GG no RE Apple

[Tide]

Which is NOT a good thing

It is if you work for them.

[[MPGH]Doc]

Which is NOT a good thing

We all know you want Microsoft to take over the world with their glorious OS and amazing forward thinking strategies.

[programboy3]

We all know you want Microsoft to take over the world with their glorious OS and amazing forward thinking strategies.

WTF? Having microsoft take over the world is one of the last things I want.

Wait, do you think I'm jetamay or something?

[radnomguywfq3]

We all know you want Microsoft to take over the world with their glorious OS and amazing forward thinking strategies.

You can't possibly argue that Microsoft isn't a forward thinking organization (or that their strategies aren't) when you've experienced about .000000001% of their products - even then it is subjective or unknown as of now to say the least if their current strategies are or aren't forward thinking. Even I as a computer programmer have experienced an incredibly small portion of their products, there are endless resources offered by Microsoft most of us don't even know they exist.

I want Microsoft to rise to the top (whilst still having competitors ofcourse) by beating out upper competition and advancing to unprecedented technology. If another organization had a product that I believed to be more benificial to science to develop than I would gladly support it instead.

Taking RAM and databus interfaces someone else engineered and cramming it into a PSHIT4 then having the balls to boast about it is something I can't care for.

[[MPGH]Doc]

WTF? Having microsoft take over the world is one of the last things I want.

Wait, do you think I'm jetamay or something?

I'm just messing with the fact that you have a hard one for their old OS'.

You can't possibly argue that Microsoft isn't a forward thinking organization (or that their strategies aren't) when you've experienced about .000000001% of their products - even then it is subjective or unknown as of now to say the least if their current strategies are or aren't forward thinking. Even I as a computer programmer have experienced an incredibly small portion of their products, there are endless resources offered by Microsoft most of us don't even know they exist.

I want Microsoft to rise to the top (whilst still having competitors ofcourse) by beating out upper competition and advancing to unprecedented technology. If another organization had a product that I believed to be more benificial to science to develop than I would gladly support it instead.

Taking RAM and databus interfaces someone else engineered and cramming it into a PSHIT4 then having the balls to boast about it is something I can't care for.

Everything you said about Microsoft is insubstantial and can be said about nearly every other major company that has vertical market penetration, and that includes Sony and Google. You can't even argue properly without divulging in apologetics and strong bias. You don't provide anything to support your views and rely upon an assumption that there is a mutual absence of knowledge, that we can't possibly know one way or another (funny how we can't possibly know yet you still seem so quick to support Microsoft in the affirmative).

Even your attack against the PS4 is stupid. Sony never once boasted any of their tech as their own, they've only said what's in it and how it benefits us. Exactly the same as what Microsoft is doing except Microsoft's PR team has the social aptitude of a gorilla.

PS: Funny how you instantly start to attack Sony and the PS4 despite no one bringing it up. Just goes to show how far you've crawled up Microsoft's ass. Sorry Jeremy but I hate nothing more then fanboy apologetics. It's like I'm back in the debate section arguing with sand monkeys.

[Lehsyrus]

I'm just messing with the fact that you have a hard one for their old OS'.


Everything you said about Microsoft is insubstantial and can be said about nearly every other major company that has vertical market penetration, and that includes Sony and Google. You can't even argue properly without divulging in apologetics and strong bias. You don't provide anything to support your views and rely upon an assumption that there is a mutual absence of knowledge, that we can't possibly know one way or another (funny how we can't possibly know yet you still seem so quick to support Microsoft in the affirmative).

Even your attack against the PS4 is stupid. Sony never once boasted any of their tech as their own, they've only said what's in it and how it benefits us. Exactly the same as what Microsoft is doing except Microsoft's PR team has the social aptitude of a gorilla.

PS: Funny how you instantly start to attack Sony and the PS4 despite no one bringing it up. Just goes to show how far you've crawled up Microsoft's ass. Sorry Jeremy but I hate nothing more then fanboy apologetics. It's like I'm back in the debate section arguing with sand monkeys.

AND DOC SMACKS THE BALL RIGHT OUT OF THE PARK IT'S GOING, GOING, GOING, IT'S GONE!

[The Productive Tnuc]

Apple > Google

[scotbud123]

Good, fuck Apple.

[radnomguywfq3]

Everything you said about Microsoft is insubstantial and can be said about nearly every other major company that has vertical market penetration, and that includes Sony and Google. You can't even argue properly without divulging in apologetics and strong bias. You don't provide anything to support your views and rely upon an assumption that there is a mutual absence of knowledge, that we can't possibly know one way or another (funny how we can't possibly know yet you still seem so quick to support Microsoft in the affirmative).

Okay.

That didn't contradict anything I said. If you want to flame me, there is a section for that. Let's try to get back to you calling Microsoft a non-forward thinking organization.

