I don't think anyone here defends that
Nope. Not at all.
I don't think anyone here defends that
But they are available on WINDOWS. You know, this operating system by Microsoft. The problem isn't Windows 10. It's Windows 10 store. You see, if these games were on other storefronts but exclusive to the W10 OS, I would've upgraded asap.
Seriously, how many PC gaming enthusiasts, with rigs capable of running QB would be sifting through the Win10 store for news on upcoming releases? I mean what are you even saying here?
I don't think anyone here defends that
I think your first mistake is assuming that all consumers view the closed/open debate the same way you do. The developers who made fortunes within Apple's closed ecosystem aren't complaining. And neither are the millions of people who are downloading and enjoying the games. There are plenty of people who just want to download and play games as they are. And developers who just want access to these people.
Also, I don't understand how you can say they have an anti-open philosophy. Do all of the other clients suddenly stop working because the Win10 store exists? In reality, the Win10 store is just another option in a sea of them.
Granted, UWA's currently have technical limitations that are unacceptable to many PC gamers. IF they can overcome these issues and fill the store with compelling content, they'll have an opportunity to provide their consumers a unified experience across any platforms they own. They'll be able to provide better cross play integration than we currently see between PC and consoles. Throught the pre-installed app on all MS products, developers would have access to the largest installed base in the world.
I don't dispute that it available on Win. But we're are talking about MS 'LOSING' $126 from Maldo. A $126 that they can't actually 'lose', because he never intended to spend it prior to the announcement. A $126 dollars that they are willingly declining in hopes they will secure far more than that through patronage of their store.
Sent. To. Die.
Your needle is stuck in the groove. You're failing to take into account it's also available for Xbox One, and is heavily advertised.
And it's hilarious :"Group 2" actually consists of about four condescending, sarcastic, Windows 10 Store defenders. You're depicting them as a calm voice of reason, but that depiction doesn't match up at all with the actual content of this thread.
And I still can't believe there even is a Windows 10 Store defense force, but wow, it's a thing.
Your needle is stuck in the groove. You're failing to take into account it's also available for Xbox One, and is being heavily advertised.
That did real well for tomb raider.
Your needle is stuck in the groove. You're failing to take into account it's also available for Xbox One, and is being heavily advertised. The game is not being sent to die in any respect.
They sold over a million copies of ROTR over Christmas holiday, so it didn't do too badly at all.
Much to the disappointment of people who hoped it would crash and burn.
My apologies if I wasn't being clear that I am referring to the PC SKU.
The Xbox One version has been promoted extensively for many months now, is available from multiple retailers, has many avenues to preorder from, and is available on a digital storefront regularly visited by its target audience.
The last one sold 6x that.
Nah. sure gaming will make up a large amount of the revenue generated by an app store. But not core games. Smaller mobile games. The types of games played by people who don't care about the list in the OP.
The core gamers. The ones with rigs capable of running Quantum Break, make up a tiny portion of the Windows market. Do I want the list to be addressed. ABSOLUTELY. I want people to be able to play games the way they are meant to be played, and MS imposed tech limitations shouldn't stand in the way
But what I'm saying is, given what MS actually has at stake regarding the Win10 store, I think it's silly to assume that all of this is actually a play at controlling the core gaming market on PC (like GFWL was). They've got bigger fish to fry.
But let's not for a second pretend that if it doesn't sell well on PC, it means the game won't make a profit and Remedy will start the pink slip machine.
But let's not for a second pretend that if it doesn't sell well on PC, it means the game won't make a profit and Remedy will start the pink slip machine.
Actually, 3.4 million in its first month, and it was multiplatform. But hey, if you're a fan of hyperbole then don't let me stand in your way.
But let's not for a second pretend that if it doesn't sell well on PC, it means the game won't make a profit and Remedy will start the pink slip machine.
Actually, 3.4 million in its first month, and it was multiplatform. But hey, if you're a fan of hyperbole then don't let me stand in your way.
Its a high production value (ie expensive) title, that is singleplayer only (so quickly becomes trade in fodder) new IP (so does not have brand familiarity to work with).
Common sense suggests to me that it is more on the riskier end of the game development spectrum than a new Halo or Gears is, and would probably benefit from an equal push on all release platforms to ensure success.
So, the game sold less than a third of what TR 2013 did and it's somehow a success? Okay.
Yes, but Microsoft themselves is producing both XO and PC versions, so sales failure on the PC side will fall upon them more than it will Remedy.
Microsoft has been very good to Remedy, and vice-versa. Their relationship is very strong and I seriously doubt Microsoft would let them suffer because of this.
Tomb Raider = multiplatform upon release
Rise of Tomb Raider = not multiplatform upon release
I don't see how this helps out Quantum Break.
I'd be very surprised if any do.
A very large portion of consumers buy products because they see them advertised in store.
People actively following enthusiast press are a minority.
If QB was being released as a standard windows executable, and being sold by multiple vendors, as a standard windows executable is, it would be being pushed by every single vendor selling it. There's be banner ads on their front pages, entries in their upcoming games / coming soon lists, and preorder pages to buy from.
