Support NeoGAF

[LordRaptor]

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 think its highly questionable that QB - a very high specced, new IP in a controversial "interactive cinema" genre is going to end up being a 'killer app' that drives adoption.

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?

There are multiple people in this topic talking about how great UWA is and how much they hope it succeeds.
The arguments against UWA are that it is fundamentally opposed to the established nature of what a PC is.

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.

The current biggest bugbear against Steam is its lack of curation.
You're also missing a fairly fundamental point people are making against UWA; its not "MS versus Valve" on who 'deserves' to have a more popular storefront (and on features and established trust, the answer is still 'Valve').
It's "MS closed garden" versus everyone who makes software. Nobody that isn't MS benefits from the Windows Store being the only place to obtain software, which is their clear end goal.

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.

"You still have everything, you just can't run a lot of them on any current hardware" is dangerously close to the definition of semantics.

 

[c0Zm1c]

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?

It wouldn't be the first time.

 

[pastrami]

I think its highly questionable that QB - a very high specced, new IP in a controversial "interactive cinema" genre is going to end up being a 'killer app' that drives adoption.

Ok. Im not sure why this means Microsoft should release the game on Steam.

 

[LordRaptor]

Ok. Im not sure why this means Microsoft should release the game on Steam.

The usual phrase is "sent to die".
Remedy are pretty cool, they don't really deserve a high profile flop for political reasons outside of their control

 

[GhostTrick]

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?

Yes, losing your games when Microsoft decides they don't care anymore.

 

[8-Bit Sunset]

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.

Agreed 100%

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

Is it bad to admit that I am? :/
Already been burned by GFWL before, not going back no matter what happens.

The arguments against UWA are that it is fundamentally opposed to the established nature of what a PC is.

Exactly!

Yes, losing your games when Microsoft decides they don't care anymore.

Ghosttrick gets it!

It wouldn't be the first time.

Christ, just for the LOL's can you imagine it!

 

[Auto-Reply]

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.

Games are still an afterthought for Microsoft

http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2015/04/microsoft-brings-android-ios-apps-to-windows-10/

They are after the iOS and Android developers and they think this is what will bring them over. They could have done it in several ways but they obviously don't care enough to even consider it!

 

[8-Bit Sunset]

On a lighter note



Impeccable timing!

 

[OtisInf]

Games are still an afterthought for Microsoft

http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2015/04/microsoft-brings-android-ios-apps-to-windows-10/

They are after the iOS and Android developers and they think this is what will bring them over. They could have done it in several ways but they obviously don't care enough to even consider it!

That system is dead in the water, no-one's using it, what's more: no hype comes from MS about this either. They've done this so many times in the past, and it's logical for them to do: you have these platforms and you need the developers to stay on these platforms or come over from other platforms, so they come up with all kinds of tools / systems to make that happen. Not many succeeded.

But MS made a couple of terrible mistakes and alienated a tremendous amount of developers on their platforms in the past 10 years. I've been doing professional software dev on Microsoft platforms now since '98 and things haven't looked this grim as today. Not in the near future, but long term things look bad: the best they can do is keep the majority of devs still on their platforms to stay (read: use Azure / other MS cloud services). But that will be an uphill battle. Like someone wrote years ago: MS won't die or go away, IBM is also still alive, but they'll stop being relevant. And that process is in full swing at the moment.

 

[Synth]

There are multiple people in this topic talking about how great UWA is and how much they hope it succeeds.
The arguments against UWA are that it is fundamentally opposed to the established nature of what a PC is.

The current biggest bugbear against Steam is its lack of curation.
You're also missing a fairly fundamental point people are making against UWA; its not "MS versus Valve" on who 'deserves' to have a more popular storefront (and on features and established trust, the answer is still 'Valve').
It's "MS closed garden" versus everyone who makes software. Nobody that isn't MS benefits from the Windows Store being the only place to obtain software, which is their clear end goal.

Liking what UWA provide is not the same thing as wanting to turn Windows 10 into Windows RT. I like Windows Apps, and use quite a lot of them on my desktop PC (along with my Surface).. that doesn't mean that I don't also use a shitton of Win32 apps, and own approximately 200 games on Steam. UWAs "succeeding" from my perspective (everyone will have their own idea of what something succeeding means) doesn't result in a closed Windows operating system. It would just mean that the store is popular enough to attract more software, which may for example be similar to RoTR where both a UWA version and a Steam version exist for those that prefer either ecosystem. It doesn't help things to invent arguments to attack us with. If you can show me people actually saying that they want to take your freedoms away, or anything that directly implies it (such as everything being distributed only through the WIndows Store) then fair enough... otherwise its just a strawman.

