Microsoft recently announced a ban for unlicensed XBox accessories and
controllers, saying that usage of such might in future prevent you
from using your device. Nominally, this is in reaction to how some
hacked controllers have been used by cheaters to give themselves
unfair advantage, although it is certain that the fact hacked
controllers - via vulnerabilities in the APIs - have previously been
used to bypass DRM and security options.

Still, while Microsoft's reasoning may be legitimate, I find their
actions less so. Sure, disallow hacked controllers to be used online;
it is important to allow a level playing field and, anyway, networked
resources can be gated with a user agreement. But I'm far less
sanguine about disallowing the devices entirely, so that even offline
the controllers can't be used. If I want to use a hacked controller
that gives me advantages in my single-player experience, it ought to
be my choice. (And vulnerabilities in the APIs need to be closed by
fixing the underlying problem).

There's also the issue of how such devices are often used to improve
accessibility for gamers with disabilities, but that's been covered
elsewhere.

Unfortunately, the license agreement for the XBox allows Microsoft to
do this. Well, technically, you COULD use an unlicensed controller
with your XBox /if/ you managed to put another OS onto it; the EULA
(and the restriction on controllers) applies only to the XBox
software/OS. But few people are going (or even able) to hack their
XBox to a new OS, especially since doing so would probably cost them
the ability to actually run games on the machine.

Of course, as a PC gamer I'm not directly affected... except this
represents another move by Microsoft towards locking down all our
hardware. Sure, any attempt to force this issue on PCs today would
fail... but who knows what might happen in ten years? The idea that
Microsoft might force users to create an Microsoft services user
account just to install the latest copy of Windows onto their computer
seemed outlandish twenty years ago, after all...

On 09/11/2023 04:15, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
> Of course, as a PC gamer I'm not directly affected... except this
> represents another move by Microsoft towards locking down all our
> hardware. Sure, any attempt to force this issue on PCs today would
> fail... but who knows what might happen in ten years? The idea that
> Microsoft might force users to create an Microsoft services user
> account just to install the latest copy of Windows onto their computer
> seemed outlandish twenty years ago, after all...

That's that part that worries me. I'm not cynical enough to think it has
nothing to do with the reasons they given but I'm pretty sure locking
down hardware also a reason.

On 11/8/23 22:15, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
>
> Microsoft recently announced a ban for unlicensed XBox accessories and
> controllers, saying that usage of such might in future prevent you
> from using your device. Nominally, this is in reaction to how some
> hacked controllers have been used by cheaters to give themselves
> unfair advantage, although it is certain that the fact hacked
> controllers - via vulnerabilities in the APIs - have previously been
> used to bypass DRM and security options.
>
> Still, while Microsoft's reasoning may be legitimate, I find their
> actions less so. Sure, disallow hacked controllers to be used online;
> it is important to allow a level playing field and, anyway, networked
> resources can be gated with a user agreement. But I'm far less
> sanguine about disallowing the devices entirely, so that even offline
> the controllers can't be used. If I want to use a hacked controller
> that gives me advantages in my single-player experience, it ought to
> be my choice. (And vulnerabilities in the APIs need to be closed by
> fixing the underlying problem).

I'm also worried since that could give them free reign to jack up the
prices. I mean, a standard controller NOW is like $70.
--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom

On Wed, 08 Nov 2023 23:15:54 -0500, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,
Spalls Hurgenson wrote:

>Of course, as a PC gamer I'm not directly affected... except this
>represents another move by Microsoft towards locking down all our
>hardware. Sure, any attempt to force this issue on PCs today would
>fail... but who knows what might happen in ten years? The idea that
>Microsoft might force users to create an Microsoft services user
>account just to install the latest copy of Windows onto their computer
>seemed outlandish twenty years ago, after all...
>
And this is why I won't buy an X-Box. Ever. Just no. Playstation? Maybe.
Switch? Hell yes. X-Box? Ummm....

