Microsoft wants to kill PC gaming

[DoPo]

Did you happen to read Durante's article on PC Gamer?

I now have and here is a lost of notes:

- one important point is about Tomb Raider and the two different versions of the game. This is a very important point, but here's the thing - was Tomb Raider designed as a UWP app at all or was it somewhat hastily dropped into a wrapper as a fast port? Because from the sounds of it (I hadn't heard of that issue before, by the way) - it looks like a quick port. Considering the game came out relatively recently, as did UWP, I am really hesitant to suggest Tomb Raider was designed to be compatible with UWP.

- "As of now, the only way to purchase UWAs is through the Windows Store" - this is inconsistent with information I have on .appx files. Or is this a legal thing - "you are not allowed to sell them elsewhere"?

- "No Exclusive Fullscreen Mode" - oh, man - I didn't know about that one. It really sucks and it's really funny that Microsoft want to actually make it into a thing. Or do they want the "borderless full screen window" to become the new standard? It's not as bad, but considering this is Microsoft we're talking about, I am not entirely sure they know what they are doing.

- "Lack of interoperability" - is a good thing, in my view. Let me just highlight the important part "in Win32, it is relatively easy and straightforward for any program to integrate itself with another arbitrary program". Isn't this ringing alarm bells for anybody else? Any program can do anything with any other program. It's like the wild west. It may be just me but that sounds bad...or maybe it's the years of collective software engineering knowledge that also claim you shouldn't be doing it.

Still - it is an important function - Durante only brings the good things, but not the POTENTIALLY VERY BAD things this can lead to. However, that doesn't mean we can't have the type of interoperability that Durante wants. It just means we can be stricter when denying it.

- "Modding Restrictions" - to be honest, I wasn't thinking of this type of modding. This sounds like a tricky issue with no real right answers, really. Or, perhaps, it may be the wrong solution to the wrong problem. I'm not entirely sure. It depends how exactly you want to look at the bigger picture of the API-call-hijacks-as-mods. I might have to consider this more.

Coming from a guy who's made a name for himself fixing games on PC and knowing just how that all ties into the way windows handles programs, I trust he knows his stuff.

I wouldn't question his knowledge but I'm inclined to question the burden that knowledge has had on him. Perhaps it's me or I'm not understanding everything fully but there was a constant undertone in the article that was somewhat familiar yet not completely outright stated. It looked like the golden hammer problem. To me, it seems that the system was flawed but since its flaws also allowed it to be fixed, Durante was in favour of that, given that he has the knowledge to do so, it's almost circular logic to say that's better.

I wouldn't claim that's the case - I am not in any way an expert, as I said, but then again, I know the trouble of being locked into "expert mode". This is the entire reason why the golden hammer is one of the most often cited antipatterns in software development.

 

[Bombiz]

Did you happen to read Durante's article on PC Gamer?

- "Modding Restrictions" - to be honest, I wasn't thinking of this type of modding. This sounds like a tricky issue with no real right answers, really. Or, perhaps, it may be the wrong solution to the wrong problem. I'm not entirely sure. It depends how exactly you want to look at the bigger picture of the API-call-hijacks-as-mods. I might have to consider this more.

I just don't get why Microsoft thought putting any modding restrictions on would be a good thing.

 

[DoPo]

I just don't get why Microsoft thought putting any modding restrictions on would be a good thing.

They are Microsoft. I'm not entirely sure how better to explain it. Microsoft are REALLY bad at doing stuff in a compatible way. And that's in a compatible way with others, with themselves - the whole shebang.

In this specific case, it seems to be limitaion, or perhaps a feature, of the underlying UWP platform. It's using the .NET paradigm, if not a lot of the implementation. I'm not aware of the technical aspects there but overall, the concept is very similar to .NET - you write code which is then compiled to a something called a Common Language Runtime (CLR) which is technically the Windows specific code. It's not far off what Java does. Heck, it's a lot like what Java does but it's Windows specific.

At any rate, whatever the UWP compiles to, I'd assume it just communicates with other parts of the system by proxy, e.g., calling a system API which then transfers that call elsewhere. The modding Durante is talking about relies on intercepting the direct calls. For example, Durante's own DSFix hijacks DirectX calls and then modifies them in order to change how the game is rendered and as a result how it works in terms of performance and looks.

Using the new architecture it means it's more of a pain in the ass to modify the system calls. Not impossible but it would require more hacking than currently.

 

[Imperioratorex Caprae]

Coming from a guy who's made a name for himself fixing games on PC and knowing just how that all ties into the way windows handles programs, I trust he knows his stuff.

