Microsoft forks Unreal Engine 4 and ports it to Universal Windows Platform
forums.unrealengine.com
forums.unrealengine.com
Microsoft would benefit if they could do all of these anti-consumer things, but that recent stampede towards Linux proved that the tennantry can be easily spooked and dangerous when on the move. Developers are leaving windows to work on Linux and Mac, to the extent that I have not seen a start menu on a single laptop in the entire CS department. If, at some point in the future we all ended up locked in to .net, I would be surprised if Microsoft's management continued their support of these charitable projects.
In that light, I think it would be wise for us to avoid getting locked back in - so that Windows might continue moving towards being a nice place to work.
By comparison to what Microsoft went through in the late 1990s, today is a cakewalk, they have drastically more freedom and less of a spotlight on their behavior. Nobody really cares about Windows now, nobody fears Microsoft like they did in 1998, nobody thinks Bill Gates is Satan incarnate, nobody is calling for Microsoft to be broken into pieces.
point blank most families these days have 3 or 4 iOS or Android computing devices for every 1 windows computing device.
Actually, most, if not all of the provisions, of the DOJ settlement have expired. This is why they can ship an AV with their OS and tell OEM's to cut it out with the crapware and offer special installers to remove this stuff.
I think they're just too weak to be the MS of the 90s. They just have to play ball to be competitive like everyone else. This is a good thing. Yet somehow the hysterical anti-MS attitudes are still here. Look at this thread. Its 90% conspiracy theories and axe grinding from things a decade out.
To argue that the same business practices from the 90s apply today, especially in the technology sector where the entire plane shifts radically every other year... that's just crazy. I don't see why so many people buy into it still.
There are companies I got a bad impression of many years ago too that I am hesitant to reevaluate. I think it's pretty normal/natural, even though it's kinda unhealthy from an intellectual standpoint.
Reputation is everything.
There are 2/64 comments expressing this view. You're being hyperbolic. The main theme recently has been "Wow, I never thought I would like MS again, but they're impressing me!"
If anything, MS is the new darling brand of the big five here.
Eh, they're not as evil as they used to be. But they're not doing as much as I would like to protect user privacy either. So I'm not super happy with them.
Though I really the the Hololens, I hope that goes into mass production soon with a good field of view. That product might get me to buy into more of their ecosystem.
To be fair, M$ earned this.
Getting everyone into the system is infinitively expensive, so is getting everyone out of it.
While there are some costs to switching away from an OS/ecosystem, there's a limit to them, and it's often low enough to be economical for a business to switch or to allow some of its employees to switch (I've seen this with development shops that switch from Windows to mostly Linux with a little OS X).
I suppose the enjoyment I have received from using it could be considered dividends of sorts, and so I could see calling it an investment from that perspective. But not financially.
I've been hearing about used 2012 MBPs selling for more than they cost new.
Where? They go for $700 at the most on for sale forums.
Really, that lawsuit not enough to convince you it's a big deal? They're "upgrading" users without their consent/knowledge using ui dark patterns.
At least be honest if you work for Microsoft.
http://www.pcgamer.com/tim-sweeney-thinks-microsoft-will-mak...
http://www.windowscentral.com/netflix-looks-be-readying-its-...
I really liked the idea MS had with phones that could scale up to full screen devices if you docked them, but I'm more skeptical of this. Aside from media providers, who else is going to put in the effort to make their UI controller-friendly?
Game engines are just about the only other example I can think of.
In theory. Obviously if not adjusted some, user experience suffers. But the idea is to make it so easy to adapt to different form factors, it just seems normal to. (People expect these days that their Android phone or iPhone app will work well on an Android tablet or iPad, for instance.)
https://github.com/ReactWindows/react-native-windows
Cool stuff.
You can test it by logging out of our account and attempting to access a private repo url you usually can access.
Confirming something exists narrows what someone looking to find out something secret has to look for. If you know what my username is, you only have to guess passwords for that username. If you know what my project name is, you only need to look for references elsewhere to that project name.
Just knowing the project exists could be telling, if your project was like... github.com/apple/nintendo-igameboyphone it would potentially be a really revealing thing if you hadn't announced it yet. Slack had a big fiasco when entering a fake @whatever.com address would let someone see whatever.com's teams prior to email verification. From just room names alone you could discern some potential acquisitions in negotiation, teams at Microsoft or Apple you might not have otherwise known existed, etc.
At the very least, the administrators at Github are going to know about your project, and you don't know who they all are.