And why I'm glad there's Proton, for when I eventually have to take my
entire Win32/AMD64 library to Linux. There's an off-ramp here.

Otherwise, why borrow trouble? We'll see what Microsoft tries to get away
with, and we'll probably see them run afoul of the FTC and DOJ again. And
if not the FTC and/or DOJ, the EU definitely won't be having it. It's one
of those cases where globalism ain't so bad.

But I'm not going to speculate on how evil Microsoft is willing to be,
because I have long since learned my lesson that they know no bounds.*

--
Zag

No one ever said on their deathbed, 'Gee, I wish I had
spent more time alone with my computer.' ~Dan(i) Bunten

*If I were to speculate, it is "unimaginable" that Microsoft would sell
us a subscription-based, SaaS Windows OS living in the cloud on a virtual
machine that is locked down to only use Microsoft Store distributed
software. The "thin client" lockdown dream persists in its undead,
damnably near vampiric form. The shadows are rising. Run away!

On 11/9/23 14:14, Zaghadka wrote:
> On Wed, 08 Nov 2023 23:15:54 -0500, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,
> Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
>
>> Of course, as a PC gamer I'm not directly affected... except this
>> represents another move by Microsoft towards locking down all our
>> hardware. Sure, any attempt to force this issue on PCs today would
>> fail... but who knows what might happen in ten years? The idea that
>> Microsoft might force users to create an Microsoft services user
>> account just to install the latest copy of Windows onto their computer
>> seemed outlandish twenty years ago, after all...
>>
> But I'm not going to speculate on how evil Microsoft is willing to be,
> because I have long since learned my lesson that they know no bounds.*

I mean, they have tried to make always-on cameras mandatory TWICE. (Xbox
One Kinect and Win11). Thankfully, they got enough backlash to revert it
but it is worrying.
--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom

Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote:
>Of course, as a PC gamer I'm not directly affected... except this
>represents another move by Microsoft towards locking down all our
>hardware. Sure, any attempt to force this issue on PCs today would
>fail... but who knows what might happen in ten years? The idea that
>Microsoft might force users to create an Microsoft services user
>account just to install the latest copy of Windows onto their computer
>seemed outlandish twenty years ago, after all...

I've mentioned here a couple of times that real point of the
TPM requirement in Windows 11 isn't ment to improve security in any
meaningful way for most users, but to move one step closer into turning
PCs into Xboxes. However, I'm not sure that day will ever come. It just
requires too much buy in from both hardware manufacturers and consumers.

I think Microsoft is hoping that consumers will end up demanding it.
They seem happy living within a walled garden on their iPhones, and don't
mind it much on their video game consoles. Microsoft's locked-down
ARM-based tablets could be a bridge to locked-down ARM PCs which will
much more secure than x86 PCs if only because of their obscurity.
That could convince consumers to make the switch to ARM PCs, despite
their issues, and once the platform becomes popular and revealed to be
just as vulnerable to all the 0-day exploits targetting Windows as x86
PCs, it'll be too late.

I don't know if the hardware manufactures will happy to go along with
it though. It concentrates too much power in the hands of Microsoft.
Even companies like Dell and HP should be worrying if there would be a
place for them in locked-down PC world. What would prevent Microsoft
becoming like Apple, exclusively making its own hardware for its own
software? Enterprise customers don't like be tied to one supplier either
and will resist buying hardware tied to one operating system.

But ARM Windows PCs will be hard sell to both consumers and businesses.
Games won't work, most applications will be slower, various kinds
of peripherals won't work. All of which is a big price to pay for
theortically better security and maybe better battery life on laptops.
If you want all that, you can already get a Chromebook. Getting over
the hump to where some games work, most popular applications run just
as fast, and few more peripherals are supported, is going to be difficult.

