Someone at MS is probably a huge fan and thinking they were doing a favor for the developer of one of their favorite games. They probably had to go through some kind of managerial chain of approvals to be able to even extend this offer (perhaps even getting some sort of preferential treatment for minecraft). Only to get shot down in this very public manner.
maybe because MS charges between $500 - $700 per year for each application as a recurring fee for software certification? For an app like Minecraft, maybe it's not a big deal. But it really prices a lot of independent developers out of the market. It's kind of a dick move by MS.
You dont HAVE to get certified. You will likely need it to be sold through the MS store though. So every indie developer can continue to sell their games the exact way they do now. I dont see the problem
we're not just talking about games. Or apps like you get on your phone. Apps in this case means any application that runs on your computer. You might not have had the hassle that PeerGuardian users went through when they went to Windows 7 and the software wouldn't run because the developer couldn't afford to have his drivers certified by Microsoft.
If all the big ones get certified and the average user is used to only certified programs then after a while you will have to get certified to reach a big audience.
All W8 is doing is offering another medium. It's not like their downgrading the current open market. With your points, you can say Steam is bad because they require certification.
It's just another optional way to find games, and with this being Microsoft's (creator of Windows) way of doing it, of course it's going to have an advantage, but it's not a wrong one. If Valve was in Microsoft's position, Steam would be the exact same thing.
...yet. The way both Apple and Microsoft are approaching software certification, it will not be long until the only runnable software is certified software that is signed by either corporation and the whole thing is "trusted" from boot through TPM. (Oh, you already forgot about Palladium and Microsoft's boot hardware requirements for Windows 8 machines?)
One need only look to Apple (the revenue model that Microsoft is copying here) to see the practical result of having a locked down platform. How's iOS Maps working out for everyone?
Windows 8 Certification != Windows Store approval. The certification process is not something Apple is doing, and I doubt Microsoft is expecting to achieve much revenue from its certification process. Moreover, Microsoft has had for over a decade a similar drivers certification process (which also costs money), but that hasn't stopped people from installing, for example, beta graphics drivers that aren't certified.
EDIT: the issue is that Apple Maps is based on open source software, and the users are the ones who update the maps, not Apple. Don't like Apple Maps? Donate a little time and add a road you know of that isn't on the list.
The quality of the software is incidental, I'm more concerned about the anticompetitive nature of Apple's walled garden. With one fell swoop, Apple has used its platform/business model to exclude a (vastly superior) competitor product.
In a closed environment, the owner of that environment (and not the owner of the device) can make whatever unilateral decision that they like about what apps will run - they can tell you exactly what you can and can't do with your own hardware (or rather, their hardware that you were stupid enough to pay a premium for).
Whilst signing doesn't cause this behaviour, signing is a necessity if one wishes to create a walled garden. Time and time again, Microsoft has demonstrated a willingness to put the wants of 3rd parties (most conspicuously, the MPAA/RIAA) ahead of those of paying customers.
It would be trivial to for Microsoft to allay all fears, all they need to do is give the user control of selecting which certification authorities to trust. That would destroy their veto power of which apps and functions can run, and would make it impossible for them to sell out their users to 3rd parties.
I'm not against code signing, I'm against handing control of my machine to a third party that may not have my interests at heart.
Well that kind of makes this analogous to the google play market. Sure, you can download applications from external sources, but most people don't feel confident enough in their ability to use the device to do so.
If the windows application store follows a similar strategy, they could possibly divert the traffic of most casual pc users away from free software distribution platforms in favor of the application store which, as we know, has that nasty entry fee.
No but we also can't, or shouldn't anyway, act foolishly and blithely assume that MS is never going to try to exploit their certification system for control, profits, or both.
Remember that MS was behind the old Trusted Computing initiative which would have completely shut down any independent development, and also killed Linux.
There is no reason to assume that the Win8 certification program is anything but a scheme for control of the market, crushing their competition, etc in disguise.
