Jump to content

  • Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account


Is Windows 8 really bad for games?


Old topic!
Guest, the last post of this topic is over 60 days old and at this point you may not reply in this topic. If you wish to continue this conversation start a new topic.

  • You cannot reply to this topic
55 replies to this topic

#21 Alpha_ProgDes   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 4688

Posted 11 August 2012 - 10:54 AM

Well the worst thing for consumers is if all devs suddenly raise their prices 30% to offset the MS cut. Which would suck for us.
Beginner in Game Development? Read here.
 
Super Mario Bros clone tutorial written in XNA 4.0 [MonoGame, ANX, and MonoXNA] by Scott Haley
 
If you have found any of the posts helpful, please show your appreciation by clicking the up arrow on those posts Posted Image
 
Spoiler

Sponsor:

#22 Salfurium   Members   -  Reputation: 101

Posted 11 August 2012 - 12:39 PM

A few days ago Valve announced the availabilty of "normal" applications on Steam. When Newell said that he doesn't like Microsoft's new direction he simply didn't like the competition.

Edited by Salfurium, 11 August 2012 - 12:41 PM.


#23 Servant of the Lord   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 18498

Posted 11 August 2012 - 03:56 PM


For the record, I like Microsoft - I'm just not in favor of how they sometimes through around their weight. Had it been like this originally (buying software primarily through, or only through, the OS owners stores), I wouldn't complain, but doing it after the fact makes me aware of the freedom we currently have as consumers and as developers, and how much we could potentially be harmed by such a move.

The problem is they COULDNT have done it before - just imagine if Win2K or XP had shipped with an 'app store' built in; the DOJ and EU would have been cashing their anti-trust cheques before the case even hit the court room.
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'.

I wasn't trying to suggest that Microsoft could've done it before, I'm merely commenting on my own nature, and many other's as well, to not notice the lack of something beneficial until they experience it, or in reverse, to not appreciate the presence of something until it's being threatened. "doing it after the fact makes me aware of the freedom we currently have".

And as much as we might dislike the idea the general public want them and if MS had stayed out of having an app store it really would be their end which puts them in a very hard place as they need the app stores yet people see it as a 'removal of freedom' despite the fact freedom isn't being removed.

Freedom isn't boolean 'true' or 'false'. Options and opportunities will get narrowed down if smaller digital stores fail, and the ability to avoid one store or another gets reduced when if store grows to a dominant size and starts throwing around it's weight.

A few days ago Valve announced the availabilty of "normal" applications on Steam. When Newell said that he doesn't like Microsoft's new direction he simply didn't like the competition.

Microsoft has already been part of the competition, as a console holder (mainstream games), a provider XBox Live Arcade or whatever (digital download of indie games), PC games (Games for Windows Live).

Valve has also had competition from Impulse, bought by GameStop (largest Brick and Mortar game store), and from Origin (One of the largest mainstream game publishers), and Amazon.com (largest web retailer of generic merchandise), and also from other minor sources like Good Old Games and the sporadic Humble Indie Bundle. Valve has worked hard to stay ahead, and have actively encouraged (at least publicly) competition, and never (unlike every other store in existence) has required or requested exclusivity deals, as far as I know. Valve has stayed ahead of the competition by offering good deals for developers, good deals for the consumer, and

Valve is frustrated that Microsoft is now coming and forcing their store to be the first store customers see on Windows, in the same way Microsoft complained about Google listing Google's services above Microsoft's in search results (I'm not making a comment about whether Google was 'in the wrong' or 'in the right', I'm just pointing out Microsoft is doing the same thing they found it reasonable to complain about).

To just dismiss all of that with a hand wave of, "Oh they're just crying because they don't want any competition", is a ridiculous reflex surface-level response ignoring Valve's history and Microsoft's history. Of course they don't want competition, they're a business! But that's not what Valve is complaining about - they aren't crying over competition, but unfaircompetition from a quasi-monopoly with a history of using unfair competition to gain dominance. Sure, they'd love to complain about competition in general, but they don't because they aren't stupid. But yes, they are complaining about unfair competition.

As someone who is neither ignorant, nor lazy, I download and purchase all my tablet software through the official app store (Google Play) for my device. nVidia has an app store. Lenovo has an app store. Amazon has an app store, <Tablet Vendor X has an app store> etc... I don't care. There are nice games, books, and other things exclusive to other app stores. I won't buy them. I even nuked the alternate app stores on tablets I gave away as gifts, because they are a pain in the ass.


