Support NeoGAF

[epmode]

Countering misconceptions is cheerleading, apparently

I just don't see the point of a PC gamer spending a lot of time countering misconceptions of a file architecture that provides very few benefits to PC gamers over Win32.

I suppose we're getting philosophical here but whatever.

 

[Pathfinder]

What sort of revisionist history nonsense is this?

You guys can deliver perfectly decent, convincing arguments about openness and control without needing to make up crazy bullshit to go along with it.

You'd think so.

 

[Osiris]

I just don't see the point of a PC gamer spending a lot of time countering misconceptions of a file architecture that provides very few benefits to PC gamers over Win32.

I suppose we're getting philosophical here but whatever.

The benefits to gamers are not what UWP offers now, but what it offers in the future, which will be the same game running on PC, Console, Tablet and Phone etc. without the need to port.

In the same way that devs can now make one app for PC, Tablets and Phones & Consoles, they will be able to do the same for games.

The other side of the coin to more apps on console via UWP, is more games on PC, devs will not need to port to PC, the game can be packaged so it runs on both, with the hardware abstracted, in the same way that a developer can have a current UWP project that runs on PC and Windows Phone, simply by defining differnt interfaces for each platform you support.

Xbox PlayAnywhere, but by default, just by virue of being developed on UWP.

You've heard of Project Helix?

 

[Zedox]

"Anyone can make apps for our closed platform" doesn't make a platform not closed.

"In computing, an open platform describes a software system which is based on open standards, such as published and fully documented external application programming interfaces (API) that allow using the software to function in other ways than the original programmer intended, without requiring modification of the source code. Using these interfaces, a third party could integrate with the platform to add functionality.[1] The opposite is a closed platform."

Also, how does one distribute UWP apps without the windows store? I've looked around in MSDN and Stack overflow, and I haven't found an answer that doesn't involve side loading or some hacks. And you still need the app to be digitally certified. There doesn't seem to be any clear documentation on this. It only states that you can deploy to the Windows Store. That's not the same as an open platform. Unless you can provide me a link that states something different than what I said, your comment is just false.

Here's what wiki says:

"UWP apps can be downloaded from Windows Store or sideloaded from another device. The sideloading requirements were reduced significantly from Windows 8.x to 10, but the app must still be signed by a trusted digital certificate that chains to a root certificate.[14]"


That's not an open platform.

You really need to do better research and you really need to read what other people say/show in this thread before declaring incorrect or outdated information.

How do you distribute .exe programs? It's the same way with uwa. There's an .appx installer that is apart of Windows 10. Instead of a .exe file, you get a .appx or .appxbundle, double click and you are good to go. However the person decides how to distribute that file is up to the user. Sideloading is on by default and has been over for a year, anyone can make a .appx and give it to you and you install it without changing anything about the system, it's no different than what we had before Win32 but the ability to limit .appx being installed from a non-store app. Blog entry by MS about some of that info

Other users already stated links to show how to sign an app (if you wanted to, otherwise you get the same UAC shit) easily. They also stated of software that is UWP that was distributed outside of the Windows Store (Adobe).

These aren't hacks. Sure, UWP wasn't made on open standards, so if you want to go by that nature, yea it's not an open platform, but neither was Win32, it's MS standards.

I hope the other users information helped you.

EDIT:

I just don't see the point of a PC gamer spending a lot of time countering misconceptions of a file architecture that provides very benefits to PC gamers over Win32.

I suppose we're getting philosophical here but whatever.

Maybe because people should have correct information. Should we all just spread a whole bunch of lies about something because it doesn't fit our individual ideals?

You've heard of Project Helix?

I hope they allow Xbox Dev mode to use the features of Project Helix if you have a Scorpio.

 

[Caayn]

I just don't see the point of a PC gamer spending a lot of time countering misconceptions of a file architecture that provides very few benefits to PC gamers over Win32.

I suppose we're getting philosophical here but whatever.

So you're okay with spreading incorrect information when it suits your agenda?

 

[Dinky Dino]

The other side of the coin to more apps on console via UWP, is more games on PC, devs will not need to port to PC, the game can be packaged so it runs on both, with the hardware abstracted, in the same way that a developer can have a current UWP project that runs on PC and Windows Phone, simply by defining differnt interfaces for each platform you support.

