Hacker News Reader

Comment by blencdr | Hacker News Reader

wow... does it mean that anything microsoft touches is ruined just "because microsoft" ?

Microsoft is in direct competition with Sony (XboxOne vs PS4). Also less less directly with Mac vs Windows, iOS+Android vs Windows Phone. I say less because this is about a physics engine used in games. XboxOne and PS4 are game machines where as those other platform have much broader interests.

If Microsoft either stops supporting non-MS platform or makes them 2nd class (new features first appear on MS platform) then yes, this is a huge problem.

Remember when EA bought Renderware back when tons of game studios were using it? GTA3 was written with it. Where is Renderware now?

It's certainly possible nothing will change but it's just as possible the glaring conflict of interest will influence things badly.

> Where is Renderware now?

Thankfully confined to the dustbins of history.

EA didn't buy Renderware, they bought Criterion largely for their games studio and just happened to get Renderware as part of the package. The later versions of Renderware were, uhm, not good products so it is just as well they weren't generally available.

Nothing will change. Remember, the XBox One sports a Blu-ray drive, made by their archenemy Sony. (maybe not physically made by Sony, but most patents regarding Bluray are in Sony's hands)

All this means is that MS is hedging their investments. Now for every dollar a Sony game makes (that has the Havok engine), MS is going to get a cut.

It may be that Sony willingly boxes out MS by going with another engine, but the games industry doesn't seem that bitter.

Sony has nothing to do with this. It's the game developers who use the engine.

Yes, and Sony produces games, and also entices developers to create exclusives. Those possibly use Havok and Sony may ask exclusives developers not to license it.

Not necessarily, but if this gets rolled into directx its availability on non-directx platforms might become restricted. This means it makes sense to cultivate alternatives before this happens.

It's historically dangerous to do business at scale with Microsoft. If it were a matter of paying a license fee and using the software, nobody would mind, but getting large-scale licenses from Microsoft almost always involves ridiculous platform-exclusivity agreements and other unpleasant modi operandi.

The good news is Havok technology may be integrated into DirectX, which would mean even small shops get cheap access to this technology. It all depends on whether Microsoft regards this acquisition as "making DirectX technology better" or "leveraging developers into preferential treatment for Microsoft platforms."

We'll have to wait and see.

>but getting large-scale licenses from Microsoft almost always involves ridiculous platform-exclusivity agreements and other unpleasant modi operandi

Can you give a few examples of these agreements? From what I know, everybody who develops for PlayStation licenses MS Visual Studio yet there had been quite a few PS exclusive games over the years. Is this the only exception? Genuinely curious.

Here's an example of Microsoft attempting to shove platform exclusivity into a deal (thankfully, they backed off): http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2013-12-04-microsoft-revea...

This sort of thing is not specific to Microsoft's gaming business. Microsoft's habit of using Windows OEM licensing as a tool to prevent computer manufacturers from shipping other operating systems (especially in the 1990s) is well-documented, for instance.

In your example, the Visual Studio licenses are in-house to the development company. There is a different set of license agreements in place regarding the technology shipped out on game discs. Microsoft is well aware there's more money to be made there than from VS licenses, so they're more flexible on toolchain/development contracts than they are on middleware and production library contracts.

Ummmm, the article you've quoted is related to publishing contract and not a licensing agreement. Exclusivity on publishing is very common. You said that it's also "almost always" a part of licensing. Licensing is what I am curious about since I've never heard of anything like this.

I also believe MS had been sued for the OEM racket in 90s and lost so, while it might be true, it's almost 20 years later now and also, I am not sure it's a licensing contract. Looks more like a re-seller/dealer relationship.

> The good news is Havok technology may be integrated into DirectX

It would be nowhere good news, since it will make it exclusive to MS platforms only.

Well, I guess we will find out if this is going to have a negative effect on the multi-platform support.

Do we need to list the countless times they embraced something before using it to lock us all in to their own platform?

With their reputation - I'd say that should be the default expectation, unless proven otherwise.

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

Ohh my I have never heard of this, do you have any more sources? /s

Come on this is getting as boring as regex. Match /(microsoft|google|apple)/i replace with "EmbraceExtendExtinguish|Shutdown|Unoriginal".

Rain falls, scorpions sting, Buddhist monks give help, and Microsoft embrace-extend-extinguish. It's just in their nature. The corporation protects its financial interests instinctively, like the raindrop falls due to gravity. This is nothing new or unexpected, you just have to keep in mind that your interests might not be the same as Microsoft's (protip: Microsoft's sole interest is making Microsoft richer).

If it's getting boring, you can wait and come back when MS will support Vulkan on Xbox. Let's see how bored you'll get while waiting.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com