True. I try to be careful to always write "PC version" when it's the lead or co-developed and "PC port" if it is ported by a separate studio or after the fact.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Durante for PC Gamer: Why PC games should never become universal 'apps'
- Thread starter Nibel
- Start date
TBiddy
Member
I think it's 16 GB, but that doesn't change your point, which is valid. I don't think the amount of gamers that did actually buy a Win7 Pro because of the RAM cap, was noticable anywhere though.
Microsoft actually already tried the "No Win32" version. It's Windows RT and was a gigantic failure. What makes you think they will try that again? If they start selling "No Win32" versions to consumers, every single program out there will stop working for said consumer (except those on the app store). What will happen then? They will either buy a Mac, a Chromebook or install Linux.
I think I responded to that post in the other thread, but what it basically boils down to is whether or not Microsoft can convince the large publishers (EA, Ubisoft etc.) to make their games exclusively for the Windows 10 store. I don't think they can, since the amount of potential customers is much smaller.
It's just not a realistic scenario as of right now.
Great article. Modding restrictions is the big turn of for me, not so much for mods but fixes. The idea of a port like Dark Souls coming out and it falling on the developer/publisher as the only source of a fix instantly turned me away from the UWAs on anything major and where money is exchanged. Competition is always good, but right now the Windows 10 store is a major step below things like Steam and GoG. Even Origin has come a long way and I'm okay using it when necessary..
They'll simply use their time-tested Embrace, Expand, Extinguish strategy.
cHaOs667
Member
In which country does this have happened? This is a serious question as here in Germany there are NO popular devices with ChromeOS. The only device I know is an Asus Chromebox we have bought a year ago for Hangout conference calls BUT no one is using it as the quality of the Hangout calls is much worse than Skype or the ordinary telephone call.
Remember Windows 10 Mobile, Mobile Terminals (Running Windows Embedded), Tablets and XBox?
There are cars with WindowsCE (now Windows Embedded Automotive) from Ford, Nissan, Kia and others for about 15 years...
rottendevice
Member
I guess I just have a hard time thinking that Microsoft isn't aware of Steam's (massive) success. And that they'd then say "OK, let's make a more restrictive version of that, force everyone to use a proprietary tool to publish software, and then slowly take Steam and GOG and these platforms people love away... and no one will care!"
They can practically ask Valve for a cup of sugar they're so close by. Lots of smart people in that part of Washington. I just don't think Microsoft is that dillusional.
I mean, they did just that with java...
Cheat engine still works fine, so modifying memory in real time is fair game. They'll do nothing about that.
cHaOs667
Member
I don't think that they have looked to Steam but more to the iOS and Android app stores as they are much more successful than Steam
TBiddy
Member
This was almost 20 years ago. It's almost 20 years ago, since Microsoft released Windows 98.
So?
TBiddy
Member
That was a different time, both for IT and for Microsoft. I thought that was obvious.
Unknown Soldier
Member
The treating PC games like they are on the Xbox console approach is not valid at all. Gears of War Ultimate Edition is the obvious recent example of this, MS just decided that since Nvidia holds a market share lead over AMD they just weren't going to test the game on AMD GPUs at all. That worked out pretty badly for them because you can't just pretend all PC hardware is uniform like a console.
The fact that MS literally doesn't even get this basic concept of PC gaming speaks more volumes about their commitment to PC gaming than any sweet nothings that come out of Phil Spencer's mouth.
cHaOs667
Member
What should be obvious is that their history of doing such things suggest that no, their current strategy isn't unthinkable. Far from it.
That is hardly the only example of embrace, extend, extinguish, btw. They continue doing it today, by releasing things like DirectX instead of hopping on the Vulkan train.
You're naive if you think microsoft is somehow above the very practice they invented.
I'm not saying they don't have to fix issues to get games working on a PC. But what I'm saying is I think it helps not thinking of them as PC games. They're not - not in the traditional sense. They're Xbox games, using PC hardware rather than a console.
That's a meaningless distinction that only serves to accept unfavorable practices.
TBiddy
Member
This is pretty off-topic, but I'd suggest you research what DirectX is and what Vulkan is. They aren't the same.
Panajev2001a
GAF's Pleasant Genius
Sweeping generalisation much or just deeply ironic
?Vulkan extended by SDL 2.0 accomplishes everything Direct X does. I know because I've been writing SDL and OpenGL applications for 16 years now, thanks.
