Get the top HN stories in your inbox every day.
serf
solardev
OK, maybe I'm biased here as a PC gamer who frequently uses a controller... but why not just allow both? Some games like Gears of War on Xbox already do this. Others, like Fortnite, offer crossplay and just show a symbol over each player's head.
Do mouse and keyboard players have an advantage? Sure. So do players with bigger TVs or Series X graphics or less worn controllers or the Elite controller. Big deal?
The PC ecosystem has had open control interfaces since forever, whether it's flight sticks or foot pedals or steering wheels or 3d controllers or all of the above. Both in coop and competitive games, people use whatever input devices they like (and can afford). Somehow the ecosystem hasn't collapsed.
I love my Xbox controller, but it's simply an inferior input for shooters. It's superior in many other genres (action RPGs, driving and flight sims, arcade battles, side scrollers). It all evens out.
I don't get the big deal here. Why purposefully handicap your player base instead of letting them use whatever they want?
And autofire... eh, seems like a non issue. Why not just give the weapons a max semi auto fire rate?
narinxas
> Why purposefully handicap your player base instead of letting them use whatever they want?
for the same reasons giant corps do anything: Profit!
they think, and likely will, sell more "official" (i.e. premium price) controllers
HelloMcFly
Realistically though, how much financial upside can we possibly be talking about here? Many controllers the enable this "cheating" were also probably +1 buys as well, not lost sales of official accessories. I just have a hard time believing that controller hardware sales are the primary driver of this.
mathieuh
Problem is a lot of games give controllers aim-assist, and using one of these devices means the game still sees your input device as a controller so you get that aim-assist but you also get the benefits of using a mouse.
katbyte
Real problem here seems to be games doing aim assist in multiplayer
Canada
Just ban those from multiplayer then
solardev
That seems fine? Some games do offer it for mouse too and I always turn them off. It's not really a limiting factor for most mouse users. Just let be an option that any one can toggle on or off. Maybe have two different leagues.
I'm not some hardcore shooter pro gamer either, just some dude with a $20 mouse and mouse pad full of cat hair. Aiming is not an issue at all and auto aim is just a hindrance.
undefined
kipchak
It can also go the other way, for example in Apex which supports both controller is currently considered stronger due to high aim assist, with a good chunk of pro players switching to controller.
wing-_-nuts
They should simply split cross play into two groups:
1. Those with controllers
2. Those with kb/m or those 'emulating' kb/m
That's it. That's all that'd be needed to be fair.
reaperman
With skill-based matchmaking, why does it even matter? Players should average 50% win/loss regardless of who they are playing against.
Server6
Mouse and keyboard has more or less ruined the console version of PUBG. It's just too big of an advantage.
butlike
The above-the-fold answer is "to not create an arms race" where one NEEDS to buy the keyboard and mouse in addition to the controller to be competitive. The below-the-fold answer, as others have said, is for profit.
jerf
"Why purposefully handicap your player base instead of letting them use whatever they want?"
Failing to do so creates a pay-to-win situation.
Now, you might be thinking, companies obviously have no problem with a pay-to-win situation. But you see, there is a critical difference; the companies want you to pay them to win. Paying a third-party, unapproved, unlicensed hardware manufacturer results in $0 dollars going to Microsoft for your pay-to-win experience, and that is just unacceptable.
That's the first-order answer. There's a second-order answer too, which is that even in a pay-to-win situation the company still needs enough control to put up a competent and plausible cover over the pay-to-win mechanics; imagine a game that is literally pay to win, that is, the only input to the "game" (such as it is) is literally how much you paid for it. This obviously wouldn't last long, the best they could hope for is a income trajectory that looks like the I Am Rich app [1], and with even modest cleverness a company can milk a pay-to-win situation much longer than that. And on this level too, there's a problem for Microsoft. The pay-to-win situation is extremely poorly tuned for retention of either the payers or the non-payers; the hardware maxes out the winningness pretty quickly for not much money and doesn't give Microsoft any opportunity to manipulate the non-payer's experience, creating a very hostile environment for players giving Microsoft more money.
You can add more detail to the model in a third-order analysis that considers the player's reactions to the manipulations of the software companies to avoid the negative effects of a simplistic pay-to-win model and the player reactions to the cheaters, and start modeling changes-over-time more explicitly, and it's not hard to see how having pay-to-win cheaters out of the control of Microsoft causes both Microsoft and the non-cheating players a lot of problems too.
I'll leave that as an exercise to the reader, but I will give you the hint that if you draw it out far enough it becomes clear that it's actually a very difficult situation in the limit. As others mention, the hardware hackers can just move up a layer in the stack and resume their work. You'll discover this is not a place where there's a "solution", but that it's intrinsically an arms race, which is why this problem still hasn't been "solved", in either direction by the cheaters or the game devs, even after decades of work by both of them.
(The software fixes proposed elsewhere are not a solution, only another step in the arms race. A good step, and possibly a step worth taking, but only a step. It does at least pull down the skill ceiling you can buy access to, to the point a human might at least hope to stand a chance, but the risk of blocking a top-end player, which is also a player than can cause a PR stink on YouTube, rises steadily as you ratchet down the detection threshold.)
justinsaccount
A basic wireless keyboard and mouse can be purchased for as little as $20. An Xbox controller is closer to $50.
