Microsoft Adds New Game-centric Features to Universal Windows Platform

[Solidstate89]

Security is about layers; that's about as simple as it gets. Sandboxing adds yet another layer to that security cake and we shouldn't be bitching about removing it. Also, the JVM is actually incredibly secure. There are very few exploits (and the ones that exist are ingenious as hell) that break out of the actual JVM sandbox.

Where Java's security is a complete fucking joke is the web plugin. Oh good god it's so bad.

UWP adds more layers of security than Win32 could ever hope to, owing the age of it. It's also adding feature parity at a break neck pace. UWP has only existed since Windows 10 launched, and even though it has its roots in WinRT, it's still a very different beast offering far more functionality and far more performance than WinRT - which is now thankfully dead. UWP will continue to evolve, will continue to get features added to it to increase feature parity with Win32, but it'll be done in a far more secured and sandboxed manner. Just this week an update was released to give G-Sync and FreeSync support to UWP applications which they were lacking before. Claiming UWP needs to die because right this moment it isn't 100% feature compliant with Win32 (which has been around for fucking decades) just reeks of shortsightedness.

 

[Fx]

Screw UWP. I do not trust Microsoft to be the leading faction to decide how my games run. I don't even have confidence in them for the direction that the Windows platform has been going since Win8. No thanks.

 

[etayorius]

After all that times MS promised to make PC Gaming great... then GFWL, i rather not touch games for UWP.

 

[matar]

This is good news that's means Microsoft is working on a better gaming experience next they have to implement Sli support
I Think this is going to be the feature of AAA games I am ok about it.
A big plus of windows 10 store each game you buy can be installed on 10 devices.

 

[semantics]

Screw UWP. I do not trust Microsoft to be the leading faction to decide how my games run. I don't even have confidence in them for the direction that the Windows platform has been going since Win8. No thanks.

So no DirectX for you

I don't get just immediate dislike for things which are good because you dislike other facets of a company.

 

[dorsetknob]

What Is Short Selling? | Investopedia
www.investopedia.com/university/shortselling/shortselling1.asp
The shares are sold and the proceeds are credited to your account. Sooner or later, you must "close" the short by buying back the same number of shares (called covering) and returning them to your broker. If the price drops, you can buy back the stock at the lower price and make a profit on the difference.


Any one PARANOID Here enough to See the PLAN

 

[SonicZap]

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".

I can't see this threat. UWP, while a "replacement" for the Win32 API, won't lead to Win32 getting removed from Windows (think about all the legacy software). So, if MS makes it impossible to distribute UWP apps in non-Windows Store means, developers can just start using Win32 again and use the distribution methods that they've used so far.

UWP as an API set is clearly a positive thing; it's more secure, less bloated and in some ways probably also better performing than the ancient Win32. Like has been brought up already, UWP as a platform isn't tied to the Windows Store; it's just a more modern and secure platform for running applications.

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?

Microsoft actually doesn't have a better option than UWP when it comes to security. Thanks to iOS and Android tablets, Macs and Chromebooks where pretty much everything is already using a UWP-like sandboxed and secure platform, 99% of users (non-power users) are expecting the same from Windows. If these users don't get security in the platform (which actually "blows up in their face" quite rarely) but have to handle it themselves, these people will think that Windows is an inferior platform and will move away from Windows. So, with UWP and sandboxing Microsoft is actually late to the party and they're more or less forced to move into that direction or risk Windows being seen as an insecure platform -> which'd lead to market share loss.

MS could try to improve the security of Win32, but it'd lead to lots of broken legacy apps and angry users - see what effect even a "relatively simple" change like UAC had. (UAC was just a way to force programs to run with non-admin priveleges unless they really needed the admin priveleges)

Maybe I'm stuck in a snooty developers mindset, but I prefer the later.

And I'm a developer too, and I like the approach MS has taken with UWP, and will likely make UWP apps in the future (with the assumptions that MS keeps UWP apps installable / "side-load-able" without getting them from the Store, and that Windows 10 market share keeps on growing rapidly).

