Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 29th Oct 2012 23:34 UTC
Games I'm not 100% sure this is actually word-for-word, but alas. "In a presentation at Ubuntu Developer Summit currently going on in Denmark, Drew Bliss from Valve said that Linux is more viable than Windows 8 for gaming. Windows 8 ships with its own app store and it is moving away from an open platform model." I feel like a broken record by now but here we go again: keep an eye on Valve, even if you're not into games. This is the company pushing NVIDIA and AMD to improve their Linux support, with enough clout and name to actually get stuff done. Valve doesn't mess around.
Thread beginning with comment 540460
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
galvanash
Member since:
2006-01-25

I do realize that Gabe Newell is worried about Microsoft pushing for their Windows Store and thereby possibly making Steam less relevant/attractive to customers and therefore Valve has to try to bolster their presence.


Of course he is - but just because he has an agenda doesn't make what he is saying wrong...

Windows Store is not Windows and therefore complaining about it being closed is misguided in this context.


1. Microsoft has publicly and repeatedly proclaimed "the future is metro" to their developers every chance they get.

2. Metro apps can only be distributed legally through the Windows Store (enterprise deployment not withstanding).

3. Windows Store has many arbitrary limitations, the big one being no apps with a content rating above PEGI 16 are allowed. Note that it doesn't say they must be marked as adult, they are not allowed.

4. The vast majority of games that actually make money on Steam have a rating above PEGI 16.

I like Windows 8, and I like Metro. But I don't like Microsoft's policy here at all. They are making it virtually impossible to distribute modern games targeting Metro at this point. Sure, you can still do games targeting win32, but if "the future is metro"...

Just saying the best time to get pissed off about this is before it has time to establish itself. On top of that, Im sure Valve has already tried to convince Microsoft to pursue a different path - the fact that they are ready to jump ship and move to Linux doesn't give me any confidence that Microsoft is going to back down on this...

In short, there is nothing (imo) wrong with app stores in general. There IS something very wrong when the vendor of the OS that apps run on is running the app store... The rage over what the guys in Cupertino did with iOS is nothing but a mild hum - they didn't take something away from their users in order to give them the app store... On Windows the situation is strikingly different - users know the freedom they are potentially giving up.

Even the smell of developers possibly losing the ability to self distribute in the future is going to generate a shit storm, and soon. It has all been theory up to now - as soon as Microsoft applies even a single limitation on win32 apps (and they likely will) the uproar will be chaotic.

Also, I have not heard of side-loading Metro-applications/games being restricted


Yes it is. You can only sideload using one of two methods - you either need an enterprise deployment allowing you to sign the apps with your domain controller, or you need a special "side-loading enabled" product activation key. You also cannot, under either scenario, sideload an app that was acquired through the Windows Store.

Even if you have a side-load activation key, you can only side-load apps that are signed with a key you trust - meaning you can only side-load things you wrote. It is not a viable method for app distribution because the apps must be signed, and if they are not signed by your key you can't load them...

http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/hh852635.aspx

This effectively means that sideloading of metro apps is an enterprise only feature at worst and a geek only feature at best (assuming a way to get such side-load key becomes apparent). Normal consumers simply cannot side-load metro apps at all.

but Linux simply does not work for me for gaming; I want to keep my stereoscopic 3D and surround sound, plus I want to play the games I have already bought.


That may not be true if your favorite company releases a new version of your favorite game, and it doesn't run on Windows anymore... That is not a joke either - that is a very serious possibility. We are not taking about companies like Zynga - I mean real game companies like Blizzard, Valve, Bethesda, Id, etc.

If it comes down to the choice of making the next Skyrim for Linux or being forced to make the next Fruit Ninja for Windows because of Microsoft's Store policies... Well I for one would wager that alot of the guys at those companies will go their own way.

Im not some hysterical "omg the sky is falling" type, I am very pragmatic. There is a real possibility that Microsoft will make promises to leave win32 alone and not rock the boat for game developers - but they have not made that promise yet. They also may modify their store policies to make it more friendly to game developers.

