Tim Sweeney: Microsoft wants to monopolise games development on PC(theguardian.com)
theguardian.com
Tim Sweeney: Microsoft wants to monopolise games development on PC
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/mar/04/microsoft-monopolise-pc-games-development-epic-games-gears-of-war
294 comments
So we agree that UWP has good features. That's not under dispute.
The problem is that it creates an unfair competitive environment. Steam can't really use these features because it has to instruct each individual user on how to turn 'sideloading' on.
The problem is that it creates an unfair competitive environment. Steam can't really use these features because it has to instruct each individual user on how to turn 'sideloading' on.
Indeed, there is a reason antitrust laws exist. Allowing companies to leverage a monopolistic position in one area (o/s) to create a monopolistic position in another which the company had no previous advantage in (stores) is not good for competition, diversity of choice, the consumer or society.
Seems like: security (for ordinary users), usability (and popularity), openness (lack of walled garden), pick two.
The two extremes would be:
iOS: security and usability.
Linux: security and openness.
The two extremes would be:
iOS: security and usability.
Linux: security and openness.
Plus (and while I really dislike app stores in general), it solves the biggest security problem : the user. It prevents it tfrom installing a load of crapwares just because he or she clicks everywhere without reading.
Now, it's logical from those vendors to lock in installation on their plateform. It's theirs. They built it. Like you build a car so it's easier for you to sell your replacement pieces and control what's going to be plug to it.
Bottom line, if you don't like it, don't use windows. Or if you use windows because it has value to you, you have to play by MS rule or hack around. Like with cars.
I dislike these rules, I don't use Window as my main system. I use a system that doesn't lock me in.
If you are using Windows (or any other system locking your in), if you have been using it for the last 10 years, you knew this. You are half responsible for your situation.
Don't tell me "I have to use it because 'work|busines|whatever'". You choose to keep this work/business/whatever. It's more important to you than playing by MS rules. Well, you made a choice. You don't like it. But you did. You never fought it, you never did anything to prevent this from hapening. You had time. And solutions. This didn't happen by surprise or on one week. People warned you about this for 20 years, and provided alternatives, and you didn't use it.
Now, it's logical from those vendors to lock in installation on their plateform. It's theirs. They built it. Like you build a car so it's easier for you to sell your replacement pieces and control what's going to be plug to it.
Bottom line, if you don't like it, don't use windows. Or if you use windows because it has value to you, you have to play by MS rule or hack around. Like with cars.
I dislike these rules, I don't use Window as my main system. I use a system that doesn't lock me in.
If you are using Windows (or any other system locking your in), if you have been using it for the last 10 years, you knew this. You are half responsible for your situation.
Don't tell me "I have to use it because 'work|busines|whatever'". You choose to keep this work/business/whatever. It's more important to you than playing by MS rules. Well, you made a choice. You don't like it. But you did. You never fought it, you never did anything to prevent this from hapening. You had time. And solutions. This didn't happen by surprise or on one week. People warned you about this for 20 years, and provided alternatives, and you didn't use it.
> Like with cars.
Except that cars don't work like that. You can take your Ford to Valvoline and they don't have to use Ford-brand motor oil.
Except that cars don't work like that. You can take your Ford to Valvoline and they don't have to use Ford-brand motor oil.
Lots of cars lock you into using specialized fluids. For example, GM has lots of DEX* fluids that must be used in their vehicles or the owner risks permanent damage. VW brands and Nissan do this too.
Sometimes these things are interchangeable, but sometimes they aren't.
Sometimes these things are interchangeable, but sometimes they aren't.
Prestone et al make DEX-COOL compatible antifreeze etc. The analogous thing in Windows is programs that use the WIN32 API. To be compatible you have to do something platform-specific but you don't need anybody's permission to do it.
There is nothing about cars that says you can't use aftermarket parts. And to the extent that there is, they got the stupid idea from Apple and Microsoft, not the other way around, and there ought to be a law against it (if it isn't already an antitrust violation).
There is nothing about cars that says you can't use aftermarket parts. And to the extent that there is, they got the stupid idea from Apple and Microsoft, not the other way around, and there ought to be a law against it (if it isn't already an antitrust violation).
It's illegal to invalidate a warranty for using aftermarket parts for repairs. Even critical emissions and safety components can be replaced with substantially similar aftermarket parts.
But in Germany it will mean you won't get a Ford stamp on your repair logbook, which will devalue the car's when reselling it. Just as example how that control is exercised by other means.
So...what you're saying is that you completely agree with Tim Sweeney, you just think it's not worth advocating for the position when you can just move to Linux.
Let's say you're trying to be a (successful) major video game developer, though. Your approach to the problem is going to be a little different in today's market.
Let's say you're trying to be a (successful) major video game developer, though. Your approach to the problem is going to be a little different in today's market.
> Bottom line, if you don't like it, don't use windows.
> Or if you use windows because it has value to you, you
> have to play by MS rule or hack around. Like with cars.
UWP apps are written to use the Windows Runtime API.
Traditional programs are written for the Win32 API.
If you don't like the rules for UWP, don't write games for it. Nothing stops you from writing games for the Win32 API.
UWP apps are written to use the Windows Runtime API.
Traditional programs are written for the Win32 API.
If you don't like the rules for UWP, don't write games for it. Nothing stops you from writing games for the Win32 API.
Project Centennial will help move the remaining Win32 into UWP model.
First Microsoft will have to move people to Windows 10 (currently at less than 15% market share).
True, but Windows 10 has more than 200 million users, which makes it bigger than all versions of Mac OS X and Linux combined.
The US DoD has already started to move 4 million users to Windows 10, which is a good sign.
Most businesses will be planning to move by 2020, when Microsoft stops supporting Windows 7 (though I expect a few daring souls will be hoping for an XP-style extension).
So, Windows 10 is slightly ahead of track for a billion users at the moment.
Just how many gamers are we talking about here?
The US DoD has already started to move 4 million users to Windows 10, which is a good sign.
Most businesses will be planning to move by 2020, when Microsoft stops supporting Windows 7 (though I expect a few daring souls will be hoping for an XP-style extension).
So, Windows 10 is slightly ahead of track for a billion users at the moment.
Just how many gamers are we talking about here?
34% Steam users run Windows 10.
http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey
http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey
A more relevant statistic, thank you, but also a reminder that Steam is another obstacle to UWP.
Would developers prefer their games to be on Steam or on the Windows Store?
Would developers prefer their games to be on Steam or on the Windows Store?
Their choice: they could do either, neither, or both.
Presumably Tim Sweeney wants to do UWP or he wouldn't be making such a fuss about it....
Maybe some developers will think it's a good thing if Steam has some competition?
Presumably Tim Sweeney wants to do UWP or he wouldn't be making such a fuss about it....
Maybe some developers will think it's a good thing if Steam has some competition?
How can I allocate executable memory to write a JIT compiler under UWP?
Most likely by having the right appx permissions to do so.
Project Centennial is supposed to allow for 100% compatibility with existing Win32 APIs.
This is from last BUILD.
https://channel9.msdn.com/Events/Build/2015/2-692
https://channel9.msdn.com/Shows/msdevshow/Episode-56-Project...
This upcoming BUILD might have more talks about it.
Project Centennial is supposed to allow for 100% compatibility with existing Win32 APIs.
This is from last BUILD.
https://channel9.msdn.com/Events/Build/2015/2-692
https://channel9.msdn.com/Shows/msdevshow/Episode-56-Project...
This upcoming BUILD might have more talks about it.
I agree. I wish Steam would implement a sandbox and require all games to run in it. Every native game I download could be uploading any portion of of my hard drive to wherever they choose.
I certainly hope that they are uploading a portion of my hard drive, although I also hope that it's limited to providing the cloud save functionality.
You could say the same for any proprietary program you're running. A sandbox just provides a false sense of security.
No, a sandbox provides an actual layer of security. You could argue about whether or not this or that sandbox implementation succeeds, but there is no getting around the fact that it is by definition an additional system-level layer of security.
Given the verbiage that you used, what you're clearly trying to express is, "anything that's not open source is inherently insecure." If that's the point you're trying to make, you should just make that point, don't dance around it by making it sound like you're talking about the usefulness of sandboxing.
Hell, chroot could be considered a form of sandboxing and it's used in open source all the time, as are VMs, as are jails, as are having dedicated system accounts for different daemons, as are a gazillion other technologies and practices that provide additional separation between software and the system it's running on. Surely you don't think that stuff is all smoke and mirrors to make people feel safe.
Given the verbiage that you used, what you're clearly trying to express is, "anything that's not open source is inherently insecure." If that's the point you're trying to make, you should just make that point, don't dance around it by making it sound like you're talking about the usefulness of sandboxing.
Hell, chroot could be considered a form of sandboxing and it's used in open source all the time, as are VMs, as are jails, as are having dedicated system accounts for different daemons, as are a gazillion other technologies and practices that provide additional separation between software and the system it's running on. Surely you don't think that stuff is all smoke and mirrors to make people feel safe.
I wouldn't say it's entirely false. A sandbox allows you to provide different levels of trust and responsibility to different parties, which allow you to align those responsibilities with the incentives of the parties involved.
If Valve is providing a sandbox, then it's in Valve's best interest to make sure it works fairly well, as if it doesn't then that reflects poorly on them.
Game developers will want to fit within the sandbox, and not break the rules, because the benefits of Valve's Steam are obvious, and losing access to it (or getting a worse deal on sales percentages) is a big deal.
Is it possible to break out of sandboxes? Sure. Do I think that having a sandbox in place prevents some of the more rampant abuse and some bad actors? Also yes. So I think sandboxes make us more secure (if you trust the sandbox provider), but that doesn't mean we are secure (which is for the most part unobtainable, so we should be focusing on degrees of security anyways).
If Valve is providing a sandbox, then it's in Valve's best interest to make sure it works fairly well, as if it doesn't then that reflects poorly on them.
Game developers will want to fit within the sandbox, and not break the rules, because the benefits of Valve's Steam are obvious, and losing access to it (or getting a worse deal on sales percentages) is a big deal.
Is it possible to break out of sandboxes? Sure. Do I think that having a sandbox in place prevents some of the more rampant abuse and some bad actors? Also yes. So I think sandboxes make us more secure (if you trust the sandbox provider), but that doesn't mean we are secure (which is for the most part unobtainable, so we should be focusing on degrees of security anyways).
Sure, but I can trust Valve not to mess with my machine more than I can trust a random indie game not to mess something up. There is still trust, but I think one can make a case that the trust is not misplaced in Valve.
It's not so much that I trust Valve or any other company, their interests are often orthogonal to mine. They are an entity that can be held accountable, however.
Even Valve can make mistakes.[0]
[0]http://techreport.com/news/27687/steam-for-linux-bug-deletes...
[0]http://techreport.com/news/27687/steam-for-linux-bug-deletes...
>>3. The game can't install rootkit-like spyware to inspect other processes on my system (hello Warden).
Isn't Warden a mechanism to detect cheating?
Isn't Warden a mechanism to detect cheating?
True: Any OS sandboxing measure walks right into an ongoing battlefield between cheat/anticheat software, where each one conspires to be above/outside/in-control-of the other.
While true sandboxing if implemented correctly could prevent cheats in the first place rendering things like Warden unnecessary.
> true sandboxing if implemented correctly could prevent cheats in the first place
Absolutely not: Sandboxes keep things in, not out, and cheaters are typically the lawful root-administrators of their machine.
So they just run the games sandboxed and launch their cheats in a more-privileged mode. For example, a cheat can read the game-memory and provide a "radar" overlay to help the user locate hidden enemies. More advanced versions can could replace game-code (from the outside) or even tinker with the network-stream.
The game, meanwhile, would have no recourse, since it would (correctly) be unable to see or influence anything outside of its sandbox.
Absolutely not: Sandboxes keep things in, not out, and cheaters are typically the lawful root-administrators of their machine.
So they just run the games sandboxed and launch their cheats in a more-privileged mode. For example, a cheat can read the game-memory and provide a "radar" overlay to help the user locate hidden enemies. More advanced versions can could replace game-code (from the outside) or even tinker with the network-stream.
The game, meanwhile, would have no recourse, since it would (correctly) be unable to see or influence anything outside of its sandbox.
I think you skipped the part where they could eventually force everything to be sandboxed. Maybe not ideal, but it is definitely the direction things are headed.
Also you are technically wrong. Part of the large uproar is that these apps prevent overlays and other features. So they do in fact keep some things out (even currently as implemented).
Also you are technically wrong. Part of the large uproar is that these apps prevent overlays and other features. So they do in fact keep some things out (even currently as implemented).
> force everything to be sandboxed
Then you're just renting your computer from somebody else who can dictate how you use it. ("Saint Peter don't you call me 'cause I can't go: I owe my soul to the Microsoft store...")
Then you're just renting your computer from somebody else who can dictate how you use it. ("Saint Peter don't you call me 'cause I can't go: I owe my soul to the Microsoft store...")
So long as I have root over my own machine, "they" don't get to force anything.
Yes it's from Blizzard.
UWP would be nice for users -- if the API support was comparable. But it's not. Modern games can be fragile as hell and they need to be able to enable/disable specific settings on specific models of card. Hell, modern AAA games often need modifications to be made in the driver before they'll work right. The graphics card manufacturers spend huge amounts of time working with developers to tweak game-specific settings in the drivers in advance of the release of new games (also why you have to install new drivers whenever you buy a new AAA game).
UWP is a good idea, but it's a little too early to apply to PC games. Give the industry and engine developers 5 years or so to widely adopt something like Vulkan (which they'll do anyway for portability reasons) and this isn't an issue; but the way games have to apply driver-specific modifications today just won't work with UWP.
UWP is a good idea, but it's a little too early to apply to PC games. Give the industry and engine developers 5 years or so to widely adopt something like Vulkan (which they'll do anyway for portability reasons) and this isn't an issue; but the way games have to apply driver-specific modifications today just won't work with UWP.
Vulkan is roughly identical to DX12 in functionality; Microsoft will not sign UWP apps that link to Vulkan/OpenGL.
Except the point of UWP is to create safely-sandboxed apps that will run on Windows PCs, tablets, smartphones and Xbox One games consoles, so it insulates the software from the hardware.
Good luck if the success of your game requires tweaking the graphics card in a smartphone ;-)
Good luck if the success of your game requires tweaking the graphics card in a smartphone ;-)
Except PC gamers expect cutting edge experiences like the Oculus Rift -- something they can't get inside the sandbox. That flexibility is the entire reason PC gaming is popular.
In that case, they can write to the traditional Win32 API, just like Microsoft, Adobe, IBM and almost everybody else.
There's nothing stopping them.
There's nothing stopping them.
> 1. I know the game won't dump save and log files in my Documents folder (that place is mine, GTFO).