By curation, I meant that Valve approve what you release on the store, and without their approval, you simply can't sell their. I didn't mean Valve carefully selects what to show you... in that regards the Windows Store is significantly less curated than Steam right now (see the previous convo I was having with GHG).

You keep talking about the Windows Store being the only place to obtain software, like it's some kind of fact, or inevitability. It's not. They would probably love for that to be the case... as would any company. That doesn't make it a realistic fear. Support for legacy software is the strongest weapon Windows has... without it, users are free to jump to whatever other ecosystem they wish (and both of the others are waaay ahead here). MS obviously want a piece of the software distribution pie, but that's only natural... it doesn't mean that Windows is going to stop being Windows and become iOS with a mouse and keyboard.

"You still have everything, you just can't run them on any current hardware" is dangerously close to the definition of semantics.

No... saying that you lost your purchases simply because a software emulation solution hasn't magically moved over every game, despite the required testing, licensing details, emulator tweaks etc being taken care of is simply false. If they wanted to void your purchases, they would have (Sony was happy to do that with the PS2 Classics). 360 BC compatibility was long accepted as realistically impossible on XB1... they could have easily started offering remastered rereleases instead... but instead they don't even require that you made your purchase digitally in order to play your 360 games on XB1. It's not a case of "semantics"... it's a case of you being factually wrong.

The usual phrase is "sent to die".
Remedy are pretty cool, they don't really deserve a high profile flop for political reasons outside of their control

It's less "sent to die" than it was prior to being announced for Windows 10. They didn't cancel the Xbox One version... which was the only version initially intended to exist. Any Windows 10 sales are a bonus. This is like saying Halo 5 was super sent to die.

 

[Auto-Reply]

That system is dead in the water, no-one's using it, what's more: no hype comes from MS about this either. They've done this so many times in the past, and it's logical for them to do: you have these platforms and you need the developers to stay on these platforms or come over from other platforms, so they come up with all kinds of tools / systems to make that happen. Not many succeeded.

But MS made a couple of terrible mistakes and alienated a tremendous amount of developers on their platforms in the past 10 years. I've been doing professional software dev on Microsoft platforms now since '98 and things haven't looked this grim as today. Not in the near future, but long term things look bad: the best they can do is keep the majority of devs still on their platforms to stay (read: use Azure / other MS cloud services). But that will be an uphill battle. Like someone wrote years ago: MS won't die or go away, IBM is also still alive, but they'll stop being relevant. And that process is in full swing at the moment.

But aren't they treating it like it's their way into the future? Or are they just letting it fade out until their next plan of action is mature enough to replace this idea? Which kind of sounds crazy considering Windows10/Store barely released for the majority of people.

 

[8-Bit Sunset]

It's less "sent to die" than it was prior to being announced for Windows 10. They didn't cancel the Xbox One version... which was the only version initially intended to exist. Any Windows 10 sales are a bonus. This is like saying Halo 5 was super sent to die.

?
How do you explain all the development costs for the Win10 version?
There is no way in hell they are going to be able to recuperate all that money spent through a Win10 app, no matter how they shine it up.
Shooting themselves in the foot would seem more apt in this mess of a situation!

 

[PG2G]

As someone that was never really into PC gaming, I'm kind of surprised that people rely on modifying executables for what should be standard features. Seems like a broken model.

Why isn't SLI implemented at the driver level? If it can't be, why don't games natively support the hardware that is out there? Or is the concern lack of support for future hardware that doesn't exist at the moment?

 

[tuna_love]

?
How do you explain all the development costs for the Win10 version?
There is no way in hell they are going to be able to recuperate all that money spent through a Win10 app, no matter how they shine it up.
Shooting themselves in the foot would seem more apt in this mess of a situation!

how much did the win10 port cost?

 

[pastrami]

?
How do you explain all the development costs for the Win10 version?
There is no way in hell they are going to be able to recuperate all that money spent through a Win10 app, no matter how they shine it up.
Shooting themselves in the foot would seem more apt in this situation!

