Hit Game Makes £52 In First Week On Windows RT

Barence writes "Great Big War Game, a popular iOS and Android app, made only £52 in its first week on Windows RT. In an angry blog post titled 'Windows RT — Born to fail,' UK-based developer Rubicon blamed Microsoft for the paltry sum and said it won't be bringing any more of its titles to the fledgling platform. It seems Microsoft refused to promote the app as it would only run on Windows RT devices. However, Microsoft quickly got in touch with Rubicon, and the post was deleted and replaced with an apologetic response saying, 'Microsoft have graciously decided work with us to iron out the problems and get us past this incident.' Rubicon will be hoping that £52 figure improves quickly, as it spent £10,000 porting the game to Windows RT."

Comments

Sorry to be frank but what did he think

[PopAndGame]

He took a business risk trying to port the game to Windows RT and lost? Now he's crying about it? Great, yeah, it costs money to port things to new platforms. But that's why you do your research first! Hell, I'm not going around yelling how my non-existing game on Steam is selling bad!

But I know a thing or two about business and this is exactly why you research and don't cry about failed business decisions.

Re:Sorry to be frank but what did he think

[SydShamino]

Sometimes you want to dive in, be first, and maybe get a huge portion of the market's mindshare.

Fortunately for the rest of us, we can now review his experiences when doing our research. So the rest of us can be more cautious. Likely, though, the rest of us won't get Microsoft's dedicated attention to our game as he is getting now.

Re:Sorry to be frank but what did he think

[Anonymous Coward]

Why blame the platform?

There was a commercial (I have no idea what it was for anymore) of an interview with a hypothetical sports star after a bad game. My poor memory of the dialog follows.
"That was a rough game, what do you think lead to the loss?"
"Well, I've learned that after a failure, it's always best to look inward first."
"The great ones always do."
"But since I know I'm not at fault, I blame the other players, the coach, the refs, the fans, ..." (it went on for a while)

Re:Sorry to be frank but what did he think

[kelemvor4]

He took a business risk trying to port the game to Windows RT and lost? Now he's crying about it? Great, yeah, it costs money to port things to new platforms. But that's why you do your research first! Hell, I'm not going around yelling how my non-existing game on Steam is selling bad! But I know a thing or two about business and this is exactly why you research and don't cry about failed business decisions.

I agree, I mean based on the headline it sounds as though nearly every single user of RT purchased his game. What more could he want?

Re:Sorry to be frank but what did he think

[Githaron]

You are forgetting that a significant number of Windows users have already been using either have a Android or iPhone/iPad. Someone has to be buying those games.

Re:Sorry to be frank but what did he think

[Charliemopps]

We have no idea what he was told by Microsoft. One of the biggest problems with Windows8 and their store is all the things it doesn't do that iOS and Android do. It doesn't even have a back button for gods sake. I have to imagine the store and distribution system has the same lack of features and is probably what he's complaining about. Microsoft probably tried to attract vendors like him by promising all sorts of promotion and such that he's not seeing as Microsoft realizes they have another Vista on their hands and are trying to pull back on investment before they lose too much money.

Re:Sorry to be frank but what did he think

[phorm]

not the garbage that gets shoved out on iOS

There are plenty of crappy games on windows, but many tend to have a bigger advertising budget. Sometimes this allows them to make a bunch of sales before people catch on and they end up in the bargain bin.

Tablets/phones do allow for more low-budget games, and the "market" or "store" apps tend to allow for more visibility of the games-list in general. However, I've played GLWB (predecessor to GBWG) and it's very enjoyable, and the series can hardly be qualified as garbage.

That said... I hardly know *anyone* who has a modern windows mobile device. Those I do know are mainly office types and not gamers. Perhaps the market will expand, but at the moment it seems that MS is a bit late to the show. They need apps to attract buyers/users, but producers need a solid base of user in order to make money off their apps.

Re:Sorry to be frank but what did he think

[MightyMartian]

Agreed. So the real message here is that RT will be a failure because it's infinitesimal market share makes the risk of expending resources on a port far too high.

Re:Sorry to be frank but what did he think

[h4rr4r]

I have some bad news for you kiddo, you might want to sit down for this, the casual gamers are now a market bigger than what you think of as gamers. They are todays gamers, welcome to 2012.

Also most PC games these days play fine on a middle of the road PC with a $100 video card. Even most of the fairly hardcore shooter games.

Re:Sorry to be frank but what did he think

[MMC Monster]

Tell you the truth, I misread the headline to say "£52K", and thought 'Hey, that's not too bad. What a whiner!'

£52 pounds, though... I could probably make more than that just scanning in some recipes or a fart app. Or at least I could on Google's or Apple's stores.

Re:Sorry to be frank but what did he think

[Wheely]

I doubt it. Windows users are used to having quality games, not the garbage that gets shoved out on iOS.

Actually its quite a good game.

I bought it off an Android promotion and liked it enough to buy it for my iPad as well. It was good enough to encourage me to buy a few more maps off of them and also the earlier version of the game.

Re:Sorry to be frank but what did he think

[poetmatt]

52 pounds implies that a seriously small subset of the RT marketshare bought his game. That is easily the fault of the developer, not the platform. I still think RT will be a failure because BIOS DRM is asinine.

Re:Sorry to be frank but what did he think

[man_of_mr_e]

What are you talking about? Of course it has a back button.

http://images.pcworld.com/images/article/2012/03/windows8biglist-11329785.jpg

See that thing in the upper left corner? That's a back button.

Re:Sorry to be frank but what did he think

[MightyMartian]

And just how big is RT's market share supposed to be?