It's infuriating how many games do this, on both Windows and OS X.
It's infuriating how many games do this, on both Windows and OS X.
BTW, Phil Spencer posted this on twitter
https://twitter.com/XboxP3/status/705795213709561857
UWP is a fully open ecosystem, available to every developer, and can be supported by any store. Broad range of tools http://bit.ly/1QIHTf0
https://twitter.com/XboxP3/status/705795213709561857
UWP is a fully open ecosystem, available to every developer, and can be supported by any store. Broad range of tools http://bit.ly/1QIHTf0
That claim is in no way backed up by anything linked, everything talks about using windows store, and zero mention of third party stores.
Next tweet
We will discuss our next steps with the Universal Windows Platform at //build later this month.
https://twitter.com/XboxP3/status/705795341572923392
https://twitter.com/XboxP3/status/705795341572923392
I really like the initiative of UWP but I agree with the author that you should be able to install UWP-apps from any source. Is it really true that you can't?
Maybe it's time for game developers like Epic to support Linux and make gamers choose linux as their desktop, that would probably create a surge of new users and contributions to the linux desktop development and maybe finally provide a "real" alternative.
Why I am running Windows is mostly because I can't stand all the issues with Linux desktops and that graphic drivers and games barely exist on the platform, I am loving Valves support though.
Maybe it's time for game developers like Epic to support Linux and make gamers choose linux as their desktop, that would probably create a surge of new users and contributions to the linux desktop development and maybe finally provide a "real" alternative.
Why I am running Windows is mostly because I can't stand all the issues with Linux desktops and that graphic drivers and games barely exist on the platform, I am loving Valves support though.
Maybe it's time for game developers like Epic to support Linux and make gamers choose Linux as their desktop
In the current market, this assumes a few things that simply don't work. Platform adoption drives game software development on the PC side of things. Though some of us do, most people do not purchase a high-end PC exclusively for games. They purchase it to do something they need and might add a high-end graphics adapter to allow them to play games. This often means buying a Windows box. If a game developer released a great game exclusive to Linux, that game would be played by very few people (and would be screwed by all of those graphics issues you mention). It's possible if Steam OS and Valve's platform gains wide adoption that game developers will focus more on Linux, though.
The economics of game development seem positively scary to me as a software developer. For major titles, they throw millions of dollars into development in hopes that a game, costing around $50 (and widely pirated) will generate revenue for about a year. And the success of a game is largely determined by factors that are risky, similar to other visual art-forms. Maybe the topic isn't one anyone cares about? That money is flushed down the toilet. Contrasting that with business software which can cost well over $50 and have a lifetime of several years, it doesn't surprise me that game companies look to subscription MMORPGs, paid DLC to existing content and in-game (effectively "paid-for cheats") to make money. Getting them to be willing to spend more to support a one-off platform with existing difficulties supporting high-end graphics scenarios is unlikely. Consider that a business case for an expensive piece of software like Adobe's Creative Cloud could be made far more easily. The software even has native support for Mac OS and Windows, yet they are unwilling to support Linux. That makes me a lot less hopeful we'll ever see great games running in Ubuntu without Wine.
In the current market, this assumes a few things that simply don't work. Platform adoption drives game software development on the PC side of things. Though some of us do, most people do not purchase a high-end PC exclusively for games. They purchase it to do something they need and might add a high-end graphics adapter to allow them to play games. This often means buying a Windows box. If a game developer released a great game exclusive to Linux, that game would be played by very few people (and would be screwed by all of those graphics issues you mention). It's possible if Steam OS and Valve's platform gains wide adoption that game developers will focus more on Linux, though.
The economics of game development seem positively scary to me as a software developer. For major titles, they throw millions of dollars into development in hopes that a game, costing around $50 (and widely pirated) will generate revenue for about a year. And the success of a game is largely determined by factors that are risky, similar to other visual art-forms. Maybe the topic isn't one anyone cares about? That money is flushed down the toilet. Contrasting that with business software which can cost well over $50 and have a lifetime of several years, it doesn't surprise me that game companies look to subscription MMORPGs, paid DLC to existing content and in-game (effectively "paid-for cheats") to make money. Getting them to be willing to spend more to support a one-off platform with existing difficulties supporting high-end graphics scenarios is unlikely. Consider that a business case for an expensive piece of software like Adobe's Creative Cloud could be made far more easily. The software even has native support for Mac OS and Windows, yet they are unwilling to support Linux. That makes me a lot less hopeful we'll ever see great games running in Ubuntu without Wine.
I don't mean that game devs should only release on Linux, but add the support. Otherwise it's the chicken and the egg problem all over again.
No one is using linux if they want to play games and game developers do not publish to linux because there is no gamers on the platform.
No one is using linux if they want to play games and game developers do not publish to linux because there is no gamers on the platform.
You can install UWP apps from any source, however by default it's not allowed. It is a toggle in the settings though (meant for developers.)
And the boogeyman is that Microsoft will automatically patch it out in the future. Microsoft has earned the doubt but I don't think it will happen. Signing every build during development of new products/features would be very onerous, probably even to internal processes at Microsoft.
It's enabled to allow local and remote debugging, so I highly doubt it's be disabled since it would directly break that key development feature.
They could easily disable it for anyone who doesn't have a copy of Visual Studio and a developer account on the Windows Store, though - and I think they've taken action against use of similar features by non-developers on mobile before now.
"Easily"? I thought it was a system level thing? I don't have to sign in to Windows with my developer account(I only use a local account) to use Visual Studio or access the account MSDN/community stuff.
Yeah, I wouldn't call it an "easy" fix. It's a system-level toggle and IIRC, since Win10 is in no way tied to your dev center account. I believe in Win8/8.1 you had to sign in to create a local signing cert, but that seems to have been removed in Win10 since I switched to developer mode with no real changes other than a radio button choice.
Plus, it'd be very hard to accurately determine "correct" usage. You don't have to have a dev center account to develop for Windows. You just need it to distribute your apps. I've made plenty of apps without distributing them and haven't needed to touch dev center. I do believe you need VS to create the apps, but only because the tooling is only available there. There's nothing technically limiting that, though, and simply having VS installed does not indicate you are developing Windows apps. You could be writing Python, for example, or even writing stuff for Arduino using 3rd party extensions.
Plus, it'd be very hard to accurately determine "correct" usage. You don't have to have a dev center account to develop for Windows. You just need it to distribute your apps. I've made plenty of apps without distributing them and haven't needed to touch dev center. I do believe you need VS to create the apps, but only because the tooling is only available there. There's nothing technically limiting that, though, and simply having VS installed does not indicate you are developing Windows apps. You could be writing Python, for example, or even writing stuff for Arduino using 3rd party extensions.
Just like on OSX then?
The second Microsoft will try to lock down distribution of software from platforms like Steam and GoG to gain competitive advantage and profits, they will be sued by Steam, EA and other platform owners.
Apple with 10 major book publishers tried to do same on eBooks markets with Amazon. Ended up bad for them.
"Sue the bastards!" (c) Richard Branson
This post is like Stockholm's Syndrome: "Oh Microsoft please don't close your platform. Because anyway we want to keep using it no matter what". You know, you could have chosen to mention Linux instead or keeping your hands tied. But no, Tim likes to be a prisoner.
It looks like this is going to become a tipping point for which Vulkan and DirectX offer competing system calls for accessing a computer's GPU. The UWP being shown here will be essentially locking developers into using the DirectX library and drop future support for Vulkan against what users want to see in gaming as being platform-agnostic. Coming into this console generation, gamers wanted to see games from AAA publishers be able to come out on X1/PS4/PC faster because of similar system calls; such that code for one platform wouldn't require a total re-write to work on the others. MS is now wanting to lock out developers from using an open platform such that their calls will be different and "better" than those made by an open one.
Isn't most of this because they also want the same apps to run on Xbox, Phone, Hololens, etc?
Microsoft is trying to monopolize an industry? Stop the presses!
I wish Microsoft never entered the video game industry in the first place. They made it worse for everyone for their own profit.
I wish Microsoft never entered the video game industry in the first place. They made it worse for everyone for their own profit.
I hope game devs remember the train wreck that was games for windows.
Long live Win32 and Linux!
I have a kind of mixed feeling about this.
So if you do a mobile OS its ok to have app walled gardens, but on Windows you can´t?
Won't we always have the "option" of going the Linux way?
I think it's really telling that Valve has been investing heavily in developing it's Linux gaming econsystem, they saw this comming a mile away.
Won't we always have the "option" of going the Linux way?
I think it's really telling that Valve has been investing heavily in developing it's Linux gaming econsystem, they saw this comming a mile away.
> So if you do a mobile OS its ok to have app walled gardens, but on Windows you can´t?
For what it's worth, a lot of us don't think it's "OK" on a mobile OS either.
For what it's worth, a lot of us don't think it's "OK" on a mobile OS either.
Microsoft OS has monopoly power in the PC market. They have been in the court for actions like this before [1].
The difference between mobile and PC is that if hardware maker has their own closed system, what they have is basically an appliance. PC's are generic item build from standards and Microsoft has produced an open operating system with large markets for software running on their OS. They can't just close it on a whim and abuse their monopoly power position [1].
----
[1.] Findings of Fact in U.S. v. Microsoft Corporation, Civil Action No. 98-1232 (TPJ) and State of New York, ex re. Attorney General Eliot Spitzer et al., v. Microsoft Corporation, Civil Action No. 98-1233 (TPJ), November 5, 1999.
"Monopoly power" is not the same as monopoly. One must always point this out when saying it or discussion is derailed.
The difference between mobile and PC is that if hardware maker has their own closed system, what they have is basically an appliance. PC's are generic item build from standards and Microsoft has produced an open operating system with large markets for software running on their OS. They can't just close it on a whim and abuse their monopoly power position [1].
----
[1.] Findings of Fact in U.S. v. Microsoft Corporation, Civil Action No. 98-1232 (TPJ) and State of New York, ex re. Attorney General Eliot Spitzer et al., v. Microsoft Corporation, Civil Action No. 98-1233 (TPJ), November 5, 1999.
"Monopoly power" is not the same as monopoly. One must always point this out when saying it or discussion is derailed.
But surely they're not closing off the pc platform, just potentially restricting what can happen on their OS. You can still use PCs with linux without any lock in. Long gone are the days when Microsoft was a monopoly on client computing devices, these days we have linux, Mac osx, chrome OS, Android, steamOS and iOS.
Several of these other platforms are already closed to one degree on another, with iOS probably being the most restrictive, so I'm not sure I see Microsoft as being dominent enough to warrant a claim of monopoly power any more
Several of these other platforms are already closed to one degree on another, with iOS probably being the most restrictive, so I'm not sure I see Microsoft as being dominent enough to warrant a claim of monopoly power any more
I needed to buy a computer some years ago.
My favourite OS is Fedora.
First thing, is I find out that all manufacturers only were selling non-Windows machines at a significant markup, the only way this made sense to me is if Microsoft is actively bribing them (ie: "selling" windows for a negative price).
So I thought, I would just buy this cool Windows 8 laptop, and remove Windows 8, since it is crap anyway.
Well... no, I am still using that Windows 8 (now 8.1, after it forcefully upgraded itself), because for some reason (maybe a UEFI bug) I can't make anything that ins't Windows that came installed to boot, not even Windows install discs boot, much less Linux discs, and yes, I did disabled SecureBoot, but it still blocks everything except Windows 8 itself from booting (this mean I can't use Memtestx86 either)
If that ins't closed, I dunno what is.
My favourite OS is Fedora.
First thing, is I find out that all manufacturers only were selling non-Windows machines at a significant markup, the only way this made sense to me is if Microsoft is actively bribing them (ie: "selling" windows for a negative price).
So I thought, I would just buy this cool Windows 8 laptop, and remove Windows 8, since it is crap anyway.
Well... no, I am still using that Windows 8 (now 8.1, after it forcefully upgraded itself), because for some reason (maybe a UEFI bug) I can't make anything that ins't Windows that came installed to boot, not even Windows install discs boot, much less Linux discs, and yes, I did disabled SecureBoot, but it still blocks everything except Windows 8 itself from booting (this mean I can't use Memtestx86 either)
If that ins't closed, I dunno what is.
> First thing, is I find out that all manufacturers only were selling non-Windows machines at a significant markup, the only way this made sense to me is if Microsoft is actively bribing them (ie: "selling" windows for a negative price).
It's not Microsoft bribing them, it's the crapware vendors.
It's not Microsoft bribing them, it's the crapware vendors.
So your pc or fedora has a bug which prevents you changing os and it then follows that Microsoft have a monopoly power in PCs... Sorry I don't quite think that follows
Nitpicking, but the problem as they described is definitely not fedora. It is definitely a PC problem.
The main problem here is that Windows is such a monopoly that the PC manufacturer didn't care to make sure anything else worked.
The main problem here is that Windows is such a monopoly that the PC manufacturer didn't care to make sure anything else worked.
Just like mobile developers don't bother making Windows Apps because they consider the % of users is too low.
In other words, this manufacturer probably didn't care because the % of users who would use it for something other than the standard config is too small to justify the time spent outside that standard.
I don't think this specific case can be called monopoly. You can install Linux and other stuff fine in most laptops, this looks like an isolated case. I mean, you can even install Ubuntu on a Surface Pro and Surface Book (proprietary MS hardware).
In other words, this manufacturer probably didn't care because the % of users who would use it for something other than the standard config is too small to justify the time spent outside that standard.
I don't think this specific case can be called monopoly. You can install Linux and other stuff fine in most laptops, this looks like an isolated case. I mean, you can even install Ubuntu on a Surface Pro and Surface Book (proprietary MS hardware).
The vendor knows that if someone WANTS a non-windows PC, they are going to be willing to pay more, so the price goes up. They also are implementing a whole new process for a small set of customers which increases their costs. They pass those directly on to the consumers with the need/want. It's the special flower luxury tax.
Exactly right.
It actually does cost more to make and sell a non-Windows PC. You have extra work to install and validate the different OS for hardware and drivers, plus extra stock-keeping, accounting and distribution costs, and then extra advertising and support costs.
And you don't get a kickback from installing crapware ;-)
If you do all that, most of your buyers will complain that you've installed one version of Linux and they would have preferred a different version....
It actually does cost more to make and sell a non-Windows PC. You have extra work to install and validate the different OS for hardware and drivers, plus extra stock-keeping, accounting and distribution costs, and then extra advertising and support costs.
And you don't get a kickback from installing crapware ;-)
If you do all that, most of your buyers will complain that you've installed one version of Linux and they would have preferred a different version....
They are, PC manufacturer have to lock down the hardware for Win10. Good luck trying to install Linux/FreeBSD/etc on a new notebook. Microsoft is using their desktop monopoly and OEM cartel to lock down the platform.
reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unified_Extensible_Firmware_In...
reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unified_Extensible_Firmware_In...
