Microsoft: Please Take Money to Make Windows 8 Games
- Thread starter Greg Tito
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I read that you can switch from the metro UI to a desktop, but I thought the metro UI replace the start menu. Without it, it doesn't look exactly like win 7.ResonanceSD said:
Neonsilver said:
What exactly is the problem with that, anyway?
A) No one's forcing anyone else to buy it
B) The "debate" is no different to people shouting "OMG! Activision/Capcom/Eidos/Ubisoft/Peter Molyneux CHANGED THE WAY THEY MADE THEIR GAME IN A SEQUEL AND THIS IS THE WORST THING EVER.
Seriously. It's Windows. Download Rainmeter if it's bugging you, and get a shell change back to Win3.1 if you want. My computer looks like the Animus right now.
Fixed for you, and Vista wasn't that shit; it's just that the idiot OEMs decided to ship Vista on shit hardware, even when MS clearly stated the system requirements.Nihlus2 said:
OT- Wait, Microsoft's begging? No thanks, MS, while I did buy your OS, it was only to get up to speed on my gaming. That's it. Offer me something that
You don't need to use it to know that an OS designed with touch screen optimisation at the fore front of their concerns is a bad idea for an audience that prefers mouse and keyboard right now. Not only that but what used to be a relatively open platform is starting to get locked down and it's a good thing? Like it or don't, but don't shoot people down for their opinions.Bigsmith said:
\
The only true benefit to upgrading that I have found is the new version of multitasking, as well as the Windows Store (which is the big complaint for most) because many of the websites and desktop programs I use have already become available on store, and the ones that are not directly available on the store have links to their website on the store so that you can download the desktop app.
If you upgrade from windows 7 it creates a windows.old folder that (supposedly) can be used to revert back if you decide you don't like windows 8
I don't know about benefits to upgrading. However if you are worried about whether or not your programs work. Before you can purchase windows 8, the website scans your computer and tells you exactly which programs will work and which will not work. It also says what will need to be reinstalled or what has an update.frizzlebyte said:
The only true benefit to upgrading that I have found is the new version of multitasking, as well as the Windows Store (which is the big complaint for most) because many of the websites and desktop programs I use have already become available on store, and the ones that are not directly available on the store have links to their website on the store so that you can download the desktop app.
If you upgrade from windows 7 it creates a windows.old folder that (supposedly) can be used to revert back if you decide you don't like windows 8
The idiocy of this is mind shattering. You can win stuff for developing games for the platform, nothing wrong with that. The idea that is completely broken is the one where it will cost a small indie developer stupid amounts of money to put and maintain a game on the platform (as it does on XBLA, the thing their "app store" is based off of). It is a perfectly viable idea, except for the fact that out of greed they are going to make the platform hard for any small developer to use and way too expensive for teams with no previous releases to provide funds for the new release.
This has nothing to do with Windows 8, people need to get perspective. This has everything to do with Micro$hit being poor businessmen who can only work in areas where people are willing to grease their palms, up until people don't. From a competitive standpoint, the PC as it stands, outside of the Windows 8 App Store is the king of indie development. There are so many platforms that you can release on for a lot less money money to start, or you can even release by yourself as many games do. M$ is essentially competing with itself in this arena, and losing.
A contest to see who can be the first people to pay M$ money, that is one for the ages.
This has nothing to do with Windows 8, people need to get perspective. This has everything to do with Micro$hit being poor businessmen who can only work in areas where people are willing to grease their palms, up until people don't. From a competitive standpoint, the PC as it stands, outside of the Windows 8 App Store is the king of indie development. There are so many platforms that you can release on for a lot less money money to start, or you can even release by yourself as many games do. M$ is essentially competing with itself in this arena, and losing.
A contest to see who can be the first people to pay M$ money, that is one for the ages.
I don't even like Win 7 but I had to bear with it, It already hid so much shit, without even mentioning the awfully blocked version that is starter and now they have this "touch" shit. The first moment I heard "App" I knew this would go wrong.
And now this "please develope for us" shit, indie developers get almost nothing in return when developing for the XBLA, and MS doesn't get why they don't develope for Win8. Go figure.
And now this "please develope for us" shit, indie developers get almost nothing in return when developing for the XBLA, and MS doesn't get why they don't develope for Win8. Go figure.
You know what windows 8 guys tired of people badmouthing it before they've tried it? I'm tired of people bashing vista. Vista worked flawlessly for me for 4 years, never had any problems with it.
So in support of the generations of OS that the mainstream consider "terrible", I'll get windows 8. You know what OS was bad? XP. Super ugly task bar.
OT:
Microsoft, you don't need indie developers. You have plenty of AAA's eating out of the palm of your hand. Here's an idea, buy THQ and then keep the developers making games for you. Bam.
