Microsoft UWP Discussion

I'm sure there's more than a few switches involved in making an RTS play nicely over network vs a third person shooter. Crossplay for HW1/2 was probably not on the agenda during development. Gears 4 at least has an engine with a PC history. I mean, Gears of War 4's MP modes share the same framerates between platforms. Horde can go to 60fps on PC, but I've found interesting bugs with crossplay there than when I manually cap it to 30 (ala XO).

HW1 on PC is more or less a barebones port to make it run (at least it's not running shitty from what I understand), and I don't know what assumptions were made in its original development that might make it less than ideal for it.

edit: RE: HW2 crossplay https://www.gamespot.com/articles/halo-wars-2-wont-have-cross-play-at-launch-not-rul/1100-6440807/
 
Last edited:
I don't understand this:
They (Microsoft) always said, that the crossplay is the biggest feature for Windows 10 and Xbox One. But the only game, where it works, is Gears of War 4 and it took more than six months!

It supported crossplay on day 0 for co-opperative modes such as campaign and horde. The only ones that took 6 months was the competative play (multiplayer versus).
 
I assume the XBL component is removed from the steam version? Otherwise it doesn't make sense to segregate the PC versions.

The game doesn't actually have crossplay between WinStore & Xbox mind you, and neither does the sequel. I'm not sure how the technical stuff works on there & what things are necessary for it to work behind the scenes (lockstep, 30 vs 60 Hz etc.).
Right, I poorly interpreted it as that halo wars supported crossplkay between w10 and Xbox. But now I see it's not even that.
 
Does anyone know if there's anything in steams terms & conditions about cross network play?

I'm not sure if it's changed in recent years but I know in the past there were no restrictions. For example, some GFWL games (like Warhammer 40k Dawn of War 2) used Microsoft's service for multiplayer. They have since been patched to use Steam as the GFWL service was terminated. I'm pretty sure Crysis 2 and DAO (purely for DLC verification) still use EAs service as well.

Regards,
SB
 
I'm not sure if it's changed in recent years but I know in the past there were no restrictions. For example, some GFWL games (like Warhammer 40k Dawn of War 2) used Microsoft's service for multiplayer. They have since been patched to use Steam as the GFWL service was terminated. I'm pretty sure Crysis 2 and DAO (purely for DLC verification) still use EAs service as well.

Regards,
SB
I find ms strategy crazy then.
they go on about xplay, and their open to it.
Yet as usual they don't demonstrate something in their own products.

Their giving people less reason to invest in w10 version, as people will think "if ms release it on steam I'll not be able to play against them", so the player base is even smaller.

the trouble is i think it only has co-operative xplay with x1 not competitive.

may be should've given steam version xplay with w10, xplay co-operative with x1, but no xbox achievements.
bigger player bases all around, with still lots of benefits to owning w10/x1 versions
 
the trouble is i think it only has co-operative xplay with x1 not competitive.

Competitive crossplay is difficult as if you aren't careful the people on console will be at a massive disadvantage depending on the game type. For a shooter like Gears of War 4, competitive crossplay would lead to console players being at massive disadvantage against keyboard and mouse PC players. For something like a Forza Horizon 3, the disadvantage won't be as large. PC players will still have a small control advantage due to faster and more fluid controls due to 60+ hz display rates, but that's relatively minor compared to the huge disparity between KB/M and controller for a shooter.

As for Steam multiplayer, as I mentioned this is how it used to be. I don't know if it's still like that. It's rare to find games not using the Steam service for multiplayer matchmaking. As well things get further complicated due to how multiplayer sessions are hosted and joined.

On both Steam and Xbox game services, you can invite players directly through your friends list and it will work even if they aren't already in the game. So, that would present potential complications if a Steam user is expecting to be able to invite their friends into an Xbox crossplay game through their Steam friend's list but the game is instead using Microsoft's multiplayer matchmaking and associated friend's list.

Regards,
SB
 
Competitive crossplay is difficult as if you aren't careful the people on console will be at a massive disadvantage depending on the game type. For a shooter like Gears of War 4, competitive crossplay would lead to console players being at massive disadvantage against keyboard and mouse PC players. For something like a Forza Horizon 3, the disadvantage won't be as large. PC players will still have a small control advantage due to faster and more fluid controls due to 60+ hz display rates, but that's relatively minor compared to the huge disparity between KB/M and controller for a shooter.

