Jump to content

  • Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account

Interested in a FREE copy of HTML5 game maker Construct 2?

We'll be giving away three Personal Edition licences in next Tuesday's GDNet Direct email newsletter!

Sign up from the right-hand sidebar on our homepage and read Tuesday's newsletter for details!


We're also offering banner ads on our site from just $5! 1. Details HERE. 2. GDNet+ Subscriptions HERE. 3. Ad upload HERE.


How Much do You Plan to Support Windows 8/Metro?


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
85 replies to this topic

#61 Servant of the Lord   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 20255

Posted 29 October 2012 - 06:45 PM


I never said Microsoft ignored it's customers, nor did I imply that. I certainly would not "have people believe" that, nor did I try to make them believe that.


You, I, and everyone on these forums fall into the minority that's so small, we don't make much of an impact.


That was the statement I was referencing because the attitude bothers me. Microsoft needs developers to build applications for their operating systems and so Microsoft listens to the developer community.

That statement was more meant as, 'As consumers that also understand tech, we're in the minority', and most big business is focused on the casual users, or else the business users,
But yes, as developers, Microsoft will definitely make sure we can create good software, by reaching out to us from the business-side of their work.
"The other 0.1 billion are businesses, and Microsoft ofcourse will provide alternatives for them." <- As independents, we're still businesses. In my first post, I mentioned that "Windows 9 Professional" or whatever, will almost definitely support Win32 software even if "Windows 9 Home User" goes the worst-case scenario route of being entirely Windows Store only.

It's also worth pointing out that while Windows 8 is the most "consumer" friendly version of Windows yet, it's also the most power user friendly. The keyboard shortcuts are great, and the advanced menus are much easier to access than in any other version of Windows.

I'm really glad to hear that! From what I've seen so far, it hasn't looked that way, but I've only seen some of the videos and press releases Microsoft themselves put out and haven't yet used it in person.

As a consumer, and as someone who loves Windows 7, I certainly wouldn't mind a Microsoft Surface Pro (and would think the Metro interface would fit perfectly with such a tablet/laptop convertible).
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]


Sponsor:

#62 Heath   Members   -  Reputation: 344

Posted 29 October 2012 - 08:22 PM

Now the other issue. Sure Linux/BSD do have package repositories. But there different, you can have multiple repositories provided by different people and you can always install stuff without using any repository at all. I don't know how Ubuntu's Software Center works, but if it's the sinlge vendor controlled place to get software for Ubuntu, there isn't any difference to Apples or Microsofts AppStore.

It's also quite different if the provider of an AppStore is also distributing Software over it's own AppStore. As a developer you can't be sure that your product get's the same attention and advertisement as a competeting product made by the store owner.

And one more, as customer you have to trust the store owner that he makes sure software that is being sold in his store isn't crap. As far as I can tell, this doesn't work so well. Apple seems to allow any crappy piece of software in their store, as long as it's not malware.

All valid points.

I will clarify that, of course, you can add software sources to apt-get, so the comparison between apt-get and Windows Store isn't perfect unless the same can be done for Windows Store. I simply wanted to say that I prefer such a system, as opposed to installing software directly without organization. I don't like using a different installer for each package, especially if it doesn't remove everything it installed, or if there is litter left behind in my Windows registry.

#63 mrbastard   Members   -  Reputation: 1573

Posted 30 October 2012 - 06:36 AM

Windows 8 is great. I've been using it on my samsung series 7 slate for some time now. The released version is really quite nice.

Metro I could live without, doubt I'll use it much. I do think there's a place for it though - appliance-like use cases - media centres, for example. Anything where you're not sitting at a desk, really.

WindowsRT (the ARM-based iOS/Android equivalent) is of no interest to me. I think there's a great deal of usefulness in a tablet PC as a tablet/laptop crossover, but something that only runs Metro apps is of no use to me.

I've yet to buy anything from the windows store, but I'll probably pick up a designed-for-touch media player to help me avoid microsoft's advertising in the default music player.

I have lost a great deal of respect for Valve and GabeN over his FUD about Windows 8. See, Valve has been working for some time on setting up a Steam app store, which has now appeared. It's more than a little dishonest to blast MS for wanting to be a gatekeeper of a closed ecosystem when you were yourself working to become that gatekeeper.


#64 way2lazy2care   Members   -  Reputation: 782

Posted 30 October 2012 - 07:13 AM

I'm not a huge fan of assuming the walled garden approach is going to be bad. All signs point to it being a very very profitable walled garden. For most developers, more users will be able to find your app, and more users will probably buy your app as being in the store carries a safety guarantee from MS. They also offer a better revenue split than you'll find pretty much anywhere.

I think the major problem is that you can't side load apps on consumer devices right now. More than likely most developers would release both ways before finding out the windows store makes releasing a side loaded app pretty much useless. HOWEVER, there are a couple apps that would benefit from being able to work around store policies (a steam metro app for example could be able to communicate with the desktop steam client. I'm not sure if it can do this now because it depends on whether a 'local mechanism' includes setting up a local server for the two to communicate).

Personally I will start worrying when there is actually something tangible to worry about rather than the possibility of something to worry about.

#65 achild   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 1922

Posted 30 October 2012 - 08:04 AM

Also, who is a “fanboy” here?
I hate Linux and Apple even more than I do Microsoft.

L. Spiro

Posted Image

#66 way2lazy2care   Members   -  Reputation: 782

Posted 30 October 2012 - 08:49 AM

Sorry I just noticed this:

The average consumer, unknowingly, will continue to opt into closed systems because they have very clear short-term benefits (better security, cheaper short-term, more intuitive, better integration with other devices), not realizing the long-term costs (higher software prices, poorer quality service, greater corporate control, more consumer lock-in, less privacy protection).

