Support NeoGAF

[Wowfunhappy]

If Microsoft had used a higher profile game as the guinea pig, they would be way more likely to sway even the most die hard, anti-UWA, anti-Windows store PC player to the dark side for at least one dip. Choosing Quantum Break seems like a mistake when just about ANY Halo title would have done the trick.

I don't think Quantum Break is going to be the only title they use to push the Windows Store; it's just the first. Heck, I wouldn't be surprised if we see all Xbox One exclusives come to the Windows Store going forward, including Halo.

 

[Crayon]

What does mobile mean when microsoft says it? Surface? Or are they still talking about windows phone?

 

[tiredheadcrab]

I don't think Quantum Break is going to be the only title they use to push the Windows Store; it's just the first. Heck, I wouldn't be surprised if we see all Xbox One exclusives come to the Windows Store going forward, including Halo.

I can see Halo MCC and Halo 5 coming to PC. In fact I think Halo 5 on Windows 10 will help foster its esports potential beyond what they are doing on Xbox one. Apparently Halo is a type of game PC gamers do enjoy.

 

[vcc]

I can see Halo MCC and Halo 5 coming to PC. In fact I think Halo 5 on Windows 10 will help foster its esports potential beyond what they are doing on Xbox one. Apparently Halo is a type of game PC gamers do enjoy.

Takes way more than being on PC to be a e-sports game.

 

[Wowfunhappy]

Takes way more than being on PC to be a e-sports game.

And I'm not sure it's a requirement, either. Look at Smash Brothers!

 

[demigod]

I wouldn't be surprised if they announce Halo 5 on the 25th. QB on windows store won't be a big hit.

 

[vasametropolis]

I agree. Just as Halo 2 sold the world on Games for Windows Live, so too could a 9 year late port of Halo 3 sell the world on Games for Windows 10.

Well that's sarcasm if I've ever seen it :/. Not having some bogus online charge out the gate along with a great port would be difference enough in 2016. The PC landscape is very different these days. Many newcomers see it as an upgraded console and may be more willing to purchase from the Windows store than those who have been gaming on the PC for a while (those around for GFWL and that had to experience it). The core demographic has not changed, but it has expanded to a significant new audience. Saying "any" Halo (or other major) title may have not been the right thing to say. It would stand a better shot with a Halo 5 or Gears 4 announcement. I don't expect that any time soon because if there was an uproar from Quantum Break I can't even imagine what it would be for one of those.

In general, it is shortsighted for many of us to think they won't see success this time doing something similar. The demographic of different types of players is much more varied. I've brought this up with 2 people so far (anecdotal admittedly) and they couldn't care less what store it's on or what the negatives are. I'm just trying to say that we live in a vacuum here and it's hard to get the real picture on what people would accept.

 

[charlequin]

Honestly, at this point I don't really see where you're going with all this.

It's not complicated, despite all these tangential novels you keep responding to me with. If I want to buy a PC game -- not a mobile game that can run on PC -- then getting it in a UWP package makes it significantly less useful and provides no benefit in exchange. If I buy a PC port of a console game from basically anyone else, I get an actual PC game that can be modified and improved if necessary.

Using the Live APIs to provide achievements, connect to Xbox friends, etc. just isn't really relevant to my mind. I'm happy (assuming it doesn't break the game like it often did in GFWL) if they want their PC releases to hook into that stuff, and there's no fundamental reason (besides Microsoft purposely restricting their own APIs) that a game can't do so and still be released as a normal PC executable.

 

[Synth]

It's not complicated, despite all these tangential novels you keep responding to me with. If I want to buy a PC game -- not a mobile game that can run on PC -- then getting it in a UWP package makes it significantly less useful and provides no benefit in exchange. If I buy a PC port of a console game from basically anyone else, I get an actual PC game that can be modified and improved if necessary.

Using the Live APIs to provide achievements, connect to Xbox friends, etc. just isn't really relevant to my mind. I'm happy (assuming it doesn't break the game like it often did in GFWL) if they want their PC releases to hook into that stuff, and there's no fundamental reason (besides Microsoft purposely restricting their own APIs) that a game can't do so and still be released as a normal PC executable.