I don't mean 'ignorant' as an insult, nor was I calling anyone here ignorant (just so we're clear). I mean ignorant not as 'stupid' (lack of intelligence), but as a 'lack of knowledge'. Many people were 'ignorant' that there even was an alternative to Internet Explorer. Many people will be equally ignorant that there is even an alternative to Microsoft Windows. There will be plenty of people who know and understand, and can make a valid choice between two or more competitive services... the problem is, when the masses don't understand that there even is a choice, they are forced to put up with poor service, and that service doesn't have to actively innovate or improve because there is no competitive threat (just a bunch of minor threats), because it has dominance through ignorance instead of through being a better service (and having to continually improving to make sure it stays the best service from year to year).

As for laziness, I myself am pretty lazy - let me tell you how this would work with me: Ignoring Windows 8's new metro interface for a second, imagine if the Windows Store is integrated into the Windows 7 Start panel. I click the start button, and right under 'Control panel' I have 'Download applications'.
- I'm aware that a better service exists (this requires knowledge most consumers don't have) - Most consumers will be lost here.
- I have to download and install the service (this requires effort​, albeit only a little) - A consumers lost few here.
- When downloading, "Oh no, this might contain a virus! Are you super-duper sure you want to download it?", says my Microsoft Branded web browser. This creates uncertainty and fear in the consumer. - Some consumers lost here.
- When installing the store, "Oh no, this might contain a virus! Are you super-duper sure you want to install it?", says my Microsoft Branded operating system and virus protection software. More uncertainty and fear. - Some consumers lost here.
- Finally, every time I want to play or install a game, I have to click the Steam, wait for it to load, click the game, wait for it to load. Eventually, there will be large publicity around a game I want to play, and then multiple games I want to play, that Microsoft has (using their bulk market share from all the consumers lost in the previous steps) signed exclusive deals with. When enough games that I want have become exclusive to Microsoft, I'll eventually crack, and visit Microsoft's store. - Some non-ignorant consumers lost here due to exclusivity.
- Because Microsoft's store is always in front of my face, whether I want it or not, and because there is less clicks required to get there, and now I already have one foot inside the door, I'll gradually use it more and more out of laziness. - More non-ignorant consumers lost here due to always-present convenience.
But even if I hold firm, trying to 'vote with my dollar', all the consumers lost from all the other steps (which is the majority of the consumers) reward Microsoft's anti-competitive behavior making it worthwhile to Microsoft.

The only difference between app store A and B is who gets the 20%. So there is no need to support 50 of them as a user.

But there is every need for 5 different services to be supported 100% by a share of the users, rather than 1 service to be supported by 90% of all the users. That need is called 'competition'.

Again, I'm not under some delusion that this is the end of indie game development.
I know that Microsoft isn't blocking access to native applications and web downloads.
Nor am I under the delusion that this is the end of competition or even of Steam.
I'm not under the delusion that, 'Oh teh noes, Micro$ux is going to rule the wrold!' (unlike most people, I actually liked Vista and some (not all) of Microsoft's products).
I'm not under the delusion that Microsoft will have digital sales in a stranglehold forever.
I'm not afraid that game developers won't be able to sell their games.

I'm just afraid that there is the potential (not a certainty!) that this will hinder progress (not bring everything to a crashing halt!) and innovation for the next 4 or 5 years (not forever!), in the same way people complain Microsoft did with Internet Explorer after the first browser wars and before the second - but I was too young then, so I am not familiar with that 'war' first-hand.

Maybe it's an irrational fear, but hopefully I explained in a logical way my thought process and my reasoning behind why I don't like what Microsoft is doing. Once more: I'm not against Microsoft having a digital store... they've already had two unsuccessful ones (Games for Windows Live, and Microsoft Store) and one that is arguably only successful because it's the only option for that console (Xbox Live Marketplace). I'm against Microsoft using their dominant position as the Windows platform holder to, again, make up for areas where they have a lack of quality services or products.

So before you dismiss my, or Valve's, or Blizzard's, or Mojang's, or anyone else's statements as nerdrage or Valve-fanboyism or hyper conspiracy-theory delusions, above I've listed my reasons in as clear a way as I can (though as usual, I suffer from being over verbose Posted Image) - my worries might end up being wrong, but they aren't irrational. There may be flaws in my logic or train of thought, which hopefully there is! But my worries are not without logic or without thought - so don't let your responses be without logic or thought either.

