• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Greenberg: Quantum Break is not coming to Steam

Tealmann

Member
I've had Windows 10 since day 1 and happened to peek into the games section...i almost puked my guts up. I couldn't believe how piss poor that game section is..all shovel ware for phones...just garbage games and then you suddenly see Rise of Tomb Raider...it so not fits in with those garbage phone games.

None of MS's games are out yet, what did you expect?
And don't forget that this is the same store that Windows Phones and tablets use, there HAS to be mobile shovelware on it because that's what mobile users want.
You think MS's situation would be better if they had no games for PC or mobile?
 

mcrommert

Banned
I've had Windows 10 since day 1 and happened to peek into the games section...i almost puked my guts up. I couldn't believe how piss poor that game section is..all shovel ware for phones...just garbage games and then you suddenly see Rise of Tomb Raider...it so not fits in with those garbage phone games.

Thats because it is also a phone store...seriously what was the point of this post
 

ayob

Member
I think the windows store has a lot of potential. With crossbuy and this whole windows 10 eco system with phones, tablets, pc, and xbox ill be purchasing games from the windows store for sure. I just hope they separate the mobile games with console/pc games and add a wishlist section. The windows store imo is better than origin & uplay already
 
Long live GFW10!

ee5bd5d1fd8d823ac331b4b70af6d379.gif
 
All this talk about eco systems it reminded me I had a Windows phone. I plugged it in to charge it up and tried downloading some game from the windows store I bought on my SP3 . I downloaded prune and was able to continue from where I left off and thought this is pretty nice. Makes me think it would be nice if Windows phone ever took off but I doubt that. My best bet is either Apple or Google making a serious console so I can have something for my TV , Computer and phone.
 

Iced Arcade

Member
I've had Windows 10 since day 1 and happened to peek into the games section...i almost puked my guts up. I couldn't believe how piss poor that game section is..all shovel ware for phones...just garbage games and then you suddenly see Rise of Tomb Raider...it so not fits in with those garbage phone games.
....it's also a phone app/game store.
 

GHG

Gold Member
Thats because it is also a phone store...seriously what was the point of this post

....it's also a phone app/game store.

How you guys can't see that this is exactly the problem I don't know. The whole thing looks to have been designed from a mobile first perspective rather than being designed for the PC and PC gamers. Why should I, as a PC gamer have to navigate my way through tons of mobile shit to find what I'm looking for. Why should I have to have my PC game be treated like a mobile app on my gaming PC? It's just history repeating itself:

https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2011/03/09/on-the-rocks-games-for-windows-live/

Maybe once its out and the game doesn't sell because of people tearing into the platform only then will you begin to understand.

On a separate note, how does the Windows store handle things like game saves and confit files? Where do they go and do you have easy access to them?

All this talk about eco systems it reminded me I had a Windows phone. I plugged it in to charge it up and tried downloading some game from the windows store I bought on my SP3 . I downloaded prune and was able to continue from where I left off and thought this is pretty nice. Makes me think it would be nice if Windows phone ever took off but I doubt that. My best bet is either Apple or Google making a serious console so I can have something for my TV , Computer and phone.

Windows phones are nice and I will defend them till the end of time. It saddens me that they do not get a fair shake but it it's because of the app situation so it's to be expected. Best phone UI on the market and for my uses (I don't use any apps other than uber, whatsapp and grove music) it's perfect. As a business user you can't complain as it it syncs your desktop calendar, emails and contacts and the glance screen is great. The camera and camera app (on the 950) are also the best on the market.

I had to replace my 920 (rip) with a new 950 December last year and I was surprised at how smooth the backup and restore process went when transitioning over to the new phone. It remembered everything including my notification/ringtone preferences and how I had customised my homescreen. All my text messages and call history carried over so I didn't have to change anything when I got my new phone, just charge it up and away you go.
 
How you guys can't see that this is exactly the problem I don't know. The whole thing looks to have been designed from a mobile first perspective rather than being designed for the PC and PC gamers. Why should I, as a PC gamer have to navigate my way through tons of mobile shit to find what I'm looking for. Why should I have to have my PC game be treated like a mobile app on my gaming PC? It's just history repeating itself:
Or you could just, y'know, use the search box. It's not like Steam isn't filled with crap too.

I kind of like being able to play Crossy Road on my PC. Never liked it on my phone because the swipe controls never felt responsive enough.
 
