Google+

We Recommend By ZergNet

56 comments

  • ipaqi - September 30, 2013 5:05 a.m.

    Oh, FFS. Calling Windows 8 a closed platform or a risk to the openness of PC is tossery of the highest order. Yes, they have an in-OS store. So effin' what? So does every other bloody OS on the market that ISN'T Linux-based. The store doesn't block or interfere with any program you want to run on the desktop side. Windows 8 is in no way a closed system, and I'm sick and bloody tired of people, especially Notch and Gabe harping on about it. Considering Newell's objections to Windows 8 centered around the store, which was in concept (though not in practice) a potentially very big competitor to Steam, I find everything he says on the subject suspect. Would you trust negative words spoken by Sony about MS? Or by MS about Sony? Or by Apple about Google, and vice-versa? No, you wouldn't. You'd take it with a healthy pinch of salt. Besides, I don't know how Gabe Newell came to be the messiah of "openness" on the PC, or the gilded saviour of revolutionary gaming, considering up until Greenlight, they were as closed a platform as any console, and even now, Greenlight is shit-in-a-handbag awful. Is Steam overall a very good thing for indie devs on PC? Sure, If they can squeeze in. Otherwise, the almost complete and utter focus of the digital PC marketplace on Steam means that if you're not there, you're not going anywhere. And don't even get me started on their "family sharing" and "Early access", which are nothing but mechanisms by which to pull more money out of more people.
  • Eightboll812 - September 30, 2013 8:15 a.m.

    People not too close to things might see it that way. There's a definite possibility this is exactly where MS is going with the PC. I know people there, and the company is in panic mode with Windows and desktop. The market is finally shrinking after years and years of analyst predicting it and not happening and MS being able to happily ignore those "fools". They are also in panic mode with Phone and their failed tablet. They are being squeezed out of the consumer market at all angles. So they are desperate to make bold changes in order to hold onto their nice large beachhead with PCs. Which way will they go? No one knows for sure, but they seem to be moving toward closing down the platform in order to milk licensing revenue (and penalties) out of it. That's what they do with the other marketplace for tablets/phone. (Which a lot of people also don't know.) As for painting a possible picture of the future, I'm not sure anyone can criticize too harshly here for something that is very plausible.
  • ipaqi - September 30, 2013 10:58 a.m.

    How, exactly are they "moving towards closing down the platform"? By bringing in a store? There is no digital distribution service in the world that doesn't involve at least a bit of curation, and as for non-store-bought applications, it's not like we don't have non-metro natively fullscreen applications. There is no limitations on what you can do on a windows 8 PC. Other than that, you write the word "fools" as though anyone in MS has referred to analysts as such - which is not the case, and you're talking about "panic mode" and them being "squeezed out", as though MS isn't still the most proliferate office and home workstation OS in existence. Yes, there is some healthy competition in the market now, which means that MS has to make right choices, not just bold ones. And trying to sell people a product with which they can do less than with the product they already have is a surefire way to destroy your marketshare, as they have learned from the XBox One DRM fiasco. And I'm going to just ignore your foolhardy assertion that what happens in the phone/tablet sphere is at all representative, because it has no hold in any reality that has ever existed. It's like saying that the XBox is a closed platform, and that's evidence that windows is going to become one as well. Finally, I'm not seeing any of this so-called panic from my own friends at MS.
  • Eightboll812 - September 30, 2013 2:03 p.m.

