1. Visual Studio costs lots of money!!! VS2012 Ultimate is $13,000!!!

Not sure where you're getting your prices. VS is expensive, but it's not that expensive. The professional edition is probably the one to shoot for if you're buying a license. I have access to ultimate, and I do not use any of the more advanced features. Professional is selling for $800, and Ultimate is just over $6,000. It is also worth keeping in mind that you're not just buying Visual Studio, you're getting an MSDN subscription as well which allows you to download pretty much all Microsoft software for development purposes. This includes all of their office suites, all of their operating systems, etc. Plus it's not all that hard to get those tools (even ultimate) for free. Check out Bizspark, WebsiteSpark and DreamSpark.

2. If you want to code for the MS platform using their API's (DirectX, XNA, .NET), you get locked in to the MS ecosystem. This limits the market base you can target. Java apps, on the other hand, will work on any platform which can run and support the JVM. You don't have to run any VM's or third party software. (note: the VM is included in the JVM). Making .NET available on non-MS products is contrary to Microsofts big picture business plan -- to build and run an MS controlled ecosystem.[/quote]

This is just flat out wrong. Mono and MonoTouch allow you to run your .NET apps on OSX, Linux, Android and iOS. You may have heard of an XBLA game called Bastion.They used a version of MonoGame to take their XNA game and build it for the Google App Store.

1. The pricing structure for selling apps in the windows store.

Microsoft Source: When you sell apps through the Windows Store, we assess a Windows Store fee. For apps that generate less than $25,000 in sales, this fee is 30%. After the app generates its first $25,000 in sales, the fee on the subsequent revenue drops to 20%.[/quote]
Considering how I'm already slightly biased against it and a little reluctant to spend time, effort and money on developing a Win8 app in the first place, if all MS does is match their digital distribution competitors at a 30% take, I will be even more hesitant. They'd better sweeten the pot a bit and go down to 25% at the least, and ideally 20% overall. The first $30k should be all mine! Everyone wants their slice of my pie (government taxes & Microsoft)! Once I cover my development costs, I'd be willing to split the revenue a bit more generously... if I was going to charge.[/quote]

30% is the standard. It's what Apple and Google both charge. As far as I know, Microsoft is the only one that drops it to 20% after a certain amount of revenue. As far as app stores go, it's a pretty good deal.

2. The windows app store doesn't support a "donate directly to me, whatever you want, whenever you want" business model. [/quote]

Of course it doesn't. But that doesn't stop you from building one into your app. You can distribute an app for free on the Windows app store, and build in your own in-app purchases, or your own donate button.

3. I've got a leery feeling that MS isn't looking out for my best interests as a developer. I'm just a necessary pawn they need to entice in order to reclaim lost territory in the digital distribution market. I do get that warm and fuzzy feeling when I think of Valve, who will help me market and distribute my game and has had a history of selflessly having mine and my users best interests at heart. Initially, it'd be good to be courted by MS because they'll bend over backwards for dev support, but if/when they get their appetites satiated, I worry that they'll get beligerant/cocky and I'll find myself kicked to the curb with all my eggs in their basket.
[/quote]

All I can do here is recommend that you work with them. I guarantee you'll change your mind. Find your local developer evangelist and tell them you're thinking about writing an app, and they will be happy to talk with you and most will offer technical assistance if / when you run into problems during development. Potentially of more value, they can introduce you to others in your area who are also building apps and you can tap into that network.

[Edit:] Didn't see the above post before submitting mine.

As a developer, here are the things I don't like about Microsoft:
1. Visual Studio costs lots of money!!! VS2012 Ultimate is $13,000!!! I get it, it's a great product and its got all the bells and whistles a large corporate dev team could want, but as a single indie dev, it's way out of my price range. Yeah, I could use the express edition, but I'd rather decide what features of the IDE I don't want to use rather than having that decision made for me by licensing. Other IDE's for different platforms and languages are free (eclipse for Java, XCode for iOS).

The Express edition is the equivalent of those "other IDEs". I don't personally use it, but it's fully capable and very popular. So it's not like the Express version is limited, it's that the Ultimate edition is enhanced.

If I used VS at all, I'd be perfectly happy for business licensees to unintentionally fund the further development of the free version. The only real alternative would be making the Ultimate version $800 or more, and the Express version free but for non-commercial use (which would suck worse for indies).

I mean, if we got to pick and choose what features we wanted, not even the businesses would pay for the Ultimate edition (except for support reasons).

