3 ms·
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 s
by 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 agoVulkan is roughly identical to DX12 in functionality; Microsoft will not sign UWP apps that link to Vulkan/OpenGL.
- scholia 11y agoExcept 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 agoExcept 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 agoIn that case, they can write to the traditional Win32 API, just like Microsoft, Adobe, IBM and almost everybody else. There's nothing stopping them.