Poll: So windows 8 then...

Recommended Videos

DoPo

"You're not cleared for that."
Jan 30, 2012
8,665
0
0
Well, the way I see it, AAA will stick with whatever is most popular. That means Win 7/8 for the moment, probably moving towards 8 as time goes by. So far that's what they did anyway. A lot of other devs will follow suit. Again, just as before. Maybe they'll linger on Win 7 for a while longer. Fair share of the rest will look towards multiplatform. We're seeing this now with indie devs and OS X ports. I'm not entirely sure, but I somehow doubt they'll be many non-Windows exclusive PC games (e.g. Linux- or Mac-only games). Some, perhaps, but unless Windows 8 is followed in a significant rise of the usage of other OSs, it's simply not much of a profit in developing for non-Windows systems - the market is smaller. On the other hand, I suspect there would be at least some shift towards Mac/Linux gaming, which is...good. I'll get to that in a moment.

So, all in all, I think things will continue as they are now, however there would be some increased interest in multiplatform releases.

Now, back into OS specific releases. Here are my suspicions and assumptions condensed: they would also pave the way towards multiplatform releases. Well, Linux-only games are pretty much a non-factor. A lot of games for Linux are ports, while game devs who work just make games for Linux are sensible enough to write portable code, so it ends up mostly multiplatform. However, if there are any major titles that come out for Linux only, I'd assume they'll behave the same way as Mac-only games, so I'll focus on those.

Mac-only games. Now, a lot of ports here, too (had a friend who worked on porting games for OS X, it's a legit business) and Steam is pushing towards multiplatform - Windows+OS X games. I am not sure if there are any Mac exclusive games, but here's what I think would happen to them.

Option A: a big game comes out for Mac only - a sequel to existing series (say, Assassin's Creed 4) or another highly anticipated game (say, whatever the equivalent of Dishonored in a few years is). Lots of gamers would be pissed and there would be a backlash. Most would demand multiplatform version, some would just act like spoiled brats (you know like any gamer backlash). It's generally not OK to tell the fans to "Just get a Mac", the entry barrier is too high for a lot of them. So, there is little chance of this happening and staying as it is.

Option B: some random game comes out for OS X only. No major thing. As long as the game isn't anything major. Well, there might be some quibble between Macfags and PC elitists (what each would call the other side) but whatever.

Option C: a Mac exclusive game comes out under the radar but suddenly grows in popularity. Some FarmCraftVille or whatever suddenly has legions of people rant and rave about it. Well, again, "just get a Mac" is too high of an entry barrier. The devs would be begged to port the game over to Windows. We saw this happen to Dark Souls, if nothing else, it would act as a precedent to try and make the devs do it (assuming they are unwilling to get showered with more money widen their market). So in the end, we reach the multiplatform conclusion again.
 

SnowBurst

New member
Jul 2, 2012
276
0
0
Kaleion said:
Well considering that the devs that don't like it don't like it because it's not an open platform, it would seem the most logical option would be Linux since that's going to be THE open platform, though I'm guessing most big companies will stick to Windows and possibly expand to Mac, since they are more popular.
imo linux is perfect IF it had the game support id never use windows if linux had steam support which i think its getting and most other games brilliant os linux is
 

SnowBurst

New member
Jul 2, 2012
276
0
0
ohnoitsabear said:
Most game developers will probably do what's necessary to make software that's compatible with Windows 8. However, I think that, as time moves on, more and more developers are going to be heading over to Mac and Linux, especially once Valve releases steam for Linux.

But really, developers will develop for whatever system is the most profitable, and if that continues to be windows, most of them will continue developing for windows, no matter how shitty the newer ones get.
dont think osx will ever be the gaming os like windows is atm i just cant seee it happening never really used osx but from what i have used briefly it doesnt seem right for games but afterall osx is just a heavily modified version of linux in many ways so who knows
 

SnowBurst

New member
Jul 2, 2012
276
0
0
Vegosiux said:
Considering Microsoft have an own console market, why would they be inclined to keep Windows alive as a gaming platform?

