Tim Sweeney's Still Pissed At Microsoft

When Microsoft announced its plans to unify their systems through the Universal Windows Platform, the chorus of disapproval from developers was swift and immediate. And one of the loudest was Epic Games founder Tim Sweeney, accusing the corporation of trying to dominate the industry.

Microsoft refuted his claims, but it's done little to quell Sweeney's anger. He's still pissed at Microsoft, and he's still letting everyone know about it.

Sweeney continued venting his anger at Microsoft and their plans to merge their mobile, Xbox and Windows worlds via the Universal Windows Platform model at the GamesBeat Summit. He reiterated to Venturebeat his view that Microsoft was trying to batten down the hatches, and he wasn't happy about it.

"Microsoft has been taking a series of steps for a while now to close down the Windows ecosystem ... they can’t do it all at once, because there would be an industry uproar. But one little step at a time, they’re trying to take it all over. UWP is another step in that direction," he said.

Sweeney went on to draw a parallel with Facebook, where companies now have to pay to get messages out to their own followers through the social media platform. "Every company moved their brand presence to Facebook. They started sending out their consumer messaging [there] ... Now, you have to pay to send out your messages to people who chose to follow you."

The Epic founder continued his barrage on social media, outlining his grievances with Microsoft's direction and Windows 10.

[VentureBeat]

WATCH MORE: PC Gaming News


Comments

    Tim Sweeney seems pretty pissed about a lot of things.

    PC may be an open Platform, but Windows isn't.

    I like the idea of one account controlling my Tablet/Phone, XB1 & PC. Perhaps all I see is his rage at change and no reasons why this is bad.

      Can u not see the potential path they're heading down? Its clearly a long term play to create a walled garden environment.

      Last edited 05/05/16 8:59 pm

        No one is forcing anyone to use Windows. Office is their product, and it's a good product which is why it is popular but anyone can use other apps like Google Docs for example. Tim isn't whining about Apple because they're Apple and get a free pass. The walled garden approach is only bad for devs but works better for 90%+ of common consumer users.

          No one is forcing anyone to use Windows. Office is their product, and it's a good product which is why it is popular but anyone can use other apps like Google Docs for example.

          No but they are forcing updates on you if you have win10 - the problem isn't UWP, it's if UWP is the only way to run future applications (or if they bury legacy support so avg joe can never use it). They didn't give out windows10 for free for no reason. It's pretty obvious MS are taking the long road to generate a revenue stream that is better than outright sale of an OS. They have to do it piecemeal.

          Tim isn't whining about Apple because they're Apple and get a free pass.

          ??? He's not whining about apple because apple have always been like that (and i'd imagine it makes up very little of his customer base). Its changing the dynamic of something that's already well established under the guise of improvements whilst locking it down hard with access to installations only through windows store. That's the crux of the issue.

          It should be opt in and it should be seamless on a desktop PC, doesn't matter if its UWP or legacy should look identical to the end user with identical features. It'll only ever become a problem if its forced upon everyone and that's all Sweeney has been saying. It is a distinct possibility given the terms and forced updates in windows10, he's not alone either gabes seen it coming as well (hence steamOS).

          It's all dependent on the road MS takes. UWP as it stands now is fine as it's entirely optional but everything is lining up for MS to just pull the trigger and force it to play a bigger part.

            Your and Tim's arguments are very 1984 and honestly reek of crazy. I enjoy Win10 and these restrictions are irrelevant to common users. If you're ignoring the other reason they're forcing updates then you're ignoring facts. People never updated their computers leaving them vulnerable and when they got infected it was MSFT who cops the bad press. Just go to Linux then if you're so dissatisfied with MSFT aren't they very developer friendly and amazing?

              This is all just tin foil crazy irrationalism. UWP will always just remain optional, if MS ever decide to somehow lock out the freedom to install other applications people will simply revert to old Windows or jump ship to Mac or Linux. They won't ever lock down windows because it would be like shooting themselves in the face. All their going to do is work on their own walled garden within Windows to make it competitive with the other non MS walled gardens on Windows. Which is great for us users who have more choice and more competition on the PC platform. Win Win.

              Ignoring your strawman arguments I really don't understand your disposition. Drawing attention that MS could potentially make huge changes to an existing open system through forced updates is 1984 and reeks of crazy? It's not like MS will flick a switch and suddenly legacy binaries will not work; this would be something that happens over many years and OS revisions. Win11; bury legacy support in options boot directly to windows store. Win12: Make legacy support paid only business version of OS, optimize UWP and make legacy apps perform worse. Win13: Lock specific os functions to be exclusive to UWP (for example directx) etc etc

              Discussing the potential ramifications of a UWP environment is only a positive thing and will help keep them honest. Just handwaving away flaws is moronic and shortsighted.

