Epic Games founder says Microsoft's patches will make Steam progressively worse

http://www.pcgamer.com/tim-sweeney-thinks-microsoft-will-make-steam-progressively-worse-with-windows-10-patches/

by carlosrg • 10 years ago

115 131 10 years ago

crummy• 10 years ago

There are so many "what ifs" to get to his feared state. It's hard for me to imagine Microsoft phasing out win32 (especially after the disastrous results on WinRT).

pjc502• 10 years ago

While Win32 is hard to phase out, DirectX is more flexible and crucially not critical to business users of Windows. There was already a mini-version of this fiasco when DX11 launched for 7 but not Vista. Microsoft could quite easily say that e.g. DX16 would require UWP, distribution through the Windows store, telemetry, ad insertion, whatever.

(Let's not also forget the disaster that was Games For Windows Live)

animal5312• 10 years ago

Agreed, and it's still here; you can only get DX12 with Win10.

That hasn't kicked up as many waves yet because the tech has been slow to adopt.

pjc502• 10 years ago

This is something that has long been feared. It's also rather like the Y2K problem in that as long as people make a noise about it, it can be prevented - but preventing it leaves all the complainers looking alarmist.

It's also why Valve have invested in the Steam Machine. At the moment it's not a serious competitive prospect, but it's there ready as an escape valve.

After all, only one company can get a 10-30% cut of games sold to run on Windows, and Microsoft don't see why it shouldn't be them.

Microsoft do phase things out, but only slowly, with long migration times for business users.

justaman• 10 years ago

Not to mention supporting linux more aggressively.

jasonkostempski4• 10 years ago

A Steam Machine is just as bad as a Microsoft Machine.

vlunkr• 10 years ago

Not for Valve.

ferrari8608• 10 years ago

Bad in what way(s) in particular?

Zikes• 10 years ago

A Steam Machine is just Linux and Steam, with some UI differences.

Games aren't being developed to run on Steam Machines. They're being made Linux compatible, and incidentally that makes them run on Steam Machines.

Sacho• 10 years ago

Sweeney provides this as Microsoft's alleged strategy to get rid of Steam:

"Slowly, over the next five years, they will force-patch Windows 10 to make Steam progressively worse and more broken. They’ll never completely break it, but will continue to break it until, in five years, people are so fed up that Steam is buggy that the Windows Store seems like an ideal alternative. That’s exactly what they did to their previous competitors in other areas. Now they’re doing it to Steam. It’s only just starting to become visible. Microsoft might not be competent enough to succeed with their plan, but they’re certainly trying."

What previous competitors is he talking about?

0xcde4c3db• 10 years ago

There used to be a saying "DOS ain't done 'til Lotus won't run" (although that's now largely regarded as apocryphal/inaccurate), and the memos around the "AARD code" [1] are fairly damning.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AARD_code

13of40• 10 years ago

That happened 25 years ago, and even the guy who wrote the code has been dead for eight. I don't think it's a solid data point for predicting what Microsoft is going to do tomorrow.

osxrand• 10 years ago

It could also be how they made QuickTime very (more?) unstable on Windows, or the IE extension in OS 9 that WOZ proved to cause the OS to crash.

Someone1234• 10 years ago

QuickTime didn't need Microsoft's help. Apple didn't update it aside from security fixes for almost eight years.

As an aside do you have any actual evidence that Microsoft made QuickTime more unstable on Windows? Or is that just supposition?

PS - OS 9, like Windows 9x, lacked protected memory. So I have no doubt that a leak or other error in IE for Mac could cause the OS to crash. I hardly think that's really solid proof, just more proof that operating systems without memory protection are inherently a bad idea.

staticelf2• 10 years ago

I don't really understand why it bothers game makers? Either it's Steam that takes a 30% cut or it's Microsoft?