It's going to be interesting to see if it's gaming that will put a dent into MS's OS market share.
because more people have pc's then 360's simple as and the main selling point of windows is that it runs games has office and a neat gui
 

SnowBurst

New member
Jul 2, 2012
276
0
0
Gatx said:
Well honestly how many big games even come out exclusively for PC or with PC in mind first? If things really do stay as bad as they seem then I think maybe the big name devs might just not work on PC ports anymore, and smaller publishers and developers would just move to Linux.
the main point people dnt dev for linux IS wine devs dnt see the point in doing the work for it when the market is so small atm and wine does most of it for them but tbh ive seen more and more mmo's for instance having linux versions and mac versions
 

SnowBurst

New member
Jul 2, 2012
276
0
0
L0dest0ne said:
Though I doubt microsoft will even care, windows 8 is going to put a dent, albeit small dent, in their revenue. Microsoft is like Blizzard: they think they know best and refuse to listen to their fans, however come launch day they'll be begging for forgiveness.
microsoft have a habbit of 1 good os followed by a shitty one followed by a good one take xp then vista then 7 then 8 xp was used for yeeeears after vista launched until 7 came
 

SnowBurst

New member
Jul 2, 2012
276
0
0
Joccaren said:
Gatx said:
Well honestly how many big games even come out exclusively for PC or with PC in mind first? If things really do stay as bad as they seem then I think maybe the big name devs might just not work on PC ports anymore, and smaller publishers and developers would just move to Linux.
Anything by Blizzard.
BF3.
All strategy games, whether RTS or 4X.
MMOs.

Its not that hard.
If we're going "What AAA action adventure/FPS/TPS games come out exclusively for PC" then sure, it gets hard. Any games though? That's not even trying.

Megacherv said:
Slightly different UI changes
Do not want.
A hell of a lot more optimised
Haven't really noticed, but that's probably because my PC boots in 3 seconds anyway. Nice for low powered laptops I guess.
Integration with Windows Live accounts (now called Microsoft accounts)
DEFINITELY do not want.
Start Menu is now full screen
Do not want.
A closed Metro environment ON TOP OF the normal PC UI
Uhh, from my experience its the other way around. You can run Desktop as an App for Metro, but Metro is where its based, do correct me if I'm wrong.

Not going to argue with the rest of it as after the first couple of Betas I decided there was no way in hell I'm installing it on my PC, but it has done nothing but be a hassle for me the whole time I used it.


OT: They'll likely stick with Windows, as there really is no need to upgrade. Windows 7 works fine, and that's where a lot of PC gamers will stay. Develop for Windows, and those people get to play, Windows 8 people get to play, and everyone ends up happy.
Now, come Windows 9 or 10, if its still this same crap, then there might be problems, but for now its easiest just to stick with Windows and use your personal favoured version of the OS until it is no longer compatible.
everything what you said = perfectly explained
 

SnowBurst

New member
Jul 2, 2012
276
0
0
Blood Brain Barrier said:
I expect most of the visual changes will be customisable. There's no way MS aren't going to put an option to replace the fullscreen tablet-style start menu with the classic taskbar and start menu.
they wont they want to force metro on everyone hence why windows phone failed utterly they just dnt learn from it
 
Mar 31, 2010
17
0
0
I feel that I, as a Windows developer myself, need to say something here. Windows 8 development is the same as development for Windows 7 and developing for Windows RT is awesome and a lot like developing for Android. (or, I guess iOS).

Seriously, developers will not jump ship just because MS is adding a new tablet API to the windows platform. They will embrace it instead.

By the way, I have been using Windows 8 for a while now, and this new Windows RT sandbox is a really nice addition. On a desktop, you may not use it THAT much, but it is very practical for a lot of things. Oh, and of course, it works a LOT better and faster than the startmenu once you get used to it.
 

SnowBurst

New member
Jul 2, 2012
276
0
0
Chairman Miaow said:
Anybody who thinks they will go to Linux is delusional. Most people still haven't even heard of Linux.
linux is the logical alternative though more people have ubuntu and fedora to name two then osx and porting from linux to osx shouldnt be incredibly hard concidering theeyre pretty similar osx comes from debian (which is linux) i think in the big picture
 

SnowBurst

New member
Jul 2, 2012
276
0
0
Megacherv said:
Joccaren said:
Start Menu is now full screen
Do not want.
It's actually much better than the Win7 start menu, as you can just pin what you use onto it, rather than have everything, and you can organise them all into separate categories as well. For me switch isn't that much of an issue as I use the taskbar for launching stuff.