"If you see a 404 page, you need to complete the enrollment process: Create a GitHub account.
Sign up for the Epic program
Follow the instructions to associate your Epic Program account with your GitHub account.
Join the Epic GitHub Org (from the email invitation you receive after Step 3)"
It is hard because this is the way for the EULA and Licanse of the software to be enforceable.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend_and_extinguish
Developers' efficiency. But MS understanding of "gain" is a crooked one. They want to prevent developers from releasing anything for the competition, so they use tools to make it harder (lock-in tactic). Or if they can't prevent it, they want to tax it (i.e. to make it more expensive). It is clearly crooked.
And I don't mean just to make Vulkan better. I mean MS starting supporting it instead of DX12. Same AMD can produce Vulkan support for them for Xbox quite easily.
Same as supporting standard HTML instead of ActiveX and Silverlight? If not using lock-in is shooting in one's own feet, you have some strange notion of what's normal.
Exactly same thing here. They used DX to lock 3D graphics into their platforms.
Whether they lost deservedly or not, lock-in is always a crooked practice.
See my other comment[1], that with DX12, it's more clear that MS are doing it for the sake of lock-in. Problem with it - it doesn't compete on merits on Xbox for instance. Because it's the only thing supported there.
[0]:http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2012/07/steams-newell-windows-... [1]:http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2016/03/tim-sweeney-to-microso...
To date, Microsoft has done... nothing I'm aware of... to lock down PC gaming. FUD articles are abound though.
DX12 is a form of lock-in.
In general, you could argue that more competition helps progress, yes. But it's not even the case here, since walled gardens (Xbox, PS, iOS, etc.) prevent competing APIs like Vulkan from being used on them. I.e. they don't compete on merit (which could boost progress), they are anti-competitive. So they only slow down progress in this case.
And DirectX 12 is not any more a lock-in than any other version of DirectX since the beginning of DirectX, as far as I'm aware. (And games can and are offered with both DirectX and OpenGL support.)
Responses going forward heavily delayed because I'm rate-limited. If you want to talk elsewhere at any point, I am @ocdtrekkie
Yes, they were focused more on distributor lock-in, but lock-in has different forms. Since you were talking about PC gaming in general, saying that MS did nothing to lock it, I pointed out that it's not so. System lock-in is still a lock-in, which MS uses to put competition at a disadvantage.
I singled out DX12 more specifically, because some argued that OpenGL was too much behind / not really moving forward, and so on. Vulkan isn't any of that, and MS not backing the effort instead of making NIH DX12 can't use any of the above excuses. They clearly made DX12 for lock-in purposes.
> And games can and are offered with both DirectX and OpenGL support.
On Xbox developers have no choice, but to use DX.
Many people don't want Console/phone like restriction on PC. Sweeney feared that MS will try to force everybody to use UWP, and later MS will change UWP policies. But then it will be late for everybody move away from UWP.
How many people you know downloads the apk on their android phone to get the app running? Do you have any say on the Google Play policy changes? MS will certainly repeat how convenient UWP is, but people are reluctant to trust MS because they don't know how MS will behave in the future.
That's what Tim Sweeney fears. Phasing out the open nature of the ecosystem, and replacing it with a locked down one where MS controls everything.
And that's a lock down. Maybe it's not for malicious reason, but people have enough reason to hold on onto the open nature that drove the growth of PC gaming(and malware). Secondly, when they don't know if MS will keep their words.
If Microsoft is going to lock the platform down, they're going to lock the platform down. There's nothing you can do about it. But Microsoft choosing to use competent security in app design has nothing to do with it.
Indeed. Except switching to open platform.
> The idea that encouraging user level apps to use UWP because it is safer does not inherently mean some draconian lockdown is coming.
All market places (google play, steam, apple app store) has restrictions. I haven't made app for any one of them, but I am certain there are policies people disagree with, and policies that has lead an app to be removed from the store or some app not getting past the the screening process.
On Win32 you don't have that. You can build something, post it anywhere, anybody can download and run it without any hiccup. This fluidity has made PC where it is today.
Also there are trust issues. Sweeney said, "The risk here is that, if Microsoft convinces everybody to use UWP, then they phase out Win32 apps. If they can succeed in doing that then it’s a small leap to forcing all apps and games to be distributed through the Windows Store."
> If Microsoft is going to lock the platform down, they're going to lock the platform down. There's nothing you can do about it.
Yes there is. In fact that's why this thread exists. MS has added UWP feature because Epic games won't do it. Steam has also released SteamOS.