Sure you can sell your games standalone and I doubt that will never change but most games benefit on being on a platform like Steam or Microsoft Store. For me as a consumer, I like that there is competition.

kyriakos• 10 years ago

I think it boils down to Windows store being a bad marketplace implementation to start with and the fact that only universal apps are allowed which can be limiting to some developers. To be fair though Microsoft fixed many of the shortcomings already.

carlosrg2• 10 years ago

The thing is that if one day Microsoft decides to phase out the Win32 platform and leave only UWP, right now the only official way to get UWP apps is through the Microsoft's Windows Store. So the competition you're talking about would disappear because there would be only one way to get Windows software, the Microsoft way. It would be impossible to have competing App Stores, similar to the situation right now on iOS.

Seems far-fetched but I can see Microsoft slowly deprecating Win32. It would be similar to when Apple deprecated Carbon, only slower: they'll stop adding new features, they'll tell developers to avoid it for any new development, etc. Won't happen overnight though as they're too much legacy software out there, but it could happen in the span of several years, a decade or so. Right now what I'm saying is fiction but it's a possibility any store developer like Valve and customers too should have in mind.

maze-le• 10 years ago

This will be the day I abandon Windows completeley. Right now, I only use it for games anyhow. But as you said, it will probably be a long way, with enough time to make alternative arrangements

perspectivep5• 10 years ago

You can install UWP apps from other sources. Side-loading is enabled by default since November.

ewzimm2• 10 years ago

If Microsoft ever deprecates Win32, they won't sneak it overnight. Anyone can integrate UWP into their store today if they want, and they would have plenty of time to do it. This is a company that still supports Windows XP from 2001 with special contracts. It seems strange to compare this theoretical point in the future where Win32 is deprecated with who supports it right now. It's a good point that it's important to have platforms that no one company controls, but this fear of UWP seems unjustified when it's open to anyone.

Silhouette6• 10 years ago

They'd have to be really, really careful going down that path, though. Microsoft's biggest advantage in the OS landscape, aside from preinstallation deals, has long been the broad range of established software that is exclusive to Windows. It's tough to migrate your business to Apple laptops or Linux servers or tablets in the mobile workforce if several key applications that 1,000 of your staff have been using every working day for a decade don't run on those other platforms. It's a closed loop for software developers as well, because as long as your customers are almost all on Windows, there's little benefit to developing for other platforms concurrently.

With so many business applications now offering web-based access, that exclusivity has already been eroded, and that process shows no sign of slowing down. If Microsoft were to nerf the long-established Windows APIs that "heavyweight" software like graphics and CAD packages rely on, that would force the redevelopment issue for those software developers, and I'm not sure Microsoft would like the long term results. They might wind up with exclusive control of the main delivery channel on Windows, but that only matters if the developers and users are still on Windows at all. With gaming in particular, we've seen in the past that one or two smash hits can be all it takes to establish a new platform, whether it's one of the consoles or mobile or just puzzle games via Facebook. With the resources available to Steam, that has to be a scary prospect for Microsoft.

staticelf2• 10 years ago

So if I want to develop let's say, python applications, I would have to download the python runtime from Windows Store? This seems unbelievable and would make a lot of people leave the OS simply because it's getting too locked down.

I like windows today but I have no real loyalty. I would have no issues with leaving it for Linux the day it's too locked down.

jackmott2• 10 years ago

Game developers have many choices. You can throw a game up on your websites and sell it yourself. You can sell it through GOG Humble Bundle Steam I'm sure there are others. With UWP you have no choice, it goes through Windows. The concern is that Microsoft is making it so certain features won't be available to your program if you aren't sold through the store. There won't be any competition. If you sell a non UWP app through some other market, you will not be able to use those features.

douche3• 10 years ago

The day that Win32 executables don't run on Windows is the day that Windows irretrievably jumps the shark. This is a company that has gone to sometimes absurd lengths to ensure compatibility with out-dated third-party software. There's too much legacy code out there, and too much legacy code still in active, important code bases.

I'll start worrying about the future of locked-down UWP applications once I start seeing anybody build some that are more than gimped versions or toys. Wake me up when Visual Studio or SQL Management Studio is rewritten as a UWP app.

blahi• 10 years ago

Why can't game developers sell UWP games on their site?