I think there would be some work needed to finalize it at the very least. Then again since MS made the apis they can probably integrate their scoprio and win10 to be as identical as possible.

I would ask just how hard it would be to port a xbox one game on say win32 or uwp these days given the X86-64 specs.

 

[Osiris]

Maybe because people should have correct information. Should we all just spread a whole bunch of lies about something because it doesn't fit our individual ideals?

Exactly, well said.

I hope they allow Xbox Dev mode to use the features of Project Helix if you have a Scorpio.

I think Scorpio is a key driver for this personally.

I think there would be some work needed to finalize it at the very least. Then again since MS made the apis they can probably integrate their scoprio and win10 to be as identical as possible.

I would ask just how hard it would be to port a xbox one game on say win32 or uwp these days given the X86-64 specs.

I think whats been touted as 'game mode' is a form of hardware abstraction that solves the PC performance disparities with cross-platform (PC & Console) games, i.e. by enabling "game mode" (via API's during development) devs will be able to "lock" a PC into a known performance profile that matches their consoles provided it meets certain requirements & minimizes the O/S overhead to the same overhead of consoles.as a method to solve the issues early PlayAnywhere games had with differing performance, which would make even "finalizing" as you put it unnecessary, and even enable true, full cross-platform mutiplayer gaming across both platforms.

We'll see, looking forward to GDC

 

[Zedox]

Exactly, well said.



I think Scorpio is a key driver for this personally.

I also think whats been touted as 'game mode' is a form of hardware abstraction that solves the PC performance disparities with cross-platform (PC & Console) games, i.e. by enabling "game mode" (via API's during development) devs will be able to "lock" a PC into a known performance profile provided it meets certain requirements.as a method to solve the issues early PlayAnywhere games had with differing performance.

We'll see, looking forward to GDC

That's exactly what I think it is as well, based on that information the article describes. GDC is gonna be interesting...

 

[epmode]

The benefits to gamers are not what UWP offers now, but what it offers in the future, which will be the same game running on PC, Console, Tablet and Phone etc. without the need to port.

In the same way that devs can now make one app for PC, Tablets and Phones & Consoles, they will be able to do the same for games.

The other side of the coin to more apps on console via UWP, is more games on PC, devs will not need to port to PC, the game can be packaged so it runs on both, with the hardware abstracted, in the same way that a developer can have a current UWP project that runs on PC and Windows Phone, simply by defining differnt interfaces for each platform you support.

Xbox PlayAnywhere, but by default, just by virue of being developed on UWP.

You've heard of Project Helix?

Thanks for that.

However, I'm still not sure why PC gamers should be excited about this when Windows phones are DOA and virtually everything on Xbox One is already on PC. I'd say it makes things easier for developers but they're stuck with code that doesn't translate to iOS or PS4 so it's still a dubious benefit.

Sounds like UWP benefits MS far more than anyone else.

At least I have an answer though.

 

[Durante]

Power users admittedly have to make concessions under this model

Exactly. "Concessions". Like giving up on hundreds of useful tools, interfaces and possibilities. For no advantage at all (to me, not some other imaginary or real market Microsoft wants to get into).

Which bring us back all the way to the main point: the reason I hate UWP and all it stands for.

 

[Kayant]

Exactly, well said.



I think Scorpio is a key driver for this personally.



I think whats been touted as 'game mode' is a form of hardware abstraction that solves the PC performance disparities with cross-platform (PC & Console) games, i.e. by enabling "game mode" (via API's during development) devs will be able to "lock" a PC into a known performance profile that matches their consoles provided it meets certain requirements & minimizes the O/S overhead to the same overhead of consoles.as a method to solve the issues early PlayAnywhere games had with differing performance, which would make even "finalizing" as you put it unnecessary, and even enable true, full cross-platform mutiplayer gaming across both platforms.

We'll see, looking forward to GDC

I guess that's why am not a Dev yet but game mode makes sense now when you put itike that .

 

[Osiris]

Thanks for that.

However, I'm still not sure why PC gamers should be excited about this when Windows phones are DOA and virtually everything on Xbox One is already on PC. I'd say it makes things easier for developers but they're stuck with code that doesn't translate to iOS or PS4 so it's still a dubious benefit.

Sounds like UWP benefits MS far more than anyone else.

At least I have an answer though.

Microsoft isn't going to give up on mobile, at least they better not until after the Surface Phone.