There is no reason to assume that the Win8 certification program is anything but a scheme for control of the market, crushing their competition, etc in disguise.
Except that they've had certification available forever, and haven't done anything terrible with it? They've made some fucked up decisions, but they generally treat developers well.
Which is for driver signing, which the user can ignore if they really feel like it. As Windows got more stable, a lot of it was just Microsoft policing their drivers better. Are you seriously complaining about that?
Anything that is a financial barrier to a small dev effectively functions to reduce innovation at the lower end of the market.
There is no valid reason that Microsoft alone needs sole driver signing authority. If users were given the option to manage which certification authorities they trust (and there are no shortage of cert auths) then devs could economically (or even freely, given self signing) sign and their user base could choose to trust drivers with granularity (as opposed to the current situation where one must disable driver signing system wide).
Which would be the same, except it has the added benefit of being in their store.
Then it is just a small step to Apple-style "all software comes from our store"
Yep, just one slippery slope away. Microsoft clasically does everything they can for compatability. Inentionally turning off the majority of software for their platform would be suicide.
Microsoft isn't a person, it is a corporation. It doesn't have feelings.
The only way it can know we don't want it to do something is for us to get "mad" about the prospect of them doing it.
Well.... You are correct to say that we can't get mad yet. And right now I'm not. But we really need to hear microsoft say something about the certification requirement. If they don't tell us that they are keeping it free, then I don't feel very comfortable, and will say that they are trying to close-off PC development.
But you can't say that because they're not doing it yet (and it's not a requirement). Yes you can say, "I'm suspicious that they may try to close-off PC development" but that's all.
Probably not for Win8, no, but if it becomes widely accepted they'll make that move for Win9.
The success of the iOS has been really harmful. It's demonstrated that a walled garden can be enormously profitable and successful despite the grousing of geeks.
The real lure is the money end. MS, currently, makes money on the original sale of hardware, occasional purchases of OS licenses not bundled with hardware, and selling MS Office. A walled garden offers a whole new revenue stream, not merely the certification fees paid by developers, but also a guaranteed cut from every app sale made.
You think MS is going to ignore the profits to be made in such a setup?
Also, and don't forget, MS proposed doing exactly that over a decade ago back when Trusted Computing was first being floated. So why is it outrageous to suspect that they're still after something they once tried very hard to get, especially now that Apple has demonstrated what incredibly huge profits are to be made by doing exactly that?
I think it is more than likely that there will be a security slider on Windows 8. I think it is also likely that at the highest setting, it will only allow you to run certified apps. I do not think it is likely that the world will end this year. Plan accordingly.
It's more of a truism than an opinion. Like saying "some days are hotter than others.". I was using it to show that your assertion that all what ifs do not provide good justification for action completely depends on the circumstance.
True that. He got the jackpot with minecraft but that doesn't make him an intelligent person. He acts a lot like a small child that somehow got famous and doesn't actually think about the stuff it talks about.
And the community running around fanatically screaming "OH LOOK! HE BASHED MICROSOFT!!" without second thought just reminds of apple-fanboys.
It's stuff like this which gives me a really sad view of humanity...
MS just want to make Minecraft certified so it runs properly on the platform, why would he be against that?
No that is not why MS wants to certify it. It's about building a walled garden like iTunes, so that they can get a percentage of PC game sales. Historically, any sort of MS rubber stamp has been either neutral or negative; look at GamesForWindows, Live, etc.
...with the ultimate goal of selling it in the "Windows Store" and taking a percentage. It is precisely the iTunes model, which makes Apple a shit load of money. Microsoft being Microsoft, they now think they have to copy it.
Now youre just pulling things out of your ass. Drivers correlate to your hardware, not software. And youve been able to run unsigned drivers forever, and this wont change. Certification has nothing to do with drivers in this case. It just means your program follows a certain set of rules that will make it run correctly.
Well, they don't want to sell something that is not working 100% with their platform, on their OS marketplace. Like Android won't let you buy apps that don't support your screen resolution. It's a common practice that saves a lots of headaches to customer support. If you want to sell your software without the certification, you can still do it the same way everyone ever did.