GrumpyYoungMan4• 10 years ago

With UWP you have no choice, it goes through Windows.

False. With Windows 10, sideloading is permitted by default. The caveat being, of course, that you're on your own for making sure the app is safe if you choose to use a sideloaded app.

jdietrich• 10 years ago

Valve are consistently fair and honest. That can't be said of most software platforms and it certainly can't be said of Microsoft.

AimHere• 10 years ago

Competition is fine, but if one competitor can use it's ownership of part of the stack to chronically degrade the other's product, it's a problem.

Nobody minds Microsoft setting up a Windows store and trying to attract game devs to it. The problem is when they try to lock out their competitors out, somehow, using operating system functionality.

Sylos7• 10 years ago

Most other comments sort of hinted at it, but I feel like no one really said it:

If Microsoft makes the Windows Store the only place for users to get applications, then they can abuse that position like you can abuse any monopoly. They could start charging developers more or make life harder for developers who offer a product that competes with one of Microsoft's products or push through any policies they want etc.

rnernento• 10 years ago

I'm confused, can't Steam just release as a free Universal App?

Also, with Steam's push towards Linux support this would be a dangerous strategy for Microsoft. Gaming is what drives a lot of people to Windows over other platforms. If Microsoft actively makes Steam unusable on Windows there's no reason to think people won't just seek out a better platform for Steam.

cmiles742• 10 years ago

I don't think MS will allow a Univeral App that installs other Universal Apps. Just like Apple, they'll have a list of restrictions on what these apps can do. After all, a sandbox app that can arbitrarily install any other app is not very sandboxy.

ocdtrekkie8• 10 years ago

There's nothing wrong with allowing one app to install another, but the key is, if you can't leave the sandbox, you request the OS do it for you. Android apps are sandboxed, and can install other apps, but you get an OS interstitial asking if you want to do it.

Similarly, a UWP app could conceivably be allowed to trigger the install of another UWP app, but it would pop-up a Windows box, not unlike a UAC elevation prompt, showing the app name, publisher if properly signed, and requesting the user permission to go forward with the install.

nkassis2• 10 years ago

MS isn't doing any of the open sourcing from the goodness of their heart. They see that to stay competitive in the development tools space and cloud development space they need to open up their tech and make it work everywhere so they can sell services and tools to you. "I see you like linux? no problem here is our cool .net core platform you can use to build for linux. Btw you can run it on our azure linux instances and use all our easily integrated azure services to go with it. And with our new cross platform editor, a lot of this will be a couple clicks away."

daxfohl• 10 years ago

Odd to see an article complaining about MS's "closed" ecosystem after all the work MS is doing to open source things, provide tight Linux integration, etc.

ygra• 10 years ago

Microsoft has over 100 kiloemployees in a myriad of different business divisions. Not all of them do things the same way. I'm not sure there is any corporation of that size that act completely coherent to the outside.

ocdtrekkie8• 10 years ago

This is a FUD article based on speculation that's being actively contested by Microsoft. The update to Windows 10 in less than a week makes third party install of UWP even easier... Which wouldn't make sense if Microsoft was trying to wall in Windows.

UnoriginalGuy• 10 years ago

This is completely unfounded and tinfoil hat levels of conspiracy.

If they stripped Win32 out of Windows, it wouldn't only impact Steam, but Microsoft Office, Visual Studio, Photoshop Suite, Chrome/Firefox, iTunes, their shiny new Linux tools, etc would also be out.

This goes against the ethos of Microsoft. Criticise them all you wish, but they're absolutely obsessed with backwards compatibility and always have been. They know the ONLY reason Windows is popular is because you can throw in a piece of software you purchased in 1999 and it will "likely" still work. If they dropped Win32 entirely, then Windows is interchangeable with a Chromebook.