 

[Armaros]

People asking for patience with Microsoft and UWP.

Why should they get patience? What has Microsoft done in the past decade for PC Gaming that warrants me giving them any patience?

They have been already off to a horrible start with their recent focus PC Gaming.

 

[borges]

Microsoft isn't going to give up on mobile, at least they better not until after the Surface Phone.

Time for an Xbox Phone designed by Panos.

 

[Crayon]

What do you mean "future?" This has been going on for a while now.

No not yet. Currently, we have a handful of jokers who are willing to savage their own reputation here reduce themselves to self parody in the name of Defending anything Microsoft does. The future I was referring to is one where the Windows store initiative actually takes hold and we have a generation of gamers who actually prefer their PC to work like an Xbox and have a distaste for an open environment. In that dark future, PC Gamers who like things open and free will find themselves met with an equal number of PC gamers who want their PC to be an Xbox and nothing more.

 

[Zedox]

People asking for patience with Microsoft and UWP.

Why should they get patience? What has Microsoft done in the past decade for PC Gaming that warrants me giving them any patience?

They have been already off to a horrible start with their recent focus PC Gaming.

Well if you want those games you have no choice but be patient as it is obvious that MS isn't releasing those games on the Win32 platform. I mean, what else is there? Bitch until they stop and continue to not make games that people cry ports for all the time? Just saying.

 

[borges]

No not yet. Currently, we have a handful of jokers who are willing to salvage their own reputation here introduce themselves to self parody in the name of Defending anything Microsoft does

This is not the way to treat people that think different.

 

[prudislav]

The benefits to gamers are not what UWP offers now, but what it offers in the future, which will be the same game running on PC, Console, Tablet and Phone etc. without the need to port.

In the same way that devs can now make one app for PC, Tablets and Phones & Consoles, they will be able to do the same for games.

that's honestly kinda scary from the point of view of actual PC gamer ... from the dev side it just means "we can push out ports without any work" ... so more lazy and bad ports like FH3 is coming :-(

People asking for patience with Microsoft and UWP.

Why should they get patience? What has Microsoft done in the past decade for PC Gaming that warrants me giving them any patience?

They have been already off to a horrible start with their recent focus PC Gaming.

they dont really focus on PC gaming as we PC gamer know it, they are focusing on pushing XBOX gaming onto Windows 10 (which pretty much goes
against anything PC gaming is loved for ... but yay no more malware from steam/uplay/origin \o/\o/\o/ )
So far it even looks like that Scorpio will be just "Xbox" version of Steammachines .... aka PC with Xbox label, set specs and very restricted version of Win10 qith Xbox UI running on top

 

[Chris1]

Microsoft isn't going to give up on mobile, at least they better not until after the Surface Phone.

I don't think there's ever gonna be a Surface "phone". Releasing a surface "phone" will do a lot of damage to the surface brand IMO because the phone will be DOA no matter how good it is.

I think they will breakthrough and get into the "phone" market through another device that can replace your phone and hope to be the first on the market with that type of device like they were with the SB and now Studio but I have no idea what that could be. I think a surface "phone" is out of the picture though.

Unless they can think of something that's absolutely amazing to take phones forward like Apple did, but I think phones as we know it are for the most part maxed out and will be replaced by something else eventually.

 

[SFenton]

I don't think there's ever gonna be a Surface "phone". Releasing a surface "phone" will do a lot of damage to the surface brand IMO because the phone will be DOA no matter how good it is.

I think they will breakthrough and get into the "phone" market through another device that can replace your phone and hope to be the first on the market with that type of device like they were with the SB and now Studio but I have no idea what that could be. I think a surface "phone" is out of the picture though.

Unless they can think of something that's absolutely amazing to take phones forward like Apple did, but I think phones as we know it are for the most part maxed out and will be replaced by something else eventually.

I'm honestly convinced that it won't be a Surface Phone, it'll be a handheld Surface with phone capabilities- see the recent announcement that ARM chips can now run full Windows 10.

 

[Chris1]

I'm honestly convinced that it won't be a Surface Phone, it'll be a handheld Surface with phone capabilities- see the recent announcement that ARM chips can now run full Windows 10.

Yep that's where I'm sitting, dunno about a handheld surface but I really can't see them risking the surface brand with a phone. Their breakthrough to the phone market will be through a different device that happens to work as a phone. But a straight up Surface Phone? Nope.