The point is they wont do either of those things without a whole lot of people doing a whole lot of screaming about it. Pretending everything is fine and "trusting" Microsoft is just going to get us another walled garden platform like iOS. If you are a gamer, and you are ok with that, you are seriously missing the forest through the trees...

Edited 2012-10-30 01:32 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 12

WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

Of course he is - but just because he has an agenda doesn't make what he is saying wrong...


Indeed, and I never claimed that. I'm just saying that he has more on his heart than just end-users' happiness.

1. Microsoft has publicly and repeatedly proclaimed "the future is metro" to their developers every chance they get.

2. Metro apps can only be distributed legally through the Windows Store (enterprise deployment not withstanding).


And yet, neither of those stop Steam from working as it does already, which is exactly what I was saying: Steam works, and will continue to work, as-is just fine. The future is the future and yes, Microsoft is pushing for Metro, but right now it is NOT a requirement and therefore there is absolutely no functional difference between Steam on Windows 7 and Steam on Windows 8. In other words Windows 8 is no more or less viable than Windows 7. The next Windows-version will probably be, but it is misguided to say this one is.

3. Windows Store has many arbitrary limitations, the big one being no apps with a content rating above PEGI 16 are allowed. Note that it doesn't say they must be marked as adult, they are not allowed.


Incorrect: http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2012/10/microsoft-to-allow-mature-gam... In other words Microsoft does allow PEGI-18 to enter the store, now. Also, as I said above, this limitation is only relevant if Steam were to become a Metro-app.

I like Windows 8, and I like Metro.


I don't.

Yes it is. You can only sideload using one of two methods


I stand corrected.

That may not be true if your favorite company releases a new version of your favorite game, and it doesn't run on Windows anymore... That is not a joke either - that is a very serious possibility.


A new version of a game that I already own? Why would that affect me? A sequel or a prequel would be a separate game, and if that didn't work on the OS I use I obviously wouldn't buy it.

Pretending everything is fine and "trusting" Microsoft is just going to get us another walled garden platform like iOS. If you are a gamer, and you are ok with that, you are seriously missing the forest through the trees...


You're misunderstanding everything I said. I am merely saying Windows 8 is not any worse or better for gaming than Windows 7 is and claiming otherwise is silly. The next Windows - version, whatever it will be, possibly will be worse, but then the complaints should be about the future direction.

It's like a company producing bricks and the company announcing plans to move to glass bricks: the planned direction is a silly one, but the bricks you have now fill your needs just as well as any former bricks. You can complain "I don't like your direction and therefore the bricks I have now -- even though they're just as good for what I do as any former ones -- are bad and I'm going to throw a tantrum over them instead of your planned direction," or you can just forgo trying to make the current ones look bad and concentrate on complaining about the plans themselves.

Reply Parent Score: 5

galvanash Member since:
2006-01-25

And yet, neither of those stop Steam from working as it does already, which is exactly what I was saying: Steam works, and will continue to work, as-is just fine. The future is the future and yes, Microsoft is pushing for Metro, but right now it is NOT a requirement and therefore there is absolutely no functional difference between Steam on Windows 7 and Steam on Windows 8. In other words Windows 8 is no more or less viable than Windows 7. The next Windows-version will probably be, but it is misguided to say this one is.


Yes, you are right of course. But some promises from Microsoft concerning the status of win32 going forward would settle a lot of nerves.

Incorrect: http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2012/10/microsoft-to-allow-mature-gam... In other words Microsoft does allow PEGI-18 to enter the store, now.


Didn't see that - good to know. Still, do you think they would have reversed course on this if no one complained about it? That is really all Im saying, the complaining from people is a good thing - even if it is from Valve.

You're misunderstanding everything I said. I am merely saying Windows 8 is not any worse or better for gaming than Windows 7 is and claiming otherwise is silly. The next Windows - version, whatever it will be, possibly will be worse, but then the complaints should be about the future direction.