I have bought and installed linux on laptops from hp and Lenovo with no problems at all. Also you can buy laptops from Dell with linux pre-installed.
Can you provide any citations for the assertion that Microsoft are currently (2016) forcing hardware companies to tie their products to Windows?
Can you provide any citations for the assertion that Microsoft are currently (2016) forcing hardware companies to tie their products to Windows?
Some broken UEFI BIOS refuse to do DOS boot when GPT partitioning is used. It can give the appearance of requiring Windows when you are installing a Linux distribution that does not support EFI boot, but uses GPT partitioning. My guess is that might be causing people to think such things.
Can you cite your "no problem at all"? That statement is just wrong, if the hardware shipped with Win8/8.1/10 pre installed.
Such devices come with a locked down UEFI, the "legacy" BIOS is deactivated and often hidden behind shortcuts that one has to press during boot. Also it depends if you bought a business or consumer hardware.
Such devices come with a locked down UEFI, the "legacy" BIOS is deactivated and often hidden behind shortcuts that one has to press during boot. Also it depends if you bought a business or consumer hardware.
Of course I can as it was my personal experience. On the other hand you made a general assertion about their actions which really needs a citation.
Reinstalling an os is a technical task, which requires some knowledge to do effectively. Having been doing this for 25 years or so, I can safely say it's easier now than it used to be...
Reinstalling an os is a technical task, which requires some knowledge to do effectively. Having been doing this for 25 years or so, I can safely say it's easier now than it used to be...
Good for you. You could provide photos of your UEFI settings and or BIOS settings, and of course you had to change several of them and hold down specific buttons.
And no, it was easier before Microsoft introduced Windows 8 and 10. It was very easy, just insert a CD/DVD with a boot-image. Read about UEFI and "secure boot" came along with Windows 8: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unified_Extensible_Firmware_In...
And no, it was easier before Microsoft introduced Windows 8 and 10. It was very easy, just insert a CD/DVD with a boot-image. Read about UEFI and "secure boot" came along with Windows 8: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unified_Extensible_Firmware_In...
It's never a good sign for your argument when you have to resort to ad hominem attacks.... No real point I trying to respond if that's your track but remember this is just a discussion on a website, no need to start throwing around personal accusations, for which you have no evidence.
Might I suggest you take a break from the keyboard, perhaps go for a nice walk in the fresh air:)
Might I suggest you take a break from the keyboard, perhaps go for a nice walk in the fresh air:)
I've been happily running Xubuntu on an Acer gaming laptop with UEFI with no problems. I did it after my Win 10 upgrade killed my SSD. Yes, I had to do a quick Google search to find out how to get into my legacy bios but if you are going to install a Linux distribution you should definitely be able to find this info no problem.
I believe the concern is that the requirement for manufactures to allow disabling UEFI has been dropped, so new hardware may not make that possible.
I think it's a different story when it's been there from the beginning and developers choose to join your platform versus leveraging your huge already captured market.
So a company who doesn't have a monopoly should be restricted from changing their product because it didn't use to be that way....
Seems a bit harsh to me... if Microsoft still occupied the same kind of dominent position they did 15 years ago it would be a different story, but now there are a lot more viable alternatives
Seems a bit harsh to me... if Microsoft still occupied the same kind of dominent position they did 15 years ago it would be a different story, but now there are a lot more viable alternatives
The laws on monopolies don't see it that way and Microsoft still has a huge one in the computing space, despite the in-roads made in the past few years.
Actually you are , AFAIK, incorrect there. Microsoft's consent decree from their antitrust trial expired in 2011/2012.
"Microsoft OS has monopoly power in the PC market."
Is there a legal difference between a "PC" and a tablet or phone? They all seem like general purpose computers to me. From that perspective, MS definitely doesn't have a monopoly.
Is there a legal difference between a "PC" and a tablet or phone? They all seem like general purpose computers to me. From that perspective, MS definitely doesn't have a monopoly.
A large fraction of the employees of corporations and other organizations need laptop or desktop computers: it would be impractical for them to use tablets or phones instead.
Only a very small fraction of those employees use any OS on these laptops and desktops except for Windows, and that small fraction is concentrated in the computer industry, e.g., Google and Oracle (if they are in fact mostly non-Windows; I don't know for sure) which means that the monopoly is even stronger in the industries other than the computer industry than the global numbers would suggest.
Only a very small fraction of those employees use any OS on these laptops and desktops except for Windows, and that small fraction is concentrated in the computer industry, e.g., Google and Oracle (if they are in fact mostly non-Windows; I don't know for sure) which means that the monopoly is even stronger in the industries other than the computer industry than the global numbers would suggest.
> Won't we always have the "option" of going the Linux way?
Indeed, it's the only option that will remain really. And luckily things are improving for Linux gaming now.
Indeed, it's the only option that will remain really. And luckily things are improving for Linux gaming now.
[deleted]
Rings a bit hollow.
Easy solution - don't develop games for Windows or Xbox!
Easy solution - don't develop games for Windows or Xbox!
That's pretty much commercial suicide, at this point in time, for developers like him.
No it's not. There's always Sony, Nintendo and, of course, Steam - which will be void of UWP garbage.
You don't seem to understand that UWP is a frontal assault on Steam.
And you and Microsoft need to understand that you cannot win against Steam as is evidenced by their embarrassing Windows gaming failures. You either embrace Steam or you're relegated to irrelevance.
PC gaming (Windows) is a huuuge market. The GPU drivers support for Linux is poor.
Only the AMD ones. The Nvidia binary is actually pretty good and updated frequently.
Although if you're a Free/OSS zealot, you might not want to use the closed drivers. But if your alternative is the equally closed drivers on Windows, then what's the difference?
Although if you're a Free/OSS zealot, you might not want to use the closed drivers. But if your alternative is the equally closed drivers on Windows, then what's the difference?
Maybe I missed it in reading the article but what, specifically, is not available to developers if they choose to write the application against the typical Win32 APIs?
Are they, for instance, making certain hardware accelerated APIs only available for UWP apps? If so, are these APIs designed in such a way as to prevent someone from creating an API that runs on top of Win32 that exposes the capabilities (i.e. by requiring drivers be locked down in such a way as to disallow interaction outside of UWP)?
I can't see a way outside of driver feature lock-out that the OS could effectively prevent game developers from developing games the way they have been in the past. I'm guessing this has a lot to do with their "Write it for Xbox One and it'll work on Windows 10, too" goals, but that feels more like a convenience than a lock-in -- games are a constant exercise of porting to get them on each platform, so getting them onto a non-UWP target would be another platform (which many developers would simply skip since UWP would be theoretically easier).
Are they, for instance, making certain hardware accelerated APIs only available for UWP apps? If so, are these APIs designed in such a way as to prevent someone from creating an API that runs on top of Win32 that exposes the capabilities (i.e. by requiring drivers be locked down in such a way as to disallow interaction outside of UWP)?
I can't see a way outside of driver feature lock-out that the OS could effectively prevent game developers from developing games the way they have been in the past. I'm guessing this has a lot to do with their "Write it for Xbox One and it'll work on Windows 10, too" goals, but that feels more like a convenience than a lock-in -- games are a constant exercise of porting to get them on each platform, so getting them onto a non-UWP target would be another platform (which many developers would simply skip since UWP would be theoretically easier).
This is the key question. If Microsoft decides one day to offer the next DirectX version only for UWP then the developers will either have to eat humble pie or leave the platform.
I don't think that would be a smart move. Considering Steam is one of the biggest (if not THE biggest) gaming hubs for Windows and other platforms, if they blocked this and somehow forced people to use the Store/XBox instead, it could backfire and lead gamers en masse to the Steam OS and hardware, for example.
These "migrations" of users from one service to another should happen naturally to be successful. Not enforced because of platform restrictions, but based on these new platforms being actually better and more desirable for the end user.
These "migrations" of users from one service to another should happen naturally to be successful. Not enforced because of platform restrictions, but based on these new platforms being actually better and more desirable for the end user.
It would be now, but that seems to be why Valve created SteamOS in the first place. They were clearly worried about the same things as Epic and wanted to have the threat of a viable platform for people to migrate to if Microsoft treated the open Windows platform poorly.
> This is the key question. If Microsoft decides one day to offer the next DirectX version only for UWP then the developers will either have to eat humble pie or leave the platform.
Couldn't they just keep using the previous version of DirectX?
Couldn't they just keep using the previous version of DirectX?
That will eventually turn into a question like "Why not just keep using Win16?"
It isn't meant to be permanent. It's meant to be a a stopgap until developers have time to transition to something which is neither DirectX nor Windows.
This is confusing, and I don't found enough data yet.
But seemly DX12 IS heavily tied to UWP, for example there were many rumors in gaming forums, that some UWP "features" (like locked vsync at 60 FPS, and game always being full-screen window, not allowing true fullscreen or true window) will be enforced in games that use DX12.
There is also rumors it is the other way around, that to use certain DX12 features you must make the app at least UWP compatible, this mean locking vsync and making it only support borderless fullscreen...
But the situation is just a mess and I don't found any comprehensive data yet.
But seemly DX12 IS heavily tied to UWP, for example there were many rumors in gaming forums, that some UWP "features" (like locked vsync at 60 FPS, and game always being full-screen window, not allowing true fullscreen or true window) will be enforced in games that use DX12.
There is also rumors it is the other way around, that to use certain DX12 features you must make the app at least UWP compatible, this mean locking vsync and making it only support borderless fullscreen...
But the situation is just a mess and I don't found any comprehensive data yet.
Rumors in gaming forums and a dollar will get you something off the dollar menu at McDonalds. People in gaming forums say all kinds of things and a lot of them are absurd conspiracy theorists.
I've yet to see anyone point out an actual technical feature of UWP that you can't get by delivering a normal Windows app through Steam, just store features like crossbuy with Xbox One. There are several features that normal Windows apps have that UWP apps don't have yet, as noted, and DirectX 12 is fully available to all Windows apps.
Honestly, if we're picking the lesser of two evils, I'll pick Microsoft over Valve, the company that just got around to notifying people of security breaches that happened over Christmastime this week. Valve seems to be in this weird place where they don't want to make retail games anymore because of all the Steam cash they have rolling in but they don't want to actually have to manage Steam, they want users to curate the store for them and basically are engaging in less-than-benign neglect.
I've yet to see anyone point out an actual technical feature of UWP that you can't get by delivering a normal Windows app through Steam, just store features like crossbuy with Xbox One. There are several features that normal Windows apps have that UWP apps don't have yet, as noted, and DirectX 12 is fully available to all Windows apps.
Honestly, if we're picking the lesser of two evils, I'll pick Microsoft over Valve, the company that just got around to notifying people of security breaches that happened over Christmastime this week. Valve seems to be in this weird place where they don't want to make retail games anymore because of all the Steam cash they have rolling in but they don't want to actually have to manage Steam, they want users to curate the store for them and basically are engaging in less-than-benign neglect.
Can't they use Vulkan instead of DX12? I would've thought Vulkan would be supported on the Windows platform.
It would likely be in addition to, but I think even those heavily invested in DX (whether using their own engine or on top of someone else's), which is certainly a shrinking group since there's a much broader emphasis on cross-platform compatibility these days (especially mobile), would still consider Vulkan if only so that the 35% of Steam Windows gamers still on 7 that could use DX 12 if they were on 10 can enjoy the benefits too. (There's even more reason to use Vulkan if there's a sizable set of GPUs that support it but don't support DX12, not sure about that though.)
It is not clear they would want to though. Developers are heavily invested in DX.
My understanding (and this could be false) is that many games are based on externally developed game engines, such as Unreal and Unity. If these game engines make use of Vulkan (which they are almost bound to do so, CryEngine already has early support) then does it make any difference to the developers of the games?
The only thing I could think of where it might matter is if the GPU drivers have better support for DX12 than Vulkan, resulting in better performance, but I have no idea if that's the case.
The only thing I could think of where it might matter is if the GPU drivers have better support for DX12 than Vulkan, resulting in better performance, but I have no idea if that's the case.
It's not uncommon for people using engines to still need to appeal to the underlying frameworks.
I think XBox Live interop is not available via Win32 APIs, only UWP.
Maybe it wasn't a good idea of them to support the gaming monoculture called Windows for the last 20 years.
They haven't. For the past 10+ years, MS hasn't seriously cared about gaming on Windows, because Xbox.
DirectX 10, 11, and 12 all came out in the last 10 years. All had significant improvements over each previous one. MS has spent millions on making windows the high end gaming platform.
But in the 10 years before that, DirectX went from idea to version 9 (which was pretty good). Their PC game development almost stopped 10 years ago. Ever wonder where Age of Empires and Halo on Windows went? Xbox needed more resources.
This is very true. They've made some claims in the past about putting effort into PC gaming but now that the Xbox brand is struggling a bit vs. Sony maybe they're more serious about messing with the Windows PC platform.
They did not? They were on plenty other platforms including Linux.
Except the alternative, developing binaries for Linux is not a viable option as Linus itself explains very well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PmHRSeA2c8&feature=youtu.be...
Practical options:
1. Statically link everything.
2. Bundle the shared libraries you depend upon.
Long-term solutions:
1. Distributions should allow parallel installation of different library versions. so-files are already versioned, so this shouldn't really be all that difficult. That said, this doesn't help if you depend on specific versions of non-library files, like executables or headers.
2. Use docker, or something like docker, to formalize binding a binary to a particular version of a particular distro.
1. Statically link everything.
2. Bundle the shared libraries you depend upon.
Long-term solutions:
1. Distributions should allow parallel installation of different library versions. so-files are already versioned, so this shouldn't really be all that difficult. That said, this doesn't help if you depend on specific versions of non-library files, like executables or headers.
2. Use docker, or something like docker, to formalize binding a binary to a particular version of a particular distro.
Steam and Desura are also viable options for distribution in a developer friendly way.
I don't know about Desura, but Steam doesn't actually solve the problem.
As far as distribution is concerned, Steam provides a way to get the files to the computer, but doesn't provide a consistent environment for them to run in. To pick two random examples, Portal 2 on Linux links against 20 system libraries, whilst Shadowrun Hong Kong links against 39. Even the Unity-based SUPERHOT links against 38.
Obviously, Steam OS is a different beast.
As far as distribution is concerned, Steam provides a way to get the files to the computer, but doesn't provide a consistent environment for them to run in. To pick two random examples, Portal 2 on Linux links against 20 system libraries, whilst Shadowrun Hong Kong links against 39. Even the Unity-based SUPERHOT links against 38.
Obviously, Steam OS is a different beast.
Steam is supposed to bundle the necessary libraries with the game.
Okay. I did more digging and you're more right than I thought. They do bundle a sort of mini-distribution of a particular set of libraries.