 

[Osiris]

No not yet. Currently, we have a handful of jokers who are willing to salvage their own reputation here introduce themselves to self parody in the name of Defending anything Microsoft does. The future I was referring to is one where the Windows store initiative actually takes hold and we have a generation of gamers who actually prefer their PC to work like an Xbox and have a distaste for an open environment. In that dark future comma PC Gamers who like things open and free Will found will find themselves met with an equal number of PC gamers who want their PC to be an Xbox and nothing more.

Not "defending anything Microsoft does", in fact if you search my name and "Microsoft" on these forums you'll find a lot of rather acerbic posts regarding decisions they have made in the past (Esp. at W10 launch), I *still* don't have an Xbox One, in fact if you go back to my Xbox One pre and post-launch posts you'd have me down as an anti-MS, PS4-loving zealot

However whilst being acidic and anti-MS, I suffered a small amount of cognitive dissonance when confronted with some of the moves they seemed to be making, those moves were in contradiction to my beliefs of what I thought they would do.

So I did my research, stopped ranting without knowing what I was talking about and started watching and listening to what they are doing and saying with a filter of "maybe I don't fucking know everything because of my own bias" instead.

You know what I found, and what has changed and is changing?

Microsoft, and, as a hobbiest dev, my respect for a lot of the moves they are making towards openness (Just look at the .Net Core initiative, go look at Microsofts github presense, look at how they handled the Xamarin acquisition), MS are embracing the OSS mindset,not to embrace, extend and extinguish as they had in the past, but actually just embracing it, period. Even if die-hard haters don't recognise it yet.

Developing UWP applications is fun for me, I like the model's potential, even if I'm not 100% happy where it is now, but the changes they have make speak to an inertia that goes against the MS-must-control-all bias I viewed everything through.

Unlike others I'm willing to give credit where it is due and re-examine my own biases.

It's refreshing.

 

[LordRaptor]

The benefits to gamers are not what UWP offers now, but what it offers in the future, which will be the same game running on PC, Console, Tablet and Phone etc. without the need to port.

I mean, this is just flat out incorrect to the point of being an actual lie if you think about it for even a couple of seconds and have even tangential knowledge of what making a game actually consist of, but I honestly can't be bothered to go through this rigmarole again.

UWA serves no particular benefit for developers not targetting mobile devices, and thats why nobody is bothering with it for any traditional desktop software, including MS themselves.

If by "PC games" you are talking about titles like Clash Of Clans, sure, fine. But that is not what most people talking about "PC Games" are referring to.

 

[MUnited83]

People know you dont need the windows store to distribute UWP right?

I know the store has its problems but why the fuck would people want less competition?

If it blows dont use it, force them to improve it till its better. If its good, dope, maybe itll force competitors to make there products better.

this is tired as shit by now but does everybody forget when everyone HATED THE SHIT out of a steam?

W10 store is not competition, and it's never going to be competition by the looks of it.
Wether you can distribute UWP without Windows Store is completely irrelevant. Not a single fucking dev does that.

MS had 10 motherfucking years to improve on GFWL. It's 2017. What Steam was in 2004 is completely and utterly irrelevant. I'm not going to wait 15 years to let MS catch up with today's standards, that's idiotic.

Even fucking Uplay and Origin are relatively competent these days. A multi-billion dolar like MS that has worked on software for decades should fucking do better.

 

[Osiris]

I mean, this is just flat out incorrect to the point of being an actual lie if you think about it for even a couple of seconds and have even tangential knowledge of what making a game actually consist of, but I honestly can't be bothered to go through this rigmarole again.

UWA serves no particular benefit for developers not targetting mobile devices, and thats why nobody is bothering with it for any traditional desktop software, including MS themselves.

If by "PC games" you are talking about titles like Clash Of Clans, sure, fine. But that is not what most people talking about "PC Games" are referring to.

Really?

W10 store is not competition, and it's never going to be competition by the looks of it.
Wether you can distribute UWP without Windows Store is completely irrelevant. Not a single fucking dev does that.

Except Adobe, who have, and myself, who delivered a UWP developed OSDP app to a client last year without use of the Store, or any of the other LoB developers who are using UWP and delivering apps right now, again, without the Store.

You're wrong.