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.

Just like all companies and institutions, those "bad guys" don't have endless resources. Forcing them to spend more effort, time and money on defeating security mechanisms means less profit for them. Which means that for many of those bad guys, making malware will end up being unprofitable / not worth it and they'll give up.

 

[Fx]

So no DirectX for you

Hmm, well, you never know. Gaming on the linux platform is gaining traction; we might find ourselves with more options in the near future and giving MS the middle finger.

I just began my hunt for an alternative every day OS for general tasks aside from gaming.

I don't get just immediate dislike for things which are good because you dislike other facets of a company.

You should know that many times when an idea is sold, only the best aspects about the initiative are mentioned and that potential downsides are obscured or played down. It is in Microsoft's best interest to not reveal how they intend to hoard more power over the market. With that said, MS has a horrible track record...

 

[rtwjunkie]

What is staggering to me are the number of people that, despite many, many years of evidence to the contrary, still cling to a desperate belief that THIS time, MS actually knows what they are doing with PC gaming, and actually mean what they say about supporting it.

 

[SonicZap]

What is staggering to me are the number of people that, despite many, many years of evidence to the contrary, still cling to a desperate belief that THIS time, MS actually knows what they are doing with PC gaming, and actually mean what they say about supporting it.

I don't trust MS with PC gaming at all. They've done some great things to it (DirectX), but GFWL was absolutely horrible and destroyed at least one game that I otherwise found okay (Universe at War). However, UWP isn't only about games. It's about Windows programs / apps and the platform as a whole; UWP is meant to be a platform for all future Windows applications, not just games. While UWP's benefits aren't that significant (and the drawbacks are) when it comes to games, UWP in general can bring a massive improvement over Win32 in daily-use and productivity software. So, I think that wishing UWP's death or failure just because it doesn't offer much for games is extremely short-sighted.

There's also that Windows is an open platform; currently even UWP is an open plaftorm (you can install apps without getting them from the Store). Even if MS locked UWP to their store, Win32 wouldn't go anywhere and so Windows would remain an open platform. Win32 isn't going anywhere for decades.

If Microsoft keeps UWP as an open platform, it can be a great replacement for Win32. Currently I see people bashing Microsoft for even attempting to make something new and more secure to replace the two-decade old and insecure Win32, which is silly.

 

[Easo]

UWP hate is retarded.
Try to look outside the scope of games, please.
Literally the same app fricking works on PC, phone, Xbox and future devices (Hololens), is faster, eats less battery power, uninstalls 100% cleanly, etc.

 

[rtwjunkie]

UWP hate is retarded.
Try to look outside the scope of games, please.

Except....most of Microsoft's recent announcements and efforts regarding it have been game-centric. Of course the focus is going to be on it as a gaming platform. Microsoft has focused the scope there.

 

[Frick]

Except....most of Microsoft's recent announcements and efforts regarding it have been game-centric. Of course the focus is going to be on it as a gaming platform. Microsoft has focused the scope there.

Pretty sure most of the efforts have nothing to do with games as such, it's just that gamers are loud and obnoxious and therefore a worthy pursuit.

And aren't things famously terrible in gaming now anyway? All day long all I see is bitching about ports, and that is a valod thing to bitch about because they can indeed be famously terrible, but I don't know what people think. What exactly would be the optimal path forward? Linux, diverging things even more, or what?

 

[R-T-B]

Where Java's security is a complete fucking joke is the web plugin. Oh good god it's so bad.

No disagreement there. It's honestly reached the point where it's limiting Java's actual install base because people recommend you don't install it. Hurts devs on the platform.

Let me drive something home: I have NOTHING against UWP when it allows me to use non-walledgarden libraries like OpenGL, and such. Right now, it's trying to replace all that with microsoft-only solutions, many of which cost money. Fuck that.

And aren't things famously terrible in gaming now anyway?

No.