Re:Sorry to be frank but what did he think

[poetmatt]

That doesn't matter. Not only that, but nobody can ever possibly know because Microsoft refuses to ever give honest answers about marketshare and never has. Sold licenses doesn't equate to active users doesn't equate to number of activated devices.

Re:Sorry to be frank but what did he think

[hairyfeet]

Well anybody who couldn't look at the painfully pathetic WinRT numbers and realize it would be best to wait and see if it gains momentum or turns into another Megaflop like WinPhone 7 (I'm betting the later myself) frankly deserves to lose money, because it is foolish to spend 10,000 pounds to port something for such a small userbase whom you don't even know are gonna be willing to buy apps or not!

We are talking about a company with a history of mobile flops, trying to force their flagship OS onto a platform where the majority of their software won't run, and on top of that they are charging iPad money for the thing...who couldn't smell the stench of fail from a mile away? Did this guy do the same retarded move for the Playbook and the Touchpad? No? Then why in the hell did he think that the same stupid move that didn't work for two huge corps like RIM and HP would magically work just because MSFT stuck their name on it? Especially after seeing the horrible numbers WinPhone 7 put up?

I'm sorry but this dumbass deserves to lose money, he picked a widely panned OS from a company with a history of mobile failure and then whined because surprise! Selling an app on a flop platform don't make money. Well no shit next you'll be telling me those guys that spent lots of money porting to the Touchpad and Playbook didn't break even. If this isn't a double facepalm moment I don't know what is, one facepalm simply isn't enough.

Re:Sorry to be frank but what did he think

[Kremmy]

Does that back button stay visible when you start the scrolling process?

Re:Sorry to be frank but what did he think

[mcgrew]

Why blame the platform?

Did you not even read the damned SUMMARY?? It was very popular and sold very well on iOS and Android, but not jack shit on wRT. Now, why would that be, I wonder?

Re:Sorry to be frank but what did he think

[PopAndGame]

You're implying they do so because of some ill-guided effect. But I think it's great they support user privacy by not needlessly tracking their users.

Re:Sorry to be frank but what did he think

[Xeth]

Casual games are the biggest market in the same sense that Lego is the biggest tire manufacturer. Based on some quick googling, it looks like the casual game industry has revenues of about $3 billion, versus $78 billion for the video game industry as a whole.

Re:Sorry to be frank but what did he think

[Raven42rac]

Clearly M dollarsign is to blame. Clearly. Maybe people don't want to play a mobile game on a desktop. Maybe lots of things.

Re:Sorry to be frank but what did he think

[atlasdropperofworlds]

Either that or you choose the right toolset so porting to all platforms is minimal work. Also, he apparently didn't get promoted because he was WinRT only. Perhaps if he'd taken the extra 5 minutes to set up and do an x86 build he would have gotten promoted.

Re:Sorry to be frank but what did he think

[edxwelch]

You should also bear in mind that a $100 video card is ten times more powerful than the GPU in the latest iPad. "Hardcore" video games simply won't run on a tablet

Re:Sorry to be frank but what did he think

[Synerg1y]

He whined, so MS would take notice and help him off-set his loss. Not the most ethical of practices, but seems to have worked.

Re:Sorry to be frank but what did he think

[Raven42rac]

For some dumbass reason I thought it meant the Windows 8 store. I don't know maybe the people who wanted the game already bought it on those other platforms? It's too new/not enough install base?

Re:Sorry to be frank but what did he think

[Synerg1y]

Nope, look like they're staying "casual" through 2013, and gamers will continue to make up most of the game industry.

Re:Sorry to be frank but what did he think

[atlasdropperofworlds]

Also, the PC remains a better gaming platforms for hardcore and hobbyist gamers. Touchscreens are fine for casual games, but they remain a compromise.

Re:Sorry to be frank but what did he think

[Synerg1y]

It was the developers choice to port it, M$ didn't hold a gun to his head on this one.

Re:Sorry to be frank but what did he think

[atlasdropperofworlds]

Lol happy trolololing.

Re:Sorry to be frank but what did he think

[atlasdropperofworlds]

Are you for real?

Re:Sorry to be frank but what did he think

[robthebloke]

It's a bigger potential market, but it's not grossing as high as the console market (yet!).

Re:Sorry to be frank but what did he think

[robthebloke]

And just how big is RT's market share supposed to be?

Somewhere between 0 and FLT_MIN.

Re:Sorry to be frank but what did he think

[hairyfeet]

But how could anybody that has ever looked at GFWL think that MSFT of all companies could run a successful appstore catering to gamers? I mean good lord folks, all they had to do was rip off Valve and the PHBs even managed to cock THAT up, not only is the UI horrible, the client buggy, but you go to look for a PC game in the PC client running on a PC for a series you already have at least one of the games of, and what does it show you? 9 pages of games for the X360! Because some PHB I'm sure trotted out a PPT at a meeting and said "Herpa derp metrics X360 herpa derpa push product derpa derp."

I mean give me a break, if anything Windows gaming has flourished in SPITE of MSFT, not because of, and their frankly terrible UI choices and consistent mobile flops should have given anyone designing games serious pause before porting to that platform. Anybody that is smart I'm sure will wait for WinRT to crack double digits or at least see if its gonna end up another abandoned platform like WinPhone 7. Have some common sense man!

Re:Sorry to be frank but what did he think

[poetmatt]

No, I'm not. I'm saying the actual marketshare of RT is simply irrelevant to the statement. You're misreading into a statement I did not make.

