IMHO, any closed system is bad for consumers. Although, I doubt that it is truly "closed", but just that the tablets will have a more difficult time getting around MS's marketplace.

Not yet in the market (though I'm working towards that).

My opinion is, the more different stores available, the better for both developers, who can avoid bad distributors and force the distributors to upgrade their terms, and consumers - as the distributors compete in prices and sales against each other, and are forced to streamline their interfaces and innovate in areas like cloud saves and faster downloads.

So, in that sense, I'd welcome Microsoft's entry as a digital distributor of PC games... but, oh wait! They already are a digital distributor of PC games, and 40-50 million people choose Steam over (or alongside) Microsoft's "Games for Windows Live". Oh, also, Windows Marketplace. Do you use either? I certainly don't.

I'm glad other people are in the game also. Steam's two main competitors are Impulse (sold to GameStop) and Origin (EA - new to the game). But there are also dozens of small websites that also sell digital downloads. The more competition the better, because it gives developers and consumers a choice, forcing the distributors to improve themselves to stay ahead (and nobody can say Steam isn't innovating at a pretty rapid pace to stay ahead of Origin and Impulse).

Microsoft coming along and putting their own store pre-installed and easily accessible means most consumers, out of laziness or ignorance, will go there to get their goods. Microsoft was not able to do digital distribution well, so they are doing what they did with Internet Explorer, and pre-packaging it. How many non-techy people do you know who don't even know what a "Browser" is? The 'internet' to them is the blue 'e' icon of Internet Explorer. When Internet Explorer took over throw market share dominance, they just let it stagnate at IE6 until finally the competition got so far ahead that it actually proved a threat again - but we had to put up with the stagnation for multiple years before the competition caught up to Microsoft's unfair advantage.

It's good to make a more secure system, and it's good to ensure that consumers get actual non-virus executables. But using that as an excuse to make developers (whether games or otherwise) give you 30% or 20% of the cut without you doing anything?

If I want to play World of Warcraft (which I don't ), I already gave Microsoft $200 or so for their operating system. Now they want 20% of the game sale, and 20% of each expansion, and 20% of my subscription fees? If Blizzard made a game that's so great they can get away with charging for each expansion and the original game, and $15 a month, they deserve that money, not Microsoft. And if Microsoft does take a cut, would Blizzard raise prices (hurting consumers) or keep their prices the same (hurting themselves) for the "privilege" of working with Microsoft?

Really now, why should Microsoft get 20% of every Minecraft sale? People found Minecraft just fine without Microsoft providing a portal. They argument of "Increased ability for users to find your game" only applies for junk. People don't buy many junky games online because word-of-mouth doesn't spread. People do buy awesome games, because they get attention. Granted, some good (amazing) games get hidden online and don't do well, but equally so, complete trash sells like hotcakes to iPhone users.

What kind of certification process will I need to go through for Microsoft if 80% of all sales happens through them? How personal and helpful will they tailor their services to the individual developer, and how much will they avoid striking huge deals with huge publishers to give those publishers extra attention at the expense of other games launching at the same time?

I'm not against Microsoft selling PC software... they already do that, in multiple ways... it just isn't successful enough because better stores exist. I'm against Microsoft taking control away from those better stores, not by quality of their service, but by abusing their position as the system owner to force lazy or ignorant consumers to visit their stores instead and thus steal the majority of users (since the majority are lazy and ignorant).

Microsoft isn't innovating or slashing prices to compete, they're tying their store to their operating system - we've gotten along fine without it, it's not solving any problem that's exists, it's just centralizing purchases in one place for the benefit of Microsoft's wallet at the excuse of the benefit of the consumer's ease at the expense of the consumer's wallet long-term, at the expense of competitors (digital stores), at the expense of developers, and at the expense of innovation in business and technology.

They might as well tie physical purchases to one store also, and push Amazon.com out of the business. After all, people use their computers to buy physical products, and it's in the consumers interest to buy any physical product from one central location with one account, and why not a centralized service under Microsoft's control? Because the benefits of competition long term outweigh the benefits of ease-of-use for consumers short-term, if that ease-of-use means one company controls it.