 

[spindoctor]

About the only benefit UWP brings to the table is that it's difficult (if not impossible) to create a virus that can do as much damage as a regular Win32 virus. ..which is irrelevant since you don't get viruses from Steam/GOG/Origin/whatever and it's not like MS is going to patch Win32 out of Windows..

Interestingly, software created by Microsoft (named GFWL) made several of my purchased games unplayable after a period of a few years. GFWL has caused more damage to me than any virus I've seen in about 25 years of computing.

But these threads always bring out the chucklefucks wondering why PC gamers don't want Microsoft trying any of their bullshit on the platform.

 

[Easy_D]

Interestingly, software created by Microsoft (named GFWL) made several of my purchased games unplayable after a period of a few years. GFWL has caused more damage to me than any virus I've seen in about 25 years of computing.

But these threads always bring out the chucklefucks wondering why PC gamers don't want Microsoft trying any of their bullshit on the platform.

But you don't get it man, my team has to win!

 

[LordRaptor]

Really?

A speculative puff piece by a tech blog that doesn't really comprehend the issues involved isn't a one and done rebuttal to the premise that at a fundamental design level some work is always going to be involved to make something that works with a controller, a Keyboard + Mouse and a touchscreen.

Which, like I said, should be self-evident with even a moments actual thought about it.

 

[killer rin]

There's no need to differentiate because the only place you can buy uwp apps is the Windows store. If that changes in the future then we can stop referring to it as the Windows store.

Plus it has more to do than with where they sell it. Uwp apps are far more restricted then regular Windows programs

You do realize you don't need the Windows store to install or use UWP stuff. In fact, Steam, GoG and developers themselves can sell UWP apps if they wanted to.

 

[MUnited83]

Really?



Except Adobe, who have, and myself, who delivered a UWP developed OSDP app to a client last year without use of the Store, or any of the other LoB developers who are using UWP and delivering apps right now, again, without the Store.

You're wrong.

Good thing we're talking about games here . Feel free to link to the digital stores selling UWA games, I'd love to see them.

You do realize you don't need the Windows store to install or use UWP stuff. In fact, Steam, GoG and developers themselves can sell UWP apps if they wanted to.

Why would they be that dumb, though? There is no reason for them to release games as a UWP.

 

[paperspace]

⁣

 

[borges]

I love how easy they're making it for me to completely ignore their products.

Welp, I'm fine with not giving any money to Microsoft. They're clearly not interested in the current PC-market anyway, so whatever.

Are you a Linux user? Cool!

 

[epmode]

Good thing we're talking about games here . Feel free to link to the digital stores selling UWA games, I'd love to see them.

Why would they be that dumb, though? There is no reason for them to release games as a UWP.

There's no reason for anyone but Microsoft to release a UWP game. Unless they're only interested in Microsoft's ecosystem (and even then, they'd be leaving out Windows 7 and 8). I can't think of anyone that fits the bill.

 

[Easy_D]

You do realize you don't need the Windows store to install or use UWP stuff. In fact, Steam, GoG and developers themselves can sell UWP apps if they wanted to.

It's so easy to use fraps or MSI Afterburner with UWP apps, loving it, no restrictions baby

 

[sixteen-bit]

Expected nothing less.

 

[FyreWulff]

New OS features only available to programs that use the new API.


News at 11.

News deprecated at 11.9

 

[Armaros]

Well if you want those games you have no choice but be patient as it is obvious that MS isn't releasing those games on the Win32 platform. I mean, what else is there? Bitch until they stop and continue to not make games that people cry ports for all the time? Just saying.

Who is talking about Xbox Game Ports? How about the decade of failed promises and failed and abandoned ambitions on the part of Microsoft with regards to PC Gaming.

With games lost on GFWL that cant be played again, to Microsoft promising that 'yes this the we actually care about PC Gaming' and then abandoned it because they couldn't get PC Gamers to pay for online play.

So I ask again, why should I take them at their word that they mean well this time around?

 

[FyreWulff]

I like how both Apple and MS introduced a new API. Apple got everyone to sign up right away and march along, MS is getting resistance, but both of them failed to get people to use the OS store.

 

[Osiris]

It's so easy to use fraps or MSI Afterburner with UWP apps, loving it, no restrictions baby

Don't worry, Phil Spencer has already confirmed Overlays are coming to UWP apps, so fraps will be fine.