Great article from Durante as usual, thanks for posting. While worrying, I can't see microsoft being able to force this to the extent that it becomes a real threat to PC gaming. That said, it should not be tolerated: look how easily shitty business practices (eg microtransactions) become accepted.
You should take a look at the deep integration between W10, Server & Azure and check out the reports about how very easy it is for MS to make using rival cloud services very hard - hard enough to tip enterprise & consumers into taking the easy route of going all MS.
MS haven't changed since they were burned over deep integration of IE to kill Netscape. They learned their business from IBM's example, and their philosophy of Engage, Embrace, Extinguish hasn't changed either.
Well, SteamOS is based on Linux (it basically is Linux with a fancy UI), and completely open in what the user can do with it. An "XboxOS" would presumably be locked down even tighter than UWA.
So yeah, I'd look at it similarly unfavorably in that case.
But why would having, effectively, an Xbox with complete freedom over the hardware you want be a negative thing?
The people who do not like this want PC games and all the features that are expected to come with them. Locked down is locked down, and an additional OS would just make it even more finicky. I suppose you do have to install Windows 10, so to a lot of people it is an additional OS install.
Because there is no benefit to the consumer over the traditional way PC games work and leaves them at the mercy of Microsoft, whose history with PC gaming is like watching Sideshow Bob in the parking lot of rakes.
In the context of this thread and argument, I compare everything to the current state of PC gaming.
You can bet that I look unfavorably at every console platform ever conceived compared to that!
Because, more correctly, we'd be getting, effectively, a PC with a more restrictive software platform.
TBiddy
Member
Of course there's a deep integration between Microsofts own products. It would be foolish not to have that.
And yes, they have changed. They are actively supporting open-source projects, releasing their software on competing platforms and much more. Compare that to the company that was almost split-up because of their monopoly-abusing business practices, and you'll find that there's a large difference.
So we agree that Vulkan isn't a replacement for DirectX. Great. That aside, you're bashing Microsoft for not throwing out numerous year of work on standardizing inputs, only to jump on something that has yet to prove it's worth (Vulkan). This'll be my last post on this, since it's very off-topic. Feel free to PM me, if you wish to continue the discussion.
Er, except they did just that with Direct X 12.
cHaOs667
Member
Sorry, but the arguments by TBiddy are still valid. No one cares for SDL and no one talked 'bout it before.
And therein lies the problem, I think.
If Microsoft came out and said "we're letting you use your PC hardware as a vessel for Xbox games" rather than referring to it as "PC gaming" then it would have mitigated a lot of these concerns.
Or to put it another way - if they released an XB1 emulator for PC, that would largely be seen as a positive.
lol? SDL has been pushed for decades at this point. Nobody talks about SDL 2.0?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeMPCSqQ-34
SDL 2.0 is pretty central to the current cross-platform push.
TBiddy
Member
That's actually a pretty good point, I think. When "we" (gamers) think of PC gaming, we think of mods and the ability to do whatever we want.
cHaOs667
Member
I meant this thread.
When people talk about OpenGL and things like Vulkan going forward, you inevitably are talking about a media layer such as SDL because you need a context for your GL renderer if you're using older OpenGL, and even with vulkan you need a media layer for things like controller inputs.
In my mind and the minds of many, OpenGL and SDL (and Vulkan and SDL 2.0) are peas in a pod, because they specifically compliment each other. In fact, it's a shame that people are not talking about SDL with regards to windows UWP scheme because SDL is a very counter to many of microsoft's claims. SDL 2.0 is a clean break from SDL the same way Vulkan is a clean break from OpenGL, and they've been developed in concert to compliment each other. SDL 2.0's driving feature, in fact, is the concept of "write once, deploy many."
I'm sorry, the reality is if anybody is talking Vulkan, they are also almost assuredly talking SDL 2.0.
The way microsoft ignores the Khronos group and doesn't give SDL the time of day is just another clear example of the practice they'd supposedly abandoned - they are ignoring a popular, open alternative, one that is being reinvented as we speak, to prop up a proprietary solution that is going through the exact same growing pains.
Come on. Silly.
Come on, what? Vulkan with SDL 2.0 accomplishes many of the same goals microsoft is pushing. What is the big reason Microsoft props up these new, non-backwards compatible Direct X revisions rather than supporting the new open standard emerging?
