Tim Sweeney.. fighting the good fight...

http://www.theguardian.com/technolo...-pc-games-development-epic-games-gears-of-war

MS windoze 8/10 direction sure does stink to me... so its always good to see some people in the industry with insight trying to make more people aware of what is going on before it gets even more asinine.

 

Very good.

 

I'm all for freedom to do whatever but at the same time these could be seen as simple quality controls and "protecting the user". In that light it actually doesn't seem different from the way the Apple app store works.

 

Whatever. If I want to sell crap, I want to be able to wherever I can. Not to mention Windows Store is just nothing more than GFWL 2.0, now with support for regular software.

Also if user can't protect himself, maybe he shouldn't be using a computer in the first place? I'm all for egalitarian usage of computers, but the more time I spend on the internet, the more I think that cast system, where IT guys are like priests in ancient egypt and plebs uses calculators or even abacuses would be just better.

 

Seems pretty draconian if accurate. On the Mac apps in the asset store a "trusted", and the preferred way of getting apps, but you can still install anything you want from anywhere, you just a security notification saying warning you, but it doesn't actually prevent you from doing it. That would a better route.

 

I agree with some of his points, but I'm curious as why he didn't mention the biggest offender of all (IOS). In the current scheme of things it's very clear that the current order of "openness" to install from 3rd parties is as follows

Linux > Win32/Mac (has warnings just click ok) > Android/UWP (you have to get to buried settings and allow untrusted sources) > IOS (no choice)

I'm all for letting the user do what you want without having to look for a buried setting, but why mention google and not IOS. Personally, I do feel that the Win32/Mac model is the right balance, but mention all those that don't follow it not just a selective few.

 

They tried with Xbox One launch a mandadtory internet connection to play non multiplayer games, the PS4 took the lead. I think many gamers are aware of restrictions MS try to make with Windows 10, this will bring more people to Steam.

http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articl...asts-microsofts-aggressive-new-uwp-initiative

 

Cool, thought it might be overstated a bit. Simply, disallowing all installs not from the Win store would be a big problem.

 

That's exactly what I thought when reading the article. I never had an iPhone but friends who do always said the only way to get apps period was via the app store controlled by Apple.

 

IOS is a closed(gated/controlled) system, and has been from the start and never been any other way. If Win/Mac/Linux or even Android, suddenly locked all the doors, that would be very different. That would be a huge negative impact on existing developers and companies.

 

I agree history is important but its not like win32 apps would disappear (now if there were announcements on that the whole world be up in arms). This is just a separate flavor of app. The only parallel on any of the platforms is the mac app store vs. installing a .dmg from the internet, but that wasn't mentioned in the article either and I don't remember anyone getting upset when the Mac app store came out either. To be honest I think history is so important and that is one of the reason the windows store hasn't taken off, everyone is used to getting their apps from company/manufacturer websites.

The history of Universal Apps is also that it has only ever been that way, so this isn't something that has changed.

To reiterate I'm pro the Win32/.dmg model, I just am curious since the whole article is on "openness" why he left out the biggest offender.

 

Ah, I see. I quickly scanned the article, and must have misunderstood. So it would only apply to UWP apps?

 

I have to agree with @greggtwep16. If he is "fighting the good fight" why does he not mention iOS?

 

That is correct. The only down the road fear, I can buy into is they will eventually try to follow google's lead, and make some services that only work under UWP and not Win32. I don't see that happening in a meaningful way (and probably not at all). Android apps without google play services, loses a lot of the geolocation and other libraries which are pretty important. When Amazon made it's store it essentially had to rewrite libraries that developer's cared about that were inside of the google play services (because on their tablets it wasn't present). This essentially is one of the reasons the google play store has an advantage over the Amazon Store (also the fact that the settings are buried, is already installed by default, and had critical mass already).

In the games world this would amount to the Xbox live services being used in UWP apps (which is being done). However, places like Steam already have their own libraries for achievements, leaderboards, etc. so really for services that game developers care about there is no worry here. Want to use Xbox live make a UWP app. Want to use Steam make a Win32 app with the Steam services.

 

I'm not familiar at all with UWP but the article did say:

Does that mean that your concern is not a future one, but already exists? I don't what these features are though.

 

"Microsoft wants to monopolise games development on PC. We must fight it" It have been doing that for years.
----

As far as I can tell, the concern is that microsoft will attempt to switch exe format to UWP and then lock UWP in their store. Given how microsoft operates, they absolutely can do that, because they routinely attempt those kinds of stunts.