I can only imagine you said this to try and justify your stupid statement (that you can't defend) by saying that I do the same - well you can argue that back on those particular discussions where it is relevant.

Sony never once boasted any of their tech as their own

That is the only argument you have in that entire post. To which I respond, no they did not - at least explicitly - but I didn't say that they did. Try reading what I said again.

[[MPGH]Doc]

Okay.

That didn't contradict anything I said. If you want to flame me, there is a section for that. Let's try to get back to you calling Microsoft a non-forward thinking organization.

I can only imagine you said this to try and justify your stupid statement (that you can't defend) by saying that I do the same - well you can argue that back on those particular discussions where it is relevant.


That is the only argument you have in that entire post. To which I respond, no they did not - at least explicitly - but I didn't say that they did. Try reading what I said again.

Oh look it's me Jetamay. I like to ignore the fact that I can't make arguments without resorting to baseless apologetics and would rather shut my ears and say "you don't have anything to say so you can't say anything".

How about Microsoft progressively doing the exact same thing Apple has doing for years by encouraging a closed garden environment with all their consumer products? How about disregarding an entire desktop and enterprise market in favour of a smaller trending market, a market in which they have yet to prove successful in. How about encouraging an anti-consumer stance on rights management and anti-competitive stance on cross-platform play (ie they dont like it and would rather only have exclusive play). How about encouraging deceptive marketing in the hopes that it will just wash over everyones eyes?

Lets put aside their atrocious M.O. for a moment and look at them analogically. You have Apple who are pushing a closed garden environment with iOS and it's associated devices (PCs, mobiles and tablets), and you have Linux who is pushing an open environment to allow for greater integration and modification for the end user. Now let's make that statement again this time a bit differently; You have Windows who are pushing a closed garden environment with Windows RT/8 and it's associated devices (PCs, mobiles and tablets), and you have Google who is pushing an open environment to allow for greater integration and modification for the end user. Oh look at that, almost the exact same thing is happening.

Nearly everything Microsoft as done in the last few years has been to make money at the cost of the consumer. Sure you could argue that Windows 8 and it's mobile devices including Surface is good for competition, but competition isn't always good. You don't want a situation where a person has to choose between 2 closed garden environments and only 1 open environment (ignoring other minor OS'). Not to mention that their products aren't anywhere near up to scratch with the current market. And let's not forget their enterprise sector which has been sorely lacking in the last 4-5 years.

Now you have Sony and Google, don't get me wrong they are also out to make money above all else but they know what is good for the consumer, they know what is useful. Everything announced about the PS4 has been to the benefit of the consumer, they didn't have to renege on any of their statements they didn't have to use any weasel words to save face. That's why everyone is choosing them, because people don't see Microsoft as forward thinking, they don't see Microsoft as pro-consumer. Google is producing a lot of consumer devices and software, and nearly all of them are useful for the end-user. They release an OS that is open and easily modifiable and they leave it up to the phone companies to make their own distro of it. Not only do they offer good competition on the OS level but they're increasing competition at the phone level, now people are taking which distro of Android they preferred into consideration. That is pro-consumer. To me that is forward thinking, relegating power over their products to the manufacturers and to the end-users. Lets not forget that their desktop software is superior to Microsoft's counterparts, and that's even objectively speaking (Chrome vs IE, Google vs Bing).

That is the only argument you have in that entire post. To which I respond, no they did not - at least explicitly - but I didn't say that they did. Try reading what I said again.

If that was not your intention, then why mention in the first place? Did you think you could just make an offhand remark about Sony that can be applied to your beloved Microsoft then just sweep it under the carpet?

There, that's me indulging you. I don't see much reason for countering an argument derived from stupidity but there you have it. But I'm sure you just find that forward-thinking strategies are just whatever Microsoft is doing.

[radnomguywfq3]

How about Microsoft progressively doing the exact same thing Apple has doing for years by encouraging a closed garden environment with all their consumer products? How about disregarding an entire desktop and enterprise market in favour of a smaller trending market, a market in which they have yet to prove successful in. How about encouraging an anti-consumer stance on rights management and anti-competitive stance on cross-platform play (ie they dont like it and would rather only have exclusive play). How about encouraging deceptive marketing in the hopes that it will just wash over everyones eyes?

Question: Could you possibly be more general? Thanks.

Since you don't really justify anything there in your incredibly broad argument, I'm not sure how exactly to respond to this since you fail to provide any examples to make your points.

Microsoft's infastructure in (many) areas allows for cross-platform combatiblity. They've legally bound themselves to a promise allowing people to develop products such as Mono to enable this cross-platform intigration in .Net (for one of many examples.)