Heck up until 64x one of their test cases was if Doom (released in 1993) still ran. They only stopped because 64x doesn't support 16 bit.

animal5312• 10 years ago

But on the other hand Microsoft is quite a large company. The one development side is pulling heavily toward open source and freedom, but some of the other angles such as the store seem to be constricting.

I imagine it all depends which side (internally) will come out on top.

pjmlp3• 10 years ago

"Project Centennial: Bringing Existing Desktop Applications to the Universal Windows Platform"

https://channel9.msdn.com/Events/Build/2016/B829

RGamma• 10 years ago

In that video they also say that sideloading can be done via double-click (no PowerShell cmdlets or whatever necessary like in Win8; not sure how certification/signing will play into this), and they also state that it'll be fine to monetize an UWP app on other stores than the Windows one. If they're actually honest with this and I haven't missed anything, UWP might well be the best thing that's ever happened to Windows.

doikor• 10 years ago

Hell even the windows explorer shell still uses Win32 even in windows 10. Win32 ain't going anywhere anytime soon. And with windows 10 they just expanded the amount of Win32 APIs that available for UWP apps. Now people are using them even in the UWP apps and now microsoft would somehow remove it?

Also they just made side loading UWP apps easier by defaulting to the option to allow it (previously you had to go to control panel to enable it). Also stuff like this https://github.com/aL3891/AppxInstaller exist which make .msi installer for an .appx package.

jackmott2• 10 years ago

Sorta like how the web gets progressively worse with each modal pop up ad.

majewsky4• 10 years ago

Not quite. You can block ads, but you can't block broken APIs. ;)

whack• 10 years ago

I rarely hear complaints about the closed-platform monopolies enjoyed by the App Store and Google Play, on their respective iOS/Android platforms. Can someone make a case for why a similar app-store monopoly on Windows is any worse?

islon• 10 years ago

Well, you are looking in the wrong places then, there's plenty of complaints about apple/google walled gardens and people don't want windows to be the next one.

pjmlp3• 10 years ago

Apparently everything is allowed as long as it isn't Microsoft.

talmand5• 10 years ago

Just because it's perceived as good for A doesn't mean it's automatically good for B.

theandrewbailey2• 10 years ago

There exists no obvious monopoly for app stores on Windows. Windows is a somewhat open platform not locked down like phones, and making it one means we've lost something. There's the "official" Microsoft app store, but hardly anyone uses it. There's several ones that aren't run by Microsoft, and they seem OK, and the big ones stand on their own merits.

Not to mention that ~20 years ago, Microsoft got in trouble with the government[0], and was almost forced to break up for forcing their own software on PC manufacturers, and on top of Windows.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Cor....

majewsky4• 10 years ago

Google technically does not have an app-store monopoly on Android. A sizable chunk of apps on my phone are from F-Droid.

Google just makes sure that most Androids have the Play Store, and then it's just the network effect: bigger audience -> more attractive to developers -> more apps -> more users.

theandrewbailey2• 10 years ago

Google just makes sure that most Androids have the Play Store

I smell monopoly. They have powers to affect most of a market. Whether Google is abusing that power (thus, illegal), I'm not sure.

ksk2• 10 years ago

They could just add one extra line in their contract with phone manufacturers, forbidding external app-stores. The same thing that people are fearing about Windows.

Sir_Cmpwn• 10 years ago

I use F-Droid on Android. Cydia also exists for iOS. FWIW.

GrumpyYoungMan4• 10 years ago

Similarly, I'm curious that no-one has mentioned the dominance that Steam itself has over the PC gaming market. From Wikipedia:

"The Steam platform is considered to be the largest digital distribution platform for PC gaming; in November 2009, Stardock estimated it at 70% and then later, in October 2013, it was estimated by Screen Digest that 75% of games bought online were downloaded through Steam."

Puts Valve's complaints in a different perspective.

Dr_tldr• 10 years ago

You rarely read HN, then.

For most adults/businesses in developed countries, mobile is a secondary device, while PCs run everything from AAA games to filing systems to interfaces for medical equipment.

Silhouette6• 10 years ago

We (with my dev hat on) don't bother complaining about the App Store. Apple's deal is what it is.

