Microsoft Adds New Game-centric Features to Universal Windows Platform

[btarunr]

Microsoft added two new features to its Universal Windows Platform (UWP), the company's non-Win32 application environment built around the Windows Store and modern UI. With the latest update to Windows 10, Microsoft updated UWP to support adaptive-sync technologies such as NVIDIA G-SYNC and AMD FreeSync; and removed frame-rate limits. Games built on UWP (such as "Quantum Break") suffered from frame-rate caps.

UWP continues to be criticized for taking a "walled-garden" approach to third-party apps, restricting them to Microsoft APIs such as DirectX. The platform continues to suffer from several limitations for games, such as support for APIs such as OpenGL and Vulkan; and proprietary multi-GPU technologies such as SLI and CrossFire; or support for game-mods.



View at TechPowerUp Main Site

 

[btarunr]

It's very very important for everyone who loves PC as a gaming platform, that UWP fails miserably.

 

[vega22]

criticized for being a taking a "walled-garden" approach

 

[RejZoR]

It's very very important for everyone who loves PC as a gaming platform, that UWP fails miserably.

Question is, why is MS again pushing this garbage after their absolute Games for Windows Live garbage disaster? They still don't get it we don't want this locked down limited nonsense. It never worked and never will. Yeah, I'm not gonna buy a single game from it. The same way I refuse to buy anything from Ubisoft because of their dumb UPlay and the way they treat gamers, the same I'll refuse to buy anything from Microsoft that will be provided through their crap. If that means missing exclusives that were only available on Xbox till now, then so be it. If people had same principles and they stood by them, this Universal Windows nonsense or whatever it's called would die months ago already...

 

[The Quim Reaper]

Question is, why is MS again pushing this garbage after their absolute Games for Windows Live garbage disaster?

Because MS are all about controlling every area the operate in, they'll keep trying with this sort of stuff until they hit the jackpot.

 

[RejZoR]

And all they have to offer are console exclusives from Xbox. Anyone preferring their stupid store over GOG, Origin or Steam is just plain stupid. Educate people where to buy games and how to avoid stupid MS Store.

 

[Naito]

Because MS are all about controlling every area the operate in, they'll keep trying with this sort of stuff until they hit the jackpot.

Most companies do this. It's called capitalism. People just seem to like to take their blinkers off when Microsoft is in the equation.

And all they have to offer are console exclusives from Xbox. Anyone preferring their stupid store over GOG, Origin or Steam is just plain stupid. Educate people where to buy games and how to avoid stupid MS Store.

You're either a very angry or very opinionated person. I don't think I've ever read anything positive in your posts.

 

[Frick]

It's very very important for everyone who loves PC as a gaming platform, that UWP fails miserably.

Why?

 

[Naito]

Why?

I think this is just flame bait. btarunr seems to have been doing this more often lately rather then maintaining an objective outlook.

 

[Ferrum Master]

Actually I played through the Forza Apex beta on that platform... ZERO problems... and I actually enjoyed the title. Most of you just shout without trying...

 

[Solidstate89]

It's very very important for everyone who loves PC as a gaming platform, that UWP fails miserably.

No. UWP is a replacement for the aged, outdated and deprecated Win32. This is about far more than gaming and you're unbelievably short sighed and petty to want UWP to fail.

I hope it succeeds and continues to gain API support so that Win32 can finally be put to rest. Unless you happen to enjoy .DLL hell and unsecured, unsandboxed applications?

Edit: You also all seem to be confused and think UWP apps are restricted to the Microsoft Store; they're not. Anyone can package their program in the .appx container and sell it on any storefront. Even back in the November update last year the setting was switched to default mode to always allow third party signed applications. It's no different than installing an .msi installer.

Then you also have the fact that Project Centennial is allowing companies to package up their old Win32 apps in a wrapper and have them sold as an .appx package, despite retaining all the functionality of the old application. UWP is an nothing more than a new API set; it is not restricted in anyway to just the Microsoft Store. The sooner the rest of you realize that, the better informed you'll be.

 

[rtwjunkie]

UWP needs to fail. Unless of course people don't want any of.the games they already play and enjoy.

There are publishers and.developers out there that have already taken a stand against it. Count their games out, and others will follow.

I am certainly no fan of Steam (I use it grudgingly), but the fact they have become so powerful as far as gaming goes is the only thing that has kept MS from completely f*cking us....hard.

 

[R-T-B]

Most companies do this. It's called capitalism. People just seem to like to take their blinkers off when Microsoft is in the equation.

Capitalism depends on healthy competition and consumer willpower to survive. MS is doing everything it can to crush the competition right now via this "walled-garden" so the free market has every right to reject it, and should.

I am certainly no fan of Steam (I use it grudgingly), but the fact they have become so powerful as far as gaming goes is the only thing that has kept MS from completely f*cking us....hard.