I wouldn't question his knowledge but I'm inclined to question the burden that knowledge has had on him. Perhaps it's me or I'm not understanding everything fully but there was a constant undertone in the article that was somewhat familiar yet not completely outright stated. It looked like the golden hammer problem. To me, it seems that the system was flawed but since its flaws also allowed it to be fixed, Durante was in favour of that, given that he has the knowledge to do so, it's almost circular logic to say that's better.

I wouldn't claim that's the case - I am not in any way an expert, as I said, but then again, I know the trouble of being locked into "expert mode". This is the entire reason why the golden hammer is one of the most often cited antipatterns in software development.

I'm thinking his view isn't so much as doing away with UWA/UWP as his view was giving users more ability over what can be done with the programs. Like if a developer comes out with a game that is broken in some way or otherwise poorly optimized, like Tales of Zestria or Dark Souls, there's no way he could have fixed those games because of how the fixes are done. There might be another way around it, but from the way he puts it seems like MS has more or less removed the ability to do so, made it untenable or otherwise difficult. If MS decides to lessen the impact of UWP on things like DSFix or injectors/wrappers, then it would be better overall for end-users having the ability to get their games fixed if the developers/publishers abandon them in an unplayable state. The example of Bloodlines was a great one. Imagine if that game was released under UWP and none of the fixes could have been done, a great game would have been relegated to the "this game is permafucked" pile and would never have gotten the cult status it has.
I think he's trying to look out for end-users and warning against the pitfalls of leaving UWP/UWA as it is. I absolutely agree with the way things are presented. If Microsoft follows up with this viewpoint and changes how the platform works, making it more user-controlled than Microsoft controlled on the user-end, then I'll be ok.
I'm not like some people, I give Microsoft the chance to change their stance. When the news about the XB1's functionality first came about and there was backlash, Microsoft decided to not go with their original plans. Do I hold up their former plans as a mark against them? No. I think its admirable for a company to actually hear their customers views and say "wait, maybe we're fucking this up." Sure they tried to do one thing, but they didn't hide it and they changed their stance because of the customers, that says a lot about them. Now they're doing something else with UWP that is easily seen as a bad precedent to send to the customers. Hopefully they hear about this and decide to change things, open it up a bit more. I give them the chance to do so before I call for the pitchforks and torches.

 

[CaitSeith]

Spoiler: Well, look who just joined the discussion... (SPOILERS: Jim Sterling)

Although he doesn't say anything that hasn't already been said here...

 

[BloatedGuppy]

I'll put this in the file with Jack Thompson, Anita Sarkeesian, Valve, Mobile Gaming, half a dozen generations of consoles, DLC, micro-transactions, always-online, Games for Windows Live, dozens of different forms of DRM, outrage culture, and all the other things I've been told will imminently destroy PC Gaming as I know it for the last thirty years.

The first year one college student who wants to bust out the boiling frog analogy gets a free Monet print to hang over their beanbag chair.

 

[Zipa]

Well you have to hand it to Gabe Newell, he called this when the store was first announced with Windows 8. I don't see it ever taking off though, Steam has too big of a presence at this point. That and PC gamers are going to be put off with using UWP when it restricts many of the staples of PC gaming.

 

[Adam Jensen_v1legacy]

Not that I know of. UWP is not limited to only the Windows store. At this point - that may not be true for the future, but it is for now. It's what the Windows spokesman also said.

"At this point" is a meaningless observation when Microsoft is the subject of the discussion. The entire point is to be outraged before Microsoft is allowed to do any real damage. How many times did gamers sit quietly, pretending to be rational and logical only to react when it's too fuckin' late to change anything? Microsoft's entire history revolves around trying to control every aspect of user experience. Their mindset is that users don't know what they want so they have to tell us. Does anybody here honestly think that Microsoft changed? Does anybody think that it's not the same company that thought original Xbone business model was a good idea? Does anybody think that Microsoft truly gave up on that idea?

And now once again we're witnessing a company trying to make gaming worse for everybody, and as usual gamers would rather try to look smart on the internet by missing the forest for the trees instead of reacting the way they're going to react anyway when it's too fuckin' late.

I don't know who pisses me off more, Microsoft or clueless gamers who simply refuse to learn from same mistakes.

 

[Something Amyss]

The first year one college student who wants to bust out the boiling frog analogy gets a free Monet print to hang over their beanbag chair.

Monet? Shouldn't it be Rand? Or is that when people start unironically busting out the "First They Came" lines?

"At this point" is a meaningless observation when Microsoft is the subject of the discussion.

