Discuss? What discussions? This is war. Microsoft declared war on PC gaming. You think this is a game?
..
Discuss? What discussions? This is war. Microsoft declared war on PC gaming. You think this is a game?
Most of those who have hung around to discuss this in detail have been good sports about it
This shit on the other hand...
I mean, if anything, calling it GFWL 2 is being way too nice.GFWL wishes it was a shitty as UWP.Just when the thread looked like a place of reason.
I don't agree with these kind of arguments. Steam has competition, and very good ones at that as part of an Oligopoly. Of course, Steam ends up as the only outlet for certain games purely due to its success and massive customer base that are happy to buy from it. More competition is always welcome as a way to push it forward, challenge it and its development - but to state that as exclusive games being the route of that competition, imo is pathetic, as the underlying service is not competing at all or improving. It's the consolised view of what competition looks like for the most part, and I don't think that is what works on PC. PC at the moment is more of an oligopoly, and is continually pushed by competition that improves underlying services and tools that move along everything from games to informing hardware pushes, monetisation mechanisms, policies and entirely new paradigms between them all
What I want is for the services to improve in customer service, feature sets / tools that add value to customers and developers - that push the possibilities that can drive completely new games and ideas, and the developers that then go and use the tools / spread across competing platforms, services, engines, hardware etc. Steam has been successful specifically because of this where no one else really is on PC. The problem is that without competition at that same kind of level, services are not evolving as far as they could. Valve using games to push new ideas and tools for everyone, or driving multiplatform with SteamPlay is awesome and what I want more of rather than "exclusive" games for the sake of growing a platform but not actually doing anything. There are plenty of developers that do that, but as a holder of a service - it is far more valuable and interesting to see a service / platform ecosystem evolve in that way - which has had a massive impact on PC gaming and even gaming as a whole when you look at it.
Not surprising considering what a restrictive mess the UWP version was at launch.
no SLI/CF, no way to disable VSync, no exclusive fullscreen, no modding (sweetfx, etc), no overlay support (fraps, MSI afterburner, etc), no >60Hz support, no editing files, non-refundable. the list goes on.
It went against everything PC gaming represents (choice) and left a very bad taste in peoples mouths
This shit on the other hand...
You are saying that using exclusive content is not a healthy way to compete?This is very well said. I'm always confused by those who want to foster competition by supporting a competititor whose plans are to keep specific games hostage as a means of forcing you to only use their platform.
You are saying that using exclusive content is not a healthy way to compete?
Do you feel the same about consoles or phones, or tv channels/ stream providers like Netflix?
My new windows pc couldn't even play dvd's without downloading a third party app. I thought there was something wrong with my dvd drive lol.
GFWL2
So you are saying that only 2 percent of sales occurred on a platform which had never had AAA game releases before, was on few computers at the time, had zero advertising, and was competing with the overwhelming monopoly in that space? Weird
Keza MacDonald wrote this article? She's been ripping Microsoft ever since I saw her working for IGN. I can't take this article seriously since she wrote it. I mean, she writes headlines like this: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CdHj2WHUIAAdNYD.jpg:large
Some of this stuff is probably true like Halo 5 sales numbers not hitting expectations, but until other websites back up this article with sources, I have a hard time believing a lot of this article.
Surely you can contribute more than that to the discussion.
and exactly why TItanfall 2 better be on steam, day 1.
I'm still amazed that they actually had the chutzpah to do that.Maybe I'm remembering wrong, but didn't they plaster the login screen with Windows Store adverts per default, including Tomb Raider at the time?
Origin is actually pretty good, you should give it a try.and exactly why TItanfall 2 better be on steam, day 1.
Ugh. The Quantum Break exclusivity really gets me. And Dead Rising 4 is supposedly going to be UWP-exclusive, too. I really, really hope Capcom doesn't get in bed with Microsoft for DR4... or at the least it'll be a timed exclusive and show up later on Steam/elsewhere.
After GWFL, I don't trust Microsoft at all with any PC-focused marketplace, and waiting for it to die isn't fair for anybody.
and exactly why TItanfall 2 better be on steam, day 1.
Any agendas aside, do you really think the Steam / W10 Store split is going to look anything other than positive for Steam and negative for W10 Store.I'm surprised at the amount of people blindly accepting this quote as fact. It seems dubious as fuck to me.
Edit: No wonder the author was kind enough to pass along the poorly sourced and inflammatory quote. It seems they have quite the agenda:
I look forward to the blowback Capcom gets for making dr4 win 10 exclusive on pc and not release on steam.
Sure, Valve allows that.What if Microsoft released all their games on Steam but required Win10 for all of them?
Does Valve allow that?
just curious but is MS actually an expert on anything anymore? I mean I use win10 but it is about as barebones as you can get and has zero worthwhile applications on it. you end up pretty much replacing every single application that they deem as your "default".
What if Microsoft released all their games on Steam but required Win10 for all of them?
Does Valve allow that? Microsoft would forgo a small cut to Valve/Steam, but they dramatically increase their revenue & increase adoption of Win10 (provided their games are attractive enough).
Edit: No wonder the author was kind enough to pass along the poorly sourced and inflammatory quote. It seems they have quite the agenda:
I doubt it would matter much. Being brutally honest MS doesn't have enough games volume wise to move the needle on PC vs Steam, GOG etc.What if Microsoft released all their games on Steam but required Win10 for all of them?
Does Valve allow that? Microsoft would forgo a small cut to Valve/Steam, but they dramatically increase their revenue & increase adoption of Win10 (provided their games are attractive enough).
Good.
What is this //build/ people keep talking about???
I don't see it as good. MS has been at the forefront of gaming for a long time, always find odd how much gamers want to distance themselves from a company they use daily (well most PC gamers).
Steam wasn't always this holy grail for gamers, and MS' store could be great competition. As a developer that frequents into MS owned software I think they can provide great things (and watching them make bigger strides into open source) makes me that much more of a believer.
Gamers so quick to bite a hand they've depended on for so long.
I wonder how like did, and how they would qualify their sales. Example - I installed ki on my desktop, but didn't buy it for Windows. Rather, my Xbox one license transfered over.
Does that mean I could as two maus for one game purchase?
Surely you can contribute more than that to the discussion.