Ad all that's fine. But you responded to me in the first place... so obviously I'm not concerned with what's relevant to your mind, anymore than you appear to care what's relevant in my mind. And yes, these things that UWP provides are also a result of MS choosing to restrict them from Win32, rather than add them to that platform.. but it's not like they were already there and now being turned off in Windows 10. They didn't exist in Windows, and now they do... new shit provided.

The mobile/console/PC game stuff is all meaningless. If you buy a mobile port from anyone else, then you get the Win32 functionality you're accustomed to as well. But you may not have got that mobile port (pretty easy to argue based on pre and post Windows 10), and in this case you may not have got the console port, regardless of other ones that have happened.

 

[LordRaptor]

But you may not have got that mobile port (pretty easy to argue based on pre and post Windows 10)

The chances of a successful non-F2P mobile game getting a port from IOS or Android to PC to enhance sales is significantly more likely than that mobile game being made for Windows Mobile in the first place, let alone as a UWA.

Because unless you have some sort of non-commercial political reason to do so, avoiding the most popular platforms for a product is pretty dumb as a business decision.

 

[j0hnny_385]

I would really like to see MS' reasoning for this other than brand protection ("We see Windows 10 Store as a viable games platform").

I'd wager the cost/benefit of going the Steam route (hell, going the Steam/Uplay/Origin/[any store]) , even with paying Valve 30% , faaaaaaar outweighs the Windows 10 Store exclusivity.
That's thinking only about market & sales potential, not to mention convenience for the consumer, goodwill, etc.

 

[Caayn]

I would really like to see MS' reasoning for this other than brand protection ("We see Windows 10 Store as a viable games platform").

I'd wager the cost/benefit of going the Steam route (hell, going the Steam/Uplay/Origin/[any store]) , even with paying Valve 30% , faaaaaaar outweighs the Windows 10 Store exclusivity.
That's thinking only about market & sales potential, not to mention convenience for the consumer, goodwill, etc.

Long term. Getting consumers into the Win10 store pays of more on the long term than selling it on Steam will do.

 

[LordRaptor]

I'd wager the cost/benefit of going the Steam route (hell, going the Steam/Uplay/Origin/[any store]) , even with paying Valve 30% , faaaaaaar outweighs the Windows 10 Store exclusivity.

As previously discussed in this topic, MS don't even have to pay Valve any money to provide games on Steam.
They could even - very easily - do the same 'cross buy' initiative they are providing with W10 by giving every single X1 purchaser a free Steam key.

 

[j0hnny_385]

Long term. Getting consumers into the Win10 store pays of more on the long term than selling it on Steam will do.

I get that (hence the: "other than brand protection"), but if Rise of the Tomb Raider (another high profile AAA release) is any indication, they got a looooooooooooong way coming.
Here's hoping that Win 10 Store will evolve into something much better (akin to, eg. Origin).

 

[GhostTrick]

Long term. Getting consumers into the Win10 store pays of more on the long term than selling it on Steam will do.

Except that its not happening. Long term wise, I dont see W10 store taking off gaming wise. Even if Microsoft released all their 1st party games on the store. They wont turn people into their awful service. If they didnt succeed with GFWL which had the support of major big 3rd party publisher, they wont do with a lame appstore, alone. Especially after the GFWL fiasco.

Selling on Steam also benefits them as Steam is a Windows program. The more they dont try to sabotage Windows gaming, the more it benefits them. As a gamer, I use Windows because of games. I pay for Windows to play my games. And I upgrade to new Windows to enjoy more games. But I dont care about their store.

 

[LordRaptor]

The more they dont try to sabotage Windows gaming, the more it benefits them.

Exactly.

Which is why PC gamers roll their eyes every time they announce some new initiative because PC gamers are sooooo important to them, because they're like the Monkeys Paw and feel the need to try and add some horrific unintended and undesired consequence every time they fulfill a wish.

 

[Pantaghana]

As a gamer, I use Windows because of games. I pay for Windows to play my games. And I upgrade to new Windows to enjoy more games. But I dont care about their store.

