Gabe Newell from Valve was quite right to fear about the future when he starting talking up Linux, and now it looks like Microsoft will be trying to push their own store even more.
Microsoft are moving to combine Windows 10 and Xbox One into one platform, and with that the Windows Store will become a bigger thing for them. This is something Gabe Newell of Valve feared, and it looks like it really is starting to become true. While there's nothing wrong with having universal games that work on W10 and XBone, making sure developers have to stick to their store is a problem.
The problem here, is that Microsoft are using their money and their exclusivity deals to keep certain games only on the Windows Store which locks out Steam in the process. There may not be too many doing it yet, but you can be sure over time Microsoft will sign more of these Windows 10 exclusive deals like they have with Quantum Break. Ars actually put it quite well in their article here:
Steam isn't exactly a picture of freedom, but it is available on the three major operating systems. It's free to sign up for and use with no monthly fee needed. Developers can have their game on Steam as well as any other store. You get to buy once and play on any platform where the game is supported, and so on. Steam in these cases is the lesser of two evils.
Is history about to repeat itself with Games For Windows Live version 2? I doubt it, since the Windows Store is tied in with Windows 10 and with their universal apps it might actually be a success, which again, is trouble for Valve.
I can't imagine Windows Store games selling very well at all, but I'm sure Microsoft will find a way to make it look like it is.
As for me, I'm happy with Ubuntu on my desktop and SteamOS on my Steam Machine for my couch gaming. I personally dual boot with Windows 10, but I won't ever touch the Windows Store. Why would I want to lock myself in like that? I hope others feel the same.
How do you feel about all this? Article taken from GamingOnLinux.com.
Microsoft are moving to combine Windows 10 and Xbox One into one platform, and with that the Windows Store will become a bigger thing for them. This is something Gabe Newell of Valve feared, and it looks like it really is starting to become true. While there's nothing wrong with having universal games that work on W10 and XBone, making sure developers have to stick to their store is a problem.
The problem here, is that Microsoft are using their money and their exclusivity deals to keep certain games only on the Windows Store which locks out Steam in the process. There may not be too many doing it yet, but you can be sure over time Microsoft will sign more of these Windows 10 exclusive deals like they have with Quantum Break. Ars actually put it quite well in their article here:
QuoteUnfortunately for Spencer, not only has the PC as gaming platform seen little improvement from Microsoft—bar DirectX 12—but the company's one-platform-fits-all approach simply isn't going to fly on PC. The PC community has its own rules and expectations. Forcing console-like restrictions on a group that values freedom was never going to end well. And now, with those people backed into a corner with Quantum Break—one of this year's most highly anticipated games—the backlash is only going to get bigger.
Steam isn't exactly a picture of freedom, but it is available on the three major operating systems. It's free to sign up for and use with no monthly fee needed. Developers can have their game on Steam as well as any other store. You get to buy once and play on any platform where the game is supported, and so on. Steam in these cases is the lesser of two evils.
Is history about to repeat itself with Games For Windows Live version 2? I doubt it, since the Windows Store is tied in with Windows 10 and with their universal apps it might actually be a success, which again, is trouble for Valve.
I can't imagine Windows Store games selling very well at all, but I'm sure Microsoft will find a way to make it look like it is.
As for me, I'm happy with Ubuntu on my desktop and SteamOS on my Steam Machine for my couch gaming. I personally dual boot with Windows 10, but I won't ever touch the Windows Store. Why would I want to lock myself in like that? I hope others feel the same.
How do you feel about all this? Article taken from GamingOnLinux.com.
0 Likes
Some you may have missed, popular articles from the last month:
The comments on this article are closed.
PublicNuisance Mar 2, 2016
I doubt I will ever give a cent to the Windows Store. I tolerate Steam when a game is on Linux, is less than $5 and can't be found elsewhere but the Windows Store won't have Linux and I highly doubt Quantum Break will be less than $5. DRM free is my big checkbox for games to hit, even more so than Linux.
0 Likes
I agree that this move is worrying; It gets a bit philosophical though -- is it better to get access to XBox games through the store which otherwise wouldn't have come to PC at all, or not to have those games at all?
There is a realistic risk that developers will go "oh hey, I can make an XBox version and get the PC port for free!" (or vice versa). Considering that mobile gaming is a huge market, and those users are used to locked-down apps, Windows store games may cause an influx of mobile gamers to PC that skews the perceived tastes of our market...