A closed Metro environment ON TOP OF the normal PC UI
Uhh, from my experience its the other way around. You can run Desktop as an App for Metro, but Metro is where its based, do correct me if I'm wrong.
Nope, you can click on a tile in the start menu to go to the desktop, but it is not an 'app'. Once you go to the desktop, it's like using Windows 7. By default you boot into the start menu, but the desktop is running underneath that.
its a piece of crap metro its clunky and not as good as 7 desktop
 

SnowBurst

New member
Jul 2, 2012
276
0
0
Hoplon said:
I think people are misreading the yelling about closed platforms, it's becasue it has the potential to be so, rather than the platform actually being locked down.
its the fact devs have to get the games certified by microsoft before releasing thats the point it puts a headache on deving cuz if it doesnt get certified theyre fucked cuz of all tht work devs dont want that
 

SnowBurst

New member
Jul 2, 2012
276
0
0
Mikael Guldborg Rask Andersen said:
I feel that, as a Windows developer myself, need to say something here. Windows 8 development is the same as development for Windows 7 and developing for Windows RT is awesome and a lot like developing for Android. (or, I guess iOS).

Seriously, developers will not jump ship just because MS is adding a new tablet API to the windows platform. They will embrace it instead.

By the way, I have been using Windows 8 for a while now, and this new Windows RT sandbox is a really nice addition. On a desktop, you may not use it THAT much, but it is very practical for a lot of things. Oh, and of course, it works a LOT better and faster than the startmenu once you get used to it.
devs wont leave ever cuz of the gui thats a stupid reason to leave windows, theyll leave cuz they have to certify every game with microsoft and if people dnt buy windows they wont make money for deving for windows so microsoft is on shakey foundation atm
 

SnowBurst

New member
Jul 2, 2012
276
0
0
Matthew94 said:
Vegosiux said:
Considering Microsoft have an own console market, why would they be inclined to keep Windows alive as a gaming platform?

It's going to be interesting to see if it's gaming that will put a dent into MS's OS market share.
Because the vast majority of games are made for windows.

If most of the games were on linux then I'd be on that in a flash.
same as me then ubuntu is brilliant its free so it makes hardware cheaper in one way because u dnt have to pay for the os and linux is allways going to be better to use imo then windows because you can do more if suddenly goes "oh yeah by were releasing this thing u download its easy to use and you can run any game on linux" then my dream would come true lol
 

Rariow

New member
Nov 1, 2011
342
0
0
Considering I'm still living in the stone age of windows XP and this works pefectly fine. I don't plan to change from XP until most software (Read: Games) isn't XP compatible. When that happens, I'll probably change to 7, and wait out the crap. I imagine Microsoft will realize how bad this is, just as it did with Vista.
 
Mar 31, 2010
17
0
0
SnowBurst said:
Hoplon said:
I think people are misreading the yelling about closed platforms, it's becasue it has the potential to be so, rather than the platform actually being locked down.
its the fact devs have to get the games certified by microsoft before releasing thats the point it puts a headache on deving cuz if it doesnt get certified theyre fucked cuz of all tht work devs dont want that
Well, let's start by geting rid of this delusion. Dev will not have to get games "certified" for Windows 8. Windows RT (just like any other App), maybe, but not Windows 8.
 

TAdamson

New member
Jun 20, 2012
284
0
0
SnowBurst said:
lol u dnt understand then, windows 8 all devs have to certify their games with microsoft which isnt what they want and people dnt want tht metro it gets in the way and isnt useful i for one wont get windows 8 ill concider dual booting with 7 n ubuntu IF i have to for games but definatly not if 7 is supported n ill uninstall windows all together if linux is supported by the big publishers
I love the awesome way that you've boycotted of punctuation dude. Really helps your argument.

You are also incorrect.

On Windows 8 there will be an "app" store which will require certification to get onto. It will also take a cut of profits.

Otherwise Windows on PC will be as open as its always been. A version called Windows RT will be on tablets and other ARM Achitecture devices and will not be open.

From wikipedia:

In January 2012, Microsoft released certification requirements for Windows 8 specifying that non-ARM devices must have "the ability to disable Secure Boot", whereas for ARM-based devices, disabling Secure Boot "must not be possible."
Valve is just worrying about competition and Notch may be worrying that things that he develops for tablets will forced to go through certification and that moves like this by Mircosoft may make closed systems the future.
 

