codes for your game as many times as you want, and can sell them anywhere you want.
The only revenue cost to you as a developer where valve explcitly benefit is for sales made directly through the steam storefront.
Selling your game - your game for Steam - via GMG, Humble, eBay, Amazon, your own website, a forum giveaway, your twitch stream, wherever is not prohibited by steam. Steam receives no revenue from those outlets.

Those outlets are all in direct price competition with each other and consumers benefit accordingly outside of a cartel scenario even if "technically have to have steam though!".

Conversely, putting a game as a UWA on the Windows Store makes the Windows Store the only place that title can be purchased.
You are permitted to generate up to 200 promotional codes once every 6 months (IIRC), and you are explicitly forbidden from selling or reselling any of those promo codes or attempting to bypass MS taking a revenue cut in any manner.

That one hurts quite a bit. It hurts publishers, it hurts consumers. Only one who gains from it is Microsoft.

I understand this, btw.

 

[TBiddy]

They have a strange definition of "fully open."
Unless I, the end user, can modify the software it's not fully open.

Software != ecosystem.

 

[justsomeguy]

UWP is the API set that Microsoft sees as the future. The assumption is that Win32 might be relegated to legacy support while new developments and features are UWP only. To a certain degree that also makes technical sense as Win32 contains a lot of garbage that has been piling up over the last 20 years.

However that is not the situation today and with easy access to UWP sideloading would most likely mean that alternative stores can still exist even if a switch to UWP occurs.

Win32 won't go anywhere, ever. You'd basically lose back compat and MS invests huge sums into ensuring your old stuff just works. Without back compat, nobody would touch their OS, simple.

So provided UWP software is kept as open and as easy to install as today's Win32 apps, provided UWP gives all the API support needed for modern software - from AAA games to enterprise software to noddy mobile apps, and provided the dev tools support UWP software as first class applications, then IMO it's a good thing to evolve a new, clean, API that does away with much of the legacy complexity of something like Win32.

 

[TBiddy]

You never responded to this:

I understand this, btw.

What do you understand? Not sure that makes sense, regarding the post you're quoting.

Let me formulate the question in a different matter, since you didn't directly answer it:

In what way has Microsoft hurt your ability to enjoy gaming?

 

[ScientificPizza]

You are wrong about the 30%. Microsoft do not have to do that.

You also seem to miss completely the restrictions microsoft have put on their store and the obvious direction they are heading in to enforce this model in windows.

It is ok to keep your head in the sand if you like, but other people have real concerns as raised in the article.

It's fine to have concerns and to voice them, but to immediately jump to "these people ARE FORCING US TO DO THIS and we have got to RALLY TOGETHER TO FIGHT THEM" is a little premature.

This is going to affect microsoft and microsoft published games. They have been largely non existent on the PC for awhile, so this doesn't affect the established marketplace as much as people are implying it will.

It's also incredibly early stages for this stuff, and they seem to be throwing together how a lot of this stuff works on the fly, so it's all subject to change.

 

[justsomeguy]

Of course they're not going to stop other companies from releasing .win32 in their own app store.
They might however try to slowly move the standard from .win32 to UWP which would allow Microsoft to be in a similar sits to Android and Google Apps.

How?
Microsoft design and own Win32.
Microsoft design and own UWP.

I suspect you're confusing platforms with distribution methods.

If UWP software can be deployed anywhere from any store without restriction then, from an end user perspective, who cares whether it's Win32, UWP, .NET, whatever?

 

[Kayant]

Hmm... can you access all the Xbox Live integration without going through the store? (I don't know - not a games dev).

Not a game dev but as far as what is available online no you don't have access to XBL outside Win 10 store which is one of the reasons things like final fantasy xiv, Rocket League don't have cross-play because they would need specific Win store version.

 

[tuxfool]

Win32 won't go anywhere, ever. You'd basically lose back compat and MS invests huge sums into ensuring your old stuff just works. Without back compat, nobody would touch their OS, simple.

To keep Backward compatibility one need only keep the API frozen. Newer features that games or other programs might want or need to use will only be provided in the newer API.

 

[Krejlooc]

There is no evidence in this text that Microsoft is planning anything like what you are suggesting. It is pure speculation.

This was from a Microsoft Windows 10 developer summit where they explained the memory management features of windows 10:

All non-UWP are grouped together for memory compression, without granularity, while individual UWP applications are individually compressed. non-UWP are referred to as "legacy applications" in all their texts. It's very obvious this is the intent - UWP are given increased granularity access to OS level features that non-UWP do not get.

 

[Bitch Pudding]

That would be ~36 months.

Ah, okay, DRM-wise, yes, I confused that with the introduction of a Kinect-less SKU. Which was introduced around May 2014. So, maybe that was the time when they made certain other decisions as well.