Honestly, for all the money I have potentially saved by Steam sales, I wouldn't exactly list them in the "not evil" category. Its simply a marketing method. It is also at fault for my large Steam pile of shame.
There is a realistic risk that developers will go "oh hey, I can make an XBox version and get the PC port for free!" (or vice versa). Considering that mobile gaming is a huge market, and those users are used to locked-down apps, Windows store games may cause an influx of mobile gamers to PC that skews the perceived tastes of our market...
Quoting: tony1abIf a company make a lot of moves to make linux grow by increasing the available games to it, and also make good games discounts putting games at 1.49 dollars (I purchased half life 2 episode 2 for this price in the last sales), then is not evil to me.
Honestly, for all the money I have potentially saved by Steam sales, I wouldn't exactly list them in the "not evil" category. Its simply a marketing method. It is also at fault for my large Steam pile of shame.
Quoting: Mblackwell1) Not only do you not own the games on the Windows 10 Store but you never receive the full binary package.What does Steam say about that anyway? Anything with DRM is bound to the underlying service just as much as "ownership" of a Windows store game is bound to the store account. DRM-free games probably have better licensing, but even then resale is probably prohibited; That concept simply doesn't translate well to digital content.
1 Likes, Who?
Mountain Man Mar 2, 2016
Quoting: Shmerl@Mountain Man: They can't say such thing - it would be an anti-trust violation.Microsoft has managed to con their way out of every anti-trust lawsuit to date. Remember the one where their "punishment" was to donate computers and software to schools where impressionable children would become familiar with all things Microsoft?
I think Microsoft is unscrupulous enough that they'd gladly weather a lawsuit if it meant hamstringing their competition in there process.
Last edited by Mountain Man on 2 March 2016 at 4:50 pm UTC
0 Likes
Quoting: s8as8aQuoteValve is making games exclusive to their "platform", which is Steam, the same way Microsoft is making games exclusive to their Xbox/Windows storeIf you're referring to the Source 2 engine, to my knowledge, Valve is not saying that games made using that engine cannot be sold outside of Steam; Valve is simply saying that, the Source 2 engine games must be sold in either Steam alone or Steam in addition to any other store.
I think it was about Steamworks. Steam isn't new to the lock-in game. Developers which use Steamworks and make it mandatory can't distribute their games outside of Steam. It's a nasty tactics to use developer tools for lock-in.
1 Likes, Who?
Mountain Man Mar 2, 2016
Quoting: MalActually, Blizzard has no problem with people using Wine. I've read that at least one of the Diablo 3 programmers uses Linux exclusively at home.Quoting: amonobeaxAnyways, I remember myself signing online petitions which asked for Blizzard native Linux ports (I believe it was diablo3 and hearth stone).Lemme guess. They answered by banning you from d3 for using wine. :D
0 Likes
Mblackwell Mar 2, 2016
Quoting: Yu0What does Steam say about that anyway? Anything with DRM is bound to the underlying service just as much as "ownership" of a Windows store game is bound to the store account. DRM-free games probably have better licensing, but even then resale is probably prohibited; That concept simply doesn't translate well to digital content.
While you may not technically own what you buy on Steam there is a guarantee of access and some consumer protections. Additionally not all games distributed via Steam require Steam to be present, and because you have access to all of a game's files it's possible to modify the game in any way including circumventing DRM, giving you the ability to archive your games.
1 Likes, Who?
Hei hei! What is all this hate for Steam?
Closed source games? Seriously? You think this is Steam fault? Even assuming open source is good and closed source is evil (which is not, they are two different model that make sense for different domains... and gaming is hardly an open source friendly domain), it's a developer choice to take one or the other route.
DRM? Are you trolling? Steam actually solved the whole DRM problem by actually making the damn thing sensible and working as intended. No more always on requirement, no more crappy servers to prevent you play your game on day one (and day X,Y,Z too I'd say). Yes you have to be on line once. But we're talking about an online market place. If Internet is your problem you don't buy on an online store. All right, true. You're not free to pirate a steam game. Is this your concern?
Exclusives? What are we talking about? Steam is the only vendor who actually encourage developers to sell their games on all the platforms and all the markets they want. There are no Steam exclusives and there will never be. Unless Gaben sells the company or make it public that is. This is their philosophy and it's a damn good philosophy. Exclusives are the worst possible thing for consumers, be they halo junkies or game of thrones fanatics. If we had better governments (or smarter voters) this practice would be forbidden by law. But it's not so to have a big player like Steam rejecting them as a core value is actually a wonderful thing.
