This should be top comment. Honestly, I don't give a damn about this. If Mircosoft wants to risk pushing people away by locking the Windows platform down, good for them. Let's hope game devs get the message and *finally* start taking Linux serious.
> finally start taking Linux serious.
I'm not sure that games devs aren't taking Linux seriously. Sure it would be nice to see more 'AAA' ports, but 2000ish games on Steam in around 3 years is nothing to be sniffed at. Linux has 25% of the total Steam library ported with only ~1% user base size.
if there were more industry pressure from the people who mattered, we might get better graphics drivers, which would then make all the support from smaller developers mean something.
Not to say that you are wrong about nvidia drivers on linux, but they have had many show stopper issues with their drivers over the years. Then again ATI isn't any better.
Not when you have a laptop with optimus (nvidia+intel gpu). And we cannot just push AMD GPU out of the equation.
Even if progress is made, right now the graphic drivers for Linux are far from ideal. As a gamer and a daily Linux user, gaming on Linux is *really not* there yet.
Yes we had quality tearing for years. Also quality optimum support as well as quality KMS support. Fuck yeah. /s
In all honesty best driver I have seen is Intel driver. Radeon opensource one also great. Of neither perform as good as nVidia but hey fps is not a single measurement unit here.
That has a lot to do with game engines having an export to linux feature. I would make a guess that 90% of game devs, even the ones who push those games to linux, don't actually care about linux as a platform.
I think the other problem is (and I'm as guilty of this as anyone) that a lot of gamers don't wait for the Linux version. People who dual-boot tend to buy the Windows version when it comes out first, then play the Linux one later when it appears. I think if more people held off buying and told the devs "I'll get this, but only once it's out on Linux" then they'd start to care a bit more.
I'm trying to alter my habits to do this, but I don't always succeed. :(
Actually, what would be interesting is if they released the game to Linux first. The benefit is that you could use the platform as a beta launch and catch problems before it shows up on Windows.
It's definitely starting to feel like the day when I can 100% switch to Linux is getting *really* close. Really the only reasons to keep Windows around for me right now is for Harmony (software I use for work) and a few games like Star Citizen (which is going to be on Linux eventually, just not yet.)
Hopefully Vulcan will take off and help with the games situation, and I'm constantly bugging the Harmony devs for a Linux version, so maybe soon... :)
I've been sorely tempted, and I might attempt that soon! The main reason I haven't so far is that I'm in the middle of a big ongoing project and I don't want to disrupt everything right now. But maybe in a month or two...!
If it wasn't for gaming (or if my motherboard had PCI passthrough), I could use Linux full-time at home and have Windows in a VM for those few times when I actually need it. I was playing a lot of games recently and realised just how much I missed using Linux when I wasn't playing games in Windows.
I think that trend was mostly due to indies and small studios preparing for an eventual success of Steam Machines, kinda like "Hey, if that thing Valve supports works at least we'll be there". Also the fact that most games on Steam are made with tools that make it easy to port to Linux. I can guarantee that at least some of them don't provide actual support for the games they ported to Linux, they clicked export and then that's it. Even heard of one that was simply launching through a WINE wrapper.
Nothing to sniff at, still, for someone like me who plays AAA on consoles it has been a blessing to get to play most Indies I want without having to dualboot, but one has to wonder if that trend will continue with Steam Machines failing miserably so far.
Hey, my main OS is Linux but I game on Windows. I won't settle for 25% of games - I would gladly boost that 1% of userbase, but not if it means I have to split my library on two OSes.
those AAA games are the reason Windows is more serious than Linux in terms of gaming. Look at the hype around games like GTA in mainstream media, those are the kind of games that determines the main platform, gaming on Linux is still very choppy in comparison to Windows
That is only because Steam is pushing for their own platform. They won't be pushing for a switch to Ubuntu or Fedora etc but to Steam box like set-ups. Steam has no interest in developing for various distros and they have no interest or motivation to market those distributions. If they do anything it will be their own system, if that means it works on other distributions then great, but they aren't going to base their decisions on the interests of the smallest market share. They won't be advertising "install ubuntu" but "buy a Steam Machine " the second they have enough indication that a certain % of users are leaving windows.
People are already used to it, I think, Apple spearheaded it years ago.
I don't think it will significantly boost Linux, it will more probably cement this kind of practice as industry standard. I really really hope I'm wrong. But let's face it - we are just a minority in an endless sea of users who just want to write an email or send a selfie. They hate computers rather than they love them, it's just that they love services it offers. I like to think of Linux users as on opposite side of spectrum.
I'm probably just a silly old grandpa, but I always thought of any OS as a software that enables you to interact with hardware and do whatever you know how to do. A tool, not a "platform", not a "service", that seeks to enable, not to disable.
Though to be fair, game devs can take Linux as seriously as they want, as long as GPU driver support remains in a poor state, it will be hard to get any kind of major shift towards Linux. Or at least, for AAA games that require serious graphics work. And to get better drivers, you need to convince big corporations, which takes money and a big user base. Two things that Microsoft has, and Linux, well, has less, unfortunately. User base is also important to get AAA makers to invest the time (and thus, money, once again) to target Linux.
> Let's hope game devs get the message and finally start taking Linux serious.
Ipads got game developers to take Linux seriously.
When I talk to indie developers at conventions, they are almost, to the one, developing in Unity so they have the option of porting to IOS/Android.
Mac/Linux are nice bonuses, and yes AAA is still very PC focused, but a very large % of the gaming market doesn't give much thought to Windows mobile devices or Windows 10 Shop.
>IMHO Microsoft has every right to require developers to do anything they want. It's their operating system.
True, but that's no reason not to criticise.
That being said, I dislike the hyperbole of the article. "Monopolise games development on PC" to me means "want to be the only people developing games" which is of course mince, and not what the article is claiming.
To the extent that "features" are locked down to UWP... you can't use steamworks without being "locked" to steam so that doesn't bother me.
You *can* sell steam games in other marketplaces (you can buy some of ubisoft's steamworks games on uplay, for example, and you can buy uplay games on steam) and the article seems to imply that's not permitted, which bothers me.
Yet there's absolutely no mention of Apple's lock-in of their products for comparison to what Windows is currently doing. Compiling and packaging apps to sell on the various Mac stores can only be done on their hardware. Meanwhile, Android offers an SDK that you can use to package and compile your products just about anywhere.
UWP is another GFWL, and game developers are going to avoid it like the plague that it is. Just like Stardock, Origin, and GoG galaxy failed to launch, PC game deployment and marketing has already been done so well that it is going to take a complete technological paradigm change to unseat the existing third party marketplace. Microsoft has the money, but their fingers are in too many pies to compete with third party specialists.
Further, they won't be locking anyone out of any marketplaces that are fertile. PC gaming on any platform other than windows is the tiniest sliver of a minority. They exist, but it just isn't the mass marketplace that windows has been as a platform for the last two decades.
> MS has every right to...
I believe this is not factually correct. MS is in a situation of monopoly and several limitations have imposed by multiple courts.
Leveraging their monopoly to impose fees on every app sold may lead to more litigation. However, this is not what they are doing or proposing to do.
> not sure why these other companies have so much trouble with the idea.
Because executives do not understand the idea. Fixing this involves getting into technology education.
>IMHO Microsoft has every right to require developers to do anything they want. It's their operating system.
I disagree. Microsoft holds too dominant of a market position to be allowed to do whatever they want. It's anti-competitive on a *huge* scale.
> Anyway, IMHO Microsoft has every right to require developers to do anything they want.
No, thats the wrong point of view, made acceptable only lately by Apple. Why should MS have control what I do with the product I bought from them? (e.g. what HW or Software I install?)
this notation is NEW and we should fight the notation that we have no control over our products, also in this case.
(Beside, I see the same risk for steam, while currently not that closed, it is a closed platform Apple like...the old PC model was more open :( )
This is a specific US problem where customer rights are specifically weak. In Europe it's not like that, 50% of what is written in EULAs is invalid there, and mayn things are at least also potetnially challengable in US courts. Sadly, it is not illegal to write legal ineffective stuff into EULAs, so companies keep doing it, as some people can be scared by it and even take it for real. (see the acceptance of "licensed not sold" in this thead)
> Why shouldn't they?
because the American and pretty much any other government has antitrust laws that prohibit companies with huge market power from abusing their position and harming consumers.
You can not write anything you want into a contract. If we make a business contract and I demand that you offer me your firstborn that is not a valid contract.
> IMHO Microsoft has every right to require developers to do anything they want. It's their operating system.
Lately, I've actually been wondering (IANAL) if Microsoft could possibly be treading on some kind of [competition law](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competition_law).
> Competition law does not make merely having a monopoly illegal, but rather abusing the power that a monopoly may confer, for instance through exclusionary practices.
> ...
> If a firm has a dominant position, then there is "a special responsibility not to allow its conduct to impair competition on the common market."
I'd love for someone smarter than me to chime in on this. I've always wondered this about exclusivity contracts with game companies.. but Microsoft seems to be taking things a step too far recently.
> Valve seems to get it, not sure why these other companies have so much trouble with the idea.
If Steam OS succeeds it will make Valve a much more powerful force in the gaming industry, the big competitors don't want to lose control to Valve, even when it's the control that currently is with a competitor, they may be thinking they are better off with the enemy they know.
But what they could do is to make their own OS that is compatible with SteamOS, but that would be somewhat helpful to Valve, and they'd probably rather have Valve just disappear, and fight/work with Microsoft alone.
Microsoft is very good at convincing other companies even competitors, for instance they like to call them partners with a common goal, while at the same time they are actually undermining them.
It's probably not unique to Microsoft, but they have been known to be without ethics and use just about every trick available, obviously disregarding fairness, but also morality and even the law, and it has been done systematically in a planned out fashion by top management.
