Support NeoGAF

[Zedox]

I don't think anyone here defends that

Nope. Not at all.

 

[Trup1aya]

But they are available on WINDOWS. You know, this operating system by Microsoft. The problem isn't Windows 10. It's Windows 10 store. You see, if these games were on other storefronts but exclusive to the W10 OS, I would've upgraded asap.

I don't dispute that it available on Win. But we're are talking about MS 'LOSING' $126 from Maldo. A $126 that they can't actually 'lose', because he never intended to spend it prior to the announcement. A $126 dollars that they are willingly declining in hopes they will secure far more than that through patronage of their store.

 

[LordRaptor]

Seriously, how many PC gaming enthusiasts, with rigs capable of running QB would be sifting through the Win10 store for news on upcoming releases? I mean what are you even saying here?

I'd be very surprised if any do.

A very large portion of consumers buy products because they see them advertised in store.
People actively following enthusiast press are a minority.

If QB was being released as a standard windows executable, and being sold by multiple vendors, as a standard windows executable is, it would be being pushed by every single vendor selling it. There's be banner ads on their front pages, entries in their upcoming games / coming soon lists, and preorder pages to buy from.

Because its in their interest to sell product.

Meanwhile, QB gets a stealth release announcement 2 months before launch, its tied to a system that even ardent defenders of benefits like cross platform communications and cross platform play that it as a single player game literally derives no benefit from, and it is being released on only a single unpopular (in pure marketshare terms) storefront that its target audience never looks at, that doesn't support basic features like preorders or preloading, and that has absolutely zero discoverability. There isn't even a coming soon page.

Sent. To. Die.

 

[Spirited]

I don't think anyone here defends that

I think your first mistake is assuming that all consumers view the closed/open debate the same way you do. The developers who made fortunes within Apple's closed ecosystem aren't complaining. And neither are the millions of people who are downloading and enjoying the games. There are plenty of people who just want to download and play games as they are. And developers who just want access to these people.

Also, I don't understand how you can say they have an anti-open philosophy. Do all of the other clients suddenly stop working because the Win10 store exists? In reality, the Win10 store is just another option in a sea of them.

Granted, UWA's currently have technical limitations that are unacceptable to many PC gamers. IF they can overcome these issues and fill the store with compelling content, they'll have an opportunity to provide their consumers a unified experience across any platforms they own. They'll be able to provide better cross play integration than we currently see between PC and consoles. Throught the pre-installed app on all MS products, developers would have access to the largest installed base in the world.

You seem to?
At least you must have misunderstood what I meant at that point if you point at Microsoft and says that they don't seem to have an anti-open system philososphy as of late?

You're even trying to defend it by saying a lot of users don't care and Apple is doing well enough.

 

[GhostTrick]

I don't dispute that it available on Win. But we're are talking about MS 'LOSING' $126 from Maldo. A $126 that they can't actually 'lose', because he never intended to spend it prior to the announcement. A $126 dollars that they are willingly declining in hopes they will secure far more than that through patronage of their store.

Which is where you're wrong. Lot of people were willing to spend that money. The thing is, they're the one losing because the poor offering will never be enough after GFWL.
Just as a food for thought, Ori and the Blind Forest sold 613k on Steam. Tomb Raider sold 532k. Microsoft will be lucky to reach these numbers even with all their release sales combined. That's where it'll never be enough to offset the loss and most importantly, why it won't increase the traffic.

 

[sueil]

My computer is not a phone I have a very nice android phone for that. My computer is not a tablet I have an ipad. The entire point of having a desktop running a real os is to have full function of a full os. I do not want a os I need to make a living on to turn into a walled garden where you are only allowed to do what they want. Windows store is cancer and I hope it burns in hell.

Microsoft failed to break into the phone and tablet markets and and now are trying to force the walled garden approach onto windows (desktop) to try to boost their phone and tablet offerings. If they get everyone using the walled garden in the desktop version of windows 10 then people will actually develop apps for it and their phone and tablet offers won't be bare of apps like they are now. This is about trying to force windows to rescue them in segments of the market that google and apple have cornered and they have shit all going on with.

