Microsoft formally bans emulators on Xbox, Windows 10 download shops(arstechnica.com)
arstechnica.com
Microsoft formally bans emulators on Xbox, Windows 10 download shops
https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2017/04/microsoft-formally-bans-emulators-on-xbox-windows-10-download-shops/
136 comments
Not sure why the parent is being downvoted. Perhaps people don't like the read the truth, perhaps they are too young to remember a time of more computational freedom and openness.
The majority of "computers" people own are already locked down, and it seems clear that things will only get worse -- hardware is increasingly opaque and designed to do things against the interest of the user (or, to say the least, without the consent of the user).
The majority of "computers" people own are already locked down, and it seems clear that things will only get worse -- hardware is increasingly opaque and designed to do things against the interest of the user (or, to say the least, without the consent of the user).
I would wager that more than likely it's because it's a fairly insubstantial sarcastic post, and quite a few posters on HN prefer that posts have content that drive the discussion related to the topic as opposed to comments like the parent.
From my point of view, the parent is somewhat incorrect in that we've always had companies trying really hard to lock down what we can and cannot do - since the NES/SNES days Nintendo was doing copy protection and restriction of their hardware, I believe the other players at the time did as well.
Your comment is much more substantial in that it provides a point of discussion, despite the somewhat condescending "...perhaps they are too young to remember..." part. But ultimately entirely rhetorical comments usually are disapproved of, even if the consensus is that the idea behind it is agreed upon.
From my point of view, the parent is somewhat incorrect in that we've always had companies trying really hard to lock down what we can and cannot do - since the NES/SNES days Nintendo was doing copy protection and restriction of their hardware, I believe the other players at the time did as well.
Your comment is much more substantial in that it provides a point of discussion, despite the somewhat condescending "...perhaps they are too young to remember..." part. But ultimately entirely rhetorical comments usually are disapproved of, even if the consensus is that the idea behind it is agreed upon.
> I would wager that more than likely it's because it's a fairly insubstantial sarcastic post, and quite a few posters on HN prefer that posts have content that drive the discussion related to the topic as opposed to comments like the parent.
Perhaps the content of my post was implicit rather than explicit, and I would not harbor a grudge against anyone that downvoted out of a preference for the latter, but my comment was neither sarcastic nor rhetorical.
Perhaps the content of my post was implicit rather than explicit, and I would not harbor a grudge against anyone that downvoted out of a preference for the latter, but my comment was neither sarcastic nor rhetorical.
It's getting downvoted because there will always be open source OS'es that can run open-source emulators. Since all computers are also Turing machines.
Dystopian reasoning in the 2 parent comments is slippery-slope fallacy.
Dystopian reasoning in the 2 parent comments is slippery-slope fallacy.
> It's getting downvoted because there will always be open source OS'es that can run open-source emulators. Since all computers are also Turing machines.
Not really:
- Just because some computational device is Turing-complete, that does not entail that it can perform the computations that you want in a practical manner. For example, my brain or even many biochemical mechanisms in my organism are Turing-complete. That does not mean that it is feasible for me to run some open-source emulator on them;
- In practice, modern computers are no longer Turing-complete in a strict sense. They come with opaque processors that can be commandeered by third parties to interrupt or interfere with computation that the users wishes to perform. Open-source software cannot solve that problem.
> Dystopian reasoning in the 2 parent comments is slippery-slope fallacy.
Arguing that a given bad situation is likely to get worse does not constitute, by itself, a slipper-slope fallacy. It that were the case, no argument that led one to conclude that something will become worse would be valid. This is obviously absurd.
In this case, there is strong empirical evidence that users are in fact losing control over their computational devices, when compared for example with the hardware commonly available in the 90s. This is objective fact. Conversely, you provide no counter-argument. Writing the scare word "dystopian" is not an argument.
Not really:
- Just because some computational device is Turing-complete, that does not entail that it can perform the computations that you want in a practical manner. For example, my brain or even many biochemical mechanisms in my organism are Turing-complete. That does not mean that it is feasible for me to run some open-source emulator on them;
- In practice, modern computers are no longer Turing-complete in a strict sense. They come with opaque processors that can be commandeered by third parties to interrupt or interfere with computation that the users wishes to perform. Open-source software cannot solve that problem.
> Dystopian reasoning in the 2 parent comments is slippery-slope fallacy.
Arguing that a given bad situation is likely to get worse does not constitute, by itself, a slipper-slope fallacy. It that were the case, no argument that led one to conclude that something will become worse would be valid. This is obviously absurd.
In this case, there is strong empirical evidence that users are in fact losing control over their computational devices, when compared for example with the hardware commonly available in the 90s. This is objective fact. Conversely, you provide no counter-argument. Writing the scare word "dystopian" is not an argument.
I dont think there will always be open source software. All it takes is a new law to be passed and then become illegal.
You don't have to make open source illegal, all it takes is a requirement that all devices sold must come with secure boot keys by a government-approved vendor. And of course the vendor can't hand out descendant keys to open source projects because those could be modified to do anything that could get the key yanked by the government.
Yeah. I'll sound cheesy now, but - open your eyes. There are plenty of locked down computers around us in everyday use that often need to be literally exploited in order to turn into something resembling a device controlled by its owner instead of manufacturer. One easily noticable group of them is called "mobile phones", for instance.
And even when you root your phone you still don't have full control over it. Just see the recent broadcom wifi exploit.
It's already a reality on mobile, the slope is already greased.
I don't think "in theory you could be free, even if in practice you aren't" is much in the way of freedom.
Is there even a full open-source OS for the iPhone? If so, I have never once seen anybody using it. In practice, Apple has full control over the apps their users run, and they are not shy about using it. It has been 10 years, and this picture has been getting worse, not better.
Clearly other vendors have looked at that and said, "30% of tens of billions of dollars per year, plus the ability to screw over competitors? Yes please!"
This is definitely not the slippery-slope fallacy, because all he's really positing is that corporate control will continue to tighten at the current rate. If you want to demonstrate otherwise, you have to prove it. And I think the only thing you've proven so far is that there will always be a few greybeards willing to boot up an old Linux kernel on obsolete hardware, which does not sound like true freedom to me.
Is there even a full open-source OS for the iPhone? If so, I have never once seen anybody using it. In practice, Apple has full control over the apps their users run, and they are not shy about using it. It has been 10 years, and this picture has been getting worse, not better.
Clearly other vendors have looked at that and said, "30% of tens of billions of dollars per year, plus the ability to screw over competitors? Yes please!"