But we also don't consider iOS apps an interesting option for the software we develop because of Apple's control and fees, and we build our software with a web front end that runs anywhere instead.

perspectivep5• 10 years ago

Apparently Microsoft isn't allowed to evolve Windows with objectively better API's.

Have fun with your GetLastError, fifteen parameter functions, and poorly documented flags. But hey, at least it doesn't have much security, so I can download game mods from some unknown source that have full access to everything on my PC.

talmand5• 10 years ago

> so I can download game mods from some unknown source that have full access to everything on my PC

I think that's more on you than the OS.

perspectivep5• 10 years ago

Once you connect your box to the Internet, installing malware affects everyone.

legulere• 10 years ago

Rule 1 of software development should be: Never blame the user, when the situation could have been avoided through code.

Especially in this case. Isolation has been one of the main drivers of operating systems. Isolation between users, so they can't change each other's files etc. maliciously . Isolation between processes, so they don't accidentally corrupt each other. At least since the first computer virus in the wild in 1982 it should have been clear that software can also potentially be malicious and needs to be isolated from having the same rights as the user executing it.

The only reason why executing arbitrary x86 code in ring 3 is dangerous are the syscall interfaces the operating systems offer.

Sylos7• 10 years ago

That's the exact problem. They are not objectively better. If they would be, they would not grant Microsoft more control and no one would complain.

perspectivep5• 10 years ago

UWP advantages:

  Way better security model

  Unified error handling

  Clean install/uninstall (no rot)

  Much faster and more capable version of XAML running on top of DirectComposition with easy DirectX interop

  Native support for web apps

  Resolution independence with no extra work

  Easier to support accessibility tools like screen readers

  Saner API design (no flags where only some combinations are valid)

  .Net Native

  Much better touch support

  Cross-platform (xbox, holo lens, IoT, phone...)

  Access to devices like camera, mic, sensors with high-level APIs (even accessible through C#/JS)

  No P/Invoke required for C#

etc.

cwyers3• 10 years ago

This is nonsense on stilts. There aren't UWP versions of half of Office, and the ones with UWP versions aren't as full-featured as the Win32 versions. There's no UWP version of Visual Studio. Look at the revenue from those two things, look at Microsoft's gaming revenue, look at Valve's revenue... what is the evidence that Microsoft is willing to sabotage their Windows, Office and Visual Studio product lines all to get a rounding error's worth of additional profit?

gant3• 10 years ago

It's a very long term thing. It'll probably happen because new APIs will be on UWP and not on Win32. I think VR might be the "next thing" that'll only get in-OS support in UWP.

majewsky4• 10 years ago

If the UWP-only APIs are "too interesting", a way will be found around this. For example, you could funnel API calls from a Win32 app into a UWP-app receiver via a local TCP connection.

RubyPinch• 10 years ago

Windows' thing has always been backwards compatibility (not counting programs with questionable code in the first place), and the entire OS is win32 as well.

They'd practically be telling all their casual, professional, and enterprise userbase to not update. Their prior support for win32 has locked them into it, even if they want to leave it

ocdtrekkie8• 10 years ago

But, this is predicated on the suggestion that UWP will kill Steam or is meant to be a walled garden. Even though, people including Tim Sweeney are WELL AWARE (he was notified about it, and responded) that the new version of Windows 10 on August 2nd (literally in less than a week) specifically adds more features to make third party install of UWP apps easier. You'll be able to just double click APPX files to install them, they'll have icons and properties visible in the UI. Microsoft has stated multiple times they intend UWP to be the safer, more secure, way to write apps going forwards, but that they will be workable with third party stores and installation methods.

talmand5• 10 years ago

I'm confused, what does Microsoft's office and development products have to do with this discussion about Steam and third-party software?

gant3• 10 years ago

The point seemed to be that killing existing Win32 APIs would hurt Microsoft more than it helps the UWP, but for gaming the only thing that needs to happen is a new graphics or peripheral API that's UWP only and is substantial enough for developers to drop Win32 support.

eximius• 10 years ago

You are operating under the delusion that Microsoft needs to follow its own rules.

moron4hire• 10 years ago

That’s exactly what they did to their previous competitors in other areas.