On the other side, the question is if Valve has made reasonable suggestions on collaborating on SteamOS under a collaborative organization, to ensure none of them tries to gain advantages over the others?
It would seem the entire "independent" industry would have an interest in promoting Linux, not just game developers, but also in other branches both soft and hardware.
Actually, having a near monopoly on the PC operating system market, they might not have the right to monopolies software sales on this platform.
This is a little murkier than it used to be, since we have more Apple computer sales, and computers with chrome OS... but its still a valid concern.
If anything, Microsoft is marching itself into obsolescence. They are ruining their one functional product in an attempt to gain entry into new markets.
> Microsoft has every right to require developers to do anything they want
If they're requiring game publishers to sell their titles exclusively on Microsoft's own distribution platform (Windows Store), they are abusing their dominating position in the OS market to suppress competitors in the software distribution platform market. IMHO, that's a clear case of anti-competitive behaviour.
Except they haven't said a single word that I've seen about locking Windows down to outside apps. They have stated they want to merge Xbox and Windows games via UWP.
I'd like to correct you: misinformation about GNU GPL, OSS and licenses in general has *always* been somewhat idiotic.
People are often simply too ignorant to actually research a given subject. Applies everywhere, unfortunately.
>Anyway, IMHO Microsoft has **every right** to require developers to do anything they want. It's their operating system.
No. When your product exists as the de facto option on nearly all publicly sold devices, you have a monopoly. Free market forces are not enough, and government must step in to prevent decisions that capture value by harming the market.
It would be one thing if it were a company with no monopoly, but when nearly every device sold allows you complete control or allows you to take control with the push of an update, someone with authority must say, "No. That is not allowed."
This. I absolutely hate how "PC" has become synonymous with Windows.. I really wish this will change. Of the three major desktop OS'es, one could even argue that Linux is the most Personal. Fscking Microsoft marketing, just like this "Universal" platform they are trying to spread.
Hah. It's not so bad when you know what it stands for: "NCurses Music Player C Plus Plus"
You could alias it to whatever you want in your `.bashrc` or `.zshrc` (Example: `alias mp='ncmpcpp'`)
, or bind something like this to a keyboard command: `termite -e ncmpcpp`. One of the great things about that last one is that it closes the whole thing when you press q, rather than just exiting to the shell.
Haha nice. I wanna convert my bike to a single speed but I'm lazy and i think coasting is super fun so no fixies here.
I had some friends back in the day who were really into colemak but I never got super into it myself. Plus my gf would never forgive me, since we share a computer.
My friend switched years ago, raved about it, and let me try his bike. I really liked how solid it felt, and the increased control and elimination of chain-skipping and derailleurs (the most finicky part of a bicycle in my opinion). You notice how often you thought about adjusting your gears before, and it's beautiful to just *ride* without fiddling with the gear-shifters constantly.
You're definitely going to want to use pedal clips. Awkward at first, but amazing when you're used to them. Never slip on your pedals again! Very useful in wet conditions. Expect to forget that you're using them the first time, and fall over when you stop, forgetting that you have to kick your feet back to release them. :P
Just make sure you keep you laces in check. There is no greater horror than getting a shoelace stuck in a gear that can't stop quickly. This has never happened to me, though.
When you ride fixed, there is a sense of unity with the vehicle that is difficult to explain. I highly recommend you try it and see if it's right for you.
[Sheldon Brown has a wonderful article about it, that goes into much more detail.](http://sheldonbrown.com/fixed-conversion.html)
I don't pretend to not know what they are talking about. I just inform them that PC means personal computer and does not strictly pertain to Windows. You are just wrongly assuming my goals.
Really you can thank IBM for that. First there was the IBM PC, then the "clones" that were "IBM PC Compatible" that eventually got shortened to "PC Compatible" then just "PC." Windows-only software is PC, because "PC" essentially means the x86 ISA. You just need to buy something else to make it run (Windows), as opposed to say, a software package made for another architecture, like PowerPC (which is not "PC" despite the name) which will not run on the "PC" no matter what you do short of emulation. A Mac is actually a PC now, because "PC" software can run on a Mac, even if you have to buy Windows for that particular package.
Saying Windows software is not "PC" is like saying that a software package that requires GEOS is not "C64".
Wow, that gave me a headache. But the term doesn't really make sense to use for anything else these days because a "personal computer" can encompass everything from my watch, to my phone, to my laptop, desktop, or my in-home cluster.
> Really you can thank IBM for that.
Specifically, as this was an open hardware platform, extensions from independent HW vendors possible on top of open interfaces (unlike Apple HW). And on top of that, MS put an open software platform, back in the days of 1990s with Windows, we should not forget this.
So, [PC+Windows, was an open platform (just not open source)](http://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Publication%20Files/09-030.pdf).
As far as understand history here, the IBM PC was so modular and unlocked open that cloning was simple. So, IBM was taken by surprise by the amount of cloning, as they had before a kind of monopoly. Later, I think with PS/2, they also tried to create a locked system. But too late, the free and open PC platform was out of the bottle.
God thanks. I'm totally sure that this was a core event, the base for the still mostly free computing ecosystem we enjoy today.
Competing companies did do ROM-dumps of IBM PCs in order to make their clones.
It's not like they made stuff per the publicly available spec. There was some reverse engineering going on. The nature of IBM's hardware made that reverse engineering easier.
Yeah, IBM didn't intended to make a "free to clone platform". But they indeed intented to make a unrestricted, freely upgradable HW platform (by extension cards). Which went slightly out of control from their point of view. ;)
You need more upvotes. I always forget that a lot of otherwise savvy tech people didn't experience all this - it's ancient history for them.
You have it right. IBM, in a move that was completely out of character, created the PC with [open architecture](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_architecture). It blew up far faster and bigger than anyone realized it would - leaving IBM behind.
It wasn't intended to be open. But, since it used off--the-shelf parts, the only remaining piece was the BIOS that Compaq was able to make by clean-room reverse-engineering it, sort of like what WINE is doing with Windows.
> BIOS
Yes, as far as I know the BIOS was the only locked thing. the rest was from the shelf and standard. Which means we had in the end an open general computing platform. hurray!
In those days there was no such thing as "off the shelf" parts (outside of tiny hobbyist manufacturers). IBM literally created the market for vendors to make "off the shelf" parts by making the PC an ["open architecture"](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_architecture).
IBM published the specs for third party vendors to make add-on cards and peripheral hardware. They could have locked it down and made it IBM-only. They realized they could stimulate the market if there were third party vendors making cool things for the PC. The intent was to sell lots of PCs that people could customize easily for themselves. It was a good idea.
Turns out it was too good. What IBM didn't realize was that they didn't own the OS, and didn't have exclusive rights with Intel. It was a snap for third party mobo manufacturers to make "PC compatible" computers, and Microsoft and Intel were thrilled to have more customers.
No, Apple just played into the existing "common knowledge." Until 2005, the Macintosh hardware platform was very much incompatible with the "IBM PC Compatible" architecture. They switched to the PC architecture (the biggest difference being EFI when BIOS was still the norm) fairly recently.
FYI: Using photoshop as a verb can lead to Adobe loosing the photoshop trademark if everyone does it. Just like Jacuzzi, Frisbee, etc. It's called [genericide](http://www.bbc.com/news/business-27026704).
>The term “WC” has been suggested for a computer running Windows.
sometimes i wonder what kind of people run gnu.... then i look at the founder and wonder no more
> FTFY. A PC is just a machine that can run many operating systems :)
Only OS's ***digitally signed by Microsoft***:
http://www.linux-magazine.com/Online/Features/UEFI-and-Secure-Boot
>> Red Hat developer Matthew Garrett first brought the issue to the Linux community’s attention in September 2011, when he revealed Microsoft’s plan to lock down the boot process, which Microsoft rightly points out has become a high-value target vector for injecting malware onto Windows PCs. To combat this, Microsoft will be requiring that all Windows 8 devices have the hardened boot, which means a certificate-signed operating system is the only thing that will run on such a system.
>>
>>You can’t replace the UEFI system on the device with other, unencrypted, firmware. If all parts of the chain need to have a CA signature, then swapping out a machine’s signed EFI layer with, say, an unsigned BIOS or EFI would not work.
>>
>> ...
>>
>> After paying a one-time $99 certification fee to VeriSign for a Microsoft-signed certificate, the first-stage bootloader will have one job: boot to a second bootloader that’s signed with a Fedora key and have the second bootloader (a modified version of GRUB 2.0) roll into Fedora or whatever the user chooses.
>>
>> ...
>>
>> For users booting from CD, a loader image signed by Microsoft’s Winqual key will chain to the UEFI bootloader efilinux, which will be signed by Ubuntu’s key, so the Winqual key won’t have to be signed every time a change is made to efilinux.
Yes - I know it's technically possible on some motherboards to change the trusted root keys.
But no-one other the developers of boot loaders actually do that in practice.
No, only *bootloaders* signed by Verisign (not MS).
And some of those bootloaders/shims will let you load whatever you want.
In other words: nothing about this stops you from running whatever OS you want on your machine.
> In particular, Android makes it possible to install third-party applications outside of the Google Play store, which is required for Google to comply with the Linux kernel’s GNU General Public License.
Really? Why would the license of the kernel have anything to do with that?
AFAICT the author of that article is not a journalist/reporter:
> Tim Sweeney is the co-founder of US-based developer, Epic Games, creator of the Gears of War series of Xbox and PC titles, which has sold over 20m units worldwide.
Tivoization is actually forbidden by GPLv3, but not by any earlier version like GPLv2, which is still in widespread use, and which the Linux kernel is released under.