Your pay to win argument would hold more water if the superior input method wasn't also available for less money.
jsiepkes
"Auto-fire is trivial to detect, as is a KBM setup where it doesn't belong"
[..]
"if they cared to disallow them after only a few minutes of profiling the player."
Definitely not trivial and a gross over simplification. It will create a whole bunch of grey area's and endless tweaking. Which in turn will lead to people getting unfairly banned. Meaning Microsoft will then need to investigate these cases to unban them.
jasonjayr
Maybe don't ban them? Maybe mark them and force the player to explain the situation to their peers?
Bans revoke products paid for, but marking suspects forces them to explain to their peers the situation and lets them make the decision.
rvba
> Maybe mark them and force the player to explain the situation to their peers?
I imagined someone trying to explain to a bunch 12 year olds that they dont cheat, while the kids throw random insults.
Or some random trolls who mark everything as a hack.
phone8675309
There have been several games that match suspected cheaters with other suspected cheaters, and I've always thought that was a pretty good solution.
crazygringo
I disagree completely -- there's no significant money to be made here. Microsoft wouldn't even bother if this were a financial play, it's so small. Not that many people use non-Xbox controllers to begin with, and whatever licensing fees Microsoft will charge manufacturers may very well be offset by the costs of running the licensing program itself.
This seems very clearly to be anti-cheat. Advantages are not "trivial to detect" "after only a few minutes" -- there's tons of issues with false positives and false negatives. Any software detection, cheaters can learn how to go right up to the line but not cross it, and that still gives them big advantages, while genuinely really good players get unfairly banned.
This is a single-purpose gaming console, not a general-computing device. One of the big benefits of console gaming is precisely protecting gamers against cheats, which makes it different from PC gaming. Microsoft wants a fair gaming experience for everyone, which makes it more fun for everyone who wants to play fair. If your idea of fun in gaming is cheating, then use a PC instead.
lxgr
> there's no significant money to be made here [...] Not that many people use non-Xbox controllers to begin with, and whatever licensing fees Microsoft will charge manufacturers may very well be offset by the costs of running the licensing program itself.
Ah yes, original (or licensed) game console accessories, the well known non-profit operation...
Yes, console prices are sometimes subsidized, but never accessories, quite the opposite. Or do you seriously believe that it costs MS or Sony $70 and more to manufacture a wireless gamepad?
com2kid
I actually used to work with the team who made Xbox 360 controllers. Things have probably changed in the decade since, but back then I was told that MS was only making $3 or $4 profit per controller sold. Money was made in volume, not on individual units.
To explain this, imagine a consumer electronics device that costs $5 to make. The manufacturer then sells it to a distributor for $10. The distributor sells it to the store for $20. The store sells it to you for $40.
The original company making the device only nets the $5, but that doesn't include other costs. For example any fancy in-stores displays stands are put there by the manufacturer and come out for their initial $5 cut.
crazygringo
An official Xbox controller is usually around $50 on Amazon, and currently $54.99 from Microsoft, and that price is very much in line with comparable peripherals from other companies on Amazon (Logitech etc.). The Xbox controller build quality is excellent, and when you look at all the features like custom low-latency headset audio and extension capabilities, it's nothing like the generic controllers that are $30-40 and often wired and made of cheap plastic.
The idea that Microsoft is making a huge profit off of their own basic controllers just doesn't hold water. If the basic controller cost $99 then sure they would be. But that's not what they're charging. (I mean, you can buy a pricey Elite controller if you want, but that's not what we're talking about here.)
sparky_z
If that were the only reason, they could just ban them from online play. There's no good reason to also ban them for single-player experiences .
crazygringo
I think the reason is the complexity of it, of dealing with controllers that work for some things but not for others. It creates customer confusion and opportunities for sales deception, people will keep buying controllers they expect to "just work" and then get pissed off as soon as they go into multiplayer because they didn't read the fine print. It's not a distinction that your average Joe consumer should need to worry about.
TheR3alGambit
Great example is Sony who have such a poor reporting system in place and mnk had destroyed shooters on PlayStation to a point I have crossplay off on siege. I see way more mnk on ps than I do on Xbox.
fra
I guarantee you that the total profit generated from selling XBOX controllers is immaterial to Microsoft. Anyone with an ounce of understanding of hardware business models will tell you that this has nothing to do with selling more controllers.
tennis_80
It looks pretty clear cut to me - and just because MS is massive doesn't mean that someone somewhere hasn't seen this as an opportunity to improve their personal / department KPIs.
I'm not familiar with hardware business models though, so what do you think it is about instead? Reducing hardware cheating?
fennecfoxy
Potentially improving user experience but another big one is opening up consoles to the huge and still growing esports market.
See super smash bros tournaments/other esports tournaments. Controllers are restricted to certain types.
But tbf there's only so much that can be done with a controller, it's usually software based hacks that are the main problem.
doctorpangloss
Ah, I see you haven't ever stepped inside an Apple store, where DRMed dongles and cases are a multi-billion dollar business.
nemothekid
>Anyone with an ounce of understanding of hardware business models
This line is important, as there is a clear difference between Apple's high margin, high markup hardware business, vs consoles which tend to be sold at cost, or even at a loss.