However, I suspect that trying to do that will hurt microsoft and windows OS big time and people will be disabling UWP and installing workarounds. MS can still attempt to do that, though.

 

Definitely doesn't exist now. Tim and Epic obviously has a closer relationship with Microsoft and is probably more aware as to what will come down the pipeline in the next few years, but I would think it's going to take the look of services like Universal UI frameworks (so they work on PC/phone/xbox/etc out of box), games services (leaderboards, achievements, etc), and other libraries. This is very much the google model, where the locked out part exists in their libraries. Win32 apps wouldn't have access to those libraries and steam would have to create their own (and already does).

Some 3rd party articles are trying to go a step further and state that Microsoft could deprecate win32. Of course they could, but that would be platform suicide, think of all the printer drivers, enterprise applications, etc. that would overnight not work. That's never going to happen for at least a decade and only if people actually stop using win32. So far nobody is abandoning Win32 even though Microsoft wants them to. In general, I'm sure Microsoft is frustrated at the lack of adoption both because they've invested so much into it, and because since nobody is using it Microsoft doesn't get a 30% cut.

 

Murphy's law says they might do that anyway.
Also, at that moment someone might hijack niche used by a windows platform, killing windows in the process.
Valve has been working on their steam boxes for quite a while, they are a good candidate for making a windows replacement.

 

Our CEO came to me this morning to ask about what those new exclusive UWP features are. Near as I can tell, they're just some ease of use stuff that make apps look and feel similarly between platforms (xbox, winphone, pc). Is there more to this new windows features? Are they restricting DX12+ features to UWP?

 

They are a business like any other, if they think they can get away with it they will try (obviously 30% is a lot of money). However, they won't do so unless they can get the adoption % for UWP greater than Win32. Haven't seen any real numbers in this but I doubt they even have got it to more than 2-5%. If you are going to make 95+ percent of your software not work it's platform suicide. We all essentially vote on whether or not they'll deprecate it over the next decade based on whether we use it or not.

Almost everything on the web currently that uses DX12 seems to be using Win32. Could they eventually like for a DX13 do this perhaps, but they won't invest the time into something that critical until the majority of Apps are actually using UWP.

 

I could be way off base, but the impression I got is that UWP is meant for apps that work across mobile/tablet/PC/Xbox, not full-blown AAA games. So like a Netflix app, weather apps, and maybe some match-3 games. That sort of thing.

He points out that GTA V and Photoshop aren't on on UWP. You wouldn't run Photoshop or GTA V on a phone, at least not yet, so wouldn't those be poor candidates for the UWP treatment? He then points out that a mobile port of an older GTA game is on there (San Andreas?), like that's a crazy thing, but that *is* something that can run on a phone.

The other thing I'm fuzzy on is that he complains about UWP games only being on the MS store, but it's not like you couldn't still put a non-UWP build of your game on any existing store/platform, right? So MS has tied UWP apps to their curated storefront just like iOS does. Not seeing a huge deal here. If you want to install Photoshop or resource-hungry games to your PC, then you can still do it.

It seems that what really set him off has to do with this statement: "Microsoft has launched new PC Windows features exclusively in UWP." But then he doesn't mention what those features are. Are they really features that a Steam game would miss out on or something? He could very well have a valid point, but the devil's in the details here.

 

Uh, I checked out microsoft's info on UWP:

https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/uwp/get-started/universal-application-platform-guide
https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/uwp/get-started/create-a-basic-windows-10-app-in-cpp
https://msdn.microsoft.com/library/windows/desktop/mt186421

I'll side with Tim on this one.

It is really bad.

They are OBVIOUSLY trying to replace entire winapi with UWP based approach and most likely will deprecate it in a few years. Also creating windows now requires custom compiler extension, since the whole system is apparently .NET related. So, basically, they want to kill ALL birds with one stone instead of just two. Basically, make new tech, advertise it as amazing way of the future, ensure it relies on their custom extension, then lock everybody into their platform.

That's my impression anyway. Might be wrong about it, but It isn't surprising that Unreal's founder is worried. I think it will badly backfire, but Microsoft is very overconfident about it. Like that time when they wanted to replace google with bing.

 

Yes. Let's hope they try it and it massively backfires on them.

 

Shhh.... remember MS folks hang out here. Tick them off and they just have to do a takeover of Unity. Turn it into the preferred dev platform for their latest scheme.