Locking down x86 PCs seems to be a non-starter. Even if Microsoft and
Intel were to insist on it, I don't think the rest industry would go along
with it. Intel promised in 2017 to remove legacy BIOS boot support by
2020 and force everyone to use UEFI booting, but that never happened.
My new 2023 Intel PC can boot MS-DOS just fine. All that's changed is
that now Intel's GPUs don't support it, so you need to use an add-in
AMD or NVidia card.

Without the same locked-down walled-garden environment that exists
on the Xbox also existing on the PC it's not going to practical for
Microsoft to try to lock down peripherial controllers. Just too many
weird input devices being used out there, from point-of-sale barcode
readers to accessibility aids eithat Microsoft would have a hard time
justifying breaking compatiblity with. Unless of course, they already
didn't work because of the transition from x86 to ARM PCs.

--
l/ // Ross Ridge -- The Great HTMU
[oo][oo] rridge@csclub.uwaterloo.ca
-()-/()/ http://www.csclub.uwaterloo.ca:11068/
db //

Spalls Hurgenson wrote:

> There's also the issue of how such devices are often used to improve
> accessibility for gamers with disabilities, but that's been covered
> elsewhere.

We have an official accessibility controller, and it's pretty awesome
with the kind of devices you can plug to it. I'm part of the volunteer
accessibility beta testing team and it got to try it at a lanparty. Of
course, many "serious gamers" have complained that this controller will
be used for cheating.

Regarding these controllers, I did not even know they still existed,
since even the cheap garbage like powerA is licensed already.

The good about this: This will be a massive Fudge you to people who
cheat by using the cronus Max / Zen to play with KB/M and matchmake with
controller players

The bad: This would disable the adapter that allows using the Logitech
G29 PS4/PC racing wheel on Xbox. I paid 298eur for that thing when I
only had PS4 and PC, and not being able to use it on Xbox (buy a G920
for xbox. Same price, different logo and driver).

A controller that could work on any platform instead of having to choose
between playstation and Xbox (it's always guaranteed to work on PC and
almost guaranteed with Switch thanks to the 8bitdo adapter) could have
existed prior to this and make people more free to move between
platforms (I'm extremely tied to Sony because of special controllers),
and environmentally friendlier since you could use it among multiple
systems. Who knows, maybe the EU will do like with USB-C in the future
and mandate inter-compatibility for accesories (I'm dreaming, I know).

Ross Ridge wrote:

> I've mentioned here a couple of times that real point of the TPM
> requirement in Windows 11 isn't ment to improve security in any
> meaningful way for most users, but to move one step closer into
> turning PCs into Xboxes. However, I'm not sure that day will ever
> come. It just requires too much buy in from both hardware
> manufacturers and consumers.
>

They already set an dangerous precedent with Xinput. Before the Xbox 360
there was not a standard for controllers on PC, which meant
that the default settings would be absolutely random, in-game button
prompts would appear as "press (1)" or "Press (2)", and we depended on
the developer adding support correctly (and in some games it was not
possible to remap. With Xinput suddenly more PC games supported
controllers, rumble, etc, but it came with a dangerous side effect:

Many games would only support Xinput, turning Directinput controllers
into paperweights. If you had been playing with a Dual shock 3 on PC, an
adaptoid for a classic console controller (PSX, PS2, Saturn), or a
controller from Genius, Saitek, etc, suddenly you were out of luck. Same
happened with the Dual Shock 4, which although it was Directinput by
default and did not require a software like the DS3, it was unusable for
xinput games unless you used an xinput wrapper to emulate an xbox
controller.

I am glad for Valve taking care of the xinput emulation with Steam. best
of all, it is possible to add non steam games to the client and extend
the non xinput support to those games too.

On Sat, 11 Nov 2023 19:15:25 -0000 (UTC), rridge@csclub.uwaterloo.ca
(Ross Ridge) wrote:

>I've mentioned here a couple of times that real point of the
>TPM requirement in Windows 11 isn't ment to improve security in any
>meaningful way for most users, but to move one step closer into turning
>PCs into Xboxes. However, I'm not sure that day will ever come. It just
>requires too much buy in from both hardware manufacturers and consumers.