If giving the choice of paying the full license fee for windows and no app store and having free windows and an app store I would take the former every time. This is a desperation move to try to make up for their shrinking desktop market. There is zero benefit to the user for this.

 

[Pathfinder]

Sent. To. Die.

Your needle is stuck in the groove. You're failing to take into account it's also available for Xbox One, and is being heavily advertised. The game is not being sent to die in any respect.

Their perceived lack of Windows Store sales upon release will not diminish its performance on Xbox One.

 

[Spirited]

Your needle is stuck in the groove. You're failing to take into account it's also available for Xbox One, and is heavily advertised.

It will probably do really well on Xbox one, no doubt about it.

PC? Probably not.

 

[MUnited83]

"Group 2" actually consists of about four condescending, sarcastic, Windows 10 Store defenders. You're depicting them as a calm voice of reason, but that depiction doesn't match up at all with the actual content of this thread.

Spoiler

And I still can't believe there even is a Windows 10 Store defense force, but wow, it's a thing.

And it's hilarious :

"Uh but things evolve you know" despite being a regression in almost every sense

"Lets wait and see if it gets better" despite the failure of GFWL, that doesn't even let you download your games anymore. How people can advocate spending a single fucking cent on their new Store when they have yet to fix the situation for customers of the old one is beyond me.

"They will fix the limitations!" - yet to do a single actual effort about that !

"But just look at this list of advantages *" * posts list of advantages that dont need UWAs to work


"But magic porting abilities" despite Xbox One version of games not being UWAs and the PC being delivered as UWA helping jackshit when it takes to porting.

"But but universal apps", despite not being actually " universal"

This thread is a doozy.

 

[sueil]

Your needle is stuck in the groove. You're failing to take into account it's also available for Xbox One, and is being heavily advertised.

That did real well for tomb raider.

 

[Pathfinder]

That did real well for tomb raider.

They sold over a million copies of ROTR over Christmas holiday, so it didn't do too badly at all.

Much to the disappointment of people who hoped it would crash and burn.

 

[LordRaptor]

Your needle is stuck in the groove. You're failing to take into account it's also available for Xbox One, and is being heavily advertised. The game is not being sent to die in any respect.

My apologies if I wasn't being clear that I am referring to the PC SKU.

The Xbox One version has been promoted extensively for many months now, is available from multiple retailers, has many avenues to preorder from, and is available on a digital storefront regularly visited by its target audience.

 

[sueil]

They sold over a million copies of ROTR over Christmas holiday, so it didn't do too badly at all.

Much to the disappointment of people who hoped it would crash and burn.

The last one sold 6x that.

 

[Pathfinder]

My apologies if I wasn't being clear that I am referring to the PC SKU.

The Xbox One version has been promoted extensively for many months now, is available from multiple retailers, has many avenues to preorder from, and is available on a digital storefront regularly visited by its target audience.

But let's not for a second pretend that if it doesn't sell well on PC, it means the game won't make a profit and Remedy will start the pink slip machine.

The last one sold 6x that.

Actually, 3.4 million in its first month, and it was multiplatform. But hey, if you're a fan of hyperbole then don't let me stand in your way.

 

[Dinky Dino]

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.

I never said it was a play for the pc core gaming market. I was implying the pc core gaming market will decide whether the windows store is a success or not for entertainment purposes on desktop pcs.

QB is bait for core gamers. They obviously want to profit off windows for more than just selling an os license. Right now they have the windows store up with mobile games, apps and media. Just like windows 8. And the windows store on 8 wasn't very popular.

 

[LordRaptor]

But let's not for a second pretend that if it doesn't sell well on PC, it means the game won't make a profit and Remedy will start the pink slip machine.

Its a high production value (ie expensive) title, that is singleplayer only (so quickly becomes trade in fodder) new IP (so does not have brand familiarity to work with).

Common sense suggests to me that it is more on the riskier end of the game development spectrum than a new Halo or Gears is, and would probably benefit from an equal push on all release platforms to ensure success.

