You can have 2 metro apps on screen at once. I don't know how it will translate to 2+ monitors yet (2 apps per screen?), but I'd imagine that would continue to be the case.

So that's only 2, only side by side, and as I say, buying multiple monitors to view more windows is a terrible workaround Plus that's no longer "full screen" - I mean, if the answer is that Metro will ultimately be updated so that it supports multiple windows, then great - that's proving the point that we should have that option. Note, I'm not so much arguing against Windows 8, I'm arguing against this idea that full screen should be the norm. If Metro is updated to ultimately offer what the "desktop" API can do with windows, then great.

I meant the paradigm shift from a completely open software environment to a sand-boxed one paired with a single point of contact software store will result in a better quality of life for consumers and will result in more sales for us, developers. There are some UI and API problems, but on the whole the direction they are shifting in benefits all users of the platform; it's not nearly the clusterfuck it's made out to be.

My point was just that switching will be difficult, but it will result in a lot of significant gains for consumers and developers alike that more than offset the differences. I didn't mean to imply that Metro>Desktop. The amount of negativity towards Metro/winRT/VS express is disproportionate to the reality.[/quote]

Well okay, though I still disagree on that issue too - probably more so.

You can have all the advantages of "centralised" download sites whilst still being open and not giving a monopoly to the OS creator - as shown by Android, Nokia (S40/Symbian/Meego), Linux, OS X ... hell, AmigaOS had one 15 years ago. I think it's Windows that stands out as the only platform that doesn't really have a standard download place, leaving us to the mercy of places like download.com filling the void.

Granting a monopoly to MS on software distribution will be better for everyone? I'm sure they'd love you to believe it. It'll be great for MS, with the 30% cut, and the annual $99 on top.

Some people might be able to get better sales. Other people won't - either they're already selling through existing channels (including online) fine, or you'll just be lost in the noise. Then there are free/open source developers who are quite happy distributing software, with free hosting options that don't cost $99 a year. My experience has been as Antheus suggests. It's near impossible to get noticed on Google Play unless you are doing your own marketing, in which case it's no better than what you could do on Windows already. I find I get better downloads for Windows just through the old fashioned web page method, than through Google's Play - it's past the point where you could get tonnes of exposure simply by putting something on there. (Interestingly, Nokia Store is the one place I get hundreds or thousands of downloads every day, just by putting something there with zero marketing - I guess because it seems to been ignored by a lot of the bandwagon jumpers; but in general, "app stores'" gold rushes are something you'll only get near the start.) Of course, it's very hard for indies to make money on Windows now - I'm just not convinced forcing them to only release through MS (as opposed to it being an additional option) will mean things are better for developers, apart from a possible short term "gold rush" period for a lucky few.

And indeed, just consider the basic logic. At the moment, an app on Windows competes with large amounts of competition, making it hard to succeed. If I'm an early adopter on Metro and get on the MS Store, and I'm lucky, I might get lots of success. But long term, you're still going to be one app on Windows with large amounts of competition - that's true whether you stick them on different websites, or put them all on the same one.

Why would an MS download site be any different to download.com, where the already well known apps get downloaded vast amounts of times (millions a week), but there's no coverage for new unknown software (in my experience, I get less than from my own website)?

Also of interest: http://www.technolog...business/40319/

For users, a download site is useful if you're looking for a type of software but aren't sure which. OTOH, if you're at a website and what to download something, it's an awful lot easier to go "click", then have to follow the link to the special OS download site. Centralised download sites should be offered in addition (like they are on most platforms), not locked down so it's the only place you can get software from.

Also, even if I do want to browse for software, I find Google Play increasingly frustrating, due to all the secret ad-ware there (nothing wrong with people wanting to make money, but be upfront about it - it's annoying for users, and annoying also for developers that don't put ads in their applications). So with things like that, it's not really clear that hunting through 10 different apps on Google Play is better than just typing the name of a type of software on Google, and following the top hits. With people on Windows already so used to the latter, would you rush to a new MS store?

