MS just announced removal of framerate caps in UWP games

[zMeul]

source: https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/directx/2016/05/10/unlocked-frame-rate-and-more-now-enabled-for-uwp/

Quote

As a direct response to your feedback, we’re excited to announce the release today of new updates to Windows 10 that make gaming even better for game developers and gamers.

Later today, Windows 10 will be updated with two key new features:

• Support for AMD’s FreesyncTM and NVIDIA’s G-SYNC™ in Universal Windows Platform games and apps
• Unlocked frame rate for Universal Windows Platform (UWP) games and apps

Once applications take advantage of these new features, you will be able to play your UWP games with unlocked frame rates. We expect Gears of War: UE and Forza Motorsport 6: Apex to lead the way by adding this support in the very near future.

This OS update will be gradually rolled out to all machines, but you can download it directly here.

 

they're are finally listening, but still .. it gets down to the game's developer if they want to unlock the framerate

 

also, both G-Sync and FreeSync monitor owners should rejoice

 

the biggest gripe still on the table is multi GPU support - something that's still absent in game developer portfolio, quite few supporting CFX or SLI out of the box; not even mentioning the support for explicit multi GPU setups

and still no explicit full screen mode support, as developers have to implement workarounds to use it in their UWP games

 

---

 

there is still one little caveat for some laptop owners with integrated graphics and a discrete GPU - unlocked framerate feature is not supported on these systems, MS still working on it

 

---

 

update May 12: http://www.tweaktown.com/news/52089/gears-war-ultimate-edition-now-lets-uncap-framerate/index.html

 

Gears of War: Ultimate Edition's developer, The Coalition, has issued a patch that gives the option to unlock the framerate 

[Kinda Bottlenecked]

18 hours ago, TrigrH said:

[removed]

Lol, did you read the post? 

Edited May 11, 2016 by Godlygamer23
Clean up.

[TrigrH]

3 minutes ago, Pohernori said:

Lol, did you read the post? 

yeah M$ is slowly unfucking a platform that no 1 should ever use ever.

[zMeul]

1 minute ago, TrigrH said:

yeah windows is slowly unfucking a platform that no 1 should ever use ever.

somewhat agree

MS is unfucking a platform that shouldn't've been fucked in the 1st place - the XBox division has absolutely no clue what PC gaming is

[TrigrH]

1 minute ago, zMeul said:

somewhat agree

MS is unfucking a platform that shouldn't've been fucked in the 1st place - the XBox division has absolutely no clue what PC gaming is

the platform shouldn't exist, MS wants a windows store that can download and update games sure. (even though they managed to fuck that aspect also.) BUT BY NO MEANS SHOULD THE DEVELOPERS BE FORCED TO MODIFY THEIR COPY OF THE GAME SO FIT SOME ABSOLUTELY FUCKED UWP system. Honestly all we wanted was a desktop shortcut to launch a normal windows copy of the game.

[captain cactus]

Why lock fps in the first place?

[Kinda Bottlenecked]

5 minutes ago, TrigrH said:

yeah windows is slowly unfucking a platform that no 1 should ever use ever.

 

Well... I don't really have anything much to say towards this other than the probability that you'll be rustling some jimmies.

[TrigrH]

1 minute ago, Pohernori said:

Well... I don't really have anything much to say towards this other than the probability that you'll be rustling some jimmies.

 Just to be clear I'm not referring to windows 10 at all. Just the windows store and the UWP within it.

[ivan134]

Still no access to ini files, no nodding. 

[Daiyus]

It's going to take a lot of work from Microsoft before I'll consider using the Windows Store as a serious contender for games. There aren't many exclusives I'd legitimately buy anyway; Forza and Halo. I tried the Forza 6: Apex Beta and it was alright, it worked, but I had to do two driver updates (actually now using beta drivers) before the damn thing would even launch. If that's how fussy UWP games are going to be and still perform badly then it's a real no-go for me. At least this is a step in the right direction, just a shame it's on a marathon course.