 

[sueil]

But let's not for a second pretend that if it doesn't sell well on PC, it means the game won't make a profit and Remedy will start the pink slip machine.



Actually, 3.4 million in its first month, and it was multiplatform. But hey, if you're a fan of hyperbole then don't let me stand in your way.

Over the christmas holiday is closer to 2 months not one if you want to quibble. The Xbone is a distant second and software doesn't move there like it needs to.

 

[ZSeba]

But let's not for a second pretend that if it doesn't sell well on PC, it means the game won't make a profit and Remedy will start the pink slip machine.



Actually, 3.4 million in its first month, and it was multiplatform. But hey, if you're a fan of hyperbole then don't let me stand in your way.

So, the game sold less than a third of what TR 2013 did and it's somehow a success? Okay.

 

[Pathfinder]

Its a high production value (ie expensive) title, that is singleplayer only (so quickly becomes trade in fodder) new IP (so does not have brand familiarity to work with).

Common sense suggests to me that it is more on the riskier end of the game development spectrum than a new Halo or Gears is, and would probably benefit from an equal push on all release platforms to ensure success.

Yes, but Microsoft themselves is producing both XO and PC versions, so sales failure on the PC side will fall upon them more than it will Remedy.

Microsoft has been very good to Remedy, and vice-versa. Their relationship is very strong and I seriously doubt Microsoft would let them suffer because of this.

So, the game sold less than a third of what TR 2013 did and it's somehow a success? Okay.

Tomb Raider = multiplatform upon release
Rise of Tomb Raider = not multiplatform upon release

Taking that into account, I'd say it could have done much worse.

 

[sueil]

Yes, but Microsoft themselves is producing both XO and PC versions, so sales failure on the PC side will fall upon them more than it will Remedy.

Microsoft has been very good to Remedy, and vice-versa. Their relationship is very strong and I seriously doubt Microsoft would let them suffer because of this.



Tomb Raider = multiplatform upon release
Rise of Tomb Raider = not multiplatform upon release

I don't see how this helps out Quantum Break.

 

[Pathfinder]

I don't see how this helps out Quantum Break.

Sorry, got on a Tomb Raider tangent there. Back to the subject at hand.

 

[Trup1aya]

I'd be very surprised if any do.

A very large portion of consumers buy products because they see them advertised in store.
People actively following enthusiast press are a minority.

If QB was being released as a standard windows executable, and being sold by multiple vendors, as a standard windows executable is, it would be being pushed by every single vendor selling it. There's be banner ads on their front pages, entries in their upcoming games / coming soon lists, and preorder pages to buy from.

Because its in their interest to sell product.

Meanwhile, QB gets a stealth release announcement 2 months before launch, its tied to a system that even ardent defenders of benefits like cross platform communications and cross platform play that it as a single player game literally derives no benefit from, and it is being released on only a single unpopular (in pure marketshare terms) storefront that its target audience never looks at, that doesn't support basic features like preorders or preloading, and that has absolutely zero discoverability. There isn't even a coming soon page.

Sent. To. Die.

I think the sales potential of larger budget titles don't hinge on the saturation of banner ads. I think people who are interested in QB will know where it's sold.

I think there is precedence for unpopular PC storefronts becoming popular over time thanks in part to quality content

 

[Bits N Pieces]

I don't see how this helps out Quantum Break.

It's a Microsoft published game appearing on more than just the Xbox One, potentially more customers?

I realise no PC gamer on GAF is going to buy it but I'm sure there are more PC gamers out there, somewhere

 

[sueil]

It's a Microsoft published game appearing on more than just the Xbox One, potentially more customers?

I realise no PC gamer on GAF is going to buy it but I'm sure there are more PC gamers out there, somewhere

It's going to wither on the vine on pc.

 

[Synth]

Which is where you're wrong. Lot of people were willing to spend that money. The thing is, they're the one losing because the poor offering will never be enough after GFWL.
Just as a food for thought, Ori and the Blind Forest sold 613k on Steam. Tomb Raider sold 532k. Microsoft will be lucky to reach these numbers even with all their release sales combined. That's where it'll never be enough to offset the loss and most importantly, why it won't increase the traffic.