 

[Burai]

The benefits to gamers are not what UWP offers now, but what it offers in the future, which will be the same game running on PC, Console, Tablet and Phone etc. without the need to port.

In the same way that devs can now make one app for PC, Tablets and Phones & Consoles, they will be able to do the same for games.

The other side of the coin to more apps on console via UWP, is more games on PC, devs will not need to port to PC, the game can be packaged so it runs on both, with the hardware abstracted, in the same way that a developer can have a current UWP project that runs on PC and Windows Phone, simply by defining differnt interfaces for each platform you support.

Xbox PlayAnywhere, but by default, just by virue of being developed on UWP.

You've heard of Project Helix?

But this still doesn't address a lot of problems for developers though. A "universal binary" is great, but when an AAA game is 50GB+, what use is that to mobile and tablet users?

How do you optimise your games for each platform? The dev time for that doesn't suddenly reduce just because you only compile once rather than four times. Even on cutting edge tablets, you're effectively going to be playing a different version of Forza to the one on your Xbox. So why go through the impracticality of one app container at one price point?

Are Xbox/mobile users going to appreciate having to download large, updated apps over their capped data because you've patched PC code that they don't use?

We've already seen Apple maintain two separate App Stores because even they understand, even with their walled gardens, one size fits all dev tools and shared architecture between iOS, tvOS, watchOS and macOS, that trying to tie desktop and mobile versions of programs into one app container just doesn't work on a practical level. Not least because both publishers and consumers have different price/feature/performance expectations on each platform.

UWP is answering questions no developer or user was asking and even then many of those are only hypothetical answers. This is a world where PC gaming is ruled by traditional Win32 apps distributed by Valve, where 99% of mobile users are on Android and iOS and where more than half of console users are on PlayStation. Nothing UWP brings helps publishers address any of that so, truly, what is the point?

 

[LostDonkey]

UWP is in a horrible state, it's barely usable for big files, the app store is anemic for the smaller apps it's built for, the whole thing is utterly pointless except when theorizing about users who don't actually do much with their PCs at all.

If I could've downloaded Killer Instinct instead of it restarting over and over for seemingly no reason and running through dozens of gigs for no good reason, maybe I would've given it a chance for games. I already tried to use the apps on Windows 8 before and when Windows 10 launched, never found anything useful to put into daily use.

It's just silly to tell people they should be using this stuff. It barely works. There's no incentive to use it. It's a platform that exists entirely for Microsoft's internal purposes, with almost no consumer benefit and a lot of drawbacks.

Adding on new features when the basic infrastructure is still suspect doesn't add any confidence.

Yet for me, it works flawlessly.

Never had a problem installing or playing Quantum Break, Gears, Forza Apex/Horizon 3 or any of the apps I use. They just work.

I turn on my machine and play without any hassle. So it does work for some of us.

 

[Shpeshal Nick]

that's honestly kinda scary from the point of view of actual PC gamer ... from the dev side it just means "we can push out ports without any work" ... so more lazy and bad ports like FH3 is coming :-(

Perspectives are interesting aren't they?

You've chosen one. Developing once to deploy twice means lazy devs.

To me? Developing once, deploying twice means:

1) Dev costs drop
2) Games have more time for polish and features
3) Developers could crunch less
4) Cheaper dev costs could mean more risky games being made again
5) if dev costs drop, more money is being made which means more money to fund more games

 

[FyreWulff]

that's honestly kinda scary from the point of view of actual PC gamer ... from the dev side it just means "we can push out ports without any work" ... so more lazy and bad ports like FH3 is coming :-(

You only get more games if it's easier to multi-deploy.

Almost nobody is actually squeezing the last bits of power out of any platform - 95% of huge game dev company employees never go lower than the built in engine scripting language. Diminishing returns means you'd be spending thousands upon thousands of dollars squeezing a tiny fraction of more "power" out of whatever you're deploying to.

 

[Zedox]

Who is talking about Xbox Game Ports? How about the decade of failed promises and failed and abandoned ambitions on the part of Microsoft with regards to PC Gaming.

With games lost on GFWL that cant be played again, to Microsoft promising that 'yes this the we actually care about PC Gaming' and then abandoned it because they couldn't get PC Gamers to pay for online play.

So I ask again, why should I take them at their word that they mean well this time around?