If you're talking about DirectX for cross-platform games, DirectX isn't like OpenGL. It is a toolkit which contains APIs for Audio, 3D\2D rendering, input devices and networking. OpenGL is strictly a graphics framework. It isn't really fair to compare them as alternatives for another unless you are strictly speaking of Direct3D and OpenGL.

DirectX is designed and can only legally be used on Microsoft licensed platforms (I assume that is what you are referring to.) Most game engines (or at least any respectable game engines) implement both a Direct3D and an OpenGL rendering engine - and if only one is chosen it is because the other (OpenGL) has an incredibly poor support comittee that has failed them numerous times (and the API is a complete mess). What do you believe Microsoft has been doing to prevent people from engineering their products based off of OpenGL? Are you going to argue Driver support (that is one big issue for most OpenGL graphics devices.) To which I respond how is it the responsiblity of Microsoft to provide sufficient graphics drivers?

APPLE Is very different in this respect. They've attempted to control their managed environment by Lacking Serious Support for JRE and Continously Neglecting To Support it, and further by encouraging Objective-C using proprietary software platforms as a core to their infastructure. .NET does this with some components, but Microsoft's legally binding promise allows developers such as those who work on Mono to work around them in most respects. AT THE VERY LEAST Microsoft gives the developers the option to build off of Mono rather than .Net - which are very alike to one another in virtually all respects if the developers have concearn over .Net cross platform compatibility.

Another argument could be MonoGame, where Microsoft allowed Mono to completely reimplement most of XNA over SDL or OpenGL + other open-sourced dependancies. XNA is game development platform (NOT just a graphics framework like OpenGl) pushed by Microsoft to develop cross-platform games and has since been taken over by Mono.

Lets put aside their atrocious M.O. for a moment and look at them analogically. You have Apple who are pushing a closed garden environment with iOS and it's associated devices (PCs, mobiles and tablets), and you have Linux who is pushing an open environment to allow for greater integration and modification for the end user. Now let's make that statement again this time a bit differently; You have Windows who are pushing a closed garden environment with Windows RT/8 and it's associated devices (PCs, mobiles and tablets), and you have Google who is pushing an open environment to allow for greater integration and modification for the end user. Oh look at that, almost the exact same thing is happening.

That statement is stupid and ignorant to say the least. First of all, there is no argument there. Second of all, if there is, I countered it (at least to some extent) above. If you could point somewhere rather than saying "Look at all this Microsoft has done" (and they've done A LOT) maybe I could help you understand how a misunderstanding and ignorant perspective of a company doesn't make that company evil.

Now you have Sony and Google, don't get me wrong they are also out to make money above all else but they know what is good for the consumer, they know what is useful. Everything announced about the PS4 has been to the benefit of the consumer, they didn't have to renege on any of their statements they didn't have to use any weasel words to save face. That's why everyone is choosing them, because people don't see Microsoft as forward thinking, they don't see Microsoft as pro-consumer. Google is producing a lot of consumer devices and software, and nearly all of them are useful for the end-user. They release an OS that is open and easily modifiable and they leave it up to the phone companies to make their own distro of it. Not only do they offer good competition on the OS level but they're increasing competition at the phone level, now people are taking which distro of Android they preferred into consideration. That is pro-consumer. To me that is forward thinking, relegating power over their products to the manufacturers and to the end-users. Lets not forget that their desktop software is superior to Microsoft's counterparts, and that's even objectively speaking (Chrome vs IE, Google vs Bing).

When you say Anti-Consumer, you think the people who play video games. What about the engineers consuming Microsoft products to develop software and games for their platform? These people are just as valuable to "consumers" as anyone else. You don't honestly think Microsoft wins out exclusives by drowning them in money, do you?

DRM was something everyone wanted to see implemented, game developers, game publishers - all of Microsoft's consumers except the people who wanted to exploit the developers for money in an ever increasingly expensive market.

This is a problem. Everyone thinks that the bottle-neck for next-generation games is hardware hardware hardware - it isn't next generation. It isn't anymore. You need to respect that these games are incredibly expensive to engineer. You need to appreciate that the value of a game this generation is not of equal value to a game three console generations ago. They are getting A LOT more expensive to engineer.

Games in this generation also allocate a lot more resources - they now sell with a license to a reservation on a remote server (cloud) among other things. You cannot continue to use ancient marketing to support a rapidly increasingly more expensive game market. Game studios are struggling and shutting down becuase they can't afford to develop the proper infastructures in their games to support next-generation hardware, that is anti-consumer. There is literally at least several times more system memory and an incredibly more complex system OS architecture coming to next generation, all begging to be thrown money at. If you honestly think we can keep games at $60 with the current modelm you are _fucking_ kidding yourself.


