Support NeoGAF

[TheHellsLord]

I have one big criticism with the article and that is that it says that UWAs can only be installed through the store. This is not true of Windows 10 right now. If you enable sideloading in system settings a simple installer script can install/update a UWA that has not originated on the store. Downloading games and running an installer file however isn't how games are distributed today but it would be doable by alternate stores.

The question that needs to be asked however is wether the state of UWAs will remain that open even if the UWA model gains traction.

Modding is in a different place. The issues arising there aren't even due to Microsoft trying to lock down gaming but much rather due to software being locked down for a variety of other reasons. App models for example restrict access of software to locations that they need to interact with for privacy and security reasons (why does a game need access to the Excel files containing your bank statements, etc. - Win32 does not care about stuff like that). UWAs also don't use shared libraries where one tool installs one version while another requires another one and this then leads to issues because only one can be present at the same time. UWAs need to package everything they require aside from the system runtime together with the App and have their exclusive copy to use/update. This however makes it difficult to inject alternate libraries that change behavior (something lots of mods do).

Some features I'd guess we'll see support for in the future on a system level (especially stuff like FreeSync/GSync).

With stuff coming through the store however the additional issue for modding might arise that libraries are being signed when being delivered. This to a certain degree makes sense as it prevents injection of malware however it also breaks stuff when it's being modified by the user.

All in all there seems to be little incentive right now for regular users to opt for the UWA version of a game if it's also available in other stores (price is only consideration there). However I don't see it as that terrible a thing that a game you'd be interested in should be avoided at all costs just because it's implemented as a UWA.

Telling companies however that you'd like to see missing settings, etc. in the UWA version is definitely a good idea - most of all due to the fact that those settings being unavailable mostly isn't down to the App being a UWA.

 

[Krejlooc]

I didn't miss your point. There is more to it. I have said it myself as well, more digging is required.
Wha i meant by my reply is that the call to messagebox working/not working doesn't mean much.
My point was that saying it's outright impossible without any further testing is wrong.

It just seems like such a dismissive deflection against the real point Durante, Tim Sweeney, George Brussard, etc are making, which is the marketplace implications of microsoft encroaching this area.

The reality is right now, useful DLL injectors don't work with UWA. Maybe they could be made to work. Perhaps microsoft will dial restrictions back at //build. But then what? At best, we've approached what we already have? Or perhaps a middle ground, where these "universal applications" will require their own DLL injections be spun off as specific UWA-enabled forks?

Your single counter to the second page of durante's article was "Personally, I don't see this happening." that's not very convincing to me.

 

[JaseC]

You're both right. Steam does not support UWA distribution at the moment.
Valve could do, but to get the games to install, the user will have to enable side loading in Win 10, a process during which they will be warned on how dangerous it is.

UWA support would likely come in the form of a Win32 version of the Xbox app that essentially acts as a middle man a la Uplay as opposed to the apps launching from Steam directly. I don't see Valve being open to the idea of distributing games that require side-loading and I doubt even more that MS would agree to having Steam sit alongside the WinStore as a recognised app distribution platform.

 

[LordRaptor]

I have one big criticism with the article and that is that it says that UWAs can only be installed through the store. This is not true of Windows 10 right now. If you enable sideloading in system settings a simple installer script can install/update a UWA that has not originated on the store.

But thats the same as saying ecommerce sites with popups about invalid security certificates can sell products online just as easily as HTTPS secured sites

 

[Krejlooc]

UWA support would likely come in the form of a Win32 version of the Xbox app that essentially acts as a middle man a la Uplay as opposed to the apps launching from Steam directly.

So the end result of this universal windows platform is that we'd have translating platform layers running on the same desktop.

I can't be the only person who sees how backwards that is, right?

I've refrained from posting this gif so many times tonight, but yes, this is precisely what I feel many of the counter arguments boil down to.

 

[JaseC]

So the end result of this universal windows platform is that we'd have translating platform layers running on the same desktop.

I can't be the only person who sees how backwards that is, right?

Haha, certainly not.

 

[geordiemp]

Interesting article.

Questions

1.: Does the universal app approach result in much greater security and harder to copy and pirate ?

2. Is the fact that you cannot access all the files make the game more secure from a publisher standpoint ?

Could some publishers favour universal app if it gives 'ultimate security' ?

 

[Rudimental]

I have one big criticism with the article and that is that it says that UWAs can only be installed through the store.