This is definitely not the slippery-slope fallacy, because all he's really positing is that corporate control will continue to tighten at the current rate. If you want to demonstrate otherwise, you have to prove it. And I think the only thing you've proven so far is that there will always be a few greybeards willing to boot up an old Linux kernel on obsolete hardware, which does not sound like true freedom to me.
> Is there even a full open-source OS for the iPhone?
Heh, not officially, but this does exist:
https://ios.gadgethacks.com/how-to/exclusive-dual-boot-andro...
> because all he's really positing is that corporate control will continue to tighten at the current rate.
"The Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it." - John Gilmore (https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/John_Gilmore) In this case, I argue you can replace "censorship" with "too much regulation" or "too many controls" or "too much DRM" or "too tight a walled garden" because what they all share, are being benefits to centralized control and profit at the expense of the convenience and joy of innocent users.
This was largely the promise (and threat) of Bitcoin, by the way. An Internet-native completely digital pseudonymous payment system that is nearly impossible to regulate. There is (or will be) a direct relationship between the stringency of capital controls and the below-the-radar usage of cryptocurrencies. If you expect capital controls of innocent people (which, disclaimer, I really effing abhor, as a person who once had their main bank account locked out for a month sans any evidence of criminality) to get worse/more onerous, and you want to make money off it, you should probably own some crypto.
Heh, not officially, but this does exist:
https://ios.gadgethacks.com/how-to/exclusive-dual-boot-andro...
> because all he's really positing is that corporate control will continue to tighten at the current rate.
"The Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it." - John Gilmore (https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/John_Gilmore) In this case, I argue you can replace "censorship" with "too much regulation" or "too many controls" or "too much DRM" or "too tight a walled garden" because what they all share, are being benefits to centralized control and profit at the expense of the convenience and joy of innocent users.
This was largely the promise (and threat) of Bitcoin, by the way. An Internet-native completely digital pseudonymous payment system that is nearly impossible to regulate. There is (or will be) a direct relationship between the stringency of capital controls and the below-the-radar usage of cryptocurrencies. If you expect capital controls of innocent people (which, disclaimer, I really effing abhor, as a person who once had their main bank account locked out for a month sans any evidence of criminality) to get worse/more onerous, and you want to make money off it, you should probably own some crypto.
Analogizing to a 20-year-old quote about the Internet is not really proving anything. Even about the Internet, really; the loss of Net Neutrality and allowing ISP datamining may have significant effects.
But it definitely doesn't prove anything about software. If you want to claim that the currently slipping slope will stop at some point, you'll have to name that point and defend it.
But it definitely doesn't prove anything about software. If you want to claim that the currently slipping slope will stop at some point, you'll have to name that point and defend it.
Do you remember the days when it was hard to get Linux on a machine? When I started using it a majority of modems didn't have Linux drivers, so your average PC user could not get on the internet with Linux unless they very carefully selected a replacement. Then the same issue repeated itself with WiFi drivers in the following decade.
We are at the mercy of hardware vendors to run open source OSes - they can giveth and they can taketh away.
Imagine a future where most hardware you can buy only loads signed kernels and bootloaders. That's not a totally theoretical outcome. It came pretty close to happening during the Windows 8 cycle.
We are at the mercy of hardware vendors to run open source OSes - they can giveth and they can taketh away.
Imagine a future where most hardware you can buy only loads signed kernels and bootloaders. That's not a totally theoretical outcome. It came pretty close to happening during the Windows 8 cycle.
Yeah, about WiFi. I wanted to bring my desktop somewhere where I wasn't sure I'd have ethernet.
"No problem," says I, "I'll just buy a USB adapter."
I have 802.11ac in my house, and it's pretty nice, so I thought I'd get an 802.11ac adapter. So I run down to the store, and pick up an adapter that says it works on Linux ON THE BOX. I look online, and it is using the RTL8812au, which people have reported working in Linux.
Turns out none of the drivers compile on Linux 4.4+. I managed to mess around with the makefiles and the code a bit to get most of the compile errors to go away, but it was still hanging on a few files that I couldn't make heads or tails of. So I went on Github and downloaded a version that had been updated to account for this device in the past 4 days. No dice.
All told, I probably spent 6 hours trying to get the stupid adapter to work. I would have returned it after hour 1 and bought a more expensive Atheros or Intel adapter, but they literally only make 802.11ac adapters in the mini-pcie form factor.
On one hand, the device was USB 3.0 instead of USB2, was made by Tenda (who kind of cut corners), and all the fixes were either for Ubuntu or Arch, and I'm using Fedora. On the other hand, it's 2017, 802.11ac has been out for a while now. I kind of expect to be able to find at least one 802.11AC adapter that works. Most of the 802.11ac adapters that other people had gotten working only worked in 2.4ghz mode, or only worked with 802.11n.
So that was pretty disappointing. It felt like it was 2006 all over again. (It really would have felt like 2006 if Xorg had broken during this process.) It's not like I bought "outdated" hardware either. The FCC approval is dated December 19, 2016. So you'd expect the driver to compile on a recent kernel.
I think I'm just going to buy an 802.11ac router, run it in client mode, and velcro it to the top of my case.
"No problem," says I, "I'll just buy a USB adapter."
I have 802.11ac in my house, and it's pretty nice, so I thought I'd get an 802.11ac adapter. So I run down to the store, and pick up an adapter that says it works on Linux ON THE BOX. I look online, and it is using the RTL8812au, which people have reported working in Linux.
Turns out none of the drivers compile on Linux 4.4+. I managed to mess around with the makefiles and the code a bit to get most of the compile errors to go away, but it was still hanging on a few files that I couldn't make heads or tails of. So I went on Github and downloaded a version that had been updated to account for this device in the past 4 days. No dice.
All told, I probably spent 6 hours trying to get the stupid adapter to work. I would have returned it after hour 1 and bought a more expensive Atheros or Intel adapter, but they literally only make 802.11ac adapters in the mini-pcie form factor.
On one hand, the device was USB 3.0 instead of USB2, was made by Tenda (who kind of cut corners), and all the fixes were either for Ubuntu or Arch, and I'm using Fedora. On the other hand, it's 2017, 802.11ac has been out for a while now. I kind of expect to be able to find at least one 802.11AC adapter that works. Most of the 802.11ac adapters that other people had gotten working only worked in 2.4ghz mode, or only worked with 802.11n.
So that was pretty disappointing. It felt like it was 2006 all over again. (It really would have felt like 2006 if Xorg had broken during this process.) It's not like I bought "outdated" hardware either. The FCC approval is dated December 19, 2016. So you'd expect the driver to compile on a recent kernel.
I think I'm just going to buy an 802.11ac router, run it in client mode, and velcro it to the top of my case.