 

[notaskwid]

I think there's a lot of "I don't understand this, but Sweeney says so, so it must be right" in this thread. Or appeal to authority, if you wish.

There's also a lot of hyperbole "Microsoft wants to kill PC gaming", "MS are evil" and what have we. What it really boils down to is, that Microsoft has created a new format, that everyone can use if they wish. They have also created a new shop, in which they want to promote said format. That's it. You aren't forced to use it. You can sideload apps written in UWP, or you can use the shop, whichever you want to.

Apparantly Sweeney thinks that in the near future, Microsoft will kill off/deprecate Win32 support, and along with it kill off Steam, Origin, Uplay etc. In the instant that happens, hundreds of millions of gamers and professionals will never give a dime to Microsoft again.

In which world is that a realistic scenario? You do realize, that the most widely used graphics software (Adobes CC software) and Autodesk doesn't run on UWP and probably won't for a very long time, if ever, right? You do also realize, that 99% of all existing games for PC are based on Win32, right?

This is fear-mongering, just like when Gabe Newell opened up about Windows 8. His predictions didn't come true, and neither will Sweeneys.

It not happening doesn't mean it's not what Microsoft wants to happen and that consumers shouldn't be on their guards.

 

[justsomeguy]

To keep Backward compatibility one need only keep the API frozen. Newer features that games or other programs might want or need to use will only be provided in the newer API.

Yes. Per my other post, I don't see that as a bad thing provided the distribution methods aren't restricted (which is what Gabe's statement says) and the API is feature rich.

 

[Pantaghana]

Software != ecosystem.

The ecosystem is made in such a way that it closes off the software. It's open in one way and closed in another. Calling it fully open is disingenuous.

 

[Krejlooc]

In what way has Microsoft hurt your ability to enjoy gaming?

Well, as a developer, their attempt to attract mindshare to their platform would limit my key generation ability.

As a gamer, I believe there was an entire topic about the disadvantages games like Tomb Raider 2 have owing entirely to it being a UWP as opposed to a win32 application:

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1191995

 

[TBiddy]

The ecosystem is made in such a way that it closes off the software. It's open in one way and closed in another. Calling it fully open is disingenuous.

I don't disagree, but the article clearly mentioned a "fully open ecosystem", which has nothing to do with your access to the source code, in my opinon.

Well, as a developer, their attempt to attract mindshare to their platform would limit my key generation ability.

As a gamer, I believe there was an entire topic about the disadvantages games like Tomb Raider 2 have owing entirely to it being a UWP as opposed to a win32 application:

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1191995

Then don't develop for UWP. It's not like they are breaking your arm and forcing you to sign up. With regards to RoTR, I agree completely. But never attribute to malice, what can adequately be explained with incompetence. It's obvious that UWP isn't ready yet, considering the large disadvantages there still is (No SLI, lack of G-Sync etc.).

 

[SPDIF]

You never responded to this:



I understand this, btw.

In your quote LordRaptor is talking about UWAs that are already on the store. Yes, if you are selling your app through the store there's a limit to how many promotional codes you can generate. The solution? Write a UWA and don't sell it through the store. No restrictions then.

Ah, okay, DRM-wise, yes, I confused that with the introduction of a Kinect-less SKU. Which was introduced around May 2014. So, maybe that was the time when they made certain other decisions as well.

I'm pretty sure the 18 month thing is just referring to when MS first unveiled Windows 10 to the public. It's got nothing to do with Kinect or XB1 DRM.

 

[aaaaa0]

Thanks for the patronising wording, I am fully aware of how to write networking code but thanks for the tip.

The point I was making is, are the Xbox Live APIs restricted only to those apps that going to ship through the store, which is what people are worrying about.

Or could I write an Xbox Live integrated app and ship it on steam?

Again, Xbox Live is not an OS feature. It's a bunch of servers that Microsoft owns and runs. Since they own and run those servers, they can decide who's allowed to talk to them.

You might as well ask if you're allowed to write an app that connects to Snapchat (you're not).

 

[tuxfool]

Yes. Per my other post, I don't see that as a bad thing provided the distribution methods aren't restricted (which is what Gabe's statement says) and the API is feature rich.

Yet given their store model, this is likely what could chose to do if given enough uptake. After that point, developer would only have the choice to regress to an older API or accept the new store model.

 

[ScientificPizza]

It not happening doesn't mean it's not what Microsoft wants to happen.

...you can say this about literally anything ever

Microsoft not designing miniature guided missiles to fly up Tim Cook's butthole at the next iPhone reveal doesn't mean that Microsoft don't want to design miniature guided missiles to fly up Tim Cook's butthole at the next iPhone reveal

 

[HowZatOZ]

I just don't see how windows 10's closed environment will gain traction with offerings from Steam and the like being far more open. It'll get some Xbox games here and there but otherwise everybody is already rooted into Steam.