Right. There's nothing stopping them in the future from making some sort of Metal-Gear-esque mecha using spare Kinects and spare building materials from the developers they've crushed. But you made specific claims and arguments that are currently not true. Claiming that they might eventually be true some day in a hypothetical future isn't useful here.

And now once again we're witnessing a company trying to make gaming worse for everybody, and as usual gamers would rather try to look smart on the internet by missing the forest for the trees instead of reacting the way they're going to react anyway when it's too fuckin' late.

I'd still prefer to wait for some evidence that they're actually doing this, rather than tweets from someone who doesn't know what he's talking about and scary language about slippery slopes. Right now, you're "pissed off" at people for not acting before there's evidence or any sort of credible threat. Does that seem even remotely reasonable?

You dramatically proclaimed the death of PC gaming and now you're surprised...angry, even...that some people actually look at your claim critically and see it for what it is? Shouldn't that be a red flag in and of itself?

 

[Adam Jensen_v1legacy]

Well you have to hand it to Gabe Newell, he called this when the store was first announced with Windows 8.

It's not that difficult to see for someone who's job is to know these things. And he used to work at Microsoft.

After everything that Microsoft has done in the past and that they've been trying to do in these last couple of years (like Xbone reveal and forcing Windows 10 on everybody by hiding Windows 10 installer inside security updates) only people living under a rock don't know what Microsoft is about. So of course they demand evidence as if there isn't already a metric shitton of evidence all throughout Microsoft's history.

 

[Saulkar]

Even if it turns out to be nothing I want Microsoft to know that we will not go along quietly with such hypothetical practices, ever.

 

[viranimus]

If you are even using windows 10 you really have no reason to get upset over this. You already agreed to TOS that gives them ALL the rights, you can be neither upset nor surprised that they are actually implementing such things.

If you did not want your brains bashed in with a baseball bat, you should have said no when Microsoft asked to borrow your baseball bat.

What I find upsetting is that people actively do things like this that harm not only themselves but everyone else around them.

 

[Odbarc]

If Microsoft stops having gaming PCs, they'll open up a market for gaming PCs from another developer.
If the idea is to push people into the Xbox, I'd go to the Sony Playstation instead.

 

[mad825]

This just-in Microsoft wants a slice of the Steam pie like everyone else. People quickly resort to scaremongering and start loving to bash Windows (again).

As the saying goes; haters gonna hate.

 

[WeepingAngels]

I understand those who say "don't over-react" but I don't agree with them. I am glad people over-reacted to the Xbox One reveal, it allowed time for changes to be made and changes were made. Do we want a more abusive version of Steam because not reacting to this is how you get it. Not that I give Steam a pass, I don't. PC gaming should not be owned by any one company and that is basically where Valve is right now.

 

[WeepingAngels]

If Microsoft stops having gaming PCs, they'll open up a market for gaming PCs from another developer.
If the idea is to push people into the Xbox, I'd go to the Sony Playstation instead.

No, the idea is to create a walled garden like the Xbox on PC.

 

[Odbarc]

If Microsoft stops having gaming PCs, they'll open up a market for gaming PCs from another developer.
If the idea is to push people into the Xbox, I'd go to the Sony Playstation instead.

No, the idea is to create a walled garden like the Xbox on PC.

Pirates and hackers will save us when they find the ways to get past and through these stupid additions.

 

[WeepingAngels]

If Microsoft stops having gaming PCs, they'll open up a market for gaming PCs from another developer.
If the idea is to push people into the Xbox, I'd go to the Sony Playstation instead.

No, the idea is to create a walled garden like the Xbox on PC.

Pirates and hackers will save us when they find the ways to get past and through these stupid additions.

...or people could object now, before it goes too far. I read today on Reddit that ISP's will now be forced to give up your details to copyright holders. Wouldn't be putting my faith in piracy if I were you.

 

[aegix drakan_v1legacy]

Pirates and hackers will save us when they find the ways to get past and through these stupid additions.

And then Microsoft will wage a war on said pirates and keep patching the holes they make and make things a HUGE pain in the ass.

Remember windows 10 makes updates Mandatory. So if you're running a hack to get past the Walled Garden, a patch would immediately cripple it, or worse, damage your system.

Better to stop the problem BEFORE it happens.

I mean, is it better to go "oh, we have parachutes to save us from this plane that's out of fuel and about to crash!" or is it better to go "OY OY! I'm not getting on a plane that has a leaking fuel tank! In fact, no one should get on a plane with a leaking fuel tank! Get me the manager of this airport!"