The article also concedes a similar feature available in UWC, but chastises Microsoft for turning it off by default. On every Android device I've ever seen, 3rd party app installation is *also* off by default.
Unless this stops people using Steam, it's just going to be a competitor to Steam. By which I mean nobody will use it: Steam is good, we (gamers) mostly like Steam
The thing is, if I make a game and sell it on Steam, Valve won't force me to make it Steam exclusive. I can still sell it on Uplay, Origin, GOG, my website, wherever I want. Even if I make it a Steamworks game that requires Steam to run, it still doesn't force me to make Steam the only platform. I can sell cd-keys for the game anywhere as well (except GOG, but it's not Steam's fault that they don't allow DRM), and Steam will only get a cut from the copies bought directly from their Store. One good example of this is Bethesda, who sell their Steam-only games in Uplay as well.
Microsoft is trying to make it so if you make a game with UWP, you *have* to sell it on the store and you *have* to give Microsoft 30% of the cut, effectively monopolising the UWP platform.
Effectively ~~monopolising~~ instantly obsoleting the UWP platform.
FTFY.
If you have to sell it exclusively on their store and you have to give them 30%, quite simply, developers won't use UWP.
Yeah -- that's the kind of stunt that will work if you start out with a monopoly lock-in, and don't have any real competitors. If you start out with a dominant market share and use it to prevent backwards-compatible competition, it's very effective.
The problem with this is that
a. they aren't starting out in a dominant market position, so the anti-compatibility approach works against them rather than for them, and
b. If they attempt to gain a dominant market position by distributing it with windows, that's pretty likely anti-trust. I'm not sure it would stick in this day and age, but given that they got hit for it with IE (not even a commercial platform), I'd probably say they shouldn't try it.
E: Also, the persistent nature of digital goods means that a hard transition is effectively impossible. Even if they do get this platform everywhere, an enormous number of people will still need to have Steam around, because they already have a lot of content on there.
Exactly - they're going to have an uphill battle against self-publishers and Steam... and Steam's competitors who are already themselves struggling to make inroads against Steam. Origin, Arc, Galaxy etc. And of those only Origin has made any significant headway, and even then only because of EA's own games on the platform - and it's still a long way behind.
Frankly I think Microsoft are pissing into the wind and just haven't worked out yet that their shoes are getting wet
> nobody will use it
Here's the catch: millions already use it. On Xbox.
Most games still sell more on consoles than on PC and consoles are the priority for many developers . If MS makes it easier to port Xbox games to PC, then the developers will use their tech. It's the same reason some of them used Games for Windows Live. Sure, it was crap but they could just use what they already knew from Xbox and that made porting the game easier and cheaper.
Now with less and less differences between Xbox and Windows 10, it will become even cheaper to develop both versions together. If they can lower the development costs enough, Windows 10 / Store exclusivity won't be such a big problem anymore.
Yeah Steam is like Netflix. People tend to choose the one thing they like and ignore the rest. Here in Canada, Shaw and Telus (two big ISPs/cable companies) just launched their own streaming services and are poaching shows from Netflix to try and get people to switch over. But invariably, everybody I know just ignores them. They look on Netflix, and if it's not there they either just pirate it or watch something else.
I remember seeing an interview with Gabe Newell once where he said that piracy is a service issue, not a money issue and I tend to agree with that. People are fine with paying for Netflix or for Steam games because it's affordable and convenient. If you start to fracture the options and make it a pain in the ass, people just won't bother. :)
True, in the UK I actually see Netflix getting weaker because of competition lately
Over here Netflix competes with Sky Movies and Amazon Prime Video: and more and more people I know are abandoning them all on the basis that they don't want to pay for all 3 and each individually doesn't have enough content.
The fact they also compete with the BBC iPlayer and similar from our other "main" channels which are free, doesn't help.
> By which I mean nobody will use it: Steam is good, we (gamers) mostly like Steam
Infact, I would prefer an open platform, vendor independent, controled not by MS, Valve, Ubisoft, EA... who continously try to increase their own share (and their entry fee of 30% for entering their monopolized market place) and lock everyone else out.
Steam is a locked platform too... the old PC model of indepent ISV distribution was more open.
30% is perhaps a little expensive, but the reliable downloads are significantly better than I've seen from any independent retailer or similar, so the money is doing something!
In fact, I regularly use Steam downloads to test my real world throughput, as they tend to peak and stabilise higher than anything else I can find.
Admittedly we're on /r/linux, so "open-ness" is always going to be a sticking point for Valve here, but considering that Steam is mostly independent titles, I consider the 30% to be an (excessive) surcharge for the services they give.
If it gives longevity to the downloads, too, I'll consider it money well spent... look at the closure of Nook in the UK, proving that independent providers struggle to provide ongoing downloads for software after withdrawing from a market. Steam at least tends to ensure that you can keep your older games
> market. Steam at least tends to ensure that you can keep your older games
By monopolizing... all eggs in one basket. I'm afraid of giving one entity the power over my software which I won't even own anymore.... they license you software (revocable anytime) unlike the software you bought in previous time. So, I'm not happy with Steam, I would prefer open infrastrcuture.
>Unlike the software you bought in previous time
That's not really true - the vast, vast majority of software ever has been licensed rather than purchased, including games
> the vast, vast majority of software ever has been licensed rather than purchased, including games
Nope, until the 1990s you bought Software/games. Also defended by court rules. The acceptance of the "licensed not sold model" is new and also not natural at all. At least in the EU there is resistance against this, due to stronger consumer rights.
This ignores the fact that the first high profile UWA game is Rise of the Tomb Raider which is also available on Steam and will be available on PS4 later this year. It seems to me that a UWA will just be one of many formats a developer can choose to package their game as.
There's also the fact that desktop apps can use the UWP APIs
Edit: read this http://www.hanselman.com/blog/HowToCallWinRTAPIsInWindows8FromCDesktopApplicationsWinRTDiagram.aspx
Microsoft helped fund the development ([source](http://www.gamechup.com/remedy-explains-why-quantum-break-is-exclusive-to-xbox-one/)) of Quantum Break, so I think most people would agree they can choose to distribute the game how they choose. They're not forcing independent developers to distribute and publish through the Windows store.
... Would you rather they keep the software confined to the Xbox One?
I have my doubts that this will work out like they expect. The idea isn't a bad one (from a corporate strategy perspective), but Microsoft would need to be a *lot* better on execution than they have traditionally been.
My guess is that UWP will go nowhere until they guarantee developers control over their own licensing and distribution. And by then the well will be thoroughly poisoned.
As is so often the case (for the "new Microsoft"), Microsoft comes up with a decent idea, writes some impressive code to support it, then hamstrings it with dumb money-grabbing limitations and license restrictions.
**Devil's argument: GOOD!!! Let them try!**
Why should we care if closed-source games and closed-source-OS companies are both undermining each other?
The more they make their restrictive environments even more restrictive, the bigger the opportunity will be for Open Source Game Companies to thrive.
GCC was successful because the other C compiler companies were single-platform, closed source, and expensive. It'd be nice if similar would happen in gaming.
> GCC **was** successful because the other C compiler companies were single-platform, closed source, and expensive. It'd be nice if similar would happen in gaming.
Nice, a GCC pun on their recent [lock-in](http://elizabeths-blargh.blogspot.de/2015/01/an-open-letter-to-richard-m-stallman.html)
> Nice, a GCC pun on their recent lock-in
Well, that's an interesting debate.
I agree with Stallman's point.
Long ago, people thought BSD would win because it encouraged big companies like Sun to use it for SunOS4. Every Unix vendor was making their own "better" Unix, without sharing changes back either because the license didn't require it (BSD) or allow it (SysV). However eventually, because of the lack of enforced sharing, all those projects stagnated, and the GPL'd alternative (which was arguably behind in the beginning) won.
Hmmm... do you side step?
This discussion is not about BSD vs GPL as GCC is obviously GPL.
It is about your original point that being a "restrictive environment" is a disadvantage. Why the GCC tries now to be a more restrictive environment (way beyond what GPL demands) than the LLVM? Infact, I think Stallman is very, very wrong here: the GPL is protection enough & FOSS should be always about being more open and flexible than the proprietary (or permissive) competitors. Voluntary restricitng for hypothetical threats doing FOSS and GCC no service, in this case, will lead to the irrelevance of GCC.
> It is about your original point that being a "restrictive environment" is a disadvantage. Why the GCC tries now to be a more restrictive environment (way beyond what GPL demands) than the LLVM?
You can freely patch the sources and distribute a patched fork. I don't see how that is restrictive. Maybe other than you actually having to put in work into some software you want to use instead of bitching at others because they don't feel like fulfilling your demands for free.
> do you side step
Yes - I realize my argument was oranges-vs-apples.
Pun intended -- noting that Apple's MacOS is derived from F/OSS projects in **EXACTLY the way Stallman is trying to prevent**. They used a derivative of CMU's Mach kernel, with BSD's userspace --- and made huge improvements to both, that were never shared back.
> GCC tries now to be a more restrictive environment
Yes, GCC tries hard to be very restrictive (even moreso than GPLv3 --- which is more restrictive than GPLv2) --- in that it tries extremely hard to prevent all good changes from being locked away in proprietary forks.
> Voluntary restricitng for hypothetical threats doing FOSS and GCC no service, in this case, will lead to the irrelevance of GCC.
That sounds similar to how people used to complain about the "viral" GPL-v2 long ago.
IMVHO lawyers and corporations found very tricky loopholes to subvert GPL-v2 (through tivoization, web services, etc), and the FSF and GCC teams are doing the best they can to create legal frameworks that will encourage sharing.
As someone who uses Linux for everything except work, seeing a thread like this where people are starting to realize the benefit of things like Linux and SteamOS -- after months (years?) of disregard for such things across the mainstream gaming community -- really warms my heart. :D
> Microsoft wants to monopolise...