Why do you assume that all of your long term costs are the case? At least 3 of them are currently false on closed systems. Software prices are generally lower (distribution is very expensive. Closed systems tend to handle that for you and usually pay for their revenue take in that regard). Prices being higher goes against almost every piece of data we have on closed digital distribution platforms today; the worst platforms are about the same price. I'm not sure what you mean by "poorer quality service," but there are very good products released on closed systems just like there are bad ones, this is true of any market. If you mean customer service, I see no indication that quality would suffer by nature of the system being closed. I'm also unsure why you assume privacy protection is worse. If anything your privacy is better off. Microsoft/Google/Apple may learn more about you, but random developer who you may or may not approve of having any of your information is much less likely to have your private information. Likewise malware/virus developers are less likely to be able to get any of your information.

Consumer lock in is a legitimate problem, but it has always been a problem even on open platforms or in the non-digital space.

#67 Orymus3   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 9935

Posted 30 October 2012 - 10:15 AM

Depends how much windows 8 plans to support "me"
And by that I mean, lend support to dev outreaching to it.
I feel very little compelled to support windows 8 at this stage, knowingly that several larger corps are merely ignoring it.
So long as boxes on shelves list Windows 7 instead of 8, I'm not too worried about being out of sync, so Microsoft will have to find a way to convince us to move forwards with them.

Edited by Orymus3, 30 October 2012 - 10:17 AM.


#68 Karsten_   Members   -  Reputation: 1634

Posted 30 October 2012 - 11:34 AM

I remember the clamor and controversy over Windows XP, and that turned out to be nothing. In fact, people who had first claimed they would stick to Windows 98SE and Linux later turned around and said they would stick with Windows XP when Vista was coming out. People are fickle.


Windows XP (future activation doubts) was exactly the reason I ditched Windows.
More and more people are getting interested / involved in UNIX and it is only a matter of time. At this current moment in time, the Linux developer community is HUGE! Much larger than any other platform.

It would be silly to waste time learning how to develop for a dying technology and if it goes the way of XNA -> MonoGame, then it will be the open-source community maintaining it anyway.. so why not just cut out the middle man ;)

Edited by Karsten_, 30 October 2012 - 11:35 AM.

Mutiny - Open-source C++ Unity re-implementation.
Defile of Eden 2 - FreeBSD and OpenBSD binaries of our latest game.


#69 slayemin   Members   -  Reputation: 2786

Posted 30 October 2012 - 12:42 PM

I am perfectly happy with Windows 7. Using myself as a barometer for the market, I'm going to say that pretty much everyone else is probably quite happy with Win7. Why upgrade to Win8? What compelling feature do they have which I absolutely must have? The Microsoft app store? As a user, do I really want to fork out $X number of dollars so that I can log onto the app store to buy useless widgets and apps which third party developers have created to cash in on mass market appeal? No, not really (but I'm a tight wad).

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).

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.

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?

Things I'm uncertain about:
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%.

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.

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. 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?

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.

The only two reasons I can think of to play in the Windows Store market:
1. It's a new market, so getting in early would make it easier for me to capture market share with a polished app.
2. There will be a lot of eyeballs using Win8, all of which are potential customers. MS is still the dominate OS on the desktop.

Eric Nevala

Indie Developer | Dev blog


#70 Alpha_ProgDes   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 4692

Posted 30 October 2012 - 01:17 PM

If I support Metro it will be for Windows Phone 8. That's just a cool OS.
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

#71 tstrimple   Prime Members   -  Reputation: 1723

Posted 30 October 2012 - 02:44 PM

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.


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%.

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.


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.


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.


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.

#72 Servant of the Lord   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 20255

Posted 30 October 2012 - 03:01 PM

[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.

That's something I don't like either... but if I was in MS's place, I'd do the same thing. Posted Image
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.

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?

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%.

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!

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)!

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. Posted Image

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.

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?

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.

Edited by Servant of the Lord, 30 October 2012 - 03:03 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]


#73 tstrimple   Prime Members   -  Reputation: 1723

Posted 30 October 2012 - 03:15 PM

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.


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)


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.

Edited by tstrimple, 30 October 2012 - 03:16 PM.


#74 ChaosEngine   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 2435

Posted 30 October 2012 - 05:10 PM

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 think programming is like sex, you probably haven't done much of either.-------------- - capn_midnight

#75 Servant of the Lord   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 20255

Posted 30 October 2012 - 09:48 PM

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.
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]


#76 tstrimple   Prime Members   -  Reputation: 1723

Posted 30 October 2012 - 11:02 PM


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.


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.

Edited by tstrimple, 30 October 2012 - 11:04 PM.


#77 L. Spiro   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 13949

Posted 31 October 2012 - 12:20 AM

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
It is amazing how often people try to be unique, and yet they are always trying to make others be like them. - L. Spiro 2011
I spent most of my life learning the courage it takes to go out and get what I want. Now that I have it, I am not sure exactly what it is that I want. - L. Spiro 2013
I went to my local Subway once to find some guy yelling at the staff. When someone finally came to take my order and asked, “May I help you?”, I replied, “Yeah, I’ll have one asshole to go.”
L. Spiro Engine: http://lspiroengine.com
L. Spiro Engine Forums: http://lspiroengine.com/forums

#78 abcdef44   Banned   -  Reputation: 2

Posted 31 October 2012 - 01:22 AM

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

#79 Olof Hedman   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 2894

Posted 31 October 2012 - 04:09 AM

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

Edited by Olof Hedman, 31 October 2012 - 10:52 AM.


#80 PjotrSvetachov   Members   -  Reputation: 552

Posted 31 October 2012 - 06:09 AM

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.

Edited by PjotrSvetachov, 31 October 2012 - 06:14 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