And based on Apple success the population WANT app stores to buy their stuff at so MS adding one is just giving the majority what they appear to want.

Of course people want sites to download software on - that was clear with or without Apple, on phones or computers.

But I see no evidence that people actively want a closed system where software can only be released on one download site. An argument for popularity is flawed I think anyway, because it's unlikely people are buying it for those reasons - but it doesn't work, as I can just as well say that the even greater success of Symbian and now Android shows that people WANT their download sites to not be closed, by that logic.

When this news first hit my reaction was 'company who provides software via closed app is scared of another company providing software via closed app'[/quote]In this context, "closed" means you buy a product, and software can only be installed on it when downloaded from one company (typically the one providing the OS), and they can decide whether software can be released at all on it. Are there hardware products like this for Steam?

The situation for Windows is unclear to me. Non-metro applications won't be using this "closed" system, so in that sense there's not much to worry about. On the other hand, I've heard the claims that WinRT is meant to replace Win32 - is it possible to write a non-Metro application on WinRT? If so, can WinRT non-Metro applications be distributed anywhere? Or is Win32 meant to live on anyway, with WinRT only intended for tablet-optimised applications?


Is there a consensus on this, or can someone provide a ref? Servant of the Lord claims that the Metro download site won't be closed, just that it'll have a huge advantage over other sites by being the default, similar to Google Play. I think there's an interesting point that even there, MS may be at risk of monopolistic practice if they do this with Windows 8 (similar to the problems they had with IE - the rules are different if you're a monopoly). But if they do it like Apple, and enforce this with DRM so that it's not possible (unless you "jailbreak" the device), then that's even more worrying. Can anyone clarify what the planned situation will be?

Even if non-tablet computers are safe, I think it's still reasonable to be concerned if we end up with one company having a monopoly on software distribution for tablets. Thankfully phone tablets are dominated by Android, and there's still plenty of choice for the larger Android tablets - but I worry if manufacturers end up switching from Android to Windows for their larger tablets (yes, I know everyone seems to be assuming Windows 8 on tablets will fail before it gets out of the door - but on the other hand, manufacturers haven't been having so great success on larger non-phone Android tablets, and they do seem to be gearing up to try their luck with Windows 8. Windows 8 doesn't need to outsell Apple here, simply doing better than the 10" Android tablets will risk Android being dropped from 10" tablets by most manufacturers).

What's the situation with WP7 - can applications only be distributed via MS? Or is it open like on other platforms like Symbian/Android?

Not to mention that the technology to enable such a thing has only recently really come into being on a 'general' scale - internet connection speeds, stability and coverage has improved a large amount in the few years since Win7 was released and its really only in the last couple of years that general people have gotten use to the idea of 'app stores'.[/quote]In the UK at least, broadband has been around and commonplace since the early 2000s. Download sites have been around for years - people have surely got long used to downloading software from the Internet! Whether it's freeware from a website, to systems like Steam. I agree it wouldn't have made so much sense way back for 2000/XP, but doing so around the Vista timeframe would have been fine. And it's not like MS have to wait until people are used to something, they can introduce things themselves too (as they often do). Admittedly, MS always get moaned at when they introduce something new, even if it's something good...

Although I can just see the idea being floated a few years ago, and MS thinking there'd get terrible publicity if they dared to make it so they get a 30% cut on all software. But now that the media have worshipped and praised Apple for doing exactly that, now MS can get away with it. Great move, media!

From my gaming, as long as I can install steam and run my games, I'm happy. I think Newell is being somewhat hyperbolic describing it as a "catastrophe", but from a consumer POV, my gut feel is that the desktop is circling the drain, and I really don't see win8 being a major player in the tablet market.

Circling the drain? I'm not convinced. Note that "desktop" actually means a vast range of devices, including notebooks, and hybrids with touchscreens. Most tablets are in the form of phones that fit neatly into people's pockets. Larger tablets have a place, but I'm not convinced that most people will eventually throw away other forms of computing for handheld tablets. Hell, for office use, it's a health-and-safety disaster for starters... Having to look down at the flat tablet all day rather than keeping the screen at eye level, having to work with a small 10" screen when you don't actually need portability.