You know, I want to agree with you, as I don't think the Steam monopoly on that side is good either. But... at least steam doesn't have their head so far up their ass they can't see the shining sun that is gamers with money who will line up to pay for gaming in a reasonable, open, fair-DRM fashion.

 

[Frick]

UWP needs to fail. Unless of course people don't want any of.the games they already play and enjoy.

What does this even mean?

 

[Solidstate89]

UWP needs to fail. Unless of course people don't want any of.the games they already play and enjoy.

Demonstrably false.

This sideload setting is something we've explicitly advocated for, and we're glad to see it added to Windows 10. The Windows 10 November Update, version 1511, went a step further and made this setting the default. The PC as a platform retains its full power, and the user is in full control of what can and can't run, but by default the system is reasonably safe. With this option enabled, direct downloads, third-party stores, and third-party sales are all possible, enabling a putative UWP-compatible Steam, say, that signed all its games with its own signature.

It would be straightforward enough to make this work for apps downloaded from the Web, too. Just make the app's installer add the relevant certificate to the system.
http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2016/03/tim-sweeney-is-missing-the-point-the-pc-platform-needs-fixing/

UWP needs to be furthered improved, iterated and evolved to allow more functionality and more performance without going back to the inherently unsafe days of Win32. UWP is a thoroughly modern API set. Wishing for its death is both petty and ignorant. There is more to computing than simply gaming and you need to recognize that. And even when it comes to gaming, as I said above, because of things like Project Centennial even a game that was designed with Win32 in mind for its API set, can be converted to an .appx package and enjoy some (but not all, since it isn't a true UWP application) of the security protections.

 

[rtwjunkie]

What does this even mean?

If you read the rest, then it makes perfect sense. There are already publishers that don't want their games on UWP. That means those will not be available.

 

[Naito]

Perhaps Microsoft is looking to a future where consoles don't exist. If you think about it, consoles are becoming less viable every year as leaps and bounds in computing power has created a scenario where they age quickly. Some day, Microsoft may impose a guideline of minimum, recommended, and enthusiast levels of hardware which manufacturers can build to and developers can chose to target or support with their games and apps. With proper certification procedures, we could have a more open system of pseudo-consoles and PC hardware, rather than the tradional, locked-down console. Even develop certified accessories similar to what consoles have now. Valve has had a similar idea with their Steam Box. Think of the possibility of buying one game license and being able to play it on any compatible UWP system. Games could auto configure to the detected specification level based on Microsoft's guidlines, or a more tech-savvy user can hit the advanced tab to tweak further. Play on a 'console' in your living room and move to the PC and pick up from where you were. Developers may also enjoy greater security from piracy.

 

[Frick]

If you read the rest, then it makes perfect sense. There are already publishers that don't want their games on UWP. That means those will not be available.

Ah. So it should fail because some want it to? And your comment made it sound like you meant you wouldn't be able to play games you play today.

 

[rtwjunkie]

Actually, that would be the case. MS can only put games in there that are allowed by publishers. If a publisher says "no"(Epic and Valve for starters) and UWP becomes replacement for W32, then their games are not available to consumers.

Expect M$ at some point to say "if you're with us, you can't use any other means of distribution". Consumers will suffer. When has MS ever demonstrated they knew what they were doing with PC gaming? I have no reason to exhibit blind faith in either their abilities, or their intentions.

Anyway, I've said my peace, and see no reason to argue...neither position among us will change anything. Since I stated my viewpoint, I'll back out now, and leave others to argue as they see fit.

 

[HisDivineOrder]

I could sit here and pontificate on all the reasons why UWP needs to die, but why should I? Smarter men have already done so. Tim Sweeney's arguments have made a lot of news, but the better one comes from the guy who famously fixed Dark Souls to be playable on PC after From Software did a crap release. Ironically, that example is a PERFECT example of what will not be possible under the new UWP future that a few idiots think we should move to. Perhaps if publishers were trustworthy and could be expected to release perfect games that are optimized and run well, then yes. But we don't live in that world with ponies for all the little kiddies and rainbows with pots of gold at the end of them. We live in the real world. And in the real world, we need the ability to let smart men and women fix our games when the less motivated developers don't do the job of making sure their games run great.

Read:

http://www.pcgamer.com/why-pc-games-should-never-become-universal-apps/

 

[R-T-B]

inherently unsafe days of Win32.

There is nothing inherently unsafe about Win32 other than the fact you need to know what you are running. Win32 still obeys filesystem/user permissions, etc.... No, there isn't a censorship board saying what can be doubleclicked, and that's kinda the point.

 

[Solidstate89]

There is nothing inherently unsafe about Win32 other than the fact you need to know what you are running. No, there isn't a censorship board saying what can be doubleclicked, and that's kinda the point.

