Valve Still has a Problem with Windows 8

[Shawn Zipay]

During a presentation from Valve at the Ubuntu Developer Summit in Denmark, Valve's Drew Bliss echoed earlier remarks from Gabe Newell about Windows 8 concerns.

He says that Linux is "more viable than Windows 8 for gaming. Windows 8 ships with its own app store and it is moving away from an open platform model." Though their worries seem rather unfounded, seeing as how nobody is dropping Steam to pick up such hot items like Chess Tactics from the Windows 8 Store. Third party developers can easily work with Windows 8 just as they were able to on other iterations of the OS.

Those in attendance at the event were given beta access to the Linux version of Steam. Valve has also promised that more Source titles will be made for the operating system, including Portal 2 and Team Fortress 2. In addition to Valve's support, Croteam promised to have Serious Sam 3: BFE ready for the Linux beta once it goes live.

(via Ubuntu Vibes)

[K-16]

I believe VALVe is merely saying this is the first step where Microsoft is aiming to get exclusive control over what software can be used and what can't. That's why they said Windows 8 is "moving away" rather than "moved away." That said, I agree with you when you're saying this is ridiculously premature to make that kind of assumption, and it's far too early to panic about open/closed platforms in terms of Windows (note I'm not saying 8, as future installments may or may not continue supporting the open platform model).

This is why I like coming here. Even though this is CS-Nation (and TGN), it's not a VALVe fansite. Their claims are quite unfounded indeed and it's nice to know you will point that out since it's the unbiased thing to do.

That, and we're here to read your newsposts with POV comments as jimykx and Eagle101 have pointed out.

[Shawn Zipay]

You have to think too, that if Microsoft was ever dumb enough to close off their platform, there would not be many gamers adopting the latest version of their OS. They would not want to completely shut out such a huge market opportunity like that. I'd sooner go to Apple or install Linux than put up with that kind of nonsense.

[CptainCrunch]

Their phone system is proof of what would happen. Microsoft locked it down too much and because of that they pretty much were pushed out of the market. Part of the Windows 8 thing is for the mobile/tablet aspect of it. They're trying to get back in and they think they can do that by combining PC, Xbox, and mobile/tablet.

[K-16]

Switch to MacOS/OSX if Microsoft adopts a closed platform model? Is there a difference between the two? I thought Apple already adopts a closed platform model; anymore closed than Apple and you have... Research In Motion's Blackberry OS (if it was for PC) I guess? I will acknowledge Apple changing their focus over time with access to Microsoft products (like Windows ironically), and running on Intel hardware though. If Microsoft adopts a closed platform model, then Apple's support for Microsoft products would be moot in terms of increasing flexibility. I think VALVe is trying to open up a channel for Apple's closed platform through Steam, and they will support Windows as long as we support Windows even if it ends up being less accessible overall.

As for Windows 8 trying to get back in due to Windows Mobile OS being too restrictive... Does that mean Microsoft is aiming for the exact same solution as Google's Android (starting with 4.0's Ice Cream Sandwich) through consolidating the OSs into one universal interface? One is being too restrictive, and the other was too varied (tablets and phones have apps that can't run on both devices). Two opposite ends of the problematic spectrum, aiming for the same solution through a unified OS. That is weirdly ironic.

I also wonder how damaging it is to the PC market for having a closed platform. Did the game industry not frown upon the PC platform due to both hardware AND software variances? If this was standardised and restricted, would it make the PC platform attractive again? I'm not trying to make an argument here, just pondering.

Reply to Zips comment below mine: Noted. Fair enough.

[Shawn Zipay]

Going to Apple or Linux are extreme cases, don't take what I said for an absolute that would happen on anything but the most extreme of cases.

[CptainCrunch]

I personally think they are going for a Google Android style. There was an article in Google News describing that today and now its gone. It was titled something like "Windows Phone 8, Under the Hood" or something like that.

phone apps have made a huge skyrocket jump and a lot of Apple aps can work on other Apple devices, so if Microsoft could somehow be as opened as Google and have the app tie-in like Apple, with Xbox, the OSes, Tablets, and phones, thats quite a power house of options.

Not to mention they have Exchange and SQL tied up as well. Along with Sharepoint items. All business related of course

[Shawn Zipay]

So far, I have my Xbox 360 tied to my Android phone via Smartglass. I have ties between my Xbox 360 and Windows 8 through a variety of means including the games section on Windows 8 and there is also a Smartglass app for Windows 8.

As I understand it, Microsoft also has ties between Windows Phone 8 devices, Windows 8, Windows 8 Surface (and I think Windows Surface RT), and the Xbox 360. Their integration is actually quite nice between all of their services.

[K-16]

CptainCrunch: Hmm... I still think it's weird how Google and Microsoft are aiming for the same solution despite having opposite problems. It's almost as if being too open of a platform prevents full compatibility (Android), and too closed prevents software expansion and customization (Windows). Apparently a universal OS for all devices is the best of both worlds?

Zips: So now the issue lies on how much Microsoft will support third-party software; it's a very good point for you to bring up Smartglass though, as I forgot that is compatible on Windows/Android/iOS mobile and tablet OSs (too bad Blackberry owners can't use it). That really is one of the key initiatives that will keep Microsoft competitive (Nintendo has Nintendo TVii, but limiting its use to the Wii U would make Smartglass more attractive). It is too early to say Microsoft is moving away from the open platform model, but I do wonder what their plans are for future installments of Windows. I'm not very happy with their business decisions for Xbox Live (certification process is too long, security is laughable, and patches are too expensive to produce), so I wonder if they are tempted to move to a closed platform model and control everything?

[Shawn Zipay]

Xbox Live is a joke on multiple fronts. The fact that people have to pay for service that is offered free on the PlayStation 3 is deplorable. PS3's paid service gives users a good amount of free games EVERY SINGLE MONTH. Xbox Live's definition of customer service is giving them 20 Microsoft Points when their birthday month rolls around.

The fact that they charge developers for patches or content updates after the first one is just absurd. Even their dashboard did a complete 180 from simple design and usability to being 70% ads.

Don't even get me started on their security, which is just complete garbage, as I was intimately acquainted with about a year ago.

For the most part, I'm satisfied with their products (Windows, Smartglass, and many things on the Xbox 360).

[K-16]

Hmm... So provided they don't make it as bad as Xbox Live, would Microsoft be able to provide a positive experience (particularily for the PC market) if they were to adopt a mostly closed platform model? Considering all of their other ventures have provided a satisfactory service from what you're telling us.

On a side note, I'm assuming the charging for patches/content updates is to cover the costs of labor and bandwidth as XBox Live houses so many games for so many developers/publishers, so they have the developers/publishers absorb the cost of the time spent reviewing and distributing the patch/content update; that said, I do find their pricing absolute bull****. They need more flexible (and significantly lower) pricing options like VALVe's Steam (I wonder how EA's Origin charges for updates?), otherwise we'll end up with lightly broken games like Fez. It also restricts itself from tapping into the F2P market because of its current certification system.