Re:Sorry to be frank but what did he think

[mcgrew]

What shitty design! One would assume clicking that arrow would take you to "New Releases". What would be wrong with having it look like a button and having it marked "back?"

Yet another instance of Windows' historic unusability. Not as bad as "File" in that stupid Office ribbon, though. But still terrible.

Re:Sorry to be frank but what did he think

[PickyH3D]

To be fair to the author, he released his software before there were any numbers.

To be fair to Windows RT, it's sold through an excessively limited distributed channel (Microsoft kiosks and Microsoft Stores). To then expect overnight miracles for a game that, admittedly, I have never heard of is a little astounding. Granted, 52 pounds is probably a bit of a shock, but having never heard of it (as an admitted iPad and Surface owner), I can't really say I am stunned.

It appears that he expected it be promoted by Microsoft because of their 10,000 pound investment, even though his company apparently refused to recompile and support x86, which sounds like an obvious no brainer. I cannot imagine that a game like theirs has many ARM-specific code blocks, and if it does, then I fully expect they are easily swappable for something in x86-land (if not just the high level language equivalent that would run faster on x86).

We are talking about a company with two mobile flops, and one of them was seemingly expected internally. The Kin was an undersupported and overpriced piece of junk thanks to Verizon (pricing it like a smartphone), with apparently a poor experience thanks to Microsoft. Windows Phone 7 appears to have been merely a stopgap to flesh out Metro, and to hold on until the Windows 8 kernel was ready for the phone.

As I have described in my random other posts, the Surface is actually a very solid (physically) device with much higher usability than my iPad (although I only have an iPad 2). Having a kickstand, USB port, microSD card expansion slot, attachable keyboard, larger (admittedly lower resolution than the "New iPad") screen, direct access to the file system and bundled Office makes the Surface worth iPad money. I'm honestly a bit stunned so many people hate it on Slashdot, beyond the obvious Microsoft bias, because it actually supports Flash. That's something that even Android cannot say ever since Adobe stopped supporting "mobile" platforms.

Re:Sorry to be frank but what did he think

[h4rr4r]

That 78 billion includes console players, which some would contend are all casual gamers.

Re:Sorry to be frank but what did he think

[gewalker]

Combine the 2 concepts, and allow user to assign "from 1 to 5 farts" for recipes that stink and you will have a best seller.

Re:Sorry to be frank but what did he think

[tbird81]

It doesn't even have a back button for gods sake.

That's because a "back button on mobile devices" has been patented by Apple.

Re:Sorry to be frank but what did he think

[Xeth]

Sure, but I think that's a grave mistake. Certainly, no console game can match the depth of the very deepest PC games, but there are still plenty of games that require strategy, knowledge, and reflex to complete (or be competitively successful). People aren't popping out a few minutes of Halo IV on the train to work.

Re:Sorry to be frank but what did he think

[thoromyr]

the Surface is actually a very solid (physically) device with much higher usability than my iPad (although I only have an iPad 2).

That sounds interesting. What is "much higher usability" -- by itself that statement means nothing.

Having a kickstand, USB port, microSD card expansion slot, attachable keyboard,

Those are common features of android tablets (and kickstand and attachable keyboard are certainly available for iOS devices). What about their presence on the Surface makes the Surface notable for having them?

larger (admittedly lower resolution than the "New iPad") screen,

So, even though it came out after the new ipad it doesn't achieve the same resolution? That's a shame.

direct access to the file system and bundled Office makes the Surface worth iPad money.

For some folks I'm sure those are features worth paying for. Hasn't seemed to be that significant to the overall market, however.

I'm honestly a bit stunned so many people hate it on Slashdot, beyond the obvious Microsoft bias, because it actually supports Flash.

I'm really not quite sure what to say here. Maybe you aren't aware that the lack of flash is a *feature*? Not everyone wants to have crappy flash apps whether its on a mobile device or not. My desktop systems are flash free since I have a choice in the matter.

For the record, I don't hate the Surface, I just fail to see anything to be excited about. The Samsung Galaxy Tab is similar specs at similar price (even having flash, ugh!) with the advantage of a mature marketplace. Or, a new ipad is better specs and a mature marketplace for a similar price balanced by the lack of a USB port or SD card slot. Its just hard to see any place for the Surface other than those who want to run MS Office on a tablet.

That's something that even Android cannot say ever since Adobe stopped supporting "mobile" platforms.

Again, I'm not sure you understand that this is not a negative for a significant fraction of users.

Re:Sorry to be frank but what did he think

[Charliemopps]

That's a software button. And can be included, or not, and put anywhere the developer desires. Meaning the user never knows where or how to find it. These buttons are hardware on iOS and Android. You can not get stuck in an application because you can always hit back or home. Not so in windows 8

Re:Sorry to be frank but what did he think

[shutdown -p now]

To be fair to Windows RT, it's sold through an excessively limited distributed channel (Microsoft kiosks and Microsoft Stores).

That's not quite true. Surface is only sold through those two distribution channels, but Surface is not the only WinRT device (though everyone expected it to be the primary one, given its positioning as the flagship of the platform).

Re:Sorry to be frank but what did he think

[Kremmy]

erm, yes? I'm not a Surface user, but I've been around technology long enough to know that silly oversights like that happen ALL the time. So I'm curious and asking an honest question?

Re:Sorry to be frank but what did he think

[Duds]

And quite apart from that he ported an old game to a new platform.

I.e - not only are there not many people who own the platform, the vast majority are switching from the other popular platforms where, if they wanted your game, they could ALREADY have bought it.

