Banjo-Kazooie
Member
I find it pretty ironic/coincidental that the support happens a day after his comments is all
-
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.
Tim Sweeney: MS plans to make Steam 'progressively worse' & buggy via Win10 updates
- Thread starter gofreak
- Start date
I find it pretty ironic that the support happens a day after his comments is all
It is MS that have done the work, not Epic. That is the point of a fork to something that is open - any one can do what they want.
dr_rus
Member
Business is business, doesn't mean that Sweeney is wrong in his suspicions. Even reinforces them as it shows that they obviously have experience working with UWP now.
Banjo-Kazooie
Member
Like I said...I find it funny that MS announced it right when this story about his comments hit. Coincidental maybe, just the timing is funny lol
Felix Lighter
Member
Has Win32 been referred to as legacy by MS, yet? That is the moment I'll be seriously concerned for what MS in store for the platform.
That already happened with Windows 8.
Microsoft removes policies from Windows 10 Pro
Microsoft slowly removing the user's ability to opt out. This is how it happens, slow and subtle. Why would they remove such basic features that have been inherent to Windows for the past 20+ years? The answer is quite obvious.
CosmicQueso
Member
If they don't do it, then it reinforces the suspicions. If they do, it reinforces the suspicions.
Wow is this for real? Gonna ask my sys admin about this. We're moving to 10 Pro at work, & they'd be pissed if they can't lock out those game apps.
Guess they'd have to block that anniversary update entirely.
LordRaptor
Member
A company actively using dark patterns is not a company that should be regarded with anything but suspicion.
Mimicking the naivete of lots of posters in this thread:
**Shh man, MS would never do that - only tin foil hat wearers would dare say something like that *
Lol okay all these things can be changed through registry hacks or other methods...all they are doing is trying to push users on a domain to get enterprise over pro for more features
Literally isn't a single home user that is using gpo's to manage non business computers (except my crazy ass in my home testing lab)
I don't think it's all naivete.
No, some of it is fanboyism.
CyberMiguel
Banned
Except that there IS a scenario where that is actually possible and that is Windows 10. Since August 2nd, both Xbox One and PCs with Win10 will use exactly the same kernel, exactly the same dlls and exactly the same DirectX 12 APIs, network APIs, UWA APIs and some other low-level stuff. Sure, the Xbone will have some specific parts of its own as well as the PC (win32 compatibility layer on PC, for example), but the same game written for Xbone can easily be ported to Win10 (if the developer targets win10 and not other version), with very little modification.
The thing with Microsoft is that they changed the entire way the OS is built from Vista up to Win10 and that made the win32 api incredibly difficult to maintain (remember that win32 is based on its most fundamental level on a monolithic kernel and mostly monolithic OS structure, while Win10 has a scalable and portable OS structure and a kernel that is almost like a microkernel).
To give you an idea of how big the change of the underlying OS structure that sustain Win32 is from WinXP to Win10, is like the change that Apple made when they went from OS9 (Mac OS Classic) to OS X.
My god!! You are sooooooo wrong. On enterprise level, the one golden rule is for MS not to mess up GPO, ever, regardless if it is PRO, ENT, ULT or EMB version of the OS.
And the worst is that you trying to excuse the multi billion dollar company with the "all they are doing is trying to push..." as if it is not a big deal. Terrible.
TBiddy
Member
As of May, they can't block access to the Store in Windows 10 Professional. That is only supported in Enterprise. So even if they block the anniversary update, people can still install game apps it seems.
Microsoft regularly removes settings from GPO, when moving from version to version, but I'm not aware that they ever done in it like this.
Yes, from version to version but not like this. And usually is adding features- actual features- not freaking cortana.
LordRaptor
Member
Look, I'm not saying there hasn't been a huge, complicated and expensive push to do that; I'm saying it was a waste of time to solve a problem nobody (outside Microsoft) had.
There aren't any third parties desperate to release games on the PC but their Xbox only expertise made it impossible to do without UWA.
Does UWA mean the PC gets some games it otherwise wouldn't have done?