Some important libraries not included include libGL(X), libpthread, libm, libdl, and libc. The reason for not bundling GL(X) is obvious - you have to use the GL libraries that match the graphics drivers you're using. I'm not sure about the rest, though. libc does sometimes have breaking changes.
The bundles are maintained by Steam rather than by individual games. I'm not sure what happens if game A requires one version of a library and game B requires an incompatible version. It doesn't look like that would work out well.
Some important libraries not included include libGL(X), libpthread, libm, libdl, and libc. The reason for not bundling GL(X) is obvious - you have to use the GL libraries that match the graphics drivers you're using. I'm not sure about the rest, though. libc does sometimes have breaking changes.
The bundles are maintained by Steam rather than by individual games. I'm not sure what happens if game A requires one version of a library and game B requires an incompatible version. It doesn't look like that would work out well.
The libraries you mentioned are designed so that all changes made are backward compatible. All of the ones that you mentioned excluding libGL are provided by glibc, which is known for backward compatibility.
As for the incompatible versions being required, that would be handled by SONAME versioning, so it should work out fine. If there are somehow conflicts within a SONAME version due to poor planning, there is always the option of putting them in different paths and telling the ELF interpreter to look at paths based on what the game needs.
As for the incompatible versions being required, that would be handled by SONAME versioning, so it should work out fine. If there are somehow conflicts within a SONAME version due to poor planning, there is always the option of putting them in different paths and telling the ELF interpreter to look at paths based on what the game needs.
Good for him, I hope others speak out as well.
Tim Sweeney is pissed at Microsoft for trying to do what Apple and Google already done on mobile devices.
[deleted]
and Microsoft on Xbox, and Sony on Playstation and Nintendo, and Sega, and ...
Tim has been tolerating crap from a bunch of people. But, being pissed about now getting even more crap from someone who has been a good friend for decades; That makes him a hypocrite?
Polygon podcast [1] where Tim is interviewed about his article:
[1] http://www.polygon.com/2016/3/4/11159584/tim-sweeney-windows...
[1] http://www.polygon.com/2016/3/4/11159584/tim-sweeney-windows...
Meta: HN's title could stand to be less vague. Not everyone knows who Tim Sweeney is. Readers might confuse him with Tim Cook!
I am confident that almost nobody on HN will confuse Tim Sweeney for Tim Cook. Also, this is similar to lingo usage, not everyone will know what PHP is, but that doesn't mean we should start adding wikipedia definitions into the titles. People who are unaware can do some research to find out, and the rest of us won't be subjected to annoyingly verbose titles. Additionally in this specific case the first sentence of the article explains who Tim Sweeney is.
[deleted]
What we've learned from Steam and Apple's app stores is that users will make a Faustian bargain if they see the terms as favorable enough, especially when it lowers prices. This in turn attracted developers.
However, with the history of PlaysForSure, Zune, Games for Windows, Windows Phone, and the Windows Store, I don't have much confidence that Microsoft will win the hearts and minds of users or developers this time around.
However, with the history of PlaysForSure, Zune, Games for Windows, Windows Phone, and the Windows Store, I don't have much confidence that Microsoft will win the hearts and minds of users or developers this time around.
Microsoft might try to make an open system. But over the long term, they just won't be able to. Open is not in the Microsoft DNA. "Whatever can be controlled, must be controlled."
It might start open-ish. But then some PM will notice that users can post content that is objectionable, or that there are such things as "porn mods" for Skyrim, or whatever, and then the lid will come down.
Xbox Live Arcade started out as a way for indie developers to get their games into the Xbox market. Over time XBLA reached the point where only deep pockets could successfully navigate the TCRs and multiple verification passes needed to ship. Indies got frozen out.
Let's not even talk about XNA, or Games for Windows Live (shudder).
Whatever hardware Microsoft offers a gaming platform on, it won't be left uncontrolled for long.
It might start open-ish. But then some PM will notice that users can post content that is objectionable, or that there are such things as "porn mods" for Skyrim, or whatever, and then the lid will come down.
Xbox Live Arcade started out as a way for indie developers to get their games into the Xbox market. Over time XBLA reached the point where only deep pockets could successfully navigate the TCRs and multiple verification passes needed to ship. Indies got frozen out.
Let's not even talk about XNA, or Games for Windows Live (shudder).
Whatever hardware Microsoft offers a gaming platform on, it won't be left uncontrolled for long.
As a primarily PC gamer, there was a period around 2008-2010 where XBLA seemed to be flourishing and it was seriously making me consider buying an XBox. There seemed to be a lot of really good indie games suddenly popping up which were XBox exclusives. I never quite reached the tipping point though, which is probably for the best because as far as I can tell, the current incarnation of XBLA is a shadow of its former self. As an outsider I'm not really sure why that is, but it certainly hurts my confidence in Microsoft's ability to manage an open video game ecosystem.
Valve and Steam on the other hand (though still not perfect) have only grown and gotten better in the meantime.
Valve and Steam on the other hand (though still not perfect) have only grown and gotten better in the meantime.
> which is probably for the best because as far as I can tell, the current incarnation of XBLA is a shadow of its former self. As an outsider I'm not really sure why that is, but it certainly hurts my confidence in Microsoft's ability to manage an open video game ecosystem.
I am not sure why you say that. There is significantly more Indie games being released for Xbox One right now than it was for Xbox 360 and XBLA. There are also early preview releases similar to Steam EAPs, etc.
I am not sure why you say that. There is significantly more Indie games being released for Xbox One right now than it was for Xbox 360 and XBLA. There are also early preview releases similar to Steam EAPs, etc.
Not sure what's Faustian about it if every participant is perfectly happy with the terms of the bargain.
Is the core of this that game purchaser is losing the ability to purchase this type of game from other channels and forced to from the MS store in exchange for this game being able to run on any hardware (Win 10/XBox One/Windows Mobile)that runs UWP. Are they betting that a lot of PC gamers may see value in knowing that an app is vetted and will work with minimal configuration on their PC in exchange for only using this channel for purchase? Is the hardware amalgamation of PC and Xbox Live that bad to the end user or just the game devs or just to 3rd party AAA title devs that have to compete with MS's AAA titles and bargain to get into this new channel?
Speaking as an avid PC gamer, if this is Microsoft's angle they do not understand their audience. Half of PC gaming IS the ability to tinker and tweak and configure the games to work the way we want.
Personally, I couldn't give a shit if my games ran on Microsoft's shiny new platform if I tried. As long as we can distribute and run executables I don't really see this having much of an effect, and if Microsoft really starts trying to lock devs out of features they need, well, there's always Ubuntu.
I feel like this is a really bone headed move, when Valve is pushing the bounds of gaming on Linux Microsoft is doubling down on more "exclusive" platforming, because that went so bloody well last time. coughgamesforwindowscough
Personally, I couldn't give a shit if my games ran on Microsoft's shiny new platform if I tried. As long as we can distribute and run executables I don't really see this having much of an effect, and if Microsoft really starts trying to lock devs out of features they need, well, there's always Ubuntu.
I feel like this is a really bone headed move, when Valve is pushing the bounds of gaming on Linux Microsoft is doubling down on more "exclusive" platforming, because that went so bloody well last time. coughgamesforwindowscough
So Tim Sweeney apparently is fine with Apple, Google, Sony and Nintendo controlling their eco-systems, only Microsoft cannot do it.
Apple, Google, Sony and Nintendo started with closed ecosystems. Keeping them closed maintains the status quo. Microsoft presided over a relatively open ecosystem (the PC). Moving that from open to closed could be rightly perceived as a loss of something some people would like to keep.
I don't see the hypocrisy here.
I don't see the hypocrisy here.
If he feels so bad about it, he shouldn't let Epic have console exclusives or even develop for them.
After all Epic is also profiting from them.
Or it is only bad when the size of the pie isn't as big as one wishes for?
After all Epic is also profiting from them.
Or it is only bad when the size of the pie isn't as big as one wishes for?
I get the feeling you didn't fully understand what larsiusprime explained, as you brought another example which isn't similar to the main issue here.
The primary key of the issue here is the loss of something that actually existed. The iOS App Store has never been open. You can dislike the lack of openness but there has never been an event that removed the openness, as it has never existed. The same goes for Epic's games. The console exclusive Gears of War 3 never had a PC version released and then subsequently taken away and buried ATARI style. It has always been console exclusive.
Tim sees Microsoft's actions as a force that will reduce the openness of the Windows platform.
The primary key of the issue here is the loss of something that actually existed. The iOS App Store has never been open. You can dislike the lack of openness but there has never been an event that removed the openness, as it has never existed. The same goes for Epic's games. The console exclusive Gears of War 3 never had a PC version released and then subsequently taken away and buried ATARI style. It has always been console exclusive.
Tim sees Microsoft's actions as a force that will reduce the openness of the Windows platform.
Maybe we are talking in circles here, but if he cared so much about openess maybe he shouldn't have supported closed platforms in first place.
If he is such a knight of openess, then Epic should only have targeted open platforms.
Yet they happily took the money those bad closed platforms brought them.
It is not a matter of consoles always being closed, rather a duality of principles when money speaks.
If he is such a knight of openess, then Epic should only have targeted open platforms.
Yet they happily took the money those bad closed platforms brought them.
It is not a matter of consoles always being closed, rather a duality of principles when money speaks.
He's not fighting against closed systems because they are closed. He's not fighting against closed systems in general for any reason. If he was doing this, then you would have a point. He is angry that the status quo of having an actively supported open Windows platform is being threatened. He is fighting against losing that. The new closed system is just the evil actor that he identified.
This is a classical case of loss aversion. [1] Tim would be at least equally mad if Microsoft decided to redirect all its efforts from win32 to cow milking. Would you then claim that Tim is a hypocrite for having drunk milk instead of actively boycotting the dairy industry?
Yes, you could make the argument that extremely black & white attitude is necessary, and that if you like some open system then thus follows that you need to fight against every closed system. Some people like Richard Stallman do this. However most people, like Tim, belive that a more gray world can exist, and tend to fight when visible threats manifest and otherwise spend their time on other things.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loss_aversion
This is a classical case of loss aversion. [1] Tim would be at least equally mad if Microsoft decided to redirect all its efforts from win32 to cow milking. Would you then claim that Tim is a hypocrite for having drunk milk instead of actively boycotting the dairy industry?
Yes, you could make the argument that extremely black & white attitude is necessary, and that if you like some open system then thus follows that you need to fight against every closed system. Some people like Richard Stallman do this. However most people, like Tim, belive that a more gray world can exist, and tend to fight when visible threats manifest and otherwise spend their time on other things.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loss_aversion
Hahah I like the cow milking example. spot on.
> He is angry that the status quo of having an actively supported open Windows platform is being threatened. He is fighting against losing that.
Except that, at this point, there's no evidence that it's being threatened.
Microsoft currently makes almost all its revenues from traditional Win32 programs (including Office) and practically nothing from UWP apps.
Same is true for Adobe, IBM, and practically every other major software publisher.
Except that, at this point, there's no evidence that it's being threatened.
Microsoft currently makes almost all its revenues from traditional Win32 programs (including Office) and practically nothing from UWP apps.
Same is true for Adobe, IBM, and practically every other major software publisher.
There's no gain to society from having an open platform (I can develop Windows apps for free only having Windows), and converting it to a closed one.
The transition of users from computers to closed devices like tablets and phones means now most people are only consumers and can't create anything on their devices. Except for selfies, that is.
All PC platforms should be actively protected from this closure.
If you think only a GPL OS deserves to keep that openness then you are ignoring the 98% of computers that don't run Linux, for IMO silly ideological reasons.
The transition of users from computers to closed devices like tablets and phones means now most people are only consumers and can't create anything on their devices. Except for selfies, that is.
All PC platforms should be actively protected from this closure.
If you think only a GPL OS deserves to keep that openness then you are ignoring the 98% of computers that don't run Linux, for IMO silly ideological reasons.
this just seems like ad hom.
Not it is not.
My only issue is about a person that has a company which earned lots of money from closed platforms, arguing about the openness of another platform.
I don't know him, nor have any reason attack him other than stating that his actions don't follow his words.
My only issue is about a person that has a company which earned lots of money from closed platforms, arguing about the openness of another platform.
I don't know him, nor have any reason attack him other than stating that his actions don't follow his words.
maybe he is also a pc gamer, so he sees the problem as a pc gamer perspective
The point is that Windows was never open. Open platforms like Linux now exist. Something controlled by one corporation and built under a proprietary license cannot be open even if they allow users to install stuff without an app store.
Please use the same terminology as everyone else. Windows has always been an open platform (that is anyone can write and publish software for it without being coerced into some sort of a contractual relationship with a third party). This is in direct contrast to iOS, say, where if you want to publish an app, Apple gets to be your distributor and your curator.
Sweeney is alleging that Microsoft' current tactics are intended to stop Windows being an open platform, which, if true, will be very jarring for a lot of users and developers.
Windows has never been open source software. That's a discussion for another time.
Sweeney is alleging that Microsoft' current tactics are intended to stop Windows being an open platform, which, if true, will be very jarring for a lot of users and developers.
Windows has never been open source software. That's a discussion for another time.
You're arguing semantics. Windows definitely isn't open the way GNU wants things to be open. It may not be open like you define open. However Windows does have some open properties [1] that are at risk of being taken away. When we say open in this context, we mean those properties, not that Windows is licenced under GPL 3.
[1] The primary open property in question is the ability to build, distribute & run apps on Windows without even notifying Microsoft. The opposite of a walled garden.
[1] The primary open property in question is the ability to build, distribute & run apps on Windows without even notifying Microsoft. The opposite of a walled garden.
Does Epic develop for their platforms?
http://blog.us.playstation.com/2015/12/05/epic-games-brings-...
Does it answer your question?
Does it answer your question?
Yea this bugs me as well. In many cases MS is trying to catch up with the rest only to be blamed.
or maybe they have a large amount of users/ecosystem that don't view that sort of "catch up" as a positive thing, and don't particularly want it on other platforms either.
It seems strange to be so vocal about it with such a weak argument. The three points he says it needs are: 1. Being able to install from the web. 2. Being able to integrate with other stores. 3. Not locking it down in the future.
According to Microsoft, 2 was always possible, 1 was fixed in November (it was previously possible but required bypassing some things), so that leaves only 3, promising to never lock it down in the future.
This idea that Microsoft could lock down its platform in the future is nothing new, and part of the nature of having a proprietary platform. It really isn't up to them to fix this problem. It's up to developers to make their software available on free and open platforms where they know that no future lockdown is possible.
According to Microsoft, 2 was always possible, 1 was fixed in November (it was previously possible but required bypassing some things), so that leaves only 3, promising to never lock it down in the future.
This idea that Microsoft could lock down its platform in the future is nothing new, and part of the nature of having a proprietary platform. It really isn't up to them to fix this problem. It's up to developers to make their software available on free and open platforms where they know that no future lockdown is possible.
