Microsoft Responds to Windows 8 Hate From Game Devs

[egmccann]

[citation][nom]JackFrost860[/nom]As a small game’s developer I welcome Microsoft app store. It gives small company developers a distribution point which the likes of Stream don’t. The big producers and distributors are screaming about what is actually nothing more than competition. Nobody is being forced to use the app store. Windows market place was around long before Win8.[/citation]

From a distribution standpoint - and without seeing what microsoft will charge, or what kind of restrictions they'll put on the app store - I can see welcoming the app store. But Steam (and Stardock's own Impulse service) have a fair number of indie games as well, so I don't see what the complaint there is.

If it's about *their* requirements/cut/restrictions... well, then find out what Microsoft wants and make a comparison.

 

[egmccann]

[citation][nom]blazorthon[/nom]Hating something that is better than Windows 7 is just stupid.[/citation]

You're right, it would be. However, people are hating windows 8, so that's OK.

Yes, it has Metro. So what! If you don't like Metro, then you don't use it. You don't need to use Metro to use Windows 8.

... except that it dumps you there right at the start (and MS has been working on keeping people from shortcutting their way to the desktop.) And some of the PC settings are reached from there. And, lacking a start menu, your apps are there - unless you *like* a desktop cluttered with icons, or a third party app Microsoft may decide they don't want running (start menu replicants.)

If you like the start menu that much, then you can simply install one and enjoy all the benefits that Windows 8 has to offer over Windows 7.

As much as Microsoft has been pushing Metro, to the point of (a) removing a start menu after the dev preview, (b) nuking workarounds and (c) removing the workaround of even setting a shortcut to take you right to the desktop, I have no faith that they'll allow any "third party start menu" to continue working for long after release.

If I want a start menu, I can also stick with Win7. Which is what I plan on doing.

It is faster, lighter, more responsive, has some UI improvements with the task manager and the copy manager, among many other improvements.[/citation]

... all of which, frankly, could be patched into Windows 7.

Do you remember the shenanigans they pulled with Halo II and ... think it was Shadowrun, a pair of fairly anticipated games that came out around the time of Vista? They "required" Vista. They were modified to look specifically for vista (supposedly for DirectX features) and wouldn't install without it... until someone patched that off and found they worked *just* fine on XP.

Microsoft's attitude with the start menu and finding way after way to force people into Metro smacks of the same tactics. Yes, there are a (very) few nice things for the desktop/standard laptop in Win8. Not enough for me to upgrade, not enough for me to *like* upgrading - or, frankly, consider upgrading - and certainly not enough for me to approve of their nonsense.

And yes, I have used all three previews and seen for myself how it was going. Have you?

 

[blazorthon]

[citation][nom]egmccann[/nom]You're right, it would be. However, people are hating windows 8, so that's OK. ... except that it dumps you there right at the start (and MS has been working on keeping people from shortcutting their way to the desktop.) And some of the PC settings are reached from there. And, lacking a start menu, your apps are there - unless you *like* a desktop cluttered with icons, or a third party app Microsoft may decide they don't want running (start menu replicants.) As much as Microsoft has been pushing Metro, to the point of (a) removing a start menu after the dev preview, (b) nuking workarounds and (c) removing the workaround of even setting a shortcut to take you right to the desktop, I have no faith that they'll allow any "third party start menu" to continue working for long after release. If I want a start menu, I can also stick with Win7. Which is what I plan on doing.

It is faster, lighter, more responsive, has some UI improvements with the task manager and the copy manager, among many other improvements.[/citation]... all of which, frankly, could be patched into Windows 7. Do you remember the shenanigans they pulled with Halo II and ... think it was Shadowrun, a pair of fairly anticipated games that came out around the time of Vista? They "required" Vista. They were modified to look specifically for vista (supposedly for DirectX features) and wouldn't install without it... until someone patched that off and found they worked *just* fine on XP. Microsoft's attitude with the start menu and finding way after way to force people into Metro smacks of the same tactics. Yes, there are a (very) few nice things for the desktop/standard laptop in Win8. Not enough for me to upgrade, not enough for me to *like* upgrading - or, frankly, consider upgrading - and certainly not enough for me to approve of their nonsense.And yes, I have used all three previews and seen for myself how it was going. Have you?[/citation]

You don't really think that MS can disable the start menu programs, do you? MS would need to have a run-time environment that didn't allow any programs that aren't certified by MS because they are just regular programs rather than hacks. Anything else that MS does would be immediately hacked and exploited and even this idea would probably be implemented in a flawed manner by MS.