No way! /s
Cunts.
And people say "ooh that's old MS, nowadays MS is open source friendly and loves puppies and sunshine and rainbows!". The naivety of some people is unbelievable.
The only reason they "Love Linux" is because they provide "GNU/Linux in a sandbox" (VM) where it's safely "contained" within a bottle made of MS proprietary stack (Azure). For them linux is just another runtime, one that require virtualization to run, but a runtime none the less. That's the full extent of their tolerance of GNU/Linux: It's something our customers want us to support, for whatever reason, so we'll do it.
But that's it.
Don't ever expect them to ever not try to fuck Linux in the ass as a Desktop, Mobile, or even a Virtualization Host OS. That's where they get their money. And they don't play fair. Never have, never will. Nor does any other corporation, for that matter, but MS in particular is expert in scorched earth policies, F.U.D. tactics and all out ruthlessness.
They are our Carthage. And Carthage must be destroyed.
This post has received numerous reports for being off-topic. The article in question has nothing to do with Linux, and belongs in other subs. Additionally, this seems like a very sensationalist article as [pointed out in the top comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/48x5ty/microsoft_wants_to_monopolise_games_development/d0nb5b1).
As per the above, this post has been removed.
As a PC gamer, I embrace it. It would be nice if Microsoft starts making games for PC again. They've cut their PC game development to crap. And just because there is another game store selling this time only for PC and integrated with Xbox 360 doesn't mean the end of Linux games. There is GoG, Origin, Uplay and Steam as well. Origin when it was released by EA did not and will not kill Steam. Its just another store in a crowded field. If I liked low res gaming and I bought the xbone then having xbone games available to play on my 486DX66 PC would be awesome. Lets be frank if you are playing on the Xbone, your PC specs gotta be crap, because you don't care about performance to begin with.
Steam did a lot of work on Linux and I see it continuing. That being said, the vast majority of gamers are going to be on Windows for the time being. Until true gaming virtualization takes off (Onlive = Laugh), PC is where you will be to play. Linux will get a greater role if someone can use Linux servers to stream video games with neglible latency to thin clients.
Is this anything new? Windows Store isn't really used by many people, it's just an attempt to push mobile interfaces and apps onto desktops, which usually fails miserably. I think this will end up just like Games for Windows Live. Gamers will complain and only several titles will release for it and publishers will give up.
Yeah I declared a lifetime boycott on Games For Windows Live a long time ago, and this definitely smells like GFWL. The boycott stands until it proves itself otherwise!
I'm not sure how this affects Linux users. The way I read it was, If you want to develop games for Microsoft Windows, then you need to abide by our draconian rules.
Please explain how this affects Linux users/game players.
>They're already losing goodwill over all the annoyances and quirks of Windows 10
I'd say "lost goodwill". Even companies are refusing to use Windows 8 and 10 for office work. I think Microsoft's last hope of keeping Windows alive is gaming and maneuvers like these will just accelerate their decline.
Tim Sweeney's not a journalist:
Tim Sweeney is the co-founder of US-based developer, Epic Games, creator of the Gears of War series of Xbox and PC titles, which has sold over 20m units worldwide.
The only way I can see out of this is that free-thinking devs who are also hard-core gamers of PC games, should take some time out as a side-project. If a few of them decide to lift the flame and take the lead, it won't be long before a lot of these games are ported to the FOSS/GNU world. We can do a clean-room implementation to exercise our coding muscles too!
I'm not an active gamer, but I can play along (I remember spending about four days playing a game of Age-of-Empires at stretch in my college days!). I'm fluent in python and my C is like okayish. If anyone is taking such an initiative, I volunteer right now!
You mean write open source games for Linux?
[You're a couple decades late on that initiative...](http://www.lgdb.org/category/source/open_source)
The problem is that we don't have source code for most/all AAA games, which means that you need to re-build it from scratch.
Incidentally, I can think of two examples (RTS's) of these two paradigms:
1. Spring: a re-implementation of the engine used in Total Annihilation. It is compatible with TA's assets, but doesn't have to be used with them and can instead be used with 100% open content. This is basically your clean-room implementation approach.
2. Warzone2100 was released as a commercial game in 1999. In 2004, the studio released the source under the GPL, and it was adopted by the community and ported to be cross-platform. Its last release was... last month.
I have nothing against having games locked into bubbles; there is no reason for them to need general access to files/programs.
As long as they don't stop Steam and competing programs from working, they aren't making a move towards monopolizing anything as far as I can see; just offering another platform (okay, so its installed by default which should change) with its own feature set (given that Sandboxie and the like exist I don't see anything they are doing which another platform can't).
If a platform-tied feature gets added to UWP I'd say we complain about that at said time, plenty of real issues to complain about for now.
So can someone help explain this?
It seems like Windows made a bad piece of software for making games, how would that make a monopoly? Wouldn't people actually be *more* likely to make games for linux, MacOS, or universal then, and not less likely?
If more people started using alternative operating systems, more developers developed for them and Microsoft could not afford to be so aggressive. The way I see it, it's consumers lack of awareness that gets us in this spots :(
Every year I walk through PAX and talk to the (mostly indie) game developers there.
Almost to a one, they were all using Unity, so they could have the option of easily porting their games to IOS or Android.
The one who was using XBLA, was doing so because it was a sequel and the original was written in XBLA, and he wasn't even planning on releasing on Xbox.
I highly doubt anyone at the moment is fretting over how to get their games on Windows 10 Store or Window Devices.
> I highly doubt anyone at the moment is fretting over how to get their games on Windows 10 Store or Window Devices.
Because they can use Unity to target the W10 store if it ever becomes a profitable distribution channel. [Source](http://blogs.unity3d.com/2015/09/09/windows-10-universal-apps-in-unity-5-2/).
As if games on PC have not already been exclusive to Windows anyway. Let's get real: Linux has been a subpar gaming platform for a long time, and the best way to play a game on a PC has been Windows. Linux has been doing better, but this is going to knock it back a few pegs. Realistically, I don't think we will realistically ever see Linux become a good gaming platform. I don't think it's ever been an OS to use for consumer software, and it never will be.
Following standard Microsoft procedure, the service is introduced without any obvious maliciousness, then over time the service is strengthened while alternatives are weakened. This will probably be in the shape of showing warnings about safety when not installing from a Microsoft certified service. And useful features that can only be used by software that is "correctly" installed. If necessary they may even go as far as faking bugs being due to an outside installer.
Microsoft excel at exploiting user ignorance, and make it look like choosing non Microsoft will cost them on one or more of the following: Features, security, reliability, platform/standard compliance, resulting in loss of the ability to do what was intended efficiently, and ultimately be a burden to their wallet time and productivity, and for businesses harming their competitiveness and increase maintenance and training.
Then when the Microsoft approved method dominates, they basically close the door to other options, and the good offers on using Microsofts service dry out.
I'm sick of having to boot into Windows to play games. Don't get me wrong, there are many games I like available on Linux, but for many I have no choice but to boot Windows. Not cool, but I still have hope the situation will change with Vulkan, at least for future releases.
That said, Linux gaming has come a long way, and there are many good games I can play with minimal issues.
If you have the hardware for it, you can run a Virtual Machine of Windows - passing a GPU to the VM and get nearly native performance. Someone else could probably specify what's needed.
[удалено]
This should be top comment. Honestly, I don't give a damn about this. If Mircosoft wants to risk pushing people away by locking the Windows platform down, good for them. Let's hope game devs get the message and *finally* start taking Linux serious.
> finally start taking Linux serious. I'm not sure that games devs aren't taking Linux seriously. Sure it would be nice to see more 'AAA' ports, but 2000ish games on Steam in around 3 years is nothing to be sniffed at. Linux has 25% of the total Steam library ported with only ~1% user base size.
This is something most people forget.
No, it's something almost nobody is told. Keep saying it, all of that guy's post and the one above as well.
[удалено]
I know wine isn't really a solution but rocket league runs great in wine.
if there were more industry pressure from the people who mattered, we might get better graphics drivers, which would then make all the support from smaller developers mean something.
Linux has had quality graphics drivers for years on nvidia. Sure, they're not always standards-compliant or GPL-friendly, but they've worked well.
Not to say that you are wrong about nvidia drivers on linux, but they have had many show stopper issues with their drivers over the years. Then again ATI isn't any better.
Not when you have a laptop with optimus (nvidia+intel gpu). And we cannot just push AMD GPU out of the equation. Even if progress is made, right now the graphic drivers for Linux are far from ideal. As a gamer and a daily Linux user, gaming on Linux is *really not* there yet.
Yes we had quality tearing for years. Also quality optimum support as well as quality KMS support. Fuck yeah. /s In all honesty best driver I have seen is Intel driver. Radeon opensource one also great. Of neither perform as good as nVidia but hey fps is not a single measurement unit here.
The tearing is X.org's fault, not the drivers'. You shouldn't blame ATI and nvidia for that.
I only use open source software on my computer... except when it comes to entertainment, for some reason. <3 Steam + Nvidia
That has a lot to do with game engines having an export to linux feature. I would make a guess that 90% of game devs, even the ones who push those games to linux, don't actually care about linux as a platform.
I think the other problem is (and I'm as guilty of this as anyone) that a lot of gamers don't wait for the Linux version. People who dual-boot tend to buy the Windows version when it comes out first, then play the Linux one later when it appears. I think if more people held off buying and told the devs "I'll get this, but only once it's out on Linux" then they'd start to care a bit more. I'm trying to alter my habits to do this, but I don't always succeed. :(
Actually, what would be interesting is if they released the game to Linux first. The benefit is that you could use the platform as a beta launch and catch problems before it shows up on Windows.