Then hei! I'm not saying Steam has to become the only marketplace. Monopoly is never good and I'm not a Steam fanboy myself. I'm an opportunist and I actually buy games where they are cheaper, not necessarily on Steam. What I'm saying is that from a ideological point of view there is no moral superiority between markets like Steam and GOG. Being without DRM is not "good". Bad is ruining a game by making it unplayable with crappy DRM.
But then between Steam and GOG, Steam actually adds a lot of value to games with the Valve infrastructure (patching client, friends, community forums, stream, etc). So it re-invests the money you pay to make your games even better (and more importantly, convenient to port on linux). A game in your steam library is actually a better game. Can you say the same of GOG?
Closed source games? Seriously? You think this is Steam fault? Even assuming open source is good and closed source is evil (which is not, they are two different model that make sense for different domains... and gaming is hardly an open source friendly domain), it's a developer choice to take one or the other route.
DRM? Are you trolling? Steam actually solved the whole DRM problem by actually making the damn thing sensible and working as intended. No more always on requirement, no more crappy servers to prevent you play your game on day one (and day X,Y,Z too I'd say). Yes you have to be on line once. But we're talking about an online market place. If Internet is your problem you don't buy on an online store. All right, true. You're not free to pirate a steam game. Is this your concern?
Exclusives? What are we talking about? Steam is the only vendor who actually encourage developers to sell their games on all the platforms and all the markets they want. There are no Steam exclusives and there will never be. Unless Gaben sells the company or make it public that is. This is their philosophy and it's a damn good philosophy. Exclusives are the worst possible thing for consumers, be they halo junkies or game of thrones fanatics. If we had better governments (or smarter voters) this practice would be forbidden by law. But it's not so to have a big player like Steam rejecting them as a core value is actually a wonderful thing.
Then hei! I'm not saying Steam has to become the only marketplace. Monopoly is never good and I'm not a Steam fanboy myself. I'm an opportunist and I actually buy games where they are cheaper, not necessarily on Steam. What I'm saying is that from a ideological point of view there is no moral superiority between markets like Steam and GOG. Being without DRM is not "good". Bad is ruining a game by making it unplayable with crappy DRM.
But then between Steam and GOG, Steam actually adds a lot of value to games with the Valve infrastructure (patching client, friends, community forums, stream, etc). So it re-invests the money you pay to make your games even better (and more importantly, convenient to port on linux). A game in your steam library is actually a better game. Can you say the same of GOG?
6 Likes, Who?
Expalphalog Mar 2, 2016
Half-Life 3. Linux exclusive. Game over.
In all seriousness, I see this going over about as well as Games for Windows Live. Microsoft will be all gung-ho for about a year and then get bored and wander off.
In all seriousness, I see this going over about as well as Games for Windows Live. Microsoft will be all gung-ho for about a year and then get bored and wander off.
0 Likes
Mountain Man Mar 2, 2016
Quoting: ShmerlSteamworks is an optional feature. It's up to the developer whether or not they want to use it, so it's hard to argue that as a case of vendor lock in.Quoting: s8as8aI think it was about Steamworks. Steam isn't new to the lock-in game. Developers which use Steamworks and make it mandatory can't distribute their games outside of Steam. It's a nasty tactics to use developer tools for lock-in.QuoteValve is making games exclusive to their "platform", which is Steam, the same way Microsoft is making games exclusive to their Xbox/Windows storeIf you're referring to the Source 2 engine, to my knowledge, Valve is not saying that games made using that engine cannot be sold outside of Steam; Valve is simply saying that, the Source 2 engine games must be sold in either Steam alone or Steam in addition to any other store.
1 Likes, Who?
Quoting: Mountain ManQuoting: ShmerlSteamworks is an optional feature. It's up to the developer whether or not they want to use it, so it's hard to argue that as a case of vendor lock in.Quoting: s8as8aI think it was about Steamworks. Steam isn't new to the lock-in game. Developers which use Steamworks and make it mandatory can't distribute their games outside of Steam. It's a nasty tactics to use developer tools for lock-in.QuoteValve is making games exclusive to their "platform", which is Steam, the same way Microsoft is making games exclusive to their Xbox/Windows storeIf you're referring to the Source 2 engine, to my knowledge, Valve is not saying that games made using that engine cannot be sold outside of Steam; Valve is simply saying that, the Source 2 engine games must be sold in either Steam alone or Steam in addition to any other store.
Optional or not that's not the point. It's just not a lock in.
2 Likes, Who?
Patreon
PayPal
See more from me