Or you could just, y'know, use the search box. It's not like Steam isn't filled with crap too.

I kind of like being able to play Crossy Road on my PC. Never liked it on my phone because the swipe controls never felt responsive enough.

What if someone just wants to browse for something that looks interesting? I gotta just know every name of every game I'm interested in instead of being able to explore?

And you can't say with a straight face that Steam has more crap on the storefront than the Windows Store does. Just compare the frontpage to the Windows Store's games section and it's a wash.
 
Windows phones are nice and I will defend them till the end of time. It saddens me that they do not get a fair shake but it it's because of the app situation so it's to be expected. Best phone UI on the market and for my uses (I don't use any apps other than uber, whatsapp and grove music) it's perfect. As a business user you can't complain as it it syncs your desktop calendar, emails and contacts and the glance screen is great. The camera and camera app (on the 950) are also the best on the market.

I had to replace my 920 (rip) with a new 950 December last year and I was surprised at how smooth the backup and restore process went when transitioning over to the new phone. It remembered everything including my notification/ringtone preferences and how I had customised my homescreen. All my text messages and call history carried over so I didn't have to change anything when I got my new phone, just charge it up and away you go.

I'm looking forward to hopefully a nice premium surface phone. What I don't get is you have examples of what people want so why not just do that . A nice 5.5 - 5.7 inch quad HD screen with a nice big battery that can last all day . They pretty much have all the apps I want with Facebook, Twitter , Groupme and anything else I usually use the browser.
 

GHG

Gold Member
Or you could just, y'know, use the search box. It's not like Steam isn't filled with crap too.

I kind of like being able to play Crossy Road on my PC. Never liked it on my phone because the swipe controls never felt responsive enough.

So you never just browse a store to find new games that you might want to play? I have bought and wish listed a ton of stuff on steam that I would never have found if I didn't browse the store from time to time, particularly during sales.

They should just separate or even hide all the mobile/tablet shit for desktop users by default.
 

wapplew

Member
So you never just browse a store to find new games that you might want to play? I have bought and wish listed a ton of stuff on steam that I would never have found if I didn't browse the store from time to time, particularly during sales.

They should just separate or even hide all the mobile/tablet shit for desktop users by default.

That's defeat the point of one store to rule them all, big ecosystem thing.
 
So you never just browse a store to find new games that you might want to play? I have bought and wish listed a ton of stuff on steam that I would never have found if I didn't browse the store from time to time, particularly during sales.

I get it. I just don't get how that's a reason to not buy Quantum Break--assuming you wanted it in the first place, of course.

People have made plenty of legitamate arguments in this thread for refusing to QB, but this one doesn't make sense to me.
 
As I said, the store design and content isn't the main issue when it comes to Quantum Break. It's how Win10 handels those games. Should that issue ever be dealt with, then the shop itself should be enhanced to make it easier to find those "PC-only games". Within the PS Store for example, all I have to do is to check the "Vita" field to check the respective games. It's not rocket science to change that. But again, first things first MS, fix that app shit.
 
double post. sry

EDIT

Ah, could as well use it to make another point:

The following gif perfectly shows my reaction when I heard QB comes to PC and I realized it's only on Windows store:

IgMyx.gif
Am I the only one who felt this way?
 

Head.spawn

Junior Member
So you never just browse a store to find new games that you might want to play? I have bought and wish listed a ton of stuff on steam that I would never have found if I didn't browse the store from time to time, particularly during sales.

They should just separate or even hide all the mobile/tablet shit for desktop users by default.

No, they really shouldn't. Just because you and queasy stomach guy above take offense to these games, doesn't mean everyone else does.

Did anyone really say it was outright impossible?

The point was, at least for me, that it required a completely unnecessary workaround for every injection we're currently used to.

I mean, every missing feature is very possible ... it just requires a lot of unnecessary work.

We have like 50 pages or so of people saying what you "can't" do over and over, so I can only assume it is a surprise of a lot of people actually.

Granted, it's clearly going to take more time to implement and that is definitely worth being upset about; not end of the world mode though.
 

GHG

Gold Member
I get it. I just don't get how that's a reason to not buy Quantum Break--assuming you wanted it in the first place, of course.

People have made plenty of legitamate arguments in this thread for refusing to QB, but this one doesn't make sense to me.