RobotToaster
And someone in China will no doubt find a way to make their controllers be detected as official, if they haven't already.
fishtacos
No one in China was able to make a 360 controller bypass Microsoft's digital signature driver controls for their dongle for 18 years now. I think we're past the point of "someone will just hack it". Not going to hack it.
clnq
> Auto-fire is trivial to detect
Tell me you've never worked on an anti-cheat without saying you've never worked on an anti-cheat.....
Why do you even say this if you really don't know it?
In short - you don't want false positives with anti-cheat, you can tolerate some false negatives. Input timings and sequences are impossible to use for this, as button mashers (it's a pseudo-sport) can press buttons at up to 20 times a second - far faster than auto-fire would. Regularity of presses just takes care of the most obvious auto-fire, but once again - there isn't a clear human-robot threshold. And most auto-fire will be far on the human side.
So you normally use a composite or layered approach. If there are enough signals of cheating on layer 1, you do more thorough checks on layer 2, 3, etc. The higher layers can be other players watching replays, ML, behavior-matching, and so on. Layer 1 can be "too lucky" checks, speed checks, ESP (extra-sensory perception/clairvoyance), altered memory, data packet manipulation, suspicious IPs, honey trap code paths/memory locations/impossible game states, skill inconsistencies, stupid values written into obfuscated memory, etc. All of those, by the way, have significant false positives on a large scale. But higher layers are almost always heuristics-based (human or machine), and with high false positives. So all together - not good, not easy.
KM setup is easier to detect as there are certain expectations such a set-up must meet for the user, which are a different set of expectations from a controller. But it's still harder than one might think. Analog triggers can be simulated, noise can be introduced in smooth mouse movement, button presses that aren't feasible on a controller can be disabled on the keyboard, etc. Once again - the issue is with false positives. You don't want to ban a person because they play the game more "cheatey" naturally than the hardware that fakes it.
Tamper-proof hardware with an auth mechanism is a really elegant solution for near 0% false positives. You can't mod a controller if you can't open it.
And I suspect that players wouldn't mind buying such hardware if it put them in authenticated/cheat-free lobbies.
What Microsoft might doing here is a slightly different topic. All I am saying is that anti-cheat is really not what you're saying it is.
pandaman
First of all, it's definitely a "money grab". I am very surprised they allowed unlicensed controllers in the first place: other consoles used to make more from licensing accessories than from licensing software. I'd imagine they allowed it to sacrifice some profit to attract more customers with cheaper accessories and now they feel that they have enough customers already, very strange move at this point.
However, the detection methods you described are very bad engineering. Any statistical method will have two types of errors: false positives and false negatives and you cannot eliminate either. Inevitable false positives will do much more damage to the consumer perception of the platform than any removal of third party controllers could possibly do.
dumpsterdiver
I disagree with this take. If a small percentage of users still cheat / have an unfair advantage after this move, it’s still a win for Microsoft because they’ve significantly decreased that pool of people to the point that average players probably won’t encounter them often, and they’ve done it without incurring additional development costs.
In my view this is clearly a move intended to solidify brand trust.
0x500x79
I think that this is a response to the rising usage of the Cronus and/or other controller modification tools that give players advantages (cheats).
For example one of these "Mods" for Cronus state that they are:
a dynamic, fully-automated Anti-Recoil system that transforms your in-game character into a laser-guided juggernaut we've affectionately dubbed as [BEAM]
Battling cheaters in video games is a never-ending chase, but I appreciate that they are attempting something.
I wish that a gaming company could figure out a less invasive way to detect these cheaters.
donatj
I don't think this is even going to stop the Cronus. The Cronus already requires an OEM controller plugged into it to authenticate. If it does, a Cronus firmware update will probably figure out a way around it as it has an OEM device to work with.
For what it's worth, I own a Cronus and it's not nearly as much of an advantage as they sell it as. I bought it just to use as a fightstick adapter and it's kind of mediocre at that too.
OGWhales
> For what it's worth, I own a Cronus and it's not nearly as much of an advantage as they sell it as. I bought it just to use as a fightstick adapter and it's kind of mediocre at that too.
It can be pretty scummy in games that have strong aim-assist, however to achieve true scumbaggery you need to download custom anti-recoil scripts designed for specific games/guns. They can work really well in certain games.
VincentEvans
[flagged]
donatj
Meh I'm a 40 year old man with the reflexes of a 60 year old man. I didn't buy it to cheat at online games, I don't play them.
I bought it so I could use my PS3 fightsticks in Soul Calibur 6. The Brook adapter works(worked, past tense soon?) way better and is way more cost effective.
The Cronus might make you a little better at a game if you're already really good. If you're bad at the game like me, you're still going to be bad at it.
Dylan16807
You think even most cheaters will claim it's a fightstick adapter in particular?
harry8
They've gone into every xbox owner's house and destroyed their property with prejudice. 3rd party controllers, all of them, including all never used to cheat become non-functional and worthless.