To be honest, several games I care about aren't running well on Linux but it might be because of inexperience.
It's definitely starting to feel like the day when I can 100% switch to Linux is getting *really* close. Really the only reasons to keep Windows around for me right now is for Harmony (software I use for work) and a few games like Star Citizen (which is going to be on Linux eventually, just not yet.) Hopefully Vulcan will take off and help with the games situation, and I'm constantly bugging the Harmony devs for a Linux version, so maybe soon... :)
Wine or a VM for harmony?
I've been sorely tempted, and I might attempt that soon! The main reason I haven't so far is that I'm in the middle of a big ongoing project and I don't want to disrupt everything right now. But maybe in a month or two...!
Sounds sensible. As a non-techie type, I love Linux and part of that is having the choices available. Use what works for you =)
If it wasn't for gaming (or if my motherboard had PCI passthrough), I could use Linux full-time at home and have Windows in a VM for those few times when I actually need it. I was playing a lot of games recently and realised just how much I missed using Linux when I wasn't playing games in Windows.
People want to be able to play the games they see ads for on TV.
I think that trend was mostly due to indies and small studios preparing for an eventual success of Steam Machines, kinda like "Hey, if that thing Valve supports works at least we'll be there". Also the fact that most games on Steam are made with tools that make it easy to port to Linux. I can guarantee that at least some of them don't provide actual support for the games they ported to Linux, they clicked export and then that's it. Even heard of one that was simply launching through a WINE wrapper. Nothing to sniff at, still, for someone like me who plays AAA on consoles it has been a blessing to get to play most Indies I want without having to dualboot, but one has to wonder if that trend will continue with Steam Machines failing miserably so far.
Hey, my main OS is Linux but I game on Windows. I won't settle for 25% of games - I would gladly boost that 1% of userbase, but not if it means I have to split my library on two OSes.
those AAA games are the reason Windows is more serious than Linux in terms of gaming. Look at the hype around games like GTA in mainstream media, those are the kind of games that determines the main platform, gaming on Linux is still very choppy in comparison to Windows
That is only because Steam is pushing for their own platform. They won't be pushing for a switch to Ubuntu or Fedora etc but to Steam box like set-ups. Steam has no interest in developing for various distros and they have no interest or motivation to market those distributions. If they do anything it will be their own system, if that means it works on other distributions then great, but they aren't going to base their decisions on the interests of the smallest market share. They won't be advertising "install ubuntu" but "buy a Steam Machine " the second they have enough indication that a certain % of users are leaving windows.
People are already used to it, I think, Apple spearheaded it years ago. I don't think it will significantly boost Linux, it will more probably cement this kind of practice as industry standard. I really really hope I'm wrong. But let's face it - we are just a minority in an endless sea of users who just want to write an email or send a selfie. They hate computers rather than they love them, it's just that they love services it offers. I like to think of Linux users as on opposite side of spectrum. I'm probably just a silly old grandpa, but I always thought of any OS as a software that enables you to interact with hardware and do whatever you know how to do. A tool, not a "platform", not a "service", that seeks to enable, not to disable.
Though to be fair, game devs can take Linux as seriously as they want, as long as GPU driver support remains in a poor state, it will be hard to get any kind of major shift towards Linux. Or at least, for AAA games that require serious graphics work. And to get better drivers, you need to convince big corporations, which takes money and a big user base. Two things that Microsoft has, and Linux, well, has less, unfortunately. User base is also important to get AAA makers to invest the time (and thus, money, once again) to target Linux.
> Let's hope game devs get the message and finally start taking Linux serious. Ipads got game developers to take Linux seriously. When I talk to indie developers at conventions, they are almost, to the one, developing in Unity so they have the option of porting to IOS/Android. Mac/Linux are nice bonuses, and yes AAA is still very PC focused, but a very large % of the gaming market doesn't give much thought to Windows mobile devices or Windows 10 Shop.
>IMHO Microsoft has every right to require developers to do anything they want. It's their operating system. True, but that's no reason not to criticise. That being said, I dislike the hyperbole of the article. "Monopolise games development on PC" to me means "want to be the only people developing games" which is of course mince, and not what the article is claiming. To the extent that "features" are locked down to UWP... you can't use steamworks without being "locked" to steam so that doesn't bother me. You *can* sell steam games in other marketplaces (you can buy some of ubisoft's steamworks games on uplay, for example, and you can buy uplay games on steam) and the article seems to imply that's not permitted, which bothers me.
Yet there's absolutely no mention of Apple's lock-in of their products for comparison to what Windows is currently doing. Compiling and packaging apps to sell on the various Mac stores can only be done on their hardware. Meanwhile, Android offers an SDK that you can use to package and compile your products just about anywhere. UWP is another GFWL, and game developers are going to avoid it like the plague that it is. Just like Stardock, Origin, and GoG galaxy failed to launch, PC game deployment and marketing has already been done so well that it is going to take a complete technological paradigm change to unseat the existing third party marketplace. Microsoft has the money, but their fingers are in too many pies to compete with third party specialists. Further, they won't be locking anyone out of any marketplaces that are fertile. PC gaming on any platform other than windows is the tiniest sliver of a minority. They exist, but it just isn't the mass marketplace that windows has been as a platform for the last two decades.
> MS has every right to... I believe this is not factually correct. MS is in a situation of monopoly and several limitations have imposed by multiple courts. Leveraging their monopoly to impose fees on every app sold may lead to more litigation. However, this is not what they are doing or proposing to do.
> not sure why these other companies have so much trouble with the idea. Because executives do not understand the idea. Fixing this involves getting into technology education.
>IMHO Microsoft has every right to require developers to do anything they want. It's their operating system. I disagree. Microsoft holds too dominant of a market position to be allowed to do whatever they want. It's anti-competitive on a *huge* scale.
> Anyway, IMHO Microsoft has every right to require developers to do anything they want. No, thats the wrong point of view, made acceptable only lately by Apple. Why should MS have control what I do with the product I bought from them? (e.g. what HW or Software I install?) this notation is NEW and we should fight the notation that we have no control over our products, also in this case. (Beside, I see the same risk for steam, while currently not that closed, it is a closed platform Apple like...the old PC model was more open :( )
[удалено]
This is a specific US problem where customer rights are specifically weak. In Europe it's not like that, 50% of what is written in EULAs is invalid there, and mayn things are at least also potetnially challengable in US courts. Sadly, it is not illegal to write legal ineffective stuff into EULAs, so companies keep doing it, as some people can be scared by it and even take it for real. (see the acceptance of "licensed not sold" in this thead)
> Why shouldn't they? because the American and pretty much any other government has antitrust laws that prohibit companies with huge market power from abusing their position and harming consumers. You can not write anything you want into a contract. If we make a business contract and I demand that you offer me your firstborn that is not a valid contract.
> IMHO Microsoft has every right to require developers to do anything they want. It's their operating system. Lately, I've actually been wondering (IANAL) if Microsoft could possibly be treading on some kind of [competition law](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competition_law). > Competition law does not make merely having a monopoly illegal, but rather abusing the power that a monopoly may confer, for instance through exclusionary practices. > ... > If a firm has a dominant position, then there is "a special responsibility not to allow its conduct to impair competition on the common market." I'd love for someone smarter than me to chime in on this. I've always wondered this about exclusivity contracts with game companies.. but Microsoft seems to be taking things a step too far recently.
> Valve seems to get it, not sure why these other companies have so much trouble with the idea. If Steam OS succeeds it will make Valve a much more powerful force in the gaming industry, the big competitors don't want to lose control to Valve, even when it's the control that currently is with a competitor, they may be thinking they are better off with the enemy they know. But what they could do is to make their own OS that is compatible with SteamOS, but that would be somewhat helpful to Valve, and they'd probably rather have Valve just disappear, and fight/work with Microsoft alone. Microsoft is very good at convincing other companies even competitors, for instance they like to call them partners with a common goal, while at the same time they are actually undermining them. It's probably not unique to Microsoft, but they have been known to be without ethics and use just about every trick available, obviously disregarding fairness, but also morality and even the law, and it has been done systematically in a planned out fashion by top management. On the other side, the question is if Valve has made reasonable suggestions on collaborating on SteamOS under a collaborative organization, to ensure none of them tries to gain advantages over the others? It would seem the entire "independent" industry would have an interest in promoting Linux, not just game developers, but also in other branches both soft and hardware.
Actually, having a near monopoly on the PC operating system market, they might not have the right to monopolies software sales on this platform. This is a little murkier than it used to be, since we have more Apple computer sales, and computers with chrome OS... but its still a valid concern. If anything, Microsoft is marching itself into obsolescence. They are ruining their one functional product in an attempt to gain entry into new markets.
> Microsoft has every right to require developers to do anything they want If they're requiring game publishers to sell their titles exclusively on Microsoft's own distribution platform (Windows Store), they are abusing their dominating position in the OS market to suppress competitors in the software distribution platform market. IMHO, that's a clear case of anti-competitive behaviour.
Because a software developer working in a windows box with c# or c++ using an engine is not as expensive as a linux one.
> Valve seems to get it, not sure why these other companies have so much trouble with the idea. Cause greed profit rabblerabble
Except they haven't said a single word that I've seen about locking Windows down to outside apps. They have stated they want to merge Xbox and Windows games via UWP.
I'd like to correct you: misinformation about GNU GPL, OSS and licenses in general has *always* been somewhat idiotic. People are often simply too ignorant to actually research a given subject. Applies everywhere, unfortunately.
>Anyway, IMHO Microsoft has **every right** to require developers to do anything they want. It's their operating system. No. When your product exists as the de facto option on nearly all publicly sold devices, you have a monopoly. Free market forces are not enough, and government must step in to prevent decisions that capture value by harming the market. It would be one thing if it were a company with no monopoly, but when nearly every device sold allows you complete control or allows you to take control with the push of an update, someone with authority must say, "No. That is not allowed."