I never stated anything about taking them for their word. I stated the only reason one would be interested in what they are doing are those who care about games released on the platform, and most of them are Xbox Game ports. The Store and platform were there before those specific "AAA" games were released and no one said anything about the platform and what it lacked. Nothing was "in danger" as some people see it until MS released Xbox Game ports. That's just a fact.

So I stated if you don't care about those games, why care at all? The games that are being released on other stores using Win32 are still being released. If you aren't interested in those titles, there's nothing there for you, none of the big 3rd parties are going exclusive UWP sooooooooo you mad at about what exactly? The "threat" of the 3rd parties only using UWP? Ok, so if that is the case, we gotta hear how much one hates UWP because of this threat? If you are interested in those titles, you have no choice but to wait for the features you expect to come (if they do).

But alas...people won't change. I'll just keep watching and commenting where I see fit on these threads. I'll keep watching how UWP improves over time and see how the argument changes from wants of people.

 

[jadjei]

Sorry to high jack this thread but I'm trying to connect my xbox one controller to my laptop through Bluetooth. It worked at first but my steam games do not detect it. Do I need the wireless adapter? Sorry lol.

 

[Fafalada]

Nothing UWP brings helps publishers address any of that so, truly, what is the point?

If you can't capture the markets you try to disrupt them. Eg. Scorpio(and its successors) as a UWP machine would be positioned to make consoles obsolete, rather than trying to compete with the dominant player. Eventual mobile devices under same umbrella would attempt the same. PC user adoption is more of a side note.

Really?.

To be fair, I'd argue that this is several years late (as usual for MS), there's precious little momentum left in their PC/console ecosystems to drive it now.

 

[Osiris]

But this still doesn't address a lot of problems for developers though. A "universal binary" is great, but when an AAA game is 50GB+, what use is that to mobile and tablet users?

How do you optimise your games for each platform? The dev time for that doesn't suddenly reduce just because you only compile once rather than four times. Even on cutting edge tablets, you're effectively going to be playing a different version of Forza to the one on your Xbox. So why go through the impracticality of one app container at one price point?

Are Xbox/mobile users going to appreciate having to download large, updated apps over their capped data because you've patched PC code that they don't use?

We've already seen Apple maintain two separate App Stores because even they understand, even with their walled gardens, one size fits all dev tools and shared architecture between iOS, tvOS, watchOS and macOS, that trying to tie desktop and mobile versions of programs into one app container just doesn't work on a practical level. Not least because both publishers and consumers have different price/feature/performance expectations on each platform.

UWP is answering questions no developer or user was asking and even then many of those are only hypothetical answers. This is a world where PC gaming is ruled by traditional Win32 apps distributed by Valve, where 99% of mobile users are on Android and iOS and where more than half of console users are on PlayStation. Nothing UWP brings helps publishers address any of that so, truly, what is the point?

It doesn't work like that, it's not a universal binary, it's a universal codebase / project with the capability for shared and/or platform specific code and / or assets, with a separate platform specific interface for each all within a single development solution.

So you could use reduced size assets for phone, full size assets for PC or a mix of the two if/when required but all using the same codebase, a patch can then either target all platforms, or any single individual platform dependant on need.

The "tweaking for each platform" only really comes down to the need to design an interface for the platforms display, and then dealing with any other platform differences (which should be minor, thats the point of it all being UWP) that may get thrown up.

Perspectives are interesting aren't they?

You've chosen one. Developing once to deploy twice means lazy devs.

To me? Developing once, deploying twice means:

1) Dev costs drop
2) Games have more time for polish and features
3) Developers could crunch less
4) Cheaper dev costs could mean more risky games being made again
5) if dev costs drop, more money is being made which means more money to fund more games

That's pretty much how I see it too.

 

[LordRaptor]

UWP is answering questions no developer or user was asking and even then many of those are only hypothetical answers. This is a world where PC gaming is ruled by traditional Win32 apps distributed by Valve, where 99% of mobile users are on Android and iOS and where more than half of console users are on PlayStation. Nothing UWP brings helps publishers address any of that so, truly, what is the point?

Yes, exactly.
I mean, the uncomfortable truth is that if MS actually want to get into multi-platform development tools, we're talking about them doing something like open sourcing DirectX and putting that on IOS / Android / *NIX / et al (and it would pretty much have to be FLOSS, because so few people in the tech space trust Microsofts intentions).