Re:Sorry to be frank but what did he think

[shutdown -p now]

That's a software button. And can be included, or not, and put anywhere the developer desires. Meaning the user never knows where or how to find it. These buttons are hardware on iOS and Android.

Pray tell, where exactly is the hardware "Back" button located on iOS?

You can not get stuck in an application because you can always hit back or home. Not so in windows 8

"Home" button is hardware on Win8. On desktops, that's the Win-key on the keyboard. Tablets all have a physical button right below the screen, same as iPad.

Re:Sorry to be frank but what did he think

[KingMotley]

You mean the button that both the same icon and the same location as all the major browsers out there, that also coincidentally don't the word back on it?

Oh, and the same for Pandora One on iOS. iOS mail, button top left takes you back. Also video library.

Man, what a terrible design, they should come up with something completely new that no one else uses, like removing the button, and having you twirl your finger clockwise once then counterclock wise twice and then a double tap. That would be so much better.

Re:Sorry to be frank but what did he think

[im_thatoneguy]

Snarkiness aside it's not Microsoft's fault that it's only on Windows RT.

Microsoft has created a set of developer tools so that x86 and RT apps can be sold and used across all of your PCs seamlessly. This is Microsoft's pitch: buy an RT tablet and use it on all your computers.

The game developer though sells his game *through a publisher* on Windows x86. So he's not allowed to sell it for both platforms. This wasn't a technological impediment it was a licensing one. So Microsoft--pushing a unified x86/RT universe failed to promote a game for him and give him free advertising since his game didn't align with their own goals of a great user experience where your applications run everywhere.

I don't have a lot of sympathy that Microsoft didn't give random developer who I've never heard of free marketing and promotion. I see plenty of games on my surface being promoted by Microsoft? You're not one of them? Boo fucking hoo. Promotion space is a zero sum game. No matter what Microsoft does someone is going to fall from prominence in placement.

Re:Sorry to be frank but what did he think

[PickyH3D]

Actually a good catch (same to the Anonymous Coward making the same point 13 minutes later).

As you pointed out, I was referring to the Surface in my post, as I am frankly not very aware of what the competition is up too because I stopped looking around once I bought my Surface.

Re:Sorry to be frank but what did he think

[TapeCutter]

So where is this guy claiming MS forced him to do this?

The guy has a proven best seller and it's a flop on windows. Has it crossed your mind that the act of complaining may have actually helped MS in the long run? I'm pretty sure that if I had a shop and a certain product was gathering dust on my shelves but flying of the shelves of similar shops, I would want to look into that. I'm not sure I would want it broadcast on the net but trying to shoot the (noisy) messenger would just make things worse.

Business is not a zero sum game, even though $10k is less than MS shell out for office toilet paper in a year, it's in both parties interests to get to the root of what appears to be a genuine problem.

OTOH, perception is everything, so they might decide it's simpler to quietly offer him a portion of the toilet paper budget to shut up.

Re:Sorry to be frank but what did he think

[PickyH3D]

That sounds interesting. What is "much higher usability" -- by itself that statement means nothing.

Ironic point.

Those are common features of android tablets (and kickstand and attachable keyboard are certainly available for iOS devices). What about their presence on the Surface makes the Surface notable for having them?

No one has anything as flat and integrated as the Touch Cover. No one. The Android tablets that do have kick stands are not the full width of the device; they're like little arms that extend, which prevents them from being useful in your lap, unless there is a newer Android tablet that I haven't seen, but I believe none of the mainstream ones have them built in anyway.

So, even though it came out after the new ipad it doesn't achieve the same resolution? That's a shame.

Yep. Given that the x86 model is 1080p, I suspect that doing the same resolution on the ARM chip was too taxing of the battery to justify it. They might have also made the decision before the Retina Display iPad was ever officially announced as well, which meant they went from beating the competition to being behind. Microsoft has to own up to this one, but the Metro UI does a very good job at hiding the lower resolution combined with ClearType.

Maybe you aren't aware that the lack of flash is a *feature*? Not everyone wants to have crappy flash apps whether its on a mobile device or not. My desktop systems are flash free since I have a choice in the matter.

I guess that means you're not running Chrome. But, anyway, I use Chrome on my desktops and I run FlashControl (way better than the other plugins) to limit Flash to websites that I choose, and that pretty much boils down to Hulu. I use tablets even more for entertainment than my desktops and Hulu is the last thing that I actually use Flash with, but I use it a lot (there is a Hulu Plus app, but I don't pay for Hulu, and therefore it serves no purpose for me on either tablet). So, as long as that's the only way to get Hulu, then Flash will unfortunately remain a feature. Once that door closes, or a better, legal alternative opens up to Hulu, then that won't change.

I will say, IE's biggest limitation is actually its general lack for simple plugin support akin to Chrome and Firefox, but mostly like Chrome. I wouldn't be surprised to see this coming with IE11, whenever that is, as that's the last real advantage Chrome has beyond WebGL, which I don't actually use, but plugins are a huge advantage that I miss, which is odd because I never really noticed missing them on my iPad with Safari (I suppose my only other plugin, AdBlocker in that case).

The Samsung Galaxy Tab is similar specs at similar price (even having flash, ugh!) with the advantage of a mature marketplace.

Only a true fan would dare to call Android's tablet marketplace mature. Unless something major happens, Windows RT-based apps will outnumber Android tablet apps by this time next year, and it will particularly out number them in the sense that you will actually be able to download one and know that it will work on your tablet.

Or, a new ipad is better specs and a mature marketplace for a similar price balanced by the lack of a USB port or SD card slot.