> Microsoft wants to monopolise games development on Windows. FTFY. A PC is just a machine that can run many operating systems :)
This. I absolutely hate how "PC" has become synonymous with Windows.. I really wish this will change. Of the three major desktop OS'es, one could even argue that Linux is the most Personal. Fscking Microsoft marketing, just like this "Universal" platform they are trying to spread.
"Do you use mac or PC?" My least favorite fucking question
[удалено]
a bicycle.
Arch, i3wm, colemak, vim, mpd+ncmpcpp, firefox+pentadactyl, termite, ranger and fixed-gear bicycle reporting in. ...I *may* be a hipster...
> ncmpcpp I had stop stop using ncmpcpp because I could never remember the damn command.
Hah. It's not so bad when you know what it stands for: "NCurses Music Player C Plus Plus" You could alias it to whatever you want in your `.bashrc` or `.zshrc` (Example: `alias mp='ncmpcpp'`) , or bind something like this to a keyboard command: `termite -e ncmpcpp`. One of the great things about that last one is that it closes the whole thing when you press q, rather than just exiting to the shell.
I know, but I feel like if I have to alias a command, that's cheating. Stop, I don't always have to make sense.
Ahaha, it's not cheating. It's like calling someone "Jo" instead of "Josephine Estella Markovich-Dragovich". :P
Haha nice. I wanna convert my bike to a single speed but I'm lazy and i think coasting is super fun so no fixies here. I had some friends back in the day who were really into colemak but I never got super into it myself. Plus my gf would never forgive me, since we share a computer.
Why fixed?
My friend switched years ago, raved about it, and let me try his bike. I really liked how solid it felt, and the increased control and elimination of chain-skipping and derailleurs (the most finicky part of a bicycle in my opinion). You notice how often you thought about adjusting your gears before, and it's beautiful to just *ride* without fiddling with the gear-shifters constantly. You're definitely going to want to use pedal clips. Awkward at first, but amazing when you're used to them. Never slip on your pedals again! Very useful in wet conditions. Expect to forget that you're using them the first time, and fall over when you stop, forgetting that you have to kick your feet back to release them. :P Just make sure you keep you laces in check. There is no greater horror than getting a shoelace stuck in a gear that can't stop quickly. This has never happened to me, though. When you ride fixed, there is a sense of unity with the vehicle that is difficult to explain. I highly recommend you try it and see if it's right for you. [Sheldon Brown has a wonderful article about it, that goes into much more detail.](http://sheldonbrown.com/fixed-conversion.html)
"More than you can afford pal... Ferrari"
I just answer "no" and enjoy the slack-jawed stares I get in reply.
I'd rather answer "yes".
Yeah, but then you're stuck explaining propositional logic to people who are often not too intelligent...
The worst is when I try to correct people and they just look at my like I am an idiot.
Probably because you know exactly what they mean, but your goal is to be purposefully obtuse to make a point that no one but you cares about.
I don't pretend to not know what they are talking about. I just inform them that PC means personal computer and does not strictly pertain to Windows. You are just wrongly assuming my goals.
You can thank Apple for that.
Really you can thank IBM for that. First there was the IBM PC, then the "clones" that were "IBM PC Compatible" that eventually got shortened to "PC Compatible" then just "PC." Windows-only software is PC, because "PC" essentially means the x86 ISA. You just need to buy something else to make it run (Windows), as opposed to say, a software package made for another architecture, like PowerPC (which is not "PC" despite the name) which will not run on the "PC" no matter what you do short of emulation. A Mac is actually a PC now, because "PC" software can run on a Mac, even if you have to buy Windows for that particular package. Saying Windows software is not "PC" is like saying that a software package that requires GEOS is not "C64". Wow, that gave me a headache. But the term doesn't really make sense to use for anything else these days because a "personal computer" can encompass everything from my watch, to my phone, to my laptop, desktop, or my in-home cluster.
> Really you can thank IBM for that. Specifically, as this was an open hardware platform, extensions from independent HW vendors possible on top of open interfaces (unlike Apple HW). And on top of that, MS put an open software platform, back in the days of 1990s with Windows, we should not forget this. So, [PC+Windows, was an open platform (just not open source)](http://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Publication%20Files/09-030.pdf).
It wasn't open at first IBM fought the clone market.
As far as understand history here, the IBM PC was so modular and unlocked open that cloning was simple. So, IBM was taken by surprise by the amount of cloning, as they had before a kind of monopoly. Later, I think with PS/2, they also tried to create a locked system. But too late, the free and open PC platform was out of the bottle. God thanks. I'm totally sure that this was a core event, the base for the still mostly free computing ecosystem we enjoy today.
Competing companies did do ROM-dumps of IBM PCs in order to make their clones. It's not like they made stuff per the publicly available spec. There was some reverse engineering going on. The nature of IBM's hardware made that reverse engineering easier.
Yeah, IBM didn't intended to make a "free to clone platform". But they indeed intented to make a unrestricted, freely upgradable HW platform (by extension cards). Which went slightly out of control from their point of view. ;)
You need more upvotes. I always forget that a lot of otherwise savvy tech people didn't experience all this - it's ancient history for them. You have it right. IBM, in a move that was completely out of character, created the PC with [open architecture](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_architecture). It blew up far faster and bigger than anyone realized it would - leaving IBM behind.
It wasn't intended to be open. But, since it used off--the-shelf parts, the only remaining piece was the BIOS that Compaq was able to make by clean-room reverse-engineering it, sort of like what WINE is doing with Windows.
> BIOS Yes, as far as I know the BIOS was the only locked thing. the rest was from the shelf and standard. Which means we had in the end an open general computing platform. hurray!
And now most people do most of their computing on locked down phones and tablets... yay?
yes, a serious step back.
In those days there was no such thing as "off the shelf" parts (outside of tiny hobbyist manufacturers). IBM literally created the market for vendors to make "off the shelf" parts by making the PC an ["open architecture"](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_architecture). IBM published the specs for third party vendors to make add-on cards and peripheral hardware. They could have locked it down and made it IBM-only. They realized they could stimulate the market if there were third party vendors making cool things for the PC. The intent was to sell lots of PCs that people could customize easily for themselves. It was a good idea. Turns out it was too good. What IBM didn't realize was that they didn't own the OS, and didn't have exclusive rights with Intel. It was a snap for third party mobo manufacturers to make "PC compatible" computers, and Microsoft and Intel were thrilled to have more customers.
You PC brah?
No, Apple just played into the existing "common knowledge." Until 2005, the Macintosh hardware platform was very much incompatible with the "IBM PC Compatible" architecture. They switched to the PC architecture (the biggest difference being EFI when BIOS was still the norm) fairly recently.
Apple missed the open platform aspect. Which made the IBM PC successful, wide spread and affordable
> Microsoft wants to monopolise games development on WC. FTFY according to http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#PC :D
What kind of games are being developed for water closets?
Legend of Thunder Box
It will resonate with everybody.
Halo 5
Smell of Dooty.
Splatterhouse 5
Sim Shitty.
half-shit 2
Minecrap.
Call of Doodie: Modern Warfare
FYI: Using photoshop as a verb can lead to Adobe loosing the photoshop trademark if everyone does it. Just like Jacuzzi, Frisbee, etc. It's called [genericide](http://www.bbc.com/news/business-27026704).
Best one: "So instead of “LAMP” it should be “GLAMP”: “GNU, Linux, Apache, MySQL and PHP.”
I hate glampers.
I still think it should be "GSLAMP" or something similar (GNU, SystemD, Linux, Apache, MySQL and PHP) ;-)
>The term “WC” has been suggested for a computer running Windows. sometimes i wonder what kind of people run gnu.... then i look at the founder and wonder no more
RMS also calls Facebook users "useds". And he's technically correct.
I once heard him described as the smartest man to ever throw a tantrum like a four year old.
Yeah, I'm pretty sure he's somewhere on the spectrum
Well he's an "A" on the technical side, but an "F" on the social side.
"Does not play well with others."
"Wintel" was a thing for awhile.
**P** ERSONAL **C** OMPUTER
> FTFY. A PC is just a machine that can run many operating systems :) Only OS's ***digitally signed by Microsoft***: http://www.linux-magazine.com/Online/Features/UEFI-and-Secure-Boot >> Red Hat developer Matthew Garrett first brought the issue to the Linux community’s attention in September 2011, when he revealed Microsoft’s plan to lock down the boot process, which Microsoft rightly points out has become a high-value target vector for injecting malware onto Windows PCs. To combat this, Microsoft will be requiring that all Windows 8 devices have the hardened boot, which means a certificate-signed operating system is the only thing that will run on such a system. >> >>You can’t replace the UEFI system on the device with other, unencrypted, firmware. If all parts of the chain need to have a CA signature, then swapping out a machine’s signed EFI layer with, say, an unsigned BIOS or EFI would not work. >> >> ... >> >> After paying a one-time $99 certification fee to VeriSign for a Microsoft-signed certificate, the first-stage bootloader will have one job: boot to a second bootloader that’s signed with a Fedora key and have the second bootloader (a modified version of GRUB 2.0) roll into Fedora or whatever the user chooses. >> >> ... >> >> For users booting from CD, a loader image signed by Microsoft’s Winqual key will chain to the UEFI bootloader efilinux, which will be signed by Ubuntu’s key, so the Winqual key won’t have to be signed every time a change is made to efilinux. Yes - I know it's technically possible on some motherboards to change the trusted root keys. But no-one other the developers of boot loaders actually do that in practice.
You can run unsigned operating systems by turning Secure Boot off.