Where does it say this? I don't remember reading anything like this.

 

[Fafalada]

Maybe they could be made to work.

As I alluded to earlier in the thread - the fastest way to seeing how well this will work is to have games people actually care about cheating-in, published as UWA exclusives. And the fastest way to that are XBox1 releases, so we may not have to wait long.

I still maintain competitive gaming could stand to benefit from such a hosting platform if executed right - hell, competitive gaming in VR is pretty much a non-starter if we can't combat local exploits - but I question whether MS even acknowledges this aspect of it.

 

[LordRaptor]

Where does it say this? I don't remember reading anything like this.

Pretty much the first paragraph

As of now, the only way to purchase UWAs is through the Windows Store, so the two are closely intertwined.

 

[TheHellsLord]

1.: Does the universal app approach result in much greater security and harder to copy and pirate ?

2. Is the fact that you cannot access all the files make the game more secure from a publisher standpoint.

Could some publishers favour universal app if it gives 'ultimate security' ?

Ad 1) I'd not say that the Windows Store makes it harder to copy and pirate software than other digital distribution systems do. Piracy has been an issue on Windows (Phone) Store software pretty much the same as it has been on other mobile platforms and the Windows Store is merely and evolution of that.

Ad 2) You can access the files installed by a UWA as they still reside on a regular NTFS volume. It's just more tricky to grant yourself the required permissions. Booting another OS that doesn't care about Windows filesystem permissions gives you pretty easy access. Modification of those files however falsifies the signature and Windows will refuse to load the modified App.

I believe publishers will think more about wether or not they are giving a 30% cut to someone else (Microsoft, Steam, etc.) or pocket that money themselves by running their own solution (e.g. Origin) - given that they have the volume and size to make running your own worth it (small Devs are likely better off going through an established marketplace and not care about the minutiae of selling in > 170 different countries including billing providers, etc.)

 

[Krejlooc]

As I alluded to earlier in the thread - the fastest way to seeing how well this will work is to have games people actually care about cheating

Another fast way to see how well this works would be to affect a company's revenue stream. Which is what happens with VorpX. Because their company is built entirely around that injector. So getting it to work with one of their most popular uses - minecrift - is pretty valuable to them given that the commercial headsets are a month away.

And yet they haven't been able to fix this problem.

 

[Rudimental]

Pretty much the first paragraph

That says 'purchase' not 'install'. The very next sentence makes it completely clear:

While they each come with their own set of restrictions and limitations, the choice that can currently be made for a game like Rise of the Tomb Raider is either buying a traditional Windows executable by any of the common means such as Steam, or buying a UWA on the Windows Store.

 

[Fafalada]

And yet they haven't been able to fix this problem.

Are people forced to upgrade to WinStore version of Minecraft? I haven't really been following that.

Anyway - I still doubt there was any concerted effort to really develop injectors for UWAs. Granted, MS may have created highly-effective walling of their garden, which then lends more credence to the argument I made for competitive games, but I'm not really convinced of that yet.

 

[nephilimdj]

UWA support would likely come in the form of a Win32 version of the Xbox app that essentially acts as a middle man a la Uplay as opposed to the apps launching from Steam directly. I don't see Valve being open to the idea of distributing games that require side-loading and I doubt even more that MS would agree to having Steam sit alongside the WinStore as a recognised app distribution platform.

Well the only game in the future I see from MS coming to STEAM is Minecraft story: season 2, now that the halo twin stick games have been replaced with Halo Wars 2.
We will know I assume at E3, if Gabe will block them

Tons of the free 2 play MMORPG on STEAM already side-load, dont even download via Steamclient.

 

[LordRaptor]

I believe publishers will think more about wether or not they are giving a 30% cut to someone else (Microsoft, Steam, etc.) or pocket that money themselves by running their own solution (e.g. Origin) - given that they have the volume and size to make running your own worth it (small Devs are likely better off going through an established marketplace and not care about the minutiae of selling in > 170 different countries including billing providers, etc.)

Steam is the current "go to" for most publishers of all sizes, as they only take a 30% haircut through sales made directly through the Steam Storefront, so it is beneficial to have access to all of the publisher features that Steam provides while still having the freedom to choose alternate distribution channels.

There have actually been a few incidents where indies have asked customers to buy through the Steam Storefront rather than directly from their own hosted product pages, as the retail fee Steam claims was worth less to them than the exposure of being in the "current best sellers" list on the Steam front page.

That says 'purchase' not 'install'. The very next sentence makes it completely clear:

I think in the context of this discussion, the difference is not meaningful

 

[AndyMoogle]

Q2: I agree. There's no real reason to use it right now. It might change, or it might not, but I don't see it ever taking off.

Other than MS paying you to use it.

 

[Costia]

Your single counter to the second page of durante's article was "Personally, I don't see this happening." that's not very convincing to me.

I just can't see steam (and other retailers) switching to selling windows store keys and abandoning their own platform.
Just like MS wants to push it's own store, others like EA, ubi (and non gaming devs as well) want to do the same with their own platforms (origin, uplay, blizzard's store etc..).
So he is telling me the rest of the industry is going to bend over and accept MS's will? Somehow I can't imagine EA and such agreeing to a mandatoy 30% fee if they want to distribute on PC (via the MS store).
Like I said, I dont see this hapenning.
How do you see the future?

 

[TBiddy]

Other than MS paying you to use it.

Would probably be smarter to spend that money on someone who streams or whatever. I have no intentions of using the Windows 10 store, except to try out Forza 6 Apex.

 

[Krejlooc]

I just can't see steam (and other retailers) switching to selling windows store keys and abandoning their own platform.
Just like MS wants to push it's own store, others like EA, ubi (and non gaming devs as well) want to do the same with their own platforms (origin, uplay, blizzard's store etc..).
So he is telling me the rest of the industry is going to bend over and accept MS's will? Somehow I can't imagine EA and such agreeing to a mandatoy 30% fee if they want to distribute on PC (via the MS store).
Like I said, I dont see this hapenning.
How do you see the future?

The fear isn't Steam switching to UWA, the fear is people defaulting to the Windows Store. The fear is places like Steam eventually conceding significant marketshare to Microsoft and being forced out, like Netscape was to IE, like OpenGL was to Direct X, etc. The fear isn't EA bowing to microsoft, the fear is EA and Origin being their own little island while everybody else goes to the windows store. The fear is UWA development practices becoming the defacto standard, to the detriment of competition.

 

[Costia]

The fear isn't Steam switching to UWA, the fear is people defaulting to the Windows Store. The fear is places like Steam eventually conceding significant marketshare to Microsoft and being forced out, like Netscape was to IE, like OpenGL was to Direct X, etc. The fear isn't EA bowing to microsoft, the fear is EA and Origin being their own little island while everybody else goes to the windows store. The fear is UWA development practices becoming the defacto standard, to the detriment of competition.

Looks like you are saying exactly what i said in my first post here:

I guess the biggest fear In this scenario would be that the vast majority of people wouldn't care about UWA's restrictions, and it will get adopted "as is" as standard. Personally, I don't see this happening.

Meaning the the actual problem is that people (which includes developers and corporate finance people) simply won't care.

 

[LordRaptor]

I just can't see steam (and other retailers) switching to selling windows store keys and abandoning their own platform.

You are thinking in terms of MS being solely a storefront proprietor (and one of many) and not of MS as the sole controlling body of what Windows as a closed source monopoly platform is.

If MS successfully deprecate win32 apps as "legacy code", then they are the de facto gatekeeper of all software released on Windows, and have sole discretion as to who can release what and where.

 

[Krejlooc]

Looks like you are saying exactly what i said in my first post here:

Meaning the the actual problem is that people simply won't care.

And your counter is "Personally, I don't see this happening."

History and common sense says it very well could. Hence all this proactive discourse. Like I said in this topic, the end user isn't really the crowd which should be primarily concerned. This is a developer-centric problem. Fuck no I don't want to be more beholden to microsoft. Just read the past few pages of work arounds people are proposing. I don't want to deal with any of that shit.

Give me an open environment, one where I'm not begat permissions by enormous companies.

EDIT: Re: your edit -

(which includes developers and corporate finance people)

But developers DO care. There are so many people who are stuck under Direct X right now who don't necessarily want to be, but are because abandoning it hurts their bottom line. Because it's hard to get people onto your team when you tell them "Ok guys, we're going to make our shit using SDL and OpenGL!" and nobody has ever touched those APIs before in their life. The benefit might be clearly obvious -- but we can sell on multiple ecosystems! But the reality is the defacto standard has made that not feasible.

I've seen the PC market emerge and grow and shape into the way it is. We're at a cross roads. This discussion is how developers are voicing their opinion. At best, and forgive me if this isn't how you actually are, it seems like you're apathetic to the situation. Which is crushing to those of us who are not.

 

[Costia]

And your counter is "Personally, I don't see this happening."
History and common sense says it very well could. Hence all this proactive discourse. Like I said in this topic, the end user isn't really the crowd which should be primarily concerned. This is a developer-centric problem. Fuck no I don't want to be more beholden to microsoft. Just read the past few pages of work arounds people are proposing. I don't want to deal with any of that shit.
Give me an open environment, one where I'm not begat permissions by enormous companies.

Which is exactly why i think MS can't do it. It won't be practical to use if they don't change it, or keep it optional.

 

[TheHellsLord]

The fear isn't Steam switching to UWA, the fear is people defaulting to the Windows Store. The fear is places like Steam eventually conceding significant marketshare to Microsoft and being forced out, like Netscape was to IE, like OpenGL was to Direct X, etc.

That fear would be quite real if:

a) the majority of games would only be developed as UWAs and
b) Microsoft made it impossible to deployUWAs through other ways than the Windows Store

Currently a is not true. More games might be developed in that format and if that was to happen (as it might have benefits given that Xbox might use that format too (don't know about Xbox Development)) Steam and the others could start offering them.

If Microsoft then decided to disallow alternative deployment it would be a pretty clear cut violation of competition laws (taking away a feature that was previously there and mainly serves to cut off a competitor).

Most of the argument over UWAs however is centered around what is and isn't possible with UWAs no matter how they are deployed. At least that's what the majority of people seem to be concerned about.

 

[Krejlooc]

Which is exactly why i think MS can't do it. It won't be practical to use if they don't change it, or keep it optional.

I think that ignores several examples where, given the exact same reasons why it shouldn't have happened, it did.

That fear would be quite real if:

a) the majority of games would only be developed as UWAs and
b) Microsoft made it impossible to deployUWAs through other ways than the Windows Store

Currently a is not true. More games might be developed in that format and if that was to happen (as it might have benefits given that Xbox might use that format too (don't know about Xbox Development)) Steam and the others could start offering them.

If Microsoft then decided to disallow alternative deployment it would be a pretty clear cut violation of competition laws (taking away a feature that was previously there and mainly serves to cut off a competitor).

Most of the argument over UWAs however is centered around what is and isn't possible with UWAs no matter how they are deployed. At least that's what the majority of people seem to be concerned about.

But you're not arguing with "the majority of people." You're arguing with me at the moment, and durante in the general broader scope of the topic, and Tim Sweeney in the last topic. We are not arguing that these are the way things are now, but rather that this is the way things will be unless we are mindful of precisely what is going on.

 

[mcrommert]

You are thinking in terms of MS being solely a storefront proprietor (and one of many) and not of MS as the sole controlling body of what Windows as a closed source monopoly platform is.

If MS successfully deprecate win32 apps as "legacy code", then they are the de facto gatekeeper of all software released on Windows, and have sole discretion as to who can release what and where.

Seriously though...how do you square this then

 

[Krejlooc]

Seriously though...how do you square this then

Square what? He didn't say anything in those tweets.

 

[GhostTrick]

Seriously though...how do you square this then

PR talk ? How in the world people can still quote Spencer ? This guy is as reliable as Reggie from Nintendo. They'll sing whatever they can to do the PR job.

Spencer said Quantum Break wasnt coming to PC because it wasnt developped at thz same time. It did.

Spencer said they support Steam, they dont.

Spencer said they wont drop Kinect, whoops, Kinect died.

Actions are louder than words and Microsoft actions contradict their PR talk.

 

[mcrommert]

PR talk ? How in the world people can still quote Spencer ? This guy is as reliable as Reggie from Nintendo. They'll sing whatever they can to do the PR job.

Spencer said Quantum Break wasnt coming to PC because it wasnt developped at thz same time. It did.

Spencer said they support Steam, they dont.

Spencer said they wont drop Kinect, whoops, Kinect died.

Actions are louder than words and Microsoft actions contradict their PR talk.

An executive of a publicly traded company cannot out and out lie in public facing information.

 

[LordRaptor]

[/IMG]

Seriously though...how do you square this then

I've already said in other topics; I do not believe this is a calculated move to lock down the Windows platform, I believe this is the Games division fucking up and co-opting the UWA application type and the Windows 10 Store for a purpose they were never intended for, and inadvertently unleashing a shitstorm of antitrust implications as a result.

I don't believe there will be any satisfactory policy announced at the end of the month, because I do not believe any satisfactory solution is possible.
The best case scenario for MS now is to try and moneyhat developers into making 2 seperate builds of titles, one that is a win32 with all that entails that sells across multiple storefronts and is capable of being patched in a timely fashion by the developers, and one that languishes on the Win10 Store unsold, unupdated and unloved until Windows 11 rolls around and the Win10 store is silently deprecated for a Win11 store that just sells 'app' type programs.

e:
And even if I don't personally believe this attempt to turn Windows into a closed platform is malicious, the end result is the same, so should be fought against anyway.

 

[GhostTrick]

An executive of a publicly traded company cannot out and out lie in public facing information.

Of course they can. That's called spinning words. Do I have to quote that infamous post about MS commitment to PC ?

 

[Krejlooc]

An executive of a publicly traded company cannot out and out lie in public facing information.

Sort of hard to lie when he's not saying anything at all.

This is like someone bringing up issues with Trump and countering by saying "But he said he was going to make america great!"

 

[TBiddy]

An executive of a publicly traded company cannot out and out lie in public facing information.

This. And also he specifically said this in the interview regarding QB and PC:

It’s not to say those games could never come to Windows

I haven't checked up on the other claims made in the earlier post about what he has said and not said, but the first one is not true, so that makes a poor case for the rest of them.

 

[GhostTrick]

This. And also he specifically said this in the interview regarding QB and PC:



I haven't checked up on the other claims made in the earlier post about what he has said and not said, but the first one is not true, so that makes a poor case for the rest of them.

Full quote is better:

‘Hey, by the way, I want to add a platform,’ didn’t really feel like necessarily the best way to end up with the best result for the game. They had a path that they were on. It’s not to say those games could never come to Windows, but right now we’re on the path to finish the great games that they’ve started, and I want that to be the case

The one quote you brought was just covering his ass for a later release. Not for a same day release.
So saying my first claim isnt true by using half a quote isnt necessary a great thing. Especially when my claim relies on the fact that Spencer basically said "It cant come yet because they're busy with the console version"

 

[Draft]

I vote Durante for President of PC Gaming.

 

[ShadowSoldier89]

I don't go into it in the article because fully explaining the background of it would have made an already long article even longer, but I'd like to note that signing applications is not inherently a bad thing. However, what needs to be front and center with that is user control, and more than that, user control with a convenient interface. Users should be able to exert full control over which software signatures they trust and which they don't, as well as retaining full control over the execution state and files of any program or game they own.

UWAs, at this point in time, put Microsoft's control and decisions over those of the system owner, and while that's standard for consoles it is not what the PC platform has ever been about or should ever be about.

you mention SLI profile's and the update to RotTR that addresses SLI, but UWAs just straight up cant use SLI/Crossfire at all due to the lack of true fullscreen

 

[TBiddy]

So saying my first claim isnt true by using half a quote isnt necessary a great thing. Especially when my claim relies on the fact that Spencer basically said "It cant come yet because they're busy with the console version"

But you specifically wrote this:

Spencer said Quantum Break wasnt coming to PC because it wasnt developped at thz same time. It did.

He never said it wasn't coming to PC. Now that we're at it, when has he said the following and why do you think he lied?

Spencer said they support Steam, they dont.

Spencer said they wont drop Kinect, whoops, Kinect died.

 

[mcrommert]

I've already said in other topics; I do not believe this is a calculated move to lock down the Windows platform, I believe this is the Games division fucking up and co-opting the UWA application type and the Windows 10 Store for a purpose they were never intended for, and inadvertently unleashing a shitstorm of antitrust implications as a result.

I don't believe there will be any satisfactory policy announced at the end of the month, because I do not believe any satisfactory solution is possible.
The best case scenario for MS now is to try and moneyhat developers into making 2 seperate builds of titles, one that is a win32 with all that entails that sells across multiple storefronts and is capable of being patched in a timely fashion by the developers, and one that languishes on the Win10 Store unsold, unupdated and unloved until Windows 11 rolls around and the Win10 store is silently deprecated for a Win11 store that just sells 'app' type programs.

e:
And even if I don't personally believe this attempt to turn Windows into a closed platform is malicious, the end result is the same, so should be fought against anyway.

Uwp is the futures of the windows platform. Win32 is old, unwieldy, insecure and broken. Also UWA is completely designed for games...the issue we have right now, and why you shouldn't buy a game on the windows store that is available anywhere else until they fix it, is that the platform isn't there yet. Publishers will start to use uwa and those games will be available on multiple platforms.

Also i have no idea what antitrust implications you are talking about. Microsoft is free to continue to develop their platform.

 

[Htown]

I think it's valid for Microsoft to release Xbox titles within a closed environment like their store.

My opinion always was that those games would be treated separately to win32 games on Steam, and just consider them Xbox games - just being played on a PC instead of a console.

Complete nonsense. If the game is running on PC, it's a PC game. You're not running an emulator here.

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.

I'm sure it would help Microsoft for you to think of them as Xbox games using PC hardware, because it allows a deflection of criticism since you're not using PC standards. Not sure how it helps the consumer to give Microsoft a free pass on those standards, though.

But why would having, effectively, an Xbox with complete freedom over the hardware you want be a negative thing?

Because the PC is not a console. Because "an Xbox with complete freedom over the hardware" is a massive downgrade from the freedom of a PC.

Stop looking at the PC from a console point of view. That's the entire crux of the problem. It's not a personal insult to the Xbox, or to the people who own and love their Xbox consoles, to say that a PC should not behave like an Xbox.

 

[GhostTrick]

But you specifically wrote this:

Spencer said Quantum Break wasnt coming to PC because it wasnt developped at thz same time. It did.

He never said it wasn't coming to PC. Now that we're at it, when has he said the following and why do you think he lied?

Spencer said they support Steam, they dont.

Spencer said they wont drop Kinect, whoops, Kinect died.

"because it wasnt developped at the same time" is the key here. On his original quote, Spencer said they cant ask teams to add a platform... Which they did.

 

[mcrommert]

you mention SLI profile's and the update to RotTR that addresses SLI, but UWAs just straight up cant use SLI/Crossfire at all due to the lack of true fullscreen

SLI/Crossfire can be use in Windowed Fullscreen

 

[Costia]

An executive of a publicly traded company cannot out and out lie in public facing information.

The first and and the last tweets say nothing at all.
The middle one is very vague and open to interpretation. What MS calls open might be very diffrent from what a linux dev would call open.

 

[mcrommert]

The first and and the last tweets say nothing at all.
The middle one is very vague and open to interpretation. What MS calls open might be very diffrent from what a linux dev would call open.

Was only referring to the "can be supported by any store" line

 

[TBiddy]

"because it wasnt developped at the same time" is the key here. On his original quote, Spencer said they cant ask teams to add a platform... Which they did.

So what you meant wasn't that QB wasn't coming to PC, but rather that Spencer apparantly lied about when it was coming? I'm sorry if I misunderstood you, but I can't read thoughts and can only react to what you're writing. What about the other claims?

 

[Krejlooc]

SLI/Crossfire can be use in Windowed Fullscreen

SLI/Crossfire makes use of an additional buffer. It is, essentially, a triple buffer-like solution. Windows does not, it will only take advantage of two buffers at once. You gain no advantage of your second GPU when in windowed mode. Windows compositor makes no advantage of SLI/Crossfire configurations.

 

[mcrommert]

SLI/Crossfire makes use of an additional buffer. It is, essentially, a triple buffer-like solution. Windows does not, it will only take advantage of two buffers at once. You gain no advantage of your second GPU when in windowed mode.

I honestly don't know how to say this...but you're wrong. Windowed sli is less performant but it definitely works.

 

[ShadowSoldier89]

I honestly don't know how to say this...but you're wrong. Windowed sli is less performant but it definitely works.

windowed crossfire only works in mantle

 

[mcrommert]

windowed crossfire only works in mantle

I have for the most part only used nvidia cards in the recent past (other than htpc builds) so you could be right. I know sli works.

 

[GhostTrick]

So what you meant wasn't that QB wasn't coming to PC, but rather that Spencer apparantly lied about when it was coming? I'm sorry if I misunderstood you, but I can't read thoughts and can only react to what you're writing. What about the other claims?

Except that you didnt read what I wrote. At the time, Spencer said it wasnt coming BECAUSE they cant developp it at the same time. He never said it wasnt coming but basically said its not coming until we finish the Xbox version.

As for other claims
Kinect:
http://www.gamespot.com/articles/xbox-boss-we-re-not-abandoning-kinect/1100-6427449/

Steam:
http://gamingbolt.com/phil-spencer-does-not-see-steam-as-a-competitor