12 ms·

This is pretty one-sided. UWP is nice for users because it sandboxes apps that are built for it. Some benefits: 1. I know the game won't dump save and log fi

This is pretty one-sided. UWP is nice for users because it sandboxes apps that are built for it. 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.

sametmax 11y ago
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.
- AnthonyMouse 11y ago
  > 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.
  - mywittyname 11y ago
    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.
    - AnthonyMouse 11y ago
      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).
      - zardo 11y ago
        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.
  - pjmlp 11y ago
    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.
- magicalist 11y ago
  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.
- scholia 11y ago
  > 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.
  - pjmlp 11y ago
    Project Centennial will help move the remaining Win32 into UWP model.
    - leereeves 11y ago
      First Microsoft will have to move people to Windows 10 (currently at less than 15% market share).
      - sccxy 11y ago
        34% Steam users run Windows 10. http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey
        leereeves 11y ago
        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?
        scholia 11y ago
        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?
      - scholia 11y ago
greggman 11y ago
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.
- dublinben 11y ago
  You could say the same for any proprietary program you're running. A sandbox just provides a false sense of security.
  - kbenson 11y ago
    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).
  - mwfunk 11y ago
    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.
enraged_camel 11y ago
>>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?
- Terr_ 11y ago
  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.
  - nightski 11y ago
    While true sandboxing if implemented correctly could prevent cheats in the first place rendering things like Warden unnecessary.
    - Terr_ 11y ago
      > 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.
      - nightski 11y ago
        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).
exelius 11y ago
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.
- optimiz3 11y ago
  Vulkan is roughly identical to DX12 in functionality; Microsoft will not sign UWP apps that link to Vulkan/OpenGL.
- scholia 11y ago
  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 ;-)
  - exelius 11y ago
    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.
    - scholia 11y ago
      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.
zyxley 11y ago
> 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.
api 11y ago
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.
Joof 11y ago
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.
- drited 11y ago
  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.

sametmax 11y ago

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.

AnthonyMouse 11y ago
> 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.
- mywittyname 11y ago
  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.
  - AnthonyMouse 11y ago
    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).
    - zardo 11y ago
      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.
- pjmlp 11y ago
  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.
magicalist 11y ago
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.
scholia 11y ago
> 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.
- pjmlp 11y ago
  Project Centennial will help move the remaining Win32 into UWP model.
  - leereeves 11y ago
    First Microsoft will have to move people to Windows 10 (currently at less than 15% market share).
    - sccxy 11y ago
      34% Steam users run Windows 10. http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey
      - leereeves 11y ago
        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?
        scholia 11y ago
        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?
    - scholia 11y ago

greggman 11y ago

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.

dublinben 11y ago
You could say the same for any proprietary program you're running. A sandbox just provides a false sense of security.
- kbenson 11y ago
  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).
- mwfunk 11y ago
  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.

enraged_camel 11y ago

>>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?

Terr_ 11y ago
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.
- nightski 11y ago
  While true sandboxing if implemented correctly could prevent cheats in the first place rendering things like Warden unnecessary.
  - Terr_ 11y ago
    > 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.
    - nightski 11y ago
      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).

exelius 11y ago

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.

optimiz3 11y ago
Vulkan is roughly identical to DX12 in functionality; Microsoft will not sign UWP apps that link to Vulkan/OpenGL.
scholia 11y ago
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 ;-)
- exelius 11y ago
  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.
  - scholia 11y ago
    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.

zyxley 11y ago

> 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.

api 11y ago

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.

Joof 11y ago

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.

drited 11y ago
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.