 

This is the kind of bullshit that helps censor certain types of game\art. I make adult sexual simulations and experiences, and the iPhone is completely closed off to my artistic output, with Android close to being the same. Sure, Android users can jump through hoops to install apps and programs outside of the confines that have been set up, but Google makes that process scary and difficult for typical users to deal with, so it's barely worth it to bother.

With Windows headed this way, I have no doubt that certain types of experiences (including of course, my own field of sexuality-themed software) will continue to be silenced and left out in the cold. For anyone who thinks it stops at sex, it won't. The more we let these companies babysit us so we don't get in "trouble", the worse it will get. Good times.

 

The reason why Tim & Gabe doesnt like it is the real draconian issue under the hood.

 

http://www.polygon.com/2016/3/4/11162038/microsoft-windows-10-tim-sweeney-epic-games-uwp-response

and Sweent's response via Twitter

 

Well, we will be able to choose different OS like Linux and i don't think MS will challenge Steam, because players won't drop Steam and their gaming libraries.

I doubt core players are so passive, you underestimate them
http://www.cnet.com/uk/news/xbox-one-wont-need-online-connection-is-still-429/

 

It's always good to be worried, but the real cause of this on all the platforms is the business sense that getting 30% of all software sales on your platforms makes. It's a no brainer. Any business in their right minds would want to adopt that model in a heartbeat.

The only thing protecting the PC is that historically it predated that model. As @zombiegorilla pointed out it's a whole different equation when you are taking something away from somebody, vs. if it's been that way from the start. Even Apple hasn't gone as far as to not allow you to install from .dmg files from the internet and their app store has way more traction than Microsoft's on PC. If Apple/Microsoft/(insert company here) could get away with it they would do it.

On mobile you have no such choice, because it was born in the era of this business model. IOS and Windows Phone you can't do it. Android is disabled by default and you have to change the buried setting to do it. I suspect the only reason that Google went this route is to try and overtake IOS at the time, and the fact that they actually make money on anyone that uses google services (search, maps, etc.) so they actually make money on almost every user of the internet. Because they allowed it at the beginning, taking it away would be similar to PC's and would cause a ton of negativity.

If the Mac App store or UWP actually gains traction to the point where it's the majority of applications, I would then say it could happen. People are creatures of habit though, so I don't see this happening, despite all the goodies or other attempts to "sway" people in that direction. Especially since developers aren't incentivized to do so. They lose 30% if they go that direction.

Remember that Windows is actually going to cause the most negativity if it tried to do this. This is because it has the most legacy software that would be broken if it got deprecated. Heck they can't even get people off of XP/Windows 7 and there is no such incompatibility currently.

 

This is what immediately came to my mind. I doubt that I can use steam's services if I publish my app on GoG or UWP. I think this article is just FUD. Oh no, microsoft did....something, lets complain!

 

All companies are going for closed ecosystem including Epic and Valve, it's one big race to the top that no one can stop.
Maybe Epic is pissed cause MS is buying out Unity? GDC'16 just around the corner.

 

Meh. I'm not sure PC games are an important enough consideration for Microsoft that they need to pander to the games industry.

Despite what the author seems to think, the primary purpose of Windows and the PC is not gaming. Sure entertainment features on the companies bottom line. But its a pretty non performing sector, margins are incredibly low compared to most of the other segments. And I would hazard a guess most of that revenue comes from the console market, not the PC market.

If locking down the market increases the revenue from windows, then its totally worth shrinking the entertainment division. And their key customers are the enterprise systems. Not the lowly gamer.

 

FTFY.

 

It could never be worse that iOS - as a developer Apple is the most frustrating organisation I have ever dealt with.

BUT, I do see some value in this approach.

IMO a lot of small developers (I'd guess north of 70%) owe their success to these stores. As much as they stifle developers in a lot of ways, we're being stifled in an industry that we would have had no chance in if these stores didn't exist.

The stores provide a level of trust for the end users, this unfortunately is needed, I wouldn't even download a exe from this forum and run it. Ever... But I have less apprehension from the Play store and almost none from iTunes/App store.

This reflects my level of trust between the different distribution channels (random=0/Play=5/iTunes=8/MyOwn=10). Its very possible that the increased safety is merely a psychological one, but regardless I'd expect the same type of distribution of trust across those channels is prevalent across our entire target audience.

This is enforced by the need to explicitly 'surrender' your protection for freedom (regardless of the real quality of that protection). It does make the user feel safe when they do not take that path. This is a good thing for developers as a whole (IMO).