MS just don't have the "cool" factor in the market place and their marketing screams of the nerdy kid trying to fit in with popular crowd. I know lots of people who are happy to fight to the death over iOS vs Android, but I know no-one who cares that much about the Metro (or Win8 UI or whatever we're supposed to call it) ecosystem.[/quote]Most people don't care about "ecosystems" full stop - it's a marketing buzzword that companies like Apple create to make them look good, when no one really knows what it means. Judging success by how many zealots a platform has is a poor measure - in fact, typically the most popular platforms have fewer zealots, because the mainstream just want to use a platform, they don't get fanatical. You say IOS vs Android, but in my experience, Android fanatics are rare, it's mostly a one-sided match between a vocal minority going on about Apple all the time, and the rest who just don't care. But Android is far more popular, as was Symbian before that. On non-phone platforms, people are more fanatical about Linux and OS X, but most people use Windows.

Indeed, your point shows that MS don't have to worry - they have 90% market share without needing to be "cool".

I don't think they expect or need people to rush out and upgrade to Windows 8, MS have never worked like that. Most their sales come as people upgrade their computers, not because they just upgraded the OS. I imagine most their sales come from Windows being shipped with a new computer.

Tablets do not replace desktops. They are mostly simple consumption devices. You pick it up, sit on the couch, and read a book, flip through a comic, play a game, listen to a podcast, watch a youtube video, look at your facebook, browse the web, etc... All consumption type activities with minimal input needed.

...

Surface doesn't change this. Sure they include a physical keyboard, but so do countless other tablets. You can even buy surface like keyboards for your android or iOS device already. It doesn't change anything. It's about as useful as plugging in a keyboard to an PS3. It helps when entering text, but that's a rare activity. My tablet even has an optional keyboard dock that turns it into a netbook. Not buying it was 100$ well saved ;).

The main difference about the Surface though is that it is a full blown PC (particularly the Pro) version, and not stuck as being a simple consumption device. This also makes the keyboard a lot more useful. Hopefully we'll see a lot more choice on these kind of "hybrid" devices with Windows 8. (I think chances are, most people would rather stick with a cheaper Windows laptop even if it's less portable, and stick with their Android smartphone as a tablet, or maybe pick up a ultra cheap Android tablet like the Nexus 7; but it's still useful to have the Surface on the market as a high end flagship, even if MS continue to make most their money from other manufacturers with traditional devices.)

Even for "consumption" devices, people who just use it for Facebook still need to type posts. A keyboard becomes unnecessary if you're just using it for things like media playing or reading the Internet (which admittedly, many people do).

Personally one thing I like about netbooks/notebooks is not just the keyboard, or the way it can stand up on its own on my lap without me holding it, but the touchpad. A touchscreen is great on a 4-5" device - the screen is almost as small as a touchpad anyway, so having a tiny touchpad doesn't make sense. But once you get up to 10" or more, I'm having to move my finger all the way across a large screen. Touchpads are quick, simply because of the far smaller range. I think that touchscreens still have their uses - it would be nice to see them become standard on notebooks (as they already have on many desktop monitors, but not notebooks, interestingly), but it's not just the keyboard I don't want to lose - most the time I am far quicker on a touchpad (which is also multitouch).

The real answer is no, win8 is not bad for gamedevs. It provides new platforms and opportunities without killing the old ones.

Now WinRT on tablets (means arm stuff) might reduce options. but there never was steam on arm, anyways.

I'm writing this on a win8 tablet that has steam with portal2 on it, is currently docked, running on a 24" 16:10 screen with mouse'n'keyboard, lots of audio devices for music production, and all my dev tools for programming.

This is my pc. Surface will be my pc. Win8 expands the windows world. It does not restrict it. And the new Store will sure expand options for devs.

The real reason why people like the one from steam cry around it are two:

1) typically, gamers always hate 'the new windows'. this was true for xp, vista, win7, now win8. so to fit to the gamers, you have to support the new os, but you have, too, to hate it. else they think you're not cool.