If I were to put a split on it, I'd say it should be something like a 70/30 split in favor of metro vs desktop apps. The 30% would probably end up being productivity/development apps. [/quote]As I say, I'm more likely to be wanting productivity run full screen, than some simple app. And what if I want to run the simple app in the 70% at the same time?

I would hope that most types of applications end up with both kinds, so users can choose, which would be fine.

But I still wonder - it's already possible today to write full screen apps in Windows, so why aren't people doing that? It seems to be only game developers who have decided that's better (and even they are often written with the option to run in a window).

You could stick with Visual Studio 2010. Sure it doesn't have the latest and greatest futures, but I believe it's still an option. I really don't subscribe to the whole Windows 8 Metro philosophy on desktop PCs and laptops, but I guess I'll just have to upgrade sometime.

You can have all the advantages of "centralised" download sites whilst still being open and not giving a monopoly to the OS creator - as shown by Android, Nokia (S40/Symbian/Meego), Linux, OS X ... hell, AmigaOS had one 15 years ago. I think it's Windows that stands out as the only platform that doesn't really have a standard download place, leaving us to the mercy of places like download.com filling the void.

Granting a monopoly to MS on software distribution will be better for everyone? I'm sure they'd love you to believe it. It'll be great for MS, with the 30% cut, and the annual $99 on top.

So you are saying that now that Microsoft has created a better reach for developers and easier/better tools that can and will probably let us write a "Metro" game or application for PC's, Laptops, Tablets and maybe Phones and Consoles, should not ask for money?

You also just answered that yourself, "I think it's Windows that stands out as the only platform that doesn't really have a standard download place, leaving us to the mercy of places like download.com filling the void.". So, isn't this Metro developer subscription model a benefit? One more way to be seen, no? You are hating on it simply because its Microsoft. Apple, charges also AND you "need" to use their hardware to develop for them! If things have not changed.

"The iOS Developer Program annual fee is $99, and in local currency where available. The iOS Developer Enterprise Program annual fee is $299, and in local currency where available. The iOS Developer University Program is free." And don't forget to add the 30% cut for them for all your sells too.

Oh wait...

"The Mac Developer Program annual fee is $99, and in local currency where available."

And to develop on Android there is a one time fee, which is or was like $25.

And also, all "app stores" take a cut of your sales. Amazon, Facebook, Steam, Google, iTunes and now finally, Windows will. What about the other ones like Intels app store? And the rest that I'm not even aware off? I'm sure they do.

But because its Microsoft, you find it "wrong". The last big company to incorporate it.

Don't do windows apps, simple. You loose like 80+% of the whole PC/Laptop market, but who cares, right?

Or you can just do the usual desktop app and ignore the "Stores" and "MetroStuff" and use the current tech, API's and Platform that will be still supported for the next 10 years like Diablo 3, WoW and Minecraft have been doing, heard does games sold alot. >.>

You could stick with Visual Studio 2010. Sure it doesn't have the latest and greatest futures, but I believe it's still an option. I really don't subscribe to the whole Windows 8 Metro philosophy on desktop PCs and laptops, but I guess I'll just have to upgrade sometime.

Visual Studio 2010 will last as long as Windows 7. Considering that we still support Windows XP, that's about 10 years.*

[size=2]*And if you add Windows 8 to the math, since it can run Windows 7 Applications, that may well be 12-14 years of Visual Studio 2010 usefulness.

Granting a monopoly to MS on software distribution will be better for everyone? I'm sure they'd love you to believe it. It'll be great for MS, with the 30% cut, and the annual $99 on top.

No, the MS Store will have a monopoly on Metro apps; just like the App Store has one on iOS and the Play store does on Android.

You can continue to develop and sell your non-Metro apps via other means, no one is stopping you there but they won't be getting on a tablet any time soon much like if you don't push your app via the App Store on iOS you won't be getting on an iOS device any time soon.