Maybe the publishers should start publishing exclusively for sane PC platforms like Mac OS X and Linux instead of Windows. I believe that they can do all three via Steam though.
What do you mean by "sane?" From a technical standpoint, Windows is competitive and probably superior to Linux for desktop and portable applications. For server side, Windows is probably not the right choice.
And as for OSX... if you express this concern about Microsoft's app platform but not Apple's encroachment on their (poorly managed) app platform? You're being unfair and letting prejudices and populism blind you to the issue.
And all of this ignores that the most important computing platforms, the ones on mobile handsets? They're impossibly locked down and no one seems to care.
And as for OSX... if you express this concern about Microsoft's app platform but not Apple's encroachment on their (poorly managed) app platform? You're being unfair and letting prejudices and populism blind you to the issue.
And all of this ignores that the most important computing platforms, the ones on mobile handsets? They're impossibly locked down and no one seems to care.
I do not consider Windows to be a great desktop platform. It is crawling with malware, the graphical interface is subject to Microsoft's whims to the point where you are stuck with their choices (Metro?), the filesystem performance degrades rapidly from fragmentation, software is installed by executing binaries that give no guarentees about clean up on uninstall, updates are done on an ad hoc manner, the code is proprietary such that improvements can only come from Microdoft, etcetera. Linux has none of those problems.
I do not care about Microsoft's attempt to invent an App Store, but Apple's App Store is not annoying game developers while Microsoft's is. If they are upset about it, they should break the status quo by developing for other platforms, many of which are simply better than Windows by virtue of being designed with open standards. in the long term, if they stopped developing for Windows, gamers would abandon it for platforms that do get their attention and the publishers would not need to worry about Microsoft ever again.
As for mobile devices, they were always locked down. iOS and Android have managed to open them up with standardized POSIX APIs and ways to run third party software on them. Apple even has made updates no longer carrier dependent. There are ways that they could improve (e.g. Android could get rid of Java and its blobs, iOS could become OSS, etcetera).
I do not care about Microsoft's attempt to invent an App Store, but Apple's App Store is not annoying game developers while Microsoft's is. If they are upset about it, they should break the status quo by developing for other platforms, many of which are simply better than Windows by virtue of being designed with open standards. in the long term, if they stopped developing for Windows, gamers would abandon it for platforms that do get their attention and the publishers would not need to worry about Microsoft ever again.
As for mobile devices, they were always locked down. iOS and Android have managed to open them up with standardized POSIX APIs and ways to run third party software on them. Apple even has made updates no longer carrier dependent. There are ways that they could improve (e.g. Android could get rid of Java and its blobs, iOS could become OSS, etcetera).
What does this article have to do with the Mac App Store?
You can easily disable gatekeeper by right-clicking on a pkg. I don't see any similar mechanism on Windows 10, and anyway, the article is discussing how UWP would lock down APIs for developers, which leads to an overall adverse selection situation for game consumers.
And it's laughable that you think Windows 10 is even remotely comparable to Linux for "portable applications". How are Win32 executables portable at all? They don't even work between versions of Windows. Win32 API is still a mess and pretty much everything about Windows is not standards compliant.
And it's laughable that you think Windows 10 is even remotely comparable to Linux for "portable applications". How are Win32 executables portable at all? They don't even work between versions of Windows. Win32 API is still a mess and pretty much everything about Windows is not standards compliant.
This complaint is that at any moment, Microsoft might add a feature that only UWP gets. It's not like you can't run unsigned apps on Windows either. Hell, you can run unsigned UWP apps too! You just need to enable developer mode.
Apple has this exact same facility in the Mac app store. And has an even tighter lockdown on the iOS store which we all mysteriously pretend is different somehow because reasons and 30somethings nostalgia.
Linux on portable devices such as laptops is a comedy of errors, failed device driver support, excuses, and politics breaking battery life.
If you say otherwise, you have much lower standards than I do for a modern laptop.
> How are Win32 executables portable at all? They don't even work between versions of Windows
... Wait. Wait... I just read this. What? I have DOS executables that still work in windows, let alone very old win32 api executables. Do Linux executables work somewhere else besides Linux without someone bending over backwards to support them (e.g., FreeBSD?).
Apple has this exact same facility in the Mac app store. And has an even tighter lockdown on the iOS store which we all mysteriously pretend is different somehow because reasons and 30somethings nostalgia.
Linux on portable devices such as laptops is a comedy of errors, failed device driver support, excuses, and politics breaking battery life.
If you say otherwise, you have much lower standards than I do for a modern laptop.
> How are Win32 executables portable at all? They don't even work between versions of Windows
... Wait. Wait... I just read this. What? I have DOS executables that still work in windows, let alone very old win32 api executables. Do Linux executables work somewhere else besides Linux without someone bending over backwards to support them (e.g., FreeBSD?).
Those DOS binaries work on Linux with DOSBox. The Linux binaries also work on SmartOS (OpenSolaris).
I know that options exist, but uh... I mean Wine doesn't count?
It's more the absurd claim that Win32 as an API hasn't made good nods towards backwards compatibility. It has.
It's more the absurd claim that Win32 as an API hasn't made good nods towards backwards compatibility. It has.
DOSBox is a separate project from Wine. It has also been said that DOSBox backward compatibility is better than cmd.exe on recent versions of Windows.
That being said, Linux can run old binaries just fine. You just need the libraries. Windows does not have a stable syscall API, so that cannot as easily be done with Windows. As for win32, Sun tried to standardize the Windows API during the DOS days to ensure backward compatibility, but Microsoft killed it.
That being said, Linux can run old binaries just fine. You just need the libraries. Windows does not have a stable syscall API, so that cannot as easily be done with Windows. As for win32, Sun tried to standardize the Windows API during the DOS days to ensure backward compatibility, but Microsoft killed it.
I'm still not sure how this interjection is relevant to the conversation at hand, but thank you for the interesting information.
From what I can tell, you're executing a playbook based on prejudices and not an actual argument. Is OSX less arbitrary in its UI or less locked down? Could it be that developers HAVE to accept Apple's locked down game environment for iOS because it's the only platform that does a good job of combating game piracy? Is the Android App Store actually any better in this regard?
Maybe. Maybe not. But all I see here is a very biased set of standards. Windows 10's App store is far less important to the industry than the iOS store in the large, as far more software moves through it.
I'm actually hoping for a good discussion of why people are comfortable with the iOS store beyond, "I have historical reasons to hate Microsoft but not Apple." I clearly will not get that from you.
From what I can tell, you're executing a playbook based on prejudices and not an actual argument. Is OSX less arbitrary in its UI or less locked down? Could it be that developers HAVE to accept Apple's locked down game environment for iOS because it's the only platform that does a good job of combating game piracy? Is the Android App Store actually any better in this regard?
Maybe. Maybe not. But all I see here is a very biased set of standards. Windows 10's App store is far less important to the industry than the iOS store in the large, as far more software moves through it.
I'm actually hoping for a good discussion of why people are comfortable with the iOS store beyond, "I have historical reasons to hate Microsoft but not Apple." I clearly will not get that from you.
The article is about desktop gaming. The reason epic is upset is that Microsoft is making new APIs UWP-exclusive, although I had to read more things to learn that, They feel that Microsoft is pulling the rug out from under them. The reason they are not upset about anything Apple is doing is that Apple does not restrict APIs to its Mac OS X App Store. They really do not care about iOS because it was locked down from the beginning (as were mobile devices in general), so there is no rug to pull out from under them.
Windows has always been a mediocre platform. I was really happy when I got off it because I no longer had to deal with reboots for updates, disk fragmentation, viruses/malware, micro-managing software updates, yearly reinstalls to get cruft off the system, everything I install thinking it is so important it should autostart (which is really a problem of being able to execute code during the installation process), etcetera. Prople who suffer from Stockholm syndrome over the abuse they have from running Windows think such things are a normal part of having a computer, but they are not. Sane platforms do not have such problems and Windows is just not a sane platform.
As for "I have historical reasons to hate Microsoft and not Apple", it is the opposite. By the time that I obtained my first computer (running Windows), Apple's colorful iMacs looked like children's toys and before that time, I had been traumatized by parents who tried to pass off children's toys as computers. Apple's ridiculous hardware designs combined with my experience of my parents' outright lies lead me to believe that Apple was trying to replace actual computers with inferior substitutes that looked pretty. Until Mac OS X, that was not far from the truth, but I did not know that at the time and developed a deep seated hatred of them. Things slowly changed over the years as I began to see the technical merit in what Apple had done, first with iOS after I found Android to be s terrible OS design and then with Mac OS X fr it being a POSIX system like Linux and being Darwin like iOS. That being said, hatred just is not a healthy thing and any dislike I have for any vendor's software is not worth harming my health by doing something as silly as hating them. I already went down that path once with Apple for irrational reasons. There really is no reason for me to go down that path again.
As for iOS, you are trying to get a discussion over iOS from the wrong person. The right person should be yourself, but if you cannot see what is wrong with the other options on the market, then there probably is no one who can explain it to you. iOS design is great (e.g. no garbage collection outside JavaScript, no annoying app drawer, no noticeable UI lag that gives me headaches, consistent UI design, etcetera). It is an excellent stand-in for WebOS until the day that I get a sane Linux distribution (i.e. proper package management, no Java, X Windows, etcetera) running on smartphone hardware that I like. Given that I have my hands full with non-mobile platforms (laptops excluded), that will probably be a very long time.
Windows has always been a mediocre platform. I was really happy when I got off it because I no longer had to deal with reboots for updates, disk fragmentation, viruses/malware, micro-managing software updates, yearly reinstalls to get cruft off the system, everything I install thinking it is so important it should autostart (which is really a problem of being able to execute code during the installation process), etcetera. Prople who suffer from Stockholm syndrome over the abuse they have from running Windows think such things are a normal part of having a computer, but they are not. Sane platforms do not have such problems and Windows is just not a sane platform.
As for "I have historical reasons to hate Microsoft and not Apple", it is the opposite. By the time that I obtained my first computer (running Windows), Apple's colorful iMacs looked like children's toys and before that time, I had been traumatized by parents who tried to pass off children's toys as computers. Apple's ridiculous hardware designs combined with my experience of my parents' outright lies lead me to believe that Apple was trying to replace actual computers with inferior substitutes that looked pretty. Until Mac OS X, that was not far from the truth, but I did not know that at the time and developed a deep seated hatred of them. Things slowly changed over the years as I began to see the technical merit in what Apple had done, first with iOS after I found Android to be s terrible OS design and then with Mac OS X fr it being a POSIX system like Linux and being Darwin like iOS. That being said, hatred just is not a healthy thing and any dislike I have for any vendor's software is not worth harming my health by doing something as silly as hating them. I already went down that path once with Apple for irrational reasons. There really is no reason for me to go down that path again.
As for iOS, you are trying to get a discussion over iOS from the wrong person. The right person should be yourself, but if you cannot see what is wrong with the other options on the market, then there probably is no one who can explain it to you. iOS design is great (e.g. no garbage collection outside JavaScript, no annoying app drawer, no noticeable UI lag that gives me headaches, consistent UI design, etcetera). It is an excellent stand-in for WebOS until the day that I get a sane Linux distribution (i.e. proper package management, no Java, X Windows, etcetera) running on smartphone hardware that I like. Given that I have my hands full with non-mobile platforms (laptops excluded), that will probably be a very long time.
> The article is about desktop gaming. The reason epic is upset is that Microsoft is making new APIs UWP-exclusive, although I had to read more things to learn that,
Citation, please. Sweeney's tweets implied this was the hypothetical. So either Tim is under NDA and being coy, or something else.
But the simply fact is: I do not disagree with Apple & Microsoft & Google doing this to their platforms, so long as a reasonably accessible side-loading option exists and there's always the opportunity for a third party store and appropriate facilities for developers.
We're at a point where there are no more options to protect people's computers other than code signing. We've tried a lot of things, and we've reached a point where we must concede that education and simple restrictions on binary execution cannot overcome the basic difficulties users have. All the app sandboxing in the world won't help us if users are fooled by sub-optimal UX into running malware.
And Malware exists on every major platform. Even OSX. Even iOS.
> The reason they are not upset about anything Apple is doing is that Apple does not restrict APIs to its Mac OS X App Store.
This is absolutely false. Apple not only labels several APIs as "private" and non-accessible, but it also creates rules for entire types of software. They even stop arbtirary updating mechanisms because of their review path, which then impacts users! What's more, there is no untrusted general distribution path for iOS. I don't know why you said this, as I can't find any way to interpret it.
And don't even get me started on how Apple mandates how you transact with users. I'm amazed its legal, but in the US vendors have always had ice water dumped on them by every new technology. It's about our contempt for creatives, a cultural norm Apple has expressed for a long time.
And don't say the desktop OS is a dodge. The situation with Apple's store and Microsoft's store is absolutely identical, except that on OSX, so many developers are unhappy with the store they've decided to take the risk and ask users to disable that protection.
So, Apple locks its entire API set to its store on iOS. Unless you're going to ask customers to jailbreak their phone, you have no options other than setting up a developer environment.
I was going to go through your second two paragraphs of value judgements and fisk them a bit, but honestly I don't see the point. You're dismissing a lot of accomplishments of a lot of people out of what looks to me like pure preference and not an informed assessment of the situation. It doesn't take much research to find out that Apple's iOS is generally considered the worst of the 3 mobile platforms for modern mobile UX, with its only saving grave being a slightly superior accessibility story over Android.
Which is natural and fine, but maybe couching your argument in terms of technical reasoning is not the best way to express your point.
Citation, please. Sweeney's tweets implied this was the hypothetical. So either Tim is under NDA and being coy, or something else.
But the simply fact is: I do not disagree with Apple & Microsoft & Google doing this to their platforms, so long as a reasonably accessible side-loading option exists and there's always the opportunity for a third party store and appropriate facilities for developers.
We're at a point where there are no more options to protect people's computers other than code signing. We've tried a lot of things, and we've reached a point where we must concede that education and simple restrictions on binary execution cannot overcome the basic difficulties users have. All the app sandboxing in the world won't help us if users are fooled by sub-optimal UX into running malware.
And Malware exists on every major platform. Even OSX. Even iOS.
> The reason they are not upset about anything Apple is doing is that Apple does not restrict APIs to its Mac OS X App Store.
This is absolutely false. Apple not only labels several APIs as "private" and non-accessible, but it also creates rules for entire types of software. They even stop arbtirary updating mechanisms because of their review path, which then impacts users! What's more, there is no untrusted general distribution path for iOS. I don't know why you said this, as I can't find any way to interpret it.
And don't even get me started on how Apple mandates how you transact with users. I'm amazed its legal, but in the US vendors have always had ice water dumped on them by every new technology. It's about our contempt for creatives, a cultural norm Apple has expressed for a long time.