BeerTent

Resident Furry Pimp
May 8, 2011
1,167
0
0
SnowBurst said:
[Anything coherent...]
When I first saw the metro UI, I thought, yeah, it's fucked. We're never gonna want this, but after actually USING THE FUCKING OS, which nobody other than one or two people here even bothered to do, I found that Win8, is prettymuch the same as Win7. My only problem is that you need to move the mouse to the corner/side for certain menus to pop up.

No, you don't need to Certify software to release it on the OS, you don't need to Certify software for it to show in Metro. That's retarded. Who the fuck gave you that asinine idea? Microsoft only wants to certify it because they want people to see the logo and say "Oh, this is optimized for Win8? Man, time's-a-changing. Better upgrade." They did it with Vista, and they did it with 7. The only reason why you can't run some XP stuff on Vista/7 is because they're goddamn archaic, and is long beyond it's expected lifespan.
 

Athinira

New member
Jan 25, 2010
804
0
0
Joccaren said:
Megacherv said:
It's actually much better than the Win7 start menu, as you can just pin what you use onto it, rather than have everything, and you can organise them all into separate categories as well. For me switch isn't that much of an issue as I use the taskbar for launching stuff.
Sounds like what my Desktop is used for, with my Start menu being used for all my programs so that I can get to them easily, rather than going through my Computer and such. Organizing into separate categories I've always done on my Desktop anyway, either 'unofficially' by placing the icons in certain parts of the screen dependent on their program type, or 'officially' by using free programs like Fences.

As for Metro, so long as it boots to it, I'm not going to like it. Its easier just to login and get to my desktop instantly with Windows 7 then it is to log in, find the Desktop button - which is annoying thanks to how similar all the buttons look, and then go to desktop. It adds in an unnecessary extra step because MS seems to like touchscreen stuff now. Fine, for your phone OS. Not on my desktop.
You can get software for Windows 8 that gets you straight into the desktop when you boot. You can also disable the hot corners for the mouse and even bring the old Start Menu back.

I'm a heavy multi-tasker, always working with two screens (unfortunately only HD screens, not full HD). Ever since i got Windows 7, i did a few changes to the way i Windows looks and how i work with it and start software.

First of all, i moved my taskbar to the left side of the screen. On widescreens, you have limited horizontal space, so why people insist on having the taskbar in the bottom is beyond me. With the new Windows 7 approach of grouping icons together, moving it to the left side of the screen is one of the things that really has optimized my use of screen space:
Picture 1 [http://i46.tinypic.com/2ptumx0.png]

Another thing i did was incorporate two small menus (apps and games) into the taskbar as you can see at the left side of the screen. The reason for this is that as a multi-tasker, launching programs from the desktop sucks because it requires you to minimize running Windows (and i can sometimes have a LOT of Windows open) while the Taskbar is always visible. The alternative is to use the start menu, but it's cluttered with different stuff, and keeping my own menus down there keeps things more organized.
Picture 2 [http://i47.tinypic.com/whxzkn.png]

Finally, i use a software called Deskpot, which is a multiple-desktop software (they've been around for years) and also has a functionality that allows it to emulate Mission Control in OS X for quickly switching between windows. In fact, in Picture 1 above, i have iTunes running, but you can't see it because it's on the second desktop. The software supports dragging Windows between desktops, which is a huge feature that many desktop-switching softwares lack, and the Mission Control emulation is just awesome.
Picture 3 [http://i48.tinypic.com/6z4jh5.png]
Picture 4 [http://i47.tinypic.com/20jkebs.png]

On the subject of Windows 8, too many people view it as something bad. It is drastically faster than Windows 7, and the new Start Menu isn't bad at all once you learn to use it. All you need to do is apply some tweaks. I'll personally be disabling the Hot Corners, and using keyboard shortcuts instead for their functionality. Whether or not I'll bring back the old start menu (and use it side-by-side with the new start menu) i haven't decided on yet.

Windows 8 really isn't that bad people. It just requires you to get used to a few things, and the things you still don't like can generally be disabled. Windows 8 is still a big leap forward. It's not another shitty Vista.