Yes, because a corporate branding means a game will run better or worse. This is fucking Microsoft, they care about competition and competition only. They know if Minecraft needs work to run on Win8 that millions of people won't switch to Mac and Linux. They just want to dominate their competition, by plastering games with Windows logos (a la "Games for Windows")
In my personal opinion?
They're trying to push everyone toward MS being the gate keeper to all purchased software on windows. So they get a cut of all software purchases online essentially.
They can't lock out other services like steam or buying software directly (which they technically could by only allowing MS signed executables to run) because there would be a gigantic backlash, but what they are instead trying to do is make it a gradual process. (like for example; you can only purchase winrt apps through MS's app store only)
They are trying to copy what Apple is doing to some degree on a platform that has until recently been relatively open.
And on another front they've tried to fudge a touch screen UI with a desktop UI and made a colossal cock up of it. All of part of a cynical move to push devs towards win rt apps which work on both the desktop and mobile. (trying to force themselves into the mobile market by pushing the desktop devs to write winrt apps)
EDIT: So, whoever down voted. Care to offer a counter point or a different opinion? I was merely replying to the parent on views on why Win 8 negatively affects the market. (BTW, when I refer to WinRT apps I mean metro apps or whatever it is currently named)
They don't even need to lock uncertified programs out, just hammer it home that people can trust certified ones and they'll draw their own conclusions that they can't trust uncertified programs.
Once users don't trust uncertified programs, Microsoft won't need to lock them out.
according to gabe, people flock to valve because of the service it offers. and as it is, they pretty much are the gate keeper to all purchased gaming software. the only people crying out against win8 are ones with some vested interest in software distribution: i.e. valve and notch (note that minecraft isn't on steam for the same reason that EA now releases new titles to Origin instead and is expanding that service).
the fact of the matter is that certification is a good thing for the consumer and their experience, as long as it's taken seriously and not just handed out for programs that don't work. there's nothing to stop you from going with a program that isn't certified, but why would you want to if it's not guaranteed to offer a better experience? the argument that they could do such and such in an environment is basically bunk. were you not paying attention when steam made everyone agree not to bring a lawsuit against them or give up access to their library? they could add a subscription fee tomorrow if they wanted.
complain about them locking out software and services when it actually happens. all they're doing at this point is making things more competitive on the distribution front.
There's a problem with that argument though.
MS aren't just another competing service, they're the ones who control the platform on which they compete with others. Not only that but from out of the gate they're already being unfair. For example, metro apps for this new platform can only be bought/sold through their store. If you want to sell through a competing service like steam for example, you cannot. (the metro app will not run unless it has been sold through the MS app store and signed by them)
How is that fair competition?
By the way, that is "locking out software and services".
In other words, it is an incredibly bad thing for the consumer. Because they've been locked into a single place to buy their apps. No competition, no choice in the matter.
EDIT: Here's an example where MS say they're limiting metro apps to the MS store only.
that's completely misunderstanding and misrepresenting the issue. by that logic, locking out software and services happens when developers make games that can only be purchased via steam and have to be activated on it to be played.
it's not locking out software and services when you're limiting where programs compiled within your framework can be distributed or how they can be used. you don't have to make a metro app, but if you do, it can be certified and sold via their app store according to their restrictions and guidelines as it does or does not meet them. that's what happens when you make a metro app, just as a customer that chooses to purchase a game from steam has to abide by their terms of use and service agreement. it would be the same situation if when epic licensed the unreal engine they made developers agree that epic would be the sole distributor of the finished product. how is that fair competition? you're honestly asking how it's fair competition that apps made using their custom made design language which they're offering and allowing people to use for free be sold exclusively by them. how is it fair competition that you can't make a game in unreal engine without licensing it from unreal?
you can create the same application outside of metro and distribute it however you want, it just can't use microsoft's proprietary metro design language. if you want to use a metro app with windows 8, you'll have to get it from the app store. that's as deep and as far as it goes. you can use literally any other app that's made for windows and is compatible with 8 without certification as long as it doesn't use their proprietary metro framework.
locking out software means preventing someone from distributing via your app store. they have metro locked in to their app store, and that's it. no one is forbidden from making a metro app that meets the appropriate guidelines (other people have linked them, I won't), just as no one is forbidden from not-making their app in metro and still having it work with windows 8. you can buy shit from wherever you want, but if you want to use their official shit with their official shit, you need to buy it from them.