Windows 8, as an OS, is superior to Windows 7. You act as if booting into Metro is such a horrible thing. You simply click the desktop UI and you're out of Metro. It's not bad at all. Furthermore, it can be disabled, although it's not the easiest thing to do at all.

That all of those could be patched into Windows 7 means nothing at all. Every single update to Windows since at least Windows XP could have been patched into Windows. However, with MS's business model, if they don't actually charge money for some of their major updates, they don't make nearly as much money in their OS business.

I have used every version of Windows 8 and several versions of Windows Server 2012. I'm not spouting nonsense at all.

Yes, MS's intentions are pretty poor. However, hating on Windows 8 over that isn't very smart at all. That's simply using a great OS as a scapegoat for its creator being greedy. I don't intend on paying for Windows 8; I'll simply download an eval copy of Windows Server 2012 and problem solved, legally free upgrade. I could easily throw in a start menu and Windows 7/Server 2008R2 will have nothing over it.

 

[captaincharisma]

I'm loving all these folks telling people to "come on over to linux! You'll love it!"

Yeah you'll love it till the moment you have to ask for some advice or support and then its..

"F*** off noob!" or "F*** off and don't ask until you've used it a year and learnt some stuff!"

Thanks I'll reinstall Windows then!

Great OS, crappy users!

If linux is to get a real foothold a major corporation has to get behind it, basically buy it up and get rid of 99% of the other distros. Then a properly managed support network can be setup and standards achieved. Yep it totally goes against the ethos of Linux but currently the old phrase 'divide and conquer' is working a charm against linux.

exactly linux users are like cult followers they act like snobby PC experts and will snicker at anything you ask for help with. and yea PC gaming would become a big mess if windows were to suddenly disappear. all MS did with different versions was add or remove insignificant things. all these linux ditros can go from having everything to nothing, a stock kernel to a heavily modified kernel. gaming companies wouldn't take on having to make 10 ports of the same game to work on every popular flavour of Linux

 

[brad55590]

I guarantee the majority of users that have posted comments here have never worked with Win8.

I have been running the MSDN release since it was released and at first yeah, it was overwhelming but as time goes by and using it as my everyday gaming and developing workstation, i have grown to see that Win 8 is not all that bad.

My PC performs better than it did on Win7 and if you don't like the "Metro" menu, DON'T USE IT. there are work arounds for it.

Win8 also runs all my games with no problems, from Diablo II all the way to BF3. I haven't had a days hassle with it since i have installed it.

As for the gaming industry, I am unable to comment as i do not develop games but what i can say is that i haven't had any problems with any of the games i am currently playing.

Do yourself a favour and install it and use it. You will soon realise it's not as bad as you make it out to be.

 

[blazorthon]

[citation][nom]captaincharisma[/nom]exactly linux users are like cult followers they act like snobby PC experts and will snicker at anything you ask for help with. and yea PC gaming would become a big mess if windows were to suddenly disappear. all MS did with different versions was add or remove insignificant things. all these linux ditros can go from having everything to nothing, a stock kernel to a heavily modified kernel. gaming companies wouldn't take on having to make 10 ports of the same game to work on every popular flavour of Linux[/citation]

That is not my experience with Linux users when I ask questions and it is most certainly not the experience of people whom ask me questions about Linux. Also, simply supporting Ubuntu or Mint would do the trick for Linux support. If you want to use it with another distro, then there are patches and other ways for getting other distro's software to work and Valve wouldn't need to do any of that because it's already available.

PC gaming would become a big mess if Windows disappeared because most people, even among many Linux users, don't know how to run Windows games under Linux properly, let alone use Linux properly (although with Ubuntu, Mint, and many other distros, it is far easier to use than most people realize before they simply give it a serious try). That is not Linux being unable to do the task, that's simply people not being knowledgeable and otherwise experienced with some modern Linux distros.