At that point I don't give a flying fig what excuse they are using. Neither should the law when it comes to wanton destruction of property. Property rights are a thing!
kibwen
If you don't have power over the software running on the hardware, it ain't your hardware. Force the consoles to be open and give power back to the users.
orf
It’s always fun to see that viewpoint run face-first into real life, as it inevitably and immediately devolves into a cesspool of cheating that either drives everyone off the platform or loops back around to being forced to run anti-cheat software you don’t have power over.
These vapid comments about freedom And abstract notions of ownership always strike me as naively and comically libertarian
katbyte
The time to do this was at the start of the generation or the next not mid way when people had invested in hardware. I think Sony already did this with the ps5, but from the get go so it’s fine
It’s just poor planning punishing xbox owners creating a ton of e waste
0x500x79
It is not all 3rd party controllers. It is "unauthorized accessory" controllers which excludes devices that are part of the "designed for Xbox” hardware partner program.
harry8
So they're willing to "authorize" all 3rd party controllers for no more than the cost of an engineer's time in examining each controller, regardless of who submitted it and paid?
Or can we acknowledge this for what it actually is, please.
hsbauauvhabzb
So become part of their cartel or die?
codeTired
No, they are not doing this to stop cheaters. It might be a nice side effect. They are doing it because money.
AustinDev
They are most definitely doing this to combat cheaters. I tried out Cronus + KBM on my friend's Xbox S and it was comical. I had aim assist, no recoil and a keyboard and mouse. I was running 100:3 K:D on COD:MW2. If you don't think cheating is a big part of the reason you've never played console games competitively.
TeMPOraL
That's the problem though: pampering to competitive gamers ruins the experience for the vast majority of people, who just want to, you know, enjoy a game. Unfortunately, competitive gamers are the only ones that matter - they're the cash cows of this part of the industry, which now focuses on creating as many such players as they can, and milking them for all they're worth.
Consider how cheating was handled back before AAA games turned into videogame equivalent of Marvel Cinematic Universe movies: if you were found cheating, you were booted off the server, period. There was no matchmaking bullshit, the games weren't nudging or limiting you to play on the ladder, against global ranking. Instead, you had local and international servers, public and private; you had neighbourhood servers, and servers run by groups of friends, and themed servers, etc. - in other words, servers were communities. As diverse and rich as human communities can be. And they handled cheating in ways communities do it.
On smaller / local servers, people wouldn't cheat because the community extended past the game to other on-line places, and/or to meatspace. Everyone was friends with each other, and being a cheating asshole is a fast way to lose your friends. Scaling up, you had all the mechanisms one also saw on discussion boards: some servers had owner or moderators ban anyone they didn't like; others voted. It was nicely self-regulating: servers weren't sticky, so being banned as false positive (or out of spite) didn't hurt. People didn't like power-tripping server operators? They'd switch over to a new server, run by someone saner.
Were there still cheaters? Yes. Assholes and griefers happened. But without a single global ranking to compete for, cheating was mostly self-defeating: there was no reward, no incentive, and you'd be just ruining the fun for yourself.
Yes, cheating is kind of a proxy reason why I don't enjoy multiplayer games. But the real reason is this: modern games feel like suddenly all the little soccer leagues were required to follow all the FIFA rules, were allowed only to play registered games, only to use pitches and equipment and balls and clothes that are certifiably up to spec, regularly audited - all because it might happen that our ad-hoc team of Sunday players would one day be visited by a World Cup team, and it would suck if we had an unfair advantage.
It's just ruining the game for everyone, for the sake of a small group of people running a racket.
ThatPlayer
If they were trying to combat cheaters, they wouldn't have released an official controller that allows generic, 3rd party, unauthenticated inputs: the Xbox Adaptive Controller.
It would be pretty trivial to hook up a Pi Pico through the jacks and USB ports to be able to make a KBM adapter like that. There just hasn't been a point making such a device when the xim/cronus works fine.
It might not even need the jacks, according to https://support.xbox.com/en-US/help/account-profile/accessib... the USB-A ports accept HID gamepads.
TMWNN
>They are most definitely doing this to combat cheaters. I tried out Cronus + KBM on my friend's Xbox S and it was comical.
I have sold a half-dozen Cronus Zen adapters in person via Craigslist/OfferUp.
Every single buyer claimed that it was for a friend, brother, etc.
rvnx
I wonder what popular Twitch streamers are going to do once their Cronus Zen is detected.
0x500x79
Possibly, I think the math on number of people that currently purchase controllers that will be blocked in the future is a very small amount of money compared to the possibility of losing that revenue to other gaming sources if that is the reason.
"Preserving console experience" really feels like corporatespeak to say "cheaters" without saying the devices in question (because then it raises visibility to those devices).
I think the "doing this for money" is the people who are currently not gaming due to rampant cheating in games like R6S, Apex, COD, etc.
soraminazuki
That's a convenient metric. Or rather, the lack of it. My common sense tells me there are significantly more people using third party controllers than there are cheaters, though.
wernercd
Why wouldn't you think it's both?
they obviously care about money and selling periphials is money... but so is selling consoles.
If they can't control the cheaters in some fashion (losing battle and all that) then they will sell less consoles because why would people pay for that? (unless you're a cheater paying for it but that's besides the point).