It's not the reason I wouldn't buy it specifically but it's closely linked to the reasons I wouldn't buy it.

The whole "mobile first" thing is all fine and dandy for people who want to use mobile/tablet apps on their PC (that's where UWA can be a good thing) but it does jack shit for programs designed for the PC from the ground up which have no intention of ever running on mobile. Furthermore, like we have seen with the rise of the tomb raider, it creates restrictions and limitations that really don't need to exist.

No, they really shouldn't. Just because you and queasy stomach guy above take offense to these games, doesn't mean everyone else does.

You clearly don't get it do you? It's not about taking offence to anything, it's about functionality.

When I'm on my iPad, would I want the App Store to be showing me apps and games that are designed for iPhones rather than iPads? No.
When I'm on my PS4 would I want the store showing me games and applications that are designed for the vita? No.

Why should this be any different? As a PC user would you rather use software that has been designed for your PC or for mobile?

The store should be intelligent to detect what device you are browsing from and adapt accordingly. Instead they have taken this one size fits all approach and extrapolated that all the way through to how the programs (or "apps") themselves actually run and behave.
 

Synth

Member
You clearly don't get it do you? It's not about taking offence to anything, it's about functionality.

When I'm on my iPad, would I want the App Store to be showing me apps and games that are designed for iPhones rather than iPads? No.
When I'm on my PS4 would I want the store showing me games and applications that are designed for the vita? No.

Why should this be any different? As a PC user would you rather use software that has been designed for your PC or for mobile?

The store should be intelligent to detect what device you are browsing from and adapt accordingly. Instead they have taken this one size fits all approach and extrapolated that all the way through to how the programs (or "apps") themselves actually run and behave.

Assuming Vita games were fully playable on a PS4... then yea, I would want to see them. I would definitely want it to be easy to view PS4 specific games, but in terms of the Windows Store atm, curation can come after there's actually enough of that type of game to actually create a "section" that won't be populated only by a single game.

What you're basically suggesting is that you load the store up right now, and be shown only a single game unless you manually toggle that it shouldn't hide all the other applications... many of which are actually very well suited to desktops as well despite being mobile/tablet compatible. It's a pretty daft thing to ask for tbh.
 

Durante

Member
I'm an idiot for believing these others that say it is impossible..here is a stackoverflow talking about doing it to winrt apps which these are the successor to...injection is plenty possible...
Of course it's possible by FUCKING MOVING DLLs INTO SYSTEM32!

That's one of the first things I thought about should the abhorrent future of a game I want being exclusively distributed as a UWA ever come to pass.


However, this makes any modifications
  • far more difficult to implement
  • far more difficult to apply
  • and here's the true killer, far more dangerous to the stability of any users entire computer

So it's highly impractical at best, both from the developer and from the user side, and especially from the side of "security" which is apparently the whole point of UWA (at least that's what people tell me. I think the point is getting 30% of every piece of PC software sold).

You know what this possibility does mean though? The argument that UWA eliminates cheating is null and void.
 

GHG

Gold Member
Assuming Vita games were fully playable on a PS4... then yea, I would want to see them. I would definitely want it to be easy to view PS4 specific games, but in terms of the Windows Store atm, curation can come after there's actually enough of that type of game to actually create a "section" that won't be populated only by a single game.

What you're basically suggesting is that you load the store up right now, and be shown only a single game unless you manually toggle that it shouldn't hide all the other applications... many of which are actually very well suited to desktops as well despite being mobile/tablet compatible. It's a pretty daft thing to ask for tbh.

Yes that is exactly what I'm suggesting. If I'm browsing from my PC then all I want to see is games/applications that are developed with the PC in mind. If that means that I only see one game at the moment then so be it, I can have a quick glance, see if there's anything I might like or not and move on.

Even if its not on by default because people like you might one day have a burning desire to play Candy Crush on your desktop PC there should at the very least be a toggle that can be enabled to make it more customisable and user friendly.
 

darkinstinct

...lacks reading comprehension.
double post. sry

EDIT

Ah, could as well use it to make another point:

The following gif perfectly shows my reaction when I heard QB comes to PC and I realized it's only on Windows store:

IgMyx.gif
Am I the only one who felt this way?