I'm totally feel you on the mind-numbing latency that seems to exist with Linux drivers and any sort of semi-modern technology. It's funny you mention Xorg breaking. It's unbelievable how fragile Xorg is. I remember a decade ago booting Ubuntu for the first time and struggling to get X working with an old nvidia mobile chipset, and any single change in the terribly complex Xorg conf files would cause a failure to boot, forcing me into console mode.
Looking back, Linux was quite unfriendly regarding drivers and support, but I feel it's made a lot of progress for more popular systems. It's an innate problem of Linux itself. Maybe we should focus on the systems that are certified or well-supported by Linux out-of-box like the dell xps series, similar to how people perceive macOS as part of a hardware-software amalgamation, even though a hackintosh community exists.
Looking back, Linux was quite unfriendly regarding drivers and support, but I feel it's made a lot of progress for more popular systems. It's an innate problem of Linux itself. Maybe we should focus on the systems that are certified or well-supported by Linux out-of-box like the dell xps series, similar to how people perceive macOS as part of a hardware-software amalgamation, even though a hackintosh community exists.
Yeah, the weirdest thing is that the chipset this thing used was released almost two years ago.
Regarding drivers, it's always fun to plug something that is 20 years old in to my computer and have it work. I like showing off to my friends by using something that last had a supported driver for Windows 98. However it's a bit embarrassing when something that should work doesn't.
I'd love to contribute more, but I'm not capable of writing drivers from scratch, and a lot of drivers are just hacks built on top of hacks. I wish building drivers didn't involve hours of reverse engineering proprietary protocols.
For instance, I managed to get a dymo desktop label printer working, but only with one font size, and I can't actuate the cutter. I'd be more than happy to finish the driver if Dymo released the specs for their protocol, but as it stands I'm just happy I can get the minimum level of functionality out of it.
This entire conversation makes me realize why people think I'm a masochist for using Linux.
Regarding drivers, it's always fun to plug something that is 20 years old in to my computer and have it work. I like showing off to my friends by using something that last had a supported driver for Windows 98. However it's a bit embarrassing when something that should work doesn't.
I'd love to contribute more, but I'm not capable of writing drivers from scratch, and a lot of drivers are just hacks built on top of hacks. I wish building drivers didn't involve hours of reverse engineering proprietary protocols.
For instance, I managed to get a dymo desktop label printer working, but only with one font size, and I can't actuate the cutter. I'd be more than happy to finish the driver if Dymo released the specs for their protocol, but as it stands I'm just happy I can get the minimum level of functionality out of it.
This entire conversation makes me realize why people think I'm a masochist for using Linux.
[deleted]
This is something that Richard Stallman and Cory Doctorow have been warning about for some time now... The war against general purpose computing.
This really only affects distribution through the Windows Store, correct? I don't anything saying the execution of console emulation software is now impossible on Windows 10.
While it is possible this is a slippery slope that leads to the case you are referring to. It's still not clear if it will ever reach that state.
While it is possible this is a slippery slope that leads to the case you are referring to. It's still not clear if it will ever reach that state.
I can only imagine from their apparent course that they'll lock out Win32 apps at some point and only allow installation/execution of software from the Windows store (and maybe some "partners", i.e. some companies that are too big to just lock out, like Valve, although they would probably have to pay a "fee" to have access to the Win10 audience).
Blocking of Win32 apps/apps not from the Windows Store already exists today [0], although who knows how long until it is not "voluntary" anymore. The text in the message from the linked article kind of gives one of the future "reasons" Microsoft will probably use in the future for this kind of shit away ("Limiting installations to apps from the Store helps to keep your PC safe and reliable").
This development presents a VERY slippery slope.
[0]: https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2017/02/windo...
Blocking of Win32 apps/apps not from the Windows Store already exists today [0], although who knows how long until it is not "voluntary" anymore. The text in the message from the linked article kind of gives one of the future "reasons" Microsoft will probably use in the future for this kind of shit away ("Limiting installations to apps from the Store helps to keep your PC safe and reliable").
This development presents a VERY slippery slope.
[0]: https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2017/02/windo...
It's questionable whether this is currently a slippery slope. There is no precedence for this move on the PC platform. That alone weakens the argument that Microsoft will eventually make that move. To be clear, it is still possible, but there is not enough evidence to build a case that guarantees your conclusion.
Edit: You could argue that the ChromeOS platform is an example of a completed locked ecosystem. I've never really considered Chromebooks to be a PCs, but I'm sure under some context they meet the classifications of a PC.
Edit: You could argue that the ChromeOS platform is an example of a completed locked ecosystem. I've never really considered Chromebooks to be a PCs, but I'm sure under some context they meet the classifications of a PC.
Under what context would a Chromebook not be a PC?
By the broad definition used to define a PC, a Chromebook is a PC. My perception of a PC is just skewed.
Okay, but what I'm curious about is what more narrow definition would exclude it. I'm wondering if it's something I haven't thought of, or whether you're underestimating them. For example, there are Chromebooks that can run most win32 programs.
Until of course they disable installation from other sources than Windows Store in name of "malware protection and security". Boiling frogs and all that.
Yeah, that'll happen when hell freezes over. The one thing Microsoft holds above all else is backwards compatibility and this would break that in a million ways.
I doubt they'll attempt to disable execution of web content based on some "this is probably an emulator" heuristic. On the one hand, that'd instantly be circumvented into negligibility; on the other, the backlash would be epic.
I also severely doubt they'll attempt to prevent installation of application binaries from sources other than the Windows store. If anyone were going to be dumb enough to attempt such a move, it'd have been Apple, years before now, and they never even came close. Microsoft isn't run by morons, either.
I also severely doubt they'll attempt to prevent installation of application binaries from sources other than the Windows store. If anyone were going to be dumb enough to attempt such a move, it'd have been Apple, years before now, and they never even came close. Microsoft isn't run by morons, either.
Webcontent is not a free platform. It does not even give you sockets which can interact with arbitrary network services without centralized control (no, websockets don't work because they can't listen, webrtc does not work because it needs rendezvous servers). And neither can it access your own filesystem. It is quite locked down. In a way you get compute cycles, but you don't get access to the machine's full capabilities.
And they could trivially forbid loading file:// URLs or disable features for those since few people use those anyway, that way you would lose persistence and would be dependent on something to even host your software.
And they could trivially forbid loading file:// URLs or disable features for those since few people use those anyway, that way you would lose persistence and would be dependent on something to even host your software.
webrtc works fine. Rendezvous servers are a minimal cost, they're not involved beyond the setup, and you can run your own fairly easily.
I'd argue it works better than sockets, especially for gaming, since there's no need to mess around with NAT.