 

[Dinky Dino]

But how does this affect him? This makes no sense. Microsoft games use UWP. His games don't have to use UWP. They will never have to use UWP. He can make games any way he wants to make them, and he can sell them anywhere he wants to sell them.

Well what's been in the back of my head for a few days is just how does UWP work?

In my head, if devs want to cut down on costs,they could make a UWP game to work on the next Xbox and windows. Leaving out the other distribution platforms due to the format IF UWP gets used widely. Can UWP be used with other distributors? Does MS have full control of what's allowed?

All I know is that UWP version of rise of the tomb raider is inferior to that of steam and gets patched slowly. It correlates a lot to WHAT he's saying in the article. MS has given me 0 reason to trust them over the years and I was waiting on them removing the limitations and still am. If they come through, I'll get only their first party and nothing else.

 

[Krejlooc]

In your quote LordRaptor is talking about UWAs that are already on the store. Yes, if you are selling your app through the store there's a limit to how many promotional codes you can generate. The solution? Write a UWA and don't sell it through the store. No restrictions then.

And if I want to write a UWA and sell it on the store, in addition to selling it on other stores? You don't see the danger is forcing someone to mutually choose one built-in store against all other stores?

 

[RSTEIN]

No you idiot creating a development platform for games is nowhere near the monopolistic activities they were convicted for.

 

[Vashetti]

And steam isn't becoming a monopoly of distribution right? Heh.

So misguided.

 

[TBiddy]

And if I want to write a UWA and sell it on the store, in addition to selling it on other stores? You don't see the danger is forcing someone to mutually choose one built-in store against all other stores?

I'd expect this quote to be true, which means that you can use any store you want, as long as it supports UWP.

“The Universal Windows Platform is a fully open ecosystem, available to every developer, that can be supported by any store.

 

[Kezen]

Damn this is brutal :

In my view, if Microsoft does not commit to opening PC UWP up in the manner described here, then PC UWP can, should, must and will, die as a result of industry backlash. Gamers, developers, publishers simply cannot trust the PC UWP “platform” so long as Microsoft gives evasive, ambiguous and sneaky answers to questions about UWP’s future, as if it’s a PR issue.

 

[Krejlooc]

I'd expect this quote to be true, which means that you can use any store you want, as long as it supports UWP.

...in which case you must follow their key generation procedure. Which is precisely what we are discussing.

 

[dex3108]

MS Store has issues now but if we ignore that i have issue with Tims statement. Epic now has their own platform and every game they do is only available there. That includes Fortnite, Unreal Tournament, Paragon and Shadow Complex. You can't get any of those outside Unreal Launcher.

 

[aaaaa0]

It's very obvious this is the intent - UWP are given increased granularity access to OS level features that non-UWP do not get.

This is so hilariously wrong.

If anything, UWP apps get much less access to OS level features, because they all run in a security sandbox to protect the user and are heavily managed by the system to prevent them from draining the battery or tampering with themselves, other apps or the OS.

What your diagram is actually saying is that all Win32 apps get smooshed together because they don't have sandboxes to separate them from each other.

A Win32 app can do whatever it likes to the system: load a driver, install a service, tamper with the OS (via UAC elevation), tamper with another app, whatever the hell it likes.

 

[justsomeguy]

Again, Xbox Live is not an OS feature. It's a bunch of servers that Microsoft owns and runs. Since they own and run those servers, they can decide who's allowed to talk to them.

You might as well ask if you're allowed to write an app that connects to Snapchat (you're not).

I'm not sure if we're agreeing or disagreeing here. Tim Sweeney's concern was "you can use these Windows features only if you submit to the control of our locked-down UWP ecosystem. They’re curtailing users’ freedom to install full-featured PC software" - so I was trying to think of something you can only do are only given permissions to through the if you agree to ship via the store (which currently also implies it's a UWA).

Xbox Live access was the only thing I could come up with.

 

[TBiddy]

...in which case you must follow their key generation procedure. Which is precisely what we are discussing.

What's your source for this?

 

[Krejlooc]

Then don't develop for UWP.

Congrats, you have now arrived at the message that people like Tim Sweeney is trying to get across with articles like this.

 

[strata8]

And if I want to write a UWA and sell it on the store, in addition to selling it on other stores? You don't see the danger is forcing someone to mutually choose one built-in store against all other stores?

Why can't you do this? As far as I can tell LordRaptor's quote refers to redistributing keys, not the applications themselves. There are plenty of legitimate cases that would require you to sideload an app along with distributing it through a store.