So in support of the generations of OS that the mainstream consider "terrible", I'll get windows 8. You know what OS was bad? XP. Super ugly task bar.
OT:
Microsoft, you don't need indie developers. You have plenty of AAA's eating out of the palm of your hand. Here's an idea, buy THQ and then keep the developers making games for you. Bam.
XP was actually equal in the amount of beginning issues that Vista had, all the bugs and whatnot. The real good OS back Windows 2000 Professional. So Windows 7 should be called the next Win2000 Pro not XP. I had no issues with Vista until recently, when it refused to boot, something I plan to fix by upgrading to Windows 8 Pro.Easton Dark said:
Well, I've been trying to make the decision between Windows 8 and 7 for some time since I'm still running a really old OS.
Between all of the stories of game devs saying they don't want to make games for 8 and all of the entirely valid criticisms levelled at it for interface and trying to lock down the system.....
Yeah, guess the decision wasn't really that hard, come to think about it.
Between all of the stories of game devs saying they don't want to make games for 8 and all of the entirely valid criticisms levelled at it for interface and trying to lock down the system.....
Yeah, guess the decision wasn't really that hard, come to think about it.
You wouldn't write a review on a game before you play it, so why bash an OS before you use is?CardinalPiggles said:
Question, have you used Windows 8?
I haven't noticed a single problem with using a mouse and keyboard; seems to me that Microsoft were telling the truth when they said it would still support keyboard and mouse gestures.
And locked down? Huh, I can install what I want, how I want, when I want. Don't see any restrictions here. Still using all the programs made by people who said they don't like it. (Steam: Gabe, Minecraft: Notch.. etc etc).
And before you bash me down for 'shooting people down for thier opinion'. My opinion is that I'm getting sick and tired of people who probably haven't used it moaning about how bad it is; plus these short news updates are hardly opinions, more like recycled news.
I just asked because your comment confused me.ResonanceSD said:
But the problem I see with the metro UI replacing the start menu is simple. The start menu allows the user fast access to installed programs using mouse and keyboard, the metro UI seems to be optimized for touchscreens.
Considering that most win 8 versions are probably installed on pcs which usually don't have a touchscreen it looks like a bad design decision.
I don't want to discuss if the metro UI is good or bad, since I didn't try win 8 yet I can only give the impression I got from screenshots and reviews.
I will probably give it a try.
I suggest you read a bit more about Win8's different environments (PC vs. tablet/phone) and the restrictions that apply to each. ARS Technica had a very thorough coverage about it. I don't remember about Notch's problems, but I understand Gabe's concern, since, unless MS changes anything in the announced policies, Steam is a no-go on Windows RT (i.e., tablet/phone).Bigsmith said:
The Win8 desktop (which exists only on PC) is still as free of restrictions as it was.
I haven't used it. However, I've spent a considerable amount of time reading about it. Based on that, I'm not in a hurry to upgrade, but that's because Win7 is good enough for my needs, not because of any serious Win8 failure on the PC. However, I won't buy a Win8 tablet/phone, for the same reason I won't buy an Apple tablet/phone - they're locked down.Bigsmith said:
[rant]
I have used Windows 8, and I don't like it one bit. It just seems poorly designed, apart from anything else. the new Start Screen and the Desktop are now practically two completely seperate operating systems - one that's based on WinRT and runs Windows Store Applications (or programs, a term I much prefer), and one that runs native programs. The former is basically a poor copy of Apple, and the latter is good ol' windows 7 but with a worse visual design and no start menu.
The gestures in the Start Screen work just find, and I can see how they make total sense on a touch screen device - but the thing is, the bast majority of computer hardware is (and for the forseeable future shall remain) resolutely not-touchscreen-based, and using these gestures with your mouse just feels weird and unintuitive. One of my customers the other day summed it up perfectly when I explained you needed to click and drag from the top of the screen down to the bottom to close a program: "Why can't I just click the red X?" ... "because there isn't one." ... "Oh."
Back to poor design, the two parts of Windows 8 don't seem to mesh together particularly well. Take, for example, the PC Settings in the Start Menu and the Control Panel in the desktop. They're both there, and the both work fine. The former has FAR fewer options than the latter, and can only be used to control the Windows Store programs (install/uninstall etc). The latter is still as powerful as always, but because of the lack of a start menu cannot be found on the desktop unless you make a shortcut there: unless you Search for it in the Start Screen, you wouldn't even know its there. This is the only place you can manage desktop programs. This does not seem to me like intuitive design.
