5 ms·

Actually, this may be a valid concern. It does look like Microsoft is trying harder and harder to lock down PC gaming. See Gabe's [0] and Tim Sweeney's [1] comp

• ocdtrekkie 10y ago
  Newell's comments are from 2012. Sweeney's comments have been pretty much directly invalidated by Microsoft's actions. Note that this year Microsoft made a point to address Sweeney's comments by demonstrating Steamworks in a UWP app, and the Windows 10 update releasing today makes it easier to install UWP apps without the Windows Store. They've repetitively reiterated that UWP apps can be sold through third party stores, the difference is primarily a technical one: That UWP apps are sandboxed (like Android and iOS apps) and therefore less able to act maliciously. To date, Microsoft has done... nothing I'm aware of... to lock down PC gaming. FUD articles are abound though.
  • shmerl 10y ago
    > To date, Microsoft has done... nothing I'm aware of... to lock down PC gaming. DX12 is a form of lock-in.
    • kayoone 10y ago
      Unless you are writing your own, all the major game engines support multiple graphics apis anyway.
      • shmerl 10y ago
        It doesn't contradict what I said above. Supporting multiple APIs is a burden, whether it falls on those who write their own engines, or those who write those engines for others to use. You can view it as a tax which increases costs and reduces efficiency. The point of lock-in is exactly such tax, which will deter some from using anything else, or at the very least make it more expensive for those who will use something else. This tax is passed to the end user either way, in the form of slower progress, higher prices, unavailability on other platforms and so on.
        • kayoone 10y ago
          i would argue that having only one universal graphics api would hurt innovation and progress, so it's not perfect either. MS is not even the worst anyway, Apple is even forcing Vulkan do use Metal under the hood.
          • shmerl 10y ago
            > i would argue that having only one universal graphics api would hurt innovation and progress, so it's not perfect either. In general, you could argue that more competition helps progress, yes. But it's not even the case here, since walled gardens (Xbox, PS, iOS, etc.) prevent competing APIs like Vulkan from being used on them. I.e. they don't compete on merit (which could boost progress), they are anti-competitive. So they only slow down progress in this case.
    • ocdtrekkie 10y ago
      To Windows? Sure. But not remotely in the way Newell and Sweeney are suggesting it'll lock you into the Windows Store. They're primarily concerned with Steam being viable on Windows. And DirectX 12 is not any more a lock-in than any other version of DirectX since the beginning of DirectX, as far as I'm aware. (And games can and are offered with both DirectX and OpenGL support.) Responses going forward heavily delayed because I'm rate-limited. If you want to talk elsewhere at any point, I am @ocdtrekkie
      • shmerl 10y ago
        > To Windows? Sure. But not remotely in the way Newell and Sweeney are suggesting it'll lock you into the Windows Store. Yes, they were focused more on distributor lock-in, but lock-in has different forms. Since you were talking about PC gaming in general, saying that MS did nothing to lock it, I pointed out that it's not so. System lock-in is still a lock-in, which MS uses to put competition at a disadvantage. I singled out DX12 more specifically, because some argued that OpenGL was too much behind / not really moving forward, and so on. Vulkan isn't any of that, and MS not backing the effort instead of making NIH DX12 can't use any of the above excuses. They clearly made DX12 for lock-in purposes. > And games can and are offered with both DirectX and OpenGL support. On Xbox developers have no choice, but to use DX.
  • iamcreasy 10y ago
    > That UWP apps are sandboxed (like Android and iOS apps) and therefore less able to act maliciously. Many people don't want Console/phone like restriction on PC. Sweeney feared that MS will try to force everybody to use UWP, and later MS will change UWP policies. But then it will be late for everybody move away from UWP. How many people you know downloads the apk on their android phone to get the app running? Do you have any say on the Google Play policy changes? MS will certainly repeat how convenient UWP is, but people are reluctant to trust MS because they don't know how MS will behave in the future. That's what Tim Sweeney fears. Phasing out the open nature of the ecosystem, and replacing it with a locked down one where MS controls everything. And that's a lock down. Maybe it's not for malicious reason, but people have enough reason to hold on onto the open nature that drove the growth of PC gaming(and malware). Secondly, when they don't know if MS will keep their words.
    • ocdtrekkie 10y ago
      There is nothing inherently "open" about the current system. Windows is a closed source platform and Microsoft can write it to block whatever they want to. If they wanted to block Win32 apps, they could. (SmartScreen, by default, DOES, if they're not appropriately signed or commonly downloaded.) The idea that encouraging user level apps to use UWP because it is safer does not inherently mean some draconian lockdown is coming. If Microsoft is going to lock the platform down, they're going to lock the platform down. There's nothing you can do about it. But Microsoft choosing to use competent security in app design has nothing to do with it.
      • shmerl 10y ago
        > There's nothing you can do about it. Indeed. Except switching to open platform.
      • iamcreasy 10y ago
        I didn't mean 'open' or 'close'. I meant 'less restrictive' or 'more restrictive'. Win32 is less restrictive, and UWP is more restrictive. > The idea that encouraging user level apps to use UWP because it is safer does not inherently mean some draconian lockdown is coming. All market places (google play, steam, apple app store) has restrictions. I haven't made app for any one of them, but I am certain there are policies people disagree with, and policies that has lead an app to be removed from the store or some app not getting past the the screening process. On Win32 you don't have that. You can build something, post it anywhere, anybody can download and run it without any hiccup. This fluidity has made PC where it is today. Also there are trust issues. Sweeney said, "The risk here is that, if Microsoft convinces everybody to use UWP, then they phase out Win32 apps. If they can succeed in doing that then it’s a small leap to forcing all apps and games to be distributed through the Windows Store." > If Microsoft is going to lock the platform down, they're going to lock the platform down. There's nothing you can do about it. Yes there is. In fact that's why this thread exists. MS has added UWP feature because Epic games won't do it. Steam has also released SteamOS. It's more users that MS wants. Security comes later. And as long as the developers are taking a stand against restrictive UWP, MS will leave UWP behind. And hopefully next time they will take a different route. Least restrictive nature is the hallmark of PC. I can't stress it enough.
• serge2k 10y ago
  The fact that it's from someone well known doesn't make paranoia and FUD any better.