Finally, comparing Windows to a linux based operating system is absurd. LINUX is not a mainstream desktop platform. You don't appreciate what is amazing about linux if you think it is. Linux is popular because it can be distributed and modified for any target platform with significant ease - it has been ported to most architectures at least once before - and probably many times before. It's licenses are incredibly flexible for commercial and non-commercial development. It is easier to build off it to engineer a specific solution than it is to engineer an operating system from the ground up. It is great for servers and mobile platforms, it is incredible when you throw it on microcontrollers for embedded solutions - but as a general desktop operating system its purpose is lost.

[[MPGH]Doc]

Of course I should have known that you'd skew the argument. Trust you to take something completely obvious to everyone and skew it in reduce it down to specifics that had nothing to do with what I was claiming.

Question: Could you possibly be more general? Thanks.

Since you don't really justify anything there in your incredibly broad argument, I'm not sure how exactly to respond to this since you fail to provide any examples to make your points.

Of course something obvious to many falls onto deaf ears.

First question was about Microsoft’s decisions with Windows RT and to a certain extent Windows 8, and their associated mobile products. I don’t know about you but Windows RT was the most restricted mobile OS I’ve ever seen. RT only allowing Microsoft certified apps (with restriction that effectively rule out third party applications (not to mention apps can only be gained through the Windows store similar to Apple), and Windows 8 OEM requiring UEFI secure boot be enabled by default effectively restricting consumers from installing an alternative OS, this goes the same for Windows RT devices. That’s just a few examples of a closed platform.

Eg https://www.engadge*****m/2012/05/10/mozilla-slaps-windows-rt-as-a-return-to-the-digital-dark-ages/

RT failed pretty badly to, manufacturers are dropping it like the plague.

The second question was regarding Microsoft’s decision to disregard entire enterprise divisions by opting to change their OS’ design goal to suit that of the rising mobile market. When you change a cornerstone feature of your OS to suit a different market you are effectively saying “fuck you” to your current market. Enterprises rely on efficiency. Change requires training, training costs money. All of a sudden you have millions of users requiring their desktop to work and they can’t effectively do so because they have no idea where the fucking start button is or why there’s a bunch of tiles in front of them. It might sound silly to you and I, but I have real experience working (supporting) with over 500 users and trust me, if we adopted Windows 8, blood would be spilt.

The third question wasn’t about DirectX crap at all. I have no idea how you got that, been sucking on that Microsoft peen a bit hard. It’s actually about their pro-DRM stance (hence rights management?) and their reluctant to encourage cross-platform play, as in playing a game across different platforms.
Oh yea, definitely sounds like I’m talking about DX and OpenGL.

See https://au.ign.com/articles/2013/07/09/why-final-fantasy-xiv-isnt-coming-to-xbox-360-or-xbox-one

If you're talking about DirectX for cross-platform games.

Not even close.

That statement is stupid and ignorant to say the least. First of all, there is no argument there. Second of all, if there is, I countered it (at least to some extent) above. If you could point somewhere rather than saying "Look at all this Microsoft has done" (and they've done A LOT) maybe I could help you understand how a misunderstanding and ignorant perspective of a company doesn't make that company evil.

You didn’t counter it at all. Rather than saying how they’re not encouraging a closed platforms you rambled on about DirectX and .Net as if the everyday user gives a fuck about them. A blind faith in a company and a refusal to see negatives in a company does not make them a good company. See, I can do that too.

When you say Anti-Consumer, you think the people who play video games. What about the engineers consuming Microsoft products to develop software and games for their platform? These people are just as valuable to "consumers" as anyone else. You don't honestly think Microsoft wins out exclusives by drowning them in money, do you?

When I say anti-consumer I mean exactly that. Not sure how your brain is wired Jeremy but the definition of anti-consumer isn’t a gamer, lolwut. When I say anti-consumer I think of policies and practices that are detrimental to the average consumer. Things like not allowing devs to self-publish on XBLA (Xbox Live). Things like requiring UEFI secure boot to be on by default preventing you from installing another OS (Windows 8). Things like forcing developers adhere to strict specification and only publish through their store (Windows RT). Changing cornerstone features giving major business migraines come adoption time (Windows 8). Or encouraging an always online infrastructure or at the very least a daily check-in (Xbone). Discouraging the right to sell ones property (Xbone).

DRM was something everyone wanted to see implemented, game developers, game publishers - all of Microsoft's consumers except the people who wanted to exploit the developers for money in an ever increasingly expensive market.

What? Have you been living under a rock lately? Nobody wanted parent level DRM save for a couple of first party Microsoft publishers. Nor did anyone want to exploit anyone’s money. Devs wanted the right to choose when and how to implement their own DRM, they didn’t want the platform to do it for them. In your little lalaland you may have thought that this was pushing the technological boundaries into new and exciting territory but everyone saw it as draconian and anti-consumerism. The people didn’t want it and neither did the devs. If it was really that great then the reception would’ve been a bit more positive don’t ya think?