As you must be a technical user, it's stunning that you don't see the enormous benefit of having a USB port that can be used for anything with a working driver, and an expansion SD slot. I have already transferred files between machines using my Surface, and I am happy that I can plug in a mouse if I ever get tired of the mouse pad built into the Touch Cover. Shy of actual software development, which I tend to do on a desktop with dual monitors anyway, my Surface can completely replace my MacBook Pro. Technically, I can use the free Remote Desktop app to even enable that, but I hop

Re:Sorry to be frank but what did he think

[Alphadecay27]

To be fair to Windows RT, it's sold through an excessively limited distributed channel (Microsoft kiosks and Microsoft Stores). To then expect overnight miracles for a game that, admittedly, I have never heard of is a little astounding. Granted, 52 pounds is probably a bit of a shock, but having never heard of it (as an admitted iPad and Surface owner), I can't really say I am stunned.

This game sells 100k+ copies/day at $3 a piece on android. https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.rubicon.dev.gbwg&feature=search_result#?t=W251bGwsMSwyLDEsImNvbS5ydWJpY29uLmRldi5nYndnIl0. It peaked at 500k/day within the past 30 days. Even if it had a massive refund rate (which it likely doesn't with a 4.5/5 rating) it probably made over a million dollars on other platforms within the same time frame. We're not talking about a tetris clone someone knocked out over the weekend from their mom's basement.

It appears that he expected it be promoted by Microsoft because of their 10,000 pound investment, even though his company apparently refused to recompile and support x86, which sounds like an obvious no brainer. I cannot imagine that a game like theirs has many ARM-specific code blocks, and if it does, then I fully expect they are easily swappable for something in x86-land (if not just the high level language equivalent that would run faster on x86).

They expected Microsoft to promote it because it is really popular game that has sold over 2.5 million copies on other platforms. They didn't "refuse" to port to x86. From his blog comments, it seems they have contractual obligations to not publish on x86 because they have a publisher (Viacom) that limits their ability to release on x86 since there is a PC version (through steam).

Re:Sorry to be frank but what did he think

[Synerg1y]

Developing a hit game doesn't make you good at business. IMHO he jumped way too soon, win 8 hasn't had as much of a chance to catch on yet... and will it catch on? Investing $$$$ & porting to an unproven platform is like installing sql server 2012 on your production environment the day it came out, you're asking for a hailstorm of shit to come down on your head.

Re:Sorry to be frank but what did he think

[hairyfeet]

Wow, way to pick apart the strange post! The only thing I would add is even Adobe has abandoned mobile flash so I really wouldn't call having a soon to be dead flash port to be a "feature".

And I have to wonder if this is some new twist on the classic shilling MSFT has been pushing for WinRT because I've noticed a couple of posts lately all over the place where they gush about the Surface and WinRT...while they talk about how they own an iPad. I don't know, is that supposed to give them "cred" somehow? that if an iPad owner who doesn't actually own a Surface brags about the Surface then it must be good?

One thing is for sure, I'd hate to be handed the bill that MSFT must be racking up on the pro shilling as you can take a line from any of the real gushing WinRT or Win 8 posts, slap it into Google, and find that just like a spam email somebody has posted that word for word on dozens of tech sites across the web. Its like they think if they can turn the geeks around with shilling and astroturfing then Win 8 and RT won't be a VistaBomb.

And believe me, I'm NOT the kind that uses words like shill and astroturf lightly, because I know you can find rabid fanbois for just about any product ever made, hell they have a fan club for the Zune. But when you can take a chunk of the text and find out like the Nigerian Prince it has been plastered all over the web? Then somebody is getting paid to do some serious product selling. You name the tech site, ZDNet,Slashdot, OSNews, The Reg, they are ALL seeing these posts over and over and over. Does MSFT think we are really THAT stupid? Or are they just hiring lazy ad companies that recycle too much?

Re:Sorry to be frank but what did he think

[Em Adespoton]

Or, a new ipad is better specs and a mature marketplace for a similar price balanced by the lack of a USB port or SD card slot.

The rest of this comment is spot on; just thought I'd point out that the iPad does bi-directional (can be host or slave) USB with an adapter, so the real difference is the added SD card slot. Can't say that I've missed SD cards all that much since I drank the "wirelessly networked devices" kool-aid.

So yes; it's not that the Surface or Windows RT are horrid, it's just that they don't really have anything in them compelling enough to switch from the other mature platforms. Kind of like switching from a Windows PC to an Apple Mac in the '90's. You lose the mature software and accessory bases and gain nothing of note.

Re:Sorry to be frank but what did he think

[Kahlandad]

I don't think his whining is unethical at all... Win RT market penetration is already facing an uphill battle and, without developer support, it is inevitably going to fail. MS seems to have forgotten this (once again) and Rubicon is giving them the verbal kick in the pants they need to get their act together. It might sound like whining, but MS has so far given Win RT developers absolutely pathetic support.

Re:Sorry to be frank but what did he think

[Mabhatter]

This game does OK on other platforms... The issue is that Microsoft isn't helping out with an established game on THEIR new platform because the game doesn't jump through their hoops. Microsoft isn't in a position for such demands... This is as silly as Apple demanding every iOS game run on OSX.

Re:Sorry to be frank but what did he think

[atlasdropperofworlds]

I'm not a Surface user

Or a Win8 user. To save you a trip to you local best buy, the answer, is yes, it's there.

Re:Sorry to be frank but what did he think

[atlasdropperofworlds]

I'm a big fan of the 10 finger star shaped swipe myself.