Yeah, I'd like cross play but not against PC mods and cheats
You haven't thought this through. Surely you know DirectX is Microsoft?
Of course. And how is their non-participation in Vulkan and SDL 2.0 not in line with the trend being discussed?
Here's what happened - Direct X launched over 20 years ago as an API to help foster multimedia development in windows. Over years, through stunted OpenGL adoption of modern GPU features, coupled with Microsoft's dominance in the OS market, DirectX became a defacto standard, to the detriment of PC gaming. You don't think it's a shame that the most used API in PC gaming is stuck solely on microsoft products?
But there were legitimate reasons for doing so - legacy support crippled OpenGL for years. Now, recently, within the past 4 or so years, much of the industry, from CPU to GPU manufacturers, game development studios to publishing houses, and so forth - have come together to "fix" openGL, a clean break from the legacy OpenGL. You look at the players involved, and you have everyone from EA to Valve to Sony to Nintendo all contributing, save one key player - Microsoft. Instead of playing along with everybody, microsoft doubles down and releases Direct X 12 - an API that only runs on Windows 10 and Xbox.
It's the exact same embrace, extend, extinguish philosophy as before. Want to make it right? Extend directX to OSX and linux. Or embrace Vulkan + SDL 2.0. Everything they want to accomplish with Direct X 12 in terms of end-use benefit can be accomplished with Vulkan and SDL 2.0, including universal applications. Their push of Direct X 12 is right in line with the philosophy Durante is talking about in this article.
dr_rus
Member
While all the UWP backlash is mostly deserved and valid I still wonder what exactly should we as users do about it? I mean yeah sure the situation is kinda new and we need to know about it but it still boils down to us just not supporting the platform with money, as usual. And after the disaster which GFWL was I personally wouldn't support MS's own store for anything but exclusive titles even if it was just a variation of Steam/GoG/Origin/Uplay selling the usual Win32 applications. So for all the issues UWP has it doesn't really change anything for a user for now, does it?
Between having no MS AAA titles on PC at all and having them in WinStore as UWAs I choose the second option. But I highly doubt that I'll ever use the WinStore for anything but these MS AAA titles.
Between having no MS AAA titles on PC at all and having them in WinStore as UWAs I choose the second option. But I highly doubt that I'll ever use the WinStore for anything but these MS AAA titles.
These aren't calls for users to do anything. These are calls for developers to change their practices. These articles aren't really aimed at end users.
Best thing a user could do is complain loud and vocally that they don't want UWP support.
Why would they support an open standard when the industry standard is their own tool sets? That's without even considering how much of a mess OpenGL is. That's what years of open-sourcing does.
this is totally the opposite for me because. PC gaming was always about user control, be it config.sys editing in the old days or game INis. Or great stuff like fixing physics in Bioshock 1 with a tool so they run with 60fps+.
We should never allow someone to take that away from us, thus not support it.
As users we should do like we always do: Vote with your wallet. If thouse MS AAA titles are important to you, surely buy them because they arent anywhere else, but besides that dont support with your money a plataform like this.
Anyway maybe some years down the line we can get those games on other services, like what happened with the steam remasters of Age of Empires (yes, i know they are not AAA games).
For the betterment of the PC ecosystem? For a common good? Because microsoft throwing their weight behind an open standard, especially one as nascent as vulkan, would be an enormous boon to its adoption? Because they claim to want to do what's best for the PC market and preserve it's "open nature"? Because the actions of all their peers in the market clearly suggests this is something they want? Because what's good for the goose is good for the gander? Microsoft doesn't have to be at odds with everyone else in the PC space. They can play along, and a rising tide raises all ships.
OpenGL is a mess? You know Vulkan is a clean break, right?
I broadly agree with all of what you are saying, although Apple are also conspicuous by their absence. They're both members of the Khronos group, but seemingly not participating in Vulkan.
My understanding that because Vulkan is implemented at a third party driver level, Microsoft are powerless to stop it being used on Windows computers without adding additional restrictions to how third party drivers function, whereas Apple are already operating a closed system, and as such they would need to actively support it for it to be implemented on OSX (and iOS is obviously locked down even further).
This is an interesting project, mind.
Similar threads
- Poll
- Locked