And don't say the desktop OS is a dodge. The situation with Apple's store and Microsoft's store is absolutely identical, except that on OSX, so many developers are unhappy with the store they've decided to take the risk and ask users to disable that protection.
So, Apple locks its entire API set to its store on iOS. Unless you're going to ask customers to jailbreak their phone, you have no options other than setting up a developer environment.
I was going to go through your second two paragraphs of value judgements and fisk them a bit, but honestly I don't see the point. You're dismissing a lot of accomplishments of a lot of people out of what looks to me like pure preference and not an informed assessment of the situation. It doesn't take much research to find out that Apple's iOS is generally considered the worst of the 3 mobile platforms for modern mobile UX, with its only saving grave being a slightly superior accessibility story over Android.
Which is natural and fine, but maybe couching your argument in terms of technical reasoning is not the best way to express your point.
Tim has nothing to worry about. Microsoft was never a player in PC gaming and never will be. Steam is PC gaming. Microsoft has tried a couple of times to take on Steam and have failed spectacularly. Microsoft should either try and buy Steam (although Gabe would never sell) or embrace it.
Well, that's not entirely true. A decade ago Microsoft was a big player in PC gaming. Microsoft game studios made some big sellers like age of empires, mechwarrior, freelancer, etc, but was dismantled after their xbox initiative took off.
Considering the calibre of games that were released during that time frame Microsoft was never a big player in the industry.
What I think is weird is it seems like just a few years ago, Microsoft was embracing Steam. They released (or rather, allowed some team to port and publish) remasters of Rise of Nations and Age of Empires II on Steam, with some really great Steam integration too.
Guess that was before someone at Microsoft came up with this UWP idea and somehow roped gaming into it.
Guess that was before someone at Microsoft came up with this UWP idea and somehow roped gaming into it.
My studio, Agile Perception, will be boycotting UWP. I'm glad Tim brought this to light. I was wondering whether or not our next project should include UWP. https://agileperception.com
When will your next project be available on Linux and Mac OS X?
Steam has a defacto monopoly for gaming on Windows and there are over 2000 games for Linux on Steam. So Microsoft would be foolish to try and restrict games to their own app store. That would be the end of Windows as a gaming platform. And given Microsoft's past efforts failing miserably it's unlikely whatever they come up with this time can win on its own.
Hopefully stronger push for Linux gaming will prevent this kind of thing.
This image caption struck me:
Minecraft is developed by Swedish company Mojang.
Will future games be developed now that Microsoft is closing its borders?
'Twould be a very bad bet against: https://www.microsoft.com/en-US/store/apps/Minecraft-Pocket-...
(MCPE, based in C++, appears to be intended to eventually take over as "the" Minecraft. It's behind feature-wise the Java version, but advancing relatively quickly lately.)
(MCPE, based in C++, appears to be intended to eventually take over as "the" Minecraft. It's behind feature-wise the Java version, but advancing relatively quickly lately.)
Looks like Microsoft finally found a way to eat Valve's lunch - release a windows API that forces you to only publish via their app store.
I'm surprised this is the first they've done this. In a way, Valve has been reaping the same benefits of Apple and Google without supporting an OS.
It's too bad things are headed completely in this direction. Rent seeking app stores have shown that there is little resistance from developers even with ridiculous margins (30% of revenue!).
I'm surprised this is the first they've done this. In a way, Valve has been reaping the same benefits of Apple and Google without supporting an OS.
It's too bad things are headed completely in this direction. Rent seeking app stores have shown that there is little resistance from developers even with ridiculous margins (30% of revenue!).
As someone who's shipped games for direct download, and via steam, as well as in retail boxes (oh for 70% margin!), I can honestly say that I find 30% not in the slightest bit ridiculous. I'd give 99% revenue to a platform if it meant that I sold more than 100x the product.
Steam, for example, has been transformative for the industry, and has led to a renaissance in independent game production. I remember the bleak days of the early 2000s, when consolidation was sending even large developers bust, with little opportunities for their staff. Many friends and colleagues were jettisoned from the industry. Apple's iOS store, also, for all its well-rehearsed problems, has supported an industry that I honestly don't think would exist without it: largely creating a viable micropayment games economy that had been wanted by developers for 20 years at least. Both have increased sales by many times more than their cut.
Steam, for example, has been transformative for the industry, and has led to a renaissance in independent game production. I remember the bleak days of the early 2000s, when consolidation was sending even large developers bust, with little opportunities for their staff. Many friends and colleagues were jettisoned from the industry. Apple's iOS store, also, for all its well-rehearsed problems, has supported an industry that I honestly don't think would exist without it: largely creating a viable micropayment games economy that had been wanted by developers for 20 years at least. Both have increased sales by many times more than their cut.
> Rent seeking app stores
App stores are not rent seeking. They created a market (and in some cases a platform) for you to sell to. Being able to sell your product with only 30% overhead is something previously unheard of in retail.
If you want to get 100% of the money, then you're welcome to build your own sales system and generate trust with it, deal with bad creditors yourself, deal with maintenance and artefact distribution in a secure, scaled manner... the list goes on and on.
Go and ask some farmers if they'd feel hard done by if they got 70% of the final purchase price of their produce.
App stores are not rent seeking. They created a market (and in some cases a platform) for you to sell to. Being able to sell your product with only 30% overhead is something previously unheard of in retail.
If you want to get 100% of the money, then you're welcome to build your own sales system and generate trust with it, deal with bad creditors yourself, deal with maintenance and artefact distribution in a secure, scaled manner... the list goes on and on.
Go and ask some farmers if they'd feel hard done by if they got 70% of the final purchase price of their produce.
Physical retail and digital retail are wildly different.
My second paragraph was crafted just for you, then!
Really, it's not all that different. You have the same groups - a distributor and a shopfront. Sometimes these are the same (apple's app store) sometimes not (a games publisher managing your game on steam). You generate the primary product, and it goes through a middleman or two on the way to the end-user.
And just like a farmer, you can sell your own product yourself and walk away with 100% of the cash. But like the farmer's shack by the side of the road, you don't get as much market penetration with your product on your own website - people have to come to you or stumble across you, instead of just get your stuff at the supermarket where they usually shop.
Yes, there are differences, but no, they're not wildly different. You make something and want to sell it. People offer services to help you sell it. You give them some of the money in order to sell more product. 30% is really low overhead.
Really, it's not all that different. You have the same groups - a distributor and a shopfront. Sometimes these are the same (apple's app store) sometimes not (a games publisher managing your game on steam). You generate the primary product, and it goes through a middleman or two on the way to the end-user.
And just like a farmer, you can sell your own product yourself and walk away with 100% of the cash. But like the farmer's shack by the side of the road, you don't get as much market penetration with your product on your own website - people have to come to you or stumble across you, instead of just get your stuff at the supermarket where they usually shop.
Yes, there are differences, but no, they're not wildly different. You make something and want to sell it. People offer services to help you sell it. You give them some of the money in order to sell more product. 30% is really low overhead.
[deleted]
It's clear where this is going. Apple did it first, with rigid control of the IOS platform. Then Google gradually tightened the screws on Android apps. Now it's Microsoft's turn.
It's not just about games. It's about control of the app business. Apple won't let you sell an IOS app that competes with an Apple product. In time, neither will Microsoft.
It's not just about games. It's about control of the app business. Apple won't let you sell an IOS app that competes with an Apple product. In time, neither will Microsoft.
"Apple won't let you sell an IOS app that competes with an Apple product."
I see the MS Office suite on my iPhone, there are iMovie alternatives too. Are you talking about private API access?
I see the MS Office suite on my iPhone, there are iMovie alternatives too. Are you talking about private API access?
Let's be clear: Apple and Google can do things that would be considered illegal if done by MS. Due to anti-trust regulations, these companies are playing by different rules.
Microsoft could reasonably claim they no longer have a monopoly position.
One could make a conspiracy in restraint of trade argument that Apple, Google, and Microsoft are acting collectively to control the app industry.
One could make a conspiracy in restraint of trade argument that Apple, Google, and Microsoft are acting collectively to control the app industry.
I don't really understand the problem here. Windows is an open plattform. I can install Steam. I can listen to Spotify. Browse the web with Google Chrome.
If you don't like the Universal Windows Platform, well. Don't release your games on it. I have heard Steam is a quite popular alternative...
If you don't like the Universal Windows Platform, well. Don't release your games on it. I have heard Steam is a quite popular alternative...
Windows is CURRENTLY a fairly open platform. UWP as a sort of sub-platform is not particularly 'open'. The point here is that if UWP is successful, Microsoft will almost certainly continue to move more and more in that direction, and Windows as a whole which quickly become much less open than it is today. Sweeney is trying to point that out before it is too late.
Currently you can buy most games on Steam, and there's really no reason to buy the UWP version if it is also available on the Windows store - but if Microsoft continues to add UWP only features to Windows, then it might not be long before we see games where the UWP version has features that makes it superior to the version available on Steam - or they aren't released on Steam at all.
I agree with Sweeney that that is a worrying prospect.
Currently you can buy most games on Steam, and there's really no reason to buy the UWP version if it is also available on the Windows store - but if Microsoft continues to add UWP only features to Windows, then it might not be long before we see games where the UWP version has features that makes it superior to the version available on Steam - or they aren't released on Steam at all.
I agree with Sweeney that that is a worrying prospect.
BTW, Phil Spencer posted this on twitter
https://twitter.com/XboxP3/status/705795213709561857
UWP is a fully open ecosystem, available to every developer, and can be supported by any store. Broad range of tools http://bit.ly/1QIHTf0
UWP is a fully open ecosystem, available to every developer, and can be supported by any store. Broad range of tools http://bit.ly/1QIHTf0
Interesting... That tweet is the first I ever heard of UWP apps being distributable through 3rd party stores, and I don't see anything in the link that he provided that supports his claim - its all in reference to the Windows Store.
It is interesting if true, but the devil is in the details, and Sweeney points out the similarities to Android, where you can technically side-load applications, but it is a pain in the ass, and I'm sure 99% of users couldn't be bothered to do so. Look at how much trouble Amazon has had getting people to use their app store on anything but 'Fire' devices.
It is interesting if true, but the devil is in the details, and Sweeney points out the similarities to Android, where you can technically side-load applications, but it is a pain in the ass, and I'm sure 99% of users couldn't be bothered to do so. Look at how much trouble Amazon has had getting people to use their app store on anything but 'Fire' devices.
That's not what that says. It says you can use more ways to put things in "Windows Store", not use UWP APIs from programs not sold through "Windows Store".
It literally says that you can put UWP apps into other stores, not just Windows Store. And it was said by Phil Spencer, head of Xbox.
Why a downvote ?
There's no problem just as long as things stay that way. Microsoft's PC gaming innovations of the last decade is nothing but half-assed attempts of trying to lock users into their own store front and milk them like they do on their Xbox platform. People are afraid that they'll eventually succeed, this is partially why their main competitors like Steam and GoG have made strides towards supporting Linux, as the day may come where Microsoft will more aggressively try to block out their competitors from their platform.
I don't really understand the problem here. Windows is an open plattform. I can install Steam. I can listen to Spotify. Browse the web with Google Chrome.
Except you don't get to do all those things through the windows store. You don't install Chrome through the windows store, only the google app with 1 tab. No firefox on the windows store either. Is steam on the windows store? How long before the windows store becomes the principle method to get apps on your desktop? Sweeny's criticism resonates here: Sweeney then compared UWP to Google's Android, which is "technically open, but practically closed" thanks to how "comically difficult" it is for general users to sideload apps. "This is not merely a technical issue: it has the market impact of Google Play Store dominating over competing stores, despite not being very good," he says.
Except you don't get to do all those things through the windows store. You don't install Chrome through the windows store, only the google app with 1 tab. No firefox on the windows store either. Is steam on the windows store? How long before the windows store becomes the principle method to get apps on your desktop? Sweeny's criticism resonates here: Sweeney then compared UWP to Google's Android, which is "technically open, but practically closed" thanks to how "comically difficult" it is for general users to sideload apps. "This is not merely a technical issue: it has the market impact of Google Play Store dominating over competing stores, despite not being very good," he says.
> Except you don't get to do all those things through the windows store.
It's almost as if there is a War On General Purpose Computation... and the locked down malware "appliances" are winning.
This started with iOS; the people that should have recognized the dangers of a gatekeeper controlling who can develop or install software decided to embrace the shiny iPhone and later Apple's tables. Now, even Microsoft is getting into the "app store" market and stripping away the remnants of their platform that weren't locked down.
> sideload apps
Is that the new euphemism for "install software"? Once everyone is convinced installing software outside of the "official" app store is deviant or unusual, it will be easy to introduce a meme that 3rd party software is risky/harmful/immoral.
> "This is not merely a technical issue ..."
/sigh/
Even with Tim Sweeny's current explanation of the problem and Cory Doctorow's warnings[1][2] several years ago, I doubt many people - even HN readers in this very thread - will actually fight this trend or even change their behavior in any meaningful way. They will continue to give Microsoft money and market share. Instead, I expect down-votes and complaints from apologists that pretend this is for "security", true-believers that pretend this trend to lock everything down doesn't exist, and willfully-blind nerds that think jailbreaking devices is a long-term solution.
[1] http://boingboing.net/2012/01/10/lockdown.html
[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nypRYpVKc5Y
It's almost as if there is a War On General Purpose Computation... and the locked down malware "appliances" are winning.
This started with iOS; the people that should have recognized the dangers of a gatekeeper controlling who can develop or install software decided to embrace the shiny iPhone and later Apple's tables. Now, even Microsoft is getting into the "app store" market and stripping away the remnants of their platform that weren't locked down.
> sideload apps
Is that the new euphemism for "install software"? Once everyone is convinced installing software outside of the "official" app store is deviant or unusual, it will be easy to introduce a meme that 3rd party software is risky/harmful/immoral.
> "This is not merely a technical issue ..."
/sigh/
Even with Tim Sweeny's current explanation of the problem and Cory Doctorow's warnings[1][2] several years ago, I doubt many people - even HN readers in this very thread - will actually fight this trend or even change their behavior in any meaningful way. They will continue to give Microsoft money and market share. Instead, I expect down-votes and complaints from apologists that pretend this is for "security", true-believers that pretend this trend to lock everything down doesn't exist, and willfully-blind nerds that think jailbreaking devices is a long-term solution.
[1] http://boingboing.net/2012/01/10/lockdown.html
[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nypRYpVKc5Y
Your belief that people who don't share your opinion are "willfully-blind" is grossly dehumanizing. You are not the keeper of the one correct mindset.
> opinion
It's not my opinion that jailbreaking isn't a long-term solution to the lockdown of the General Purpose Computer. Jailbreaking isn't available in all situations, it may involve legal risk, it often requires technical knowledge, and it can impact the relationship with the manufacture such as voiding a warranty.
