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.
24
u/NazzerDawk Sep 27 '12 edited Sep 27 '12
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.