Ok here's the thing... you can make the case that pretty much everyone is a potential customer for pretty much everything if you play with the variables enough. Sony are losing peoples money for not porting Uncharted 4 to Xbox One, Nintendo are losing people's money for not having a console more powerful than my PC, Valve's losing (a little bit) of money by not listing all their games on the Windows Store, and so on... now some (all?) of these sound a bit ridiculous, because they operate under the assumption that all else remains equal and any additional sales are purely a bonus. The people that buy PS4's for Uncharted are ignored, or the people that wouldn't pay the extra for the hardware are ignored, or simply the people you'd have to pay to port your game to MS' store and do them a favour are ignored. In MS' case the fact that you help perpetuate the current situation of your store not being used, because people don't have anything they require from it is ignored... whilst at the same time potentially trading off console sales (goodbye GHG for example) and/or Live subscriptions to obtain some sales from a bunch of customers that will never purchase anything else from you. MS may very well see it as a situation where they potentially gain nothing if it doesn't work out... but at least they don't lose a shitload if they start cutting into their other revenue streams by selling me a $60 game, instead of a $60 game, a rolling $50 subscription, a $300 console, and 30% of every other $60 purchase I make for it. Because there are plenty of people like myself who are typically console gamers for various reasons, who will play these games on PC instead if all else remains equal... so removing me need for an Xbox console whilst simultaneously putting me entirely in Valve's care may be a little silly financially.

I don't think it's correct to say that they've "lost" a consumer for a given product if at no point in that product's existence did they ever "have" the consumer. They could potentially lose me as a consumer for example it they decided to cap the game's resolution on both platforms at 320x240... that would certainly move from "buying it" to "not buying it".. however they don't lose you. You go from "not buying it" to "not buying it". They lost you as much as I lost the money Bill Gates has. They've only not succeeded in gaining your sale. A product that sells 100million didn't lose 7 billion plus by default.

 

[LukasTaves]

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 ?

The same as to have any digital store in any device ever. A secure way of acquiring apps and games.

Which is a much better proposition than having no way of knowing if you are downloading really is what you think it is, plus having a centralized set of rules, return policies and payment methods, instead of having to deal with all that on a per app basis.

It's no different than wanting what's best for steam or any other digital store really.

And the idea of ms disabling all other competing stores in favor of their own is just completely out of touch with reality that's not even worth a second to entertain that scenario. They literally can't do that even if they were crazy enough to try.

 

[Trup1aya]

You seem to?
At least you must have misunderstood what I meant at that point if you point at Microsoft and says that they don't seem to have an anti-open system philososphy as of late?

You're even trying to defend it by saying a lot of users don't care and Apple is doing well enough.

I think that they can have a closed distribution model, and still offer people more freedom to customize there experience.

So no. You mischaracterize my argument.

 

[ZSeba]

I think that they can have a closed distribution model, and still offer people more freedom to customize there experience.

And what reason do we have to believe that? Certainly not looking at where the windows store is at right now ...

 

[Trup1aya]

I never said it was a play for the pc core gaming market. I was implying the pc core gaming market will decide whether the windows store is a success or not for entertainment purposes on desktop pcs.

QB is bait for core gamers. They obviously want to profit off windows for more than just selling an os license. Right now they have the windows store up with mobile games, apps and media. Just like windows 8. And the windows store on 8 wasn't very popular.

I think that the core gaming audience will dictate whether the Win10 store is a prime place to sell core games (obviously), but it will have no impact on whether or not the Win10 store remains open for business. That's why I'm nor wary of a GFWL style shut down. The store itself isn't gaming centric, so it's continued existence will not be determined by core game sales. It's very different from GFWL in that regard.

The win8 store wasn't popular in part because win 7 wasn't popular. It also had very little quality content. MS has seemingly already tackled the popularity issue for win 10. Now they are working on the content.

