Jump to content
rllmuk
Sign in to follow this  
HarryBizzle

Microsoft's UWP and the future of open PC gaming

Recommended Posts

13 minutes ago, RubberJohnny said:

Why are people still talking like mods wouldn't be allowed?

 

Because they have a total reading comprehension failure.  I note that not one person has responded to my question whether being able to inject malicious code into an exe is a worthwhile price to pay for someone else to mod a game for them.  The Phil Spencer quote above even says it is a concern, and they want to figure out some way around it but Gerbik must have missed the bolding.

 

Quote

Also, I just saw that some Spider-Man game is on sale on Steam at the moment. Superhero stuff is a thing of mine, but apparently this one doesn't work on Windows 10. The only solution is to run the exe in Windows 7 compatibility mode. Good luck doing that if you ever encounter this kind of problem on the WIndows Store with some UWP game!

 

"Hi. Is that Tesla Cars?  Yeah, I want to make a complaint.  I bought one of your cars and it won't let me put any petrol in it.  What is wrong with you people? Why have you not let me do that?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, RubberJohnny said:

Why are people still talking like mods wouldn't be allowed?

 

They're not, they're just pointing out the positives of modding being possible in the first place. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Plissken said:

Because they have a total reading comprehension failure.  I note that not one person has responded to my question whether being able to inject malicious code into an exe is a worthwhile price to pay for someone else to mod a game for them. 

 

Arguably everyone with something to say has responded to that - as in with the improvements and other things that mods have allowed with the examples given, then yes they do feel it's worthwhile.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Plissken said:

I note that not one person has responded to my question whether being able to inject malicious code into an exe is a worthwhile price to pay for someone else to mod a game for them.

 

The developer for Cities: Skylines decided that yes, it was worthwhile, and was praised for allowing unsandboxed modding for their game via Steam Workshop.

 

It's allowed a for thriving mod community.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, stefcha said:

 

Arguably everyone with something to say has responded to that - as in with the improvements and other things that mods have allowed with the examples given, then yes they do feel it's worthwhile.

 

Well, lets just say I fundamentally disagree with that point of view.  If Microsoft want to introduce a mechanism that securely locks down code across thousands of apps, business programs and games so that malicious software don't have attack vectors that compromise thousands+ of machines due to third party coder incompetence, then I'm all for it, even if it is at the expense of running a old game six frames per second quicker.

11 minutes ago, Blu3Flame said:

 

The developer for Cities: Skylines decided that yes, it was worthwhile, and was praised for allowing unsandboxed modding for their game via Steam Workshop.

 

It's allowed a for thriving mod community.

 

When did the developer for Cities: Skylines choose not to go via the UWP route because they wanted to allow modding?

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can someone clarify please? I'm willing to be educated here. So does UWP allow modding by default or is it something that has to be turned on or coded in?  If the latter you can bet mod devs will have their 

code under lockdown.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Plissken said:

 even if it is at the expense of running a old game six frames per second quicker.

 

Was your take away from Gerbik's brilliant post "I want six more frames per second"? If so, you really need to go and reread it. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, simms said:

Can someone clarify please? I'm willing to be educated here. So does UWP allow modding by default or is it something that has to be turned on or coded in?  If the latter you can bet mod devs will have their code under lockdown.

 

No application type "supports it by default", it's always something devs need to support at the moment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, RubberJohnny said:

 

No application type "supports it by default", it's always something devs need to support.

 

I don't get this.  Taking the Dark Souls example.  Dsfix mod was used to improve the game but I'm 99% sure Namco did not intend to support this.  We may have to define what a mod is?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, simms said:

I don't get this.  Taking the Dark Souls example.  Dsfix mod was used to improve the game but I'm 99% sure Namco did not intend to support this.  We may have to define what a mod is?

 

I'm saying there's no checkbox for "support modding Y/N" in any program type, Win32 or UWP, if you want to make a modscene happen you have to structure your games files with ease of access and use in mind. Developers structure their games this way because games are trying to be a service and modding indirectly earns you money through fostering a community, which is why your idea of "devs would put their code under lockdown" is wrong and misguided.

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They don't allow for anything, you can reverse engineer most games and programs using Hex-Rays or IDA decompilers, some free time, trial and error and coding skills to alter things, get around paywalls or account restrictions, whether they want you to or not.