The problem you have is that you think there's only one answer to this and the answers is the want to stop the cheaters AND they want money because cheaters affect both.
keraf
If the goal was really to stop cheater, they'd provide an API in their XDA to let game developers reject unauthorized controllers. That way, ranked matches could take advantage of this to make competitive games more fair. If people want to have more fun with cheats in a single player game using an unapproved third-party controller, they should be able to do so!
happymellon
This doesn't stop you using custom controllers.
It just means you have to pay Microsoft for the ports (which is available to anyone) rather than a 3rd party.
rtpg
I generally agree with the accessibility arguments against doing anything for this, but if you are going to do something, I feel like "give dev's a way to opt into this check, limit to online play" feels like a reasonable system. That would allow fighting games in particular to not opt in.
Sony has something like this setup with screen recording, where some parts of games (cutscenes in some stuff) can't get recorded. It's annoying, but at least it's not the whole game, and the feature exists.
tentacleuno
> give dev's a way to opt into this check, limit to online play
In theory, that would have less of a PR risk / impact, too -- if they provide it as a configuration option, they can shift the blame onto third-party devs. who change a value in some XML file somewhere.
(Not that I particularly care about Microsoft's PR, just thought it to be interesting commentary.)
justin_oaks
If it's to stop cheaters, then why not disable the controller only during multiplayer?
kevincox
If they were trying to stop cheaters they could just ban "unauthorized" controllers for online play. This would give a much more understandable message "Unauthorized controllers can't be used for online play to ensure that no player gains an unfair advantage."
Waterluvian
Heuristics that identify inhuman inputs.
makeitdouble
Heuristics in competitive games will always bring their own sets of issues.
As it's an arms race, controller tweaks will adjust to be at the borderline of what the system detects, and on the other hand the 0.001% of the most dedicated players that actually beat that borderline will get pushined with a mere "no human can be that good" response, which is the worse outcome when the game's whole point _is_ to be that good.
einr
In the speedrunning community there are plenty of players who can fairly reliably perform frame-accurate inputs (i.e. press a button exactly on a specific 1/60th of a second) so it seems to me that you would have a very, very hard time distinguishing the best legitimate players from cheaters.
Klonoar
Cheating in games - like web scraping - are both arms races where this only works well to a point. It’s absolutely possible to fake it.
undefined
0x500x79
This has always been my thoughts as well, and it seems like they have the data required, but I always think they are worried about some false positive issues. These companies should have the resources to build deployable models for this.
lawn
This is one reason the Steam Deck model of being an open console system is the future.
Some dinosaurs wants to preserve the old locked-down console experience, where you have exclusive games, controllers and digital stores. But its just worse for the customer in every way.
belugacat
The day Valve falls, for whatever reason (greed, incompetence, some impossible to predict market shift/tech innovation... Gabe doesn't have decades and decades left as CEO after all) - the open world of PC gaming as we know it will probably fall, to be devoured by the Microsoft/Epic/Ubisoft/etc of the world.
Compared to most other tech/gaming companies, it's shocking how non predatory and customer friendly they are.
I've been able to maintain my digital library for almost 2 decades now, I've played those games on dozens of different hardware configuration without having to pay a single cent for it - compared to my other digital libraries, many of which (Wii, 3DS, PSP, etc) are completely lost to time.
AlexandrB
I think Valve gets way too much credit. They haven't abused their market position as much as they could have but they did normalize always-online DRM schemes. CS2 skin trading is also a hive of illegal/underage gambling and scams.
If you want to valorize a digital games retailers, I would suggest GOG is a better candidate.
kaibee
> I think Valve gets way too much credit. They haven't abused their market position as much as they could have but they did normalize always-online DRM schemes.
Always online DRM schemes were inevitable and even with Steam its ultimately the developer's choice. There's plenty of Steam games where you can just run the .exe from the folder without even having Steam running. And let's never go back to the bad-old-days of needing to download the latest patch from the developer's website.
> CS2 skin trading is also a hive of illegal/underage gambling and scams.
This is not ideal, but back in the day it was RuneScape scams, etc. I'm not sure whether it's actually better to have kids who've been wholly sheltered from gambling until they're 21 then be suddenly allowed to gamble. Ideally, we wouldn't have gambling for adults either tbh, but maybe there's something to the idea of needing to develop in a world where you're exposed to that kinda thing and are more immune to it when older? Or maybe its the other way around. Also kinda rings hollow if we're marketing trading-card games to kids, which are also definitely gambling.
wing-_-nuts
>I would suggest GOG is a better candidate.
I love the idea of GOG, and I ADORE that they're making old games available (GOG peeps, if you're reading this, civ 2 please!), but if I were a PC gamer I'd buy through steam just for proton compatibility on linux. It's that good.
RunSet
> Compared to most other tech/gaming companies, it's shocking how non predatory and customer friendly they are.
That is a low bar indeed. Steam got its initial install base because Valve bought Counter-Strike and then made Steam a functional requirement to play it.
giraffe_lady
I mean this in the nicest way but "we used to hate steam you know" is some sure-grandma-lets-get-you-to-bed meme shit.
GaelFG
The trick is as a player you are not really the main customer of steam. You are the product. The customers are game developers, and they are as predatory toward them as any big corp online store. Not worse, but not better either.
waveBidder
Good thing Microsoft didn't just buy a major AAA game company to decrease the odds of that working.