The whole Windows Store locked down thing annoys me, I don't like anyone telling me what I can or cannot do or install on/with my computer. It's just wrong. If they want people to develop programs for their ugly, poorly designed new interface, they need to make people want to do so, not put barriers in their way. Also, I admit I've not researched it, but how on earth do you test your Metro programs during development if you cannot install them without Microsoft's prior approval?
Because of my job as a salesman at an electrical retailer, I had to do Microsoft's official retail certification program, teching me all the new selling points and how to use it etc. I found it EXTREMELY amusing how the official answer to the question "Won't the new Start Screen get in the way of the programs I usually use?" is "With one click, the familiar desktop is there for when you need to be more productive." They just admitted themselves that the new interface is counter-productive.
Finally, the changes which have happened are just a taste of what it likely to come if they decide this was a success - Windows 9 will probably relegate the Desktop to a "legacy" feature you have to pay extra to buy (like how you now need to pay extra to get Windows Media Centre in order to play DVDs!) so that the majority of people will be forced to use their new interface and buy their programs through the Windows Store.
Not to mention that Windows 8 requires that the BIOS on new computers support something called Secure Boot, which is designed to physically prevent the user from installing a different operation system if they so choose. Admittedly, the current Windows 8 hardware requirement spec requires that it be possible to disable this feature, and Microsoft states it's designed as a security feature to stop Viruses infecting the boot path. Fair enough. But Windows RT tablets are required to make it impossible to disable the feature. Now, that is inexcusable, and clearly shows where Microsoft wants to take this.
[/rant]
There is a lot more I could go into, but that ought to be enough fuel for the fire.
I have used Windows 8, and I don't like it one bit. It just seems poorly designed, apart from anything else. the new Start Screen and the Desktop are now practically two completely seperate operating systems - one that's based on WinRT and runs Windows Store Applications (or programs, a term I much prefer), and one that runs native programs. The former is basically a poor copy of Apple, and the latter is good ol' windows 7 but with a worse visual design and no start menu.
The gestures in the Start Screen work just find, and I can see how they make total sense on a touch screen device - but the thing is, the bast majority of computer hardware is (and for the forseeable future shall remain) resolutely not-touchscreen-based, and using these gestures with your mouse just feels weird and unintuitive. One of my customers the other day summed it up perfectly when I explained you needed to click and drag from the top of the screen down to the bottom to close a program: "Why can't I just click the red X?" ... "because there isn't one." ... "Oh."
Back to poor design, the two parts of Windows 8 don't seem to mesh together particularly well. Take, for example, the PC Settings in the Start Menu and the Control Panel in the desktop. They're both there, and the both work fine. The former has FAR fewer options than the latter, and can only be used to control the Windows Store programs (install/uninstall etc). The latter is still as powerful as always, but because of the lack of a start menu cannot be found on the desktop unless you make a shortcut there: unless you Search for it in the Start Screen, you wouldn't even know its there. This is the only place you can manage desktop programs. This does not seem to me like intuitive design.
The whole Windows Store locked down thing annoys me, I don't like anyone telling me what I can or cannot do or install on/with my computer. It's just wrong. If they want people to develop programs for their ugly, poorly designed new interface, they need to make people want to do so, not put barriers in their way. Also, I admit I've not researched it, but how on earth do you test your Metro programs during development if you cannot install them without Microsoft's prior approval?
Because of my job as a salesman at an electrical retailer, I had to do Microsoft's official retail certification program, teching me all the new selling points and how to use it etc. I found it EXTREMELY amusing how the official answer to the question "Won't the new Start Screen get in the way of the programs I usually use?" is "With one click, the familiar desktop is there for when you need to be more productive." They just admitted themselves that the new interface is counter-productive.
Finally, the changes which have happened are just a taste of what it likely to come if they decide this was a success - Windows 9 will probably relegate the Desktop to a "legacy" feature you have to pay extra to buy (like how you now need to pay extra to get Windows Media Centre in order to play DVDs!) so that the majority of people will be forced to use their new interface and buy their programs through the Windows Store.
Not to mention that Windows 8 requires that the BIOS on new computers support something called Secure Boot, which is designed to physically prevent the user from installing a different operation system if they so choose. Admittedly, the current Windows 8 hardware requirement spec requires that it be possible to disable this feature, and Microsoft states it's designed as a security feature to stop Viruses infecting the boot path. Fair enough. But Windows RT tablets are required to make it impossible to disable the feature. Now, that is inexcusable, and clearly shows where Microsoft wants to take this.
[/rant]
There is a lot more I could go into, but that ought to be enough fuel for the fire.
I briefly considered updating to win8, with the discounted price and all, but then found that the discounted version only supports a few activations (not that I've ever needed to re-activate win7..) and the update advisor program said my development environment wouldn't work. So that's that.