Are we to take this to mean that Tim Sweeney is admitting that Steam uses undocumented Windows APIs? Because that's the only way Windows patches have broken existing software before.

brudgers3• 10 years ago

over the next five years, they will force-patch Windows 10 to make Steam progressively worse and more broken.

Linkedin lists Valve as having between 200 and 500 employees. Putting a team of engineers to work on removing the dependency on Windows32 seems like a reasonable alternative to a course of inaction dedicated to letting Steam full into suck.

My intuition is that Microsoft is even likely to work with a partial potential competitor like Valve when it comes to something like this because anyone who is using Steam on Windows...well they're using Windows and Microsoft has an substantial interest in not having Windows suck for the people who use it.

To me, this kinda' sounds like Valve announcing that it's not really going to spend any more money on evolving the Steam code base.

robotresearcher• 10 years ago

The non-Win32 apps are signed and distributed by MS through their own store. All apps delivered that way pay a toll to MAS. That's what Steam wishes to avoid, since they collect the toll right now.

GrumpyYoungMan4• 10 years ago

The non-Win32 apps are signed and distributed by MS through their own store. All apps delivered that way pay a toll to MAS.

False. With Windows 10, app sideloading is permitted by default.

brudgers3• 10 years ago

Universal apps can be sideloaded. [1] There may be a market for a service that skins the process in an end user friendly way. That market is probably larger than just games. An analog might be Github over Git.

Whether Valve should invest in developing technologies to keep Steam relevant is a business decision. This appears to be announcement of Valve's intent. I would not be surprised if paying off the technical debt incurred by Steam does not meet the investment model of Valve's controlling interests. The Windows ecosystem is littered with technically obsolescent cash-cows: e.g. Laplink.

[1] https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/uwp/packaging/packa...

xigency• 10 years ago

Putting a team of engineers to work on removing the dependency on Windows32

Except that Steam houses thousands of games by various developers, not a small set of games built and designed by Valve. It would be pretty difficult, but not impossible, to remove that dependency.

ocdtrekkie8• 10 years ago

Note that at the last Build conference, Microsoft made a specific point to demonstrate a UWP app with SteamWorks compatibility on stage. But, you know, clearly they're actively using UWP to kill Steam.

http://www.develop-online.net/news/universal-windows-platfor...

I'm rate-limited, so to respond to the person who commented here:

"Embrace, Extend, Extinguish": You might notice if you read the linked Wikipedia article, this is from 1995. Also known as 20 years ago, when almost everyone involved has since retired. Or died. I was in elementary school when this strategy was used by Microsoft. The person who said the phrase in a meeting, Paul Maritz, left Microsoft 16 years ago. Babies born during that meeting are legal adults today.

ctrl-j• 10 years ago

Microsoft has been known to use Embrace-Extend-Extinguish as a strategy. So this means nothing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend_and_extinguish

pluma• 10 years ago

The most recent examples on that page are nearly ten years old. I was a "Micro$oft" hater in school, too, but I don't see any other indication that they're relapsing apart from the accusations made in this news article -- certainly not any more than Google or Apple.

wavefunction• 10 years ago

Steam and games are the only reason I'm going to build a brand new VR capable Windows rig. Without that I don't really need Windows in my life.

Mithaldu2• 10 years ago

Now they’re doing it to Steam. It’s only just starting to become visible.