[CommandMan7]

Congrats MS you've started to fix the stupid limitations that are part of the broken unnecessary system that you put in place. 

[Humbug]

6 minutes ago, lots of unexplainable lag said:

Why lock fps in the first place?

if you take the other stores like gog galaxy, steam, origin etc when starting a game they primarily act as launchers. And the game application itself is an independent win32 program which can do what it wants.

 

UWP is a different sandboxed environment. So they need to kinda reinvent the wheel to enable much of the tech which pc game devs take for granted.

[LAwLz]

It really rubs me the wrong way they pat themselves on the back over this, saying that they are improving gaming. They aren't. This only fixes the issues they themselves created. They took like 5 steps backwards and are now taking 3 steps forward. 

 

It's like if I fucked up Microsoft's network. I changed the config to create a bunch of loops which took down the entire network. If I then changed the config back to the original one I wouldn't go around bragging about how I "improved" the network. I fucked it up and then I fixed it. That's it. I would probably get scolded for my terrible work rather than get praised. 

[Warcony]

A lot of people seem to have very unrealistic . MS was not planning to keep the FPS lock and not add support for GSYNC & Freesync etc. on UWP.

 

UWP is a new system, and they simply cannot add every feature and support for everything at the start. It also doesn't make sense for them delay the platform until everything is integrated because that's an uphill battle. Their approach of rolling it out, getting dev support and seeing what features users want then prioritizing them is the right approach.

 

 

[Bouzoo]

10 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

It really rubs me the wrong way they pat themselves on the back over this, saying that they are improving gaming. 

It's PR and you know it. As long as some people (and you can bet it'll be a huge number) think they are improving gaming they have done their job and they have succeeded in it. They have convinced people they are the good guys, albeit many people know better. 

It's not like MS will go around admitting mistakes.

 

 

[GoodBytes]

So to explain many people concerns here:

• Universal Apps Platform is important. It adds a lot of security to the user, meaning all these software that has security issues every week with exploit found due to poor coding, should be reduced. It it is sandboxed, installs clean, and uninstalls clean. Common complaints for many years by Windows users.
   
• And no, it is not only through the Store only. With Redstone 1 (Anniversary update), you can side load apps like you can download and install apps from the web right now, by-passing the store.
   
• In addition, it allows the whole point of Windows 10, which is apps that can run everywhere and gives you the same/similar experience on all of them. People complained that Microsoft didn't have an actual ecosystem. Now it does. Soon, you will be able to send/receive text messages from your PC (at least for Android, and Windows 10 Mobile users), and soon you will be able to continue a software session between systems.
   
• Universal Apps Platform is in development, it won't have everything that the mass Win32 platform (which has been in the works since 1993 -- when it was officially released with Windows NT). It has a lot of catching up to do, and yes, optimization and all that will come. Win32 will still be alive and well, as it is the only platform that can have full system access, as it isn't sandbox.
   
• UWP also bring full GPU rendered interfaces. So now you have more CPU performance for your software, and not render the interface, which most Win32 platform are using. CPUs sucks at drawing, that is why we buy GPUs.
   
• People complain that many program look blurry under high DPI, this has to do that Win32 was never designed for high-DPI... heck the whole concept of high DPI started back in 2000-2001, where Windows XP introduced it and support for it started to be built. Sadly, developers never bothers to support it as, at the time, no one had a display that could be used for high-DPI setting until recent couple of years, and because many apps uses their own, in house, or some other GUI framework for some custom interface (like Steam, and Adobe software suit, etc.), than it became, and still is harder for getting support, as they need massive modifications in most cases of the engine, or depending on some GUI framework which they are at the 'mercy' of for being updated for high-DPI support (assuming that it can even potentially support it, and not have to scrap everything and restart). UWP is designed for not only high-DPI, but per monitor high-DPI, and dynamic DPI switching (no need to restart the computer (well sign-out and sign back in) to see the app correctly).
  
