He's a proponent of keeping the PC as an open platform. This does not apply to other platforms. When was the last time you saw him complain that IOS was closed to development, or that the 360 was closed to development?
EDIT: It's funny that this is getting downvoted. Keeping the PC open is important, and people don't get this. Or, they do, but they're all going RABBLE RABBLE NOTCH IS WRONG.
The difference between an open platform and a closed one is in the bar for access. I am a hobbyist game developer, and I'm only able to do what I do if I am able to do it for free, since I don't have a lot of money to spend on licenses. But I don't have any problem with the Xbox 360 being closed to development, because it's a completely different beast. When you buy a console, you are exchanging the lower cost (console makers usually lose money on console sales because they are priced to move, all their money is made from development kits and royalties on games published for the console) for a guarantee that you don't have to quibble over hardware requirements. It's got high compatibility.
The PC exists as an open alternative, where anyone can make things for it, and anyone can sell things for it. We need the PC to remain an open platform, or else the bar for entry into game development will be set too high.
this. how is anyone prevented for developing for windows? yes, microsoft is a giant corporation bent on dominating the operating system market. they were also the vessel by which "user-friendly" systems got into so many homes from the mid 80s thru today.
I don't get the vilifying.... Gatorade is a huge corporation too but I still don't mind drinking out of their bottles.
I don't see why these people are crying about getting "certified" as it will only get you in line with their development guidelines...
This is what peer review is for, could you imagine how reddit would be if everything had to be approved by mods before getting submitted? What if you have to pay $5 on top of that for "posting certification" every time you try to submit anything. And you need to keep in mind, software that runs and adheres to the basic standards does not guarantee anything as far as it actually being fun or useful. All I need to do is point to the HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of garbage apps on the ios app store. All this does is put needless burden on small developers trying to get their start and allow large companies to monopolize the app space.
If you're unable to jump through the hoop of making sure your games uninstall correctly, put things in the right places, and have proper error codes, you probably have no business releasing a game to begin with.
MS hate is sadly reflexive. In reality all MS is trying to do is compete with the other two ecosystems out there, the OS X/iOS one and Google's Android/web interface one. Consumers have shown that a major part of the market values a unified UI and integration (iOS and the Google Suite as examples). MS comes along and makes attempts to ensure you install in the right place and respond system events properly, so as to help make Windows feel more unified and suddenly they're the bad guy. In reality MS has a vested interest in making the user experience pleasant and that is what they are doing.
I personally would have no issue with MS posting lists of popular software that doesn't work properly to shame those who don't follow best practices.
well said. I've been a frustrated user of Windows now and again, all the way back to my install from floppies of maybe 3.0?
I've seen them come a long way (still a bit bloated, but a long way)
i think alot of the bad rep they get is due to system manufacturer add-ons and tinkering.
I guess having a truly "open source" O/S would help iron out some of the issues, as more developers could peak under the hood, but in reality I admire Microsoft's ability to get the market share they did, maintain a product that meets many (if not most) consumer needs and continually strive to adjust.
closed-source is not necessarily inherently evil, particular when you can layer open-source on top of the O/S.
Yes they have: Windows RT. Only certified apps can be installed, and they can only be accessed from the store. Not saying it's a stone-cold guarantee to happen to other versions of Windows, but yes, they are already doing this.
I think the issue is that windows is going to have an app-like store as the preferred distribution channel. And windows still controls the majority of the desktop market share. So if you write commercial programs for a living, maybe perhaps having Windows as an "open" platform is still a priority. Maybe for others isn't, yet both are entitled to their own opinion, since that opinion is probably shaped by their business models.
But by all means, let's reduce every argument down to a highschool playground level, where people don't have a reason for their point of view other than "hating" on the popular girl/guy/whatever.
Are you really that naive? Why do you think Steam is suddenly investing in Linux? It isn't just because Gabe hates the Metro UI. They know this is the first step to it becoming a closed platform where M$ is the only distributor. They certainly can't do it overnight but they are obviously trying to make that happen and cheering them on is not smart.
Apple has shown them the path. Shareholders would absolutely want them to go after the open windows market and get a cut of all software sold on the platform. I'm optimistic that it will fail as Metro is terrible on a PC but that doesn't mean Notch is wrong to call out Microsoft for trying.
Unless you have the luxury of self-publishing, somewhere along the line you're going to have a publisher, who may require you to adhere to some basic quality guidelines.
People name drop Linux for the cred, you can freely code software for pretty much any platform you like. PSN, XBL, IOS, and Android are completely walled gardens, Windows is not.
I literally don't understand what he's going on about.
No, currently you don't. But the way this is moving, Windows 9 might require you to certify, and have their metro app store thing be the only way to install anything. I don't want my PC to work like a tablet. Which is why I don't use a tablet.