As for the term "willfully blind", how would you describe someone who denies facts?
You may not like certain facts, but they still exist.
It's not my opinion that jailbreaking isn't a long-term solution to the lockdown of the General Purpose Computer. Jailbreaking isn't available in all situations, it may involve legal risk, it often requires technical knowledge, and it can impact the relationship with the manufacture such as voiding a warranty.
As for the term "willfully blind", how would you describe someone who denies facts?
You may not like certain facts, but they still exist.
Reminds me of early Stallman and his travails with the Xerox laser printer :
After briefly introducing himself as a visitor from MIT, Stallman requested a copy of the laser-printer source code so that he could port it to the PDP-11. To his surprise, the professor refused to grant his request.
"It was my first encounter with a nondisclosure agreement, and it immediately taught me that nondisclosure agreements have victims," says Stallman, firmly. "In this case I was the victim. [My lab and I] were victims."
"When somebody invited me to betray all my colleagues in that way, I remembered how angry I was when somebody else had done that to me and my whole lab," Stallman says. "So I said, `Thank you very much for offering me this nice software package, but I can't accept it on the conditions that you're asking for, so I'm going to do without it.'"
http://www.oreilly.com/openbook/freedom/ch01.html
After briefly introducing himself as a visitor from MIT, Stallman requested a copy of the laser-printer source code so that he could port it to the PDP-11. To his surprise, the professor refused to grant his request.
"It was my first encounter with a nondisclosure agreement, and it immediately taught me that nondisclosure agreements have victims," says Stallman, firmly. "In this case I was the victim. [My lab and I] were victims."
"When somebody invited me to betray all my colleagues in that way, I remembered how angry I was when somebody else had done that to me and my whole lab," Stallman says. "So I said, `Thank you very much for offering me this nice software package, but I can't accept it on the conditions that you're asking for, so I'm going to do without it.'"
http://www.oreilly.com/openbook/freedom/ch01.html
Well is there not a bit of an issue currently in that linux is not able to run many programs that people either need or really want and Windows is the most widely supported and also while I may not be correct I believe that OSX is even less open than the current windows OS as long as you have custom settings.
I never said anything about Linux or OSX. Sometimes alternatives don't exist. The lack of an alternative doesn't excuse continued support of a company that is trying to lock away the General Purpose Computer. If you decide that you will stop supporting Windows only if a full replacement exists, then you will never change.
Boycotts usually require sacrifice. Do you want to pay that cost now? Or are you going to signal approval to Microsoft by rewarding them with money or market share?
> as long as you have custom setting
That is going to be a never ending treadmill of fixes whenever Microsoft wants to push out changes. If you wake up tomorrow and discover that a new patch for Windows was installed, do you have the disassembled code and/or packet logs to actually know that your "custom settings" are still intact?
But none of that really matters - using "custom settings" is still telling Microsoft that you're fine with their locked "appliances". They will only change course when they see either their revenue or market share start to decrease.
Do you want to make the sacrifices necessary to send that signal now? Or do you want to wait until the costs are even higher?
Boycotts usually require sacrifice. Do you want to pay that cost now? Or are you going to signal approval to Microsoft by rewarding them with money or market share?
> as long as you have custom setting
That is going to be a never ending treadmill of fixes whenever Microsoft wants to push out changes. If you wake up tomorrow and discover that a new patch for Windows was installed, do you have the disassembled code and/or packet logs to actually know that your "custom settings" are still intact?
But none of that really matters - using "custom settings" is still telling Microsoft that you're fine with their locked "appliances". They will only change course when they see either their revenue or market share start to decrease.
Do you want to make the sacrifices necessary to send that signal now? Or do you want to wait until the costs are even higher?
> How long before the windows store becomes the principle method to get apps on your desktop?
How long before the [Windows Store] UWP becomes the principle method to get Microsoft Office and Visual Studio, Adobe Photoshop and Premiere, Intuit, iTunes, Lotus Notes,, AutoCAD and roughly 10m more programs?
How long before 100m in-house business programs are only available in UWP versions?
You really think that Microsoft could block the Win32 API when the vast majority of Windows programs -- including its own programs -- depend on it?
Note: don't confuse "Windows Store" with UWP. Windows Store is just a download site, not an API.
How long before the [Windows Store] UWP becomes the principle method to get Microsoft Office and Visual Studio, Adobe Photoshop and Premiere, Intuit, iTunes, Lotus Notes,, AutoCAD and roughly 10m more programs?
How long before 100m in-house business programs are only available in UWP versions?
You really think that Microsoft could block the Win32 API when the vast majority of Windows programs -- including its own programs -- depend on it?
Note: don't confuse "Windows Store" with UWP. Windows Store is just a download site, not an API.
> How long before the windows store becomes the principle method to get apps on your desktop?
Never. The attempt to unify across devices probably sounded like a good idea, but doesn't really make a lot of sense for anything that isn't a toy.
Unless Microsoft wants to cut the throats of all the vendors that made its operating system dominant, it's not going to get rid of Win32 applications running on the desktop.
Never. The attempt to unify across devices probably sounded like a good idea, but doesn't really make a lot of sense for anything that isn't a toy.
Unless Microsoft wants to cut the throats of all the vendors that made its operating system dominant, it's not going to get rid of Win32 applications running on the desktop.
[deleted]
The whole point of the reaction is that with UWP Windows will cease to be an open platform.
Why is that? It was still an open platform after Valve released their closed Steam platform. This doesn't change anything at all.
I think his concern is that UWP apps are the first step towards blocking non-UWP apps. Kind of like Apple does on MacOS X, where you have to dig into the security settings. From the article:
"The specific problem here is that Microsoft's shiny new 'Universal Windows Platform' is locked down, and by default it’s impossible to download UWP apps from the websites of publishers and developers, to install them, update them, and conduct commerce in them outside of the Windows Store," said Sweeney. "It's true that if you dig far enough into Microsoft's settings-burying UI, you can find a way to install these apps by enabling 'side-loading.' But in turning this off by default, Microsoft is unfairly disadvantaging the competition."
"The specific problem here is that Microsoft's shiny new 'Universal Windows Platform' is locked down, and by default it’s impossible to download UWP apps from the websites of publishers and developers, to install them, update them, and conduct commerce in them outside of the Windows Store," said Sweeney. "It's true that if you dig far enough into Microsoft's settings-burying UI, you can find a way to install these apps by enabling 'side-loading.' But in turning this off by default, Microsoft is unfairly disadvantaging the competition."
Yeah, obviously Microsoft is planning to lock out Microsoft Office, all its business apps, and all its server apps... /s
This is all kind of addressed in the article, did you read it before coming here to comment?
It does if new API's are only available through UWP.
Because the threat is, Windows as a platform will be engineered so that unless the app is provided through Microsoft's store, it will be effectively crippled. Valve cannot cripple OS level features. Microsoft - owning both the OS and the app store - certainly can.
This would be more believable if distribution of UWP software was possible without the Store, f.e. with sideloading like on Android.
That's the point. To get full access to Windows features you have to go through the store.
You can enable sideloading quite easily in Settings
Today you can do that.
This is a boiling-the-frog kind of situation. They do just enough to get people today to accept what they're doing, then the next steps come later.
This is a boiling-the-frog kind of situation. They do just enough to get people today to accept what they're doing, then the next steps come later.
Enabling sideloading is a developer convenience feature. It's not really meant for end-users. I don't think shutting off developer features is part of their future roadmap, and your certainty about it is unsettling to witness.
Did you read Microsoft's reply to Sweeney's article? They basically used sideloading as an excuse for why this isn't anti-consumer.
You can't install iOS apps without the store, and Microsoft definitely favors being more Apple than Google.
UWP allows you to release games on X1 and PC with very few code changes. For big companies, where development time costs $$$ for every day on the project, this is HUGE. If we could port our X1 games to PC with minimum amount of work it would save us a lot of effort.
Yay, even more half-baked console ports on PC. Noop.
Geez, I guess most people don't get as tweaked out by unplayable keyboard/mouse controls, non-remappable controls, controls that are remappable, but still use the default scheme in certain situations, and all the other console badness that leaks over into slapdash PC ports as I am.
UWP has literally nothing to do with any of those things. UWP means we can release on both platforms without re-writing our whole rendering pipeline, memory management and network code from scratch. One code works everywhere. If companies are sloppy and don't provide good controller options then it's definitely not because of UWP.
Microsoft developed, and strongly pushed, a walled garden app store in Windows 8. That app store has only gotten stronger in Windows 10, and now Microsoft is trying to strongarm all Windows users onto Windows 10 despite concerns about data collection.
There are basically three tiers of OS application openness in recent years:
At the top, you have old Windows, GNU/Linux, and older versions of Mac OS. You can download and run programs all you want.
Down a level, the OS by default stops you from installing anything you want, but there is a settings option to disable this feature. This is done for security, because you would much rather non-tech users be restricted to only installing from your curated appstore than from random downloads off the Internet. This is the modern OSX / Android model.
At the bottom, we have iOS. You can only install and run programs through the system appstore, without option.
Of all these platforms, iOS makes by far the most revenue per user for developers, and since with walled garden restricted appstores you rent seek a large portion of app sales, as the platform owner you also make the most money when developers make the most revenue - 30%.
So you are Microsoft's board in a nice executive suite in Redmond. You look down the coast and see those Cupertino guys making tremendous amounts of effectively free money because they don't have to lift a finger - their army of third party developers are making software they get to profit off of. This revenue made Apple the most valuable company in the world for over a year. Your company is losing market share on every front. You want that money.
Apple themselves are already moving OSX towards their iOS model, because of its profitability. Microsoft naturally will want to do so the same. They will be cautious, but it is the optimization of their revenue models if they can pull it off successfully - they just have to maintain "business" editions and contracts of their OS for companies currently using their computers because large corporate entities are much less likely to put up with usurping rent seeking app stores - so you just keep giving them versions with unlocked program installation, while the consumers can all be stuck using your store for everything without recourse, all the while you rake in wonderful 30% per sale.
This is not even really speculation, because legally the Microsoft board must act in the interests of their shareholders. All it is is a question of when, when you can flip that switch and take that last island of user freedom, the moment when the loss of users to open platforms (which would, even today, be extremely tiny) poses no threat to the dramatic revenue you could extract from the platform taking that sweet sweet 30% of all software sales. Because the writing is on the wall, and the evidence is hundreds of billions of dollars in your face that this model creates an infinite money machine. You just have to properly soothe the leprechaun into letting you steal the pot of gold.
There are basically three tiers of OS application openness in recent years:
At the top, you have old Windows, GNU/Linux, and older versions of Mac OS. You can download and run programs all you want.
Down a level, the OS by default stops you from installing anything you want, but there is a settings option to disable this feature. This is done for security, because you would much rather non-tech users be restricted to only installing from your curated appstore than from random downloads off the Internet. This is the modern OSX / Android model.
At the bottom, we have iOS. You can only install and run programs through the system appstore, without option.
Of all these platforms, iOS makes by far the most revenue per user for developers, and since with walled garden restricted appstores you rent seek a large portion of app sales, as the platform owner you also make the most money when developers make the most revenue - 30%.
So you are Microsoft's board in a nice executive suite in Redmond. You look down the coast and see those Cupertino guys making tremendous amounts of effectively free money because they don't have to lift a finger - their army of third party developers are making software they get to profit off of. This revenue made Apple the most valuable company in the world for over a year. Your company is losing market share on every front. You want that money.
Apple themselves are already moving OSX towards their iOS model, because of its profitability. Microsoft naturally will want to do so the same. They will be cautious, but it is the optimization of their revenue models if they can pull it off successfully - they just have to maintain "business" editions and contracts of their OS for companies currently using their computers because large corporate entities are much less likely to put up with usurping rent seeking app stores - so you just keep giving them versions with unlocked program installation, while the consumers can all be stuck using your store for everything without recourse, all the while you rake in wonderful 30% per sale.
This is not even really speculation, because legally the Microsoft board must act in the interests of their shareholders. All it is is a question of when, when you can flip that switch and take that last island of user freedom, the moment when the loss of users to open platforms (which would, even today, be extremely tiny) poses no threat to the dramatic revenue you could extract from the platform taking that sweet sweet 30% of all software sales. Because the writing is on the wall, and the evidence is hundreds of billions of dollars in your face that this model creates an infinite money machine. You just have to properly soothe the leprechaun into letting you steal the pot of gold.
>iOS makes by far the most revenue per user for developers
I dispute this claim heavily, especially as free versions of games tend to dominate, whereas on other platforms $60 games being bought but tons of users is the norm.
Does the average ios user of a free app really spend $60 on Itchy and Scratchy money? Doubtful, whereas every user of $AAA_GAME here does.
Note, even making the "whales" argument where some users dump inordinate amount of cash on things isn't very convincing because there are similar situations going on with say valve games and hats.
I dispute this claim heavily, especially as free versions of games tend to dominate, whereas on other platforms $60 games being bought but tons of users is the norm.
Does the average ios user of a free app really spend $60 on Itchy and Scratchy money? Doubtful, whereas every user of $AAA_GAME here does.
Note, even making the "whales" argument where some users dump inordinate amount of cash on things isn't very convincing because there are similar situations going on with say valve games and hats.
I agree. I only wonder what tool microsoft so long.
The Microsoft plan is to put all future development into the closed platform and thereby let the open platform die of old age.
''I don't really understand the problem here.''
I agree.
I agree.
Epic (in the context of Windows and software) is an electronic medical records company in Wisconsin. Might want to specify that this is Epic Games; that was confusing at first.
We've merged the comments from three different threads, and the title of this one no longer has "Epic" in it. Though I think someone else was complaining about "Tim Sweeney".
I would guess that if asked about "Epic" in the context of software, most people would guess Epic Games, and not the EMR company.
Really? Epic Games has 160 employees according to Wikipedia; Epic Systems has ~10,000.
I do happen to have worked in healthcare IT though.
I do happen to have worked in healthcare IT though.
[deleted]
Epic Games is the more well known entity. I've never heard of Epic the electronic medical records company.
I know people at Epic Systems and not at Epic Games, and I wasn't confused at all, especially with the context.
At the end of the day, Win10 is a mobile OS with some legacy desktop support. I think once we see it for what it is, we'll be more comfortable with it. Does this guy from Epic have a problem with publishing these games to iphone/ipad? The game changed pretty quickly and Nadella has no interest in re-creating Win7 or going back to Desktop OS's and open-ish platforms. This is the new reality for MS, good or bad. Personally, I'm not happy with it, but I think people should be aware of what it means to upgrade to Win10 and be part of the modern MS ecosystem.
edit: really 4 downvotes? Care to tell me what is wrong in my comment. Are you guys really defending Win10 and Nadella here? This is his vision - iOS-like system on the desktop and that 30% app revenue. Being cognizant of that should be a positive.
edit: really 4 downvotes? Care to tell me what is wrong in my comment. Are you guys really defending Win10 and Nadella here? This is his vision - iOS-like system on the desktop and that 30% app revenue. Being cognizant of that should be a positive.
