Slashdot Mirror
Vista Casts A Pall On PC Gaming?
simoniker writes "In an opinion piece, casual game publisher WildTangent's CEO Alex St. John (himself a Microsoft veteran and one of the DirectX creators) has sharply criticized some of Windows Vista's features as they related to video game creation, noting: 'We have found many of the security changes planned for Vista alarming and likely to present sweeping challenges for PC gaming, especially for online distributed games. The central change that impacts all downloadable applications in Vista is the introduction of Limited User Accounts. LUA's can already be found in Windows XP, but nobody uses them because of the onerous restrictions they place on usability. In Vista, LUA's are mandatory and inescapable.'" Meanwhile, the word has also come down that games will be on the Zune by Summer of next year.
Gaming and computing are two different animals. This is even more true for mult-user computing, a la Unix, OS X, XP, and now Vista. And, some of today's security problems in Microsoft's security model are directly related to and introduced by gaming requirements early on (circa 1992, 1993).
Gaming demands high-end, near-to-the-hardware, unencumbered access. Multi-user computing demands flexibility, equitable distribution of resources, and if properly done, capability of extremely high and granular security.
This puts the two activities at odds in deciding how to implement a "computer" -- probably one of the main reasons hardcore gaming usually is the domain of dedicated consoles and hardware.
In NT's early days (which eventually became Windows 2000 and Windows XP) Microsoft caved to requests for compromised access to "rings" of kernel security to give better (and acceptable) performance for game developers -- most notably there were some passthroughs for video hardware access. I don't know if there were other compromises but I suspect there were. These compromises contributed to security problems (but were not the cause of all of Microsoft's security headaches).
From what I've read, Microsoft has made some tough but I think "correct" choices for security in Vista... it should be very hard for limited users to do much more that use the machine. Unfortunately, gaming typically requires access to the machine that, under the covers, is much more than typical and casual access to the innards. This is probably why Microsoft has gotten into the game console market... they finally have hardware/software dedicated to and around gaming.
It's probably a tough pill to swallow for gamers and developers used to being able to pull it off in XP (and previous generation Windows), but it's probably a better security world on whole for general computing and Vista users.
I'm sure that will make both of those Zune owners very happy.
The simple truth is that interstellar distances will not fit into the human imagination
- Douglas Adams
He's just upset that his company's spyware and crap won't be able to be installed on people's computers without them knowing it anymore? Damn, this might just be an MS Vista advertisement in disguise.
...reasons for people running unsecure windows.
If WV makes it hard for the gaming industry then I'm all for Vista... and I usually are a MS-hater... If he got a problem he should move to Linux or xBSD, then he could distribute his fucking games as Live-CD's.
The only thing LUA is going to change on Vista is the user will have to type in a password for the equivalent of a sudo apt-get. Not a big deal.
only one everything
I think this guy is full of shit. When I go on the internet, if i know i'm going to download something, I'll be fine pressing "yes" as i'll soon be selecting where it goes so i'm ready for a prompt. If something is going to download without me saying it can, then it can very well get the hell out of my computer. The security dialogs in Vista dont require you to put in a username and password every time you try to acess a flash game on the web, and this article clearly is full of it. Wild Tangent games often appear on my computer when i did not ask for them, and i really hope that the vista security will help me keep their crap off my computer in the future.
It's perhaps ironic that I run my own online game publishing company now and have become a dependent customer of the platform and technologies I once worked to create. Some of you might call it "justice" -- if it is, I wish it for my successors working on Vista.
Yep, he helped Microsoft shove Directx down all our throats now hes complaining, and surprised, they're trying to shove something else down our throats.
The two big problems with LUAs have been that there was no way to perform super-user actions without logging out and logging back in, even if you the person have greater privileges than the account you have logged in with. I do believe Vista has fixed this. The other problem is that lazy application developers chronically write software that assumes unnecessary super-user privileges. Now Microsoft has (finally) chosen to curtail their reckless practices, and they would rather complain than get with the program.
If game developers stick to OpenGL or DirectX 9 or 10 then thats all they need. Infact game developers should be DROOOLING over the tools available for them under vista.
Direct hardware access is so passe, now its about API's and how fast they can be accelerated between CPU/GPU and Physics accelerations.
Writing games on DOS/4GW and Win32s is a thing of the past. If you want to see a game, check out the DirectX 10 enabled games and then tell me vista isn't a gamers os.
blah
Initially I thought this was just a rant, since the implications of limited user accounts have far greater benefits than limitations and users are going to have to enter an admin password to install nearly any software, so I don't see why games should be an exception.
That said, he makes a good point about the Game Explorer widget. Disclaimer: I have not, and probably will not for some time if at all, installed Vista on any of my computers yet. According to this article, though, it would seem that Microsoft is actually blocking games from running via any other means than the Game Explorer. This somewhat reminds me of Apple with iTunes in that using something else to sync an iPod takes more effort than most people would want to put forth. It would also seem to mean that installers will have to create special cases for Vista, which seems pointless to me. Admittedly, Microsoft could argue that limiting execution rights to the Game Explorer interface was necessary to enforce parental controls, but there are many other, less intrusive ways they could have gone about this (off the top of my head: deny execution rights to normal users, detect an attempted execution, if equal to or under parental ratings, run under a special Gaming account automagically, otherwise, ask for an escalation).
The obvious point is that Microsoft would seem to have a conflict of interest here; making PC gaming attractive may draw attention away from the X-box 360, something Microsoft would want to avoid at all costs. Are they making it difficult to run games in order to make the 360 seem much simpler by comparison? Maybe. I suppose I'd have to have both Vista and a 360 to find out, which I don't plan on having together for some time if at all.
It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
- E. Debs
...which is the very first change I made in Vista -- it's my computer and I won't have the operating system disallow me from copying a backup of Firefox from the network to my machine when I'm an administrator (you cannot copy from a network share to Program Files. You must copy to your Documents folder and then move from there to Program Files). This and it constantly bringing up another dialog box to confirm that I actually meant "yes" when I clicked "yes" while I tried to delete a few shortcuts in my start menu. I like apple's approach: if necessary, ask for your password again, otherwise just make the damn change
Global symbol "$deity" requires explicit package name at line 2. - If only $scripture started "use strict;"
I may be wrong, but doesn't Wild Tangent have a rep for being pseudo spyware? It certainly gets fladded on my system constantly. I know it comes bundled with AIM and some other applications, so I don't really consider it nefarious, but I still don't think highly of it.
It doesn't sound surprising to me that a company that sets of security flags as is, would be concerned about new security features. I'd be more interested in what the developers at ID, SOE, or EA have to say about how the features will affect the ability of them to develop games, in particular online offerings.
First, disclosure: I work on Vista at Microsoft.
The "problems" Alex St. John identifies are essentially that his business model doesn't work so great when people have to click a couple extra buttons and type a password, and that he would really prefer it if children could install his products without parental involvement.
Bitch, bitch, bitch.
The real problem here is that the world is changing and WildTangent has to change with it. Yes, that's difficult. Yes, it's inconvenient. Yes, it will cost money they didn't need to spend when they were targeting XP. And yes, they may actually need to give serious consideration to getting ESRB ratings. But these are the natural and normal cost of doing business in the modern world; if you can't evolve and grow and change with the rest of the planet, your business dies, and good riddance.
The whole article is just a bunch of FUD. Alex is basically claiming that Microsoft is trying to kill his business, because he doesn't know how to do business the way he needs to do it on Vista. He's afraid that consumers won't click two more buttons and enter a password to play his game. He's afraid that parents won't let their children play his games. But the answer to this problem isn't to reduce security, it's to make a better and more compelling game! Weren't you already trying to do that ANYWAY?
Don't get me wrong, I think there are still problems - the ESRB needs to better address the needs of casual game developers who produce fifty $10 games and generate about $200K in annual revenue. The current system is too heavily geared toward console and PC developers who have multi-million dollar budgets. But blaming Microsoft for everything is just a tired old excuse that invariably comes trotting out when someone is too damn lazy to read the direction of the wind and rig his sails accordingly.
Microsoft cheerleader, blue flag waving, you got a problem with that?
For example the Xbox 360 has unified architecture graphics processing that is just coming into the market through the gefoce 8800's which cost MORE than an entire 360.
The 360 has 3 cores, 48 unified pipelines, 512 megs of GDDR3 memory and an insane bus speed between them. Hardly "mid range" by any PC standards considering PC's are still fighting to catch up.
The problem with consoles most of the time isn't console power but demand to get games out the door before having a finished product. On pc's they just patch patch patch and eventually get it right - consoles are heading that way now though.
So, a spyware publisher responsible for the crippled state of all new HP machines cries out loud that Vista will be too secure for their crapware to install? Cry me a river, ****heads. On the other hand, I don't think Vista will run games too well and that gamers should stick with XP for now since Vista's likely to break almost all existing games, especially id's OpenGL classics.
Of course the performance allowed by vanilla X is so godawful, that to get any decent performance at all requires "extensions" to X that basically ignore X architecture and are essentially hacks to provide high performance that wasn't even considered in the decade X was invented.
And don't get me started on security in X, the whole thing has to be run suid root.
I think that this is a good read (written by a former developer of Xgl) on how X is currently nothing more than hack after hack:
http://jonsmirl.googlepages.com/graphics.html
E = m c^3 Don't drink and derive E = m c^3
"Do you want to install our useful software?"
- No
"Please! It does all this neat stuff! Don't you want it installed?"
- No
"Okay... so, you're saying you DON'T want it installed?"
- No
"Good! Install progress: 22%..."
Shift+click on the no. It's very poor UI, but it works.
I can play games on Linux with Cedega perfectly well. Right now I am playing WoW with no issues.
;)
So, if it works on Linux under a limited user account... why isn't it possible on Windows? Perhaps they need to start up some kind of emulation project... they would call it Beer since Cider and Wine are taken
Beep beep.
There are multiple customers at play here. Yes, Wild Tangent (and other developers) are in a sense a customer, since they develop on Windows/Vista/etc. However, don't forget that your end-user consumer is also a customer, and the extra security on Vista is targeted towards them.
I work with a lot of customers who NEED the extra security, because frankly, they don't really know how to properly secure their computer. They're the ones who install every toolbar/screensaver/gadget because it's cool, yet don't understand why their computer is so slow, and why all these windows keep popping up. On one hand, it's tempting to fault them, because they're making bad decisions. On the other hand, the OS can do a better job of hand-holding these consumers and making the right choices for them. (Does Grandma really need to learn how to secure her computer? She just wants to use the Internet to play Hearts and send e-mail to her grandkids)
Unfortunately, catering to one customer base (the enormously large novice user-base), tends to piss off a few others, most notably power users (who already know how to secure our systems, and don't need to be prompted every single time), and developers. Some of these developers, are the evil spyware/adware-writing kind, which are customers that we don't really want in the first place. Other developers do have legitimate needs, but will now need to do some extra work to get their applications to work on Vista in the first place.
I'm fine with that. At MS, our own developers have to conform to the extra security requirements in Vista. Yes, it means more work, but I see that as a good thing. Our hope is that FEWER of our end-user customers will come in with support problems, which are ultimately tied to not our code, but spyware on their machine.
Remember the days when it was dead-easy to get anyone to install an ActiveX control? That was the worst. Similar complaints were lodged against MS when WinXP SP2 came out, since in small ways, it limited how easy it was to install controls.
-- jchenx
"In Vista, LUA's are mandatory and inescapable."
Wrong. Many sites already have instructions for turning off User Access Controls and giving you the ability to do anything you want. Vista sucks big time, but not because of Limuted Use Accounts.
Of course the performance allowed by vanilla X is so godawful, that to get any decent performance at all requires "extensions" to X that basically ignore X architecture and are essentially hacks to provide high performance that wasn't even considered in the decade X was invented.
Exactly, and IMHO is primarily why Linux is yet to be taken seriously by anyone but fanboys on the desktop...
OK...but are the restrictions on Vista's LUAs any more difficult to work with than using root privileges to install a game on Linux, or entering an administrative password to allow installation on OSX?
OK I've clearly not been keeping up-to-date here after playing with the Vista release candidates, but does LUA really prevent you from even running an executable file you downloaded without an admin username and password? Surely LUA is there to stop the executable from doing "bad things" rather than the user from running it, like in pretty much every other multiuser OS.
If I download a game as an executable file, sure I expect to get a warning maybe. Then I expect the exe to run but with reduced privileges so it cannot harm the rest of the system. It should get access to my home directory, read-only access to other non-critical OS files such as libs, and be protected from making unauthorised Internet connections. Obviously a malicious exe may be able to gain elevated privileges by exploiting security flaws, but these holes should be patched regularly by the vendor to prevent other people from using the same exploits. Right?
If LUA requires me to enter an admin pass for every exe I download then that really *is* bad. However, I would expect it to be well designed enough not to. Any system that demands that of a user will ultimately result in the user keeping the admin pass on a sticky note on their screen and just giving every exe they run the keys to their entire system.
Someone educate me here.
The artical's author was talking about downloading and installing a program requires a lot more hoops to just through in order to function.
Gee, that makes sense to me, especially since in the past, a lot of programs (adware/spyware) were somehow able to creep onto people's systems, causing huge amounts of grief.
His own argument works against him. He says that it's not a problem with boxed products, since users will trust them, know what they are, willing to go through the hoops, etc. So, what's the problem with having the same expectation for any downloaded program?
If you make your download product really compelling (including doing the "right things" when it comes to Vista security), then users will "go through hoops" to get it installed as well. If you're offering some crappy toolbar (with bundled spyware) and don't do the right things for security (don't sign your controls, etc.), then the user may not be so interested, which is probably a good thing.
-- jchenx
Ya I do remember Windows just prior to Directx. PC gaming didnt need saving, you had DOOM, DOOM 2, Duke Nukem, Mech Warrior 2, Grand Theft Auto 1, Tombraider, TIE fighter, and countless others. They ran in DOS, not Windows. They had access to a computers complete resources and ran better as a result. The only thing you needed to do was plug in your soundcard values. Getting games to run on any system can be a pain in the ass if your unlucky and the game doesnt like your hardware or drivers.
Ya Directx saved PC gaming all right...Who are you Bill Gates?
- Mummy, better security makes it an infentisimal amount more challenging to hawk our products!
- Woah no! We don't like this game explorer concept!
- Waaaah, parental controls prevent kids who shouldn't be playing our games anyway from playing them!
- Boo hoo, trying to run a game from outside the game explorer results in strange behaviour (this is the only legitimate complaint)
It just sounds like a list of whiney bitching... because it is.I mean seriously, Microsoft have gone out of their way to improve gaming on Vista and all these guys can do is complain that kids are properly protected and that LUA makes pushing their product harder? I'm sorry, but I'll take an extra security dialog to get a demo if it results in fewer of the general internet-unsavvy users infecting themselves, and Microsoft are NOT your marketing company; it's not their concern that your strategy can't cope with a minor change.
Jesus christ.
What about all the work that's gone into DX10? All the consultations with game studios and hardware developers? The tightening of the requirements for cards to be certified as DX10 capable which is designed to make your jobs easier?
Quit the ungrateful highschool bitching and respond to change.
It's something that tends to happen in the real world, and it's for the better.
Hang on?!
... ADMINISTRATION .. not normal running of applications and games, once your product is installed, it's got NO REASON to leach for admin rights.
Having worked in a secure environment since NT4 and having to comprimise security for applications which thing that c:\program files\... should be a read/write directory... let me get this straight...
Games creators are complaining that they need to write responsible applications which obay basic security methodology?? SHOCK HORROR!!! THE INDUSTRY IS GOING TO FALL APART!!!
Sorry, the only sympathy you're going to get here is "About F*CKING TIME!!!"
The administrator account is for
I might take these claims seriously if they were coming from someone other than WildTangent. They may not technically be classified as malware, but they're right on the edge. My opinion is that they're just complaining because people won't be able to unintentionally install their garbage anymore. Until they find a workaround anyway.
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
Yes, and there were non-windows versions of almost all those games.
That is exactly what direct X is supposed to get rid of.
I spent countless hours pulling my hair out editing files like this...
device=c:\dos\himem.sys
device=c:\dos\emm386.exe ram
device=c:\mouse\mouse.sys
files=30
buffers=40
dos=high,umb
I don't always use unix-like operating systems; but when I do, I prefer FreeBSD.
I'm fairly sure that most of the people that "don't take Linux seriously" are people who don't even know what it is.
On the desktop?
I wager that everyone who says "Linux isn't ready" knows full well what Linux is, and can name at least one reason why they don't recommend it to their clients/boss/relatives.
If Linux were ready, well, a free OS that's just as good as that new $300 MS thing is going to make a bigger dent than Linux has.
"Limited" accounts are NORMAL accounts.
Administrators/root-users need extra-ordinary access.
Userland software - including games - should work without requiring that extra access.
I was going to mod this discussion, but some of the comments here have just made me so fucking angry that I'm waiving my privileges for this one.
You fucking morons that are faulting Microsoft for this: How do you justify the bullshit that you're spouting? For almost ten years now, it's been, "Windows sucks because there's no security by default.", and, "Never hook an unpatched Windows box to the internet, because it's asking for trouble.". Lack of security was one of the main reasons given to switch to Linux (which, by the way, has required a user or root password to accomplish certain things for quite awhile, unlike Vista, which has just implemented it.) So, in actuality, you're just whining for the sake of whining. Microsoft, to you, can never do anything right, even when they do something right. I use Kubuntu and FreeBSD. I have exactly one 20g Windows partition on one computer, solely for the occasional college work that cannot be done in Linux without jumping through hoops with Wine or DosBox; so I have no disclaimer to give. It's simply common sense that the increased focus on security in Vista, while long overdue, is a Good Thing (TM). Those that want to bitch about having to enter a fucking password to install or run some things have no leg to stand on. Pure trolling, is what it is.
There. I feel better now.
"We may face a scorched and lifeless earth, but they're accountable to their shareholders first."
Scares me that a developer is this stupid...
#1. All MS has done is move the Vista security up to what every other major OS does. Does this developer NOT realize that a game on OSX or Linux would require the same 'privledges' if written as the developer suggests?
#2. If the person is pushing this argument based on 'demos' or download games, then they can code the freaking game with security in mind, so that it installs in the 'USER' area of the OS, and it WOULD NOT NEED to elevate privledges. This is pretty easy to do, as anyone that develops simples applications and demos for Windows with security in mind, or OSX or *nix with security in mind.
#3. This is one of the stupidest arguments I have seen in a long time. So what does the author of the article suggest? Have MS make Vista less secure so he doesn't have to learn about security and how to write an appliation that doesn't need administrative level access to run?
Maybe we should all go together and get this idiot a book on NT security so he can code his 'demos/games' so they don't install into an administrator area of the OS and then any Limited User Account can easily install or use them.
My mouth literally dropped open when I read this article, all the while I was thinking, nah, this has to be a gag, he can't really be this stupid about writing an application with NT security in mind.
No wonder MS left XP security open for program compatibility if this is the type of idiots that are STILL programming applications after Windows has moved over to NT for over 5 years now. Oh my gawd the horror, he might have to learn security APIs or learn what areas of the OS are off limits to idiot programmers...
Geesh....
$1500 monitor? Only if you are getting a 40+ inch HDTV. How about a $500 xbox360 + $300 20-22in widescreen monitor + xbox360 VGA/Optical cable. Let me know when you can build a PC that will play any of the premiere xbox360 titles for $500. Heck, you can build another PC with the money left over to use as a workstation and still not come close to the price you are paying for high end PC gaming. I got tired of paying out the ass to upgrade a PC just to play games when I can get a console. My PC still uses an AMD 1500+ CPU + radeon 8600 and it does everything I need it to do.
Limited user accounts are very usable!!
I force myself to use them and my wife who uses the same machine
A few ACL changes make the games perfectly usuable install all games in c:\games and have that directory full control to all users
This means the total impact of a foolish action by a user can wipe out their account and all the games on the system. Much better than an admin account being compromised (ok ignoring priviledge ecalation attacks)
I recently had to remove a trojan from my wifes account - a fairly trival procedure given how limited her access to the system as a whole was. Reading up on the particular trojan I found that had it been able to get admin access it would have been much harder to remove.
Ok I'll concded on XP home without ACL controls its bloody hard to accomplish this. But if you have XP pro you really have no excuse.
(and to explain no I'm not a windows fan - I loathe the system especially as I frequently have to admin them in my work. I much prefer linux and am quite familiar with winex which I have work with extensively and created start up scripts for several games that would not work trvially out of the box. however I also know just how much of a pain it is to do this so stick to dual booting. not liking the OS is no excuse not to secure it properly)
$_="Slashdotter";$syn="OTT";s;..;;;sub _{print shift||$_};s!ash!Perl !;s=$syn=ack=i;tr+LLEd+BLAH+;_"Just Another ";_
My apologies to be slightly off topic. But I foresee many end users entering their Administrator passwords in just about any legitimate looking dialog box that would appear on their screens that ask for it. How hard would it be for spyware or a popup to request an administrator password every now and then? Once the user gets used to entering his/her password on a regular basis it could become easy for the ill intentioned to steal it by simply asking for it. I can imagine that many people use the same passwords for many things, such as online bank accounts and VPN access. I wonder if it really is possible to effectively save people from themselves?
Microsoft has nothing to gain from PC gaming.
They have lots to gain from the death of PC gaming.
Why support it?
------ The best brain training is now totally free : )
From TFA: "In Vista, LUA's are mandatory and inescapable." As part of my MSDN Sub. I run Vista now on my main pc...the pc I develop on, and nightly, the same PC I play WoW, EQ2, or Vanguard on. All without issue, all under my standard account with M$oft's 'sandbox' disabled.....what a non-starter.