I haven't expressed hatred here. I dislike and have criticised Apple's IOS model too, and would worry for it to become the norm. So it's not true that I'm singling out MS.
It won't be the norm. Which is what I been trying to say. Its like you are talking about a Windows 9(yes, 9). Windows 8 runs Windows 7 apps. Visual Studio 2010 will last, minimum, a decade, after, Windows 8, releases. Because its popular and because it runs DX11 and because to this day we still support Windows XP.
And no I'm not saying "that Microsoft has created a better reach for developers", much of my last post, in agreement with Antheus, was disputing this idea. Pay money for the privilege of writing software?
Metro apps, one store, multiple devices. Free. Visual Studio 11 Express
Desktop apps, same as always, multiple devices. Free. Visual C++,C#,VB 2010 Express
The options are there. Aren't they free?
I have no problem with a standard download place, nor do I have any problem with a paid for one that people can optionally use.
Then, what's the problem...? If you want to make Metro stuff, you can. If you want to make Desktop stuff, you can. There is no problem.
Not relevant - with all those, you are free to distribute where you like. You don't have to pay anything to develop for a device that you own. You don't have to pay a penny to distribute free apps for Windows. The issue is also more control than cost. And Intel's AppUp Centre? I took one look at that, wasn't convinced that the traffic would be worth the effort of even uploading, and chose not to use it.
How is it free when they ask you to pay to be on their store...? Your last sentence there is funny, that's why people develop for Windows. Windows = Traffic.
Individuals shouldn't have to pay money to write software for free. Companies with their own established distribution methods shouldn't be required to go through one company. 30% cut may or may not be a good buy - but the choice of distribution should be up to those in the market, not enforced by technology as a monopoly. And one company shouldn't get to decide what software I as a user can run on my device.
A company store is a priviledge, you give them your game, they set "everything" up and sell it. People use the store. You already have a "market" there. And for the rest of the things you said. That's just how it is. It works. People, the consumers, are already used to it. The only limit you have with Windows 8, atm, is Metro apps, that's it. And the "fix" is simple, don't do Metro apps.
(And to be honest, there is a matter of scale - if VS full version only cost $25, people would be far less bothered I imagine. Android is also free itself, so the $25 could be seen as a charge for a developer version, which is less than the normal cost of Windows. But that's irrelevant anyway, since it's not true you have to pay that to develop for an Android device, it's just that most people choose to. If MS opened a Metro download site, with a one off cost for $25, that wasn't required and enforced by the hardware, you wouldn't get any criticism from me.)
How are you comparing Windows with Android, I have no clue. Search for the best IDE in the market, VS will probably be at the top. The most used for game development? Probably VS also. Search for the most used OS, Windows. Microsoft can do this, because, its Microsoft. And the funny thing is, they are not doing anything wrong or new. They have improved, overall and everywhere, no? They are using a tried and true practice(Apple) and its optional.
The only company currently with this model is Apple, and even then only for IOS. (Possibly it's true for consoles too, but it's hardly true that MS are the "last big" company to do this, when most download sites don't exert this kind of control at all; and I don't want general purpose software distribution to be like it is for games consoles.) I criticise Apple with IOS far more than MS, so it's a straw man to say I only criticise becaue it's MS.
And Apple is making loads of cash! xD Actually, when Amazon Store started it had some crazy restricting license, not sure if it still like that, and yes, they took a cut. All stores take a cut. Which usually is 30%. Chrome is 20%, I think? You can always do what you want to do, on Windows. But not with Metro, as far as I know.
Exactly, that's my point, that non-Metro is still important. I still use "stores", but I can choose to distribute where I like.
Yeah, non-Metro is still important. Unless, MS decides to give everyone a free mandatory upgrade update and suddenly 50+% of the market has Win8 lol ...I can dream...no?
Android software doesn't have to be distributed through...
Android also has bad browser support or had!? It was horrible in 2011...and its hardware is a fragmented mess. That's were Apple and MS have a clear and very strong advantage. This, IMHO, is very important.
As the Ars article says, free development on Windows from MS is no longer possible. By all means argue that as a good thing if you like.
I didn't read the article, my bad. Why? Because it makes no sense. How is it not free? VS2010 is there. And Win7 apps work on Win8.
And if "free development on Windows is no longer possible", explain, VS11Express...
Maybe saying "Free dev on windows, the way i want it, is no longer possible", would have been better.
them doing it will make it easier for MS to get away with it
One thing to keep in mind is that "hardcore games" wont be Metro games. But yes, part of the reason that I don't mind it or even am surprised by it, is just that. It worked for Apple and it does make sense for a company to do it. It also does help devs and consumers. Metro games are Microsofts responsibity also, in the sense that, if something is wrong with it, they are partially to blame. Also, its a Brand store, customers trust them and are aware of them better, than say, Intel app store...MeeGo!? Steam!!? They have their popularity. But, (Microsoft)Windows/(Apple)Mac/Sony/Nintendo are more well known than anything(?) else. And that's the benefit and reason for the fees and legalities, in my opinion. (Not forgetting Android but...bleh)
Free is not about price, but about accessibility.
That's because you are either stupid
Accessibility? This business is about making money and/or fun games. Because, it costs money to make games, fun or not. Fun is variable, so it don't matter. You can do both on everything, but Linux.
If paying 30% to reach 80 or 90% of the market is stupid. Why do people do it? Because they are stupid and don't aim for the 1%?
You are an *****, probably not doing anything at all and just complaining. Your reality is out of sight.
Money is made on Windows, money is made on iOS and Android is everywhere and its a huge mess.
Mac for games? Not yet popular, probably never will be. Linux for anything other than server jobs? Not a chance in hell.
Wake up. "Use of the UDK for noncommercial purposes is free of charge." = Hobby = No Money = Should not be complaining = Go away.