That is exactly the problem, your reasoning for using Windows is indirect and games you buy on Windows don't earn MS money, they want to change that.
The problem is the way they are going about it will likely backfire.

I don't have a problem with MS promoting their own store. I do have a problem with the Windows Store being ill suited to games considering what type of software they are and shoehorning them in there is more trouble than its worth to the consumer.

If they made a completely separate storefront specifically for games and none of that app bullshit it would likely be better welcomed.

Not much better, but still.

 

[Peter Ian Staker]

Sorry but that's a no buy for me.
Windows store is beyond GFWL-tier garbage.
Not even the download manager works correctly.

 

[GhostTrick]

That is exactly the problem, your reasoning for using Windows is indirect and games you buy on Windows don't earn MS money, they want to change that.
The problem is the way they are going about it will likely backfire.

I don't have a problem with MS promoting their own store. I do have a problem with the Windows Store being ill suited to games considering what type of software they are and shoehorning them in there is more trouble than its worth to the consumer.

If they made a completely separate storefront specifically for games and none of that app bullshit it would likely be better welcomed.

Not much better, but still.

Selling games on Steam/Uplay/Origin would earn them more money than their app store for games.
And not only that, they would stop disrupting what is working well.
I can say it safely, if it wasnt for Steam, the PC market would be dead today.
Especially with the like of Microsoft killing GFWL.

 

[Zedox]

I think that people are presuming that MS won't improve UWA APIs. As of right now, I understand PC concerns and I agree work needs to be done so righting it off makes sense...but it won't forever. Programs will need to be rewritten in order for those who want a traditional win32 program experience to happen. You won'tget 100% the same as MS still wants UWA to have security and ease of use to be stable, but stuff like SLI, crossfire...thhose do and probably will be worked on if not already (I say that as MS and NVidia/AMD are partners). This years //build/ will be interesting.

 

[Synth]

The chances of a successful non-F2P mobile game getting a port from IOS or Android to PC to enhance sales is significantly more likely than that mobile game being made for Windows Mobile in the first place, let alone as a UWA.

Because unless you have some sort of non-commercial political reason to do so, avoiding the most popular platforms for a product is pretty dumb as a business decision.

Whilst I can definitely see the logic in what you're saying, the reality certainly isn't true. I have a Windows Phone (along with an Android phone) and the software overlap is massively greater than PC ports would be even without considering F2P games. I still see releases of successful games like Lara Croft GO, or Monument Valley.. even if they turn up very late in many cases. There's almost never PC ports for these types of games... or at least there wasn't until recently. I played Lara Croft GO and Hitman GO on my PC via the Windows Store.

 

[ps3ud0]

I think that people are presuming that MS won't improve UWA APIs. As of right now, I understand PC concerns and I agree work needs to be done so righting it off makes sense...but it won't forever. Programs will need to be rewritten in order for those who want a traditional win32 program experience to happen. You won'tget 100% the same as MS still wants UWA to have security and ease of use to be stable, but stuff like SLI, crossfire...thhose do and probably will be worked on if not already (I say that as MS and NVidia/AMD are partners). This years //build/ will be interesting.

I dont think they are, they just think MS should have at least matched if not improved their game store offering (compared to their competitors) considering their history. Of course it will improve, but few will give MS that chance due to what theyve tried in the past.

I dont think MS deserves any leeway

ps3ud0 8)

 

[GhostTrick]

I think that people are presuming that MS won't improve UWA APIs. As of right now, I understand PC concerns and I agree work needs to be done so righting it off makes sense...but it won't forever. Programs will need to be rewritten in order for those who want a traditional win32 program experience to happen. You won'tget 100% the same as MS still wants UWA to have security and ease of use to be stable, but stuff like SLI, crossfire...thhose do and probably will be worked on if not already (I say that as MS and NVidia/AMD are partners). This years //build/ will be interesting.

It's not about improving its about being up to standards. This isnt some new company or a first try.
It should be NOW not coming this year or following years.