Probably not. I've heard that same reaction when Half-Life 2 required an additional client called Steam, when EA decided to only release their games on Origin, when UPlay came out. How long did it last? Until there was a game those people wanted because if a game is great you don't care about the store it's on, you just want to play it.
 

scitek

Member
Probably not. I've heard that same reaction when Half-Life 2 required an additional client called Steam, when EA decided to only release their games on Origin, when UPlay came out. How long did it last? Until there was a game those people wanted because if a game is great you don't care about the store it's on, you just want to play it.
People will care when they can't use MSI Afterburner to smooth out frame judder, or take advantage of more than one graphics card in an expensive SLI setup. There is no excuse for such idiocy.
 

Synth

Member
Yes that is exactly what I'm suggesting. If I'm browsing from my PC then all I want to see is games/applications that are developed with the PC in mind. If that means that I only see one game at the moment then so be it, I can have a quick glance, see if there's anything I might like or not and move on.

Even if its not on by default because people like you might one day have a burning desire to play Candy Crush on your desktop PC there should at the very least be a toggle that can be enabled to make it more customisable and user friendly.

Alright, let's take a quick step back here then. Let's pretend that I'm about to implement this toggle for you right now. What criteria am I using to decide what to cull from your view of the store, based on the device you're using?

The main problem with your previous examples for iPhone/iPad and Vita/PS4 is that the store isn't showing you the equivalent of an iPhone app on your iPad... it's showing you what would essentially be the iPad port of the iPhone app. In the Vita's case, this is basically Gravity Rush showing up on your PS4, but when you load it you're playing Gravity Rush remastered. Your argument would mean that this shouldn't actually show up for PS4, as the game was designed for the Vita.. regardless of the fact that it now renders differently on the new device, and has a control system that ensures the game is fully playable throughout. Candy Crush may be utterly worthless to you (it also is to me btw), but how is being able to play it on the PC really any different to me being able to play Threes on an XB1 (the only way I've ever actually played it)? The whole point about UWA is that the apps are desktop apps as well. If they're not desktop compatible (including input support) then they don't show up for Windows 10 at all (and vice versa for Windows Phone). There's not really anything to separate Rise of the Tomb Raider from Asphalt 8 Airborne beyond budget and payment model (Asphalt being F2P). Put Asphalt 8 on an XB1 and it should (and would) get listed in the store alongside Halo 5, much like the port of Riptide GP was.

From a curation standpoint, they can (and do) feature certain games more prominently than others, and create categories/collections that group certain types of experiences. But there's really nothing device specific that makes any real sense to start throwing a developer's game out of the store listing based upon... it's basically just an extension of the "indie games aren't real games" argument. Loading up Steam right now, the first game it presented me with on its store was Brushwood Buddies. Now in this case this actually doesn't appear to be a mobile game despite how it looks... however, if this were a UWA, the mobile version of this game would likely exist automatically... should it not show in the Windows Store when you access it from a desktop? See how arbitrary this shit is?

The solution isn't to try and filter games and apps based on device, because that just ends up getting stupid really fast (hide Netflix? Halo Channel? OneNote? etc).. it's simply to ensure that when the sort of substantial software that you're vaguely referring to get released to the store, they are easily noticed, and when there's enough of their sort, that they're easily located. This is definitely something they can (and really need to) improve on as more and more of these games hit the store, but that's more of a future issue than a "now" problem where there's very little of it to actually highlight. I would actually suggest that they use the Xbox App for this purpose. Currently the store portion of the app will show you both XB1 games, and Windows 10 games on separate tabs. The Xbox One titles are arranged in the same fashion they are on the console's store, but the Windows 10 section shows a small subset of the store's lineup, with a link to the full store to see all games. This would be a good place to fill out with games more specifically tailored towards core gamers... the sort of stuff they list here. A game being more tailored for mobile wouldn't necessarily exclude it from this section, but the games being displayed would be more directly curated by hand, rather than simply by the usual metrics of what's selling most, or what's newest on the store. That way, someone like you can access the games from here in favor of the main store, and you'd be spared seeing a listing for Bloons Monkey Road. You'd still probably see Candy Crush though... simply because like Angry Birds releasing on consoles, it would likely have enough pull to get featured on any games platform.

EDIT: Actually the Brushwood Buddies thing wasn't entirely true. That wasn't on the large featured window. It was just below it on the "New on Steam: Featured New Releases" section. Still though, the point holds.
 