Re:Sorry to be frank but what did he think

[atlasdropperofworlds]

This is as silly as Apple demanding every iOS game run on OSX

iOS is not code-level compatible with OSX. Windows RT is API level compatible with Win 8/Pro on x86 for metro apps.

I look forward to being able to buy an app or game on WinRT or the Xbox, and then have it available to my other devices. MS is not preventing them from getting into the store, what they are doing is incenting and rewarding those who do things properly and try and support more architectures. The dev already spent $20k to get the game working on WinRT, all he had to do was compile it once for ARM, and again for x86, then submit both executables. MSVC already has these things preset for you when you get it set up. I'm trying to figure out how this dev could have possibly not been able to compile for both platforms, and I'm coming up blank - it's all preset. It's all kindergarten-level easy.

Re:Sorry to be frank but what did he think

[chrismcb]

YES, the back button is always visible. It doesn't scroll.
My ONLY issue with the app store, is there is no search. Instead it relies on the search charm.
But then again, Apple is on iOs 6 and its store is just starting to get usable (well actually it seems to have taken a turn for the worse in 6) Except for the search issue, the Microsoft App store is significantly better than Apples.

Re:Sorry to be frank but what did he think

[chrismcb]

The iPad (iOS is software, so it can't have a hardware button) does NOT have a hardware back button. It DOES have a button that returns you to the "desktop" The Surface has one of these things too. Can't say what other hardware devices do though.

Re:Sorry to be frank but what did he think

[leaen]

His plan was simple:
1. Make crappy game.no Windows RT
2. Write blog how bad Windows RT is
3. Get $1000000 from microsoft and write how awasome Windows RT is
4. Profit

Re:Sorry to be frank but what did he think

[KevCo]

I'm honestly a bit stunned so many people hate it on Slashdot, beyond the obvious Microsoft bias, because it actually supports Flash. That's something that even Android cannot say ever since Adobe stopped supporting "mobile" platforms.

It only supports flash in for certain "whitelisted' sites which can actually end up providing a worse experience than other mobile platforms. I believe there are some hacks to get around this but for the average user it is only going to amount to more confusion and a perception that it "doesn't work".

Re:Sorry to be frank but what did he think

[h4rr4r]

All console games are casual some would say.
Surely not hardcore anyway.

Re:Sorry to be frank but what did he think

[marsu_k]

No one has anything as flat and integrated as the Touch Cover. No one. The Android tablets that do have kick stands are not the full width of the device; they're like little arms that extend, which prevents them from being useful in your lap, unless there is a newer Android tablet that I haven't seen, but I believe none of the mainstream ones have them built in anyway.

There you go. It's not that new either. Now, granted, the keyboard dock is not as flat as the Touch Cover, but a) it has a built-in battery, extending the battery life to about 16 hrs (depending on your usage, obviously), b) it has a full-sized SD card slot in addition to the microSD slot on the tablet itself, and a full-sized USB port, and c) you can use it like a regular laptop, choosing how much you want to tilt the display. Oh, and the display is 1920x1200 IPS+ (the "+" in there means it can be used in pretty much direct sunlight, it's really really bright if needed).

Re:Sorry to be frank but what did he think

[Meski]

Do you find it impossible to conceive of a good video game that doesn't require a powerful GPU?

Re:Sorry to be frank but what did he think

[Meski]

Trolls helping trolls. Oh, the irony.

Re:Sorry to be frank but what did he think

[techsimian]

Sure and some companies have done an okay job with the crappy 3d chips, but what if I want better than 10 years old games?

Re:Sorry to be frank but what did he think

[techsimian]

I lol'd...unless you're serious.

Re:Sorry to be frank but what did he think

[Meski]

I'm thinking of games that don't require graphics, let alone 3d. Text! Infocom, that sort of thing.

Porting to Windows RT

[bonch]

I was excited about WinRT (not to be confused with Windows RT...yeah, I know) during Windows 8's development and was considering porting a project, but after evaluating Windows 8, the lack of features in the APIs, annoying interface decisions, and confusing hardware fragmentation made it an easy decision not to bother. Microsoft's alleged refusal to promote ARM-only apps, when it needs all the apps it can get, re-affirms that decision. Windows 8 is a non-starter as a development platform.

Re:Porting to Windows RT

[cbhacking]

What I don't get is the existence of an ARM-only app at all. What idiocy could lead somebody to intentionally exclude a large number of users, users who have more powerful hardware at that, to save the cost of changing one drop-down menu in Visual Studio and hitting Build again? On the face of it, that seems completely asinine. Unless the guy was using assembly or something else stupid like counting on pointers being 32 bits (which would *still* work in an x86 app, just not x64 native), porting to x86 should have been trivial.

Re:Porting to Windows RT

[atlasdropperofworlds]

This I agree with. There is only one reason you can't set your code up to be build on ARM or x86, and that's if you use inline assembly. If you're using inline assembly, you're probably already asking for a world of hurt anyway.

Re:Porting to Windows RT

[Kergan]

In Rubicon's defense: don't discount the hardware, which also has very real potential for bugs.

Rubicon had severe issues with Android related to graphic chipsets, if one of the discussion threads in their forum from a few months ago is anything to go by. From a device to the next they were different, and even on the same devices (the S3 was mentioned by one user), they occasionally differed in their behavior -- crash on one, no crash on the other. In essence, perfectly syntactically correct shaders worked fine on iOS and went haywire on some Android devices. So they had to introduce a number of hacks in their Android port to work around these issues, which broke compatibility with other Android devices in the process, and so forth. (I suppose they fixed them since then.)