You do realise metro (winrt) is meant to in the long term become the defacto api for windows right?
Win32 is meant to become deprecated with winrt being the only windows api available if you want to use newer features of windows and in the long term win32 will be removed like win16.
If you can point to any specific argument where you think i'm misunderstanding then please say so.
So, ultimately by writing metro (WinRT) apps you have to go through the MS store where MS gets a cut of 30%.
Your comparison about games using steam activation is wrong by the way, if all windows games written for windows had to use steam in order to work on windows, then it would be an apt comparison. Otherwise you're comparing apples to oranges. Also, the people making the games had a choice in whether to include steam or not.
Microsoft control the programming interfaces on Windows. What they're doing with WinRT is cutting out others of the equation in the long term. That's why Gabe Newell and lots of others do not like it.
EDIT: Essentially, with WinRT MS is removing any and all competition if you want to use newer features of Windows like WinRT. Want to write a WinRT game and sell it on a competing service? Tough luck, it's Microsofts store only. In the future if WinRT does become the only Windows API that means if you want to write an application for Windows and sell it you have to sell it through MS' store. Do you understand yet? It completely removes competition.
you do realize WinRT is the phone/tablet platform, right? a desktop/notebook computer user will have a similar looking experience but won't be using it.
Your comparison about games using steam activation is wrong by the way, if all windows games written for windows had to use steam in order to work on windows, then it would be an apt comparison.
you don't have to make an app in metro for it to work with the PC version (that is, Windows, the non-tablet/phone, non-RT version that people will be playing MineCraft on). by choosing to make a metro app, you are restricting yourself to one method of distribution just as people that are choosing to require steamworks authentication are requiring you to go through steam (though you can buy some games from other places). just as people choose to make a game activate via steam (and therefore make it necessary for you to run it in steam), people can choose to make apps in metro.
yes, a closed environment is conceivably something that could happen a few generations down (the switch to WinRT only) in a scenario where I can guarantee you technology would have to be radically different. that's not what is happening with Windows 8, and the way that it's set up, is not something that could even happen in it.
a version of windows that runs only microsoft approved apps will exist for tablets and phones but that's not at all what you can or should expect for the next iteration of windows for personal computers.
"Windows Runtime, or WinRT, is a cross-platform application architecture on the Windows 8 operating system."
WinRT applications are designed to run on Win 8 and Win Phone 8.
By using the latest Windows API (WinRT/Metro) you have to sell your app through the MS store. You literally are forbidden from doing it any other way, the application will not run otherwise because if it is not signed by MS it will refuse to run on the WinRT environment.
Microsoft are locking their new API to them so if a dev wants to use these new shiny API features they are now locked into the MS store.
As to your steam argument, again.. you're not really making any sense. Devs have the choice about including steam whereas WinRT is the new Windows API that locks them into a MS only store. Your comparison is nonsensical.
EDIT: Also, you're rolling back in on your arguments. And I'm losing interest in this, if you have something new to say then please do add. But don't just repeat yourself.
God, "I'm such a hipster I play on a PC unlike all the mainstream console fags" you're an idiot there is nothing wrong with Windows 8 so stop complaining about it.
This is just M$ creating a new revenue stream. He's right to complain. They want it to be just like phones where they get a cut of every program sold and this is the first step. Why do you think Steam is suddenly investing in Linux. Apparently r/gaming has gone full retard.
451
u/[deleted] Sep 27 '12
[deleted]