I'd argue it works better than sockets, especially for gaming, since there's no need to mess around with NAT.
It's about freedom to run your own software, it is not cost or "works fine". Webrtc has a dependency on and is controlled by a 3rd party. You can't talk to someone in the next room via webrtc without some party running the server and providing a service to you. If they decide to lock you out you can't use sockets anymore.
With real sockets you can just send a multicast message to find all devices on the local network and talk to them directly.
With real sockets you can just send a multicast message to find all devices on the local network and talk to them directly.
You can use any rendezvous server in the world. Even without free ones, you could buy access for $1 per decade.
There is no third party in charge. There is just a requirement to use some party anywhere.
There is no third party in charge. There is just a requirement to use some party anywhere.
Imagine you're in china. Do you really want the basic ability for two devices to talk to each other depend on something that goes over the internet?
And they still have to agree on the same server, that provides a certain lock-in or inertia. Ultimately it means you have less control over your network connections than with real sockets.
And for the purpose of discussion this about the freedom of running software on your computer and webcontent not being equivalent in that regard. With webrtc signalling servers you're just kicking the ball down the road because then you need to be able to run a server with access to real sockets on some other machine, just to use those poor imitations of sockets.
And they still have to agree on the same server, that provides a certain lock-in or inertia. Ultimately it means you have less control over your network connections than with real sockets.
And for the purpose of discussion this about the freedom of running software on your computer and webcontent not being equivalent in that regard. With webrtc signalling servers you're just kicking the ball down the road because then you need to be able to run a server with access to real sockets on some other machine, just to use those poor imitations of sockets.
> Do you really want the basic ability for two devices to talk to each other depend on something that goes over the internet?
Set up your hosts file or edit the js to point at a local server.
Of course, if you're in China you'd get in trouble making connections to an outside STUN server but if you're in China you're in trouble making connections to the outside anyways, and the STUN connection is probably the least of your worries.
> just to use those poor imitations of sockets
... that work across NATs without issues, as opposed to real sockets...
---
In any case, WebRTC doesn't strictly speaking need discovery servers at all. See http://blog.printf.net/articles/2013/05/17/webrtc-without-a-... It still uses STUN for public-ip discovery, but comments indicate that can be bypassed by just configuring the connection to use a local IP for STUN. Unsurprisingly, not many people seem to actually care about that.
Set up your hosts file or edit the js to point at a local server.
Of course, if you're in China you'd get in trouble making connections to an outside STUN server but if you're in China you're in trouble making connections to the outside anyways, and the STUN connection is probably the least of your worries.
> just to use those poor imitations of sockets
... that work across NATs without issues, as opposed to real sockets...
---
In any case, WebRTC doesn't strictly speaking need discovery servers at all. See http://blog.printf.net/articles/2013/05/17/webrtc-without-a-... It still uses STUN for public-ip discovery, but comments indicate that can be bypassed by just configuring the connection to use a local IP for STUN. Unsurprisingly, not many people seem to actually care about that.
> that work across NATs without issues
You say that as if stun didn't exist in the udp/tcp realm. bittorrent clients in fact engage in serverless stun by using mutually reachable peers. real sockets are strictly more powerful than webrtc, period. Also, that argument is becoming more and more obsolete as ipv6 adoption increases.
And again, this is not about utility, it's about control and freedom.
> In any case, WebRTC doesn't strictly speaking need discovery servers at all.
Even if you don't use a server you need to exchange one-time connection tokens out of band. You can't re-establish connections at a later point either. And it does not support multicast either. So no, you can't just have devices talk to each other.
Anyway, you're not even responding to my central argument. Web content is not a substitute for unfettered native access because you need native access to things (e.g. running a server) to even be able to run web content.
You say that as if stun didn't exist in the udp/tcp realm. bittorrent clients in fact engage in serverless stun by using mutually reachable peers. real sockets are strictly more powerful than webrtc, period. Also, that argument is becoming more and more obsolete as ipv6 adoption increases.
And again, this is not about utility, it's about control and freedom.
> In any case, WebRTC doesn't strictly speaking need discovery servers at all.
Even if you don't use a server you need to exchange one-time connection tokens out of band. You can't re-establish connections at a later point either. And it does not support multicast either. So no, you can't just have devices talk to each other.
Anyway, you're not even responding to my central argument. Web content is not a substitute for unfettered native access because you need native access to things (e.g. running a server) to even be able to run web content.
I love that you consider trivial the extrapolation from "Microsoft bans emulators in Xbone and Windows Store" to "no one can run nginx without authorization".
I don't see where I made mention of any concept of freedom.
If people are willing to accept restrictions on what can be obtained or sold on the store (falsely in that name of "safety"), what makes you think they wont accept restrictions on what websites they are allowed to load, or more likely, what website owners are allowed to host?
I don't know. Nuance?
I seriously doubt that Microsoft is going to ban, oh, just for starters:
* Photoshop * Illustrator * Premier * Avid * Office * Visual Studio
etc. etc. Legacy applications are a huge reason for people to use Windows. Blocking themselves off from that rich ecosystem of applications is basically begging people to use a Chromebook.
* Photoshop * Illustrator * Premier * Avid * Office * Visual Studio
etc. etc. Legacy applications are a huge reason for people to use Windows. Blocking themselves off from that rich ecosystem of applications is basically begging people to use a Chromebook.
Easy, there will be special agreements for some of those bigger fish. And of course on the special versions of Windows enterprise customers get (which you can't buy individually that easy) this will still be allowed
Or you just side-step the issue by creating a "Tablet" or "Personal" version that's cheaper and never let arbitrary software run there. Just like Apple did - on iOS running arbitrary software isn't expected and they're slowly moving towards running it on more and more devices including TVs and "Pro" iPad hardware.
I mean, just try to imagine them blocking Steam and the impending shitstorm afterwards...
I don't follow. There's a store now that sells a subset of software. All other methods still exist. You can still do as you please, including installing another OS.
Am I missing the part where they're taking away anything that was possible before?
Am I missing the part where they're taking away anything that was possible before?
Would I be wrong in assuming that you have a technical background, and are not representative of the average computer user?
The current problem* is not that there is absolutely no way to manage your own computer whatsoever, it's that the methods for doing so are becoming more and more a niche only for the computer-savvy. The larger public is becoming increasingly more comfortable with, and encouraging of, closed systems. So long as the majority are willing to pay for such systems, it is not irrational to envision manufacturers eliminating other options over time.
*And keep in mind that I wasn't criticizing the present but, but a possible future 10-20 years from now.