Microsoft's move won't directly harm me as a (hopefully soon-to-be in spring 2013) indie developer, and won't directly harm me as a consumer. But the long term effects might harm me as a developer and as a consumer, not by directly taking something from me, but by reducing the potential growth of profits (for the developers) and innovation and progress of services (for the consumers).

Honestly, do you trust Microsoft to be primary source of innovation for digital downloads over the next 7 years or so? Their past history has alot of 'no's and only a few 'yes's. Valve's has plenty of 'yes's.
Do you trust Microsoft to be the doorkeeper of the success of indie games? Their past history has plenty of 'no's and only a few 'yes's. Valve's has plenty of 'yes's.
Do you trust Microsoft? Truly? I don't, despite liking alot of their products. They are too big, and too far removed from their customer. Too silo-effected also, to properly support smaller developers or users.

Valve isn't benevolent, but they understand their business depends on their relationship with both the consumers and the developers (large and small), so they have thrived with both.
Microsoft also isn't benevolent, but they understand their business depends on dominating a market almost entirely, and then cutting deals with large corporations, and so they have historically made choices not beneficial with the consumer or the small developer, but only larger developers.

Microsoft also has a history of trying to force their way to a dominant market share and either:
A) Achieving the market share and stagnating for several years until competition catches up.
B) Not achieving market share, and abandoning the market or leaving their product / service to decay without support.

I don't support Microsoft's Windows Store initiative. Clearly I must be a naive and blind Valve fan-boy who's too short-sighted and who resists change. Posted Image

It's not the end of the world, but that doesn't mean it benefits the world either. I'm not suggesting you support Steam blindly, I'm just suggesting that you actively resist Microsoft's attempt to force it's way into the market that it already has proven it sucks at, and instead let the market continue to duke it out on an even footing to the benefit of both consumers and developers.

Go support Impulse (GameStop) or Origin (EA) if you don't like the dominant market share that Steam (Valve) currently has. Or buy your games digitally from Amazon.com, or Good Old Games, or one of the other 50-odd digital download stores that aren't as well known. Just don't support unfair business practices, as they tend to bite both the consumer and the developer in the butt.

Edited by Servant of the Lord, 11 August 2012 - 04:00 PM.

It's perfectly fine to abbreviate my username to 'Servant' rather than copy+pasting it all the time.
All glory be to the Man at the right hand... On David's throne the King will reign, and the Government will rest upon His shoulders. All the earth will see the salvation of God.
Of Stranger Flames - [indie turn-based rpg set in a para-historical French colony] | Indie RPG development journal

[Fly with me on Twitter] [Google+] [My broken website]

[Need web hosting? I personally like A Small Orange]


#24 way2lazy2care   Members   -  Reputation: 782

Posted 11 August 2012 - 06:45 PM

I don't mean 'ignorant' as an insult, nor was I calling anyone here ignorant (just so we're clear). I mean ignorant not as 'stupid' (lack of intelligence), but as a 'lack of knowledge'. Many people were 'ignorant' that there even was an alternative to Internet Explorer.

This kind of assumes the market would be saturated without microsoft making an app store.

Not to say it's ideal, but IE being installed on every computer had a huge impact on the rapid growth of the internet. Who's to say what benefits we'll get with an app market that size?

We'll obviously get to the point where the market becomes that size, but would you rather wait 5-10 years for a single digital store for PCs with 150 million users or have that next year?

There's a lot to be said for this being a market that suits an oligopoly better (for everyone) than perfect competition. Perfect competition is not always the best model for every market. In many cases it results in the market as a whole being less successful; cases such as power companies, cable/satellite providers, and isps come to mind. Granted that's dealt with differently all over, but their rarely done in any sort of perfect competition.

#25 RivieraKid   Members   -  Reputation: 374

Posted 12 August 2012 - 06:10 AM

microsoft didnt start the app store war. They dont have a choice since if they dont follow suite their profits will be far shorter than the competitors. Why is nobody complaining about Apple, they are the worst for this kind of stuff. They wont even let you install your app store, or anything which even hints at the existence of a direct competitor. Total bullshit.

Edited by RivieraKid, 12 August 2012 - 06:12 AM.