Are you serious? Win32 is an inherently unsafe API. The fact that any application is allowed to access any part of your system by default (unless the dev goes out of their way to institute integrity level restrictions) is all the facts I need for the claim that it is inherently unsafe. It's unsafe by default. That you even try to claim otherwise shows your lack of understanding.

 

[R-T-B]

Are you serious? Win32 is an inherently unsafe API. The fact that any application is allowed to access any part of your system by default (unless the dev goes out of their way to institute integrity level restrictions) is all the facts I need for the claim that it is inherently unsafe. It's unsafe by default. That you even try to claim otherwise shows your lack of understanding.

Lack of understanding? I'm a developer so I find that amusing.

It must obey the restrictions of the user at which it is run as, period. Sure, these restrictions aren't very strong (basically filesystem level), but this does not make it "inherently unsafe." Inherently unsafe means something is going to happen to you if you use it at some point. Fact is, if you don't download sketchy software and run it and stick to reputable sources, that won't happen.

You also don't seem to understand the concept of "any part of your system." There's this thing called protected memory space (and later, noexecute), and we've had it since I don't know, OS/2 and MS-DOS (well, that bastardized MS-DOS in Wind9x anyhow).

I use to program in assembly where I truly have access to everything though, and I consider even "modern" languages like C# to be pointlessly high level, so maybe I am biased.

 

[Solidstate89]

Lack of understanding? I'm a developer so I find that amusing.

It must obey the restrictions of the user at which it is run as, period. Sure, these restrictions aren't very strong (basically filesystem level), but this does not make it "inherently unsafe." Inherently unsafe means something is going to happen to you if you use it at some point. Fact is, if you don't download sketchy software and run it and stick to reputable sources, that won't happen.

Unless of course you download legitimate software that gets hijacked and used for illegitimate means. Not that that's ever happened before of course. There's also the fact that privilege escalation exists as well, meaning the user level restrictions are pretty pointless unless a concerted effort is made to try and isolate the program from the system, like Google's engineers do with Chrome. The put a ton of effort into making their browser as secure as possible within the Win32 environment. Meanwhile in the UWP environment, it is secured, isolated and sandboxed by default. There is no other means of existence. Blaming the user for inherent security deficiencies in Win32 doesn't do anything to lessen the fact that Win32 is a security nightmare that Microsoft has done its best to lock down with UAC and integrity levels over the years, but is still a very old and very outdated API system in this modern age of computing.

The low level requirements necessary for development means that Win32 will never truly go away, but nor is it even remotely necessary for an application to have unfettered access to your filesystem through a simple escalation exploit. Even legitimate applications abuse the shit out your system and its security. Steam for crying out loud marks your entire games directory is writeable by all, that's why you never get a UAC prompt during installation of games. There's also still games out there (like Battlefield) that for some inexplicably stupid reason run better as admin, or even flat out require admin permissions to run. That's insane in this day and age with what we know about security.

You also don't seem to understand the concept of "any part of your system." There's this thing called protected memory space (and later, noexecute), and we've had it since I don't know, OS/2 and MS-DOS (well, that bastardized MS-DOS in Wind9x anyhow).

We've also been given a lot of security protections and implementations over the years that are designed to make Win32 more secure. ASLR, HEASLR, DEP, ROP mitigations, Control Flow Guard, etc, etc, etc. The list goes on. I can only think of DEP in that list that is actually required these days for new developers to implement in Win32 applications. Or at the very lease when developing using Visual Studio, it's set to default to "ON."

 

[R-T-B]

Pretty much everything you state is an inherent risk with machines executing code in general.

Privilege escalation is almost guranteed to be present in UWP. Why? I look at historical cases. The JVM has tried to use sandboxing for years and honestly, were one of the pioneers of it. Because the nature of how these exploits tend to work, they failed miserably because it relies on holes in the software that must be patched (back in the day, buffer overflow attacks were hot).

It comes down to a difference in ideology. Do we want to teach people that the platform is secure so they don't need to worry, and then have it eventually blow up in their faces with them having no idea what to do? Or do we want to teach people to actually use their brains and have a little idea of how their computer works so when hell breaks lose, they can manage?

Maybe I'm stuck in a snooty developers mindset, but I prefer the later. There is nothing wrong with sandboxing of course, but treating it as the "fix" for managing what runs on your computer and what it can/can't do is a bad idea. in the end what ultimately runs on your machine is your responsibility. Don't blame the API and call it insecure because it can run things that are bad. I'm sure UWP can too, it'll just have to jump through more hoops (and incur more performance penalties to legitimate software) to do it. But the bad guys are up that challenge. They always are.

I will concede though that Win32 is old. It's got it's drawbacks. I just don't think UWP is the fix for it, at least not the way they are handling it through a "store" and such. It's leading the users on to believe nothing bad will happen and I assure you that's not going to end well.