It may not be worse for gamers (as in end users) but it is certainly worse for gaming (as in the economy around how they are made and distributed). Its worse because Microsoft has created doubt as to the future of the platform for them - whether intentionally or not. With Windows 7 there was no reason to believe the rug might be pulled out from under you as a developer, with Windows 8? I mean do you know Microsoft's plans for win32 in 5 years? It used to be fairly obvious, now not so much.

Edited 2012-10-30 04:00 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 6

cdude Member since:
2008-09-21

The future is the future and yes, Microsoft is pushing for Metro, but right now it is NOT a requirement and therefore there is absolutely no functional difference between Steam on Windows 7 and Steam on Windows 8.


There is even a very hard requirement. Windows 8 RT is ONLY running Metro. It is correct that Windows 8 RT ships win32 but ONLY Microsoft can use that API and they do in IE10 and Office for RT but NOBODY else can use win32 on RT.

This are the whole ARM, Tablet, Phone product-lines. They and the appstore and API limitations did not exist on Windows 7 but they exist NOW on Windows 8.

Reply Parent Score: 4

bouhko Member since:
2010-06-24

You're misunderstanding everything I said. I am merely saying Windows 8 is not any worse or better for gaming than Windows 7 is and claiming otherwise is silly. The next Windows - version, whatever it will be, possibly will be worse, but then the complaints should be about the future direction.

I think that's exactly Valve's agenda. They are afraid Windows 9 will be metro only and only allow windows store and they are trying to put pressure on Microsoft. The best way to put pressure on Microsoft is to prove them they can build a gaming platform on a competing operating system.

Even if Valve doesn't Valve to abandon Windows, it also make sense from a business perspective to not depend on a single vendor (Microsoft) for a critical requirement of your product (the OS on which it runs).

Reply Parent Score: 5

bassbeast Member since:
2007-11-11

Not to mention the rotting elephant in the room Werecat which is so far the reviews of Win 8 are terrible, even worse than Vista, and we ALL know how well it went over right? Lets face it, getting a product to go over despite huge amounts of bad buzz is nearly impossible for a company with a GREAT PR dept, and MSFT's PR certainly ain't great.

Final verdict? Win 7 is supported until 2020, I have a feeling after a dead XMas season the OEMs will demand the right to sell Win 7 (just as they did with XP) and MSFT will cave, just as they did on Vista. They are pushing an appstore because it gives them a walled garden but they AIN'T Apple, they simply aren't a premier brand and never will be. This is like marking everything in Walmart up 300% and suddenly thinking that makes you Macy's...it don't.

Reply Parent Score: 2

Drumhellar Member since:
2005-07-12

3. Windows Store has many arbitrary limitations, the big one being no apps with a content rating above PEGI 16 are allowed. Note that it doesn't say they must be marked as adult, they are not allowed.


Microsoft did recently change their policy, and games sold in Europe with a PEGI-18 rating can be sold if they receive no higher than MA-17 in the US.

Reply Parent Score: 2

WorknMan Member since:
2005-11-13

1. Microsoft has publicly and repeatedly proclaimed "the future is metro" to their developers every chance they get.


Microsoft also tends to change its mind every few years too. Didn't they 'bet the company' on .NET/Silverlight, or some shit?

Win32 will be around for at LEAST another 20 years. That's about how long it'll take 'em to make Metro not suck ;)

Reply Parent Score: 4

galvanash Member since:
2006-01-25

Win32 will be around for at LEAST another 20 years. That's about how long it'll take 'em to make Metro not suck ;)


I actually agree with you completely, but I don't have money riding on it.

Some people do.

Reply Parent Score: 2

lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

.NET is part of Windows 8.

Silverlight technologies basically are XAML, which is used for Metro Apps.

These technologies have evolved for the new Modern UI interface.

Reply Parent Score: 3