The current problem* is not that there is absolutely no way to manage your own computer whatsoever, it's that the methods for doing so are becoming more and more a niche only for the computer-savvy. The larger public is becoming increasingly more comfortable with, and encouraging of, closed systems. So long as the majority are willing to pay for such systems, it is not irrational to envision manufacturers eliminating other options over time.
*And keep in mind that I wasn't criticizing the present but, but a possible future 10-20 years from now.
So to put it simply, you believe that Microsoft is funnelling people into a very specific, controlled environment. And the only people who leap out of the funnel and roll their own computer environment are those who already know better. So 10 year old me may not have accidentally come across all the "hacker" (to quote my child self) stuff in my computer.
Yes I can appreciate that concern.
Yes I can appreciate that concern.
>All other methods still exist.
Still is the operative word.
When people complained about UEFI preventing people from running their OS of choice, Microsoft mandated that x86 OEMs make it possible for users to unlock their systems.
Fast forward to today, microsoft no longer mandates user control on x86-based systems.
It's a slippery slope I'd rather not ride.
Still is the operative word.
When people complained about UEFI preventing people from running their OS of choice, Microsoft mandated that x86 OEMs make it possible for users to unlock their systems.
Fast forward to today, microsoft no longer mandates user control on x86-based systems.
It's a slippery slope I'd rather not ride.
Your comment reminds me of this dystopian essay, written by Richard Stallman 20 years ago: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.en.html
I just read that; it is even too optimistic in some cases: "Ten percent of those fees went to the researchers who wrote the papers"
I don't know... I use Linux and have successfully transitioned some family to free alternatives.
I think what really needs to happen is someone develops and packages a Linux distribution as solid and as easy to install as windows. Honestly, it's nearly there and all it'll take is a few dedicated engineers creating a solid updating mechanic.
I think what really needs to happen is someone develops and packages a Linux distribution as solid and as easy to install as windows. Honestly, it's nearly there and all it'll take is a few dedicated engineers creating a solid updating mechanic.
It's not like MS don't know they are locking down the console, they've been doing it since the beginning.
No one has to put up with this though. Use free software and gain control over your computer again.
Its easy to say that, but look at the actual hardware requirements[1] for running an open and free system. You can count your options on your fingers..
[1] https://libreboot.org/docs/hardware/#supported_laptops_x86in...
[1] https://libreboot.org/docs/hardware/#supported_laptops_x86in...
Yes, I believe that these alternatives will always be available. But it has also been made apparent that the larger part of the consumer base is not interested in the alternatives; they are interested in the mainstream. And the mainstream will always bend in its own favor.
You still have control over your computer in this case, just not their distribution service. You can even install Nesbox's UWP app, if you want, without using the Windows Store, as UWP is not actually a locked down system.
For the computers that are capable of running free software, sure...
[deleted]
Hah, jokes on them. I never use the Windows 10 store.
There's a Windows 10 store?
/s
/s
I made a 3D NES emulator for the HoloLens about 8 months ago http://n3s.io and I pleasantly surprised that a few MS employees reached out. Some were doing internal hackathons and wanted assistance, others even contributed to the code base, but I was particularly shocked when a HoloLens dev that helped run their tutorial + social media reached out to encourage (and offer resources) to get the app on the store.
My response was "no way that'd get through", but they insisted on me trying anyway and said they could try to push it through. I didn't bother for a couple other reasons (the open source libretro core I was using would need to be reworked for their managed app environment, and HoloLens performance was actually pretty crap no matter what I did), but a few days later the other emulator controversy started.
I was expecting this outcome and really don't blame MS. Glad I didn't try to port my own app over (which would also work on Xbox and desktop).
My response was "no way that'd get through", but they insisted on me trying anyway and said they could try to push it through. I didn't bother for a couple other reasons (the open source libretro core I was using would need to be reworked for their managed app environment, and HoloLens performance was actually pretty crap no matter what I did), but a few days later the other emulator controversy started.
I was expecting this outcome and really don't blame MS. Glad I didn't try to port my own app over (which would also work on Xbox and desktop).
It's not surprising, but still disappointing. Emulators preserve games of eras past.
So do "Virtual Consoles" which are releasing more and more past games on different platforms and charging for it. I'm guessing if emulators weren't so rampant on the PC then companies like Nintendo would have or would think about creating a Virtual Console on PC for NES/SNES/N64, etc.
Having to rebuy the license to pay the same game over and over and over again so you can play it on a slightly updated and still working hardware is downright Kafkaesque.
Nintendo and other copyright holders want to act like you're licensing software (so they don't have to be beholden to first-sale doctrine, laws concerning the ability to make local backups and other consumer protections), but they also want to prevent you from using that licensed software on newer hardware and want you to pay for 35 year old game over and over and over and over again. It's downright absurd, how many times do you want us to pay for the same piece of Super Mario code?!
Nintendo and other copyright holders want to act like you're licensing software (so they don't have to be beholden to first-sale doctrine, laws concerning the ability to make local backups and other consumer protections), but they also want to prevent you from using that licensed software on newer hardware and want you to pay for 35 year old game over and over and over and over again. It's downright absurd, how many times do you want us to pay for the same piece of Super Mario code?!
Well, I've misplaced my receipt for The Legend of Zelda that I bought 30 years ago. Ideally they'd have had an infrastructure in 1986 to manage my ownership of the product in perpetuity across media and distribution channels. But they didn't, so I can either hold on to my feeling of entitlement that Nintendo owes me the virtual console version for free or I can pay $5 to play it on there.
I understand and agree with your stance on the sense of entitlement that some people have regarding software purchases, but I feel like you might have missed one of the finer points being made here. My response somewhat assumes that you either do not own recent Nintendo consoles, or at a minimum, are a very casual user of their platforms and are not aware of some of the shenanigans they've been up to due to negligence or incompetence in the digital space.
Purchases of their Virtual Console games for one console do not transfer across platforms. If you bought Mario 3 for Wii, you'll have to buy it again if you want to play it on the go for your 3DS. Furthermore, licenses for digital purchases on the 3DS (and maybe other consoles?) were tied to hardware IDs, resulting in a super-tedious license transfer process for anyone unlucky enough to need a repair or for those who had the nerve to voluntarily upgrade their system to one of Nintendo's hardware revisions.
So in some sense, they _do_ or, at least, reasonably _should_ have the infrastructure to manage digital purchases in a customer-friendly way, but instead settled for a system which forces people to re-purchase the same title for different platforms. Compare this to Sony and Microsoft, whose digital shops allow cross-platform purchases for many titles.
To add to all of this, Nintendo has a very confusing maze of different account systems for their different services and it is very tough to navigate which accounts serve which purpose. I have at least 3 accounts for Nintendo services at this point and it's still not clear to me what the deal is.