 

This is how most videogame trainers and cheats are made: 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can modify iOS and Android packages, to alter the behavior of apps, why not UWP? 

 

As an aside, canonical just announced a similar, sandboxed, dependency included package for Ubuntu, called snap. The advantages of this approach are obvious for apps. Not necessarily on topic, but someone said they couldn't see any advantage for consumers, assuming they weren't just on about games. Of course, a single game that can target multiple platforms surely benefits smaller devs, too. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, simms said:

So Dark Souls et all allows for modding by accident but not by design ?

 

As RJ says, you can do it even without the dev's blessing. I used to alter the data files for championship manager 95 with a hex editor to change my European players to be British, because the game was old and didn't take into account the new rules for EU players.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I think even if UWP did succeed and made Windows a closed platform people would just jailbreak it, so stuff like DSFix would still exist and still be in reach of everyone who cared enough, you know?

 

I can't believe my comedy video post resurrected all this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Plissken said:

Well, lets just say I fundamentally disagree with that point of view.  If Microsoft want to introduce a mechanism that securely locks down code across thousands of apps, business programs and games so that malicious software don't have attack vectors that compromise thousands+ of machines due to third party coder incompetence, then I'm all for it, even if it is at the expense of running a old game six frames per second quicker.

 

Can you consider injecting code with the user's approval an attack vector rather than just the result of a social engineering? As long as you can convince the user to run arbitrary code that results in a compromised system, there is no net difference to security unless/until UWP becomes the only means to run apps.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, RubberJohnny said:

I've noticed you doing this a lot DocG, throwing around enough shade to cast murk on something, even when you know what you're saying is wrong.

That's a bit bloody rude. I didn't spend 20 minutes digging through the Windows Store T&Cs, attempting to find the find the root cause of the possibly-inaccurate "UWP doesn't allow modding" meme, so I could be accused of deliberately posting shite.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Willei said:

 

Can you consider injecting code with the user's approval an attack vector rather than just the result of a social engineering? As long as you can convince the user to run arbitrary code that results in a compromised system, there is no net difference to security unless/until UWP becomes the only means to run apps.

 

After UAC complaints in Vista, from people who obviously weren't used to needing to ask for admin privileges to do things, perhaps they'll dial UAC back up again if UWP starts to become the norm. I've got no problem with them doing that. It's perfectly possible to allow complete access to a machine without default access which undermines this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, simms said:

Can someone clarify please? I'm willing to be educated here. So does UWP allow modding by default or is it something that has to be turned on or coded in?  If the latter you can bet mod devs will have their 

code under lockdown.

 

With Win32, you can do what the fuck you like, even against a publisher/developers wishes, they cannot technically prevent you from modifying the games/OS if you have the skills to do so. UWP on the otherhand is sandboxed and would require them to allow you access. UWP turns the PC into a console/Apple mobile device effectively, locked down and any favours done at the magnanimity of whoever controls access to the code.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, mushashi said:

 

With Win32, you can do what the fuck you like, even against a publisher/developers wishes, they cannot technically prevent you from modifying the games/OS if you have the skills to do so. UWP on the otherhand is sandboxed and would require them to allow you access. UWP turns the PC into a console/Apple mobile device effectively, locked down and any favours done at the magnanimity of whoever controls access to the code.

 

Can you modify iOS apps and inject dodgy stuff into it and allow a jailbroken iPhone to access non-iTunes stores to download them, and end up propagating said malware? Are you saying you literally can't modify UWP packages? They're just a zip container, incidentally.

 

Native UWP is sandboxed, project C stuff isn't. 

 

This discussion is frustrating for lack of facts.

 

edit - for example, if Android is so well locked down, how the hell is piracy so rampant? True, there are no rival stores worth bothering with outside Amazon, but that's hardly surprising.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's seems there are no definitive answers on what is or not allowed in UWP.  Is this another MS botch in getting the message across.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think some people are treating signed Windows store apps as the same thing as UWP as a whole. Even so, as I understand there will still be restrictions on what you can do with UWP. I think it would be possible to modify a UWP app in some ways outside of the store.

 

Concerning UAP, it's actually impossible to run a UWP app with local admin rights, or at least the Windows Store apps. Disabling UAC through the registry will stop them working altogether.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TehStu said:

 

Can you modify iOS apps and inject dodgy stuff into it and allow a jailbroken iPhone to access non-iTunes stores to download them, and end up propagating said malware? Are you saying you literally can't modify UWP packages? They're just a zip container, incidentally.