In Triple A gaming maybe.

 

[Solidstate89]

Except....most of Microsoft's recent announcements and efforts regarding it have been game-centric. Of course the focus is going to be on it as a gaming platform. Microsoft has focused the scope there.

They've no more focused the scope of UWP on gaming than they have on literally every other genre of application. MS isn't stupid; they know that gaming is a big reason why people still use Windows, so of course they want to add feature parity to UWP to better compete against Win32 which has had literally decades of development done to it - both good and bad.

Wanting UWP to die - even though it's a far more modern, and far more secure API for EVERY application that's built for it - just because it isn't literally perfect this very moment (even though we're already seeing more gaming focused functionality added to it to make it better) is beyond stupid and short sighted. This is what MS is betting on finally being able to replace Win32 for the vast majority of applications and programs in existence. Something that in its default state is far more secure than anything you could make with Win32. Damning it to oblivion because of one imperfect aspect at this point in time is just unbelievably ignorant. They've already even announced about making it even easier to install third party UWP apps for the Anniversary Update. SLI/Crossfire support is already functional if the developer wants to code for it (remember, in DirectX 12, due to the low level nature, this kind of thing is up to the developer, it doesn't leave a lot of room for driver optimizations). The biggest thing that's still missing in terms of functionality is modding equivalent to that available on something like the Nexus Forums.

Even then though, they already announced at BUILD 2016 that they would be allowing developer mod solutions like Steam's Workshop model to work in UWP games. UWP is by no means a mature API platform yet. Don't judge it as one.

 

[R-T-B]

Damning it to oblivion because of one imperfect aspect is just unbelievably ignorant.

I won't damn it to oblivion the moment it takes the walled garden approach away. The moment it does that, I'll back down. But as it stands, I see nothing worth the expense of being forced to use all MS APIs in graphics and elsewhere (heck, I don't even think you can pull in SQLite or something last time I checked, but I develop for Win32 so could be wrong).

This isn't just limiting consumer options in mods. It's limiting developer flexibility itself.

 

[rtwjunkie]

They've no more focused the scope of UWP on gaming than they have on literally every other genre of application. MS isn't stupid; they know that gaming is a big reason why people still use Windows, so of course they want to add feature parity to UWP to better compete against Win32 which has had literally decades of development done to it - both good and bad.

Wanting UWP to die - even though it's a far more modern, and far more secure API for EVERY application that's built for it - just because it isn't literally perfect this very moment (even though we're already seeing more gaming focused functionality added to it to make it better) is beyond stupid and short sighted. This is what MS is betting on finally being able to replace Win32 for the vast majority of applications and programs in existence. Something that in its default state is far more secure than anything you could make with Win32. Damning it to oblivion because of one imperfect aspect at this point in time is just unbelievably ignorant. They've already even announced about making it even easier to install third party UWP apps for the Anniversary Update. SLI/Crossfire support is already functional if the developer wants to code for it (remember, in DirectX 12, due to the low level nature, this kind of thing is up to the developer, it doesn't leave a lot of room for driver optimizations). The biggest thing that's still missing in terms of functionality is modding equivalent to that available on something like the Nexus Forums.

Even then though, they already announced at BUILD 2016 that they would be allowing developer mod solutions like Steam's Workshop model to work in UWP games. UWP is by no means a mature API platform yet. Don't judge it as one.

I disagree with you, but I respect your point of view. It is well thought out and reasoned, so I understand where you're coming from.

My opposition is because of the walled garden, that MS has deliberately put gaming into. I don't know how aware you are of MS's history of claiming to support PC gaming countless times, and then either shown apathy or actively worked against it.

Like the boy who cried wolf and was not believed, MS could tell me the sky is blue, and I would need independant verification. You and I disagree, but I respect your well explained position. I figure I will leave it at that.