Cthulhu_
Not every way; you have more control over quality and experience in a closed system. I mean yeah it sucks, but so does spending money on a controller that isn't good enough.
edit: I'm reading somewhere else it's to stop cheat enabled controllers. Wouldn't want to play multiplayer games if someone has an unfair advantage like that.
_xivi
> you have more control over quality and experience
> I'm reading somewhere else it's to stop cheat enabled controllers
No, it's always been about revenue.
I never understand why people take company's word and run with it. Are they actually fooled? Of course, the company won't be blunt and say to the consumer: honestly, we force you to buy from us because it make us more money.
This is really weird "solution". They likely worked backward. Spotted a market opportunity, then brainstormed plausible justifications.
This remind of Apple claiming its anti-repair policy is there to fight theft. Repeat that enough times and you start to believe it.
ethanbond
Maybe people don’t like playing video games with cheaters and they do like that their items’ value will plummet to near-zero if they’re stolen.
Maybe these are more relevant to most consumers than abstract complaints on Hackernews about “freedom.”
Have you considered that?
jasonlotito
> I never understand why people take company's word and run with it.
They aren't. The customers are the ones complaining about this. Microsoft is doing what its user base wants. People on XBox typically use a controller and do not want to face people on a KBM.
Sure, it's about revenue. That revenue is not from controller sales. Rather, it's about keeping it's customer-base happy, and the general sentiment from the community is that these tools aren't good for the overwhelming majority of players.
You might disagree with that opinion, but I can't take you seriously if you aren't aware of the general sentiment of the community and how Microsoft is doing what it's paying customers want.
jowea
Can't it be both reasons?
bentcorner
Just last week we had people getting banned from CS2 because of AMD driver features. Cheat detection is on every platform.
Toutouxc
I don't know, I very much enjoy the dinosaur PlayStation 5 experience, significantly more than my gaming PC (that I only use for flight-simming now). I mean, if Steam unveiled a new Steam Deck-style box with all the power, support, polish and sales of Xbox at least, I'd probably agree with you, but at this point I can't see how open console systems are "the future". Steam Deck sells because it's a great portable gaming system that can run AAA titles surprisingly well (unlike the poor underpowered Switch), and only then because it's more open than the (not direct) competition.
pipeline_peak
No, the future of gaming is streaming.
dncornholio
A gaming device controller by Microsoft is nothing different from a gaming device controller by Valve.
lawn
The difference is that Valve allows you to use a gaming device from anyone.
And even if they wanted to block you, that wouldn't really work as you can either go around it (via the power of Linux) or just install Windows and make it work that way.
gnabgib
Also: "Xbox's new policy – say goodbye to unofficial accessories from November" (79 points, 79 comments, 17 hours ago)[0], "Xbox is ending support for unauthorized controllers" (3 points) [1], "Microsoft May Drop Support for 'Unauthorized' Xbox Controllers, Accessories" (2 points), "Microsoft Appears to Block Unofficial Third-Party Accessories on Xbox" (1 point)[3], "Microsoft is cracking down on unofficial Xbox gear" (3 points)[4]
[0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38066858 [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38065269 [2]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38070427 [3]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38073269 [4]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38076461
JoeAltmaier
What doublespeak! "Ending support" really means "blocking competitors"?
qalmakka
> players have been encountering error “0x82d60002”
OT: Microsoft should be banned by decree from showing naked error codes to people, I've been fighting them for decades now
jeroenhd
No. The exact opposite. I'm sick of modern software telling me "something went wrong, try again later".
Unless every possible error scenario gets its own descriptive error, that error code is a necessity. And nobody is going to accept a dev adding error messages to every possible error, because localisation to 180+ languages will cost a fortune. Your choice is between "something went wrong" and "something went wrong 0x82939470". The first one is ungoogleable and useless, the second one will have resolutions on forums within a month of appearing.
Sure, I'd like every message to be descriptive towarsa the user, but that simply won't happen. Microsoft has an extensive API for formatting error codes already and if they pop up a 0xsomething, that means they were never going to bother with adding a descriptive message at all.
qoi4j5ioq3j45
> Unless every possible error scenario gets its own descriptive error,
Yeah, that's kinda the point. Every error code gets its own text description. That's what I do, what my company does, with our code. Because technicians don't have the ability to look up error codes like engineers can. And even if they did, the ability to look up where/when the error code was generated doesn't tell you what to do about it.
Microsoft is just way below average in this area and counts on its locked-in customers not knowing how much better other companies are.
jeroenhd
Internationalising every possible failure within a system, especially one as complex as Windows, into 110 languages seems needlessly intensive and complicated. Many details differentiated by error codes just aren't useful information to end users anyway.
I don't think Microsoft can document _every_ error, it's just not very realistic. I'd prefer it if they did, but lacking that, the error code works just fine.
RajT88
Search all the *.h files in the Xbox and Windows SDK's for that hResult.
AKA "Partying like it's 1999"
jeroenhd
All of the header errors are documented in multiple languages on MSDN, I only start searching header files when I'm desperate.
Microsoft doesn't document all of their errors, annoyingly, but at least the HRESULT structure gives some kind of indication of the source.