This is a problem. Everyone thinks that the bottle-neck for next-generation games is hardware hardware hardware - it isn't next generation. It isn't anymore. You need to respect that these games are incredibly expensive to engineer. You need to appreciate that the value of a game this generation is not of equal value to a game three console generations ago. They are getting A LOT more expensive to engineer.

You seem to like arguing about games don’t you. It’s nice to see you completely disregard my comments about the state of the mobile sector. Oh well, I’ll oblige you. I ‘m not sure if you’ve been reading many tech or gaming news lately but the general consensus is that the next generation of consoles are the easiest consoles to develop for. If anything production has just gotten a shitload cheaper.

See https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2013-02-22-ps4-pc-like-architecture-8gb-ram-delight-developers

They aren’t getting more expensive due to development; they are getting more expensive due to production value and scope. Publishers now only want AAA titles with budgets that rival summer blockbusters. Even then, not all of production costs go into actual development, a considerable amount goes into marketing, salaries for individuls (which are increasing) and other Hollywood-esque budgeting. And of course games now-a-days are more expensive than games a while ago, games are getting broader and broader in scope and studios are getting bigger and bigger.

Games in this generation also allocate a lot more resources - they now sell with a license to a reservation on a remote server (cloud) among other things. You cannot continue to use ancient marketing to support a rapidly increasingly more expensive game market. Game studios are struggling and shutting down because they can't afford to develop the proper infastructures in their games to support next-generation hardware, that is anti-consumer. There is literally at least several times more system memory and an incredibly more complex system OS architecture coming to next generation, all begging to be thrown money at. If you honestly think we can keep games at $60 with the current modelm you are _fucking_ kidding yourself.

Do you have a source for that first statement? Show me where every single current game does that. “Rapidly increasingly more expensive”. Wut? That fucking hurt to read. What ancient marketing?

Can you provide an example of a studio shutting down specifically because of next-gen consoles having more memory and more complex system architecture? As I said earlier, developers are saying the exact opposite of that. See above link. When did I ever say anything about the price of games. I live in Australia where the RRP of console games was $120 when the current gen consoles were released. Look at how little fucks I give about the price of games.

Finally, comparing Windows to a linux based operating system is absurd. LINUX is not a mainstream desktop platform. You don't appreciate what is amazing about linux if you think it is. Linux is popular because it can be distributed and modified for any target platform with significant ease - it has been ported to most architectures at least once before - and probably many times before. It's licenses are incredibly flexible for commercial and non-commercial development. It is easier to build off it to engineer a specific solution than it is to engineer an operating system from the ground up. It is great for servers and mobile platforms, it is incredible when you throw it on microcontrollers for embedded solutions - but as a general desktop operating system its purpose is lost.

What? I was comparing Windows RT to Android. Not Windows to Linux. I even said Android. Was Don Mattrick’s dick impeding your vision? Or were you preoccupied with searching up nudes for Julie L-G.

[radnomguywfq3]

First question was about Microsoft’s decisions with Windows RT and to a certain extent Windows 8, and their associated mobile products. I don’t know about you but Windows RT was the most restricted mobile OS I’ve ever seen. RT only allowing Microsoft certified apps (with restriction that effectively rule out third party applications (not to mention apps can only be gained through the Windows store similar to Apple), and Windows 8 OEM requiring UEFI secure boot be enabled by default effectively restricting consumers from installing an alternative OS, this goes the same for Windows RT devices. That’s just a few examples of a closed platform.

Oh for fucks sake Doc - you don't even know. I haven't been paying attention to Microsoft's mobile market, but UEFI allows firmware to verify the integrity of the system's boot conditions - it actually _literally_ has nothing to do with Microsoft. They don't even control the configuration of that on their distribution. There is nothing preventing linux from implementing their own security policies. I found a complete contradiction to what you said on google and under an official statement by Microsoft: Microsoft clears up Linux confusion over Windows 8 Secure Boot feature | WinRumors

RT is a closed platform, and it is the Microsoft attempt at a blackbberry playbook and Apple's attempt at a more effective iPad - so it is inheritly closed platform. It is also a lot cheaper and serves the purpose of a general purpose standard tablet. It is a completely different market than what OEM targets. It is a secured computing platform sold at a sorely discounted price.

The second question was regarding Microsoft’s decision to disregard entire enterprise divisions by opting to change their OS’ design goal to suit that of the rising mobile market. When you change a cornerstone feature of your OS to suit a different market you are effectively saying “fuck you” to your current market. Enterprises rely on efficiency. Change requires training, training costs money. All of a sudden you have millions of users requiring their desktop to work and they can’t effectively do so because they have no idea where the fucking start button is or why there’s a bunch of tiles in front of them. It might sound silly to you and I, but I have real experience working (supporting) with over 500 users and trust me, if we adopted Windows 8, blood would be spilt.