[Edit:] tl;dr: It's not the end of the world, or even the end of the world as we currently know it, but if it is successful, my fear is a lack of competition that creates higher costs for consumers, less profit for developers, and stagnation in the area of (mainstream) innovation for four or five years until the underground competitors get so far ahead even the mainstream consumer notices.

Do you think Windows 8 being "closed" is really bad for games? Or is just Valve panicking because Windows is in direct competition with them?

Except Windows 8 isn't "closed" - the MS app store is, primarily, the only way to get Metro apps. Outside of them it'll be business as normal.

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.

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' my point being the whole thing is a little less than honest and nothing more than PR stunt ("hey! MS's app store is bad, but our app store is great because we are Valve!") - a position reenforced to me earlier today when I found out that Valve plan to start selling non-game/entertainment apps via Steam soon. ( http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=25377 )

So, yeah, now it all falls into place doesn't it...

I've a hard time believing that Windows 8 is going to be as bad as some make it out to be.

I think Windows 8 is going to suffer the Vista Effect as I like to think of it - the OS is going to be fine BUT before the thing was even tried many people were laying into it and continue to do so simply because it isn't what they were use to.

Vista had its issues, mostly with 3rd party drivers (NV I'm looking at you) but it was a massive improvement over XP and was, in my mind, vindicated when Windows 7 came out which at its heart is the same OS just with a better PR job.

I'm almost thinking that MS have decided to adopt a tick-tock approach to Windows releases; do something major in a release and suffer the backlash, then shortly afterwards release a new, tweaked version and watch as everyone goes 'oh, this is better than <last version>' thus generating sales.

OK, that would be crazy BUT given that I suspect MS make most of their OS income from companies and most companies are only just getting up to speed with Win7 and unlikely to goto Win8 regardless putting out a 'test' OS (which will unify their PC, Phone and console space as well as giving them a tablet presense) makes some sense if you take the feedback and roll out a better Win9 which companies are more likely to upgrade to.

Just thinking aloud really...

Can you buy non-Metro apps in the Win8 store? To be honest I've been mostly unable to use the Win8 previews on my Lenovo X60T (because the resistive touch screen is horrible for swipe gestures and the wacom pen drivers don't calibrate properly in Win8), so I haven't really explored the whole OS yet.

However, I was able to install non-Metro apps the same way I can in Windows 7. I don't know what people are freaking out about.

Can you buy non-Metro apps in the Win8 store?

Yes. Microsoft Office, for example, will be offered through the Windows Store.

However, I was able to install non-Metro apps the same way I can in Windows 7. I don't know what people are freaking out about.
[/quote]

It's not that it's "entirely closed, no way you'll ever get anything on here! Mwahahaha!", it's that it'll be front and center and any other store people will have to go out of their way to download (like they do currently), so the majority of casual users will by-default give their cash to Microsoft, rewarding Microsoft's anti-competitive behavior, and take money from the companies innovating. This rewards anti-competitive/monopolistic behavior, and punishes innovation.
Intelligent users can still make intelligent choices, but the bulk users will be satisfied with the first thing put before them - Microsoft is using their leverage as the OS provider to ensure the first thing put before the user is Microsoft's own store.

There are a few keys that'll help Steam and Origin and Impulse:
A) They are in good positions to strike up deals with OEMs to provide Steam or another store pre-loaded on the machine. On the other hand, Microsoft is offering OEMs a percentage of Windows Store sales for OEM machines, supposedly. It was in their leaked Windows 8 info from three years ago, anyway.
B) Unlike in the browser wars, purchasing a product may require the installation of a digital store. (Certain games require Steam or require Impulse). This will help to keep Microsoft from completely dominating the market share.
C) Steam already has a huge install base (54 million, according to Wikipedia. 40 million last year confirmed by Valve) and holds each customer's game catalog hostage.

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.

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'.

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.