 

[voiidwulf]

I won't be upgrading to Windows 8. Windows 7 is perfect for my uses. I boot up in ~20 seconds and I'm good to go. My most used programs are in my quickbar at the bottom, and I see no reason to replace the desktop with a bunch of simple buttons.

 

[blazorthon]

[citation][nom]VoiidWulf[/nom]I won't be upgrading to Windows 8. Windows 7 is perfect for my uses. I boot up in ~20 seconds and I'm good to go. My most used programs are in my quickbar at the bottom, and I see no reason to replace the desktop with a bunch of simple buttons.[/citation]

Why replace the desktop in Windows 8? Windows 8's desktop works no worse than Windows 7 which is no surprise given that they're the same except for Windows 8 not having a start menu by default (you can put one in if you want to anyway).

 

[voiidwulf]

[citation][nom]blazorthon[/nom]Why replace the desktop in Windows 8? Windows 8's desktop works no worse than Windows 7 which is no surprise given that they're the same except for Windows 8 not having a start menu by default (you can put one in if you want to anyway).[/citation]

Well, true, but I still won't "upgrade". None of the features help me in any way.

 

[blazorthon]

[citation][nom]VoiidWulf[/nom]Well, true, but I still won't "upgrade". None of the features help me in any way.[/citation]

Most people are helped by the somewhat higher performance, lower resource usage, and improved task manager, copy/paste manager, and more, even if only slightly. Maybe it's not enough to warrant an upgrade for you, but it would certainly help at least a little.

 

[voiidwulf]

[citation][nom]blazorthon[/nom]Most people are helped by the somewhat higher performance, lower resource usage, and improved task manager, copy/paste manager, and more, even if only slightly. Maybe it's not enough to warrant an upgrade for you, but it would certainly help at least a little.[/citation]

I wasn't trying to start an argument or anything. All I said was that I wasn't going to upgrade. I'll probably upgrade my sister's laptop because Windows 8 would increase performance. I can't really imagine Windows being faster on my PC then it is right now, so I won't upgrade my own PC.

 

[MidnightDistort]

I am perfectly happy with the way Win 7 is. I have tried Win 8 out and i found it pretty confusing. With keeping Win 7 i don't have to install any fixes for the start menu, it's good til 2020 and plus it saves me money i don't have.

I'd like to see MS's response if not enough users are switching to Win 8. Linux/Ubuntu is a bit different and you would have to learn it but if MS wants to keep things hidden or some functionality gone i am not going to pay for it. I would never buy or even need Win 8. Other then a better resource management and the Task Manager what does 8 have that Win 7 doesn't already have? IMO Win 7 works just fine for all my needs.

 

[cats_Paw]

Microsoft trying to become apple? haha. Win support for older versions? Even bigger joke.
Microsoft gonna get destroyed if they do stupid stuff like this in an age when people are hatting those behaviours .

 

[blazorthon]

[citation][nom]cats_paw[/nom]Microsoft trying to become apple? haha. Win support for older versions? Even bigger joke.Microsoft gonna get destroyed if they do stupid stuff like this in an age when people are hatting those behaviours .[/citation]

Microsoft isn't trying to become Apple (although some of their new tactics might be similar) and Windows 8 does have full compatibility with games that work on Windows Vista and Windows 7.

 

[wemakeourfuture]

[citation][nom]belardo[/nom]Make the games for Linux... and the people will come.[/citation]

Yah all 1-2% of desktop users using Linux...

 

[luciferano]

[citation][nom]wemakeourfuture[/nom]Yah all 1-2% of desktop users using Linux...[/citation]

If people could easily migrate away without breaking compatibility with anything, then I'm willing to bet that Linux usage on desktops and laptops could grow exponentially over a few years.

 

[Guest]

there just going to put steam on linux and pi** of microsoft for being stupid ****heads

 

[luciferano]

[citation][nom]qwnhcdhj[/nom]there just going to put steam on linux and pi** of microsoft for being stupid ****heads[/citation]

Steam works just fine on Windows 8. In fact, it works better on Windows 8 than it does on Linux right now. Valve is simply complaining about MS competing with them, not there being actual problems.

 

[elcentral]

haha windows games such a loving piece of crap. all my steam games works really good except for all the windows games. its always problems for me. it cant log in i need to download a virus called games for windows or it will not allow me to log in. it fucks around in game -_- if it would go away id be so happy.