#26 Alpha_ProgDes   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 4688

Posted 12 August 2012 - 08:05 PM

microsoft didnt start the app store war. They dont have a choice since if they dont follow suite their profits will be far shorter than the competitors. Why is nobody complaining about Apple, they are the worst for this kind of stuff. They wont even let you install your app store, or anything which even hints at the existence of a direct competitor. Total bullshit.

Is that true for Mac OSX or just iPad/iPhone?
Beginner in Game Development? Read here.
 
Super Mario Bros clone tutorial written in XNA 4.0 [MonoGame, ANX, and MonoXNA] by Scott Haley
 
If you have found any of the posts helpful, please show your appreciation by clicking the up arrow on those posts Posted Image
 
Spoiler

#27 SimonForsman   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 6058

Posted 12 August 2012 - 08:56 PM

microsoft didnt start the app store war. They dont have a choice since if they dont follow suite their profits will be far shorter than the competitors. Why is nobody complaining about Apple, they are the worst for this kind of stuff. They wont even let you install your app store, or anything which even hints at the existence of a direct competitor. Total bullshit.


Apple doesn't have 90% of the desktop market, Microsoft does, thus Microsoft has to play by a stricter set of rules than Apple.

If Microsoft bundles their own <anything> with the OS it immediatly becomes very hard to compete in that segment of the market even if you have a better product. (This is not good), If Apple bundles their own <anything> with their OS its pretty much irrelevant.
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.

The appstore part is problematic though, Linux distros has had built in app"stores"(with mostly free software up until recently though) since 1998, Apple has had one for quite some time aswell and users are starting to expect their OS to provide that functionality, Should Microsoft be allowed to bundle their own even if it means that the competition is eliminated, development stagnates and prices go up ?

Should Microsoft be forced to do what they were forced to do with browsers in europe ? , Give users the option to install third party appstore software on installation of the OS ? (I think this is quite likely to happen if EA or Valve decides to take this to court, but what about the smaller appstores then ?)

Edited by SimonForsman, 12 August 2012 - 09:18 PM.

I don't suffer from insanity, I'm enjoying every minute of it.
The voices in my head may not be real, but they have some good ideas!

#28 way2lazy2care   Members   -  Reputation: 782

Posted 12 August 2012 - 11:34 PM

If Microsoft bundles their own <anything> with the OS it immediatly becomes very hard to compete in that segment of the market even if you have a better product. (This is not good),

It comes down to what is essential functionality for a product to provide from a consumer perspective, and whether developers/manufacturers need to include an option for a competitors product. If you look at this in any other industry it becomes clearly absurd, but in ours for some reason it makes sense.

In the 1920s more than 50% of the cars in America were Ford Model Ts. Would you argue that before you were given your model T Ford should have asked you if you wanted a Chevrolet's tires? What about goodyear or yokohama tires? Maybe you should be given a list of the top 20 fuel suppliers so you can decide which additives and octane level are most proper for your needs before the dealership fills it up and you drive it off the lot? Why can't I have Ford put a subaru boxer engine in my focus if that's what I want? Maybe Subaru should sue GM because it makes a better engine, but it's ability to give that engine to consumers is stifled by the fact that GM sells 9 million cars per year vs Subaru's 200-300 thousand?

At some point you just have to let the developers/manufacturers release a product that they feel is complete and let the consumers decide if and to what degree they want to change it after purchase/delivery/installation.

If Apple bundles their own <anything> with their OS its pretty much irrelevant.

I'm not so sure. A lot of people bring up bundled apps as a reason for people to buy apple products, and many of them are of lesser quality to other apps. Apple even takes active steps to ban higher quality apps that compete with their own.

#29 SimonForsman   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 6058

Posted 13 August 2012 - 12:13 AM

If Apple bundles their own <anything> with their OS its pretty much irrelevant.

I'm not so sure. A lot of people bring up bundled apps as a reason for people to buy apple products, and many of them are of lesser quality to other apps. Apple even takes active steps to ban higher quality apps that compete with their own.


I mean from a market perspective, Apple doesn't have enough marketshare for their actions to be devastating to the competetion, Microsoft controls 90% of the desktop OS market and is required, by law in many countries to not use that position to push their way into other markets. (Digital software distribution is not the same as Operating systems)

Your ford example is fairly irrelevant, Ford doesn't have 90% of the car market and tires, engines, etc are required for a car to work, If they had 90% of the market and tried to use that to take over the drive-thru market then we'd have a similar situation and a similar problem (and quite a few governments would step in and stop it from happening)
I don't suffer from insanity, I'm enjoying every minute of it.
The voices in my head may not be real, but they have some good ideas!