2. If you want to code for the MS platform using their API's (DirectX, XNA, .NET), you get locked in to the MS ecosystem. This limits the market base you can target.[/quote]
That's something I don't like either... but if I was in MS's place, I'd do the same thing.
Apple also does that.... and hey, even GNU does that too. GPL license? We Demand You Release Your Source Code Publicly! (locking you into an ecosystem, just not a commercial one)

Making .NET available on non-MS products is contrary to Microsofts big picture business plan -- to build and run an MS controlled ecosystem.[/quote]
Though Microsoft did make alot of the .NET runtime an open standard, and pledged not to use their patents against other non-Microsoft .NET implementations (such as the open-source Mono project). The only ambiguity is a few non-standard Microsoft extensions.

3. I just don't take their store seriously as a viable platform. Look at XBox Live Arcade. Very, very few developers strike gold. Maybe its a market demographics and saturation problem. Maybe its an overall business plan issue. And, the win8 app store is supposed to be different and better...how?[/quote]
Games for Windows Live also previously existed for Windows machines. I think the difference is, it's pre-installed and in-your-face, and also customers are more used to it from the whole iOS stuff.

Microsoft Source: When you sell apps through the Windows Store, we assess a Windows Store fee. For apps that generate less than $25,000 in sales, this fee is 30%. After the app generates its first $25,000 in sales, the fee on the subsequent revenue drops to 20%.[/quote]
Considering how I'm already slightly biased against it and a little reluctant to spend time, effort and money on developing a Win8 app in the first place, if all MS does is match their digital distribution competitors at a 30% take, I will be even more hesitant. They'd better sweeten the pot a bit and go down to 25% at the least, and ideally 20% overall. The first $30k should be all mine![/quote]
Then they'd make zero money from the majority of the apps on their system, most probably won't break 20k.

Everyone wants their slice of my pie (government taxes & Microsoft)![/quote]
Fully agree. My dad likes to use the analogy 'Mosquistoes sucking blood'. Every business wants to take a small amount of blood continually out of your arm - leaving you just enough blood that you can continue to live and produce more blood for them to drink.

2. The windows app store doesn't support a "donate directly to me, whatever you want, whenever you want" business model. That means no humble indie bundles or shareware. Obviously, they'd cut themselves out as the middle man so its not in their interests.[/quote]
They wouldn't have to cut themselves out. If they had a "Pay what you want" option, with a minimum pricing of, say, $1 or $5, and took 20%, that could work for them.

So, when they're reviewing your product, they probably wouldn't like it if your app circumvents them from getting their share. So, what about in-app purchases of virtual goods which are a transaction strictly between the developer and the player? Would that get rejected by the certification process?[/quote]
Many stores allow in-app purchases now, but you just the API the store provides so the store makes sure they get their cut. Steam allows this, as does iOS, and a week or two ago the first XBox 360 free-to-play game launched.

So, when they're reviewing your product, they probably wouldn't like it if your app circumvents them from getting their share. So, what about in-app purchases of virtual goods which are a transaction strictly between the developer and the player? Would that get rejected by the certification process?

Many stores allow in-app purchases now, but you just the API the store provides so the store makes sure they get their cut. Steam allows this, as does iOS, and a week or two ago the first XBox 360 free-to-play game launched.
[/quote]

If you use Microsoft's infrastructure for collecting payments, you pay the same % as the app purchase. However you can implement your own in-app purchase and it is not against the certification requirements.

4.7 If you use a commerce transaction provider other than the Store's, you must identify the provider at the time of the transaction or whenever you collect any payment information from the customer
If your app uses the Windows.ApplicationModel.Store namespace for in-app purchases, this messaging is provided for you. If your app uses any other method for in-app purchases or to collect payments, it must display a message to the customer stating that who is responsible for the transaction.
For example, in-app purchases made from apps produced by Contoso that don’t use the Windows Store for the transaction would display a message such as, “This item is available from Contoso” at the time of the transaction.

4.8 Your app must prompt the user for authentication to allow a commerce transaction to be accomplished.
The app can offer the user the ability to save this authentication, but the user must have the ability to either require an authentication on every transaction or to turn off in-app transactions. If your app uses the Windows.ApplicationModel.Store namespace for in-app purchases, this prompt is provided for you.

4.9 If your app collects credit card info or uses a third-party payment processor that collects credit card info, the payment processing must meet the current PCI Data Security Standard (PCI DSS)
[/quote]

Thus, it's possible to distribute through the Windows app store for free, and build the purchase into the app itself, and you would keep all of the revenue. Just keep in mind, a user is probably much more likely to want to press the purchase button on the store than to trust you with their credit card.

My $0.02 regarding tstrimples point about MS abondoning windows market share. This doesn't really relate to games, but it does affect what will happen to them.

Up until now, Microsofts cash cow was enterprise. The majority of it's revenue came from businesses running windows and office, and one of the big selling points for businesses was the availability of both shrink-wrapped and bespoke software on the platform. In short, windows was the easiest platform to develop for. The average business relied on office and maybe one or two critical lob apps (most of which were written in VB or win32).