 

[GhostTrick]

Ok here's the thing... you can make the case that pretty much everyone is a potential customer for pretty much everything if you play with the variables enough. Sony are losing peoples money for not porting Uncharted 4 to Xbox One, Nintendo are losing people's money for not having a console more powerful than my PC, Valve's losing (a little bit) of money by not listing all their games on the Windows Store, and so on... now some (all?) of these sound a bit ridiculous, because they operate under the assumption that all else remains equal and any additional sales are purely a bonus. The people that buy PS4's for Uncharted are ignored, or the people that wouldn't pay the extra for the hardware are ignored, or simply the people you'd have to pay to port your game to MS' store and do them a favour are ignored. In MS' case the fact that you help perpetuate the current situation of your store not being used, because people don't have anything they require from it is ignored... whilst at the same time potentially trading off console sales (goodbye GHG for example) and/or Live subscriptions to obtain some sales from a bunch of customers that will never purchase anything else from you. MS may very well see it as a situation where they potentially gain nothing if it doesn't work out... but at least they don't lose a shitload if they start cutting into their other revenue streams by selling me a $60 game, instead of a $60 game, a rolling $50 subscription, a $300 console, and 30% of every other $60 purchase I make for it. Because there are plenty of people like myself who are typically console gamers for various reasons, who will play these games on PC instead if all else remains equal... so removing me need for an Xbox console whilst simultaneously putting me entirely in Valve's care may be a little silly financially.

I don't think it's correct to say that they've "lost" a consumer for a given product if at no point in that product's existence did they ever "have" the consumer. They could potentially lose me as a consumer for example it they decided to cap the game's resolution on both platforms at 320x240... that would certainly move from "buying it" to "not buying it".. however they don't lose you. You go from "not buying it" to "not buying it". They lost you as much as I lost the money Bill Gates has. They've only not succeeded in gaining your sale. A product that sells 100million didn't lose 7 billion plus by default.

The problem is: Microsoft is the owner of Windows. I didn't said "Bouh Microsoft is leaving money for not making a Steam OS version". Steam is part of the Windows ecosystem as gaming is a part of that ecosystem too. Your whole reasoning is flawed when you consider Steam as a competitor to Windows/Microsoft, when Steam and many other programs makes Windows appealing.

 

[Synth]

I don't expect that to happen aside from Microsoft's exclusives, which is a handful of titles. It's not like Quantum Break on PC will run on the Surface Pro just because it's on the Windows Store.

Missed this post earlier.

It may not run on a Surface Pro 4, but it will inevitably run on some iteration of Surface if they continue to produce new models. Also, you have to be careful how you define "run". I've actually got Fable Legends installed on my Surface Pro 4. It runs... you don't want to know what I have to make it look like in order for it to be in any way a controllable game... but it does run when dropped low enough (and I'm talking whole new standards of low here).

The problem is: Microsoft is the owner of Windows. I didn't said "Bouh Microsoft is leaving money for not making a Steam OS version". Steam is part of the Windows ecosystem as gaming is a part of that ecosystem too. Your whole reasoning is flawed when you consider Steam as a competitor to Windows/Microsoft, when Steam and many other programs makes Windows appealing.

Steam isn't a competitor to Windows (though SteamOS arguably is), but Steam is an indirect competitor to the Windows Store. I have RoTR from the Windows Store as a result of the pricing shenanigans, but without that, I'd almost certainly have the Steam version instead, because it's not a game I really care about any Live connectivity with. So Steam would take my money away from MS. If RoTR was a fully owned MS IP and was released to their store exclusively in the way many of these other games are... I'd have bought it, even at $60.

Steam as a whole is beneficial to Windows, but it's also beneficial (arguably moreso) for non-Windows platforms that had gaming offerings far more dire in comparison to Windows before it came along. MS can put everything they have on Steam, and it'd make absolutely no appreciable difference to sales of Windows itself... so this becomes are storefront discussion instead, and then everything I said above applies.

 

[Trup1aya]

And what reason do we have to believe that? Certainly not looking at where the windows store is at right now ...