Costia

Member
Of course it's possible by FUCKING MOVING DLLs INTO SYSTEM32!

That's one of the first things I thought about should the abhorrent future of a game I want being exclusively distributed as a UWA ever come to pass.


However, this makes any modifications
  • far more difficult to implement
  • far more difficult to apply
  • and here's the true killer, far more dangerous to the stability of any users entire computer

So it's highly impractical at best, both from the developer and from the user side, and especially from the side of "security" which is apparently the whole point of UWA (at least that's what people tell me. I think the point is getting 30% of every piece of PC software sold).

You know what this possibility does mean though? The argument that UWA eliminates cheating is null and void.
I didn't move any dlls to system32

Edit: And it still means that for the average user (not gamer) installing malware/keyloggers will be more difficult. (turning on developer mode, accepting the malware creator's certificate as trusted etc..) And i am saying more difficult but not impossible since Win32 still exists, and i want it to stay that way.

Edit 2: could you try the same injector I used (github link in previous post) and say if you come to the same conclusion? Like i mentioned, this is quite far from my field of work, so some verification would be nice.
https://github.com/stephenfewer/ReflectiveDLLInjection
 

JaseC

gave away the keys to the kingdom.
GFWL is dead!

Long live GFW10!

Unlike GFWL, I doubt Microsoft's intention is to court third parties for WinStore versions of their games. Trust is going to be hard to come by after what happened (and is happening) with GFWL and Steamworks began picking up traction among third parties more than half a decade ago now, plus -- and this goes without saying -- the likes of EA and Ubisoft are not at all going to be open to the idea of making versions of their games that aren't integrated with their respective clients.
 

Kezen

Banned
Unlike GFWL, I doubt Microsoft's intention is to court third parties for WinStore versions of their games. Trust is going to be hard to come by after what happened (and is happening) with GFWL and Steamworks began picking up traction among third parties more than half a decade ago now, plus -- and this goes without saying -- the likes of EA and Ubisoft are not at all going to be open to the idea of making versions of their games that aren't integrated with their respective clients.

That's a very good observation. It means Microsoft will have to release more AAA stuff to the store as they are unable to count on third parties to do the job for them.

The store sucks ass right now, definitely in need of quality games.
 
That's a very good observation. It means Microsoft will have to release more AAA stuff to the store as they are unable to count on third parties to do the job for them.

The store sucks ass right now, definitely in need of quality games.

Or they could, Y'know forgo all this "Only on Windows 10" bullshit and just release on the other marketplaces as well as their own and not run the high chance of losing (a LOT of) potential sales, but also keeping everyone happy in the process!
 

MaLDo

Member
Or they could, Y'know forgo all this "Only on Windows 10" bullshit and just release on the other marketplaces as well as their own and not run the high chance of only losing (a LOT of) potential sales, but also keeping everyone happy in the process!

So let's wait 3 months for QB in Steam.
 

EGM1966

Member
double post. sry

EDIT

Ah, could as well use it to make another point:

The following gif perfectly shows my reaction when I heard QB comes to PC and I realized it's only on Windows store:

IgMyx.gif
Am I the only one who felt this way?
Nope was my reaction too. Partly as haven't upgraded to Windows 10 yet (waiting for all the eager beta testers to iron out the issues shamelessly I'm afraid) thus annoyed at the complication (as well as not being keen on full games as a UWA).

I will move to 10 and I will try the store but this means QB and anything similar is a bit further down the road for me now vs what I'd prefer which is a straight retail purchase or Steam and support for W7 for the game.
 

abracadaver

Member
So let's wait 3 months for QB in Steam.

I know I will wait even longer before buying anything on the windows store


They will have no other choice than putting their games on Steam if they sell like shit on the windows store. Or they will stop releasing PC games again.
 
I'm curious how the online component is going to work though?
If you can have cross platform play on PC for no cost, then surely that will leave an awfully sour taste in the mouths of the Xbone players paying their $50 or whatever yearly subscription fee.
They can't be stupid enough to try and charge a fee for PC players.......can they?
Also that means that the client will not be P2P, right, but instead Microsoft's Xbox live client!

Serious question, are their ANY benefits for the gamer of this coming to Microsoft's store over Steam? Any?
 