Yes, but it's not because of UWA, it's because those games were cock-blocked by the Xbox division in the first place.
Does UWA mean the Xbox One gets any games that would otherwise not be headed there?
No, because the Xbox division won't let anyone release games on xbox via UWA, all developers must go through the ID@XBOX program
Is a multi-format developer ever going to pick UWA and roll their own engine instead of picking a multi-format engine in the first place?
Seems super unlikely, doesn't it?
Going with a multi-format engine gives you, you know, all of the benefits of an engine, plus the ability to export to multiple platforms including the console that has twice the userbase of an Xbox and the PC storefront that has sales orders of magnitudes higher than the W10 store.
If you don't want to believe any of this is true, fine, whatever, I don't care.
I'll just leave you with the unanswered questions.
If UWA is so beneficial to game developers in multi-platform development, why aren't any of them using it?
If UWA is so beneficial to game developers, why are the only comments from them outright hostile?
If UWA makes porting so easy, where are all the ports that weren't coming anyway?
TBiddy
Member
You sound just like that guy from Ancient Aliens now. Asking questions that has really nothing to do with the subject at hand.
LordRaptor
Member
Those directly apply to the topic of discussion I was responding to, namely "UWA is worth it for developers".
Not every post in a topic is directly addressed at the title of the topic, that's not how forums, discussions, or conversations work.
Yeah, it's classic conspiracy theory thinking. If I get caught in a conspiracy web (doesn't happen often..), I remind myself of this mental trap a few times to untangle myself.
Getting caught in conspiracy theories is not good for anyone. Sweeney should go on a vacation and drink a few cocktails to loosen up.
Bits N Pieces
Member
A member of this forum actively posting agenda driven comments is not a member that should be regarded with anything but suspicion.
LordRaptor
Member
Oh there is more to it than that. Something that MS pioneered and is very active in to this very day on the Internet
Apart from Sweeney, who else has actually said anything? And really, I wouldn't even say that Sweeney has been outright hostile. His only concern is with regards to the openness of the platform, he has no problem with anything else. He likes the store, he even likes the fact that it's a safer API compared to Win32 and that processes are sandboxed. I'm actually surprised more people here haven't taken notice of that considering it's at odds with how a lot of them feel about UWP.
hooijdonk17
Member
Worst argument in the thread so far, by far.
LordRaptor
Member
Ron Gilbert for one, but nobody from the development community have been willing to defend MS or UWAs for PC gaming.
(Plenty of people from the techblogsphere have though, before someone links to an Arstechnia piece about how broken PC gaming is and how MS can save it).
And the thing is, nobody is actually hostile to UWAs per se - I myself in this very topic have defended their closed nature, because it was designed that way for a specific purpose.
Like nobody has a problem with MS having a digital storefront, per se.
The underlying problem is one of over reach.
You can have a more secure file format designed to be implemented on already closed systems without trying to push that onto a system that has never been closed.
You can have a proprietary format without being the sole controlling authority of it.
You can have a digital storefront without integrating it directly into the OS and blocking any attempts to remove it or make it inaccessible.
e:
Its overly aggressive - and unnecessary - moves like these that foster suspicion
spiderman123
Member
I believe him
Theanine3D
Member
I wish Tim Sweeney's attitude towards Win 10 would translate into much better support for Linux.
At the moment the only reason I'm staying on Windows 10 is because Epic doesn't officially support a native Linux version of Unreal Editor. You have to download the source and compile/maintain it yourself, and hope it works. If you encounter problems, Epic just redirects you to an unofficial IRC channel run by other Linux users of the engine. You can cross-compile Linux UE4 games just fine from within Windows, but building Linux binaries from within Linux itself is still much more of a hassle.
Tim is fully justified in criticizing MS but if what they're doing scares him so much he should start paying more attention to the most viable alternative to Windows on PC (unless you've got a Hackintosh).
At the moment the only reason I'm staying on Windows 10 is because Epic doesn't officially support a native Linux version of Unreal Editor. You have to download the source and compile/maintain it yourself, and hope it works. If you encounter problems, Epic just redirects you to an unofficial IRC channel run by other Linux users of the engine. You can cross-compile Linux UE4 games just fine from within Windows, but building Linux binaries from within Linux itself is still much more of a hassle.