I didn't say anyone should believe they WILL do this. I believe it would be in there best interest to, if they expect core gamers to patronize there store, especially if they want it to become an alternate source for major 3rd party titles.

I'm with everyone in the fact that the current limitations suck. I just disagree with the idea that since they've failed in this space, and they currently have hurdles, that they should quit. I think they just need to do better.

And I think it's possible to do better wilst distributing their own IP.

 

[Dinjoralo]

I don't see the windows store ever being torn down, at least not for a long while. What I am worried about is Microsoft refusing to change anything about the store to accomodate actual gaming, then pitch a fit and just stop putting games on PC outright when nobody wants to use the service that's worse than everything else it's competing with.

 

[Trup1aya]

I don't see the windows store ever being torn down, at least not for a long while. What I am worried about is Microsoft refusing to change anything about the store to accomodate actual gaming, then pitch a fit and just stop putting games on PC outright when nobody wants to use the service that's worse than everything else it's competing with.

It may happen this way, it may not. They've already mentioned that they are working to fix some of the issues in the op. Hopefully they don't stop there.

 

[aeolist]

It may happen this way, it may not. They've already mentioned that they are working to fix some of the issues in the op. Hopefully they don't stop there.

i'm sure they'll find a way to make exclusive fullscreen and g-sync/freesync modes work but that's about all. if they ever allow mods or overlays it will only be through official means that they will probably monetize. they are not going to enable executable modification or memory injection with UWAs since it defeats the entire purpose of the platform.

 

[Zedox]

I didn't say anyone should believe they WILL do this. I believe it would be in there best interest to, if they expect core gamers to patronize there store, especially if they want it to become an alternate source for major 3rd party titles.

I'm with everyone in the fact that the current limitations suck. I just disagree with the idea that since they've failed in this space, and they currently have hurdles, that they should quit. I think they just need to do better.

And I think it's possible to do better wilst distributing their own IP.

This is my position as well.

i'm sure they'll find a way to make exclusive fullscreen and g-sync/freesync modes work but that's about all. if they ever allow mods or overlays it will only be through official means that they will probably monetize. they are not going to enable executable modification or memory injection with UWAs since it defeats the entire purpose of the platform.

Yea, that's what I stated earlier. Mods are the biggest thing to overcome in my opinion and I have no idea how they are going to support unless devs support it. All that other stuff to me is minor compared to modding which is the biggest reason (outside of resolution) for PC gaming (the reason I get Elder Scrolls on PC instead of Xbox). All of the other issues are fixable in my opinion without defeating the purpose of the platform but modding goes against that so it's going to be interesting how they tackle that issue.

 

[Trup1aya]

i'm sure they'll find a way to make exclusive fullscreen and g-sync/freesync modes work but that's about all. if they ever allow mods or overlays it will only be through official means that they will probably monetize. they are not going to enable executable modification or memory injection with UWAs since it defeats the entire purpose of the platform.

I think the purpose of the platform is to incentivize people to choose Windows for all of there personal computing needs by selling software that works and/or is easily ported between multiple windows devices. Allowing people to customize their gaming experience doesn't defeat that at all. It would make people less apprehensive against UWAs, and benefit their platform.

I can't see them trying to monetize mods or overlays, because folks will always go for an alternative.

They just need to make UWAs more flexible.

 

[Zedox]

Making people pay for what they usually get for free isn't how you should do it on the PC platform (hopefully they learned about that with GFWL and online play).

 

[aeolist]

I think the purpose of the platform is to incentivize people to choose Windows for all of there personal computing needs. Allowing people to customize their experience doesn't defeat that at all.

I can't see them trying to monetize mods or overlays, because folks will always go for an alternative.

They just need to make UWAs more flexible.

the fundamental design of UWAs precludes the kind of flexibility we would need to enable mods. if they go back on that it undoes their entire design ethos for the platform.

it's not happening. maybe they'll develop an official MS mod store for a game but that strikes me as the kind of thing that would fail to take off and be almost immediately abandoned.

 

[MaLDo]

Sure, You are a potential customer. But Microsoft isn't losing anything by not meeting you on steam or GoG or whatever else.