You could stick with Visual Studio 2010. Sure it doesn't have the latest and greatest futures, but I believe it's still an option. I really don't subscribe to the whole Windows 8 Metro philosophy on desktop PCs and laptops, but I guess I'll just have to upgrade sometime.

Offtopic: Long time no see, man! (note: you may not remember who i am, lol)

But now, instead of hitting windows key + app_name, I need to hit Windows key and then move the mouse towards a nice square image of the app I need to run. It's not an improvement for desktop use

I installed the Win8 preview on a VM, and if I remember correctly, I could just hit the windows key and start typing, and it found my apps just fine. There's just not a blank white input box with a blinking cursor, that's all.

PS I absolutely love this thread :-D

So you are saying that now that Microsoft has created a better reach for developers and easier/better tools that can and will probably let us write a "Metro" game or application for PC's, Laptops, Tablets and maybe Phones and Consoles, should not ask for money?

You also just answered that yourself, "I think it's Windows that stands out as the only platform that doesn't really have a standard download place, leaving us to the mercy of places like download.com filling the void.". So, isn't this Metro developer subscription model a benefit? One more way to be seen, no? You are hating on it simply because its Microsoft. Apple, charges also AND you "need" to use their hardware to develop for them! If things have not changed.

I haven't expressed hatred here. I dislike and have criticised Apple's IOS model too, and would worry for it to become the norm. So it's not true that I'm singling out MS.

And no I'm not saying "that Microsoft has created a better reach for developers", much of my last post, in agreement with Antheus, was disputing this idea. Pay money for the privilege of writing software?


I have no problem with a standard download place, nor do I have any problem with a paid for one that people can optionally use.

"The Mac Developer Program annual fee is $99, and in local currency where available."

And to develop on Android there is a one time fee, which is or was like $25.

And also, all "app stores" take a cut of your sales. Amazon, Facebook, Steam, Google, iTunes and now finally, Windows will. What about the other ones like Intels app store? And the rest that I'm not even aware off? I'm sure they do.[/quote]Not relevant - with all those, you are free to distribute where you like. You don't have to pay anything to develop for a device that you own. You don't have to pay a penny to distribute free apps for Windows. The issue is also more control than cost. And Intel's AppUp Centre? I took one look at that, wasn't convinced that the traffic would be worth the effort of even uploading, and chose not to use it.

Individuals shouldn't have to pay money to write software for free. Companies with their own established distribution methods shouldn't be required to go through one company. 30% cut may or may not be a good buy - but the choice of distribution should be up to those in the market, not enforced by technology as a monopoly. And one company shouldn't get to decide what software I as a user can run on my device.

(And to be honest, there is a matter of scale - if VS full version only cost $25, people would be far less bothered I imagine. Android is also free itself, so the $25 could be seen as a charge for a developer version, which is less than the normal cost of Windows. But that's irrelevant anyway, since it's not true you have to pay that to develop for an Android device, it's just that most people choose to. If MS opened a Metro download site, with a one off cost for $25, that wasn't required and enforced by the hardware, you wouldn't get any criticism from me.)

But because its Microsoft, you find it "wrong". The last big company to incorporate it.[/quote]The only company currently with this model is Apple, and even then only for IOS. (Possibly it's true for consoles too, but it's hardly true that MS are the "last big" company to do this, when most download sites don't exert this kind of control at all; and I don't want general purpose software distribution to be like it is for games consoles.) I criticise Apple with IOS far more than MS, so it's a straw man to say I only criticise becaue it's MS.

Or you can just do the usual desktop app and ignore the "Stores" and "MetroStuff" and use the current tech, API's and Platform that will be still supported for the next 10 years like Diablo 3, WoW and Minecraft have been doing, heard does games sold alot. >.>[/quote]Exactly, that's my point, that non-Metro is still important. I still use "stores", but I can choose to distribute where I like.