  In other words (to be more clear on what I am trying to say), Win32 was not designed for modern high-resolution displays, and everything built around it, doesn't support it. So, when you do have a high-DPI display, many programs looks broken/blurry, and devs have difficult time updating their software due to the GUI framework that they are using doesn't support high-DPI, so it is a lot of work, and some can't do anything as they need to framework to be updated as it isn't an in house one. UWP app fully support high-DPI displays.
   
• Universal Apps Platform is MASSIVELY better than the junk of Windows 8 (Modern UI Apps). Heck, Office Mobile NEVER came, and Windows RT systems had to have this disjoint desktop/tablet UI world JUST for Office, as they could just not bring Office Mobile on it. And this is Microsoft! They designed Modern UI App, they should be more than experts on it. But, no issue on Android and iOS. It was very limited, and had a lot of stupidity in design. Universal Apps Platform is much more powerful, cleaner, easier to work with, and more polished, allowing complex software design and what it can offer to the user. But again, has a lot of work that remains to be done. That will come in time.

 

Should Microsoft waited for these abilities to be out before encouraging and releasing big PC games on the platform? Yea, I think so. Should Microsoft have done its research on PC gaming, its community, and all that before jumping in to have things in a better shape when they release PC games on the platform? For sure. I am not denying any of this.

 

Hopefully, Redstone 1 will also include the ability for mods, or even better a Steamworks system (but my vote is on Redstone 2 for Steamworks like system, as that is not easy to do, and so far its not there, and AniversaryUpdate (Redstone 1) is schedule for release in June/July.. so it is unlikely, but it is works, so, most likely... Redstone 2)

 

But, thinking positively, people were in doubt that Microsoft would release anything to fix the complaints, as Microsoft has had a bad reputation with PC gamers, beside the DirectX team. It is nice to see that it looks like, so far, Microsoft is indeed serious this time, and not some PR talking on how "serious they are", especially if they bring modding. So we will wait and see, but I think everyone should agree, that it is a finally a good first step.

 

 

[ThreePinkApples]

13 minutes ago, GoodBytes said:

-snip-

Thank you for writing the post I've wanted to write in these kind of threads

[Warcony]

54 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

It really rubs me the wrong way they pat themselves on the back over this, saying that they are improving gaming. They aren't. This only fixes the issues they themselves created. They took like 5 steps backwards and are now taking 3 steps forward. 

 

It's like if I fucked up Microsoft's network. I changed the config to create a bunch of loops which took down the entire network. If I then changed the config back to the original one I wouldn't go around bragging about how I "improved" the network. I fucked it up and then I fixed it. That's it. I would probably get scolded for my terrible work rather than get praised. 

Implementing a new platform is not equivalent to messing up a pre-existing platform (which is what your example is applicable to). MS didn't "create issues." They didn't purposely leave out GSync support to screw over people with NVIDIA gpus, make them buy an Xbox One, make NVIDIA go out of business, then buy AMD, push Intel out of the market and then have a total monopoly.

 

Adding a platform for gaming, which does legitimately bring value to gamers (maybe not YOU specifically) is improvement. If you don't like it, then don't use it.

[zMeul]

27 minutes ago, Warcony said:

Implementing a new platform is not equivalent to messing up a pre-existing platform (which is what your example is applicable to). MS didn't "create issues." They didn't purposely leave out GSync support to screw over people with NVIDIA gpus, make them buy an Xbox One, make NVIDIA go out of business, then buy AMD, push Intel out of the market and then have a total monopoly.

 

Adding a platform for gaming, which does legitimately bring value to gamers (maybe not YOU specifically) is improvement. If you don't like it, then don't use it.

when you have a developer, and that's their platform, that releases a incomplete and broken "product", you want me to feel sorry for them?! fuck'em!