    Everyone is entitled to an opinion even if ill founded. You've really not addressed anything I've said other than to twist words and run off on tangents that have nothing to do with a given point I made. The "fools" comment referred to action, er rather inaction, than to specific statements. If those predictions were taken seriously, MS wouldn't have been so slow to respond to the tablet phenomenon. You really can't argue against this, even if a huge homer. They got caught with their pants down, even years after the trend started. The phrase squeezed out referred to the shrinkage of the desktop/laptop PC market while being completely uncompetitive in the markets that this is shifting to, i.e tablets and phones. The combination is a squeezing effect. Again, you can pretend to argue against it, but that's the fact. By saying there's no limit to what you can do with a Windows 8 PC, you clearly let my statements fly right over your head. I was talking about business model being restrictive (again where they are clearly trying to go with it), not that the OS is restrictive. But whatever dude. I've come to expect you to misread and twist just about anything that is said to you. "And I'm going to just ignore your foolhardy assertion that what happens in the phone/tablet sphere is at all representative," That's mighty kind of you. I'll let you just go put your head in the sand, because tablets are as different from a PC as the Xbox is... Tell that to all the people who are ditching laptops for tablets. "Finally, I'm not seeing any of this so-called panic from my own friends at MS." Clearly you are either lying or don't know anyone worth knowing there. Which is funny because I just had a lengthy discussion two days ago about this topic with a family member who works there.
  • ipaqi - September 30, 2013 2:16 p.m.

    Wow. You begin your post with saying that I ignored or misrepresented everything you said, and then proceeded to do the same. Bravo.
  • TokenGamesRadarFurry - September 30, 2013 3:11 p.m.

    Going to refute his misrepresentations, or are you taking your ball and going home?
  • ipaqi - September 30, 2013 8:23 p.m.

    First off, I did more than "misrepresent" or "let [his] statements go over [my] head", which by the way, was just plainly antagonistic. Second, this person is pretending to have some intuitive grasp of Microsoft's plans that is antithetical to simple logic. If anyone thinks it's a good idea to make a future version of your program able to do less than a previous version, then that new version isn't going to sell. Simple logic. Easy. And MS knows that, which is why Windows 8 doesn't limit you as a user, and why future versions are even less likely to limit you. It actually doesn't limit you as a software-maker either (which isn't what I was talking about to begin with, BTW - misrepresentation, AGAIN), because you can (and 99.99% of software-makers do) just make a normal desktop program. If you don't want to sell through the Windows Store, because you want to maintain your profits, not go through certification, etc., you can just not sell an app on the Windows Store. But if MS is going to let you buy a program essentially from them, through that store, then it only makes sense to have it go through certification and/or curation, like all other in-OS stores do. Speaking of which, his assertion about phones/tablets being a precursor to what's going on on the PC aspect WAS idiotic, because it isn't true for Xbox and PC, it isn't true for iOS and MacOS, and so saying Windows Phone/Tablet closedness it is a precursor for Windows PC closedness is completely ignoring reality. -> This is me refuting another misrepresentation, BTW.
  • Eightboll812 - September 30, 2013 9:01 p.m.

    "If anyone thinks it's a good idea to make a future version of your program able to do less than a previous version, then that new version isn't going to sell." Wow, more word twisting even after I clarified they are moving in their business model, not the technical capabilities of Windows 8. Simple logic, yet you fail to even follow it, and pretend to be "logical". Spock you aren't. Maybe you should have just taken the ball home, lol. The problem you fail to grasp is that there are rather clear signs this is where they are headed: http://www.fiercemobilecontent.com/story/microsoft-rumored-build-single-app-store-windows-phone-windows/2013-09-27 Now, given the history with MS trying to use their position to undercut competitors and forcing customers through their single source channels, ahem, Internet Explorer, and trotting a fine line with the courts in the process, you say, "no way", and I say, "I see the writing on the wall." "because you can (and 99.99% of software-makers do) just make a normal desktop program. If you don't want to sell through the Windows Store, because you want to maintain your profits, not go through certification, etc., you can just not sell an app on the Windows Store." You really have no idea how licensing works in the current iteration of the store do you? Because they have penalties for not putting the app in the store that cost more than the average PC game. All they have to do is implement the same business model on the PC and it's no longer such an open system. You seriously think it hasn't occurred to anyone at MS that ALL software is going digital and ALL they have to do is funnel it through their store and completely cut out the middle men and reap maximum returns to shareholders? I think you think MS are idiots. Regarding your point on tablets, I'm supremely confident you are the one sounding like an idiot here. You've only responded with non sequiturs rather than disproofs. A sign of a weak mind.
  • Eightboll812 - September 30, 2013 10:28 p.m.