[quote name='mdwh' timestamp='1338385640' post='4944670']
Granting a monopoly to MS on software distribution will be better for everyone? I'm sure they'd love you to believe it. It'll be great for MS, with the 30% cut, and the annual $99 on top.

No, the MS Store will have a monopoly on Metro apps; just like the App Store has one on iOS and the Play store does on Android.[/quote]

Android software doesn't have to be distributed through Google Play (Google have a strong advantage, but I have no problem with that - if say download.com had become the de facto place to distribute software, then good luck to them. The point is that the monopoly of the download sites for Apple IOS - and MS Metro - is enforced by the hardware, and they can get away with doing what they like.)

True that MS is only doing this for Metro, but then that's on topic for the VS 11 Express only supporting Metro. As the Ars article says, free development on Windows from MS is no longer possible. By all means argue that as a good thing if you like.

Also I was referring to way2lazy2care's paradigm shift - I was curious if he thought it would be a good thing if done for all Windows software? And if not, why is there a difference?

You can continue to develop and sell your non-Metro apps via other means, no one is stopping you there but they won't be getting on a tablet any time soon[/quote]Yes that is what people's criticisms are. "But Officer, Apple are speeding too" not being much of a defence.

You can get software onto an x86 tablet fine, and it can be optimised for touchscreen UI and run fullscreen, which I have already done for my games, but it won't behave as a Metro application, meaning it won't integrate properly (e.g., all of the appliations using this method will appear lumped onto the "desktop" screen, rather than having their own screen). Which is bad for user experience. So I wonder if that's going to harm the experience of Windows on tablets.

And before anyone misunderstands, I love the idea of what Windows 8 is doing. That's all the more reason I worry about these ideas flying around about "most things should be Metro full screen" or "Let's drop non-Metro from VS Express" or "MS having an enforced-by-technology monopoly on software distribution for Metro is fine; Apple do it too".

(Indeed, one of the points I've made for years is that, whilst I can choose not to use IOS, them doing it will make it easier for MS to get away with it, and look, people here explicitly making that very argument.)

@BeanDog : Yes, the type-from-start-menu works fine in Windows 8, and is something I love since Windows 7 (or Vista?). And I do like the start menu on Windows 8 - I think this is something that works well on both desktops/laptops and tablets/phones, since you can both click a tile, and type. And here, taking up the full screen seems reasonable to me.

if VS full version only cost $25, people would be far less bothered I imagine.[/quote]

It wouldn't change if it were 1 cent ir free.

It's not the price - it's the extra hurdle and restrictions put on by licensing.

Linux is growing vastly on servers because you can make 1, 2, 3 or 300 copies as needed. Or you can keep multiple disk images. Or you can put it into repository. Or put it on web for download. But you never, ever need to worry about licensing.

The moment you need to maintain a license, even if that license is free, costs go up. It immediately also excludes such software from many uses that require either budget or legal approval. Anyone who has not had to deal with these kind of environments will not understand why it's a hassle.

Requiring a license also immediately puts off majority of occasional contributors - how often did you go to a site that wanted you to create account only to close it because you didn't want to be bothered remembering and maintaining another account?

Which is why Unreal Engine is free download - do with it what you want, but one needs to pay when revenue exceeds certain amount. Same thing here - as long as Windows SDK (again, not Visual Studio - VS is UI and fluff, the important stuff are the compiler, linker and headers), development was accessible.

This single change eliminates desktop development as viable option and also changes Microsoft's strategic position. Obviously, if you're a Microsoft shop, it doesn't change anything.


Android fees: Android SDK is freely accessible - the fee is for publishing. All tools used are open as well.
Apple - it's unix, uses GCC or clang, the license is again XCode and publishing. Huge hurdle, which isn't even technical however, is requirement to run on Apple hardware only.
Microsoft - the WinAPI uses proprietary language extensions and only builds fully with Microsoft's compiler. By requiring licensing, it's effectively a no-go.