All of these factors combined make re-purchasing Zelda several times over a harder pill to swallow.
Purchases of their Virtual Console games for one console do not transfer across platforms. If you bought Mario 3 for Wii, you'll have to buy it again if you want to play it on the go for your 3DS. Furthermore, licenses for digital purchases on the 3DS (and maybe other consoles?) were tied to hardware IDs, resulting in a super-tedious license transfer process for anyone unlucky enough to need a repair or for those who had the nerve to voluntarily upgrade their system to one of Nintendo's hardware revisions.
So in some sense, they _do_ or, at least, reasonably _should_ have the infrastructure to manage digital purchases in a customer-friendly way, but instead settled for a system which forces people to re-purchase the same title for different platforms. Compare this to Sony and Microsoft, whose digital shops allow cross-platform purchases for many titles.
To add to all of this, Nintendo has a very confusing maze of different account systems for their different services and it is very tough to navigate which accounts serve which purpose. I have at least 3 accounts for Nintendo services at this point and it's still not clear to me what the deal is.
All of these factors combined make re-purchasing Zelda several times over a harder pill to swallow.
Or you can download an emulator and a rar with all 721 SNES games for free.
I could also sneak into movie theaters to see all my movies for free. It's not stealing, right? I haven't deprived them of a physical product? There's no marginal cost to them to show the movie to one extra person, right? They lose no revenue because I wasn't going to pay to see the movie anyway, right? And movies are terrible right now, aren't they? Everything's a sequel or reboot, there are no more original ideas, right? And the way they show ads before movies now, they have no right to do that after I've already paid for a ticket, do they? And people are always talking in theaters and they never do anything about it, right? And they turn up the air conditioning too high...
I'd really have to be a sucker to pay for movie tickets given all those reasons not to, right? I think I'll still do it, though.
I'd really have to be a sucker to pay for movie tickets given all those reasons not to, right? I think I'll still do it, though.
idk dude. It's the same argument as pirating Game of Thrones. Most people when offered a convenient and safer channel would probably just pay for Game of Thrones, but many have no simple recourse other than paying out the ass for cable.
e.g. I live in Canada. Pretty sure HBO Go doesn't support Canada, and I'm sure as hell not wasting my money on cable TV just to see Game of Thrones. I'd rather pirate it. But if I can watch something on Netflix, obviously I'd rather just do that and pay for the service.
e.g. I live in Canada. Pretty sure HBO Go doesn't support Canada, and I'm sure as hell not wasting my money on cable TV just to see Game of Thrones. I'd rather pirate it. But if I can watch something on Netflix, obviously I'd rather just do that and pay for the service.
If you want to pirate movies that are 20+ years old I'm not going to judge you for it. It's not that I disrespect copyright as a whole, it's that I think the length has gotten way too long.
And piracy is not the same thing is downloading something you already have a license to.
And piracy is not the same thing is downloading something you already have a license to.
It really takes away from the good will I might have toward the Nintendo brand. My son wanted the new Zelda game for his wii u. He earned it and we got a download code from Amazon. One week later, Grandma bought him a Nintendo Switch. Guess which downloadable game only works on the Wii U? If we want the same game (downloadable too) for the Switch that will be another $60!
When I buy a game on my iPhone 6, it works on the new iPhone 7 and it works on my iPad. Apple isn't perfect either but at least they understand that once a consumer "buys" a digital product, they don't like being told they have to buy it again and again.
When I buy a game on my iPhone 6, it works on the new iPhone 7 and it works on my iPad. Apple isn't perfect either but at least they understand that once a consumer "buys" a digital product, they don't like being told they have to buy it again and again.
There are reasons Nintendo has burned a ton of goodwill to the point where it made the difference in my not buying a Switch. But buying a game on one console generation and having it work on the next has rarely been the norm. Nintendo did decide at one point to pour a lot of separate money into developing the Wii U game for the Switch as well. There's a lot going on behind the scenes to make a game work on multiple consoles. And unfortunately when you buy a copy digitally you also lose the ability to sell or trade it, so I never do that.
I had the opposite experience with Apple. My iPhone 3 got unacceptably slow when the next major version of the OS came out. There were games/apps I couldn't use anymore unless I wanted to do a factory reset to the older OS. That was after only 2 years. I got off the platform a long time ago and haven't had that problem since.
I had the opposite experience with Apple. My iPhone 3 got unacceptably slow when the next major version of the OS came out. There were games/apps I couldn't use anymore unless I wanted to do a factory reset to the older OS. That was after only 2 years. I got off the platform a long time ago and haven't had that problem since.
You can play Game Boy and Game Boy Color games on a Game Boy Advance or SP or Micro, or even a SNES or GameCube with special hardware accessories. You can play Game Boy Advance games on a Nintendo DS or DS Lite. You can play GameCube games on a Wii, and Wii games on a Wii U.
There was a specific effort to include hardware from the previous generation in the next, for at least one step of backward compatibility. The GBA had a separate Z80 in addition to the ARM7TDMI to do that. The DS and DS Lite had dual processors and dual cartridge slots, but the DSi ditched the GBA slot. Thus, those were technically capable of running ROM images of GBA games if you found a way to load them and start the ARM7 processor in the correct mode. The 3DS can, of course, play DS and DSi cartridges, having both ARM11 and ARM9 processors.
So it is apparent that Nintendo has supported backward compatibility by essentially packaging two hardware systems into one box. That isn't what I would do, but that's what they did.
They burned goodwill with me for not writing decent SDKs for their hardware, such that about every game has to do a roll-your-own reach into the hardware. Which doesn't translate to the next generation of hardware. Stupid. Just write a damned SDK, and make the 3rd party dev shops hate you less.
I always keep my old cartridges, even though most of my old hardware is no longer capable. It's my proof of license, for when I download the ROMs to play on emulators.
There was a specific effort to include hardware from the previous generation in the next, for at least one step of backward compatibility. The GBA had a separate Z80 in addition to the ARM7TDMI to do that. The DS and DS Lite had dual processors and dual cartridge slots, but the DSi ditched the GBA slot. Thus, those were technically capable of running ROM images of GBA games if you found a way to load them and start the ARM7 processor in the correct mode. The 3DS can, of course, play DS and DSi cartridges, having both ARM11 and ARM9 processors.
So it is apparent that Nintendo has supported backward compatibility by essentially packaging two hardware systems into one box. That isn't what I would do, but that's what they did.
They burned goodwill with me for not writing decent SDKs for their hardware, such that about every game has to do a roll-your-own reach into the hardware. Which doesn't translate to the next generation of hardware. Stupid. Just write a damned SDK, and make the 3rd party dev shops hate you less.