But that's changing. More software is becoming web based. An SME can now get by with gmail, google docs and their custom software provided is probably looking at moving their win32/.net app to html5.

Microsoft knows that it's propping up a shrinking market. Yeah, it's an unfathomably big shrinking market, but the writing is on the wall for it nevertheless. It might take 10 or 20 years for that market to shrink significantly, but it will also take at least 5 years for Microsoft to position itself to take advantage of the new markets. So windows 8 is the first step in a long term strategic move for the company.

This is my reading of it. Could be (and probably is) wrong. Right now there's a lot of uncertainty regarding how we will do our computing in the future. Certainly, for 90% of people, a desktop OS will no longer be necessary.

If you use Microsoft's infrastructure for collecting payments, you pay the same % as the app purchase. However you can implement your own in-app purchase and it is not against the certification requirements.

...

Thus, it's possible to distribute through the Windows app store for free, and build the purchase into the app itself, and you would keep all of the revenue. Just keep in mind, a user is probably much more likely to want to press the purchase button on the store than to trust you with their credit card.

Interesting. But just because it permits you to use a third-party provider, that doesn't mean they don't collect their share, does it? Skimming the license agreements, and skimming what you posted, I can't find any clarity on the subject. I bet Microsoft will come out with a list of acceptable third-party providers, and take their share from the provider directly before it reaches the developer, instead of trying to retrieve money from individual developers.

[quote name='tstrimple' timestamp='1351631716' post='4995581']
If you use Microsoft's infrastructure for collecting payments, you pay the same % as the app purchase. However you can implement your own in-app purchase and it is not against the certification requirements.

...

Thus, it's possible to distribute through the Windows app store for free, and build the purchase into the app itself, and you would keep all of the revenue. Just keep in mind, a user is probably much more likely to want to press the purchase button on the store than to trust you with their credit card.

Interesting. But just because it permits you to use a third-party provider, that doesn't mean they don't collect their share, does it? Skimming the license agreements, and skimming what you posted, I can't find any clarity on the subject. I bet Microsoft will come out with a list of acceptable third-party providers, and take their share from the provider directly before it reaches the developer, instead of trying to retrieve money from individual developers.
[/quote]

Read 4.9: 4.9 If your app collects credit card info or uses a third-party payment processor that collects credit card info, the payment processing must meet the current PCI Data Security Standard (PCI DSS)

I've been told by someone at Microsoft that you can collect payment on your own and not pay them the fee.

Interesting. But just because it permits you to use a third-party provider, that doesn't mean they don't collect their share, does it?

It is there. Yes you can charge inside your app in whatever way you please as long as it meets their guidelines.
Their guidelines do not force you to pay them any commissions etc.

It is actually on strategy some are employing or plan to employ: Cut Microsoft out by making your app free to download then charge in the app for things with no royalties/commissions to Microsoft.


L. Spiro

Not at all:
http://www.mstechpages.com/2011/09/14/disable-metro-in-windows-8-developer-preview/

It is actually on strategy some are employing or plan to employ: Cut Microsoft out by making your app free to download then charge in the app for things with no royalties/commissions to Microsoft.

If these guys are not big companies, I think they will quickly find their strategy backfired, when their cost to handle the payments rise above any commission they would pay to microsoft.
Don't forget things like fraud prevention, refunds, cost of development, support personel, etc.
Combined with a much smaller group of people willing to trust your home-cooked payment system, it sounds like a strategy that will only hurt yourself, and for what really? making a point?

Paypal you say? Well, not very good for micro payments.
If you get 1$ on paypal, they will levy a much larger fee then 30%. Quick search in paypals site says a fee of 3,25 SEK + 1,9 - 3,5%... $1 = 6,6 SEK, so thats more then 50% cut!
I think you will get similar deals with any credit card company, if you are not a big player and can broker something better

Microsoft is hosting it's Build 2012 conference right now and you can watch it live or watch past sessions here: http://channel9.msdn.com/
I have heard them confirm more than once that if you use your own payment system you don't pay any fees. One in the keynote speach Ballmer gave and later in the talk "Windows store: how does it work" Just select day 1 then scroll down to select those sessions to see it for your self.

They showed an example (don't remember where, I think it was in one of the keynote talks) where you could select between Microsoft store and paypal payment when buying an application from the store. This probably means you don't need to make the application free first and then later chage in the app to cut Microsoft out. You can probably charge them already when they buying you app from the store which would be good news.

But like Olof said for small companies it might be a lot easier to just use the Microsoft store system. What you actually paying Microsoft for using their commerce system and API and let them handle the payment and not for your app being in the store.