Prior to the announcement you weren't buying QB. After the announcement you still aren't buying QB.
Your status hasn't changed. As it relates to QB, They were never counting on your money, so how can they have lost it?

Sure they are limiting their total unit sales potential for QB. But they are more interested in getting potential repeat customers into their store, which to them is more valuable than your single purchase of their game.

You're wrong. Every other Remedy game is on PC. I was sure Quantum Break will reach PC someday and I had the intention to buy the game. This has changed.

Complete mischaracterization of my argument. I never said that he wasn't a potential customer.

Merely stating the fact that they didn't lose a customer by announcing QB as a win10 exclusive... Maldo wasn't a customer before or after the announcement.

But I bought several Microsoft Studios produced games like

Ori and the blind forest
Deadlight
Dust: An Elysian Tail
Fable - The Lost Chapters
Fable Anniversary
Halo: Spartan Assault
Insanely Twisted Shadow Planet
State of Decay
Ms. Splosion Man
Pinball FX2 tables
Mark of the Ninja

or Halo, Halo 2 or Gears of Wars years ago so I can't see your logic.

 

[Synth]

You're wrong. Every other Remedy game is on PC. I was sure Quantum Break will reach PC someday and I had the intention to buy the game. This has changed.

But I bought several Microsoft Studios produced games like

Ori and the blind forest
Deadlight
Dust: An Elysian Tail
Fable - The Lost Chapters
Fable Anniversary
Halo: Spartan Assault
Insanely Twisted Shadow Planet
State of Decay
Ms. Splosion Man
Pinball FX2 tables
Mark of the Ninja

or Halo, Halo 2 or Gears of Wars years ago so I can't see your logic.

Every other Remedy game wasn't a MS owned IP though, so you can't really use precedent here.

And yea, you've bought MS published games in the past, but that doesn't mean you were a potential Quantum Break customer. That would only be true were there to be a Steam release of it, which was never at any point guaranteed. For all practical purposes, it simply never existed at any point in time.

So he's right in this case because your status would be:

Before announcement: "Not buying it for XB1"
After announcement: "Not buying it for Windows 10"

You weren't buying it in either situation. You would only be buying it if a third currently non-existent scenario occurred. So they didn't lose your sale... they could potentially gain it if they do what you want. They most likely know this though (well, not you specifically), and have decided against it anyway because the sale of the game itself isn't the highest priority (similarly, they're not putting it on PS4 to reach all those "potentially lost sales" either).

 

[Trup1aya]

You're wrong. Every other Remedy game is on PC. I was sure Quantum Break will reach PC someday and I had the intention to buy the game. This has changed.



But I bought several Microsoft Studios produced games like

Ori and the blind forest
Deadlight
Dust: An Elysian Tail
Fable - The Lost Chapters
Fable Anniversary
Halo: Spartan Assault
Insanely Twisted Shadow Planet
State of Decay
Ms. Splosion Man
Pinball FX2 tables
Mark of the Ninja

or Halo, Halo 2 or Gears of Wars years ago so I can't see your logic.

Whatever your intentions were, whatever your previous purchases from MS are you could not by Quantum Break where it has never existed.

So prior to the announcement of a PC version of QB it was an Xbox one exclusive. You weren't going to buy it. After the announcement of a PC version you still aren't going to buy it... No other versions of the game have ever existed as far as you or I are concerned. Same does for Forza.

Such is the nature of exclusivity... If a game isn't coming to a point of sale you support, you cant buy it. Is it logical to say Nintendo lost a sale to me because they won't release Mario on steam? No, because Mario never existed where I chose to play my games.

 

[DeepEnigma]

Before announcement: "Not buying it for XB1"
After announcement: "Not buying it for Windows 10 STORE"

That one word somehow seems to be conveniently left out of the argument against him, which twists his words (?), and also seems to be pushed like the Store and Windows 10 are one in the same.

I may be wrong, but I think his issue is with the store itself, not that it is 10. If I am wrong on that, then I do not get any of the arguments anymore, lol.