    Another sign of the trend towards the move to enforcing app store distribution. http://www.theverge.com/2012/5/25/3042671/windows-8-desktop-app-development-visual-studio Most people can connect a series of dots. I guess you aren't most people.
  • ipaqi - October 1, 2013 6:18 a.m.

    Okay, let's reset here for a second. We've already gone past the point of just being two d-bags yelling at each other on the internet. I apologize for my use of invectives. I still think that you're mistaken in thinking that MS is going to lock down development on PC or limit at all the business models available there. I don't see any real benefit to them by doing so, and too much potential for self-harm. That said, there is no need for me to throw insults in your face. There's no reason we can't argue about this like grown ups. I hope you agree, and that we can lower the toxicity of the tone in our discussion here. Now, that theverge article you cited is wrong. Visual Studio Express 2012 can develop for desktop windows, with no more limits than the free VS versions have ever really had. Source: http://www.microsoft.com/visualstudio/eng/products/visual-studio-express-for-windows-desktop#product-express-desktop As to the other article, all I saw there was talk about consolidation the various windows stores into one. This causes no new limitations on development for windows as a whole. Finally, I still claim that you cannot disengage the question of what can a user do with their computer from the question of what business model can a developer use for their product. So long as MS isn't controlling users' access to desktop (that is, non-Metro-style) applications, then users can get their programs from whomever and however they wish, and so there's no "closing" of the platform. The Windows Store itself arose as a closed platform, true, but its existence in no way detracts from what users and developers can do using Windows, whether in the business aspect or the technical. And again, I say that limiting what users can do with their PC in future versions of the OS (which is the only way to "close" the platform) would be disastrous. If Steam Machines are readily available, and if SteamOS can be used similarly to Ubuntu or other user-friendly Linux distros, doing so may cause MS to relinquish so much of its marketshare that any licensing gains wouldn't even come close to compensating. And I just don't think the guys and gals at Redmond are foolhardy enough to do so. Your turn.
  • Eightboll812 - October 1, 2013 7:31 a.m.

    Fair. I thought my original comment simply expressed that I could see things moving in that direction but that it wasn't certain. So I apologize in return for following up after that with comments that were not kind. I've seen enough companies fail, even big companies with long heritages, and one thing that is common is that they all, at some point, react too late, and their reactions aren't "smart". I don't trust the "it wouldn't be smart" logic in situations like these since companies don't always do what is best. There's all kinds of reasons for that and too much to cover in a comment section. But I think we can agree sometimes companies make bad moves when feeling up against a wall. Kodak is an interesting example, because they reacted too slowly to the move to digital and could never catch up after that. However, I understand your skepticism. I'll only offer two points of clarification. First, I don't believe that you are interpreting the point properly. Supposing tomorrow, they said, "everything goes through a desktop store". That doesn't mean users are limited in the software they can use. It just changes where they go to get it. And it changes whose pound of flesh MS is taking a cut at (the developers/publishers, retail, and distribution). The analogy to Xbone serves to illustrate this fine point. The attempt to force things to digital, wouldn't have eliminated games from the platform, just limit how you get them and what you can do with them after you buy. In fact, some have argued the result would be more games, because Gamestop is removed from the revenue train. Point is, I don't believe they [MS] MUST see a move to further business/policy restrictions as limiting the end user. Honestly, it's MS we are talking about, and the whole thing in the late 90's around IE serves a perfect example. They went out of their way to limit user choice and user flexibility, and thrust a crappy browser on everyone, and it largely worked for MS business-wise (not so for Netscape or consumers) despite courts (as did many in EU) stepping in and levying fines. Therefore, I don't see that MS MUST see implementing restrictions as a failed approach, when they've done it fairly successfully in the past. The other point is a minor one. You pointed me to a link that didn't say anything specific about Visual Studio Express capabilities. I honestly couldn't find anything other than generic language on that page. What I can show you that actually supports the claim is this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Visual_Studio_Express#2012_products "Visual Studio Express 2012 for Windows 8 - Allows development of Metro-style apps for Windows Store. This edition runs only on Windows 8." I don't want to split hairs here, but it appears we are both correct to an extent, but I still assert there is a point to be made here. The "Visual Studio Express 2012 for Windows Desktop" product appears to be able to build all apps, not just Metro, but the "for Windows 8" is Metro only. So it appears you are correct, there is a version that is free that still allows building desktop apps. However, I still believe there is significance in the "for Windows 8" being metro only. MS is always a company in transition between versions since they have so many OS's still under support at a given time. They absolutely cannot completely lock anything down as long as Windows 7 and others are still out there and supported. The problem is "apps for 7 run on 8....7 is open....8 is not", which means to get around any such restriction, you just build an app for 7. But my point is, why would the Windows 8 version be restricted to metro only, if it weren't part of a longer term strategy, that is only JUST starting to be played? And that there are future moves we haven't seen yet that will push us further down this track. It really makes no sense to arbitrarily handcuff the "Windows 8" version. If it was called "for Metro Apps" instead of "for Windows 8" maybe it would make more sense. There is a phrase for what I'm describing, and that's "how to boil a frog". The short description is you put the frog in while it's cold and heat it slowly so the frog doesn't notice until too late. You don't throw it in after heating the water. And I'm saying, I think they are making subtle moves here that after another year or two will appear much more significant in hindsight than they do today. I understand that you don't see it this way and are unlikely to change your mind. Which is fine. Most likely I won't be able to respond for a few days, so I reiterate, my only point from the very beginning was to show that it's entirely *possible* this is the master plan. Will they get there? I dunno. Will they change plans down the road? Maybe. I dunno. And SteamOS might be part of what changes their plans. Who knows.
  • Eightboll812 - October 1, 2013 7:42 a.m.