Tim is fully justified in criticizing MS but if what they're doing scares him so much he should start paying more attention to the most viable alternative to Windows on PC (unless you've got a Hackintosh).
While this seems to be good for a quick glance, I'm already seeing that stuff that can be "Linux ported" like Q3A aren't counted on the Linux side. AFAIK all you need for that is the iD ported sources and the 1.31 patch and you could just download the game off Steam to get the baseq3 and put that folder along with the Linux port code into a folder and have "Steam Q3A for Linux."
TBiddy
Member
The questions has nothing to do with the claims made by Tim Sweeney. Instead they focus more on whether or not UWA is useful or not. After 22 pages, it's natural that the discussion moves somewhat, but considering that after 22 pages, there's still no shred of evidence, what so ever, that Tim Sweeney is right, it's telling that the most ardent supporters of the claims made by Sweeney starts to move the goalposts.
CrimsonEclipse
Member
As much as a I enjoy using Windows (and I believe it is a great OS) to be fair...MS shouldn't be pushing any users to enterprise by removing/disabling certain GP entries. They should be enticing users or more so businesses to go to Enterprise...not "push" them by what may appear to be "sneaky".
Are there release notes on the Anniversary update that provides all of these changes?
LordRaptor
Member
jfc dude, those questions were a direct response to someone - I could just as easily say the post this is a reply to is a deflection from the real issues.
What goalposts have moved?
What is your actual problem with the things I am saying?
Make a damn point, instead of flinging around vague ad hominems or complaining that a discussion isn't laser focussed on the specific strawman points you are able to rebut, because you are not equipped to meaningfully discuss broader implications of the positions involved.
Is there any solid evidence of criminal conspiracy on the part of MS?
No of course there fucking isn't.
Have MS actions in the past provided basis for grounds of suspcision in the present?
Yes, yes they have.
Are MS actions in the present grounds for suspicion?
Yes, many people would agree that MS as of right now are still taking actions against their own consumers that are ethically dubious.
e:
OH WOW FINALLY BACONIT ON X1, UWA REDEEMED
e2:
I don't even agree with Tim Sweeney as to the motivation for the sudden push by the Xbox division for UWAs, but the shameful knee jerk responses of "Tinfoil hatz lololololol" is abhorrent
Of course not, the entirety of Windows is built around it. Explorer and DWM are Win32, UWP will have many hooks into Win32. If they dropped Win32, they may as well redesign Windows.
Considering the guy only had to make 3 code changes, it is a huge insight into the cross compatibility. Something you said wasn't possible.
LordRaptor
Member
I said:
Maybe if I'd added "or Reddit App" misrepresenting my position would be harder?
e:
And for someone soooooooooo concerned about moving goalposts, I'd love to know the relevance of porting a Reddit reading app to X1 relates to concerns about Traditional Pc Gaming on the PC.
What about the thread about DX12 and UWP between PC and Xbox One where a dev replied and said they've only had to change around 1% of their engines code?
Edit: That wasn't so it'd work either, it was just so it fully utilised the Xbox.
TBiddy
Member
I'm glad we agree on that. Also, why so aggressive? I agree that Microsoft has a long history of suspicious behavior with regards to competitors, but in this case, there's no evidence of anything, except Tim Sweeney saying that Microsoft RIGHT NOW is actively making Steam run worse.
In my view it's worthy of a tinfoil hat, if someone honestly believes that Microsoft wants to cut out Steam and lose millions of customers along with it.
LordRaptor
Member
I don't know what thread or post you're referring to, so I have no comment to make, but the point is moot because if such benefits exist then developers will use them.