 

[JerryC]

If MS were smart, they would build an app store that works on windows 7 and gain the piece of that market they are wanting. They didn't need to build an entirely new OS designed around that feature.

 

[tech_twist]

give me a free touchscreen display and ill install your Windows 8!!!

 

[Guest]

I'll keep all my ranting out. I've been running the RTM almost a month and after such a great, great Windows 7, you know. It was like yes!, MS finally has their act together and now this. I heard people here say "it's not so bad", "it's just different", "blah, blah, blah". I'd actually rate this one lower than Vista, at least most of Vista's problems revolved around hardware manufacturers not having stable drivers and computer makers releasing way under-powered machines to run it. Vista ended up not being too bad, at least not on my machine. But this, it's stepping backwards. All the little apps at the "store". We want this on our phones for toys, we want real software on our desktops/laptops. Just a disappointment, see I couldn't not rant, and then they take away aero to discourage desktop use by making it look windows 3.1ish .

 

[misterawsome]

i like my option and if i wanted an xbox-like platform i'd get an xbox.

 

[tobalaz]

[citation][nom]Anonymous[/nom]For all 'linux is complicated' cult out there.How to install linux (ubuntu based distros at least)1-pop the cd in the drive2-follow the on screen instructions and fill out the fields just lke you do with windows3-it does the stuff for your and reboots and tadaaaa there you goHow to use linux1-know how to read2-know how to use keyboard and mouseHow to install wine to run windows exe's1-Go to software manager2-write wine3-press enter4-click installHow to understand that linux is not complicated1-Actually using it yourself2-Not take the words of other people for it when they didn't tried linux themselves eitherTop tips1-Linux may be glitchy on some configs, on that case i advise not to use it.2-Use linux mint (pick your version, there are reviews on the interwebz)p.s. I use the mint to work, w8 preview for fun, winning combination for me[/citation]

Doesn't matter if Linux has become more user friendly or not, people as a whole are just plain stupid and stubborn and if they think they can't do something they'll refuse to try. You can hold their hand, walk them through it step by step and they'd argue with you the ENTIRE TIME that they can't do it, even if it was as simple as pressing a start button, and by the time they're done arguing with you that they can't do it they haven't learned a damn thing.
Take it from someone who spent a few years at a help desk.
I've ran Linux a few times, mostly years ago, and truth be told it was a pain in the ass and most Linux users at the time spent more time laughing at people that "couldn't get it" then try to help spread it.
Its that kind of stigma Linux has associated with it that frighten most people off.
If Linux wants desktop users, the game industry has to get together with the hardware manufacturers, pick a version and throw their support in that direction.
Then you're going to have to see those Linux pcs sell retail, because most people aren't pc literate enough to build their own or install anything that doesn't let you drop in the disk, skip the EULA and just keep clicking ok until it puts an icon on their desktop.

But back to the main topic.
Microsoft is forcing a change on us.
Just like when we went from DOS and 3.1 to Win 95.
Just like when we went from 98 to XP.
Just like when we went from XP to Vista.
And now it's Win 7 to Win 8.

Oh yes we'll bitch and moan, MS will stand pat, and we'll be forced to deal with the changes, and in 8 years from now we'll wonder how we ever dealt with the "old crap" we so desperately clutch to.
Whether you like it or not, MS is pushing a universal platform so if you can use a Xbox, you can use your pc, phone and tablet just as easily. It's NOT EASY on us now, but we'll adjust.
We don't have a choice in the matter.

 

[Guest]

Will stick to win7. If I ever have a need to purchase a new machine I will make sure it's not win8. Many consumers bound to agree. When the comp sellers catch on to that trend then the pos will be in the ground where it belongs. Individual dev's don't make or break it but they help metabolize this into place marginally faster.

No clue what they were thinking. They may have wanted to remove "choice" form the picture seeing as how their games for windows live and such are all massive failures. A better way for success would be to improve the services. Not attempt to off the ones who do it better. Consumers will not accept this. Your not the only game in town...the biggest but moves like these are what DRIVES the other guys to override you. People don't move from comfort they are pushed....you guys are pushing.