Because its in their interest to sell product.
Meanwhile, QB gets a stealth release announcement 2 months before launch, its tied to a system that even ardent defenders of benefits like cross platform communications and cross platform play that it as a single player game literally derives no benefit from, and it is being released on only a single unpopular (in pure marketshare terms) storefront that its target audience never looks at, that doesn't support basic features like preorders or preloading, and that has absolutely zero discoverability. There isn't even a coming soon page.
Sent. To. Die.
I don't see how this helps out Quantum Break.
It's a Microsoft published game appearing on more than just the Xbox One, potentially more customers?
I realise no PC gamer on GAF is going to buy it but I'm sure there are more PC gamers out there, somewhere
Which is where you're wrong. Lot of people were willing to spend that money. The thing is, they're the one losing because the poor offering will never be enough after GFWL.
Just as a food for thought, Ori and the Blind Forest sold 613k on Steam. Tomb Raider sold 532k. Microsoft will be lucky to reach these numbers even with all their release sales combined. That's where it'll never be enough to offset the loss and most importantly, why it won't increase the traffic.
The same as to have any digital store in any device ever. A secure way of acquiring apps and games.No, he's right. It's in users best interest to stay away from that model. Unless you have shares in Microsoft, what's the point of a store app on a PC ?
You seem to?
At least you must have misunderstood what I meant at that point if you point at Microsoft and says that they don't seem to have an anti-open system philososphy as of late?
You're even trying to defend it by saying a lot of users don't care and Apple is doing well enough.
I think that they can have a closed distribution model, and still offer people more freedom to customize there experience.
I never said it was a play for the pc core gaming market. I was implying the pc core gaming market will decide whether the windows store is a success or not for entertainment purposes on desktop pcs.
QB is bait for core gamers. They obviously want to profit off windows for more than just selling an os license. Right now they have the windows store up with mobile games, apps and media. Just like windows 8. And the windows store on 8 wasn't very popular.
Ok here's the thing... you can make the case that pretty much everyone is a potential customer for pretty much everything if you play with the variables enough. Sony are losing peoples money for not porting Uncharted 4 to Xbox One, Nintendo are losing people's money for not having a console more powerful than my PC, Valve's losing (a little bit) of money by not listing all their games on the Windows Store, and so on... now some (all?) of these sound a bit ridiculous, because they operate under the assumption that all else remains equal and any additional sales are purely a bonus. The people that buy PS4's for Uncharted are ignored, or the people that wouldn't pay the extra for the hardware are ignored, or simply the people you'd have to pay to port your game to MS' store and do them a favour are ignored. In MS' case the fact that you help perpetuate the current situation of your store not being used, because people don't have anything they require from it is ignored... whilst at the same time potentially trading off console sales (goodbye GHG for example) and/or Live subscriptions to obtain some sales from a bunch of customers that will never purchase anything else from you. MS may very well see it as a situation where they potentially gain nothing if it doesn't work out... but at least they don't lose a shitload if they start cutting into their other revenue streams by selling me a $60 game, instead of a $60 game, a rolling $50 subscription, a $300 console, and 30% of every other $60 purchase I make for it. Because there are plenty of people like myself who are typically console gamers for various reasons, who will play these games on PC instead if all else remains equal... so removing me need for an Xbox console whilst simultaneously putting me entirely in Valve's care may be a little silly financially.
I don't think it's correct to say that they've "lost" a consumer for a given product if at no point in that product's existence did they ever "have" the consumer. They could potentially lose me as a consumer for example it they decided to cap the game's resolution on both platforms at 320x240... that would certainly move from "buying it" to "not buying it".. however they don't lose you. You go from "not buying it" to "not buying it". They lost you as much as I lost the money Bill Gates has. They've only not succeeded in gaining your sale. A product that sells 100million didn't lose 7 billion plus by default.
I don't expect that to happen aside from Microsoft's exclusives, which is a handful of titles. It's not like Quantum Break on PC will run on the Surface Pro just because it's on the Windows Store.
The problem is: Microsoft is the owner of Windows. I didn't said "Bouh Microsoft is leaving money for not making a Steam OS version". Steam is part of the Windows ecosystem as gaming is a part of that ecosystem too. Your whole reasoning is flawed when you consider Steam as a competitor to Windows/Microsoft, when Steam and many other programs makes Windows appealing.
And what reason do we have to believe that? Certainly not looking at where the windows store is at right now ...
I don't see the windows store ever being torn down, at least not for a long while. What I am worried about is Microsoft refusing to change anything about the store to accomodate actual gaming, then pitch a fit and just stop putting games on PC outright when nobody wants to use the service that's worse than everything else it's competing with.
It may happen this way, it may not. They've already mentioned that they are working to fix some of the issues in the op. Hopefully they don't stop there.
I didn't say anyone should believe they WILL do this. I believe it would be in there best interest to, if they expect core gamers to patronize there store, especially if they want it to become an alternate source for major 3rd party titles.