That is a bold fucking claim. Exactly how has this happened to Steam already? They don't bother to provide any reference or clue.

ksk2• 10 years ago

It is hard to get through the speculation here. Does anyone have actual evidence that this is happening? (i.e. not some memo that one person wrote to some other person 20 years ago)

vinnyp• 10 years ago

Former Softie, worked in Windows for 9 years from Vista to Win8, mostly on the Shell and UI platform teams. For Vista and half of Win7 development, I was the PM owner for our UI platform (comctl32, DirectUI, Visual Styling, and High DPI). This is my opinion, I don't speak for the company -

During my time there, I did not see any anti-competitive practices the author is speaking of. Those days are long gone. I know first hand we were committed to compatibility and growth of the platform, new and old. That being said, it's clear that building on Win32 is painful and not cheap. Win32 is great if you want direct system access and complete control over everything, up and down the stack. This works well for large enterprise applications and games. The tradeoff here is that you must roll your own everything and work hard not to do stupid shit.

During the Vista days, we saw that the Windows app ecosystem was struggling because we didn't have a good platform story. You had to choose between Win32 and .NET. If you're a native developer, it was Win32. Win32 didn't provide a great app and UI framework (have you ever tried to owner draw a control or do fluid layout?). This is why many app developers during that time built their own app and UI framework, used MFC or leveraged a 3rd party framework. I was only familiar with the app platform so I can't speak to the options for building a game. I'm sure it was limited as well.

Microsoft introduced many platforms since Vista - WPF, Silverlight, XNA, Win8 Apps (Windows XAML and WinJS), and UWP. I'm sure there are more :) Even with all of those new platforms in the mix, Win32 is still alive and well.

I believe UWP is a huge win for developers. You don't need to roll your own everything. For the companies that want complete control, Win32 is still there. It is true that certain things are only available to UWP developers. There is no malicious intent, it's really only about priorities. The new thing comes first. The developer community needs to speak up if they want something. Microsoft will listen.

Mithaldu2• 10 years ago

While i don't believe a word Sweeney says until he sources his claims, your post has a few self delusions as well.

Microsoft introduced many platforms since Vista - WPF, Silverlight, XNA, Win8 Apps (Windows XAML and WinJS), and UWP. I'm sure there are more :) Even with all of those new platforms in the mix, Win32 is still alive and well.

Not "Even with". More like "thanks to this chaos and the uselessness of those platforms".

I believe UWP is a huge win for developers.

Without specifying which developers, that is meaningless. Last i heard a game dev can't even control vsync.

The developer community needs to speak up if they want something. Microsoft will listen.

This is the worst part. Speak up WHERE? Speak up HOW?

"Listening" is not "reacting when a blogpost gets reposted everywhere". Listening is taking the time and place out of your day to make sure that the person has your undivided attention.

lefty2• 10 years ago

Yeah, that's a good point. UWP could go the same way as Silverlight- especially if everyone one decides to just ignore it. Already, two of the technologies related UWP are almost dead (WinRT and Windows mobile 10)

dogma1138• 10 years ago

Oddly enough Steam isn't that great for developers either. It takes a huge cut, it takes cut of all microtransactions, it bullies developers into price fixing and sales, and it abuses it's de facto monopoly to ransom developers that want to publish on Steam.

For consumers it ain't that great either, the curation process on steam is non existent, it does not force developers to maintain compatibility, the search option is very bad and you can not filter games based on release year (you can only see the year they released on steam and I've seen people buying 15 year old games by mistake). Steam ties you into their DRM (you can also use a 3rd party DRM if you want) and their API's.

Saying that Steam is somehow the champion of open gaming on Windows is silly, it's a monolithic monopoly that does pretty much my way or the highway moves all the time. So far I haven't seen any evidence that MSFT has any interest in killing Win32, but maybe it should, if UWP can become a better platform at the end I don't see any reason to stick to Win32 when developing applications. All our mobile platforms have a single store, Apple has it's own store, based on the few UWP games that have been pirated you can install UWP applications without using the store, MSFT can in the end support 3rd party distributors. And if it doesn't well TBH considering that Steam hasn't been a champion for consumers for a long time, I don't really see it as being a "bad" thing, and if Microsoft makes them worry maybe they'll get their shit together again.

whamlastxmas• 10 years ago

How does it ransom developers? That's a bold claim.

Epic Games founder says Microsoft's patches will make Steam progressively worse

Related Stories