Microsoft Formally Bans Emulators On Xbox, Windows 10 Download Shops (arstechnica.com)

Microsoft is officially banning emulators from Windows Store. The company has updated the Windows Store policy to announce the changes. The new rules bar any applications that emulate pre-existing game systems, resulting in the removal of a popular program that supported games from Nintendo and Sega and other consoles. From a report on ArsTechnica: An affected developer was notified of the change on Tuesday when its product, Universal Emulator, was delisted from the Windows Store. While no proof of a letter or notice from Microsoft was published, the developers at NESBox linked to relevant changes in the Windows Store application rules, dated March 29, which now include this line: "Apps that emulate a game system are not allowed on any device family." This list of general Windows Store rules, written for developers, received a massive update to its "Gaming and Xbox" requirements; these used to contain only one sentence, and it referred hopeful Windows Store game developers to the ID@Xbox program. That existing program requires pre-approval by Microsoft, but developers will soon be able to publish their games directly to both Xbox and Windows 10 marketplaces by paying a one-time fee of $100 or less as part of the Xbox Live Creators Program.

Comments

How about I tell Micro$oft to go fuck themselves

[BlytheBowman]

I will make sure I will never buy a Windows machine that can't run normal windows *programs* (not just "apps")

Sounds like another lawsuit

[smooth wombat]

Essentially they are telling you what you can and can't install on your own system.

The whole, "You're renting", or "You're the product" is BS. It's your system. You paid for it. You can install what you want.

Re:Sounds like another lawsuit

[subanark]

You mean avoiding a lawsuit.There is a lot of emulator use to play pirated old console games. This is a legal gray area.

Re:Sounds like another lawsuit

[subanark]

What is more likely to cause a lawsuit: allowing illegal use, or preventing legal use?

Re: Sounds like another lawsuit

[ArmoredDragon]

I think banning outside applications is the overall plan, (note how they refer to non store applications as legacy) just they need a critical mass of applications and adoption before they can pull it off.

They only allowed sideloading after a failed windows 8 and a few windows 10 builds couldn't muster any interest, with several developers being outspoken about Microsoft's tight control of the overall platform.

For further evidence of what I'm saying, see Windows RT and the upcoming Windows 10 Cloud.

Re: Sounds like another lawsuit

[mrchaotica]

By that logic, What right do you have to tell MS what they can do with their property? Last I heard, they owned the copyright to their Windows OS.

Copyright is not property. Windows -- like all creative works -- inherently belongs to the Public Domain. All Microsoft has is temporary permission from the government to control copying and distribution of it.

Individual copies of software, on the other hand, are property -- and are owned by the end-user who legally obtained the copy, not Microsoft. Those individual owners can use their individual property however the fuck they want and Microsoft has no right to interfere.

Re: Sounds like another lawsuit

[mrchaotica]

What does "property" mean other than "the subject of some exclusive right"?

That's a reasonably good definition, but it hinges, in turn, on what the words "exclusive" and "right" mean. In this context I interpret "right" as natural rights, not legal rights, implying a labor theory of property (which, by the way, I would argue encompasses possession, i.e., control over the thing, as a prerequisite). "Exclusive" is a little trickier, because we have to consider the question of what is the exclusivity an aspect of -- the owner, or the thing owned? I'd argue, both: the good itself must be excludable too.

In other words, it is simply not possible to have an exclusive natural right of ownership over a non-excludable good, since you can't establish exclusive possession of it on your own.

Now, here's the unique thing about expressions of ideas (which is what copyright purports to cover): not only can they be trivially copied, but the act of copying is intrinsic to the very definition of "expression!" Conveying an idea to someone else -- surrendering exclusive possession -- is what causes the idea to have value. Or conversely, an idea never expressed is inherently worthless. That means expressions of ideas are clearly not excludable and therefore cannot be property.