I'm with everyone in the fact that the current limitations suck. I just disagree with the idea that since they've failed in this space, and they currently have hurdles, that they should quit. I think they just need to do better.
And I think it's possible to do better wilst distributing their own IP.
i'm sure they'll find a way to make exclusive fullscreen and g-sync/freesync modes work but that's about all. if they ever allow mods or overlays it will only be through official means that they will probably monetize. they are not going to enable executable modification or memory injection with UWAs since it defeats the entire purpose of the platform.
i'm sure they'll find a way to make exclusive fullscreen and g-sync/freesync modes work but that's about all. if they ever allow mods or overlays it will only be through official means that they will probably monetize. they are not going to enable executable modification or memory injection with UWAs since it defeats the entire purpose of the platform.
I think the purpose of the platform is to incentivize people to choose Windows for all of there personal computing needs. Allowing people to customize their experience doesn't defeat that at all.
I can't see them trying to monetize mods or overlays, because folks will always go for an alternative.
They just need to make UWAs more flexible.
Sure, You are a potential customer. But Microsoft isn't losing anything by not meeting you on steam or GoG or whatever else.
Prior to the announcement you weren't buying QB. After the announcement you still aren't buying QB.
Your status hasn't changed. As it relates to QB, They were never counting on your money, so how can they have lost it?
Sure they are limiting their total unit sales potential for QB. But they are more interested in getting potential repeat customers into their store, which to them is more valuable than your single purchase of their game.
Complete mischaracterization of my argument. I never said that he wasn't a potential customer.
Merely stating the fact that they didn't lose a customer by announcing QB as a win10 exclusive... Maldo wasn't a customer before or after the announcement.
You're wrong. Every other Remedy game is on PC. I was sure Quantum Break will reach PC someday and I had the intention to buy the game. This has changed.
But I bought several Microsoft Studios produced games like
Ori and the blind forest
Deadlight
Dust: An Elysian Tail
Fable - The Lost Chapters
Fable Anniversary
Halo: Spartan Assault
Insanely Twisted Shadow Planet
State of Decay
Ms. Splosion Man
Pinball FX2 tables
Mark of the Ninja
or Halo, Halo 2 or Gears of Wars years ago so I can't see your logic.
You're wrong. Every other Remedy game is on PC. I was sure Quantum Break will reach PC someday and I had the intention to buy the game. This has changed.
But I bought several Microsoft Studios produced games like
Ori and the blind forest
Deadlight
Dust: An Elysian Tail
Fable - The Lost Chapters
Fable Anniversary
Halo: Spartan Assault
Insanely Twisted Shadow Planet
State of Decay
Ms. Splosion Man
Pinball FX2 tables
Mark of the Ninja
or Halo, Halo 2 or Gears of Wars years ago so I can't see your logic.
Before announcement: "Not buying it for XB1"
After announcement: "Not buying it for Windows 10 STORE"
That one word somehow seems to be conveniently left out of the argument against him, which twists his words (?), and also seems to be pushed like the Store and Windows 10 are one in the same.
I may be wrong, but I think his issue is with the store itself, not that it is 10. If I am wrong on that, then I do not get any of the arguments anymore, lol.
That one word somehow seems to be conveniently left out of the argument against him, which twists his words (he said he would buy it on 10, not the store), and also seems to be pushed like the Store and Windows 10 are one in the same.
I may be wrong, but I think his issue is with the store itself, not that it is 10.
That one word somehow seems to be conveniently left out of the argument against him, which twists it, and seems to be pushed like the Store and Windows 10 are one in the same.
That one word somehow seems to be conveniently left out of the argument against him, which twists his words (?), and also seems to be pushed like the Store and Windows 10 are one in the same.
I may be wrong, but I think his issue is with the store itself, not that it is 10. If I am wrong on that, then I do not get any of the arguments anymore, lol.
Before announcement: "Not buying it for XB1"
After announcement: "Not buying it for Windows 10"
You're right but they like to spin arguments.
Don't worry.
Before announcement: "Waiting for the PC version like any other Remedy game"
After announcement: "Waiting for the no UWA version or no buy"
That's not an Insinuation I've ever made. There have only two versions of quantum break ever announced. He was never a candidate for either of them. So to say they lost his sale makes no sense. They never had his sale to begin with, just a hypothetical sale for a version that never existed.
So before you were waiting for a potential change (that may not ever happen) to buy it... and now you're waiting for a potential change (that may not ever happen) to buy it.
Again, nothing has been lost or gained here.
I'm not really sure how that "twists" anything tbh... Windows Store then (or does it need to be precisely Windows 10 Store, to ensure I'm not twisting against Windows 8 users too?). The point remains the same, in both cases his requirements aren't satisfied so he's not buying. At no point was he buying it, even if there's a scenario that he's prepared to buy it under if it were to happen. I'd buy a Ferrari F50 with a Lamborghini engine for £150 if it happens. I'm not a lost Ferrari F50 sale until it does though.