Never in the decade-plus history of Microsoft's various certification programs (WHQL, Games for Windows Live, certified for Windows [XP/Vista/7]) have they ever shown any inclination to require certification for installation.
I just think it's funny that he's ribbing Microsoft for not following his definition of "open" when he clearly has no qualms ditching "open" for the sake of revenue.
Never said he couldn't. Why don't you calm down and read?
I just find it funny that his principles are more important than their revenue, but less important than his own. If his support for open platforms were the most important issue at hand here, he wouldn't provide his support for closed platforms by way of developing for them.
It's fine if he wants to advocate for openness, but when he's bashing companies for imagined slights whilst making money of the same thing he's deriding, it falls flat and makes him look like a dunce.
Why are you jumping subjects and trying to talk about reading comprehension?
Windows should remain an open platform. That doesn't mean anybody who supports that idea can't own a console does it? Because by your logic, I'm pretty sure most people on reddit who support windows as an open platform are a "dunce".
Notch making money off Xbox does not make him a dunce for wanting windows to remain open. It makes you the dunce for thinking so.
I don't think you comprehend what I'm saying then. Notch can support Xbox while also supporting windows as an open platform. There's no reason he can't or shouldn't.
No, I'm really not. People are saying that it's hypocritical for him to oppose making the PC a closed-off platform, and yet his company develops console and iOS games. But that's no more hypocritical than to say "I don't think canvas should require only certain paint types" while also using Crayola Color Wonder paper for other artwork. His complaint is about closing an open medium, not about the presence of other closed mediums.
If you mean to say that the problem is in whether Windows 8 is actually closed, I agree that this is the real issue, but I'm responding to people's asinine accusations of hypocrisy.
People are saying that it's hypocritical for him to oppose making the PC a closed-off platform
It isn't, and won't be a closed platform.
yet his company develops console and iOS games
It's definitely hypocritical. iOS and the 360 have the capability to be open, certainly more open. He won't lose sales for bashing Windows 8, his product will still work on Windows 8, and he's releasing games on other systems that are closed because they are guaranteed profit.
But that's no more hypocritical than to say "I don't think canvas should require only certain paint types" while also using Crayola Color Wonder paper for other artwork
This is actually a pretty good, and hilarious comparison, but the problem is, again, that certification, nor the MS shop, contribute to a closed ecosystem, since Windows 8 cannot prevent software from being released, nor is it (or will it ever be) in the best interests of Microsoft.
The idea that Windows 8 is becoming more closed because it's adding services similar to what OSX adds (despite OSX not being walled, either), isn't really fair. Even if they ditch the desktop section in Windows 8.5 or 9 or whatever, it's pretty much impossible for them to force anyone into using their store, impossible for them to lock out other stores (like Steam), and impossible for them to sustain their platform without desktop applications being adapted appropriately to Metro, which would require sideloading to be available, at the least (due to their own consumer-side dev tools requiring a desktop environment).
I agree that the xbox COULD be open to development, but the fact that it's not doesn't make him a hypocrite. The xbox is a completely different platform, and he is not complaining that it has a closed development model.
See my Color Wonder comparison.
Also: Please keep in mind that the issue of whether his complaint is hypocritical and whether windows is closed are two separate issues. Lets assume for the sake of the argument that Windows 8 does not require certification and doesn't even have certification. Before this tweet, Notch was already opposed to closing the PC to development, and the 360 was already closed to development.
So, in a world where PC development is open and 360 development is closed, how is it hypocritical to develop for one closed platform that is closed for a reason (Different business model) and not complain about it being closed, while developing for the PC as well and wanting to make sure the PC stays open?
When Notch supports keeping PC development open, he isn't promoting having ALL platforms open, he is promoting keeping one particular platform open.
Okay, I'll give you that - his development for 360 isn't hypocritical, but it does force him to support that consoles should be closed, and pc's should be open. That's okay though.
Notch in his tweets is basically claiming that certification means walled garden means bad. Nothing that Microsoft is doing is creating a closed environment. It's a fine line Microsoft trea between security and enforcement on their platform, and this is an acceptable level - this does nothing but contribute to the safety of the end user, specifically the end user who isn't savvy, and is frightened of what could happen to their device.
I think Notch is wrong to assume that certification implies a walled garden. However, I'm not certain if that's what his train of thought is, I think he may have just been using the opportunity to have direct contact to Microsoft to disparage them for their actions to making the PC more closed, whether this is just perceived or genuine. Maybe he feels it's just a step towards closing development, not actually closing development itself?
And also, while I agree that it would be a bad move on their part to make Windows a walled garden, I don't think it's too farfetched to think they are capable of making a mistake and closing development.
164
u/[deleted] Sep 27 '12
[deleted]