That's fine. But Microsoft has to start somewhere. This isn't about Quantum Break being a success on PC. This is about Quantum Break helping the Windows Store be as successful as it can be.

Microsoft's bottom line won't be hurt by Quantum Break flopping on PC, and the potential reward is well worth the risk for them.

Edit: This is the company that lost billions on Bing before finally turning a profit last quarter. Why did they spend year after year losing billions? Because they were thinking long term about a very important market for them. Same here with Windows Store. If successful, it potentially represents 30% of ALL PC software sold. That's a huge payoff, and I don't think Microsoft minds sacrificing a few PC ports to help them get there.

 

[Synth]

?
How do you explain all the development costs for the Win10 version?
There is no way in hell they are going to be able to recuperate all that money spent through a Win10 app, no matter how they shine it up.
Shooting themselves in the foot would seem more apt in this mess of a situation!

And how do you know what the development costs of a Windows 10 version of an Xbox One game is? From everything MS says, the two platforms are damn near interchangeable (hell, that's basically what's causing most of the discussion in here).

Besides, Quantum Break is MS' IP, not Remedy's. You don't need to worry about them in the case.

 

[gamz]

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"

Then don't play it on a PC. You have two choices PC or Xbox One and that certainly is more choices that their competitors offer. Don't understand why this is so difficult? And yout don't have to double dip.

 

[pastrami]

Then don't play it on a PC. You have two choices PC or Xbox One and that certainly is more choices that their competitors offer. Don't understand why this is so difficult? And yout don't have to double dip.

No, I think people have a right to complain about the product. We all have the option to not buy Batman: Arkham Knight on PC, but that doesn't mean people aren't allowed to voice their displeasure about a crappy port.

So I think the concerns about UWAs are perfectly valid and worth discussing.

 

[gamz]

No, I think people have a right to complain about the product. We all have the option to not buy Batman: Arkham Knight on PC, but that doesn't mean people aren't allowed to voice their displeasure about a crappy port.

So I think the concerns about UWAs are perfectly valid and worth discussing.

The product isn't even released yet. Again you have two choices and whatever you prefer is your choice. Arent choices good? I don't hear people complaining that PS4 exclusives are only available on a PS4. Yes, UWAS in their current form or worth discussing. How it evolves will be a great watch.

 

[pastrami]

The product isn't even released yet. Again you have two choices and whatever you prefer is your choice. Isn't choices good. I don't hear people complaining that PS4 exclusives are only available on a PS4.

But people are allowed to complain about the PS4 game. See the difference?

I agree that it's pointless to complain that Uncharted 4 is only on PS4, just as it's pointless to complain that QB is W10 Store only. But it's not pointless to complain if Uncharted 4 was online only, or that QB restricts what PC users are accustomed to doing.

 

[LordRaptor]

UWAs "succeeding" from my perspective (everyone will have their own idea of what something succeeding means) doesn't result in a closed Windows operating system.

Except it does.
Nobody wants to create and support two different versions of the same program on the same platform, and UWA being 'successful' inherently means that UWA is the default build for developers to target.

Microsoft describe win32 and win64 programs as 'legacy apps' - what is 'legacy' about software written using the latest APIs, the latest toolchains, and the latest IDEs on an active platform?

The very term "legacy" suggests its something not wanted to be supported anymore thats only being kept around out of goodwill and is one patchnote of "deprecated legacy support" away from not working at all.

 

[gamz]

But people are allowed to complain about the PS4 game. See the difference?

I agree that it's pointless to complain that Uncharted 4 is only on PS4. But it's not pointless to complain if Uncharted 4 was online only.

I get that but the game isn't even out yet and if it sucks on PC at least you have options. I get the complaints about UWAS in its current form. But saying I hate it and I want it on Steam is also pointless.

 

[pastrami]

I get that but the game isn't even out yet and if it sucks on PC at least you have options. I get the complaints about UWAS in its current form. But saying I hate it and I want it on Steam is also pointless.

Don't conflate the two arguments. You can't brush away people's complaints about UWAs by saying you have a choice of buying it on PC or Xbox. It doesn't deal with the argument being made.

 

[EGM1966]

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.

Quite correct. That's why it's a shame for the game though. QB and any similar titles are obviously enthusiast titles. MS is essentially sending them out to underperform in the name of more strategic plays.