No one is forcing enterprises to move to Windows 8. My brother works in a chemistry lab where they still use floppy disks and windows 95 - and more than half the working world is stuck on XP. It isn't new that enterprises tend against change.

The third question wasn’t about DirectX crap at all. I have no idea how you got that, been sucking on that Microsoft peen a bit hard. It’s actually about their pro-DRM stance (hence rights management?) and their reluctant to encourage cross-platform play, as in playing a game across different platforms.
Oh yea, definitely sounds like I’m talking about DX and OpenGL.

See https://au.ign.com/articles/2013/07/09/why-final-fantasy-xiv-isnt-coming-to-xbox-360-or-xbox-one

Well excuse me, there are a thousands ways an organization can do this, you had me guess. Game consoles aren't like desktop computers - they are secured computing platforms - there aren't many gaming platforms that allow cross-platform play (the server model for PS4 makes this much more possible than the server model for Xbox One) There are a lot of reasons for this (both technical and marketing) and it is something I've alreay explained numerous times:

There are a lot of secuirty and consistancy issues allowing users of all three consoles to connect with one server and communicate to eachother through it.

Microsoft wants their device to be as predictable as possible for security purposes. By providing a consistant interface to the game, this is easier to ensure. However, if you allow an incredibly open platform like PC to communicate with servers(or a system they have no control over like the PS4), there is a lot of room for exploitation.

PC users could utilize client-side attributes to give them an unfair advantage - but worse yet - the client on the PC is very easy to mutate and this allows users to exploit the client and server communication protocol to create unexpected behaviour in other clients. Doing this in a particular fashion could lead to opening of potential exploits on the console - which would jeopardize the security of the entire platform.

This was done (a long while back) with I think Ghost Reacon (?) where other local Xbox players found a way to get outside of the map bounds, fall to infinity on the map, and crash remote clients connected to the game, must've been an assertion caused by a overflow or something...
The point is, providing access to non-uniform interfaces to the server open up unintentional security threats not to the server, but by creating unexpected behaviour in other clients running on a secured computing platform (like the xbox one\360\PS4) by broadcasting odd behaviour via the PC through the server.

When I say anti-consumer I mean exactly that. Not sure how your brain is wired Jeremy but the definition of anti-consumer isn’t a gamer, lolwut. When I say anti-consumer I think of policies and practices that are detrimental to the average consumer. Things like not allowing devs to self-publish on XBLA (Xbox Live). Things like requiring UEFI secure boot to be on by default preventing you from installing another OS (Windows 8). Things like forcing developers adhere to strict specification and only publish through their store (Windows RT). Changing cornerstone features giving major business migraines come adoption time (Windows 8). Or encouraging an always online infrastructure or at the very least a daily check-in (Xbone). Discouraging the right to sell ones property (Xbone).

A lot of what you say Doc is just wrong. First of all, whether Microsoft allows or doesn't allow self-publishing is still undetermined, you are wrong about UEFI and windows RT isn't an Operating System in the conventional sense.

Did Microsoft allow self-publishing last generation with XBLA? No, but they also sold a hundred thousands dollar SDK for a cheap yearly subscription and gave any indie developer off the street access to a huge market with virtually $0 dollar investment. When you say Indie Developer on PS4 - we're talking about 'indie developers' who purchased an incredibly expensive license to Sony's SDKs.

You seem to like arguing about games don’t you. It’s nice to see you completely disregard my comments about the state of the mobile sector. Oh well, I’ll oblige you. I ‘m not sure if you’ve been reading many tech or gaming news lately but the general consensus is that the next generation of consoles are the easiest consoles to develop for. If anything production has just gotten a shitload cheaper.

Do you have a source for that first statement? Show me where every single current game does that. “Rapidly increasingly more expensive”. Wut? That fucking hurt to read. What ancient marketing?

Can you provide an example of a studio shutting down specifically because of next-gen consoles having more memory and more complex system architecture? As I said earlier, developers are saying the exact opposite of that. See above link. When did I ever say anything about the price of games. I live in Australia where the RRP of console games was $120 when the current gen consoles were released. Look at how little fucks I give about the price of games.

I've heard this bullshit one too many times, and I've responded to it several times before as well:

The architectures jumped from a RISC based architecture to a CISC architecture. x86 is way more complex than most other CISC architectures and definitely more complex than the architecture for previous gen of both consoles. If you heard this is was probably in reference to Sony's Cell Processor that was virtually impossible to develop for optimally. The only thing that actually combats the complexity of next-generation hardware is the fact SDKs are being further developed and drivers are providing more powerful layers of abstraction. Just because you have several times more system memory doesn't mean it will fill itself for free. You can drop opmization on current assets but there is no way you are going to fill > 6GB of assets in system memory with the current budgets studios have.

