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.
Edit: Aaagh. After reading a bit further, I realized my comment here was utterly wrong and based on a complete misunderstanding of the situation I was commenting on. Nothing to see here, move along.
Last edited by Purple Library Guy on 2 March 2016 at 7:46 pm UTC
Last edited by Purple Library Guy on 2 March 2016 at 7:46 pm UTC
0 Likes
Quoting: MalQuoting: 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.
Actually that is the point. You can't start a Steamworks game without Steam. So saying that it's not lock-in, when you can only access it from inside the steam-client is kind of bullshit, don't you think?
Of course you can make it optional, but if you use Steamworks, the client has to be present, up and running ;)
Really, you can defend Steam all you want. It was and is DRM.
It's the only DRM I accept, but that doesn't magically turn it into "No-DRM" ;)
Really, such defenses are stupid if the terms we are talking about are well defined (and yes, they are, no matter how hard some people try to soften them up - most of them being sales-people ;))
3 Likes, Who?
Quoting: MaelraneActually that is the point. You can't start a Steamworks game without Steam. So saying that it's not lock-in, when you can only access it from inside the steam-client is kind of bullshit, don't you think?
Of course you can make it optional, but if you use Steamworks, the client has to be present, up and running ;)
Wut? The whole point of Steamworks is to allow you to leverage the features that are built in the steam client. That's like arguing that buying an orange juice bottle locks you in consuming orange juice. If you don't want it you don't buy it. If you want something different you buy something different or make it yourself.
Quoting: MaelraneReally, you can defend Steam all you want. It was and is DRM.
Steam is not DRM. Steam has DRM. Among many other things. Composition over inheritance.
And the fact that it offers DRM is a very good thing. Before DRM came in PC gaming was on the brink of extinction. Piracy swallowed it completely. DRM ressed it but then, thanks to crappy "money over quality" companies like Ubisoft, PC gaming became a miserable experience because of the deadly combo "always on line requirement" + "always down DRM server".
Software, including games, is not religion. It's not about absolutes but it's about improving the quality of life of people. If it doesn't make your life better it's bad software. It's just that.
Steam is good because it improves the quality of life of gamers. In fact one has only advantages in having a game in the Steam library. Including a well made DRM: they don't call this time "the golden age of gaming" for nothing. The only thing piracy ever brought was the "dark age of the consoles".
2 Likes, Who?
Quoting: ricki42The Windows store is even more restrictive than just no cross-buy. Apparently at least currently there's
* no SLI support
* Vsync is always on, g-sync/freesync doesn't work
* no overlays
* no .exe files, thus also no modding
* no overlays
* always borderless fullscreen
* no controllers other than the x-box controller
I just hope even many Windows gamers will draw the line at this point and not buy into this. At least a lot of people still remember GFWL and are skeptical.
Very succinct summary. I think in particular the no modding won't go over well. I wonder how PC gamers will take the controller thing.
And the screen thing suggests a question: How does this work with multiple monitors?
0 Likes
Plintslîcho Mar 2, 2016
I haven’t checked exactly what this is all about and I don’t care really since I don’t use Windows and don’t own a Xbox console.
So, Microsoft is developing their own distribution software and store. What’s to worry about that? Just one more player in the market. They may tie some titles to their own distribution software and store and release them there exclusively. So? That has become the norm in the gaming industry when we talk about AAA titles and their developers for years already!
Arstechnica:
“Forcing console-like restrictions on a group that values freedom was never going to end well.”
Yeah, that really made me laugh-hard. There may be a hand full of PC gamers that still value freedom when it comes to gaming. But those are certainly not the people arstechnica had in mind when they said that. PC gamers, like all others, have long accepted that there is no real freedom anymore and that their games are tied to one platform or another.
Besides, except some indie titles, games are no longer developed for PC anymore but for consoles and only then ported to PC. Because consoles and all the mobile devices is where the money is these days.
So, Microsoft is developing their own distribution software and store. What’s to worry about that? Just one more player in the market. They may tie some titles to their own distribution software and store and release them there exclusively. So? That has become the norm in the gaming industry when we talk about AAA titles and their developers for years already!
Arstechnica:
“Forcing console-like restrictions on a group that values freedom was never going to end well.”
Yeah, that really made me laugh-hard. There may be a hand full of PC gamers that still value freedom when it comes to gaming. But those are certainly not the people arstechnica had in mind when they said that. PC gamers, like all others, have long accepted that there is no real freedom anymore and that their games are tied to one platform or another.
Besides, except some indie titles, games are no longer developed for PC anymore but for consoles and only then ported to PC. Because consoles and all the mobile devices is where the money is these days.
0 Likes
Quoting: PlintslchoYeah, that really made me laugh-hard. There may be a hand full of PC gamers that still value freedom when it comes to gaming. But those are certainly not the people arstechnica had in mind when they said that. PC gamers, like all others, have long accepted that there is no real freedom anymore and that their games are tied to one platform or another.
Wait man, not too fast.
There are different degrees of freedom.
I'm pretty sure arstechnica was refering to the freedom the PC platform and gamers have to spin things up. Let's not forget that mods are a HUGE in the PC platform AND Microsoft store is taking it away. The freedom they've talked about are the ones Microsoft will take away with the Store restrictions.
When it comes to the freedom killed by platform lockups then you're 100% right: gamers just don't care about it.
Last edited by amonobeax on 2 March 2016 at 9:39 pm UTC
2 Likes, Who?
TheRiddick Mar 2, 2016
I found it hilarious that Microsoft responded not long ago that they would fix the vsync/60fps AND SLI problems so that they would work in their Windowed environment..... YEAH RIGHT....
Last edited by TheRiddick on 2 March 2016 at 10:23 pm UTC
Last edited by TheRiddick on 2 March 2016 at 10:23 pm UTC
0 Likes
Quoting: PZiggyOh, now I see what you meant. You and tony1ab both make valid points. :) While Valve is not making third-party games be exclusively sold on Steam, it's still restrictive (but to a lesser extent) to have their (first-party) games sold only on Steam, because it encourages vendor lock-in to some extent (unless you're willing to play those games outside of the PC ecosystem).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.
Oh no, I just mean that PC versions of Valve games (Half-Life, Counter-Strike, Left 4 Dead, Dota 2, Portal) are only playable on Steam, even if you buy a physical copy.
Edit: Same goes for EA and Ubisoft. EA games require Origin and Ubisoft games require Uplay
0 Likes
I'm not worried even though they're buying exclusives. Vulkan, open source philosophy, Windows frustrations abound, and HTC Vive have entered the fray. Need I say more?
1 Likes, Who?
Patreon
PayPal
See more from me