Free is not about price, but about accessibility.

Does any of this matter? This debate exists because 5 years ago Apple built iOS, the AppStore and iPhone - all using nothing but open technologies, which was so disruptive that all tech giants panicked. They could have went with better compilers (at the time their toolchain was vastly inferior to everything else, free or not), what mattered was that they weren't restricted by arbitrary legal conditions.

And yet money changes hands faster than ever. Understand it or not (yet), the change made here is drastic for Microsoft, which has, regardless of using proprietary tech, always been the most open development environment.


But yes, you'll still be able to develop free apps for Windows and you'll even get a Metro store and make a dime or two from it. <sarcasm>Because all the programming, consumer or other is about appstores and competing who can publish more fart apps than others and use social viral channels to monetize it the most. Not writing a social fart app? Go away then, you're legacy.</sarcasm> Tags added to avoid someone taking things literally.


As a side note, considering the other Diablo 3 thread - it's incredibly ironic that anyone is shocked or annoyed about what D3 is or why it's like that. People have explained exactly what D3 will be like years ago, once the details became known. But everyone said: It's Blizzard, they'll do things right... It's same thing here. Just because some change doesn't affect you right now, or it doesn't seem like a big deal, doesn't mean it actually is either of those.

So I can only hope that everyone who advocates the changes discussed here also expressed complete disagreement in other thread, namely that D3 is the best future direction of gaming and that it has delivered more than any other game this year, clearly dictating the future that everyone simply must follow or become obsolete.

Which is why Unreal Engine is free download - do with it what you want, but one needs to pay when revenue exceeds certain amount. Same thing here - as long as Windows SDK (again, not Visual Studio - VS is UI and fluff, the important stuff are the compiler, linker and headers), development was accessible.

Have you looked at the UDK commercial license terms? edit: They aren't any better than the VS license or revenue sharing model for metro apps.

If you are using UDK internally within your business and the application created using UDK is not distributed to a third party (i.e., someone who is not your employee or subcontractor), you are required to pay Epic an annual license fee of US$2,500 per installed UDK developer seat per year. This license fee only applies to UDK seats used for development; no license fee is required for hardware where only the resulting applications are installed.
If you create a games or commercial applications using UDK for sale or distribution to an end-user or client, or if you are providing services in connection with a UDK based game or application, the per-seat option does not apply. Instead the license terms for this arrangement are US $99 up-front, and a 0% royalty on you or your company's first US$50,000 in UDK related revenue from all your UDK based games or commercial applications, and a 25% royalty on UDK related revenue from all your UDK based games or commercial applications above US$50,000. UDK related revenue includes, but is not limited to, monies earned from: sales, services, training, advertisements, sponsorships, endorsements, memberships, subscription fees, in-game transactions, rentals and pay-to-play. You or your company will only need one commercial license to cover all the UDK based games or commercial applications you develop.
Here are some examples:

But yes, you'll still be able to develop free apps for Windows and you'll even get a Metro store and make a dime or two from it. <sarcasm>Because all the programming, consumer or other is about appstores and competing who can publish more fart apps than others and use social viral channels to monetize it the most. Not writing a social fart app? Go away then, you're legacy.</sarcasm> Tags added to avoid someone taking things literally.[/quote]
Despite my asking a couple of times, you have yet to give a reason WinRT or Metro will block you from making a meaningful application.

Have you looked at the UDK commercial license terms?[/quote]

Here, the download.

And the important quote:" Use of the UDK for noncommercial purposes is free of charge."

Something that isn't possible with Windows SDK anymore.

Despite my asking a couple of times, you have yet to give a reason WinRT or Metro will block you from making a meaningful application.[/quote]

That's because you are either stupid or a shill (yes, I went there, ban me if you will).

Or maybe such behavior is reserved for moderators only.