On the Xbox One every single game is licensed access to remote server space for cloud computing or storage - that wasn't the point though. The point was that these games are allocating more resources - in terms of SDK licensing and physical hardware.

It isn't a secret that game development organizations have been struggling for the past couple of years. I've talked to game developers at my campus (and any google search will bring you to an article) talking about the horrors of being laid off, transfered and constantly having to reorganize their development teams.

What? I was comparing Windows RT to Android. Not Windows to Linux. I even said Android. Was Don Mattrick’s dick impeding your vision? Or were you preoccupied with searching up nudes for Julie L-G.

Android is linux like Ubuntu is linux. Android is a linux based operating system - hence why Linux is such an incredible operating system to work off of.

You said "Windows RT/8"


This entire argument is bullshit because it doesn't address my initial statement, which is that you cannot claim Microsoft is a non-forward thinking organization because you haven't experience more than a very small portion of their products (and your experiences have evidently lead you to an ill-guided conclusion.)

[[MPGH]Doc]

Oh for fucks sake Doc - you don't even know. I haven't been paying attention to Microsoft's mobile market, but UEFI allows firmware to verify the integrity of the system's boot conditions - it actually _literally_ has nothing to do with Microsoft. They don't even control the configuration of that on their distribution. There is nothing preventing linux from implementing their own security policies. I found a complete contradiction to what you said on google and under an official statement by Microsoft: Microsoft clears up Linux confusion over Windows 8 Secure Boot feature | WinRumors

Perhaps you haven't read much into it but if a manufacturer wants a Windows certified sticker they have to have UEFI Secure boot. When its a Microsoft certification requirement then it has everything to do with Microsoft. What happens when a piece of new hardware hasn't been certified ye, or they don't have a key. It won't work under the default boot conditions. That is Microsoft's doing. You can argue that UEFI isn't Microsoft until you're blue in the face but Microsoft has made it requirement for OEM certs.

RT is a closed platform, and it is the Microsoft attempt at a blackbberry playbook and Apple's attempt at a more effective iPad - so it is inheritly closed platform. It is also a lot cheaper and serves the purpose of a general purpose standard tablet. It is a completely different market than what OEM targets. It is a secured computing platform sold at a sorely discounted price.

What? RT is an attempt to utilise the ARM platform. It's target market is the same as Apple's and Android's. It's not at all an inherently closed platform. They just chose for it to be closed.

No one is forcing enterprises to move to Windows 8. My brother works in a chemistry lab where they still use floppy disks and windows 95 - and more than half the working world is stuck on XP. It isn't new that enterprises tend against change.

No shit enterprises don't like change when Microsoft throws shit at them. That's the problem.

Well excuse me, there are a thousands ways an organization can do this, you had me guess. Game consoles aren't like desktop computers - they are secured computing platforms - there aren't many gaming platforms that allow cross-platform play (the server model for PS4 makes this much more possible than the server model for Xbox One) There are a lot of reasons for this (both technical and marketing) and it is something I've alreay explained numerous times:

There are a lot of secuirty and consistancy issues allowing users of all three consoles to connect with one server and communicate to eachother through it.

Microsoft wants their device to be as predictable as possible for security purposes. By providing a consistant interface to the game, this is easier to ensure. However, if you allow an incredibly open platform like PC to communicate with servers(or a system they have no control over like the PS4), there is a lot of room for exploitation.

PC users could utilize client-side attributes to give them an unfair advantage - but worse yet - the client on the PC is very easy to mutate and this allows users to exploit the client and server communication protocol to create unexpected behaviour in other clients. Doing this in a particular fashion could lead to opening of potential exploits on the console - which would jeopardize the security of the entire platform.

This was done (a long while back) with I think Ghost Reacon (?) where other local Xbox players found a way to get outside of the map bounds, fall to infinity on the map, and crash remote clients connected to the game, must've been an assertion caused by a overflow or something...
The point is, providing access to non-uniform interfaces to the server open up unintentional security threats not to the server, but by creating unexpected behaviour in other clients running on a secured computing platform (like the xbox one\360\PS4) by broadcasting odd behaviour via the PC through the server.

Sorry but considering FFXI was able to successfully connect PS2, PS3, X360 and PC players together then I'm sure that it would be fine for them to do the same for the Xbone. The security issue is a shit excuse considering the players are connection to a dev server and not a Microsoft server and all and any exploits will be on the devs hands. Let's not forget that glitches like the ones you used for an example are prevalent in platform exclusive games, they aren't issues unique to cross-platform games.

A lot of what you say Doc is just wrong. First of all, whether Microsoft allows or doesn't allow self-publishing is still undetermined, you are wrong about UEFI and windows RT isn't an Operating System in the conventional sense.

