OSNews

...I'm not gonna copy you and say that's garbage in return..

BUT I don't believe it's hard and fast true either!
: http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=MTE5MTk
(and there's other noises about saying similar things)

May being the operative word.

It isn't when you take long-term into account, something many people refuse to do here. Long-term, Windows is going Metro-only. That effectively kills any serious gaming on Windows - and Microsoft is okay with that, because they've got an Xbox to sell you.



Which is exactly why Valve is working with AMD, NVIDIA, and others. The breakage is not something that's unstoppable or insurmountable - just look at Android. Valve could easily work together with the parties involved to come to a - for Valve - stable platform for developers to target. If Google can, then Valve can. Especially with the help of major other game companies with which they're already working anyway through Steam. Remember, a Metro-only no-serious-gaming Windows is disastrous for especially NVIDIA. Nobody needs a powerful graphics chip for Metro and Cut The Rope.

You are stuck in the present, unable to look beyond the horizon. Windows' viability as a gaming platform will end in the very near future when Microsoft pulls the plug on the desktop. They've made it very clear they intend to do so, and luckily for us, Valve has the brains to start addressing that situation NOW, instead of when it's too late.

Edited 2012-10-30 15:41 UTC

You don't know what you're talking about. Native Metro apps written in C/C++ are basically the same as native Win32 apps: They use D3D11, swap chain/flip mode, game loop, input events, raw mouse support, etc. I know because, unlike you, I've actually written Metro games; not regurgitated lame BS that I read on some blog.

You're buying too much into Gabe's bullshit as if he is some sort of holy and honest defender of gaming territory. He's a defender of his own territory. The bottom line is this: Microsoft is not going to abandon the Win32 gaming market. To do, you have to make the following assumptions:

1) That Microsoft is willing throw away all of their backwards compatibility that they worked so hard to preserve the past few decades.

2) That Microsoft even WANTS to get rid of the desktop. Office 2013 runs on the desktop and do you honestly believe Office 2013 will be incompatible with Windows 9?

3) That Microsoft even CAN get rid of the desktop. As mentioned earlier, WinRT is built directly on top of Win32. The recently released .NET Framework 4.5 sits atop Win32 *AND* the desktop APIs.

In the past, Microsoft has taken many initiatives that developers did not agree with. With the .NET Framework, they wanted a world of managed code. Did they get it? Nope, just about every single game is still running on Win32. They wanted games on Windows 3.0 back in 1990. Did they get it? Nope, game devs continued making games for DOS until DirectX 6 and 7 came out, a whopping 8 years later.

Microsoft won't abandon the Windows desktop until everybody else does. Why? Because they can't. And why would they? Windows 8 has brought many improvements to the desktop, who's to stay Windows 9 won't bring even more? Sure, they focused heavily on touch this time around but that is because that is what they needed the most. Hell - do you think Gabe will?

Let's make this very clear: Gabe is not running from Windows 8 because of its deficiencies as a gaming platform, he's running from it because its strengths as one. If Microsoft improves the Metro UI, improves the Store policies, and improves their Xbox Live initiatives such to the point that it becomes an excellent gaming platform, it will kill Valve's position as an online publisher.

Imagine further in Windows 9 that the Windows Store comes to the desktop, further solidifying the staying of power of the desktop, yet retaining compatibility with all previous software built for Windows.

THAT is what Gabe fears.

No it isn't. There is always going to be something like classic mode. There is just too much existing code to kill it off.



Android is a completely different, they aren't even comparable.

Android development is controlled via Google. What sits underneath Android Layer could be anything ... It could be a modified OpenBSD, QNX or something else. When you develop for Android ... you develop against the Android SDK ... the fact that it is Linux is irrelevant to those who release Apps and Games.



Only if there is a Steam Distro or we are using Ubuntu (which tends to push stuff buggy crap out early, like the pulse audio fiasco, and in another 6 months wayland).



Oh great, so Valve now dictates what hardware will work best with their games, brilliant!

There is C++, Direct X and probably a lot of other stuff. There is no reason why triple A titles can't run in Metro. Considering the Unreal 3 Engine can run in Flash ... There is no reason why say the CryEngine or the Unreal 3 engine can't run in Metro.



I just don't think the future is the same as you are predicting. That isn't the same as the fact that I don't understand what you are saying, I just disagree. Who is right or who will is wrong we will find out, pretending you are some sort of oracle just makes you sound like an arsehole.

I don't think anything like the Traditional Desktop is going to go away for maybe another decade, because there is just too much stuff written out there for the current Desktop.

Anyway, all my steam games work on Windows 8 perfectly fine, so that alone disproves Gabe's "viability argument".

Edited 2012-10-30 18:00 UTC

Thom, people aren't refusing to see the long-term plan, we are simply arguing the fact that no matter what Microsoft's plan for the future is doesn't make Windows 8 itself any more or less viable, it only makes the future versions less viable. What happens in the future happens in the future, and what we have right now is Windows 8 -- something that works just as well and peachy as its predecessor.

You're confusing long-term plans with the present.



That comparison is dysfunctional. Android comes as a whole OS and you don't arbitrarily update parts of it, whereas under GNU/Linux the OS consists of thousands of individual packages, each of which can be updated separately. It's a whole lot easier to keep the one, large bundle functional without breakages than one that consists of so many small things and that keeps changing on a daily basis.