Synth

Member
I'm curious how the online component is going to work though?
If you can have cross platform play on PC for no cost, then surely that will leave an awfully sour taste in the mouths of the Xbone players paying their $50 or whatever yearly subscription fee.
They can't be stupid enough to try and charge a fee for PC players.......can they?
Also that means that the client will not be P2P, right, but instead Microsoft's Xbox live client!

Serious question, are their ANY benefits of this coming to Microsoft's store over Steam? Any?

The crossplay will allow PC players to play online with Xbox One players without a Gold subscription. Consoles players will probably not give too much of a shit, because they previously never have (else they'd be on PC previously anyway). Joining a game works exactly as it does on console, and the Xbox App facilitates what would otherwise be Xbox OS functionality (such as setting up party chat, etc).

There's not really any advantages for the average PC player for this coming to Windows Store over Steam... but that comparison relies on the theoretical assumption that the game would be coming over at all, if there wasn't a Windows Store to push it to exclusively.
 

Ushay

Member
That's a very good observation. It means Microsoft will have to release more AAA stuff to the store as they are unable to count on third parties to do the job for them.

The store sucks ass right now, definitely in need of quality games.

And re-design the games section of the store too, it's in dire need of one.
 

LordRaptor

Member
So it's highly impractical at best, both from the developer and from the user side, and especially from the side of "security" which is apparently the whole point of UWA (at least that's what people tell me. I think the point is getting 30% of every piece of PC software sold).

I can understand how some people can find a locked down walled garden completely owned by and curated by MS in the name of security a desirable thing.
I don't understand why those same people believe they should impose that on an existing open platform though.

If you want that sort of experience, where your CPU is the one chosen for you by MS, your GPU is the one chosen for you by MS, your input mechanisms are chosen for you by MS, your form factor is chosen for you by MS, what website features you can access are determined for you by MS marketing deals and MS made Apps, what games are allowed to be released are chosen for you by MS, how much extra a year you have to spend to access the multiplayer content of those games is decided by MS, what words in your username or profile are acceptable are determined by MS, and everything else that being in a walled garden entails you already have that experience.

I don't care how much of your own freedom you willingly gave away, why on earth are you cheerleading attempts to take those freedoms from others?

Trust is going to be hard to come by after what happened (and is happening) with GFWL

Or indeed just looking on the console side of things;
Digital purchases vanished on the transition from Xbox to 360? "Oh, thats just because there wasnt a proper account system, that will never happen again"
Digital purchases vanished on the transition from 360 to X1? "Oh, thats just because 360 wasnt x86, that will never happen again"
 
Consoles players will probably not give too much of a shit, because they previously never have

They need to take a stand. Because that's some bullshit right there!

the Xbox App facilitates what would otherwise be Xbox OS functionality (such as setting up party chat, etc).

post-26182-kristin-wiig-disgusted-animate-hTu2.gif

Yeah thought as much. Nothankyou.gif

There's not really any advantages for the average PC player for this coming to Windows Store over Steam... but that comparison relies on the theoretical assumption that the game would be coming over at all, if there wasn't a Windows Store to push it to exclusively.
So "no" then.
 

Fishook

Member
Along with it high spec requirements, I am predicting it will bomb. I may pick it up later this year when I get a new build.

As being on the Win store only it will have a high RRP price, and I what's their refund policy like? Also I doubt it will be sold on third party websites, and the free code on pre-orders will be tied to peoples account I reckon.

Its needs to be a outstanding port with decent length for it to be successful.
 

pastrami

Member
Or they could, Y'know forgo all this "Only on Windows 10" bullshit and just release on the other marketplaces as well as their own and not run the high chance of losing (a LOT of) potential sales, but also keeping everyone happy in the process!

I'm pretty sure Microsoft doesn't give a shit about making you happy as a PC gamer unless you are using the Windows 10 store. In the grand scheme of things, getting people to use their store is more important than Quantum Break selling to it's maximum potential on PC.
 
I'm pretty sure Microsoft doesn't give a shit about making you happy as a PC gamer unless you are using the Windows 10 store. In the grand scheme of things, getting people to use their store is more important than Quantum Break selling to it's maximum potential on PC.

Yeah about that...It's not going to work!
People who have enough money to have rigs beefy enough to run this have more than enough common sense to avoid the Microsoft store like the plague!
 
Along with it high spec requirements, I am predicting it will bomb. I may pick it up later this year when I get a new build.