As for Steam multiplayer, as I mentioned this is how it used to be. I don't know if it's still like that. It's rare to find games not using the Steam service for multiplayer matchmaking. As well things get further complicated due to how multiplayer sessions are hosted and joined.

On both Steam and Xbox game services, you can invite players directly through your friends list and it will work even if they aren't already in the game. So, that would present potential complications if a Steam user is expecting to be able to invite their friends into an Xbox crossplay game through their Steam friend's list but the game is instead using Microsoft's multiplayer matchmaking and associated friend's list.

Regards,
SB
yep, i acknowledge why they don't have competitive xplay, I'm saying that's why the player base isn't large.

if the fps was such a problem in f:horizon then they should also limit it on pc side as they compete against each other with dithering fps.(although i hear that 60fps on pc is pretty buggy regardless of power of rig)
how many people play horizon on pc with pad, kb/m, wheel? I'm surprised they can't detect what the control method is by now and make some decisions based on that.

they've also expanded it to include competitive play in gears i believe, in social play not ranked matches, although they probably left it so late that there's probably hardly anyone on pc now. So it shows that it can be done even with dithering control methods.

for competitive play i think it should be optional lobbies though, give players the option to choose if they care, or to play against people they know.

would steam cross play be easy to implement, probably not, but if steam allows it then that's all it is.
may have to be done with some limitations even, but it still would've ultimately helped the player base, and proven that their open to xplay.

until they get the w10 store up to a state that gamers like, and convince them to use it, these hobbled xplay attempts isn't doing their cause any good.
w10 player base is too small, even though a large percentage is probably using a pad, and on the console side it's seen as not having exclusives (regardless if i think that's valid or not).
Lose lose.
 
:DTim Sweeney wins: http://www.windowscentral.com/windows-10-s

No Steam, no iTunes, no Firefox, no LibreOffice...
But Windows 10 S being locked to the Windows Store isn't a be-all, end-all scenario. If needed, users can upgrade to Windows 10 Pro directly from a Windows 10 S installation. This does cost you, but not as much as it would upgrading from Windows 10 Home to Windows 10 Pro. The upgrade only costs $49.99 for normal users, which is a huge deal.


https://twitter.com/TimSweeneyEpic/status/828006155133784064
 
Last edited:
Tim Sweeney wins: http://www.windowscentral.com/windows-10-s

No Steam, no iTunes, no Firefox, no LibreOffice...
Wins what ? The stupid tinfoil-hat contest? No Steam, no iTunes, no Firefox, no LibreOffice on Chromebooks and no way to even change the OS on them either...where is Tim's stupid rant about them? Want Windows 10 Pro ? Pay 49$ for the upgrade (free for schools who already have a Pro license & free for any Surface Laptop purchase this year). Sweeney is a nut-job conspiracy theorist. Don't want it (windows 10 S)? Don't buy it? Simple as that. Stick to Home/Pro which will be on 99% of the PC's out there.
 
Last edited:
Wins what ? The stupid tinfoil-hat contest? No Steam, no iTunes, no Firefox, no LibreOffice on Chromebooks and no way to even change the OS on them either...where is Tim's stupid rant about them? Want Windows 10 Pro ? Pay 49$ for the upgrade (free for schools who already have a Pro license & free for any Surface Laptop purchase this year). Sweeney is a nut-job conspiracy theorist. Don't want it (windows 10 S)? Don't buy it? Simple as that. Stick to Home/Pro which will be on 99% of the PC's out there.
at least it was you that got triggered :LOL:
I would've gone on some crazy rant
 
Wins what ? The stupid tinfoil-hat contest? No Steam, no iTunes, no Firefox, no LibreOffice on Chromebooks and no way to even change the OS on them either...where is Tim's stupid rant about them? Want Windows 10 Pro ? Pay 49$ for the upgrade (free for schools who already have a Pro license & free for any Surface Laptop purchase this year). Sweeney is a nut-job conspiracy theorist. Don't want it (windows 10 S)? Don't buy it? Simple as that. Stick to Home/Pro which will be on 99% of the PC's out there.
Sweeney is/was afraid, that Windows 10 S won't be limited to cheap laptops/2in1s for schools. Imagine: You buy a good pc with Windows 10 S, come home and - surprise-surprise - you cannot play your Steam games without upgrading to full Windows 10 Home or Pro, which is not for free. So people would stay at Windows 10 S and use UWP apps only.
 