RetpolineDrama
>Unless every possible error scenario gets its own descriptive error
I mean that's not out of the question, I force that in every codebase I use. The only one I find that difficult in is Kotlin, because it's a trash language that doesn't properly compose throwables.
jeroenhd
I don't get it, you can compose exceptions in Kotlin just fine.
I believe Jetbrains Compose adds some restrictions on try/catch but even then there are different ways you can communicate failure.
Clamchop
I'm always amused to read such strong opinions but I also don't know what you're talking about that would be Kotlin's fault.
wiseowise
> because it's a trash language that doesn't properly compose throwables.
Can you elaborate?
duped
Except these days when you search "Error Code 0xdeadbeef" you get nothing but blogpam on "how to fix error code 0xdeadbeef. Download this garbage cleaner app. Run it. Restart." Etc.
permo-w
that's not the exact opposite though, is it? what you want is what the parent commenter wants with an addendum
grishka
Error codes are specific and can be looked up. The modern trend of "uwu we fucky-wucked up" cutesy error messages with no details whatsoever is inexcusable because of how much harder it makes to troubleshoot the error.
jabroni_salad
I like how bungie handles it. Known errors have codewords and if you see one it means they already know and documentation exists. It's also easier to connect with other players / support with your specific issue because general networking error ALFALFA will come up in different contexts than general networking error LENTIL.
I hate getting a 0x code from Windows because the search results are going to be completely useless, possibly not even for the program that I am trying to troubleshoot.
b3orn
If error codes can be looked up, why can't the software displaying the error code just do the lookup and show a proper error message?
skywhopper
I suspect this gets pushback internally because the descriptive error message baked into the OS is often wrong or misleading. Having a code you can look up can provide a lot more context.
solardev
The forums usually take a while and a while and a lot of back and forth to arrive at a solution that works for maybe 80% of people under most circumstances, but is usually more of a workaround than a proper fix. (And there isn't necessarily just one cause of the error code, or one solution. The console doesn't know which is which without situational judgment)
The error codes are sort of a self service mechanism for advanced users who want to try unofficial troubleshooting. They're not a substitute for a real patch fixing the root issue.
bentcorner
Sometimes it can - the only time I've had this work, I had a bluescreen, on next startup Windows told me it was because I needed a driver update.
I think there's some path where driver devs can publish updates and link them to BSOD stacks which lets Windows tell users if they hit a bug that is fixed by a driver.
This was like 10+ years ago and I've never hit the same flow again, despite encountering bluescreens every once in awhile, which I guess goes to show how difficult this problem is.
themaninthedark
You are assuming that this is not the first instance of this error code showing, this is the only error affecting the device, the device has internet access.
the-dude
That is actually acknowledging responsibility.
Much more often I see : Oops, something went wrong
ceejayoz
Or “you broke Reddit” style, where that’s never the case.
ryanklee
Who cares about acknowledging responsibility in this instance. Isn't the point to provide useful information so as to fix the problem?
kobalsky
if I had to pick between error code and text meesage, I'll pick error code.
why? localization fragments search results.
I've seen a lot of people struggling to solve their Linux issues because they were searching for errors and logs in spanish and search results are several orders of magnitude off.
of course, both are better.
jhanschoo
IMO there is a right place for error codes such as this; in failure states that are too technical to explain to the intended audience, and for which diagnosis can be complex (so that dominant causes can be different from version to version). The other way these things fail that I think is common is to give no explanation and direct the troubleshooter to the logging system.
mschuster91
At least you can google for the error code, instead of having to search for a textual phrase and wade through countless pages of not-at-all-related crap.
anilakar
Or even worse, localized error messages. Good luck trying to 1:1 translate it back to English while remotely troubleshooting issues on your parents' computer.
littlestymaar
Just write clear and explicit error message (like “Not a valid Microsoft controller”), you shouldn't need to Google it in the first place!
You should still add an error code, so that people can look for additional documentation about the error on your official doc, but having obscure errors and assuming people will look on Google to see if someone on reddit or stackoverflow has more idea about what the problem could be is criminal laziness.
harperlee
Or just an “Oops :(” error message that’s even less useful.
qalmakka
printing (errc, strerror(errc)) instead of just `errc` would have costed them literally 0 seconds and would have helped a lot. Instead they removed everything but error codes and "Oops :("
I get better error messages from the firmware of obscure embedded chips than from Microsoft Windows
joshuaissac
> Instead they removed everything but error codes and "Oops :("
According to the article, they didn't. The pop up has the error code and a descriptive error message. And no "Oops :(".
harry_ord
It really should be both. Code for more information/short hand and text so you know a little bit about why, right now since the issue may be quick to resolve.
OJFord
> At least you can google for the error code
And find what information? Try turning it off and on again, update & reboot, then clean the registry?
numpad0
On contrary, incorrectly typed generic error message leads to that types of boilerplate. Numeric error code correctly entered and searched usually leads to either description of exact widespread problem and workaround, or absolutely nothing, very binary and efficient.
vel0city
The solution to every error code in Windows these days is sfc /scannow and dism /Online /Cleanup-image
formerly_proven
An unknown error occurred.
katbyte
No, error codes are far better then “something went wrong” as you can at least google them
Dalewyn
I would rather get naked error codes than nothing at all.