 

PC gaming didn't just got invented, it's been around for good couple of decades and MS' XBox division just learned about it

Phil Spencer continuously claimed they care about PC gaming - this is how much they care and this is how much they know about what PC gaming means .. big round fucking zer0

 

in a interview he did a while back, same Phil, when questioned what their plans are for PC gaming he said they'll continue to support STEAM - un fucking believable

there's STEAM, there's GoG, EA's Origin - lot of examples from which MS could've learned from .. neah, too complicated

 

---

 

the win32 platform, is there something wrong with it? then bring it to the present, upgrade it; ask developers what new tools they need, what functions they need added, what optimizations

neah ... they went full retard and reinvented the wheel, this time they made it square to match the W10 logo

and you know what's funny? this is the W7 logo:

Edited May 10, 2016 by zMeul

[RagnarokDel]

2 hours ago, zMeul said:

source: https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/directx/2016/05/10/unlocked-frame-rate-and-more-now-enabled-for-uwp/

 

they're are finally listening, but still .. it gets down to the game's developer if they want to unlock the framerate

 

To be fair, that's also the case for Steam (IE: Batman Arkham Knight)

2 hours ago, TrigrH said:

the platform shouldn't exist, MS wants a windows store that can download and update games sure. (even though they managed to fuck that aspect also.) BUT BY NO MEANS SHOULD THE DEVELOPERS BE FORCED TO MODIFY THEIR COPY OF THE GAME SO FIT SOME ABSOLUTELY FUCKED UWP system. Honestly all we wanted was a desktop shortcut to launch a normal windows copy of the game.

It's funny how much shit people are giving Microsoft for doing exactly the same thing Google's Play Store and Apple's app store do...

[zMeul]

Just now, RagnarokDel said:

To be fair, that's also the case for Steam (IE: Batman Arkham Knight)

STEAM doesn't force the games released on the platform in a V-Sync ON lock or framerate lock

furthermore, games on STEAM can use exclusive full screen at their whim, developers on UWP have to implement workarounds

[RagnarokDel]

5 minutes ago, zMeul said:

STEAM doesn't force the games released on the platform in a V-Sync ON lock or framerate lock

furthermore, games on STEAM can use exclusive full screen at their whim, developers on UWP have to implement workarounds

You're ignoring your own point and mine with this reply. You said it sucked that it fell on the developer to implement an uncapped framerate. That's the fucking case no matter which platform you are on. Yes Microsoft fucked up by forcing it in the first place but they're not responsible if developers dont unlock it now.

2 hours ago, lots of unexplainable lag said:

Why lock fps in the first place?

maybe because the store was originally intended for phones?

[Trixanity]

Yup. Locked frame rates for mobile devices including laptops. The more frames you render, the worse battery life you get and most displays (and apps) can't take advantage of the extra frames, so they basically forgot (or initially ignored) about the niche segment aka gaming, where increased frame rates (even frame rates surpassing refresh rate) actually matter. 

 

Multi GPU should be in the works and I suspect exclusive full screen as well. 

[GoodBytes]

While true, the real reason is that when UWP was made, the focus was on Apps, not on PC games. As the GUI of UWP apps are fully GPU rendered now, you have the same issues as in games when things goes faster than your display -> tearing. And that is REALLY easy to do with an app, as having a panel slide in, in an app, it is real easy for Intel integrated graphics to keep well above 200fps, while your monitor  (well most people) is 60Hz, so V-Sync had to be turned on, there is no choice, and like you said, it would render extra frame for nothing consuming battery life, and making laptops/tablets hotter, and desktop warmer and consume more power (an issue with you have hundred of computer in a company setting).

 

[Giddyguy]

Why lock it in the first place?

 

I doubt Microsoft ever had the intention of keeping the UWP platform with a capped framerate, no g-sync/freesync support, modding support, and other established features. Not even Microsoft can be that shortsighted. Rather I think its just a matter of not having the features implemented in this new platform. You can see this across the board with newer things Microsoft has been doing (Edge, W10 in general). Also, MS's PR/Marketing team is the worst.