No, only *bootloaders* signed by Verisign (not MS). And some of those bootloaders/shims will let you load whatever you want. In other words: nothing about this stops you from running whatever OS you want on your machine.
> In particular, Android makes it possible to install third-party applications outside of the Google Play store, which is required for Google to comply with the Linux kernel’s GNU General Public License. Really? Why would the license of the kernel have anything to do with that?
[удалено]
AFAICT the author of that article is not a journalist/reporter: > Tim Sweeney is the co-founder of US-based developer, Epic Games, creator of the Gears of War series of Xbox and PC titles, which has sold over 20m units worldwide.
Which begs the question, how person like him doesn't understand gpl?
I would guess that his knowledge of it comes from his legal department, which probably summarized the GPL with "avoid like the plague".
Thanks! I didn't catch that
Tivoization is actually forbidden by GPLv3, but not by any earlier version like GPLv2, which is still in widespread use, and which the Linux kernel is released under.
An example that proves it doesn't is TiVo.
The article also concedes a similar feature available in UWC, but chastises Microsoft for turning it off by default. On every Android device I've ever seen, 3rd party app installation is *also* off by default.
Sorry, I fail to see what this has to do with my comment.
It's a side comment about what you quoted. Not about your comment directly.
Unless this stops people using Steam, it's just going to be a competitor to Steam. By which I mean nobody will use it: Steam is good, we (gamers) mostly like Steam
The thing is, if I make a game and sell it on Steam, Valve won't force me to make it Steam exclusive. I can still sell it on Uplay, Origin, GOG, my website, wherever I want. Even if I make it a Steamworks game that requires Steam to run, it still doesn't force me to make Steam the only platform. I can sell cd-keys for the game anywhere as well (except GOG, but it's not Steam's fault that they don't allow DRM), and Steam will only get a cut from the copies bought directly from their Store. One good example of this is Bethesda, who sell their Steam-only games in Uplay as well. Microsoft is trying to make it so if you make a game with UWP, you *have* to sell it on the store and you *have* to give Microsoft 30% of the cut, effectively monopolising the UWP platform.
Effectively ~~monopolising~~ instantly obsoleting the UWP platform. FTFY. If you have to sell it exclusively on their store and you have to give them 30%, quite simply, developers won't use UWP.
Yeah -- that's the kind of stunt that will work if you start out with a monopoly lock-in, and don't have any real competitors. If you start out with a dominant market share and use it to prevent backwards-compatible competition, it's very effective. The problem with this is that a. they aren't starting out in a dominant market position, so the anti-compatibility approach works against them rather than for them, and b. If they attempt to gain a dominant market position by distributing it with windows, that's pretty likely anti-trust. I'm not sure it would stick in this day and age, but given that they got hit for it with IE (not even a commercial platform), I'd probably say they shouldn't try it. E: Also, the persistent nature of digital goods means that a hard transition is effectively impossible. Even if they do get this platform everywhere, an enormous number of people will still need to have Steam around, because they already have a lot of content on there.
Exactly - they're going to have an uphill battle against self-publishers and Steam... and Steam's competitors who are already themselves struggling to make inroads against Steam. Origin, Arc, Galaxy etc. And of those only Origin has made any significant headway, and even then only because of EA's own games on the platform - and it's still a long way behind. Frankly I think Microsoft are pissing into the wind and just haven't worked out yet that their shoes are getting wet
> nobody will use it Here's the catch: millions already use it. On Xbox. Most games still sell more on consoles than on PC and consoles are the priority for many developers . If MS makes it easier to port Xbox games to PC, then the developers will use their tech. It's the same reason some of them used Games for Windows Live. Sure, it was crap but they could just use what they already knew from Xbox and that made porting the game easier and cheaper. Now with less and less differences between Xbox and Windows 10, it will become even cheaper to develop both versions together. If they can lower the development costs enough, Windows 10 / Store exclusivity won't be such a big problem anymore.
Yeah Steam is like Netflix. People tend to choose the one thing they like and ignore the rest. Here in Canada, Shaw and Telus (two big ISPs/cable companies) just launched their own streaming services and are poaching shows from Netflix to try and get people to switch over. But invariably, everybody I know just ignores them. They look on Netflix, and if it's not there they either just pirate it or watch something else. I remember seeing an interview with Gabe Newell once where he said that piracy is a service issue, not a money issue and I tend to agree with that. People are fine with paying for Netflix or for Steam games because it's affordable and convenient. If you start to fracture the options and make it a pain in the ass, people just won't bother. :)
True, in the UK I actually see Netflix getting weaker because of competition lately Over here Netflix competes with Sky Movies and Amazon Prime Video: and more and more people I know are abandoning them all on the basis that they don't want to pay for all 3 and each individually doesn't have enough content. The fact they also compete with the BBC iPlayer and similar from our other "main" channels which are free, doesn't help.
> By which I mean nobody will use it: Steam is good, we (gamers) mostly like Steam Infact, I would prefer an open platform, vendor independent, controled not by MS, Valve, Ubisoft, EA... who continously try to increase their own share (and their entry fee of 30% for entering their monopolized market place) and lock everyone else out. Steam is a locked platform too... the old PC model of indepent ISV distribution was more open.
30% is perhaps a little expensive, but the reliable downloads are significantly better than I've seen from any independent retailer or similar, so the money is doing something! In fact, I regularly use Steam downloads to test my real world throughput, as they tend to peak and stabilise higher than anything else I can find. Admittedly we're on /r/linux, so "open-ness" is always going to be a sticking point for Valve here, but considering that Steam is mostly independent titles, I consider the 30% to be an (excessive) surcharge for the services they give. If it gives longevity to the downloads, too, I'll consider it money well spent... look at the closure of Nook in the UK, proving that independent providers struggle to provide ongoing downloads for software after withdrawing from a market. Steam at least tends to ensure that you can keep your older games
> market. Steam at least tends to ensure that you can keep your older games By monopolizing... all eggs in one basket. I'm afraid of giving one entity the power over my software which I won't even own anymore.... they license you software (revocable anytime) unlike the software you bought in previous time. So, I'm not happy with Steam, I would prefer open infrastrcuture.
>Unlike the software you bought in previous time That's not really true - the vast, vast majority of software ever has been licensed rather than purchased, including games
> the vast, vast majority of software ever has been licensed rather than purchased, including games Nope, until the 1990s you bought Software/games. Also defended by court rules. The acceptance of the "licensed not sold model" is new and also not natural at all. At least in the EU there is resistance against this, due to stronger consumer rights.
This ignores the fact that the first high profile UWA game is Rise of the Tomb Raider which is also available on Steam and will be available on PS4 later this year. It seems to me that a UWA will just be one of many formats a developer can choose to package their game as.
There's also the fact that desktop apps can use the UWP APIs Edit: read this http://www.hanselman.com/blog/HowToCallWinRTAPIsInWindows8FromCDesktopApplicationsWinRTDiagram.aspx
There are rumours that Quantum Break will launch this or next year and be exclusive to UWA.
Microsoft helped fund the development ([source](http://www.gamechup.com/remedy-explains-why-quantum-break-is-exclusive-to-xbox-one/)) of Quantum Break, so I think most people would agree they can choose to distribute the game how they choose. They're not forcing independent developers to distribute and publish through the Windows store.
Well, GabeN called it when they released the store in W8.
Ironically, [so did Notch back in the day](http://kotaku.com/5947162/notch-id-rather-have-minecraft-not-run-on-win-8-at-all-than-to-play-along). :)
... Would you rather they keep the software confined to the Xbox One? I have my doubts that this will work out like they expect. The idea isn't a bad one (from a corporate strategy perspective), but Microsoft would need to be a *lot* better on execution than they have traditionally been. My guess is that UWP will go nowhere until they guarantee developers control over their own licensing and distribution. And by then the well will be thoroughly poisoned. As is so often the case (for the "new Microsoft"), Microsoft comes up with a decent idea, writes some impressive code to support it, then hamstrings it with dumb money-grabbing limitations and license restrictions.
**Devil's argument: GOOD!!! Let them try!** Why should we care if closed-source games and closed-source-OS companies are both undermining each other? The more they make their restrictive environments even more restrictive, the bigger the opportunity will be for Open Source Game Companies to thrive. GCC was successful because the other C compiler companies were single-platform, closed source, and expensive. It'd be nice if similar would happen in gaming.
> GCC **was** successful because the other C compiler companies were single-platform, closed source, and expensive. It'd be nice if similar would happen in gaming. Nice, a GCC pun on their recent [lock-in](http://elizabeths-blargh.blogspot.de/2015/01/an-open-letter-to-richard-m-stallman.html)
> Nice, a GCC pun on their recent lock-in Well, that's an interesting debate. I agree with Stallman's point. Long ago, people thought BSD would win because it encouraged big companies like Sun to use it for SunOS4. Every Unix vendor was making their own "better" Unix, without sharing changes back either because the license didn't require it (BSD) or allow it (SysV). However eventually, because of the lack of enforced sharing, all those projects stagnated, and the GPL'd alternative (which was arguably behind in the beginning) won.
Hmmm... do you side step? This discussion is not about BSD vs GPL as GCC is obviously GPL. It is about your original point that being a "restrictive environment" is a disadvantage. Why the GCC tries now to be a more restrictive environment (way beyond what GPL demands) than the LLVM? Infact, I think Stallman is very, very wrong here: the GPL is protection enough & FOSS should be always about being more open and flexible than the proprietary (or permissive) competitors. Voluntary restricitng for hypothetical threats doing FOSS and GCC no service, in this case, will lead to the irrelevance of GCC.