2) steam is not just portal and those bigger games. no, it's tons of small games. and they most likely will lose developers there to the app store, as it's more accessible for non-gamers. Stuff like the Wordament game in the app store, small games like this will prefer to be in the one store every future windows user will access and use. And they'll leave steam behind. A much higher possible customer base for the casual gamers awaits them.

so they feel threatened by microsoft in their market. it's called competition. it's a good thing.

well, if you all are so preocupated with the 20-30% microsoft earns from your games, make a website, pay the hosting, put your game online, find some publicity then come back to MS crying after you realise that more than 90% of what you earned have leaked to those costs.

stop complaining, this will make our lives easier. as developers AND as custumers. screw Steam, origin and whatever. they whant to compete? them offer something better than MS.

Take Internet Explorer as an example, it is currently the only non free(as in beer) browser on the market, All other major browsers, including Apples safari are given away for free, are arguably better than Internet Explorer and still have a hard time competing, If it wasn't for Microsofts Desktop OS dominance IE would have either been free or the competitors would have been able to charge a fair price for their products aswell.

okay, did you pay for your ie? serious? it's for download for free! on ALL the microsoft websites. did you think that it's non-free just because it comes with windows? well, it runs on mac and linux free of charge, just with a little more work... get your facts straight. Microsoft has a great effort with open source and freeware, just do some search!

well, if you all are so preocupated with the 20-30% microsoft earns from your games, make a website, pay the hosting, put your game online, find some publicity then come back to MS crying after you realise that more than 90% of what you earned have leaked to those costs.

It's important to create a website for a game regardless of whether it's in an app store or not, hosting costs are inexpensive, and putting your game on Microsoft's (or anyone's) appstore doesn't mean you no longer need to market your game, so Microsoft's service won't save you any of those costs.

Steam as an alternative probably costs an equal percentage of revenue - it's not the cost that people are complaining about - it's the utter abuse of their monopoly that has already been declared illegal in the past that is the problem. United States v. Microsoft

Large Company does something illegal, profits immensely (or else ensures a competitor doesn't profit).
Governments step in, punish Large Company with a huge fine.
Large Company still gets to reap the benefits of what it did, because the competitor is defeated, or because the indirect benefits of it's actions is worth more than the cost of the governmental fine.
Large Company lays low for a few years.
Large Company does something else illegal.

The government reacts way too slowly, and large companies get away with it.

[quote name='SimonForsman' timestamp='1344826570' post='4968928']
Take Internet Explorer as an example, it is currently the only non free(as in beer) browser on the market, All other major browsers, including Apples safari are given away for free, are arguably better than Internet Explorer and still have a hard time competing, If it wasn't for Microsofts Desktop OS dominance IE would have either been free or the competitors would have been able to charge a fair price for their products aswell.

okay, did you pay for your ie? serious? it's for download for free! on ALL the microsoft websites. did you think that it's non-free just because it comes with windows? well, it runs on mac and linux free of charge, just with a little more work... get your facts straight. Microsoft has a great effort with open source and freeware, just do some search!
[/quote]

Oh, you mean the Internet Explorer for Mac that Apple and Microsoft formed a 5 year deal for? Just because it doesn't cost the consumer anything doesn't mean it's free.
As soon as that 5 year deal ended, Microsoft dropped support for it, and it hasn't been updated since 2003 (support ended in 2005).You can try to download it from a Microsoft website, because I can't find an actual download anywhere on their site (3rd party websites are still hosting the old 2003 version though).

stop complaining, this will make our lives easier. as developers AND as custumers. screw Steam, origin and whatever. they whant to compete? them offer something better than MS.[/quote]
They already have been offering something better than Microsoft. Microsoft has already had digital stores available that failed, because Microsoft wasn't offering something better. So instead of offering better quality (competition), Microsoft abuses it's power in an illegal way (product tying).