        That was my point, I don't see him making an argument all I see is Rage.

        The last thing I want is for MS to become the next Foxtel (or anyone) where you're stuck with an App that crashes and doesn't deliver what is promised for a reasonable fee or a ridiculous expense for something that doesn't meet your what you want.

        There are some good points to this idea, but yes there could be some bad ones. I sure as hell don't see MS forcing an Update that stops any software that isn't in there store because it would be one of the few things that would likely kill their platform. Everybody would be switching to an alternative OS, Google could punch out a Linux Distro and transfer everything through that.

          Look at Apple they brought the App Store to their platform but in settings there is a toggle to turn it off. I doubt it would be any different here. I would maybe in 4-6 years it may go away but they would also need a side loading option in windows for maintenance so I doubt it would ever truly go away.

        Yeah probably emulating the most successful competitor to them atm, apple?

        Can u not see the potential path they're heading down? Its clearly a long term play to create a walled garden environment.

        I'm guessing it's no difference to what all others are going to do or are doing it now, Apple, Google and no doubt many others. Microsoft does a history of being more open than almost any other companies, so maybe there is something he knows that I don't, which is very very possible. No doubt the two will worst the whole thing out soon by sitting down and talking instead of bitching about it

      I agree. This is the step that I've wanted Microsoft to take for ages. I thought Google was slowly making steps to fill that void, but they seem to have stalled (if not taken a few steps backwards) in the productivity space.

      Sweeney went on his rampage about it being a closed system. Phil Spencer shut it down straight away then went on to demo UWP running games off Steam. Now he's having a piss and moan about a "hidden agenda". Way to go turning a perfectly logical concern into a whiny little ideological tirade.

    There's nothing to worry about, because it got smacked with TWO antitrust suits last time and LOST.
    Just because the agreements have expired doesn't mean it can't happen again to them and they'll probably lose again because of the amount of ammo available against them.

      I'd say they would be able to circumvent it as the software field has changed significantly in the decades since then. On the EU have ultra-draconian laws that are very anti-big-business.

        tell that to the developers that would be losing a good chunk of their revenue to MS in exchange for being on the windows store, or say that to Valve, Ubisoft, EA and GoG when they lose their stores because MS decided to regress win32/64 so they could make DirectX functions exclusive to UWP. or tell that to the endless number of opensource/independent projects that would have to pay a fee to MS when their binaries are no longer compatible because MS regressed win32/64 to force UWP adoption.

        Then tell me that there isn't a case for antitrust.

    Hmm, he seems like a cock, can't Microsoft do whatever it wants with its own goddam platforms??

    Last edited 05/05/16 9:21 pm

      Yes and no
      yes being they can do whatever they like on their platform
      No being they can't do anything to stifle competition on it's ecosystem because it's dominant market position.

        I mean, that last bit is just your opinion, who knows where in court competition laws would come into effect. Apple and Sony are both big competitors nowdays compared to a long time ago.

      He's passionate about the industry he works in, so is voicing his concern about the direction said industry is headed. How does that make him a cock?

      It's been pretty clear to me for some time that microsoft want to rein in the openness of the PC platform. While Microsoft certainly do have the right to do whatever they want with their platform, their actions have huge consequences for everyone given the dominance their product has.

    So if he's so against Microsoft/Windows 10 then why is his company releasing games on their platform?

      Because that's where the customers are.

      What he is concerned about is Microsoft using its monopoly in desktop operating systems to unfairly compete with competitors in the "online application store" market.

      It's not unreasonable to see Microsoft's moves as an attempt to move the Windows platform to something closer to Android, where systems come with a pre-installed store and installing apps outside of the store requires extra effort from the user, going to the settings and disabling certain security features. While developers could sell Android apps directly to users bypassing the Play Store, very few actually do this, even though Google will be taking a percentage of their profits from sales through that store.

      It doesn't sound out of the realm of possibility for the same to happen to Windows, becoming a "technically open" platform where the vast majority of sales happen through Microsoft's store.

      That'd be like telling a dev they can't complain about getting rejected on Steam when they're fine to sell their game on Desura.

        I think it's the other way around though right? The Windows store is the little dog here.

          You're right. I should've said it's like telling a dev if they don't like how Steam does business they can always peddle their wares on Desura.

          NOT being on Steam is just as much of a poor option as not releasing for Windows. That's where the overwhelming majority of the audience is.

Join the discussion!

Trending Stories Right Now