 

[notaskwid]

...you can say this about literally anything ever

Microsoft not designing miniature guided missiles to fly up Tim Cook's butthole at the next iPhone reveal doesn't mean that Microsoft don't want to design miniature guided missiles to fly up Tim Cook's butthole at the next iPhone reveal

Show me a plan to said missiles and you have a point.
We have pretty clear signs that they might try to monopolize pc gaming through their store and new API, it's not some farfetched conclusion when we are witnessing actual steps being taken for this to be possible in the future.

 

[VinFTW]

Even after reading that article, I'm still very confused at where some are coming from. People have been completely okay with steam monopolising the pc market for years, but now Microsoft have chosen to open a store on their own operating system, and sell their own games people start being hyperbolic. If people have a problem with windows (which is currently free at the moment) and how Microsoft plan on making their money back (no different from apple and Google) then there are other operating systems they could be using

It's because it's Microsoft, mainly.

Sure, they came out of the gate with a lot of shortcomings but it's still early on in their grand plan.

I'll give them the benefit of the doubt.

Nothing wrong with a publisher wanting to actually keep all the money from selling their own games.

If they can remove the restrictions off windows store games I don't see how it'll be an issue anymore.

 

[roadrunn3r]

I sometimes wonder if I'm reading genuine consumer comments here cause the amount of "hyperbole", "MS will fix everything", "they aren't doing anything wrong" is baffling.
This is a clear case of a big corporation trying to brute force their way into the PC gaming market using practices which are completely against the open platform.

Microsoft needs to stop forcing console-like restrictions on Windows Store PC games

PcPer on DX12/Store restrictions

You have to be blind or worse to not be able to see where this is going but no, of course this is just a big pile of BS and hyperbole created by MS haters. Everything's fine, move along nothing to see here.

 

[Trup1aya]

I'd like for someone to explain to me what the negative implications of UWP are if it 1) remains completely optional and 2) can be distributed on any storefront

This seems to be how MS is explaining it.

So is the issue merely that ms COULD deviate from these stated goals? Or is there some sort of evidence that the WILL deviate from these statements.

Seems to me that even if UWP is intended to be a replacement for win32, if it does end up achieving and exceeding feature parity, and remains open for distribution, there is no issue.

Past actions, while they lead to suspicion, aren't evidence of intent to reoffend.

So I'm genuinely curious, is this bad because we are extremely suspicious of MS? Or is it bad because we have concrete proof that they will not allow developers to distribute UWAs as they see fit?

Thanks in advance to anyone who responds.

 

[Bitch Pudding]

Damn this is brutal :

Sounds like at least one of their very own business partners was not involved within their decision making process. Wonder what other associated studios, or retailers like Gamestop for that matter, think about MS' move.

 

[aaaaa0]

I'm not sure if we're agreeing or disagreeing here. Tim Sweeney's concern was "you can use these Windows features only if you submit to the control of our locked-down UWP ecosystem. They’re curtailing users’ freedom to install full-featured PC software" - so I was trying to think of something you can only do are only given permissions to through the if you agree to ship via the store (which currently also implies it's a UWA).

Xbox Live access was the only thing I could come up with.

Yeah, I asked if there was any OS feature you could only access with an app from the Windows Store, and I can't think of anything.

Xbox Live isn't really an OS feature, so even if it is something that a Windows Store app is allowed to do, it doesn't really count.

 

[mcrommert]

Yeah thanks Sweeney but not really interested in the insight of someone who doesn't even play games.

EDIT: further down i reverse this statement

 

[epmode]

I wish I was surprised to see people defending Microsoft of all companies, but, you know, internet.

MS has been pulling shady shit like this in the PC space for decades but none of their pushes risked destroying PC gaming like UWP. We have to fight it.

Seriously, the best thing MS can do for PC gaming is to stay away and release the occasional DirectX update.

 

[TBiddy]

Congrats, you have now arrived at the message that people like Tim Sweeney is trying to get across with articles like this.

I'm glad you're seeing reason now. There's is noone forcing you to use UWP. Noone is forcing you to use the Windows Store.

And for that reason alone, the amount of hyperbole in this thread is ridiculous.

 

[Castef]

They could always use infinite war chest to buy exclusive.

You mean just like everyone else does?

Right, they could.

 

[CecilRousso]

It's because it's Microsoft, mainly.

Sure, they came out of the gate with a lot of shortcomings but it's still early on in their grand plan.

I'll give them the benefit of the doubt.

Nothing wrong with a publisher wanting to actually keep all the money from selling their own games.

If they can remove the restrictions off windows store games I don't see how it'll be an issue anymore.

As a PC gamer since the 90's, and a developer using Microsofts tools and platforms for many years, I see no reason why they should be given the benefit of doubt. What in the past have made them earn that?

I don't count on them to change things, I want them to see the changes before I believe them. And it's articles like Tim Sweeney's that are needed for change to happen.

If no one speaks up, why would Microsoft act in anyone's interest besides their own?