    Sorry, gotta add one footnote on the whole "limiting user functionality" thingy. Corraling people through a store, I don't believe MS would see as limiting users. In fact, they have cited their competitor's success at this very same model as their reasons for making certain other changes. I can still see your skepticism, but I can also see them justifying other "moves" in other business units with "so-and-so does it, what's the big deal?!?" Also, start button.... :-) There was a huge perception in the public that MS was limiting functionality, but MS had a contrary view on that and that's why they pushed forward. So again, how you and I see "limiting" isn't always the way MS sees it. There's a long track record of MS doing what they think is best despite outcries among the general public, telling themselves we will get over it eventually. And sometimes they are right, we do get over it. Other times, they aren't.
  • ipaqi - October 1, 2013 9:56 a.m.

    Well, I'm hardly going to argue with myself about this now. PM me when you get back.
  • ipaqi - September 30, 2013 8:36 p.m.

    Last refutal: If you as a user can do whatever you want on your PC without going through the Windows Store or MS for certification, then no business model (NO BUSINESS MODEL) is impossible or even at all harder to implement than it would be on another OS. Pretending you can separate the two things is either foolish or maleficent. And since you can do whatever the F*** you want on Windows 8 without going through the store or MS, and no less-functional OS is EVER GOING TO SELL WELL (Because f***ing logic), you're never NOT going to be able to do whatever you want and sell it however you want. Again, because f***ing logic.
  • Eightboll812 - September 30, 2013 8:53 p.m.

    Sounding intelligent there, lol. We are talking future directions, not present, fool.
  • Eightboll812 - September 30, 2013 8:51 p.m.

    Golf clap. [sarcasm] Boy you told me. [/sarcasm] The problem with you is you have no point on which to stand, so instead of actually arguing anything of substance, you chose to pick at my choice of words with the "fools" comment and so forth. So I responded to your trivialities and word wrenching, then you accused me of responding in kind when you started that tack. So yeah, golf clap for you.
  • Nolan South - September 29, 2013 6:28 p.m.

    I got pretty much exactly what I was hoping for. As a non-PC gamer I would often look longingly look at the deals enjoyed by people on steam. I often go pick up games second hand and I always feel bad about it. I would be more then happy to buy the game new if the prices would drop more then $20 every 2 years or so. Now I'll be able to buy all the games I want and have enough money left over for a nice pair of Arnette sunglasses.
  • n00b - September 29, 2013 12:20 p.m.