I'm pleased/surprised to see the upgrade is $49. If I want to run Windows 10 Pro on my PC, MS asks $199. Or 199€, actually.
But I think they'll sell this on Atom with soldered 4GB memory and 64GB flash (or 32GB with a 32bit version), so the $49 upgrade won't get you far if you want to run modern games and memory hungry bloat.
 
But I think they'll sell this on Atom with soldered 4GB memory and 64GB flash (or 32GB with a 32bit version), so the $49 upgrade won't get you far if you want to run modern games and memory hungry bloat.

Their launch device for 10 S isn't much like that at all:

https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/surface/devices/surface-laptop/overview

(Maybe they're counting on a lot of those $49 upgrades. Who'd want to pay up to $2,2K for that machine only to get stuck with the Windows Store?)
 
Their launch device for 10 S isn't much like that at all:

https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/surface/devices/surface-laptop/overview

(Maybe they're counting on a lot of those $49 upgrades. Who'd want to pay up to $2,2K for that machine only to get stuck with the Windows Store?)

Except, upgrade to Win 10 Pro is free for purchasers of the Surface Laptop until the end of this year. And I'm willing to bet that it'll either get extended at the end of the year or have an option with Win 10 Pro at the current price with the Win 10 S version getting a discount.

Regards,
SB
 
Sweeney is/was afraid, that Windows 10 S won't be limited to cheap laptops/2in1s for schools. Imagine: You buy a good pc with Windows 10 S, come home and - surprise-surprise - you cannot play your Steam games without upgrading to full Windows 10 Home or Pro, which is not for free. So people would stay at Windows 10 S and use UWP apps only.
In those tweets, Sweeney suggested Microsoft would be doing this to people's current windows installations, not future ones. It's just not true. Microsoft isn't stealing win32 compatibility away from current Windows 10 machines.
Paying $50 for the win32 upgrade isn't that much of a steal IMO. It's $50 to go from a ChromeOS-like web-app based system to a full-fledged windows machine.
Microsoft is desperate to break their chains to x86 CPUs (more than stealing Steam from people or getting a cut from all software sold IMO) so we'll keep seeing these maneuvers here and there. At least as long as Intel has a stagnated monopoly in x86 offerings while ARM SoCs continue to rise in performance so fast.


Their launch device for 10 S isn't much like that at all:
Surface represents a premium line of products. Most windows 10 S machines will probably be just like this:
https://www.notebookcheck.net/Acer-launches-TravelMate-Spin-B1-with-Windows-10-S.216836.0.html

EDIT: Here's Microsoft's own list. Bottom price is $190 for a HP model:

https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/education/devices/default.aspx
Atom-based Celeron and soldered 4GB RAM + 64GB eMMC.

Except, upgrade to Win 10 Pro is free for purchasers of the Surface Laptop until the end of this year. And I'm willing to bet that it'll either get extended at the end of the year or have an option with Win 10 Pro at the current price with the Win 10 S version getting a discount.
Were you also willing to bet Microsoft was going to extend the deadlines for free Windows 7/8 -> 10 conversion?
Lots of people seemed to believe so, yet Microsoft didn't do that.
 
Were you also willing to bet Microsoft was going to extend the deadlines for free Windows 7/8 -> 10 conversion?
Lots of people seemed to believe so, yet Microsoft didn't do that.

AFAIK you can still get that upgrade. It just requires you to have a disability enabled installation on your PC which is easy to do and easily found.

https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/ac...ge-for-people-who-use-assistive-technologies/

They make no secret of this, and the fact that it is extremely easy to do it means that while "officially" the free upgrade to Windows 10 is over, in practice it still exists for anyone that wants it.

Regards,
SB
 
Back
Top