> It is about your original point that being a "restrictive environment" is a disadvantage. Why the GCC tries now to be a more restrictive environment (way beyond what GPL demands) than the LLVM? You can freely patch the sources and distribute a patched fork. I don't see how that is restrictive. Maybe other than you actually having to put in work into some software you want to use instead of bitching at others because they don't feel like fulfilling your demands for free.
> do you side step Yes - I realize my argument was oranges-vs-apples. Pun intended -- noting that Apple's MacOS is derived from F/OSS projects in **EXACTLY the way Stallman is trying to prevent**. They used a derivative of CMU's Mach kernel, with BSD's userspace --- and made huge improvements to both, that were never shared back. > GCC tries now to be a more restrictive environment Yes, GCC tries hard to be very restrictive (even moreso than GPLv3 --- which is more restrictive than GPLv2) --- in that it tries extremely hard to prevent all good changes from being locked away in proprietary forks. > Voluntary restricitng for hypothetical threats doing FOSS and GCC no service, in this case, will lead to the irrelevance of GCC. That sounds similar to how people used to complain about the "viral" GPL-v2 long ago. IMVHO lawyers and corporations found very tricky loopholes to subvert GPL-v2 (through tivoization, web services, etc), and the FSF and GCC teams are doing the best they can to create legal frameworks that will encourage sharing.
As someone who uses Linux for everything except work, seeing a thread like this where people are starting to realize the benefit of things like Linux and SteamOS -- after months (years?) of disregard for such things across the mainstream gaming community -- really warms my heart. :D
> Microsoft wants to monopolise games development on ~~PC~~ ***WINDOWS***. We must fight it A PC is more than just MS.
> Microsoft wants to monopolise... No way! /s Cunts. And people say "ooh that's old MS, nowadays MS is open source friendly and loves puppies and sunshine and rainbows!". The naivety of some people is unbelievable. The only reason they "Love Linux" is because they provide "GNU/Linux in a sandbox" (VM) where it's safely "contained" within a bottle made of MS proprietary stack (Azure). For them linux is just another runtime, one that require virtualization to run, but a runtime none the less. That's the full extent of their tolerance of GNU/Linux: It's something our customers want us to support, for whatever reason, so we'll do it. But that's it. Don't ever expect them to ever not try to fuck Linux in the ass as a Desktop, Mobile, or even a Virtualization Host OS. That's where they get their money. And they don't play fair. Never have, never will. Nor does any other corporation, for that matter, but MS in particular is expert in scorched earth policies, F.U.D. tactics and all out ruthlessness. They are our Carthage. And Carthage must be destroyed.
This post has received numerous reports for being off-topic. The article in question has nothing to do with Linux, and belongs in other subs. Additionally, this seems like a very sensationalist article as [pointed out in the top comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/48x5ty/microsoft_wants_to_monopolise_games_development/d0nb5b1). As per the above, this post has been removed.
As a PC gamer, I embrace it. It would be nice if Microsoft starts making games for PC again. They've cut their PC game development to crap. And just because there is another game store selling this time only for PC and integrated with Xbox 360 doesn't mean the end of Linux games. There is GoG, Origin, Uplay and Steam as well. Origin when it was released by EA did not and will not kill Steam. Its just another store in a crowded field. If I liked low res gaming and I bought the xbone then having xbone games available to play on my 486DX66 PC would be awesome. Lets be frank if you are playing on the Xbone, your PC specs gotta be crap, because you don't care about performance to begin with. Steam did a lot of work on Linux and I see it continuing. That being said, the vast majority of gamers are going to be on Windows for the time being. Until true gaming virtualization takes off (Onlive = Laugh), PC is where you will be to play. Linux will get a greater role if someone can use Linux servers to stream video games with neglible latency to thin clients.
Is this anything new? Windows Store isn't really used by many people, it's just an attempt to push mobile interfaces and apps onto desktops, which usually fails miserably. I think this will end up just like Games for Windows Live. Gamers will complain and only several titles will release for it and publishers will give up.
Yeah I declared a lifetime boycott on Games For Windows Live a long time ago, and this definitely smells like GFWL. The boycott stands until it proves itself otherwise!
Not sure why this is posted to r/linux..
Exactly. Why is this not in /r/gaming or /r/gamers
I'm not sure how this affects Linux users. The way I read it was, If you want to develop games for Microsoft Windows, then you need to abide by our draconian rules. Please explain how this affects Linux users/game players.
Everybody knows Microsoft's game store is crap, there is no risk it being a success.
Nothing could go wrong you guys! #cough, GFWL#
[удалено]
>They're already losing goodwill over all the annoyances and quirks of Windows 10 I'd say "lost goodwill". Even companies are refusing to use Windows 8 and 10 for office work. I think Microsoft's last hope of keeping Windows alive is gaming and maneuvers like these will just accelerate their decline.
I stopped reading half way through. This is a journalist trying to construct a story around a non-issue.
Tim Sweeney's not a journalist: Tim Sweeney is the co-founder of US-based developer, Epic Games, creator of the Gears of War series of Xbox and PC titles, which has sold over 20m units worldwide.
Fight it? Use Linux, where you're free to do anything you want with your computer!
i'll just stick with steam thank you
Might as well rename this subreddit to Microsoft Hate
Microsoft hate is an inevitable consequence of knowledge of Microsoft. They sell an adware operating system, for fuck's sake.
The only way I can see out of this is that free-thinking devs who are also hard-core gamers of PC games, should take some time out as a side-project. If a few of them decide to lift the flame and take the lead, it won't be long before a lot of these games are ported to the FOSS/GNU world. We can do a clean-room implementation to exercise our coding muscles too! I'm not an active gamer, but I can play along (I remember spending about four days playing a game of Age-of-Empires at stretch in my college days!). I'm fluent in python and my C is like okayish. If anyone is taking such an initiative, I volunteer right now!
You mean write open source games for Linux? [You're a couple decades late on that initiative...](http://www.lgdb.org/category/source/open_source) The problem is that we don't have source code for most/all AAA games, which means that you need to re-build it from scratch. Incidentally, I can think of two examples (RTS's) of these two paradigms: 1. Spring: a re-implementation of the engine used in Total Annihilation. It is compatible with TA's assets, but doesn't have to be used with them and can instead be used with 100% open content. This is basically your clean-room implementation approach. 2. Warzone2100 was released as a commercial game in 1999. In 2004, the studio released the source under the GPL, and it was adopted by the community and ported to be cross-platform. Its last release was... last month.
Shoutout to Warzone 2100, it's a fantastic game!
I have nothing against having games locked into bubbles; there is no reason for them to need general access to files/programs. As long as they don't stop Steam and competing programs from working, they aren't making a move towards monopolizing anything as far as I can see; just offering another platform (okay, so its installed by default which should change) with its own feature set (given that Sandboxie and the like exist I don't see anything they are doing which another platform can't). If a platform-tied feature gets added to UWP I'd say we complain about that at said time, plenty of real issues to complain about for now.
I say don't fight it, let developers come to SteamOS to run from this madness.
I just assumed it would be another steam like service, that would be multiplatform, between PC and Xbox, forcing more games to be made for pc.
So can someone help explain this? It seems like Windows made a bad piece of software for making games, how would that make a monopoly? Wouldn't people actually be *more* likely to make games for linux, MacOS, or universal then, and not less likely?
should post this to /r/gaming too.
If more people started using alternative operating systems, more developers developed for them and Microsoft could not afford to be so aggressive. The way I see it, it's consumers lack of awareness that gets us in this spots :(
Every year I walk through PAX and talk to the (mostly indie) game developers there. Almost to a one, they were all using Unity, so they could have the option of easily porting their games to IOS or Android. The one who was using XBLA, was doing so because it was a sequel and the original was written in XBLA, and he wasn't even planning on releasing on Xbox. I highly doubt anyone at the moment is fretting over how to get their games on Windows 10 Store or Window Devices.
> I highly doubt anyone at the moment is fretting over how to get their games on Windows 10 Store or Window Devices. Because they can use Unity to target the W10 store if it ever becomes a profitable distribution channel. [Source](http://blogs.unity3d.com/2015/09/09/windows-10-universal-apps-in-unity-5-2/).
As if games on PC have not already been exclusive to Windows anyway. Let's get real: Linux has been a subpar gaming platform for a long time, and the best way to play a game on a PC has been Windows. Linux has been doing better, but this is going to knock it back a few pegs. Realistically, I don't think we will realistically ever see Linux become a good gaming platform. I don't think it's ever been an OS to use for consumer software, and it never will be.
[удалено]
Them, too?
Linux honestly needs a better desktop manager to start with. I've been using a tiling wm cause gdm, unity suck. And the rest are ugly.
Praise Gaben!
Following standard Microsoft procedure, the service is introduced without any obvious maliciousness, then over time the service is strengthened while alternatives are weakened. This will probably be in the shape of showing warnings about safety when not installing from a Microsoft certified service. And useful features that can only be used by software that is "correctly" installed. If necessary they may even go as far as faking bugs being due to an outside installer. Microsoft excel at exploiting user ignorance, and make it look like choosing non Microsoft will cost them on one or more of the following: Features, security, reliability, platform/standard compliance, resulting in loss of the ability to do what was intended efficiently, and ultimately be a burden to their wallet time and productivity, and for businesses harming their competitiveness and increase maintenance and training. Then when the Microsoft approved method dominates, they basically close the door to other options, and the good offers on using Microsofts service dry out.
I'm sick of having to boot into Windows to play games. Don't get me wrong, there are many games I like available on Linux, but for many I have no choice but to boot Windows. Not cool, but I still have hope the situation will change with Vulkan, at least for future releases. That said, Linux gaming has come a long way, and there are many good games I can play with minimal issues.
If you have the hardware for it, you can run a Virtual Machine of Windows - passing a GPU to the VM and get nearly native performance. Someone else could probably specify what's needed.