Microsoft has had the dream of "software as a service" from long
before that term even existed. As far back as the mid 90s, interviews
with Microsoft C-levels had them postulating about how one day they
might sell software similar to "cable TV". They've been moving towards
that dream for decades, and a lot of their seemingly user-hostile
actions have been slow movements in that direction. Very gradually,
they have been building up the infrastructure and planting the idea of
subscription-based software into the psyche of their customers.
Locked-down is a necessary part of that dream; if users have full
access to the hardware and OS, they could bypass the subscription
requirements (or just install a cheaper/free alternative). So open
access has got to go.

They've been boiling this frog very slowly, and the water is now very,
very hot.

Microsoft has done a great job convincing a lot of people that they've
reformed since the bad old days of the early 2000s, when they were
convicted monopolists. But while their methods have become more subtle
and less direct, their goals remain the same.

On 11/11/2023 11:15 AM, Ross Ridge wrote:
> Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Of course, as a PC gamer I'm not directly affected... except this
>> represents another move by Microsoft towards locking down all our
>> hardware. Sure, any attempt to force this issue on PCs today would
>> fail... but who knows what might happen in ten years? The idea that
>> Microsoft might force users to create an Microsoft services user
>> account just to install the latest copy of Windows onto their computer
>> seemed outlandish twenty years ago, after all...
>
> I've mentioned here a couple of times that real point of the
> TPM requirement in Windows 11 isn't ment to improve security in any
> meaningful way for most users, but to move one step closer into turning
> PCs into Xboxes. However, I'm not sure that day will ever come. It just
> requires too much buy in from both hardware manufacturers and consumers.
>
> I think Microsoft is hoping that consumers will end up demanding it.
> They seem happy living within a walled garden on their iPhones, and don't
> mind it much on their video game consoles. Microsoft's locked-down
> ARM-based tablets could be a bridge to locked-down ARM PCs which will
> much more secure than x86 PCs if only because of their obscurity.
> That could convince consumers to make the switch to ARM PCs, despite
> their issues, and once the platform becomes popular and revealed to be
> just as vulnerable to all the 0-day exploits targetting Windows as x86
> PCs, it'll be too late.
>
> I don't know if the hardware manufactures will happy to go along with
> it though. It concentrates too much power in the hands of Microsoft.
> Even companies like Dell and HP should be worrying if there would be a
> place for them in locked-down PC world. What would prevent Microsoft
> becoming like Apple, exclusively making its own hardware for its own
> software? Enterprise customers don't like be tied to one supplier either
> and will resist buying hardware tied to one operating system.
>
> But ARM Windows PCs will be hard sell to both consumers and businesses.
> Games won't work, most applications will be slower, various kinds
> of peripherals won't work. All of which is a big price to pay for
> theortically better security and maybe better battery life on laptops.
> If you want all that, you can already get a Chromebook. Getting over
> the hump to where some games work, most popular applications run just
> as fast, and few more peripherals are supported, is going to be difficult.
>
> Locking down x86 PCs seems to be a non-starter. Even if Microsoft and
> Intel were to insist on it, I don't think the rest industry would go along
> with it. Intel promised in 2017 to remove legacy BIOS boot support by
> 2020 and force everyone to use UEFI booting, but that never happened.
> My new 2023 Intel PC can boot MS-DOS just fine. All that's changed is
> that now Intel's GPUs don't support it, so you need to use an add-in
> AMD or NVidia card.
>
> Without the same locked-down walled-garden environment that exists
> on the Xbox also existing on the PC it's not going to practical for
> Microsoft to try to lock down peripherial controllers. Just too many
> weird input devices being used out there, from point-of-sale barcode
> readers to accessibility aids eithat Microsoft would have a hard time
> justifying breaking compatiblity with. Unless of course, they already
> didn't work because of the transition from x86 to ARM PCs.
>
Corporations are still a huge market for PCs. Many of them will *ahem*
"push back" against MS over something like this going too far. And one
has to wonder what the US Federal Government will have to say if
Micros**t starts trying to lock up the workstations they use....