Re:Porting to Windows RT

[atlasdropperofworlds]

Fair enough, however the graphics environment on windows is really quite good. I work on Windows, and I work on Android. Android is still a gong show when it comes to GPU support/stability. Fortunately Samsung phones are all quite reliable, and targeting them gets most of the market.. MS also provides a decent number of testing tools to catch potential problems with submitted apps. Also, any iOS or Android based game will not have graphics needs that would tax even 4-year old intel integrated graphics, so the likelihood of an iOS or Android ported game not running well on a PC is almost 0.

Re:Porting to Windows RT

[atlasdropperofworlds]

Maybe. I have yet to hear of such a library though. In order for it to be ARM only it would have to have ARM machine code. However, that doesn't make it hard to port, it just makes it non-trivial.

Re:Porting to Windows RT

[atlasdropperofworlds]

Usually it should be the compiler that handles auto-vectorization to use such extensions. However, manual assembly only makes a port to x86 non-trivial. All they need is appropriate #ifdefs and for x86 can probably just write the code in C/C++, as it would be plenty fast and the compiler, especially ones from MS and Intel, have no problems generating code that is more than fast enough.

You idiots

[AmiMoJo]

You ported your game to a new platform, out for a month on a single high end high price tablet, and you are shocked that you didn't sell as many copies as the Android version. There are hundreds of millions of Android devices out there, with a couple of million more being added every day.

Re:You idiots

[Jesse_vd]

You know, I'd always heard that too. I've been an iOS user since the iPhone 3G so I've bought my share of apps there and have a good feel for mobile app pricing. I was pretty surprised by the prices in the Google Play store when I bought a Nexus 7 last week. Often things I'd expect to pay $.99-$1.99 for in the App Store are $5-7.

I wonder if this is a new trend? Are they compensating for lower sales, or has the Android market changed recently?

Re:You idiots

[h4rr4r]

Normally software in the Play store is a little cheaper.

I know I would probably not pay $9 for an app unless it was really amazing.

Re:You idiots

[Githaron]

What kind of apps do you buy?

Re:You idiots

[Jesse_vd]

(First of all, all prices are Canadian, if it matters)

All over the place, really. The only thing I actually paid for in the Play store so far is Need For Speed: Most Wanted. It's a pretty awesome game, and $7. I just checked and it's the same in the App Store. That might be a reasonable price but don't developers get 100% of that on Android, unlike iOS apps where they only get 70%? You'd think they would make it a buck cheaper on Android to encourage people to make a switch to the platform with a higher profit margin.

I don't have any specific apps off the top of my head, but I was looking for something to control iTunes with and couldn't find anything under $5

Re:You idiots

[Bill Hayden]

Odd, I've had the exact opposite experience. I've found things are generally more expensive in the Apple store.

Re:You idiots

[Jesse_vd]

I should add that more apps, even MOST apps, are free. I just found that the apps that do cost money seemed to cost more.

Re:You idiots

[ConfusedVorlon]

developers get 70% on Android too.

Re:You idiots

[Jesse_vd]

News to me. Surely, thats only from the Google Play store, right? At least nothing forces a developer to sell their software there or a customer from buying it there

Re:You idiots

[h4rr4r]

Does that game have IAP?

It looked interesting and I loved the series almost 20 years ago, but I will never buy anything that uses IAP.

Re:You idiots

[Jesse_vd]

The price differences platform-to-platform of the app in your signature is pretty interesting, care to explain why you chose those prices?

Re:You idiots

[h4rr4r]

Yeah, but amazon pays the same cut I think.

Of course an android developer could always sell the apk right from his own website if he so desired.

Re:You idiots

[Jesse_vd]

I honestly haven't played it enough yet to answer that, and a quick Google didn't either.

I don't mind if they, for instance, sell you a fast car to help you advance faster, as long as you could get to the exact same place eventually by playing normally

Re:You idiots

[Jesse_vd]

Exactly, I think I will do a search for the developer's site before I buy any more

Re:You idiots

[Colonel Korn]

You know, I'd always heard that too. I've been an iOS user since the iPhone 3G so I've bought my share of apps there and have a good feel for mobile app pricing. I was pretty surprised by the prices in the Google Play store when I bought a Nexus 7 last week. Often things I'd expect to pay $.99-$1.99 for in the App Store are $5-7.

I wonder if this is a new trend? Are they compensating for lower sales, or has the Android market changed recently?

I just moved from Android back to an iPhone for the first time in a few generations and for the apps I want I'm seeing something of the reverse. A lot of the apps I used on my SGS2 for free cost $1-5 to unlock a similar feature set in iOS. A lot of the things I did with Android can't be done at all until the iPhone 5 gets jailbroken (like a robust call blocker).

On the other hand, last night I didn't have my expensive new lightning cable near my bed but I saw that I still had 68% of my battery charge left after a day of moderate use, so I didn't charge my phone while I slept. When I woke up this morning I still had 62% of my battery life remaining. I'm impressed, but I'll probably still leave iOS when another upgrade becomes available on my Sprint account in six months.

Re:You idiots

[Jesse_vd]

I don't know about you but I'm snagging a Nexus 4 as soon as I can :) at $300 unlocked, it's a steal. I haven't touched my iPad 2 since buying the Nexus 7, either, so I think that's going on Craigslist, maybe to be replaced by the Nexus 10. Android is finally grown up, if you ask me.

Re:You idiots

[cbhacking]

There are multiple Windows RT devices. Surface RT is one, but absolutely not the only one. Its base price is no higher than a new iPad either, and I believe some of the competition is a bit cheaper.