It's more users that MS wants. Security comes later. And as long as the developers are taking a stand against restrictive UWP, MS will leave UWP behind. And hopefully next time they will take a different route.
Least restrictive nature is the hallmark of PC. I can't stress it enough.
Win32 is only "less restrictive" than UWP in one particular way: It allows any application to mess with almost anything in your system without warning or user permission.
Anyone can download and run UWP without any hiccup. In actuality, Win32 does have hiccups: UAC elevation, SmartScreen filtering, etc.
Steam can sell UWP apps if they want. Epic Games can merge Microsoft's fork if they want. (Bear in mind, pull requests start as forks.)
Microsoft has the users, it needs the security so it doesn't lose those users. Tim Sweeney is paranoid in the wrong ways, he's suggesting that you have to leave a poorly secured operating system in order to protect user freedom. That's false.
Its development is rather weird though. If I understood correctly, part of the build process is out of developers' hands, and is supposed to be performed by distributor which supports UWP (especially for different architectures). Is UWP backend toolchain and implementation even available for other distributors besides Windows Store? If yes, then it's not a distributor lock-in. But if no, then Tim Sweeney was perfectly right criticizing it.
It should, but at this cost.
> Epic Games can merge Microsoft's fork if they want. (Bear in mind, pull requests start as forks.)
Epic games won't. In fact, our conversation starts following the article interviewing Tim Sweeney. I highly doubt if MS will ever be able to convince Epic games to do that.
Also in the future what's stopping MS from forcing developers to use Microsoft store, followed by restriction on the type of content, followed by...more restrictions. The trust issue is very big here.
It's also true that MS have changed their attitude recently after Satya Nadella became the CEO, but when both Tim Sweeney and Gabe Newell is worried about something - I think the issue deserves more attention.
> Tim Sweeney is paranoid in the wrong ways, he's suggesting that you have to leave a poorly secured operating system in order to protect user freedom. That's false.
He is saying it will be wiser for the community at large to choose user freedom over poorly implemented security policies.
To be honest, he ignores the elephant in the room. Despite his criticism of MS, all his talks assume Windows and MS everywhere. To promote user freedom, he should do more for people to ditch MS for good and to switch to Linux for example. While UE is one of the best engines that support Linux today, it's done as an afterthought, more by contribution of UE community, not so much as a big focus by Epic.
Using Windows and complaining that MS can mess things up at any time is somewhat incoherent. Because MS indeed can do it. Make something to reduce relying on MS, that's a fix for it.
I think that's wrong. Linux support was on the road map, but since the engine was open source, the community(done by one person if I remember correctly) beat them to it. And today Linux is a fully supported platform.
> Using Windows and complaining that MS can mess things up at any time is somewhat incoherent.
Very true. Our only hope is to talk about it, and hoping that MS would listen.
I don't really care much whether MS will listen. What even if they won't? The only proper solution is not to depend on them altogether.
> Linux support was on the road map, but since the engine was open source, the community(done by one person if I remember correctly) beat them to it. And today Linux is a fully supported platform.
I red somewhere, that many merge requests were ignored for a long time, and Linux wasn't really much of a priority for Epic to begin with. They should focus on Linux more IMHO, including in such public statements. Otherwise these criticisms by Tim Sweeney seem more like rants, than any practical proposals on how to improve the situation.
And he is just pointing out this general problem.
I'm sure his attitude has nothing at all to do with owning steam and worrying that Microsoft might actually become a viable competitor. Oh, and unlike EA he can't rely on a customer base that has rabid hatred for MS.
Most of the PC gamers I know (maybe all) did this on the day Pokemon GO was available in NZ/Aus but not NA. Probably few of them had done it before.
I understand what you're saying, but PC gamers are a different crowd than the average Windows user. We'll do what we have to in order to get control of our own PCs back.
I guess on the one hand the lock down is a rational fear, because it's something MS would attempt. But I'm not actually scared that it would be achievable.
I can't seem to find anything on how UE4 is licensed, but even if Microsoft is forced to release all of their source code, if their fork is different enough from the main-branch, it might be extremely hard to backport all of these features into the main-branch.
Exactly. Or if it's not even a fork anymore (let's say it was merged upstream), make those features platform dependent / unportable even in the main codebase. It will still be EEE.
The source code may be available but it's not "free software".
If Microsoft were to discourage Win32 apps Epic would have to adapt UE4, but the MS fork can't really make that harder.
This kind of confusion is part of the problem.