 

[Zedox]

That one word somehow seems to be conveniently left out of the argument against him, which twists his words (?), and also seems to be pushed like the Store and Windows 10 are one in the same.

I may be wrong, but I think his issue is with the store itself, not that it is 10. If I am wrong on that, then I do not get any of the arguments anymore, lol.

I believe that's probably what he meant to say. lolololol.

 

[Trup1aya]

That one word somehow seems to be conveniently left out of the argument against him, which twists his words (he said he would buy it on 10, not the store), and also seems to be pushed like the Store and Windows 10 are one in the same.

I may be wrong, but I think his issue is with the store itself, not that it is 10.

That's not an Insinuation I've ever made. There have only two versions of quantum break ever announced. He was never a candidate for either of them. So to say they lost his sale makes no sense. They never had his sale to begin with, just a hypothetical sale for a version that never existed.

 

[Synth]

That one word somehow seems to be conveniently left out of the argument against him, which twists it, and seems to be pushed like the Store and Windows 10 are one in the same.

I'm not really sure how that "twists" anything tbh... Windows Store then (or does it need to be precisely Windows 10 Store, to ensure I'm not twisting against Windows 8 users too?). The point remains the same, in both cases his requirements aren't satisfied so he's not buying. At no point was he buying it, even if there's a scenario that he's prepared to buy it under if it were to happen. I'd buy a Ferrari F50 with a Lamborghini engine for £150 if it happens. I'm not a lost Ferrari F50 sale until it does though.

 

[MaLDo]

That one word somehow seems to be conveniently left out of the argument against him, which twists his words (?), and also seems to be pushed like the Store and Windows 10 are one in the same.

I may be wrong, but I think his issue is with the store itself, not that it is 10. If I am wrong on that, then I do not get any of the arguments anymore, lol.

You're right but they like to spin arguments.

Don't worry.

Before announcement: "Not buying it for XB1"
After announcement: "Not buying it for Windows 10"

Before announcement: "Waiting for the PC version like any other Remedy game"
After announcement: "Waiting for the no UWA version or no buy"

 

[Synth]

You're right but they like to spin arguments.

Don't worry.

Before announcement: "Waiting for the PC version like any other Remedy game"
After announcement: "Waiting for the no UWA version or no buy"

So before you were waiting for a potential change (that may not ever happen) to buy it... and now you're waiting for a potential change (that may not ever happen) to buy it.

Again, nothing has been lost or gained here.

 

[MaLDo]

That's not an Insinuation I've ever made. There have only two versions of quantum break ever announced. He was never a candidate for either of them. So to say they lost his sale makes no sense. They never had his sale to begin with, just a hypothetical sale for a version that never existed.

So before you were waiting for a potential change (that may not ever happen) to buy it... and now you're waiting for a potential change (that may not ever happen) to buy it.

Again, nothing has been lost or gained here.

You're actually falling into a tremendous contradiction.

You yourself have said that Microsoft is willing to sacrifice Quantum Break sales in exchange for getting some new users in their new store.

Then I ask you something; what are those sacrificed sales if you do not accept that they are losing sales from people like me?

 

[DeepEnigma]

I'm not really sure how that "twists" anything tbh... Windows Store then (or does it need to be precisely Windows 10 Store, to ensure I'm not twisting against Windows 8 users too?). The point remains the same, in both cases his requirements aren't satisfied so he's not buying. At no point was he buying it, even if there's a scenario that he's prepared to buy it under if it were to happen. I'd buy a Ferrari F50 with a Lamborghini engine for £150 if it happens. I'm not a lost Ferrari F50 sale until it does though.

Um no, lol.

By conveniently leaving out the Store, you make it sound like he has a beef with it being on Windows 10 only, which most PC gamers do not give a stink about. They ARE excited about DX12 and the features it promises on paper, thus the free upgrade to 10 is incentive for them to take advantage of the new games coming out that will be developed with DX12 moving forward.

He would throw money at it if it was not locked behind a wall like it is Angry Birds. You know, like 99% of all PC games.