Don't get me wrong, I curse and swear at these stores on nearly a daily basis. But I also know that I would not have the same complaints if it was not for these stores because I would not be an indie developer, I'd be doing something else.

THOUGH, this could be a totally moot POV since this market accessibility has brought its own issues, mostly since it's too easy to enter now that the market is now totally saturated with us 'indie developers' and we're competing for a window position in a store with just a few windows..

TLDR; Hate Play Store, Hate iTunes, Love Play Store, Love iTunes, too many indie devs now, market too crowded.. where's my pencil gone?

 

That's what I was thinking, lol.

 

Unity staff have repeatedly said that Unity is not for sale. This comes up every GDC, I swear to god.

 

The article doesn't even like the platforms where it's a buried setting, let alone more drastic measures so the chart was for the typical user that isn't going to jailbreak (IOS), root (android), mod (consoles). When you do that you are obviously breaking the closed walls the platform had created, which if Tim thought everyone would just do he wouldn't have written the article.

 

So TLDR much ado about absolutely nothing at all whatsoever, not least because it'd be illegal for ms to do so, and it's free advertising?

 

Is the guy who wrote this serious? Has he never heard of the iOS app store?

 

C++ hello world example on UWP requires ref class which is an MS language extension.

 

LOL, I'm not worried about UWP.

 

Well, why don't you throw standard C++ code at me that uses winrt and produces UWP app and can be compiled, say, with mingw compiler? That would work better than arguing.

 

Yeah, but I wonder how much indirect value it provides elsewhere. For instance, how many people are familiar with Windows because they used to or still do play games on it?

What I don't understand about the article is the idea that Microsoft are trying to monopolise the PC gaming market. I was pretty much under the impression that that's how it's been for what... 15 years? If you want to play a game on Mac how many options to you get? And lets not even mention Linux...

And they did it exactly the same way back then. They provided platform features (ie: DirectX) that weren't available elsewhere.

Plus, lets not overlook the other benefits of what's going on here. I don't like forced babysitting either, but by the same token I absolutely understand the security benefits of encouraging people to stick to strictly controlled, curated store fronts. How many of us have had to help someone less technically savvy than ourselves uninstall "antivirus" software that was, in fact, a virus they'd installed because their computer told them to? And even software vendors who used to be reputable are now subtly including "search bars" - and more aggressive things - in their installers. Sure, the tech savvy like ourselves might be willing and able to watch our own backs, but the average Windows user? No way. On the other hand, consider how many of those problems plague iOS users.

I'm not saying I like where this is going, but I definitely see both sides of it. And yes, if Apple can have an open monopoly on one of the biggest computing platforms on the planet (iOS) then why can't Microsoft do this - which isn't even as all-encompasing - on their platform? Keep in mind that one of the primary complaints about Windows in the past has been its lack of security, and that "do whatever you want, however you want" and "lets make this baby safe" are two objectives which are directly at odds with one another.

I still do agree with a lot of what Tim Sweeny is saying there. This is definitely a situation we should be mindful of. I just don't feel it's as back and white as the article implies.

 

This pretty much hits the nail on the head of my thoughts.

UWP is not intended for hardcore, extensible, low-level applications, and it's not replacing. It's intended to provide easily an easily accessible and secure application provider for the average user. Need I remind you that people like us are a very small portion of computer users still... It's also intended to give developers a clear way to develop for that market while still ensuring that their applications uphold the standards of that market.

So it's an optional market. Like Steam. Certainly won't be replacing Steam's near-monopoly on game sales any time soon. They'll just continue making their own OS and convince everyone who cares to jump ship to that.

Drumming up fear over another company is what smaller companies do when they want that other, larger company to change in a way that they like. Don't play that game, make your own decisions.

Edit: Does that last sentence contradict itself? Hmm...
Anyways, my point is that people like to drum up fear like the apocalypse is incoming. Tim raises some valid concerns, but temper his fire because these types of concerns rarely end up as... dramatic as he is making it out to be.

 

Well, not now. But if I were MS then I'd definitely want what Apple has. And what people are happy to let Apple have.

 

On that note, a couple of interesting quotes:

So basically, Apple had a pretty decent reputation before they did this stuff and no one change was enough to upset people, so we're all cool with them having a software monopoly on a hugely significant computing platform. MS started out with a bad reputation, so we're unhappy with them doing something very similar.

I assume it also helps that when Apple started it was just on iPods (or was it iPhones?) and nobody thought anything would come of it, where when MS started (this time) it was with a line of products that's already big and already has quite a bit of questioning attention.