Did Microsoft allow self-publishing last generation with XBLA? No, but they also sold a hundred thousands dollar SDK for a cheap yearly subscription and gave any indie developer off the street access to a huge market with virtually $0 dollar investment. When you say Indie Developer on PS4 - we're talking about 'indie developers' who purchased an incredibly expensive license to Sony's SDKs.

What? Last I heard was that the Official SCEI PS3 SDK was only 10g and that includes a full-blown devkit. Hell the PS Vita's SDK is free. developing on the PS4 doesn't require a devkit so I'm not sure where you're getting your ideas from. All sources say the current XBLA policies will remain (ie no self-publishing). There are also rumours saying Microsoft will reverse that policy, and I hope that is true. But Microsoft haven't stated one way or another so the safest bet lies with their current policy.


I've heard this bullshit one too many times, and I've responded to it several times before as well:

The architectures jumped from a RISC based architecture to a CISC architecture. x86 is way more complex than most other CISC architectures and definitely more complex than the architecture for previous gen of both consoles. If you heard this is was probably in reference to Sony's Cell Processor that was virtually impossible to develop for optimally. The only thing that actually combats the complexity of next-generation hardware is the fact SDKs are being further developed and drivers are providing more powerful layers of abstraction. Just because you have several times more system memory doesn't mean it will fill itself for free. You can drop opmization on current assets but there is no way you are going to fill > 6GB of assets in system memory with the current budgets studios have.

Since when did games have to fill up sysmem quotas? Are you trying to tell me that you've personally developed and analysed next-gen platforms and have come to a conclusion contrary to the devs in the article I linked.

On the Xbox One every single game is licensed access to remote server space for cloud computing or storage - that wasn't the point though. The point was that these games are allocating more resources - in terms of SDK licensing and physical hardware.

It isn't a secret that game development organizations have been struggling for the past couple of years. I've talked to game developers at my campus (and any google search will bring you to an article) talking about the horrors of being laid off, transfered and constantly having to reorganize their development teams.

So you can't find one that closed because next-gen gaming is too complex? It's definitely no secret that studios are closing, but it has nothing to do with the 'complexity' of next-gen consoles and more to do with poor reception of certain games, and failed marketing.

Android is linux like Ubuntu is linux. Android is a linux based operating system - hence why Linux is such an incredible operating system to work off of.

You said "Windows RT/8"

I know that Android is a Linux based OS but last I checked Google has yet to release a mainstream desktop computing platform, and Androids purpose is very different to Ubuntu's or Centos' purpose.
This entire argument is bullshit because it doesn't address my initial statement, which is that you cannot claim Microsoft is a non-forward thinking organization because you haven't experience more than a very small portion of their products (and your experiences have evidently lead you to an ill-guided conclusion.)

I have already addressed that as an apologetic fallacy. It matters not how many of their products I've personally used. I as a consumer can form an opinion of them based on what as a consumer have had access to or have seen. You are more than free to do so as yourself.

. . . .

[radnomguywfq3]

RT Wasn't 'made to target the ARM platform' anymore than Windows was initially made to target the x86 platform.

Every low-power mobile device targets ARM (find me a single competative mobile device that doesn't use an ARM based architecture) It would be more approriate to say that Microsoft targeted the tablet market than it would be to say that they targeted ARM. Yes, the target market is the same as Android, and Apple iTouch, that is a completely different market than the Windows OEM. However, you have to consider this is one of the those marketing implementations that they apply for secured computing platforms - like eReaders (that sell for a discounted price) or game consoles. The devices are tailored for a very particular genre of application - which is why it is acceptable for them to be closed platform. They are sold cheaply because the content that is sold for them is well regulated.

Cross-platform play is dangerous, put simply. Microsoft doesn't feel comfortable giving developers control over the network traffic to a client and - in an sense - programmable code flow to clients via servers that aren't under their control. It is precisely that these servers are deployed and maintained by developers that gives Microsoft unease. WoT is working under the same restriction and it is only fair for FFXI to do the same. PS4 is more comfortable with giving games access to remote servers 'uncontrolled' by Sony.

How many developers\small dev. teams do you think could afford to independantly work and fund a project for an initial cost of $10 thousand dollars? Yet people complain about needing Microsoft as a publisher for their software (which is infinitely cheaper and more practical) and free upuntil the final stages of the project.

I can't predict what the cost of the PS4 SDKs will be, but naturally I suspect them to be around the same price, if not more.

I am trying to tell you that the bottle-neck isn't hardware so much as it is cost now.

You can't make make a statement that compasses an entire organization and claim it to be true in your perpsective when you haven't experienced more than a very small portion of it. It is at least an entirely meaningless statement to make.