 

[Felix Lighter]

I wonder how much pull the gaming division has for things like the Windows Store. I get the sense that we communicate the issues to the gaming group, they need to be fully convinced and then they need to convince whichever group is in charge of the Windows Store platform that games shouldn't be restricted by UWA. In my mind if a change is ever going to happen it's going to take a goddamned eternity.

 

[Zedox]

It's not about improving its about being up to standards. This isnt some new company or a first try.
It should be NOW not coming this year or following years.

From what I read in this thread and other forums about the flaws of UWA...it's based off of shortcomings of what w32 provides that UWA currently doesn't. Doing a new API set for an entire OS and thinking it's going to be modern but still provide ~100% functionality and backwards compatible out the gate is pretty much high expectations (for a company that many feel burned by).

Like I said I understand it...but let's also be honest, not until a AAA game came out on the store did anyone (besides probably AAA gamedevs and a few forum folk) care to even talk about these shortcomings (which could be dated back to Win8 where WinRT started...that's what UWA is based off of). It's not like games haven't been on the store, granted they didn't take full advantage of hardware (the most was probably the halo Spartan assault game). Now that AAA games are coming out and they don't have everything (which no company nowadays does have everything working day 1 on a new platform let alone MS) there's more talk about why isn't it not ready. We won't know why it's not ready, and I do agree, it should have been ready when they decided that this was going to happen, but we'll see.

Even if they did make the APIs to get the same functionality users expect...the developers for those apps still have to make the apps. No matter what you are going to have to wait.

I dont think they are, they just think MS should have at least matched if not improved their game store offering (compared to their competitors) considering their history. Of course it will improve, but few will give MS that chance due to what theyve tried in the past.

I dont think MS deserves any leeway

ps3ud0 8)

Most if not all the complaints about the store that I see is around getting and knowing when something updated. There are more complaints revolving around functionality of the product itself (SLI, Overalys, etc...) The game store itself is fine (besides not having better games on there...and so many freaking duplicates...they need to fix that...again).

 

[aaaaa0]

Conversely, putting a game as a UWA on the Windows Store makes the Windows Store the only place that title can be purchased.

What? How is that true?

There are tons of games on the Windows Store that are UWPs that are available on Steam, iPhone and Android. What are you talking about? There is no restriction whatsoever that if you put something on the Windows Store you can't put it anywhere else.

Windows Store Desktop: https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/store/apps/nightmares-from-the-deep-the-cursed-heart/9wzdncrdg68x

Windows Store Phone: https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/store/apps/nightmares-from-the-deep-the-cursed-heart/9wzdncrfj27c

Steam: http://store.steampowered.com/app/259740/

Google Play: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.g5e.nightmaresdeep.android.full

Apple Appstore: https://itunes.apple.com/app/nightmares-from-deep-cursed-heart/id536572217

 

[justsomeguy]

onversely, putting a game as a UWA on the Windows Store makes the Windows Store the only place that title can be purchased.

The Universal Windows Platform ... can be supported by any store.

While I'd like to know exactly what "supported" means, if it means you can make a UWA and sell it on Steam then job done. Over to you, Valve, to add support.

 

[Unai]

While I'd like to know exactly what "supported" means, if it means you can make a UWA and sell it on Steam then job done. Over to you, Valve, to add support.

Steam selling UWA wouldn't solve the problems people are having.

 

[aaaaa0]

While I'd like to know exactly what "supported" means, if it means you can make a UWA and sell it on Steam then job done. Over to you, Valve, to add support.

That's exactly what it means.

You can compile a UWA package with Visual Studio, upload it to Steam, and have Steam install it onto your computer.

https://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dn448376(v=wps.640).aspx

The only thing Steam has to do before this works, is turn on side loading so the system accepts their signature, instead of Microsofts.

UWA is just another tool to write software. Like writing your game with C++/Win32. Or Java. Or Flash. Or whatever. They can come from the Windows Store or not come from the Windows Store.

 

[irrotational]

Using the Live APIs to provide achievements, connect to Xbox friends, etc. just isn't really relevant to my mind. I'm happy (assuming it doesn't break the game like it often did in GFWL) if they want their PC releases to hook into that stuff, and there's no fundamental reason (besides Microsoft purposely restricting their own APIs) that a game can't do so and still be released as a normal PC executable.