0xAFFFF
This. Serving cryptic error codes over issues that do have a proper wording is a big no.
numpad0
“Using unauthorised accessories compromises your gaming experience. For this reason, the unauthorised accessory will be blocked from use on 11/12/2023,” read the pop-up on the console. It then advised the player to return the product to the store or talk to the manufacturer.
smcl
Interesting how they render the date, there will be players in the UK who will see that and think they can use their controllers until the 11th of December. I don't know why they didn't just use "12th of November, 2023"
falcolas
The Xbox is a computer. It natively supports keyboards and mice. Just give up on this idea of an anachronistic “console experience” already. It’s just holding players and games back.
landr0id
This is a terrible experience for people who desire to sit on a couch with a controller. People specifically use devices that spoof their keyboard and mouse a controller so they can get in queues with controller players and retain auto aim. Some games allow native keyboard and mouse support, but then they’re queued with KB/mouse players.
falcolas
How hard is it really to have two queues based on your input type?
Not to mention, there will always be a huge overlap between ok kb/mouse players and good controller players. This leads me to believe that normal skill based matching would be enough to keep the games interesting and challenging, regardless of which control scheme you decide to use.
jack1243star
> How hard is it really to have two queues based on your input type?
Basically impossible. Some players will always try to spoof it, either for an advantage or the challenge.
bigstrat2003
It's disappointing, but not surprising. This is the same console which pioneered charging to play games online, while providing no value, simply because they can get away with it. Locking you into their more expensive controllers is totally on brand for them.
thot_experiment
Damn, won't be able to give my little bro the MadCatz every time. What's the world coming to?
Seriously though, this is awful. Hopefully we see more regulation of this sort of thing EU usb-c/removable battery style. I mean ideally we'd be breaking these companies up, but regulating them is a good step.
jspaetzel
They'll still work fine. MadCatz is licensed. There are tons of licensed accessory vendors for Xbox.
donatj
Blocking the Brook adapter is how you lose the entire fighting game community over night. I'll be unable to use the majority of my fight sticks now.
AlyssaRowan
If they were restricting controllers from the start, that would be one thing, and controller exclusivity is something every console manufacturer right back to Atari has always thought about from the very beginning - mostly for cash-grab reasons, but also, much later on, with this very excuse. It's why the original XBox's USB controllers were a different shape.
But to me this feels like a clear-cut case of interoperability, unilaterally and unconditionally removed after the fact of the sale of both millions of consoles and controllers (both first-party and not). Are they sure they want to do that? Now?
This also reminds me very much of Sony's removal of OtherOS in the PS3, and I draw the analogy with what happened to the console's security afterwards very much in mind.
throwaway49594
This has the added bonus of blocking non disposable controllers that use hall effect sensors that don't suffer from stick drift.
https://www.theverge.com/2023/7/18/23799149/gamesir-g7-se-xb...
https://www.ifixit.com/Guide/How+to+Fix+Xbox+One+Wireless+Co...
__float
This controller is labeled "licensed". How do you know it will be blocked by this policy?
undefined
throwaway49594
In the same way that Nvidia is going with it's 'founders edition', slowly squeeze out 'partner's.
Garvi
Nothing Apple hasn't been doing for years at much greater magnitudes without many objections from the tech crowd.
Makes me sick to the stomach, but everyone seems to love Steve Jobs, the genius inventor, that never actually invented anything and died of a treatable cancer because he actually was a complete moron and didn't get treatment, because "he knew better" and opted for alternative medicine. Which reminds me of the joke: "You know what they call alternative medicine that's been proven to work? Medicine."
CharlesW
> Nothing Apple hasn't been doing for years at much greater magnitudes without many objections from the tech crowd.
I'm sincerely sorry that you retain this emotional bile to the degree that you're compelled to express it in an unrelated thread here. It's unpleasant to read, but I imagine it's far harder to live with.
What's an example of a standards-based USB device that works with Windows and Linux, but that Jobs blocked on macOS?
RunSet
Related: Wiimotes connect and function as bluetooth devices under both Linux and Windows but not Mac OS.
frob
This feels like a new development. I regularly attached a wiimote over Bluetooth to my Mac in the teens. It was my go-to clicker for presenting slides. I needed a dedicated program to map the controller buttons to the inputs I wanted, but the wiimotes attached over Bluetooth without any extra hardware.
RunSet
Wiimotes are broken on Apple silicon.
Get the top HN stories in your inbox every day.
This is a money grab with the polish of a pro-gamer cheat-cleanup.
Why do I say that?
Microsoft can fix most of the 'cheats' that a software controller can implement in software. Auto-fire is trivial to detect, as is a KBM setup where it doesn't belong. Out of the ordinary joystick characteristics/speed/hysteresis/range would make it obvious to them which controllers are aftermarket if they cared to disallow them after only a few minutes of profiling the player.
and the fun point I bring up with regards to this : the determined cheaters will just pin-out a 'qualified authentic' controller to any choice of small prototyping boards and just re-create a 'Cronus-like' device higher up the device chain without detection, and this will continue until Microsoft implements software side detection via some sort of clever profiling scheme.