In the absence of developer support in the traditional PC gaming space, the logical conclusion is that the benefits claimed by MS PR are exaggerated.
e:
Because I'm getting pretty fucking sick of posting in these and similar topics and being quoted in "GOTCHA!" attempts by people to prove me wrong in contextless snippets that ignore the point I am making rather than making a point as to why their position is right.
martino
Member
sophism called existential fallacy (or here not)
TBiddy
Member
I don't do "GOTCHA". It's the internet, it's not that serious. Tim Sweeney made some pretty wild accusations and there has been several supports in this thread, backing him up, yet noone has been able to provide any evidence with regards to that. It's a bit pointless to start arguing about why's he wrong, when he was never right to begin with. It's like arguing with an ardent believer of the Flat Earth-theory.
edit: Anyways, I think most of the posts in this thread can be boiled down to something like this, and it's hard to imagine we'll get much further, to be honest.
"No evidence Sweeney? You're paranoid!"
"<wiki link to EEE>"
"I don't like UWA/Microsoft/Xbox"
I see absolutely no problem with doing that as long as the system remains open in other ways - which Windows will. And no, sorry, Tim Sweeney speculating that something might happen in the future isn't enough for me to think otherwise.
Can you give me some examples or proprietary formats that are controlled by multiple parties? Surely you don't think Win32 is an example? Who else, along with MS, do you think should control UWP?
This I somewhat agree with. I don't see a problem with MS integrating their store and enabling it by default, but they definitely should make it as simple as possible to remove if that's what people want to do.
Tried searching, but I can't find it unfortunately. I can't remember which dev said it, but it was along the lines of, DX12 between Xbox and PC are different, you need to change code to fully utilise the Xbox. Another dev replied stating that they only had to change around 1% of their engine.
How is the point moot? It saves time, money and effort and it's something which you said was impossible. Yes, a lot of features aren't present in PC and that's shit, but there's the dedication of making those features available. If they don't do that, then yes, that's terrible and I'll be in the same boat as you.
How are they exaggerated claims? The whole point of UWP is to make a cross-device, cross-compatible platform. That has happened.
HungOverOnATues
Member
It also doesn't include DOSBox games like Doom or Xcom since they haven't been updated to pack in the linux version of DOSBox for whatever reason. Some DLC is also being mistakenly counted as a game. In any case, it should still be a pretty good estimate of how much of your library is supported without having to resort to using WINE. I'm kind of surprised at just how much of my library has a native linux version - almost a third. It'd be neat if it went a step further and broke down the number of WIndows-only titles that are Gold/Platinum rated in the WINE AppDB, although I'm sure that would be a pain in the ass to implement.
Unfortunately, they don't have a choice.
LordRaptor
Member
Yes, he made some accusations, but that's because what is at stake is very important, and he has literally put his reputation on the line to try and make people understand the stakes in calling Ms out publically.
I don't doubt for a second that he has his own vested interests; UE is nominally in direct competition with UWA, in that both purport to offer development environments that work on multiple platforms.
I am under no illusion that what would satisfy him on a business interests perspective would be that MS add Epic as a by-default trusted source, and that anything developed in UE is treated as 'safe' in the same way that anything developed by Ms is treated as safe, and that that solution would not address my concerns.
But the point still remains; MS are currently taking actions that are damaging to PC gaming, whether by choice or happenstance.
If left unchecked, those actions can potentially destroy everything that makes Pc gaming it's own unique platform.
It is reasonable to not trust MS to police themselves on this matter, when they have a vested interest in killing off PC gaming entirely and making Xbox the sole platform for gaming.
Win32 is - to my eyes - the optimal solution because it has nobody controlling it.
That lack of control is exactly why Windows is the de facto platform of choice for developers.
IF a more controlled format is deemed to be necessary, it should be a neutral undertaking with stakeholder input; for example, if security concerns are a factor in requiring a new format, I would expect representatives of security experts such as Sophos / Kaspersky etc to be present giving input on that.
If you want to see how standards are implemented elsewhere, look at the Khronos group, or look at the consortium of interests who developed USB or H.264 video encoding, or JPEG.
It is vital in developing a standard to have neutrality.
He has to make up shit in order to make people understand?
I think people are very capable of understanding his concerns without his concerns being accompanied by fairy tails.
Similar threads
- Poll
- Locked