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

Am 11.11.23 um 20:44 schrieb H1MEM:
>
> I am glad for Valve taking care of the xinput emulation with Steam. best
> of all, it is possible to add non steam games to the client and extend
> the non xinput support to those games too.
Valves solution is excellent, i think the best in existence, thanks also
partially to the Steam Controller, problem is it binds you to Steam as
intermediate layer, not a big tradeoff though
because you can add non steam games to steam and profit from it.

On Sat, 11 Nov 2023 16:06:01 -0500, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,
Spalls Hurgenson wrote:

>On Sat, 11 Nov 2023 19:15:25 -0000 (UTC), rridge@csclub.uwaterloo.ca
>(Ross Ridge) wrote:
>
>>I've mentioned here a couple of times that real point of the
>>TPM requirement in Windows 11 isn't ment to improve security in any
>>meaningful way for most users, but to move one step closer into turning
>>PCs into Xboxes. However, I'm not sure that day will ever come. It just
>>requires too much buy in from both hardware manufacturers and consumers.
>
>
>Microsoft has had the dream of "software as a service" from long
>before that term even existed. As far back as the mid 90s, interviews
>with Microsoft C-levels had them postulating about how one day they
>might sell software similar to "cable TV". They've been moving towards
>that dream for decades, and a lot of their seemingly user-hostile
>actions have been slow movements in that direction. Very gradually,
>they have been building up the infrastructure and planting the idea of
>subscription-based software into the psyche of their customers.
>Locked-down is a necessary part of that dream; if users have full
>access to the hardware and OS, they could bypass the subscription
>requirements (or just install a cheaper/free alternative). So open
>access has got to go.
>
>They've been boiling this frog very slowly, and the water is now very,
>very hot.
>
>Microsoft has done a great job convincing a lot of people that they've
>reformed since the bad old days of the early 2000s, when they were
>convicted monopolists. But while their methods have become more subtle
>and less direct, their goals remain the same.
>
More subtle? YGBK.

My settings app tries to sell me Microsoft 365 (even though I have it
installed through a work account), it also tells me my cloud settings are
literally broken ("Wait a bit then, try again") because I shut down
OneDrive, my Samsung phone will only back up photos to OneDrive without a
third-party app like Google Photos, and any -and I mean *any*- integrated
OS content-rich feature like Widgets or searching from the Start menu
search bar launches Edge even though I have an alternative default
browser set. It also tells me my machine "doesn't support standard
hardware security" because I have SecureBoot turned off.

WSL 2 searches in the Store turn up Ubuntu, Microsoft customized Linux
distros (Pengwin), and little else if you're not willing to scroll a
bunch. Search for "Red Hat Linux;" no Red Hat. You get Pengwin Enterprise
6 and 7, even though that's based on *Debian* (Oh, you mean that distro
that Ubuntu is based on?)

They also try to cram ads into everything. The lock screen, the Weather
app, etc. Due to outcry, especially with the Weather app, *sometimes*
they dial it back. A seach on how to turn any of that off, other than
turning off custom personalized ads with a GUID tracker, yields bupkiss.
So, no subscription model? Let's go ad-based model. They're gonna get us
to pay for that OS some way. It's a two-front war.

They need a full investigation, and then Microsoft needs to be broken up
into an Azure unit, an OS unit, and a productivity software unit. Until
that happens, they will be as subtle as a bull in a China shop.

To quote Pepper Pots in The Avengers, "Yeah. Not gonna be that subtle."