 

Native UWP is sandboxed, project C stuff isn't. 

 

This discussion is frustrating for lack of facts.

 

edit - for example, if Android is so well locked down, how the hell is piracy so rampant? True, there are no rival stores worth bothering with outside Amazon, but that's hardly surprising.

 

Android is a weird half-way house between the genuine openness of the current major PC OSes and Apple's mobile effort. You can sideload stuff and the app copy protection on it is easily circumventable without even needing to get root, unlike Apple.

 

You can't use tools like MSI Afterburner to hook into the game code with UWP, which would have easily fixed some of the programming goofs in the latest Remedy game for example, all thanks to the UWP format, something which is by design and can't be fundamentally fixed AFAIK. Certainly people like Durante, who has fixed more than his fair share of PC games is strongly opposed to it. He's probably more well versed in the technical aspects than anybody discussing the matter in this thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TehStu said:

After UAC complaints in Vista, from people who obviously weren't used to needing to ask for admin privileges to do things, perhaps they'll dial UAC back up again if UWP starts to become the norm. I've got no problem with them doing that. It's perfectly possible to allow complete access to a machine without default access which undermines this.

 

Getting well away from the subject at hand here, but Microsoft really should have done more to encourage people to run with non-privileged user accounts by now. It's been well known for years that the vast majority of vulnerabilities in Windows can be mitigated simply by not having local admin. If they can get to the point where UWP apps are ubiquitous enough while remaining safe, then UAC popping up can become a default no for the user and things can get better. What Mogster says about UWP requiring UAC above is also encouraging.

 

25 minutes ago, simms said:

It's seems there are no definitive answers on what is or not allowed in UWP.  Is this another MS botch in getting the message across.  

 

To be fair to Microsoft, the sum total of their message to PC gamers is "there are games on the Windows Store that used to be Bone exclusive" and there's not really an issue there. Realistically the only response you're ever going to get back from that group as a collective is "when's it coming to Steam", which is not because PC gamers are stupid (or GabeN fanboys, or chasing their 6fps, or whatever else) but because Valve have the best offering in the market by far with a well established user base and ironclad lock in. While it's obvious that games on Windows Store have precisely no chance of usurping Steam in any way, I think the fact that Valve are happy for publishers to impose whatever extra crapware they want on their games (uPlay, Social Club, Games for Windows, etc) makes people want to voice their disapproval of these "competing" services where possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, simms said:

It's seems there are no definitive answers on what is or not allowed in UWP.  Is this another MS botch in getting the message across.  

 

The message is going to developers, via Build, etc. 

1 hour ago, Mogster said:

 

Concerning UAP, it's actually impossible to run a UWP app with local admin rights, or at least the Windows Store apps. Disabling UAC through the registry will stop them working altogether.

 

Native, yeah. Win32 ported with Centennial can still have local admin access.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Willei said:

 

Getting well away from the subject at hand here, but Microsoft really should have done more to encourage people to run with non-privileged user accounts by now. It's been well known for years that the vast majority of vulnerabilities in Windows can be mitigated simply by not having local admin. If they can get to the point where UWP apps are ubiquitous enough while remaining safe, then UAC popping up can become a default no for the user and things can get better. What Mogster says about UWP requiring UAC above is also encouraging.

 

Absolutely. We all moan about lack of admin rights at work, but least privelege is how these things should work. I think it was such a shock to Windows users, coupled with how unpolished Vista was, that they shat the bed. We can point and laugh at mobile sandboxing, but users need it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it was posted somewhere in the thread before, but the summary to Durante's article against UWP pretty much sums up why PC gamers should be opposed to UWP in a nutshell, rather than people who clearly want to use the entire range of Microsoft's attempted offerings who have no real interest in gaming on the PC, for which UWP is a benefit, at the expense of PC gamers.


 

Quote

 

However, one fact should be clear. If you buy a game as a UWA then, in many aspects such as user control, interoperability, moddability and the overall ecosystem, what you are getting is closer to a console game running on a PC than what we traditionally consider a PC game.

 

 

 

 

 

 

http://www.pcgamer.com/why-pc-games-should-never-become-universal-apps/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Use of this website is subject to our Privacy Policy, Terms of Use, and Guidelines.