Now, you can establish exclusive right to a non-excludable good, but exclusive right without exclusive possession requires the existence and intervention of a government for enforcement. That means any right such gained must be a legal right, not a natural one. Legal rights are not intrinsic; they must be justified e.g. by social contract. And that brings us to the U.S. Constitution: it assumes property rights preexist (i.e., as natural rights), as seen in e.g. the Fifth Amendment. In contrast, it establishes a power of Congress to grant copyright, and justifies that power "[only] for limited times" in order "to promote the progress of science and the useful arts" -- clearly a social contract.

In summary, property is a natural right applied to excludable goods, while copyright is the government-granted imposition of excludability onto ideas, which would otherwise be public goods, in return for a public benefit. Property and copyright are totally different things.

What?

[Anonymous Coward]

Wait, there's someone who develops for the Windows App store?

What about computer emulators?

[LocalH]

Would a Commodore 64 or Apple II emulator be acceptable? They're not defined as "game systems" as there is a significant non-game use.

Re:How about I tell Micro$oft to go fuck themselve

[bondsbw]

This is just banning emulators from the Microsoft store. You can still download and install (sideload) on PCs like you've always been able to do.

5 More Years Of These Wonderful Policies...

[dryriver]

... and Microsoft Windows will become a dead consumer OS. I used to game a lot on Windows PCs. For the first time I'm considering buying a Playstation 4 Pro instead.

Re:5 More Years Of These Wonderful Policies...

[rajafarian]

I deleted Windows from my computer altogether this year after dual-booting to play game in Windows since... a long time ago. Although I don't get all the games I want to play in Linux (Fallout 4, The Witcher 3, Battlefield), there are enough games that I do want to play.

Only Stand Alone or Everything?

[skipkent]

Games like "Mega Man Legacy Collection" use emulators.

"After digging around the engine in a disassembler, yup, there's a NES emulator in here. (The classes that "hold" the games are even called bs::nes::MegaMan which implements a bs::nes::NESSystem class too :P)"

https://www.reddit.com/r/Megam...

Windows App Store?

[decipher_saint]

Oh yeah that horrible abortion nobody uses.

The real news is that there were Emulators there (I mean, I guess? Or is this a preemptive strike against having fun with Windows 10)

Dosbox rapped games?

[Joe_Dragon]

What about Dosbox rapped games?

Re:How about I tell Micro$oft to go fuck themselve

[Anonymous Coward]

> You can still download and install (sideload) on PCs like you've always been able to do.

For now. " I am altering the deal. Pray I don't alter it any further. "

Re:What about paid emulations?

[stephanruby]

...by paying a one-time fee of $100 or less as part of the Xbox Live Creators Program.

Finally, Microsoft is showing some humility.

I remember when they were first starting the app store for Windows phone, they would waive the first year of registration for app developers but would tell us that we should expect a fee of $100 for each year after that (when the Android app store only had a one-time fee of $25 and 10+ times the existing market share.)

However, it is unfortunate that Microsoft is still a bit out of touch. In the case of game system emulators, they should have just said that they're banning the emulation of proprietary game systems (not officially endorsed by the companies owning those game systems in the first place). That policy would have been sensible enough. Instead, they chose to enforce a blanket policy that makes little sense, only attracts bad press, and that provides no significant benefit to their platform.

Re: How about I tell Micro$oft to go fuck themselv

[ArmoredDragon]

Except on WinRT style devices, which I think is what GP is referring to, including the upcoming sequel that is trying to be a ChromeOS clone. (I believe the code name is Windows 10 Cloud, which is just windows 10 except you can only install stuff from the store.)

Re:what do they class a game system?

[lgw]

They're trying to distinguish between selling a game that happens to run on emulation (e.g., all the old games on GOG), and an app that is an emulator and can emulate a variety of games.

From the point of view of the big game companies, "emulator" is just a euphemism for "piracy". I hate it, but it's no surprise at all MS caved on this - it's not like the xbone is in the lead these days, and MS can afford to piss off the AAA game publishers.