    Valve should have revealed Capcom vs Snk 3 or Rival Schools 3, because no one else will.
  • duffer00 - September 29, 2013 9:48 a.m.

    Well, I really wanted them to announce a partnership between Arnette and Valve in which they would bring out a new line of glasses that were the most powerful computers on earth and the lenses were the screens.
  • THETHINGABOUT - September 29, 2013 12:05 p.m.

    The Steam Box controller is actually Arnette's newest range of eyewear.
  • darkrider105 - September 29, 2013 9:07 a.m.

    I wanted Gabe Newell to hold up a logo of Half Life 3 and then crunch it up and throw it away. Surprise we have just started development of Half Life 4 and you play as Lamarr the pet head crab from Half Life 2. Enjoy!
  • ProjectAlpha - September 29, 2013 7:08 a.m.

    I thought Valve was going to make the earth shattering announcement of Portal 3, Left 4 Dead 3, Team Fortress 3, and yes, Half Life 3. It would have turned out that the planets were aligned at the time of the announcement, therefore prompting President Obama to pronounce the day as "National Valve Day". The entire world would be at peace, and it would truly be a sight to see.
  • THETHINGABOUT - September 29, 2013 1:20 a.m.

    GoTW: Hello.
  • THETHINGABOUT - September 29, 2013 1:30 a.m.

    That was obviously not meant to say that. Can't. Understand. Newfangled. Confounded. Ctrl-V. QoTW: Like some others have said, I was pretty happy about what they did announce. It's quite cool. I guess some fresh IP would have gone down nicely instead of just hardware, because like you guys said in the podcast, people don't always want to buy hardware. We deal with it. So while the Steam Box idea is pretty nifty, incentive wasn't exactly advertised. It's as if Valve is just thinking "Come on, guys, it's us. The people know we own their wallets, what else do we need to do but announce a box that takes more of their money."
  • TokenGamesRadarFurry - September 29, 2013 7:41 a.m.

    This, obviously, is the best answer. I demand you read it on the podcast, if you have the chance to set aside a few minutes for it.
  • winner2 - September 28, 2013 6 p.m.

    I was hoping Gabe would announce that HL3 is not in development, has never been in development, and will never be in development.
  • TokenGamesRadarFurry - September 28, 2013 4:38 p.m.

    @ 1:12:42 "Oh sweet, they mentioned my answer to the QotW. Awesome!" @ 1:16:58 "*various squeals of delight*" As for this weeks QotW...I was greatly disappointed that a joint venture between Valve and Ubisoft to create the next Assassin's Creed wasn't announced. Taking place in feudal Japan, it would star the expert knife-wielding ancestor of Gabe Newall, Gabe Newall-San, who would be out to avenge the murder of his childhood friend, Duke Lombardi-San. Along the way, he'd get mixed up in totally accurate historical battles against Templar-driven giant enemy crabs, play some fuggin' Animal Crossin', then finally, as he slays the man responsible for Duke's murder, mutter "Spes est dignitas exspecto."
  • EAC73 - September 28, 2013 11:08 a.m.

    God damn it Cooper you took my answer, but I'll have to go with a new Day of Defeat, or a new The Ship, because everyone knows Half Life 3 takes much more time to perfect.
  • Sinosaur - September 28, 2013 10:02 a.m.

    I was hoping that Gabe Newell would walk out, his face completely stoic, and say that he walked into a back room with Bobby Kotick, Robert Wilson, and Yves Guillemot. They all agreed to play a game, winner takes all, for their companies. The game was Russian Roulette... He then just stands there, staring intently without saying anything for ten minutes.
  • rainn'sgaydar - September 28, 2013 9:05 a.m.

    I was more or less pleased with what was announced. I just wish they would have given more details.

Showing 21-40 of 56 comments

Join the Discussion
Add a comment (HTML tags are not allowed.)
Characters remaining: 5000

OR…

Connect with Facebook

Log in using Facebook to share comments, games, status update and other activity easily with your Facebook feed.