I always keep my old cartridges, even though most of my old hardware is no longer capable. It's my proof of license, for when I download the ROMs to play on emulators.
The little facts you are ignoring is that Wii U and Switch aren't the same hardware, nor do they run the same OS.
Yes, different hardware. Yes, different OS. But when a new downloadable game is available on both platforms and is linked to my Nintendo account I expect I can play it on Nintendo hardware that supports the game without having to buy it twice. Switch even offers the concept of "Active Console" where all your switch downloads can be moved to different hardware.
It isn't technically the same game, they cannot match 1:1 in features and gaming experience, given the differences between Wii and Switch.
But the value that the customer can extract from the game is almost the same whether they got the Wii or Switch version. It doesn't make sense to charge double the price for two different licenses when the value gained by being able to use either console is small.
Why not, most likely they weren't even written by the same developers, who pays the salaries of the Zelda Switch team, when one adopts take two pay one?
Who pays the salaries of the Zelda Wii team? The publisher, obviously, who also published Zelda for Switch.
It's true Nintendo had to spend effort creating a port of Zelda. But they didn't do it for the sake of customers who have both consoles. They did it for the sake of customers who only have a Switch. For customers that have both consoles, the effort of porting the game was already wasted. So they are not losing value by offering those customers a new license, except the minor value gained by being able to use either console and having access to any minor improvements in the newer edition of the game. That is not worth the price of the full game.
It's true Nintendo had to spend effort creating a port of Zelda. But they didn't do it for the sake of customers who have both consoles. They did it for the sake of customers who only have a Switch. For customers that have both consoles, the effort of porting the game was already wasted. So they are not losing value by offering those customers a new license, except the minor value gained by being able to use either console and having access to any minor improvements in the newer edition of the game. That is not worth the price of the full game.
That's getting really picky. It's almost identical.
The game was written twice for different hardware, having different CPU, GPU, memory constraints, controllers and operating systems.
Who is supposed to pay the salaries of the development team that wrote the Switch version?
So all digital assets are supposed to be pay one take two model?
Who is supposed to pay the salaries of the development team that wrote the Switch version?
So all digital assets are supposed to be pay one take two model?
99% of people are only buying one copy or the other copy. Your question is just as valid with the way nintendo chose to do things, and already has an answer.
They don't make a meaningful amount of money by requiring some people to buy two copies on the same account. They make a marginal amount of money as a tradeoff for being visibly customer-hostile.
> So all digital assets are supposed to be pay one take two model?
This is already a buy one take one hundred model, in that you can redownload it as many times as you like on as many sequential devices as you like. The only difference is that the downloads are restricted to one flavor of device.
They don't make a meaningful amount of money by requiring some people to buy two copies on the same account. They make a marginal amount of money as a tradeoff for being visibly customer-hostile.
> So all digital assets are supposed to be pay one take two model?
This is already a buy one take one hundred model, in that you can redownload it as many times as you like on as many sequential devices as you like. The only difference is that the downloads are restricted to one flavor of device.
So the next time you buy lets say a game on Steam, do you also feel entitled to have the same game for free on Wii U, Switch, PS4, XBox ONE, iOS and Android, regardless of the development costs and amount of people that worked across all those devices?
Do I expect a Steam purchase to be available on Wii U, Switch PS4, etc.? No (and at least in my case, the games usually don't exist on those platforms anyway).
What I do expect is for it to be available anywhere a Steam client is, and indeed almost every game for which a port exists can be used on any Windows, Mac, or Linux computer (with different processors, GPUs, etc.) for no additional cost.
Valve has set a standard for the behavior of downloadable games across platforms, and it's totally understandable that customers would feel "ripped off" by Nintendo's approach.
What I do expect is for it to be available anywhere a Steam client is, and indeed almost every game for which a port exists can be used on any Windows, Mac, or Linux computer (with different processors, GPUs, etc.) for no additional cost.
Valve has set a standard for the behavior of downloadable games across platforms, and it's totally understandable that customers would feel "ripped off" by Nintendo's approach.
I get one for Linux and Mac OS X for free so it makes sense.
If this is a game where they are traditionally going to sell no more than one copy to me, and it's 99.9% the same across all those platforms, and it wouldn't cost them money to do so because of clunky licensing agreements, then yes I would want my copy of the game to be portable across those devices.
What does it matter? You bought a licence to play for example Zelda Breath of the Wild. You should be able to play it on any hardware.
How do you expect to achieve that, given the technical differences?
Did you miss the fact that the game is actually release and runs on all those platforms?!
So if you buy a Square Enix game for iOS you feel entitled to have the same game for free on Android?
That's complicated because the Android and Apple app stores are run by different companies who have no incentive to cooperate. But some software stores do work this way. Steam for example. When you buy a game on Steam you are buying a license to all versions of the software -- you don't have a buy a Windows version, a Mac version, or a Linux version -- you get them all (if they exist). You even get versions that get released later. I've purchased games that only run on Windows and if they later get ported to Mac or Linux they show up in my library.
Commerically released emulations of older games almost always just package up whatever open source emulator, usually some old, broken version, with limited rom selection.
No thanks, ill stick to the latest versions I can actually get games im interested in for.
No thanks, ill stick to the latest versions I can actually get games im interested in for.
[deleted]
Yet emulators have been a niche before virtual consoles for better on two decades. Only a handful of people I knew ever used them (myself included). Most folks that play games today rarely knew of the older consoles nor are they even that curious. So to blame a few dorks like myself for not abstaining from ripping our ROMs to play on our crappy college laptops back in the early 2000s is nonsensical. It's up to the firm to find out if a market is viable, not the consumer.
…why would Nintendo port their old games to the PC? They develop almost exclusively for their own platforms.
...why not? I'm not saying it's the correct business decision and there are pros and cons. But if Nintendo released an official Virtual Console for PC, Android, iOS, etc. (not their own platform) it'd sell like hotcakes if implemented and priced correctly.
One of the reasons they wouldn't do it is because emulators and ROMs are already rampant on PC and mobile (less so). So the idea of all of a sudden releasing a bunch of classic games in your pocket is heavily diminished.
One of the reasons they wouldn't do it is because emulators and ROMs are already rampant on PC and mobile (less so). So the idea of all of a sudden releasing a bunch of classic games in your pocket is heavily diminished.
> One of the reasons they wouldn't do it is because emulators and ROMs are already rampant on PC and mobile
Then why do many other game developers and publish make PC ports of their old titles which use emulators?
Why is Nintendo different?
That you can emulate old titles for free isn't stopping people paying for them, clearly.
Then why do many other game developers and publish make PC ports of their old titles which use emulators?