#30 way2lazy2care   Members   -  Reputation: 782

Posted 13 August 2012 - 06:39 AM

I mean from a market perspective, Apple doesn't have enough marketshare for their actions to be devastating to the competetion

Apple had a large part of the smartphone market, and still control a very large part of the tablet market.

Your ford example is fairly irrelevant, Ford doesn't have 90% of the car market and tires, engines, etc are required for a car to work, If they had 90% of the market and tried to use that to take over the drive-thru market then we'd have a similar situation and a similar problem (and quite a few governments would step in and stop it from happening)


I don't think so. From a consumer perspective, an internet browser is pretty essential to the functionality of the computer. Just like tires, you more than likely need tires/browser to get access to unprovided tires/browsers without having access to another car/computer. Access to a digital storefront will be just as important to core functionality as the market shifts to digital distribution.

#31 mdwh   Members   -  Reputation: 854

Posted 13 August 2012 - 07:29 AM

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'

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'.

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!

Edited by mdwh, 13 August 2012 - 07:54 AM.

http://erebusrpg.sourceforge.net/ - Erebus, Open Source RPG for Windows/Linux/Android
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/mark.harman/conquests.html - Conquests, Open Source Civ-like Game for Windows/Linux

#32 mdwh   Members   -  Reputation: 854

Posted 13 August 2012 - 07:45 AM

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.

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.
http://erebusrpg.sourceforge.net/ - Erebus, Open Source RPG for Windows/Linux/Android
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/mark.harman/conquests.html - Conquests, Open Source Civ-like Game for Windows/Linux

#33 mdwh   Members   -  Reputation: 854

Posted 13 August 2012 - 08:02 AM

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).

Edited by mdwh, 13 August 2012 - 08:04 AM.

http://erebusrpg.sourceforge.net/ - Erebus, Open Source RPG for Windows/Linux/Android
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/mark.harman/conquests.html - Conquests, Open Source Civ-like Game for Windows/Linux

#34 davepermen   Members   -  Reputation: 1007

Posted 13 August 2012 - 11:25 AM

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.
If that's not the help you're after then you're going to have to explain the problem better than what you have. - joanusdmentia

My Page davepermen.net | My Music on Bandcamp and on Soundcloud


#35 Mito   Members   -  Reputation: 837

Posted 14 August 2012 - 11:12 AM

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.

#36 Mito   Members   -  Reputation: 837

Posted 14 August 2012 - 11:37 AM

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!

#37 Servant of the Lord   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 18498

Posted 14 August 2012 - 01:04 PM

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.


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!


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.

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 Posted Image) with other people in the same industry.

Edited by Servant of the Lord, 14 August 2012 - 01:38 PM.

It's perfectly fine to abbreviate my username to 'Servant' rather than copy+pasting it all the time.
All glory be to the Man at the right hand... On David's throne the King will reign, and the Government will rest upon His shoulders. All the earth will see the salvation of God.
Of Stranger Flames - [indie turn-based rpg set in a para-historical French colony] | Indie RPG development journal

[Fly with me on Twitter] [Google+] [My broken website]

[Need web hosting? I personally like A Small Orange]


#38 SimonForsman   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 6058

Posted 14 August 2012 - 01:59 PM


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!


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)

Edited by SimonForsman, 14 August 2012 - 02:44 PM.

I don't suffer from insanity, I'm enjoying every minute of it.
The voices in my head may not be real, but they have some good ideas!

#39 Sik_the_hedgehog   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 1606

Posted 14 August 2012 - 10:59 PM

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).

Edited by Sik_the_hedgehog, 14 August 2012 - 10:59 PM.

Don't pay much attention to "the hedgehog" in my nick, it's just because "Sik" was already taken =/ By the way, Sik is pronounced like seek, not like sick.

#40 Mito   Members   -  Reputation: 837

Posted 15 August 2012 - 05:14 AM

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 Posted Image

Edited by Mito, 15 August 2012 - 05:16 AM.





Old topic!
Guest, the last post of this topic is over 60 days old and at this point you may not reply in this topic. If you wish to continue this conversation start a new topic.



PARTNERS