What I don't get is why MS don't use titles that would actually work instead? It's no wonder they missed mobile/smart device revolution and ultimately struggled with home consoles: they keep using available and often incorrect tools for the job instead of the right ones.

The Windoes Store is not going to succeed on back of title like QB or the current PC gaming market: that market is actually mostly against them already and QB is just another proof point for that demographic to distrust MS. They need to invest in new games that are much more in line with General PC usage and mobile gaming preferences instead. That's where they'll ultimately win (or not) on PC. They're never going to shift current PC gaming majority just as EA and Ubi failed to and they've already allowed Steam to become number one store AND launcher AND tool for managing your games ecosystem on PC.

QB is a fart in the wind against that. Minecraft and similar IP they should buy or generate is the answer not gaming enthusiast big titles.

But personally in this entire space MS seems to always only want to be half right and half wrong,

Promote and differentiate their store with exclusive games: right idea. Use wholly inappropriate titles: wrong idea. Result: half right & half wrong.

They should put QB and Forza and Gears on Steam to start wining over current enthusiast crowd and put Minecraft and other titles in Windows Store and play both angles to converge over time.

 

[gamz]

Don't conflate the two arguments. You can't brush away people's complaints about UWAs by saying you have a choice of buying it on PC or Xbox. It doesn't deal with the argument being made.

100%. Complain about the current state of UWAS is your right. But as of right now it's not your only choice. This is completely new and MS will either improve UWAs if people hate it or allow to install the game without it being a UWAs. We'll see...

 

[JaggedSac]

Don't conflate the two arguments. You can't brush away people's complaints about UWAs by saying you have a choice of buying it on PC or Xbox. It doesn't deal with the argument being made.

The choice of buying or not buying is really the only thing that matters. They sure don't care about the whinging going on in this thread, I can guarantee you that.

 

[LukasTaves]

The current biggest bugbear against Steam is its lack of curation.
You're also missing a fairly fundamental point people are making against UWA; its not "MS versus Valve" on who 'deserves' to have a more popular storefront (and on features and established trust, the answer is still 'Valve').
It's "MS closed garden" versus everyone who makes software. Nobody that isn't MS benefits from the Windows Store being the only place to obtain software, which is their clear end goal.

I doubt it's their goal. Obviously they would love that, but they know on Pc they will never achieve that, ever.

They very much would love to have a significant share of software sales going from their store, but they are doing it by being competitive (even if some see a specific aspect as a negative).

For instance, for developers compared to steam they offer a more open store, anyone can enter and submit their games, and the promise of a single platform that spans across many device families.

For consumers they offer a guarantee that the software sold at their store won't mess with their system or rob their files/data, and are providing a class of applications that can run anywhere, adapting to their devices and inputs.

 

[Deleted member 1235]

FAIL. Very bad decision, they are repeating the same mistakes they did with Games for Windows LIVE!

not really, i already have windows store and its pretty unobtrusive.

if it shows you your xbox friends signing in and you cant play them and you cant see that they are on xbox instead of windows though.... thats a stupid and repeated mistake

 

[Durante]

As someone that was never really into PC gaming, I'm kind of surprised that people rely on modifying executables for what should be standard features. Seems like a broken model.

That's a completely wrong way to parse this thread.

At least 95% of all PC games are fine as they are released. (And do note that there are more games released on PC than all other platforms generally considered for gaming on GAF)

However,

• "Fine" is not good enough for some enthusiasts.
• There is still the remaining 5%.

The wonderful, fantastic, great, and worthy of protection thing about PC gaming as it exists right now is that if either (or both) of these points apply, independent third parties can step up and go one step further. And that this is possible with a somewhat manageable amount of effort on both the developer and the user side.

In other words, if Tales of Zestiria is released on a console at 30 FPS, no one looks at this as a defect or something to "fix". On PC, people can and do. That is never a weakness, it is a great strength.

If you can show me people actually saying that they want to take your freedoms away, or anything that directly implies it (such as everything being distributed only through the WIndows Store) then fair enough... otherwise its just a strawman.

A prediction based on historical precedent, current developments and likely company motivations is something entirely different from a strawman argument.

 

[cakely]

The wonderful, fantastic, great, and worthy of protection thing about PC gaming as it exists right now is that if either (or both) of these points apply, independent third parties can step up and go one step further. And that this is possible with a somewhat manageable amount of effort on both the developer and the user side.

Speaking of which, I recently re-installed the Steamworks edition of "Dark Souls: Prepare to Die Edition" and may I say it looks great at 1080p and capped at 60fps.

Thanks, sir.

 

[Pathfinder]

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!

Yeaaaaaah, I'm gonna have to ask you for some data to back up this claim.

 

[charlequin]

Liking what UWA provide is not the same thing as wanting to turn Windows 10 into Windows RT.

That's the thing, though. UWA doesn't really "provide" anything. It's a system implemented by Microsoft for bigger-picture strategic reasons but which is all downside on the level of the individual customer. Supporting it isn't quite the exact same thing as supporting Windows RT, but it is asking for some of the worst elements of the RT strategy to be imported into desktop Windows, which isn't a huge improvement.

 

[JaseC]

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.

The WinStore is specifically designed to distribute software that operates and functions on Microsoft's own terms --- terms that, at least in part, aim to restrict user control. It's the very definition of a walled garden, which is why there is so much concern.

 

[MaLDo]

As someone that was never really into PC gaming, I'm kind of surprised that people rely on modifying executables for what should be standard features. Seems like a broken model.

Why isn't SLI implemented at the driver level? If it can't be, why don't games natively support the hardware that is out there? Or is the concern lack of support for future hardware that doesn't exist at the moment?

It is. But the best way to achieve perfect scaling in multigpu solutions needs exclusive fullscreen mode (where the gpu driver controls exactly what is showed) while UWA applications are forced to run in windowed mode (with or without borders) where DWM (desktop windows manager) controls the buffers of the game.

 

[justsomeguy]

That's the thing, though. UWA doesn't really "provide" anything. It's a system implemented by Microsoft for bigger-picture strategic reasons but which is all downside on the level of the individual customer. Supporting it isn't quite the exact same thing as supporting Windows RT, but it is asking for some of the worst elements of the RT strategy to be imported into desktop Windows, which isn't a huge improvement.

With a dev hat on it's a really nice API to produce modern apps that you'd really struggle to do on win32, which is a big plus for the user in terms of consistency and quality of a modern ui and ability to use loads of devices seamlessly (e.g. Ones with/without location services, with/without camera, etc etc). It's disingenuous to say there's no consumer benefit to what the winrt/win10/uap model enables for developers.

The fact it interops with, and allows a large subset of win32 for more advanced things increases its reach/apllicability too. I don't know if dx12 is native or done through win32 interop tho.

And yes I know apps <> games... Just trying to give context for why it exists.

 

[Synth]

Except it does.
Nobody wants to create and support two different versions of the same program on the same platform, and UWA being 'successful' inherently means that UWA is the default build for developers to target.

Microsoft describe win32 and win64 programs as 'legacy apps' - what is 'legacy' about software written using the latest APIs, the latest toolchains, and the latest IDEs on an active platform?

The very term "legacy" suggests its something not wanted to be supported anymore thats only being kept around out of goodwill and is one patchnote of "deprecated legacy support" away from not working at all.

Again though, you're talking with a sense of certainty that I don't believe is warranted. If there's potential additional users that can be reached then additional versions will likely be created. That's what drives standard multiplatform releases in the first place. They don't simply look at PS4 and think.. well fuck that then, can't be assed releasing an XB1 version. That tends only to happen in the cases of stuff like the Wii U, or games skipping Xbox in Japan, because they simply lack any worthwhile audience. Steam isn't ever likely to suffer from that, regardless of if the Windows Store gains traction.

Also, in regards to creating an additional version of the same program... this also may not even hold very true. One of the key points about UWA is that they work across platforms... so in theory the developer may essentially be creating the Win 10 store version simply by creating the Xbox version anyway... or there's the plan to have Win32 be distributable as UWAs, so you'd be packaging up pretty much the same product that you'd otherwise ship on something like Steam.

Either way though... the point is that I like the apps, the Xbox games coming over etc. However I am not telling you that I want you to lose your freedoms. That's what this all boils down to. You say you can understand how people can like MS' ecosystem... so you should also be able to understand why those same people would also potentially like this ecosystem being expanded to another, more capable device they also own. This isn't the same thing as them/us/I wanting the rest of that platform to vanish, and Xbox be all that's left.

]A prediction based on historical precedent, current developments and likely company motivations is something entirely different from a strawman argument.

If you follow the conversation back a bit, you'll realise that I'm not talking about making a prediction being a strawman. You're free to feel that MS plans to stop you distributing applications in any other form.. and I'll simply disagree. However, LordRaptor is directly accusing people like myself that use and like Windows Store apps, or like the idea of having Xbox game extend to the desktop of actually wanting to take your shit away from you. I think I'm very qualified to say that I don't want you to lose Steam or other Win32 applications. I'm challenging LordRaptor to show where people in here are saying that they want Windows locked up and your freedom gone... so far there hasn't been anything convincing produced.

That's the thing, though. UWA doesn't really "provide" anything. It's a system implemented by Microsoft for bigger-picture strategic reasons but which is all downside on the level of the individual customer. Supporting it isn't quite the exact same thing as supporting Windows RT, but it is asking for some of the worst elements of the RT strategy to be imported into desktop Windows, which isn't a huge improvement.

Well, evidently it's providing something, else I wouldn't be using it to gain access to apps that have no proper desktop equivalent (many simply assuming I'm happy to use a web browser instead). That's not to mention how much better suited many of these apps are for not flatlining the battery of my Surface simply because I didn't terminate it fully. The worst part of the RT strategy was that there were few apps, and the apps were all it could do (I mean... it was running on ARM). That doesn't describe Windows 10 at all, where the apps are additional to all the stuff Windows already does. Having the apps alongside standard Windows functionality has been completely beneficial to me so far. It's nothing like an RT situation... and I would know.. I had one.

 

[LordRaptor]

LordRaptor is directly accusing people like myself that use and like Windows Store apps, or like the idea of having Xbox game extend to the desktop of actually wanting to take your shit away from you.

I'm really not and I don't see how you are reading that from what I said

 

[AndrewDean84xX]

As someone that used to PC using three different applications to house my overall collection, I just don't see the big deal. People sure do like to make a mountain out of a molehill.

 

[Synth]

I'm really not and I don't see how you are reading that from what I said

That's pretty much the shorthand for this post... particularly the first two lines.

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?

 

[LordRaptor]

That's pretty much the shorthand for this post.

Saying I can understand how some people want less freedom in the name of security but not understanding why they would want to impose those restrictions on an existing platform that obviously is not what they want is a far cry from saying "anyone who like UWAs hates freedom and is stealing my stuff".

I have literally no problem with people who are fine with making that trade off.
There is no reason why they should cheerlead attempts to force that trade off onto people who don't want it.

If you find that personally offensive for some reason, my apologies.

 

[Synth]

Saying I can understand how some people want less freedom in the name of security but not understanding why they would want to impose those restrictions on an existing platform that obviously is not what they want is a far cry from saying "anyone who like UWAs hates freedom and is stealing my stuff".

I have literally no problem with people who are fine with making that trade off.
There is no reason why they should cheerlead attempts to force that trade off onto people who don't want it.

If you find that personally offensive for some reason, my apologies.

Well I'm saying that I don't believe it should be "imposed" on you. I think you should be completely free to ignore it like you probably do today, and pretend Quantum Break is still an Xbox exclusive. That's not how imposing works.

 

[ZOONAMI]

Is the pre-order Xbox version get windows version free up yet on the Xbox store?

Yes, you can do the preorder now.

Good stuff Costia.

Far as I can tell Xbox store says absolutely nothing about getting the pc version, just that you get Alan wake BC.

 

[ShadowSoldier89]

I run crossfire, so this is basically an instant nope to me now

 

[scitek]

So much crying.

I will buy this from Windows 10 store in support of MS to bring more titles over.

I really don't think people are opposed to buying things from the Windows store if they're done right. Currently, Rise of the Tomb Raider has no fullscreen mode, can't use SLI (or Gsync?) as a result, doesn't allow access to its files, and gets patched a week after the Steam version does. It's fucking lunacy to be OK with less functionality and a lower quality experience just because Microsoft says so. If they got their shit together, I'd buy Quantum Break without hesitation.

 

[Zedox]

Far as I can tell Xbox store says absolutely nothing about getting the pc version, just that you get Alan wake BC.

Yes, the xbox store doesn't say it...but here:

http://www.quantumbreak.com/windows10/

 

[MageBoySA]

You keep talking about the Windows Store being the only place to obtain software, like it's some kind of fact, or inevitability. It's not. They would probably love for that to be the case... as would any company. That doesn't make it a realistic fear. Support for legacy software is the strongest weapon Windows has... without it, users are free to jump to whatever other ecosystem they wish (and both of the others are waaay ahead here). MS obviously want a piece of the software distribution pie, but that's only natural... it doesn't mean that Windows is going to stop being Windows and become iOS with a mouse and keyboard.

One way I see Microsoft trying to force the Windows store into Enterprise is by the way they developed group policy to work with it. Under Windows Server 2012r2 you have to install the package "Windows Desktop Experience" to your server to get the group policys to do ANYTHING with the Windows store. This means you need to have the Windows store on your Server to restrict store usage on client PCs.

They also completely screwed up using sysprep if you remove default apps (like Candy Crush) from an install before preparing the image. (Sysprep is the tool IT developers use to make an image that can be deployed across their organization.) So, yeah, they don't want you not using the store, even in the enterprise, where people still use IE6.

 

[Wowfunhappy]

Question: Does SLI support actually matter post-DX12? Isn't that supposed to have some sort of built-in multi-GPU capability?

 

[OtisInf]

But aren't they treating it like it's their way into the future?

What is, windows store? No way. They're well aware the days of windows client as a relevant platform are numbered and a store doesn't change that .

Or are they just letting it fade out until their next plan of action is mature enough to replace this idea? Which kind of sounds crazy considering Windows10/Store barely released for the majority of people.

Yes that's what they'll do, as that's also what they're doing with Windows phone which is in the same position: they want to monetize 'windows client' more than just licenses (as those are declining year of year) but they can't get a hold on that. that's not to say they won't try, of course. But they fully know it's over on the client, they just want to stretch it out as much as they can and make as much money till it's over.

Also, in regards to creating an additional version of the same program... this also may not even hold very true. One of the key points about UWA is that they work across platforms... so in theory the developer may essentially be creating the Win 10 store version simply by creating the Xbox version anyway... or there's the plan to have Win32 be distributable as UWAs, so you'd be packaging up pretty much the same product that you'd otherwise ship on something like Steam.

Don't believe the hype, it's totally not so rosy as you make it out to be, on the contrary. Even apps using WPF/Xaml today can't be ported over 1:1 to UWP, work is needed, api's are limited and therefore you need to create 2 versions, and potentially a lot of work is needed to make code that runs already on win32 to run on UWP as you can't use all the api's you're used to. The other way around is as worse as that: you can't re-use your UWP code 'just on windows', you need to add code to make it work, api's aren't a complete subset. In theory the framework is OK, in practice it's just another island and as there are way better platforms to make money on, why bother? So no, what you're implying is erm... bollocks

 

[RedSwirl]

Quite correct. That's why it's a shame for the game though. QB and any similar titles are obviously enthusiast titles. MS is essentially sending them out to underperform in the name of more strategic plays.

What I don't get is why MS don't use titles that would actually work instead? It's no wonder they missed mobile/smart device revolution and ultimately struggled with home consoles: they keep using available and often incorrect tools for the job instead of the right ones.

The Windoes Store is not going to succeed on back of title like QB or the current PC gaming market: that market is actually mostly against them already and QB is just another proof point for that demographic to distrust MS. They need to invest in new games that are much more in line with General PC usage and mobile gaming preferences instead. That's where they'll ultimately win (or not) on PC. They're never going to shift current PC gaming majority just as EA and Ubi failed to and they've already allowed Steam to become number one store AND launcher AND tool for managing your games ecosystem on PC.

QB is a fart in the wind against that. Minecraft and similar IP they should buy or generate is the answer not gaming enthusiast big titles.

But personally in this entire space MS seems to always only want to be half right and half wrong,

Promote and differentiate their store with exclusive games: right idea. Use wholly inappropriate titles: wrong idea. Result: half right & half wrong.

They should put QB and Forza and Gears on Steam to start wining over current enthusiast crowd and put Minecraft and other titles in Windows Store and play both angles to converge over time.

I agree here.

One problem is that right now, third party developers basically have no reason to put AAA games or non-mobile games on the Windows Store. Microsoft would have to get to work making it friendly to PC developers. Because of that, all Microsoft has to rely on right now is its first party games along with maybe some more exclusives it cut deals for. Maybe some ID@ Xbox games could end up on it? Man I really hope Cuphead and Inside aren't locked down the same way the UWA version of Rise of the Tomb Raider is.

In any case, QB is not the game to make or break the Windows Store. Remedy has a good base on PC from Max Payne and Alan Wake sure, but they aren't a really huge deal. Forza will definitely have more appeal to PC users as a racing sim. Other than that, Halo is Microsoft's best bet. EA and Ubisoft also have indeed run into the same problem: they've ended or otherwise denigrated almost all their franchises that had a strong base among PC users. Well, Ubisoft still has a few it could strengthen if it tried: Might & Magic, Anno, The Settlers, Trackmania. If it was really serious it could bring back Silent Hunter and make an alternate set of Tom Clancy games to brings Rainbow Six and Ghost Recon back to their roots. To be fair though Siege and Wildlands are kinda sort of meeting us halfway in that regard. EA though kinda just has Battlefield and The Sims left (and Fifa Manager?) after it fucked up Sim City. Both of these publishers have franchises and developers that have since turned towards more console-oriented games for obvious reasons. EA would need to do things like bring Madden back to PC, maybe even bring back NFL Head Coach, and invest in other PC franchises.

Perhaps the most damming part is that other developers have already filled in the voids left behind when companies like EA, Ubisoft, Microsoft, and others abandoned or altered their PC franchises. The original promise of Dragon Age Origins has probably already been fulfilled by games like Pillars of Eternity, Divinity: Original Sin, and Wasteland 2. We all know how Sim City has been succeeded by Cities: Skylines. We just need Underworld Ascendant to go off without a hitch and PC gamers who used to love EA's games won't need the company to "regain their trust." Most of the most popular new PC games today are popping up on Steam Early Access which just goes to show how far ahead Valve is. Maybe EA and Ubisoft could try ape Early Access (like GOG and the consoles are now doing) with some incentives for developers. Maybe EA could use that to bring back EA Partners in some weird form. I don't know.

Microsoft has Minecraft which is what started the Early Access craze. Maybe try to get Mojang to push the foremost Minecraft updates to the Windows Store version (if it's not already doing that). Microsoft should probably try to talk to Mojang about how to expand on what it accomplished. I wouldn't be surprised at all if one of these companies devoted part of its E3 press conference to some indie initiative or user-generated content initiative that eventually just disappears. Why isn't Microsoft trying to funnel ID@ Xbox into the Windows Store in hopes that the next Minecraft phenomenon could emerge on it?

 

[Synth]

Don't believe the hype, it's totally not so rosy as you make it out to be, on the contrary. Even apps using WPF/Xaml today can't be ported over 1:1 to UWP, work is needed, api's are limited and therefore you need to create 2 versions, and potentially a lot of work is needed to make code that runs already on win32 to run on UWP as you can't use all the api's you're used to. The other way around is as worse as that: you can't re-use your UWP code 'just on windows', you need to add code to make it work, api's aren't a complete subset. In theory the framework is OK, in practice it's just another island and as there are way better platforms to make money on, why bother? So no, what you're implying is erm... bollocks

Fair enough, I'll assume what you're saying is true as I haven't really looked into it myself. So from what you're saying you'd neither be able to easily wrap a Win32 application to provide it as UWP, or take a UWP app and send it off as Win32 later. How does this work in regards to having a UWP run on the Xbox and vice-versa, if you happen to know?

The part about "as there are way better platforms to make money on, why bother?" is irrelevant to this discussion however, as we're only talking about a theoretical scenario where the Windows Store actually becomes successful. If the Xbox flopped harder than the Wii U, third-party developers wouldn't bother creating an Xbox version of their multiplatform games... they'd simply put out a PS4 (and possibly Steam) version, and call it a day. However, that's not what they're doing because the Xbox represents an opportunity to obtain sales that they may otherwise have no seen. If the Windows Store was a success, and became a common way for people to purchased software, then it would make sense for an additional version of a game to be released to it, even if this would require additional work. If the Windows Store flops horribly, regardless of MS' attempts to draw consumers in with exclusive software, then this entire conversation becomes meaningless, as it would continue to pose no threat to the status quo of games being released as Win32 applications anyway.