Hacker News Reader

Comment by keyboardP | Hacker News Reader

I talked to the author about this article, but I don't buy some of what was said. I wrote up a rebuttal (http://digitalbalance.tumblr.com/post/33276814981/windows-8-...) when the author originally posted it.

Basically, IMO, the article didn't really have hard facts and was mainly just pushing slippery slope arguments. Whilst there's potential for this to become a closed platform, there's no evidence that it will be. The DOS/Win 3.0 similarity doesn't work because Win 3.0 did not close off the platform at all. There's been no precedence set on the desktop to close the platform off completely and I doubt it'd do MS any favours to do such a thing, especially when gamers will soon have Steam on Linux (which is the one thing stopping some gamers from moving from Windows to Linux).

View on HN

Not sure why you're being down voted, the very first sentence in the article is quite a stretching of the truth.

The whole article came off a bit sensationalist (do people really believe there won't be any 18+ games in the future on PC?). I agree that MS could close the platform, I felt the article assumed that it already has and built it up from there. I guess people disagree with me here and do feel that it's closed :/

The point isn't whether or not there will be a PC or whether or not there will be 18+ games on it.

The point is whether or not there Microsoft will be on the PC loading them. If so, how does Microsoft get from A to B? How do developers deal with the restrictions in the meantime?

I mentioned the 18+ games part to highlight the hyperbolic nature of the article. It assumed, based on current guidelines , that Skyrim et al. would not be allowed by MS. But that situation is quite absurd because it assumes the guidelines will never change and that MS is willing to lose money on the biggest gaming franchises.

Using extremes like this doesn't support an argument. There is no actual evidence (i.e. non-hypothetical) in the article that MS plans on losing the hardcore gamer demographic on the PC. I don't see any restrictions on developers that haven't existed before. Developers can still program desktop games and avoid the store, just like they've been doing all these years.

I feel there's this illusion where it's either the old, "open", Microsoft business model or the closed down Apple model. There can be a middle area where certain form factors, such as tablets, can benefit profit-wise from a closed down system (iPad, WinRT) and other form factors, like the desktop, can benefit from a dual system (ie consumers can opt for the store, or just download like normal). This notion that MS has and will fully lock down all their platforms seems unlikely to me personally.

> I don't see any restrictions on developers that haven't existed before.

A developer can't write a program that integrates with the preferred UI on the latest version of Windows without conforming to an approval process.

This is indeed a huge change for 3rd party developers on the Microsoft platform.

That comment you quoted was in the context of hardcore games. I doubt the next Elder Scrolls planned on being a Metro-style app.

However, that's a fair comment regarding apps in general, and I agree with that. But developers aren't being forced to use the store, so if they don't want to meet market demands (if there is any - Metro with a mouse has had mixed reviews), that's their choice. MS has never been in a position to dictate this sort of choice before, so it's impossible for that type of restriction to have occurred before.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com