As being on the Win store only it will have a high RRP price, and I what's their refund policy like? Also I doubt it will be sold on third party websites, and the free code on pre-orders will be tied to peoples account I reckon.

Its needs to be a outstanding port with decent length for it to be successful.

Even if it sells 1 copy its one extra copy that might not have been sold 6 months ago.
 

Synth

Member
I can understand how some people can find a locked down walled garden completely owned by and curated by MS in the name of security a desirable thing.
I don't understand why those same people believe they should impose that on an existing open platform though.

If you want that sort of experience, where your CPU is the one chosen for you by MS, your GPU is the one chosen for you by MS, your input mechanisms are chosen for you by MS, your form factor is chosen for you by MS, what website features you can access are determined for you by MS marketing deals and MS made Apps, what games are allowed to be released are chosen for you by MS, how much extra a year you have to spend to access the multiplayer content of those games is decided by MS, what words in your username or profile are acceptable are determined by MS, and everything else that being in a walled garden entails you already have that experience.

I don't care how much of your own freedom you willingly gave away, why on earth are you cheerleading attempts to take those freedoms from others?

Except, nobody is saying that you should be forced into a closed system... at least I don't think anybody is. Have there been any posts from people saying that Steam, and others, should disappear?

All I'm saying here, is that I think that there's nothing wrong with offering the additional option of a closed sub-ecosystem within the overarching open one. It's hardly a new concept tbh... there are many clients that offer closed access to software/media/etc (for example, anything that streams). The ability to provide one for those that want it is kind of an important aspect of having an open platform. If anything it's your side that's arguing that what we shouldn't be offered the games via this platform... even if the alternative is simply it never hitting PC at all, and being Xbox One exclusive forever.

In a perfect world, everyone would be able to play every game ever, on whatever device they wanted, whether it be an XB1, PS4, PC, tablet, whatever.. it'd all be crossplay with each other, there would be no online subscriptions.. and fuck it, we may as well make the games and hardware free whilst we're at it (may as well dream big). That's not the reality though, and the nature of having an "open platform" means that publishers like MS or EA get to choose where they put their shit, and that includes creating a store (or even a whole new distribution model) of their own if they so choose to. Fortunately you're also not forced to actually buy what they're offering. Meanwhile some of us are fine to see some of the usual restrictions that we'd have on the console lifted (I do get to choose my CPU/GPU/RAM, and can play online without Gold, etc), whilst also not having to make some of the other sacrifices that would often cause us to choose a console version of a PC version (the ever common "this is where all my friends are" for example). You on the other hand can simply just pretend none of this ever happened, and that Quantum Break, Killer Instinct and Gears were never announced for anything other than the console. When MS starts forcing games made by Valve to release on the WIndows Store, I'll be right there complaining with you.

Steam is completely owned and curated by Valve. They get to choose what games can be sold in their store. Everything is under their terms. You either agree to them, or you go elsewhere... which is why EA did. None of these storefronts is some free-for-all utopia where anything goes. You simply like the terms better.

Digital purchases vanished on the transition from 360 to X1? "Oh, thats just because 360 wasnt x86, that will never happen again"

Ummm... this didn't happen? Anything you purchased digitally (or hell, physically) that can run on an XB1 at the moment, is completely valid. Your purchases were kept intact, the console's ability to play the games themselves is the work in progress.
 

VICI0US

Member
Probably not. I've heard that same reaction when Half-Life 2 required an additional client called Steam, when EA decided to only release their games on Origin, when UPlay came out. How long did it last? Until there was a game those people wanted because if a game is great you don't care about the store it's on, you just want to play it.

people aren't upset that the game is in another store

people are upset that their expensive multi-GPU configurations aren't supported
people are upset that hardware/framerate monitors don't work
people are upset that game files are nearly impossible to modify/inject

it's more than "just another store"
 

leeh

Member
people aren't upset that the game is in another store

people are upset that their expensive multi-GPU configurations aren't supported
people are upset that hardware/framerate monitors don't work
people are upset that game files are nearly impossible to modify/inject

it's more than "just another store"
Why they didn't just have the store just install a normal win32 application for things like this is just beyond me. They must of spent quite a bit of engeering effort to get games like this in a UWP wrapper. Whoever decided this way the way to go, is an idiot.
 
Top Bottom