--
Zag

No one ever said on their deathbed, 'Gee, I wish I had
spent more time alone with my computer.' ~Dan(i) Bunten

On 11/12/23 07:47, Zaghadka wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Nov 2023 16:06:01 -0500, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,
> Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 11 Nov 2023 19:15:25 -0000 (UTC), rridge@csclub.uwaterloo.ca
>> (Ross Ridge) wrote:
>>
>>> I've mentioned here a couple of times that real point of the
>>> TPM requirement in Windows 11 isn't ment to improve security in any
>>> meaningful way for most users, but to move one step closer into turning
>>> PCs into Xboxes. However, I'm not sure that day will ever come. It just
>>> requires too much buy in from both hardware manufacturers and consumers.
>>
>>
>> Microsoft has had the dream of "software as a service" from long
>> before that term even existed. As far back as the mid 90s, interviews
>> with Microsoft C-levels had them postulating about how one day they
>> might sell software similar to "cable TV". They've been moving towards
>> that dream for decades, and a lot of their seemingly user-hostile
>> actions have been slow movements in that direction. Very gradually,
>> they have been building up the infrastructure and planting the idea of
>> subscription-based software into the psyche of their customers.
>> Locked-down is a necessary part of that dream; if users have full
>> access to the hardware and OS, they could bypass the subscription
>> requirements (or just install a cheaper/free alternative). So open
>> access has got to go.
>>
>> They've been boiling this frog very slowly, and the water is now very,
>> very hot.
>>
>> Microsoft has done a great job convincing a lot of people that they've
>> reformed since the bad old days of the early 2000s, when they were
>> convicted monopolists. But while their methods have become more subtle
>> and less direct, their goals remain the same.
>>
> More subtle? YGBK.

Yellow Green Blue Yellow?

>
> My settings app tries to sell me Microsoft 365 (even though I have it
> installed through a work account), it also tells me my cloud settings are
> literally broken ("Wait a bit then, try again") because I shut down
> OneDrive, my Samsung phone will only back up photos to OneDrive without a
> third-party app like Google Photos, and any -and I mean *any*- integrated
> OS content-rich feature like Widgets or searching from the Start menu
> search bar launches Edge even though I have an alternative default
> browser set. It also tells me my machine "doesn't support standard
> hardware security" because I have SecureBoot turned off.

News and Search also uses Bing, don't forget. And having news at all
just feels like an advertisement for the news sites, especially since I
could not care less about reading the news.

> WSL 2 searches in the Store turn up Ubuntu, Microsoft customized Linux
> distros (Pengwin), and little else if you're not willing to scroll a
> bunch. Search for "Red Hat Linux;" no Red Hat. You get Pengwin Enterprise
> 6 and 7, even though that's based on *Debian* (Oh, you mean that distro
> that Ubuntu is based on?)

It's the only distro people really know super well, unfortunately. I am
willing to bet Canonical struck a deal with the MS execs to get a cut of
revenue, or something.

> They also try to cram ads into everything. The lock screen, the Weather
> app, etc. Due to outcry, especially with the Weather app, *sometimes*
> they dial it back. A seach on how to turn any of that off, other than

FILE EXPLORER has ads. It's only a matter of time until they start
making advertisement desktop backgrounds, especially with the free
version not letting you set it. (I know about the right click set as
background, but they would probably gut that too)
--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom

On Sun, 12 Nov 2023 08:03:33 -0600, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,
candycanearter07 wrote:

>> More subtle? YGBK.
>
>Yellow Green Blue Yellow?

You Gotta Be Kidding.

So, YPBPR*

--
Zag

No one ever said on their deathbed, 'Gee, I wish I had
spent more time alone with my computer.' ~Dan(i) Bunten

* j/k. That was just the abbreviations for component video inputs.

On 11/13/23 19:47, Zaghadka wrote:
> On Sun, 12 Nov 2023 08:03:33 -0600, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,
> candycanearter07 wrote:
>
>>> More subtle? YGBK.
>>
>> Yellow Green Blue Yellow?
>
> You Gotta Be Kidding.
>
> So, YPBPR*
>

Oh OK.
--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom