Support NeoGAF

[Trup1aya]

What makes you think the store won't be closing ? What if the market change ? Heck, do we even know how they handle removed downloads ? Will we be able to redownload games removed from the store ?
It's not GFWL, it's worse. What's with all the apologism ? Multi billion company retired its old service, is launching a new one two years later without getting the situation fix, and we should all smile and say "mistake happens ! " ?
At this point, I understand why people don't want to buy on the Windows Store, considering the one who bought on Steam their GFWL games can still play and download them while those who trust Microsoft with the store can't anymore. I understand why people wants to buy these games on a reliable store/service.

Because Microsoft sure isn't. I'm tired of people calling others with an agenda when they don't trust MS on their service. Yes, I have an agenda. It's called a consumer agenda. I'm pro-consumer, and I don't accept that multi billion companies kill services and launch same one without bringing solutions to their past mistakes.

Again, GFWL was primarily a gaming service. The Win10 store is not. They are really two immensely different concepts, the latter of which the company is betting the entirety of its OS profitability on (which they gave away over 200million copies of for free.

If you can look at the scope of these two project, and walk away with the notion that this is 'just another attempt at GFWL, then I don't know what else to say...
Games really aren't the end goal here...

And I'm far from an apologist...I'm just choosing to look at the situation objectively rather than emotionally.

 

[madjoki]

Do you think Valve would sell half-life 3 on Origin? Didnt valve handcuff Half-life 2 to steam for similar reasons?

Half-Life 2 is sold and always was sold on other sites and as a physical copy. Although you still have to activate (and in most cases download) it on Steam. So it's not situation of having to buy from Steam, you can still buy it from where you want. This is part of why Steam eventually was a success.

 

[GhostTrick]

Again, GFWL was primarily a gaming service. The Win10 store is not. They are really two immensely different concepts, the latter of which the company is betting the entirety of its OS profitability on (which they game away over 200million copies of for free.

If you can look at the scope of these two project, and walk away with the notion that this is 'just another attempt at GFWL, then I don't know what else to say...
Games really aren't the end goal here...

And I'm far from an apologist...I'm just choosing to look at the situation objectively rather than emotionally.

And with the Store, MS is trying to bring every services into one and treat gaming as smartphone apps. And they tie them to the Xbox app.

The scope means nothing if the model change. The scope means nothing if the service itself is already broken.
Games arent the end goal here ? Then it's a huge issue. It means they're even more likely to dump support for PC games.

You're not looking at thing objectively here. You're missing out on important facts that are 2 years or even 1 month old. It's not about being emotional, its about being realistic.

Basically, MS killed a service. They're relaunching an all in one service with no compensation for their mistakes. And here we have people saying "Guuuys competition is goood !! " "its not the same thing !!".

My words will be harsh but if MS wants to bring PC, they shouldnt be allowed to launch their service. Steam is here. Uplay, Origin or Gog are here. There are established services, no one cares about MS service.

And for all the people saying they dont want to lose profits, I think this will be sth to discuss again when we see how their games on the store bombed.

Microsoft is trying to make a working ecosystem but in the end they're sabotaging their own devices.
Xbox and Windows interactions are laughable and tied to their own politics. How in the world PC-PS4-Wii users can all interact together and Xbox is excluded ? Or it can only work PC to Xbow with their terrible store.

The more Microsoft is trying, the more they're sabotaging what others did to keep PC relevant.

 

[Trup1aya]

If that was the case their solitaire and mobile like games would suffice to attract all those millions of people no which would leave them satisfied? Why would they bother with the "Core" pc stuff and risk alienating their xbox fans since the tiny portion wouldn't affect their store that much as you say? You don't really need the store for other stuff people have always bought and used those programs on their own like office but I guess people call them apps now.

The xbone partly failed to pick up much steam when their first e3 presentation was less about the core games are more about tv, kinect, sports, apps and all the "cool things" you could do people didn't care about. Then MS and phil turned around and started saying they made a mistake ignoring the core gamers on the xbox as well as windows as a gaming market. GFWL failed for good reason and then ms left because they couldn't profit off pc as much as they wanted too with a live fee. Then tried the non core gamer approach with the "all in one" xbox and failed losing to sony who made a better presentation. The core matters more than you think because it's the base that will likely serve to attract more people.

If out the gates you have people against the closed nature of the windows 10 that bad pr will lead to a low number of people using it on windows and going back to steam, gog, uplay, origins whatever. Locking them out of that profit and potentially cause more people to shy away from windows as a whole. If they play their cards right and work on those limitations, you now have a bunch of core pc users coming in and buying your games as well as spreading news on how well it's improved.

You mention that if they release something like halo people would come. You are right even with the limitations you will get some people but these guys will either wait for a sale and buy that one game and never use the store for anything else. Or hold out for improvements. Remember, gears of wars 1 was BIG at the time and it wasn't enough to save GFWL with the already negative pr out of the gate. MS, like steam can put other games on their platform and get a cut like steam does but who would care when steam gives you the other goodies and ms just restricts it?

In any case MS could really reel in some cash and positive pr from everyone on pc if they address those issues. They'd be stupid not to.

Why would solitair suffice? No one is updating to Windows 10 to play solitaire. MS wants killer apps of all types and sizes in their stores, core games are truly just a small part of a very big equation as core gamers make up a tiny portion of the Win10 userbase.

So yes, I think gaming is important to MS. But not so important that it becomes the focal point of their entire Win10 intitiative. That's why the GFWL comparisons dont make sense. Win10 is an operating system intended to be funded by app sales in the Win10 store. GFWL was just a gaming services.

There's no significant risk of alienating Xbox fans. People that like to play on console will do so. People who prefer to play on PC will do so. It's as simple as that.

 

[Trup1aya]

Half-Life 2 is sold and always was sold on other sites and as a physical copy. Although you still have to activate (and in most cases download) it on Steam. So it's not situation of having to buy from Steam, you can still buy it from where you want. This is part of why Steam eventually was a success.

The point is, they used 1st party software as leverage for their own platform. That's exactly what MS is doing.

And I don't know what the case will be for PC games, but as you know, you can buy Xbox games, physically and digitally from sources other that MS

And with the Store, MS is trying to bring every services into one and treat gaming as smartphone apps. And they tie them to the Xbox app.

The scope means nothing if the model change. The scope means nothing if the service itself is already broken.
Games arent the end goal here ? Then it's a huge issue. It means they're even more likely to dump support for PC games.

You're not looking at thing objectively here. You're missing out on important facts that are 2 years or even 1 month old. It's not about being emotional, its about being realistic.

Basically, MS killed a service. They're relaunching an all in one service with no compensation for their mistakes. And here we have people saying "Guuuys competition is goood !! " "its not the same thing !!".

My words will be harsh but if MS wants to bring PC, they shouldnt be allowed to launch their service. Steam is here. Uplay, Origin or Gog are here. There are established services, no one cares about MS service.

And for all the people saying they dont want to lose profits, I think this will be sth to discuss again when we see how their games on the store bombed.

Microsoft is trying to make a working ecosystem but in the end they're sabotaging their own devices.
Xbox and Windows interactions are laughable and tied to their own politics. How in the world PC-PS4-Wii users can all interact together and Xbox is excluded ? Or it can only work PC to Xbow with their terrible store.

The more Microsoft is trying, the more they're sabotaging what others did to keep PC relevant.

Again, you are looking at this as if it's an attempt at a gaming service. It's a store, that's sells software, some of which is games...

The fact that it's not primarily a gaming service does not increase the likelihood that they will stop selling games through it or that they will lock people out of games previously sold through it.

I'd like to see MS 'compensate' people they screwed over with GFWL. The idea that that should 'compensate' gamers in order to launch a store that is in no way related to GFWL other than it offers entertainment software (in addition countless other PC apps) is misguided.

 

[Dinky Dino]

So yes, I think gaming is important to MS. But not so important that it becomes the focal point of their entire Win10 intitiative.

This is where we differ opinions. I do think gaming is and should be the focal point. It will always be there due to being integrated but how many people would bother using it for apps outside of office? Guess that remains to be seen. Though if they if do address the list in the op, it will be greatly successful imo.

 

[DeepEnigma]

The point is, they used 1st party software as leverage for their own platform. That's exactly what MS is doing.

They sure did, and thousands upon thousands of PC gamers were angry (I was one of them) and giving them heat for it, however, they did not also restrict main features to PC games that PC gamers expect, and the whole reason most game on a PC in the first place.

If they did what MSFT is doing now, I am confident Valve would have failed, or scrambled to remove those restrictions quicker than the XBox launch 180 to save their vision for their distribution model. MSFT has the luxury of being the platform holder, and endless monies to rest on their laurels with this experiment to see how far they can push the consumer.

It amazes some of the most genius software engineers and company for that matter, will take so long and act so out of touch with the PC gamer base, when they know damn well how the PC gaming landscape is. These 'mistakes' are intentional to hopefully have the walled garden like Apple has. Only problem, Apple has always been that way, you can't expect the platform that made it's success for being so open, to want people to conform so easily.

They are trying to dripfeed our 'death of 1,000 cuts' the change, but they rush too quickly (Xbox One announcement), and that is why people are reading between the lines.

 

[Trup1aya]

This is where we differ opinions. I do think gaming is and should be the focal point. It will always be there due to being integrated but how many people would bother using it for apps outside of office? Guess that remains to be seen. Though if they if do address the list in the op, it will be greatly successful imo.

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.

 

[Trup1aya]

They sure did, and thousands upon thousands of PC gamers were angry (I was one of them) and giving them heat for it, however, they did not also restrict main features to PC games that PC gamers expect, and the whole reason most game on a PC in the first place.

If they did what MSFT is doing now, I am confident Valve would have failed, or scrambled to remove those restrictions quicker than the XBox launch 180 to save their vision for their distribution model. MSFT has the luxury of being the platform holder, and endless monies to rest on their laurels with this experiment to see how far they can push the consumer.

It amazes some of the most genius software engineers and company for that matter, will take so long and act so out of touch with the PC gamer base, when they know damn well how the PC gaming landscape is. These 'mistakes' are intentional to hopefully have the walled garden like Apple has. Only problem, Apple has always been that way, you can't expect the platform that made it's success for being so open, to want people to conform so easily.

I'm not amazed because it's clear to me, that PC gaming hasn't yet gotten the attention it needs for it to be an integral part of their UWA strategy. And that's because things this broad in scope take time, and all of the peices simply aren't there yet. It's really no surprise to me that engineers would have been more focused on other more urgent aspects of the initiative at this point.

But people keep looking at this as if UWA is a core gamer-centric initiative. It isn't. It's a long game being played for the future of their OS, not for dominance in PC game distribution.

 

[Signor Rossi]

The idea that that should 'compensate' gamers in order to launch a store that is in no way related to GFWL other than it offers entertainment software (in addition countless other PC apps) is misguided.

They are related. It's a digital store from Microsoft. We know Microsoft likes to fuck over their digital store costumers on PC (and Xbox, ask jshackels).

 

[Zedox]

I am fully aware of what their current goals are with Window Mobile and Windoes 10. Continuum has marginal use at this point and heck the main draw of the HP is to basically stream all the programs businesses might actually need to use.

The problem they had with Win8 and what they will continue to have with universal apps is that the apps that matter on mobile are not the apps that matter on desktop and certainly not on Xbox. So the idea of the additional userbase of Win10 driving development that might help Windows Mobile is a bit dubious. Games that would be developed for Win10 and Bone won't have much crossover appeal either. Mobile games aren't great on TVs in general, which is something the AppleTV has also had to deal with.

I just dont see any of this stuff being a boost to Windows Mobile. I've been a big supporter of WP, got in at the ground floor, lol. Still use one now(1020 was godly before I dropped it on some bathroom tile). They made the right choice to stick around for fans of the platform and possible opportunities in the future to make a move.

Oh and as long as the Snapchat CEO hates MS, WM is doomed as no one under 18 will want that device, lol.

It's not only about games as I said, it's about engagement (what MS touted) with the store. The more you have people come to your store, the more a developer (that doesn't necessarily mean games) would be more inclined to think about making an app for the ecosystem and as the number of people on Windows 10 grows (hence why they made it free for a big push), the more chances a dev has to sell. Games is a way to get more people into the store period.

 

[Trup1aya]

They are related. It's a digital store from Microsoft. We know Microsoft likes to fuck over their digital store costumers on PC (and Xbox, ask jshackels).

You can draw that parallel... But they have a lot more riding on this that they ever did with GFWL. We here are passionate because we are gamers, and we remember what they did to gamers with their ill conceived PC gaming services...

But this isn't a gaming service...

The similarities begin and end with you buying digital items from MS.

 

[sueil]

It's not only about games as I said, it's about engagement (what MS touted) with the store. The more you have people come to your store, the more a developer (that doesn't necessarily mean games) would be more inclined to think about making an app for the ecosystem and as the number of people on Windows 10 grows (hence why they made it free for a big push), the more chances a dev has to sell. Games is a way to get more people into the store period.

It's in windows users best interest for the windows 10 store to fail.

 

[JaggedSac]

It's not only about games as I said, it's about engagement (what MS touted) with the store. The more you have people come to your store, the more a developer (that doesn't necessarily mean games) would be more inclined to think about making an app for the ecosystem and as the number of people on Windows 10 grows (hence why they made it free for a big push), the more chances a dev has to sell. Games is a way to get more people into the store period.

Of course that is what they are trying. But the whole reason we started this line of thought was regarding mobile. And I don't think Win10 desktop store traffic invokes much dev interest in developing apps that are generally thought of as mobile experiences(Snapchat for example) regardless of the fact that they could write once and run on multiple devices.

 

[Trup1aya]

Of course that is what they are trying. But the whole reason we started this line of thought was regarding mobile. And I don't think Win10 desktop store traffic invokes much dev interest in developing apps that are generally thought of as mobile experiences(Snapchat for example) regardless of the fact that they could write once and run on multiple devices.

Which is why MS is putting their own content in the store... To increase traffic...

 

[Signor Rossi]

The similarities begin and end with you buying digital items from MS.

Well, and that's the essence of the problem. There is no trust in digital storefronts from Microsoft. They should have been humble if they want to win back trust after they fucked us over for the last 15+ years.

Imagine this reveal, instead of secretly launching ROTR and then announcing QB:
They launch with the Microsoft Humble Bundle, old XBox (1, not one) and 360 games ported to pc, redeemable on the Win store, Steam and for good measure Origin or gog. Announcing that all games in the future will release simultaneously on XBox, Steam, Win store and Origin/gog. No UAW bullshit. Apologizing for the ongoing GFWL disaster and reimburse their costumers.

That would have been a start at least.

 

[LordRaptor]

The idea that a first party selling their own shit, is "eliminating competition" makes no sense whatsoever... NONE. customers can still pick and choose either, neither, or both...

Okay;

Where can I preorder an Xbox One copy of Quantum Break? It is a first party title, being sold on the Xbox One digital store, but also from many regular vendors ensuring price competition.

Where can I preorder a PC copy of Quantum Break?
Nowhere.
It is only being sold on the Windows 10 Store. And that store doesn't facilitate things like preorders or preloading.

This is a high profile title being released in under 6 weeks time.

 

[Trup1aya]

Okay;

Where can I preorder an Xbox One copy of Quantum Break? It is a first party title, being sold on the Xbox One digital store, but also from many regular vendors ensuring price competition.

Where can I preorder a PC copy of Quantum Break?
Nowhere.
It is only being sold on the Windows 10 Store. And that store doesn't facilitate things like preorders or preloading.

This is a high profile title being released in under 6 weeks time.

Pricing isn't the only way to compete though...

I mean, you can't buy a Big Mac at Burger King? are these two companies not competitors?

 

[Mindwipe]

It's in windows users best interest for the windows 10 store to fail.

Yup.

The store is a terrible idea that is hurting the entire platform.

 

[JaggedSac]

Okay;

Where can I preorder an Xbox One copy of Quantum Break? It is a first party title, being sold on the Xbox One digital store, but also from many regular vendors ensuring price competition.

Where can I preorder a PC copy of Quantum Break?
Nowhere.
It is only being sold on the Windows 10 Store. And that store doesn't facilitate things like preorders or preloading.

This is a high profile title being released in under 6 weeks time.

Well, technically, preordering the Bone version is preordering the PC version.

 

[GhostTrick]

Pricing isn't the only way to compete though...

The problem is, its competing nowhere. Price ? Its only sold there. Fonctionnality ? The service is a joke. The only thing for them is basically "We're the only ones to sell this product". The market reality will be harsh and the games sold only on the store will bomb.

 

[JaggedSac]

The problem is, its competing nowhere. Price ? Its only sold there. Fonctionnality ? The service is a joke. The only thing for them is basically "We're the only ones to sell this product". The market reality will be harsh and the games sold only on the store will bomb.

Technically, that is competition at work. If something can't compete, it will fail and disappear. If what you say is true, all of this is just a fart in the wind.

 

[Trup1aya]

The problem is, its competing nowhere. Price ? Its only sold there. Fonctionnality ? The service is a joke. The only thing for them is basically "We're the only ones to sell this product". The market reality will be harsh and the games sold only on the store will bomb.

you guys have a very narrow and flawed view of what it means to compete.

Obviously, there are no two digital storefronts competing for your sale of Quantum Break, specifically.

But Valve is hoping you skip QB and instead spend that $60 on a Steam game. EA is hoping your spend that $60 on an EA game instead . Sony is hoping you buy a PlayStation game instead. GameStop would rather you buy, the Xbox version.

They all want your patronage. The existance of competition doesn't hinge on the availability of every product in every store.

Exclusives are an age old means of obtaining competitive advantages. Sure we love when companies compete on price, but it isn't the only way to compete.

What constitutes a failure will depend on what the content holders goals are. If MS expected massive unit sales on PC, they would release it on Steam. Clearly they are willing to sacrifice sales numbers for higher margins, and increased traffic into their store. That's where their long term prospects lie.

 

[GhostTrick]

you guys have a very narrow and flawed view of what it means to compete.

Obviously, there are no two digital storefronts competing for your sale of Quantum Break, specifically.

But Valve is hoping you skip QB and instead spend that $60 on a Steam game. EA is hoping your spend that $60 on an EA game instead . Sony is hoping you buy a PlayStation game instead. GameStop would rather you buy, the Xbox version.

They all want your patronage. The existance of competition doesn't hinge on the availability of every product in every store.

Exclusives are an age old means of obtaining competitive advantages. Sure we love when companies compete on price, but it isn't the only way to compete.

Well, they sure get their hopes true because there's no way I put a single dollar in Microsoft service. Then again as I said, after the GFWL joke, it's up to Microsoft to come to gamers and not gamers to come to them. Microsoft want to sell their games ? Good. They can sell it on Steam Uplay and Origin. They dont want ? Enjoy the bad sales then.

Then again, this isnt sane competition. And I'm willing to bet the market will react in the right way to Microsoft 3rd attempt of a failed gaming service.

 

[Trup1aya]

Well, they sure get their hopes true because there's no way I put a single dollar in Microsoft service. Then again as I said, after the GFWL joke, it's up to Microsoft to come to gamers and not gamers to come to them. Microsoft want to sell their games ? Good. They can sell it on Steam Uplay and Origin. They dont want ? Enjoy the bad sales then.

Then again, this isnt sane competition. And I'm willing to bet the market will react in the right way to Microsoft 3rd attempt of a failed gaming service.

But this isn't a gaming service..😞

 

[GhostTrick]

But this isn't a gaming service..😞

It's a trying to be a all in one service. Basically, it wants to be your gaming service, your video service, your music service, your app service. They want to be everyone's service and they'll end up being no one's service.

 

[Trup1aya]

It's a trying to be a all in one service. Basically, it wants to be your gaming service, your video service, your music service, your app service. They want to be everyone's service and they'll end up being no one's service.

No, it's not a service. It's a store. From which they want you to buy/download apps, some of which will be powered by services they offer.

Yes, their 1st party games will be powered by their gaming service (XBL). And you can download apps that use their music, video, and cloud services...

But they also want to be your source for apps from 3rd parties and that use 3rd party services as well. Even if those services compete with there own.

 

[MaLDo]

you guys have a very narrow and flawed view of what it means to compete.

Obviously, there are no two digital storefronts competing for your sale of Quantum Break, specifically.

But Valve is hoping you skip QB and instead spend that $60 on a Steam game. EA is hoping your spend that $60 on an EA game instead . Sony is hoping you buy a PlayStation game instead. GameStop would rather you buy, the Xbox version.

They all want your patronage. The existance of competition doesn't hinge on the availability of every product in every store.

Exclusives are an age old means of obtaining competitive advantages. Sure we love when companies compete on price, but it isn't the only way to compete.

What constitutes a failure will depend on what the content holders goals are. If MS expected massive unit sales on PC, they would release it on Steam. Clearly they are willing to sacrifice sales numbers for higher margins, and increased traffic into their store.

Mmmm, let's see my situation.

I would happily pay $80 for Quantum Break in steam, $60 on Uplay, Origin or GOG
I would happily pay $100 for Forza 6 in steam, $80 on Uplay, Origin or GOG


However I would not download QB or Forza 6 in Windows Store for free.


I hope microsoft is able to understand my position in the future.

 

[LordRaptor]

Well, technically, preordering the Bone version is preordering the PC version.

You are of course 100% correct, but it does somewhat undermines the narrative that MS now care about PC gamers, and they really mean it this time.

Exclusives are an age old means of obtaining competitive advantages.

And again, because this is an important fact; releasing QB as a non-UWA title would still retain it as a Microsoft Windows 10 exclusive.
It would still be a reason for people to get Windows 10.

e: I mean, really, would people actually be happy if the ONLY way to get MS published games on Xbox One was via the Xbox Digital Marketplace? No retail sales at all?

 

[Trup1aya]

Mmmm, let's see my situation.

I would happily pay $80 for Quantum Break in steam, $60 on Uplay, Origin or GOG
I would happily pay $100 for Forza 6 in steam, $80 on Uplay, Origin or GOG


However I would not download QB or Forza 6 in Windows Store for free.


I hope microsoft is able to understand my position in the future.

I'm sure they do... They can't expect to get every customer.

But unless you are an Xbox gamer, you weren't going to be buying those games anyway. So it's not like they are losing anything...

Maybe one day they can create something on par with Uplay,Origin, or GoG, change your mind and earn your patronage... Until then, in your particular case, the situation is a wash.

 

[Adam Blue]

Microsoft is only now focusing on Windows gaming. In my eyes, the vision brought on by Phil is still relatively new. I'm all about a new store for more competition, especially with the approach of console and PC integration.

So far, they listened to us, plus some, with the XB1. I don't see anything different with the Windows Store. Excited about what will be happening.

 

[Trup1aya]

And again, because this is an important fact; releasing QB as a non-UWA title would still retain it as a Microsoft Windows 10 exclusive.
It would still be a reason for people to get Windows 10.

But it wouldn't get people to traffic their Win10 store... Which is their primary way of profiting from Win10.

Simply getting people to upgrade to the a free OS doesn't really help their business in this model.

e: I mean, really, would people actually be happy if the ONLY way to get MS published games on Xbox One was via the Xbox Digital Marketplace? No retail sales at all?

But that hypothetical comparison doesn't relate to this situation at hand. There are some Xbox games that can ONLY be obtained through the Xbox digital store. There are some PC games that are limited to steam. There will only be a handful of Xbox PC games that will be exclusive to this Win10 store.

The vast majority of games, on any platform can be obtained through multiple means. And there is no idication that the Win10 store will change that fact.

 

[LordRaptor]

Simply getting people to upgrade to the free-OS doesn't really help their business in this model.

Windows 10 is currently a free upgrade to existing customers of previous versions of Windows.
It is highly likely that after the June 29th (or whatever) cut off date Windows goes back to being paid software.

 

[Trup1aya]

Windows 10 is currently a free upgrade to existing customers of previous versions of Windows.
It is highly likely that after the June 29th (or whatever) cut off date Windows goes back to being paid software.

And? They still have over 200million free copies to account for. The whole reason they gave them away was to have a large base, so that the prospect of Win10 store sales would be entising to developers.

 

[LordRaptor]

And? They still have over 200million free copies to account for. The whole reason they gave them away was to have a large base, so that the prospect of Win10 store sales would be entising to developers.

A free upgrade to a paid product is not a free product.
e: WB giving a free upgrade to GOTY editions for owners of the Batman games on Steam when they removed GFWL because they could not tell who had bought DLC on GFWL does not make the Batman games free games.

 

[xblarcade]

A free upgrade to a paid product is not a free product.

You expected it to always be free?

Calling it simply an upgrade is like calling any squeal to any game just an upgrade and expecting that to be free

 

[LordRaptor]

You expected it to always be free?

No I expect it to go back to costing money. Thats sort of the crux of my argument.

 

[ShadowSoldier89]

You can draw that parallel... But they have a lot more riding on this that they ever did with GFWL. We here are passionate because we are gamers, and we remember what they did to gamers with their ill conceived PC gaming services...

But this isn't a gaming service...

The similarities begin and end with you buying digital items from MS.

there are games on the service though, and they are completely failing at delivering a proper PC gaming experience with those games

 

[MaLDo]

But unless you are an Xbox gamer, you weren't going to be buying those games anyway. So it's not like they are losing anything...

They are losing $126.

 

[Trup1aya]

A free upgrade to a paid product is not a free product.
e: WB giving a free upgrade to GOTY editions for owners of the Batman games on Steam when they removed GFWL because they could not tell who had bought DLC on GFWL does not make the Batman games free games.

What? It's free to the 200million people who got it with out having to pay for it...

That's $200million people who were eligible to skip out on the $120 fee... Do the math. I think it's clear to see why they'd prioritize store traffic and content over sales of quantum break on steam.

They are losing $126.

How are they losing money from someone who was never a customer? You can argue they are limiting their profit, but they aren't losing a dime. And since their goal is increasing their store traffic (which is where their long term profit potential lies), it seems they are content without your $126.

Just saying.

 

[justsomeguy]

They are losing $126.

What currency? (If it's Ozzie Bucks then meh )

 

[Trup1aya]

there are games on the service though, and they are completely failing at delivering a proper PC gaming experience with those games

Can't argue with that. I suspect they'll improve on the experience over time.. To date, they've had 1 AAA game in the store, and have promised to work on technical limitations. We'll see...

I hope they get it right... But if they don't, I'll keep buying games the way I have been... No harm no foul. Just a missed opportunity on their end.

 

[LordRaptor]

What? It's free to the 200million people who got it with out having to pay for it...

Rather than debate the definition of what 'free' means when restricted to existing customers, or speculate on the motivations as to why they are doing a free upgrade, I will simply ask you this;
If you feel that pushing the Windows Store as a sole proprietor is the only way for MS to earn money with a free OS business model, would you accept that it becomes unnecessarily greedy should Windows 10 cost $200?

 

[Pathfinder]

Rather than debate the definition of what 'free' means when restricted to existing customers, or speculate on the motivations as to why they are doing a free upgrade, I will simply ask you this;
If you feel that pushing the Windows Store as a sole proprietor is the only way for MS to earn money with a free OS business model, would you accept that it becomes unnecessarily greedy should Windows 10 cost $200?

Just so the facts in your argument are correct, Windows 10 Home is $120, not $200.

 

[Trup1aya]

Rather than debate the definition of what 'free' means when restricted to existing customers, or speculate on the motivations as to why they are doing a free upgrade, I will simply ask you this;
If you feel that pushing the Windows Store as a sole proprietor is the only way for MS to earn money with a free OS business model, would you accept that it becomes unnecessarily greedy should Windows 10 cost $200?

Don't need to speculate on their motivations. We know they did it to quickly obtain a large install base, that they can capitalize on with their other products and services... If they didn't think they could profit from it AND if they thought their previous model were profitable enough to continue to complete, they wouldn't have done it.

With that out of the way. I can't presume to know on how much the OS should cost to people who decided not to upgrade. That's for the free market to decide. I think a product is worth whatever people are willing to pay for it. If MS charges $200, and find success at that price, then that's what it's worth. It means MS' product is so desirable that people would pay that much to have it, despite the previous opportunity to upgrade and MS' alternative revenue stream. If it's not successful, they'd have to lower it if they want it to succeed.

I guess you're asking if it's ethical to charge people $200 a copy, wilsts much of the profit is presumed to be generated by the revenue stream. But publically owned, for profit businesses don't and shouldn't figure prices based on profits. That would just limit their earning potential, which is frowned upon by investors.

I don't think consumers generally care about a companies profits when deciding what a product is worth to them. Margins don't stop people from buying apple PC's or Michael Jordan sneakers... I can't see people basing the value of a Win10 install on revenues from the App Store. They are unrelated.

 

[LukasTaves]

It's in windows users best interest for the windows 10 store to fail.

That's just bullshit.

It's in our best interest for the store to flourish and be a very good way for purchasing games and apps.

 

[Trup1aya]

It's in windows users best interest for the windows 10 store to fail.

It's in users best interests for MS to address concerns and make the store as beneficial to their consumers as possible

 

[Synth]

Rather than debate the definition of what 'free' means when restricted to existing customers, or speculate on the motivations as to why they are doing a free upgrade, I will simply ask you this;
If you feel that pushing the Windows Store as a sole proprietor is the only way for MS to earn money with a free OS business model, would you accept that it becomes unnecessarily greedy should Windows 10 cost $200?

It's quite obviously not the only way for MS to make money... it's a potential way to make more than they previously have been however... as historically after the initial purchase MS sees little financial benefit to users being on Windows when contrasted to that same user using their services in a competitors ecosystem, because only the stuff they provide directly sees any return. It's not the most enviable position to be in as a platform holder.

These games are being ported in order to draw attention to their otherwise ignored storefront, much in the way a failing fast food chain may try to promote a new and unique meal offering, so that potential customers come in and possibly buy some of their other stuff too. Games like Halo, Gears, Forza, Fable, Quantum Break etc may well be enough of a draw to accomplish this to at least the extent where a user remains conscious that the store exists as part of Windows. Releasing these same games to Steam however isn't very useful... nobody needs these games to sell them on Windows itself, and so all they'd be doing is relinquishing the few cards they could potential use, whilst also partially nullifying them as a reason to own their dedicated console.

 

[GhostTrick]

What? It's free to the 200million people who got it with out having to pay for it...

That's $200million people who were eligible to skip out on the $120 fee... Do the math. I think it's clear to see why they'd prioritize store traffic and content over sales of quantum break on steam.



How are they losing money from someone who was never a customer? You can argue they are limiting their profit, but they aren't losing a dime. And since their goal is increasing their store traffic (which is where their long term profit potential lies), it seems they are content without your $126.

Just saying.

No, he's right. They're leaving money off the table. Store traffic ? Do you really believe that because these games are there, people will browse the store ? The only people looking will be the 10k buyers for the game.

Never a customer ? Sure that's a way to ditch people who bought on gfwl. And I'm sure MalDo owned GFWL games.

 

[GhostTrick]

That's just bullshit.

It's in our best interest for the store to flourish and be a very good way for purchasing games and apps.

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 ?