I am not an IT expert but surely if they released a game as a "normal" PC game i.e. modifiable and hackable, then there is no way on earth they would want to connect that to their Xbox live ecosystem.

People would immediately have gamerscores of many millions, plus start sending spam messages about free ipads and large male members... Sure on one level that doesn't matter at all, on another level it matters an awful lot.

Talking more generally - rather than the post above..

The Xbox ecosystem is very closed with all the pros and cons of that - an awful lot of people value the pro's over the cons. That very closed ecosystem is being nudged over the hardware border into the PC world, which is full of people that have a very different set of pro's and con's.

That's going to cause friction but it also increases choice. Sure people may want "normal" versions of tomb raider of Quantum Break, but their current choice is Windows store or none, and there are perfectly sensible and valid reasons why that is the only choice available, and probably will be for the forseeable future.

I think it's good to call out reasons why this is a bad choice, or technical issues of how the store version of the game doesn't work as well as the "normal" steam version, and hopefully MS will improve it off the back of these comments.

 

[abracadaver]

I am not an IT expert but surely if they released a game as a "normal" PC game i.e. modifiable and hackable, then there is no way on earth they would want to connect that to their Xbox live ecosystem.

People would immediately have gamerscores of many millions, plus start sending spam messages about free ipads and large male members...

That didn't happen with GFWL did it?

 

[toddhunter]

I think that people are presuming that MS won't improve UWA APIs. As of right now, I understand PC concerns and I agree work needs to be done so righting it off makes sense...but it won't forever. Programs will need to be rewritten in order for those who want a traditional win32 program experience to happen. You won'tget 100% the same as MS still wants UWA to have security and ease of use to be stable, but stuff like SLI, crossfire...thhose do and probably will be worked on if not already (I say that as MS and NVidia/AMD are partners). This years //build/ will be interesting.

You are obviously not very familiar with the patch/improvement rate to Microsoft's previous PC gaming efforts.

Let me summarise:

 

[R0C]

Cannot find link for purchase of the game in Windows Store

 

[mrklaw]

It's not complicated, despite all these tangential novels you keep responding to me with. If I want to buy a PC game -- not a mobile game that can run on PC -- then getting it in a UWP package makes it significantly less useful and provides no benefit in exchange. If I buy a PC port of a console game from basically anyone else, I get an actual PC game that can be modified and improved if necessary.

Using the Live APIs to provide achievements, connect to Xbox friends, etc. just isn't really relevant to my mind. I'm happy (assuming it doesn't break the game like it often did in GFWL) if they want their PC releases to hook into that stuff, and there's no fundamental reason (besides Microsoft purposely restricting their own APIs) that a game can't do so and still be released as a normal PC executable.

Isn't the benefit that you get to play game X on Windows? Comparing it to steam is pointless when Ms clearly want to use their own software to drive adoption of their storefront.

You are obviously free to decide whether their offering is worth it, and objectively it is less good than eg steam due to the technical limitations. But that is still in the end a value judgement people need to make.

 

[Unai]

Isn't the benefit that you get to play game X on Windows? Comparing it to steam is pointless when Ms clearly want to use their own software to drive adoption of their storefront.

You are obviously free to decide whether their offering is worth it, and objectively it is less good than eg steam due to the technical limitations. But that is still in the end a value judgement people need to make.

It's not comparing to Steam, it's comparing to any other form of game distribution since the beginning of gaming history. Microsoft could sell games in their store using win32 if they wanted to do so.

 

[charlequin]

I am not an IT expert but surely if they released a game as a "normal" PC game i.e. modifiable and hackable, then there is no way on earth they would want to connect that to their Xbox live ecosystem.

There are extensive anti-cheat platforms on PC already and consoles that go online are still plenty vulnerable to hacking so I don't think this is a relevant factor in anything.

Isn't the benefit that you get to play game X on Windows?

No, because the limitation there is 100% a business choice on Microsoft's part, so lifting it isn't a benefit of their bad application framework, it's just them choosing not to apply that limitation.