 

[Solidstate89]

My point that I keep making - that you don't seem to get - is that UWP is not specifically for gaming. Neither is the Windows Store. These are multi-purpose solutions, with the store being a curated front for applications and UWP being an entirely new API set meant to eventually replace Win32 for the vast majority of programs that currently exist for Windows that don't need anywhere near the kind of unfettered access that Win32 allows them.

This not a specific gaming feature to any of it beyond the fact that you can also make games. Your comparisons to GFWL are completely off for this one simple reason because you're focusing on just a small subset of what UWP entails and blowing it up and comparing it to something it most certainly isn't.

I won't damn it to oblivion the moment it takes the walled garden approach away.

Again, for the umpteenth time; the Windows Store is not UWP and UWP is not the Windows Store. The Windows Store is a walled garden, UWP is an API to make modern, sandboxed applications in. You can make and release a UWP app independent of the Store.

 

[rtwjunkie]

Let me guess, you don't really appreciate differences of opinion or debating, do you? You're one of those that MUST be right, else your world will crash down around you?

 

[R-T-B]

Again, for the umpteenth time; the Windows Store is not UWP and UWP is not the Windows Store. The Windows Store is a walled garden, UWP is an API to make modern, sandboxed applications in. You can make and release a UWP app independent of the Store.

Can you use OpenGL or an external library?

This is an honest question. I've never tried developing a UWP app and am going by the article above.

PS: I couldn't care less about Windows store. I'm more concerned about resource access for modding and developer freedom.

You're one of those that MUST be right, else your world will crash down around you?

I don't know, I haven't been wrong yet so it's hard to say.


Sarcasm, naturally (I've actually been wrong a lot). And I know it wasn't for me but I had to bite.

 

[Melvis]

I want Killer Instinct on steam please and working on Windows 7 please MS, can you do that or have you forced me (and 51% of all MS uses) to upgrade to a platform I dont want to use?

 

[Bjorn_Of_Iceland]

This thing should just die already.

 

[MxPhenom 216]

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

No its true. UWP needs to die, just as GFWL did.

 

[Vayra86]

UWP is effectively a MS-controlled ecosystem within Windows. If this cancer is allowed to gain market share, users lose control over their applications, MS will be judge and jury with regards to what works and what doesn't, and all our machines take the massive step backward into the closed box ecosystem that those losers over at Apple are bound to.

I really could care less about the sandbox and its security. MS has built an OS that works very well today but they keep trying to push their market strategy within that OS and UWP is the worst iteration of it to date. They get more and more devious about it and it is scary as fuck. At the same time, they have been building on an OS that has very specific perks such as its configurable nature, both in hard- and software, and UWP is the one thing that will destroy all those perks in one strike. And all that, only to cater to a silly market strategy that does nothing to further the PC environment, but everything to cater to tablets and mobile devices. As always, security is used as the cover for pushing more control over the customer and the user, just like governments use terrorism and child pornography to reduce or remove civil rights.

UWP is of the same caliber as the dreaded Windows 8 Metro UI release, it's just a different tool for the same purpose. One Windows. One MS Store. One race to the bottom. They really do love taking one step forward and two steps back, just when you think they saw the light with Windows 10, they launch UWP and they do it with a level of arrogance that we know all too well. If this was really 'for its users' then it would not be enforced, it would be offered. Right now, this is just MS changing the rules of the game when the majority of its players have already entered it. The timing of UWP's launch and the state it got launched in, says enough. In the meantime, actual products that actual users paid actual money for, work like crap on it.

Now what they *should* do, if they want what people in this thread state UWP is for, is keep improving and keep monitoring Win32 and its security. That is all, and it means doing some work for nothing more than the continuation of a near-monopoly on Operating Systems. Apparently for MS, this is not enough or too much work. UWP is a solution for an imaginary problem and a vehicle for pushing a market strategy.

 

[PLAfiller]

I find the quick poll a bit useless in my opinion. I am not a statistical guy, but "Yes/No" questions typically don't cater for discussion and given the context - a lot of tech-savvy people, I'd say the results must be with some huuge margins for interpretation.