Which is pretty clearly never going to happen.

e:

The "tweaking for each platform" only really comes down to the need to design an interface for the platforms display, and then dealing with any other platform differences (which should be minor, thats the point of it all being UWP) that may get thrown up.

Its not minor. Its not just UI work. That's why people aren't jumping aboard.

It takes just as much time and work to make changes to a game targetting the PC in a manner that its audience does not find desultory with a UWA as it does with a PC build with pretty much any multiplatform engine, because a PC is not a console.

The difference being, if you spend that time and compile as W32, you end up with a product stores are prepared to sell and customers are willing to buy.

 

[Armaros]

I never stated anything about taking them for their word. I stated the only reason one would be interested in what they are doing are those who care about games released on the platform, and most of them are Xbox Game ports. The Store and platform were there before those specific "AAA" games were released and no one said anything about the platform and what it lacked. Nothing was "in danger" as some people see it until MS released Xbox Game ports. That's just a fact.

So I stated if you don't care about those games, why care at all? The games that are being released on other stores using Win32 are still being released. If you aren't interested in those titles, there's nothing there for you, none of the big 3rd parties are going exclusive UWP sooooooooo you mad at about what exactly? The "threat" of the 3rd parties only using UWP? Ok, so if that is the case, we gotta hear how much one hates UWP because of this threat? If you are interested in those titles, you have no choice but to wait for the features you expect to come (if they do).

But alas...people won't change. I'll just keep watching and commenting where I see fit on these threads. I'll keep watching how UWP improves over time and see how the argument changes from wants of people.

So why did you respond to me before when I was clearly talking about MS previous practices and history? And
Not about their first party console exclusives?

I shouldn't worry about UWP then? So all those games trapped on GWL are just Microsoft first party game ports?

Your post is exactly why I don't give Microsoft any patience. A whole lot of 'wait and see' without address why people are skeptical of them in the first place.

PC Gaming has been waiting for well over a decade and moved on. And so far their newest try haven't even caught up to PC Gaming in 2017.

 

[Zedox]

If you can't capture the markets you try to disrupt them. Eg. Scorpio(and its successors) as a UWP machine would be positioned to make consoles obsolete, rather than trying to compete with the dominant player. Eventual mobile devices under same umbrella would attempt the same. PC user adoption is more of a side note.

That's exactly what MS is doing with Windows. Really trying to make the "OneOS" to rule them all. One OS, one dev platform, one store (for MS ecosystem at least, you can use ur own) that spans all different device types and sizes and different inputs. Then you create devices that highlight that. That's how we get Surface Pro/Book/Studio, and it seems that's how they are positioning Scorpio devkits (at least we know as of right now for dev purposes, it's the machine for Xbox One - Scorpio - Win10 game development) and whatever the "Surface Phone" will be with ARM that is a "phone" that can be a PC and run all of your win32 apps. Seeing that come to fruition (which I've been waiting for since early Win8 days) is cool to me.

As a hobbyist developer it's nice to see MS try to stick to ONE FUCKING DEV PLATFORM. Going from stuff like Silverlight, to wpf, to winrt, to now uwp...good god the amount of fucking changes was infuriating. Coming from XNA (long live XNA) background, it's nice to see that this seems like they are going to stick with this platform for a while and I'm happy for that.

So why did you respond to me before when I was clearly talking about MS previous practices and history? And
Not about their first party console exclusives?

I shouldn't worry about UWP then? So all those games trapped on GWL are just Microsoft first party game ports?

Your post is exactly why I don't give Microsoft any patience. A whole lot of 'wait and see' without address why people are skeptical of them in the first place.

PC Gaming has been waiting for well over a decade and moved on. And so far their newest try haven't even caught up to PC Gaming in 2017.

I responded to your question about being patient...I should have left out the rest. I was talking about the games on the Windows Store specifically, not GFWL. Most of the "big budget games" that are there are MS titles.

Also if PC Gaming has been waiting and moved on...then why do you care about what goes on in UWP/Windows Store. If it hasn't caught up, and you are skeptical, are you here to repeat that you are still skeptical? I'm just trying to get an understanding.

I also find it funny that people bring up the history of MS when MS is clearly a different company as a whole since GFWL existed but people love to bring it up as it is the same thing today or the company is the same thing. This is the same company that had a CEO that said Linux is a cancer to it's current CEO having MS join the Linux Foundation. But whatever, people will hold onto anything they like.