 

[Hasney]

I am not an IT expert but surely if they released a game as a "normal" PC game i.e. modifiable and hackable, then there is no way on earth they would want to connect that to their Xbox live ecosystem.

People would immediately have gamerscores of many millions, plus start sending spam messages about free ipads and large male members... Sure on one level that doesn't matter at all, on another level it matters an awful lot.

Talking more generally - rather than the post above..

The Xbox ecosystem is very closed with all the pros and cons of that - an awful lot of people value the pro's over the cons. That very closed ecosystem is being nudged over the hardware border into the PC world, which is full of people that have a very different set of pro's and con's.

That's going to cause friction but it also increases choice. Sure people may want "normal" versions of tomb raider of Quantum Break, but their current choice is Windows store or none, and there are perfectly sensible and valid reasons why that is the only choice available, and probably will be for the forseeable future.

I think it's good to call out reasons why this is a bad choice, or technical issues of how the store version of the game doesn't work as well as the "normal" steam version, and hopefully MS will improve it off the back of these comments.

Right now, you could take any XBox 360 games and unlock every single achievement you like. It's not hard, you just have to buy one of the hard drive readers.

Chest Engine still works on Windows 10 store apps and that works by changing memory values on the fly. They would still have to do work to stop online cheating or possibly unlocking achievements using that since you could change numbers held in memory. Being on Windows 10 store isn't going to stop too much just by existing.

 

[mcrommert]

There are extensive anti-cheat platforms on PC already and consoles that go online are still plenty vulnerable to hacking so I don't think this is a relevant factor in anything.



No, because the limitation there is 100% a business choice on Microsoft's part, so lifting it isn't a benefit of their bad application framework, it's just them choosing not to apply that limitation.

Yeah those "extensive anti-cheat platforms" have never been good enough

No hacking at all on the xbox one

 

[Jimmyfenix]

With the news of QB coming to steam i wonder what changed since they were pretty adamant it wasn't coming to steam. Low sales on the window store?

 

[A-V-B]

Boy, this thread title totally threw me for a loop after seeing the news it'd be coming to Steam and on DX11.

 

[Lanrutcon]

With the news of QB coming to steam i wonder what changed since they were pretty adamant it wasn't coming to steam. Low sales on the window store?

Reality. I think reality walked up to their sales figures and punched em in the gut.

 

[mocolostrocolos]

Figures.

 

[Pound_lb003]

With the news of QB coming to steam i wonder what changed since they were pretty adamant it wasn't coming to steam. Low sales on the window store?

It's gotta be right? Clearly QB wasn't a cheap game, it took a large studio a few years to make. It can't come to PS4, but since Win10 was an afterthought, there's not a huge amount of pride being swallowed to bring it to Steam. A service the majority of PC gamers prefer.

They have to get as good a return as they can on an expensive title like this, and I bet people are chomping at the bit to get it on Steam.

Win-win.

 

[d9b]

Reality. I think reality walked up to their sales figures and punched em in the gut.

Very likely.

 

[Ushay]

They really do care about PC gaming.

They care about their PC gaming. Like every other store/publisher out there.

 

[Shin-Ra]

If you’re buying a PC for games, you’re buying into W10. W10 is the platform with the most games, the most exclusives, and probably the most anticipated game of the year in Gears of War 4. If you’re a fan of Gears, if you’ve ever played Gears, you know how special Gears 4 is. If you never have, the rich story with James and Dom and what’s been created — I can tell you, I’ve played through the entire campaign. It’s the greatest Gears ever made. It’s stunning. It’s worth the upgrade. That game alone is worth the W10 upgrade.

If you missed the original, genuine quote: http://venturebeat.com/2015/10/31/m...n-the-holiday-and-why-consoles-arent-dying/3/

 

[barit]

Greenberg caught in a lie?? I'm shocked

 

[dex3108]

Greenberg "lied" once again. Nothing to see here folks.

 

[jelly]

PR man lies. Water is wet.

 

[bombshell]

With the news of QB coming to steam i wonder what changed since they were pretty adamant it wasn't coming to steam. Low sales on the window store?

Yeah, Greenberg realised that the sales of QB wasn't as massive as he predicted shortly before launch.