Stop complaining when you see injustice or corporate abuse? No thanks. I might not be able to stop such things from happening, but I'm certainly not going to close my eyes and pretend they aren't happening, or pretend that the company is some benevolent entity just out to help us little developers or consumers to "make our lives easier".
I'm not going to grab a sign and go picket outside Microsoft's HQ, because I know how little that'd do, but it is perfectly reasonable to discuss the issues (even ranting a little ) with other people in the same industry.

[quote name='SimonForsman' timestamp='1344826570' post='4968928']
Take Internet Explorer as an example, it is currently the only non free(as in beer) browser on the market, All other major browsers, including Apples safari are given away for free, are arguably better than Internet Explorer and still have a hard time competing, If it wasn't for Microsofts Desktop OS dominance IE would have either been free or the competitors would have been able to charge a fair price for their products aswell.

okay, did you pay for your ie? serious? it's for download for free! on ALL the microsoft websites. did you think that it's non-free just because it comes with windows? well, it runs on mac and linux free of charge, just with a little more work... get your facts straight. Microsoft has a great effort with open source and freeware, just do some search!
[/quote]

Read the EULA(s) before spouting out nonsense,
You have to own a valid Windows license for each machine you're running IE on, even if you are running it using Wine, ReactOS, etc. (If you install IE on machines you don't have a Windows license for you are a pirate)

Yes Microsoft does have some freeware and even some Opensource software, IE, Windows Media Player and a few other bundled applications however are not free. (You might get upgrades for free for some time if you've allready bought a previous version) Visual Studio Express edition on the other hand is free, it doesn't require the purchase of a Windows license to use, (Windows is the only supported OS for it though so running it on anything else might be difficult but thats a different matter)

Large Company does something illegal, profits immensely (or else ensures a competitor doesn't profit).
Governments step in, punish Large Company with a huge fine.
Large Company still gets to reap the benefits of what it did, because the competitor is defeated, or because the indirect benefits of it's actions is worth more than the cost of the governmental fine.
Large Company lays low for a few years.
Large Company does something else illegal.

The government reacts way too slowly, and large companies get away with it.

That looks more like the government isn't harsh enough, rather than being too slow. Ideally the punishment should be such that the company will not be left with any advantage over the competition. In the most extreme case it may even be required to be split to create more competition (although whether or not that works in practice is a different issue).

They already have been offering something better than Microsoft. Microsoft has already had digital stores available that failed, because Microsoft wasn't offering something better. So instead of offering better quality (competition), Microsoft abuses it's power in an illegal way (product tying).

if they already offer something better, then don't complain.

there's no abuse of power here, just a app store. just because their system is the most used they don't have the rights to create a store and ship it on the system? the microsoft lawsuit was because microsoft have took action to ensure that netscape won't function properly on windows. that is unfair competition. Games for Windows Live ships with retail versions of windows since Windows Vista (just do a search, if you have minesweeper instaled, you have games for windows live.) that doesn't hurt steam.

steam whants to compete? make exclusivity deals, maintain better prices, maintain it's promotions.

as for the website for your games, how many games for iOS or android have websites? you don't need it. it's a plus, but you don't need it unless you are making a AAA game.

someone said the Xbox live is only used because it's the only option, well, i know (as in "i see every day and chat with") at least 10 people that choose XBox insted of PS3 just because of the live.

Steam has a much unfair competition and doesn't complain. they compete with pirates and they are winning.

Read the EULA(s) before spouting out nonsense,
You have to own a valid Windows license for each machine you're running IE on, even if you are running it using Wine, ReactOS, etc. (If you install IE on machines you don't have a Windows license for you are a pirate)

you are talking about the microsoft PL license. IE is multi-licensed, the EULA that comes with it for windows only show the PL license because that are the one you use on windows. if you have ubunto, search synaptic for Internet Explorer. last time I checked, it was there, published by microsoft. (IE 7 was there, not sure about IE 9)

besides, microsoft doesn't has to support their software on other OSs if they don't want, as apple doesn't need to. they offer you a browser that runs on their system.


i don't understand any of you, it's just unfair competition because it's microsoft. and don't start again with market shares, because in any other industry, this doesn't matter.

EDIT: I replied within the quotation