Why should we be more comfortable because it's a mobile OS? I don't really understand why that suddenly makes locked down proprietary systems OK?
I do agree, the time to complain about this was 7 years ago when Apple did it (as I did at the time). The horse has now long bolted and we might as well consign ourselves to living in a world where making money from software consists of assigning 30% of revenue to a rent seeking landlord. We can expect the opportunities to do otherwise to narrow down to zero over the next 10 years. It's not good, but it's a decision everyone made collectively 7 years ago while drooling over iPads and iPhones.
I do agree, the time to complain about this was 7 years ago when Apple did it (as I did at the time). The horse has now long bolted and we might as well consign ourselves to living in a world where making money from software consists of assigning 30% of revenue to a rent seeking landlord. We can expect the opportunities to do otherwise to narrow down to zero over the next 10 years. It's not good, but it's a decision everyone made collectively 7 years ago while drooling over iPads and iPhones.
Microsoft isn't rent-seeking with Windows 10. They are attempting to build a secure and trusted platform, just like Apple did with iOS. That platform and the store for the platform are valuable. I applaud them for moving in this direction and applaud them some more for doing it without sacrificing the openness of Win32 on the PC (at least for now).
> They are attempting to build a secure and trusted platform,
They could do that in a lot of ways without creating a locked down OS with all software distribution centralised through microsoft with a mandatory fixed cut. They just happened to choose the way that eventually puts them in the position to take a 30% slice out of the entire software industry revenue.
It's rent seeking.
They could do that in a lot of ways without creating a locked down OS with all software distribution centralised through microsoft with a mandatory fixed cut. They just happened to choose the way that eventually puts them in the position to take a 30% slice out of the entire software industry revenue.
It's rent seeking.
The Windows Store has been stuffed full of fake apps trading off the names of other, genuine big-name apps with various levels of malicious content for years. It's definitely rent-seeking, and not in any way a "secure and trusted platform".
Your proving my point. When the store was first launched it did have a problem with misleading apps. But today those problems are far less. MS tweaked their submission policies and tossed the misleading app. That shows continued work on the trust and security of the store, a value add, and thus not rent-seeking.
I think it's not hard to argue that Microsoft is, in many ways, exploiting people's lack of awareness about their shift towards OS-as-a-service model and the consequences of it, thus building a user base that either does not care or feels stuck to the platform. What is argued to be wrong about this move is that MS is essentially locking out developers from making high quality games (and I mean, see Street Fighter V's PC launch reactions to realize what it means for a developer to forgo basic PC features such as custom controller configuration) unless they comply with their terms of service. Essentially, they are saying: either play by our rules and get access to our user base or deal with issues on your own, but not on our system (which, mind you, for Windows is still a new notion - all previous releases were essentially products, where if you bought one, you would've been exposed to certain vulnerabilities they didn't manage to fix before release if you decided to never contact them anymore about it, but you'd be in control at all times; this is not the case anymore). For you it might be OK, or even normal, that they do this - just evolution - but believe me, it is Not OK, it is Not Normal and it should never be either.
Does anyone know exactly which features you don't get access to unless going through their distribution?
Cause anything short of not getting the latest drivers or something or anything that affects performance or existing feature sets isn't the worst thing ever. Ok it's lame to try to close a system that's been open forever. But this is exactly what Apple is doing with their App Store, minus I believe preventing any serious Platform APIs from being called.
Cause anything short of not getting the latest drivers or something or anything that affects performance or existing feature sets isn't the worst thing ever. Ok it's lame to try to close a system that's been open forever. But this is exactly what Apple is doing with their App Store, minus I believe preventing any serious Platform APIs from being called.
UWP apps are subject to a host of limitations, including not being able to turn off V-sync, (currently) no SLI or Crossfire support, no .exe file for use with Steam, and no custom mouse and keyboard bindings. Game files are also locked down, which prevents modding.
Those are things that you can't do with a UWP app. The GP is asking about what you can't do without a UWP app.
righto - read too quickly. Answer: DX12.
I don't think that's correct either. My understanding is that the issue with DirectX 12 is that it is limited to Windows 10 - So people still on Windows 7/8 can't play DX12 games. AFAIK, you can use DX12 in non-UWP applications.
You're right, however as I understand it the UWP push is to move all games through that one platform.
Who says so?
Microsfot could make UWP mandatory for DirectX 12. Or 13. It's a plausible scenario for pushing UWP adoption.
Microsoft could do a million things, but speculation doesn't get you very far. In general, it's better to have some actual facts to go on.
One of the actual facts in this case is that Microsoft makes the vast majority of its income from Win32 programs, including Office 2016, not UWP apps.
Another actual fact is that Apple, Adobe, Google, IBM, Oracle and other large software companies also make their money from Win32 programs, not UWP apps.
Another actual fact is that all these leading companies are quite happy to launch lawsuits and/or to approach the US DoJ with accusations that Microsoft has done something anti-competitive.
All of this means that Microsoft cannot possibly close off access to the Win32 API, and even limiting DirectX could be a big risk.
It also seems to me that the PC games industry could quite easily be delusional about its significance in today's software industry, and that it's not aware of the full picture ;-)
One of the actual facts in this case is that Microsoft makes the vast majority of its income from Win32 programs, including Office 2016, not UWP apps.
Another actual fact is that Apple, Adobe, Google, IBM, Oracle and other large software companies also make their money from Win32 programs, not UWP apps.
Another actual fact is that all these leading companies are quite happy to launch lawsuits and/or to approach the US DoJ with accusations that Microsoft has done something anti-competitive.
All of this means that Microsoft cannot possibly close off access to the Win32 API, and even limiting DirectX could be a big risk.
It also seems to me that the PC games industry could quite easily be delusional about its significance in today's software industry, and that it's not aware of the full picture ;-)
Source? AFAIK most DX12 samples in SDK are not UWP.
Phew, if that was a thing. That would be huge.
I don't know for sure, but my assumption would be that it currently isn't anything particularly interesting... Maybe things like sending updates to Windows 10's 'notification' drawer?
That's my impression without Tim Sweeney getting specific. He's more making sure Microsoft doesn't take over distribution and charge a 30% cut or something and do other forms of competitive hampering of other distribution channels like direct to gamers, or alternatives like Steam which MS is super jealous of.
AFAIK, there are no such features. Desktop app can use any UWP component maybe minus UI controls (but there's WPF)
I can easily imagine Microsoft restricting the next version of DirectX to UWP, that would bring about the scenario the article is arguing against.
So much speculation in the article and in the comments.
I won't pretend I'm across the whole doomsday prophesy implied, but... a lot of the reason (not 100%, but a lot of the reason) why many gamers own a Windows PC is for Steam.
Okay, so I have no data to back that up except... lots of my younger cousins and nephews and their friends who beg their parents (and me) for a new graphics card so they can run this or that game. They are ALL on Steam, it's in their blood. They might do a bit of homework and multimedia stuff on their Windows boxes, but Steam is a major application, not least of because the social integration and features that run very deep within the Steam network.
Microsoft trying to ruin that party will be like Google trying to convince everyone Google Buzz is the social platform of the future. Barely a pebble in the pond rippled from that attempt, and Microsoft are no strangers to the art of pebble-throwing.
I won't pretend I'm across the whole doomsday prophesy implied, but... a lot of the reason (not 100%, but a lot of the reason) why many gamers own a Windows PC is for Steam.
Okay, so I have no data to back that up except... lots of my younger cousins and nephews and their friends who beg their parents (and me) for a new graphics card so they can run this or that game. They are ALL on Steam, it's in their blood. They might do a bit of homework and multimedia stuff on their Windows boxes, but Steam is a major application, not least of because the social integration and features that run very deep within the Steam network.
Microsoft trying to ruin that party will be like Google trying to convince everyone Google Buzz is the social platform of the future. Barely a pebble in the pond rippled from that attempt, and Microsoft are no strangers to the art of pebble-throwing.
It's bad news when Tim Sweeney decries the very existence of your platform.
Nice photo caption fail: "Minecraft is developed by Swedish company Mojang. Will future games be developed now that Microsoft is closing its borders?"
In the light of: https://mojang.com/2014/09/yes-were-being-bought-by-microsof...
In the light of: https://mojang.com/2014/09/yes-were-being-bought-by-microsof...
Url changed from http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2016/03/tim-sweeney-to-microso..., which points to this.
Windows 10 Mobile is dead, 1.1% market share of all Windows Phone version in Q4 2015, see IDC: https://www.idc.com/getdoc.jsp?containerId=prUS40980416 (or a critical non-advertisement article http://www.theverge.com/2016/1/28/10864034/windows-phone-is-... )
And what Microsoft does to force Windows 7 users to 10 is shaddy. Welcome to the old new Microsoft, with their evil tactics and nowadays also with software that spy's on you. So mean, shame on them. So sad, I really like Microsoft products from the 1995-2010 timeframe, and now have to replace all the legacy, though I have time until at least 2020.
And what Microsoft does to force Windows 7 users to 10 is shaddy. Welcome to the old new Microsoft, with their evil tactics and nowadays also with software that spy's on you. So mean, shame on them. So sad, I really like Microsoft products from the 1995-2010 timeframe, and now have to replace all the legacy, though I have time until at least 2020.
As someone who only uses Windows for gaming, the only potential reason I have to upgrade to 10 is for DirectX 12. But with Vulkan, I don't even need that. I'm hoping that by the time security updates for 7 are ended sometime in the 2020s they'll have released a new OS that is actually worth upgrading to...
Will vulkan be able to run games that were coded with DX12?
No. Youll still need windows 10 to run them. So im not sure how Vulkan makes you not need DX12. If youre developing games, sure. But as a gamer you have no way to make DX12 games run on vulkan.
No. Youll still need windows 10 to run them. So im not sure how Vulkan makes you not need DX12. If youre developing games, sure. But as a gamer you have no way to make DX12 games run on vulkan.
I think there's a misunderstanding here. Will OpenGl be able to run games that were coded in DX? No.
Vulkan's existence means I don't need DX12, and I don't need Windows 10, because game devs that care about me (and my 35% brethren) will have a Vulkan port, in the same way that game devs that care about any other non-Windows platforms have an OpenGL port (or are already using an engine that does the porting for them). Technically you're right that Vulkan won't help me run a game that uses only DX12, I doubt there will be many of those games though because of many bad incentives to do that.
Vulkan's existence means I don't need DX12, and I don't need Windows 10, because game devs that care about me (and my 35% brethren) will have a Vulkan port, in the same way that game devs that care about any other non-Windows platforms have an OpenGL port (or are already using an engine that does the porting for them). Technically you're right that Vulkan won't help me run a game that uses only DX12, I doubt there will be many of those games though because of many bad incentives to do that.
I guess you missed the part that most AAA studios don't care about APIs just platform vendor support and tooling.
The same things that make them prefer DX and games consoles, when given a choice.
Of course with the amount of nice indie games, you are free to ignore those studios.
The same things that make them prefer DX and games consoles, when given a choice.
Of course with the amount of nice indie games, you are free to ignore those studios.
It seems like the real complaint is that Windows Store lock-in is bad (which might be the case for distributers, jury is out for me whether its bad for gamers).
Universal Windows Platform, however, is an API that is strictly better and safer in many cases. It means an app can run on phone and PC, be sandboxed, offers power and lifecycle management features which the Win32 API does not, and a generally saner API.
Universal Windows Platform, however, is an API that is strictly better and safer in many cases. It means an app can run on phone and PC, be sandboxed, offers power and lifecycle management features which the Win32 API does not, and a generally saner API.
The problem with an open distribution system is that it easy to abuse, and that leads to security problems. Most of us all know non-IT literate family members that have clicked through a web advert advertising to "speed up your computer" to end up installing some bad spyware/malware or whatever. I'm happy for Windows to become a walled garden by default, as long there's an easy option to switch it off.
I'm not. Every time a family member asks me to make a program to automate something they do regularly it always involves a call about how to disable SmartScreen and always goes something like this:
>Ok, so run the program. Yeah, I know it says your computer is protecting you, just ignore that. Look for a little button that says "More info". No, "More info". No, don't click OK. Ugh. Re-open the file. Ok, under that scary sentence that you should ignore, there's a button that says "More info". Click that. Ok, good. Click run anyway. Yes, I know it says it could be unsafe, click it anyway.
You get the picture. It makes distributing little side projects you make a huge headache, which frankly is not something I see microsoft solving any time soon.
>Ok, so run the program. Yeah, I know it says your computer is protecting you, just ignore that. Look for a little button that says "More info". No, "More info". No, don't click OK. Ugh. Re-open the file. Ok, under that scary sentence that you should ignore, there's a button that says "More info". Click that. Ok, good. Click run anyway. Yes, I know it says it could be unsafe, click it anyway.
You get the picture. It makes distributing little side projects you make a huge headache, which frankly is not something I see microsoft solving any time soon.
Not sure I follow. For distributing apps for friends you can (and I do) distribute using HockeyApp or TestFlight or whatever. There's also a Development->Sideload app feature in Windows 10 already. It's hard to argue that the cost of doing this outweighs the security benefits. Just think how hard it would be to do a DDoS attack without robots installed via malware everywhere.
There's no switching it off -- it's a new platform. The old platform will continue to exist but it's the old platform and it continue to be harder to use it.
[deleted]
Epic is just transitioning their Unreal launcher into a storefront. So they need to launch an attack on competitor. Similarly when Windows 8 launched Steam owner (Gabe Newell) also ranted against Windows store.
A bit half arsed though..
They could have signing certificates that automatically timeout and force publishers to update often and then charge for the certification. Publishers can always get a little extra by paying for the "editor's pick" feature. Oh, and also, because users despise long downloads why not have a normal and premium download rate for both publishers and end users.
And leaving an off switch in there... I think someone got a chair in the head.
They could have signing certificates that automatically timeout and force publishers to update often and then charge for the certification. Publishers can always get a little extra by paying for the "editor's pick" feature. Oh, and also, because users despise long downloads why not have a normal and premium download rate for both publishers and end users.
And leaving an off switch in there... I think someone got a chair in the head.
Some benefits:
1. I know the game won't dump save and log files in my Documents folder (that place is mine, GTFO).
2. I know there won't be garbage files or side effects in the registry when I uninstall the app.
3. The game can't install rootkit-like spyware to inspect other processes on my system (hello Warden).
It would be nice if there was a way to distribute UWP apps outside the Windows Store, but UWP apps are way easier to trust than Win32 apps.