Why is Nintendo different?
That you can emulate old titles for free isn't stopping people paying for them, clearly.
Your logic doesn't make sense. I never said it was the onyl reason they don't or even that it was a BIG reason, just that it's one possible reason that may be a small percentage of the entire reason why it wouldn't make business sense.
So to answer your question - because those businesses have looked at the financials and decided that the lost potential sales due to people who use emulators are worth the effort do develop games. Nintendo has decided differently. It's possible that the other publishers weren't simultaneously pushing a hardware platform which also comes into play.
I never said emulation prevents all people from paying for virtual consoles. I simply was pointing out that it diminishes the value. For example, if Nintendo released virtual console on PC today, I wouldn't buy it when I've already got emulators and raspberry pi's running arcades. If there was no way for me to technically play emulated games and VC was released on PC - I'd buy it immediately.
So there ya go. One lost potential sale, how many more?
So to answer your question - because those businesses have looked at the financials and decided that the lost potential sales due to people who use emulators are worth the effort do develop games. Nintendo has decided differently. It's possible that the other publishers weren't simultaneously pushing a hardware platform which also comes into play.
I never said emulation prevents all people from paying for virtual consoles. I simply was pointing out that it diminishes the value. For example, if Nintendo released virtual console on PC today, I wouldn't buy it when I've already got emulators and raspberry pi's running arcades. If there was no way for me to technically play emulated games and VC was released on PC - I'd buy it immediately.
So there ya go. One lost potential sale, how many more?
"Virtual Consoles" do not preserve all games of eras past, they have licensing issues to deal with. Luckily the Microsoft /App/Play/Game Store will never be the only options for software distribution.
[deleted]
Not to mention that Nintendo took the iNES header for their own use, despite it being a product of the emulation community they espouse to hate.
But they don't monetize them ;)
If you allow emulator on your console that will eat into your game sales. I think this happened to the psp when it got jail broken .
I don't know about XBox, but does anybody actually use anything from the Windows Store? The only app that I have gotten is the SlingTV app, except I ditched it for the older native app, because the UWP Store one was so hideously broken and slow.
I use the Windows Store for media apps, specifically Twitch and YouTube, because I find their UI and UX much better than the original websites. Plus I like the notifications and live tiles.
I think my favorite Windows Store app is KeePassReader* though, which adds Windows Hello authentication to my KeePass database. It's a very simple app, and isn't exactly easy on the eyes, but I like being able to swipe my finger or just look at my camera whenever I need to open my KeePass database.
* https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/store/p/keepassreader/9nblgg...
I think my favorite Windows Store app is KeePassReader* though, which adds Windows Hello authentication to my KeePass database. It's a very simple app, and isn't exactly easy on the eyes, but I like being able to swipe my finger or just look at my camera whenever I need to open my KeePass database.
* https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/store/p/keepassreader/9nblgg...
I tried to download a game off of it, some 30GBs, it took 2 days and broke at 29GBs, then tried to restart from 0%... never again.
I tried Netflix and Hulu, both were horrible. Minecraft for Windows 10 was kind of cool since my kid always played on the iPad and I hated playing on my phone but now he's on PC.
i'm using for twitter, netflix (which i find way better than their web stuff) and forza horizon 3 (bought on xbox one, got on windows for free).
i don't hate the windows store, i nothing it.
i don't hate the windows store, i nothing it.
Isn't the rule prohibiting "UWP games and apps that "pose a safety risk or result in discomfort, injury or any other harm" to users." kinda broad (meaning especially the "discomfort" part)?
Seeing as "discomfort" was not specified in any way, it COULD mean the horror game you potentially want to release on the Windows Store could be denied a listing, because it could cause some players/people psychological "discomfort".
To be clear, I would be mostly fine with this rule if "discomfort" was specified as "physical discomfort".
Seeing as "discomfort" was not specified in any way, it COULD mean the horror game you potentially want to release on the Windows Store could be denied a listing, because it could cause some players/people psychological "discomfort".
To be clear, I would be mostly fine with this rule if "discomfort" was specified as "physical discomfort".
Welcome to the wonderful world of "App Stores" where some random company which managed to put itself between you and a substantial part of potential customers decides what you can distribute under what conditions covered by their own vague rules which are suspect to arbitrary change at any time anyways.
Yeah, emulators should switch to Linux, and MS should get lost ;)
I've had an Xbox kicking up dust for months now, this is the first I'm hearing there were even emulators to start with, pretty disappointing.
But then again I guess it shows how often people actually use the App Store, I never looked at it, and I don't think anyone I know has either
But then again I guess it shows how often people actually use the App Store, I never looked at it, and I don't think anyone I know has either
Every UWP app I saw poses a risk, results in discomfort, injures its users with ridiculous uselessness. Windows Store should be banned altogether, once and for all, for a brighter future of the humankind.
I have always seen piracy of media after 17~ years as purely productive. No jobs are lost and modern generations are enjoying media which would otherwise have been lost to time.
And just like that, a new generation of hackers was born.
bad publicity for the upcoming scorpio system
How is this bad publicity? Why would someone spend >$400 just to play emulators on a TV?
Hahahahaha
Me.
Me.
why would anyone ins 2016 not have an internet connection, and dont take advantage of online play
when there was a rumor or intention to make the xbox one require a net connection (a not so unreasonable requirement) most people took it negatively
anything that give the perception of limiting your freedom and choices, will be viewed negatively, even if those limits wont really hurt you
and i think you are correct, most people wont use emulators, most people dont even know what emulators are, so why ban them .. it is just bad publicity
when there was a rumor or intention to make the xbox one require a net connection (a not so unreasonable requirement) most people took it negatively
anything that give the perception of limiting your freedom and choices, will be viewed negatively, even if those limits wont really hurt you
and i think you are correct, most people wont use emulators, most people dont even know what emulators are, so why ban them .. it is just bad publicity
Holy poop, and I thought Apple is being quirky with its App Store!
Compared to the Xbox side and its costs, the App Store app review is a walk in the park.
I might understand this for AAA titles, but for indies this must be a nightmare.
Compared to the Xbox side and its costs, the App Store app review is a walk in the park.
I might understand this for AAA titles, but for indies this must be a nightmare.
They probably have bad memories of their last indie store on Xbox 360 which, if you visited it, was full of tutorial games and dating apps...
At least in past it's was nightmare for everyone. For Xbox360 for instance Microsoft charged developers $40,000 per patch:
http://kotaku.com/5884842/wait-it-costs-40000-to-patch-a-con...
http://kotaku.com/5884842/wait-it-costs-40000-to-patch-a-con...
*Simplification, of course.