That said, while I don't really understand why MS wouldn't promote an app (just on RT, of course) simply because it's RT-only, it seems incredibly stupid of the developer to release the app as RT-only. Clicking on the Platform drop-down in Visual Studio, selecting "x86", and then clicking Build again was too hard? Or are they relying on some weird characteristic of ARM which inexplicably isn't present on other 32-bit systems (ARM is by default also little-endian, as it is on x86). Performance optimization shouldn't even be a concern; even an older Atom CPU will outperform most ARM chips.

Re:You idiots

[MBGMorden]

I haven't really noticed it, but then again I personally don't actually buy a whole lot of apps. I do the paid versions of Angry Birds to avoid advertising, but as to utility apps I think I paid $2-3 for a guitar tuner and about the same for a podcast client.

I love my smartphone, and I use it everyday, but I don't get how people have a use for the number of apps some use. About 99% of my smartphone time is split between Facebook, Twitter, the email app, the browser, music player, and podcast app. An icon for everything I ever use fits on my home screen.

Maybe I'm just getting old. To each his own :).

Re:You idiots

[gmuslera]

There aren't millons of apps competing with yours neither. If there aren't many available choices and you are popular elsewhere, you should think that would be more buyers than your mom and 3 close friends. Heck, probably they could had better far sales in the Ubuntu Market.

Re:You idiots

[gnasher719]

Developers get 70% of the advertised price both on Google's store and on the AppStore. Which is a lot more than most get at Amazon, and more than anyone gets at any other store. At the AppStore developers have the advantage that lots of kids (and adults) will get gift cards for Christmas and will spend that money on iOS games.

Re:You idiots

[artfulshrapnel]

You might want to rethink that. Since the Android store is the main gateway for less tech-savvy users (i.e. the vast majority of users) and outside sales don't get reported, you might actually be hurting the company in the long run by buying straight from their personal site.

Sure they get to keep an extra $1.50 on your $7 game, but they also have one fewer sale on the marketplace, and any reviews you leave will be downgraded in terms of relevance because the Android store doesn't think you own the product. Being pushed down a few slots in the marketplace could greatly hurt their visibility, and they could lose a lot of sales as a result.

If you really want to help them? Buy from the marketplace, leave reviews, and discourage any friends who pirate the software.

Re:You idiots

[artfulshrapnel]

It's true that nothing forces them, but I'd guess that a vast majority of android users, especially non-developers, will be buying almost exclusively from the app store. That 30% cut is essentially payment for the promotion opportunity of being featured in the official app store. There's a lot of reasons this is actually a great deal for the developers:

Customers feel more comfortable buying from the official store. Things are pushed at them by recommended items, staff picks, reviews, ratings, and categories. To boot, they get easy updates and a convenient purchase process.

Add to that: since the store takes a cut as opposed to a flat listing fee it's in the store's best interest to promote the games as heavily as possible. If they can get the best games in front of the most customers, they can make the most money.

Re:You idiots

[Lifyre]

Google takes the same size cut of the pie as Apple.

http://support.google.com/googleplay/android-developer/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=112622

Re:You idiots

[tbird81]

If that was the case, surely the developer website would just lead back to Amazon or Google Play?

Re:You idiots

[mrchaotica]

I don't have any specific apps off the top of my head, but I was looking for something to control iTunes with and couldn't find anything under $5

Wait, you're surprised that an app to enable coordination between two Apple products costs less than an app to enable coordination between an Apple product and a non-Apple one?

To me, it seems perfectly reasonable for that sort of app to cost more on Android. First of all, you've got fewer users interested in it in the first place (probably 99.9% of iPhone users use iTunes; a large proportion of Android users probably don't). Second, it could easily be the case that the iOS devkit has built-in APIs for interacting with iTunes, which an Android developer would have to reimplement from scratch.

Re:You idiots

[atlasdropperofworlds]

By millions you must mean hundreds of thousands. Only the apple app store has passed 1 million recently. The Play store is around 800k. I think the play store has about 200k fart apps fewer...

Re:You idiots

[bhiestand]

developers get 70% on Android too.

From what I've read elsewhere, profits are much lower on Android due to piracy. iOS has fairly low piracy rates, but Android is ridiculous. There might be more issues that impact Android developers (market fragmentation, different demographics, development costs, etc.) as well.

If I was an iOS developer considering a port to Android, I'd reconsider my prices as well.

Heard this same story over and over with indies

[MetalliQaZ]

This story certainly doesn't seem new to anyone who follows the development of indie games, especially WRT the Xbox360. Microsoft has a history of deprioritizing indie games in general, making it difficult to get promotion for titles without large publishers, and general indifference to a healthy developer ecosystem.

No surprise, then, when mobile games suffer the same fate. They seem to think that they can just copy the worst parts of Apple's model and it will just flourish...

Re:Heard this same story over and over with indies

[locopuyo]

The Indie marketplace is so hidden away on xbox 360 that even some of the top 10 rated and selling games for the month have under 10k sales.

Re:Heard this same story over and over with indies

[UnknowingFool]

Microsoft's most recent problems have been execution. The company by many aspects is too slow and bureaucratic.

The Zune is a good example. The iPod came out in 2001. Many here thought it would fail but it didn't. As early as 2003 MS was working on a competing product; however, Jim Allchin called their own product "terrible". It would take MS another 3 years to get a product to consumers. At the time, the Zune was probably the best MP3 player out there (questionable color choices aside). The marketing was horrible; the PC software was buggy. But more importantly, MS failed to realize that the market wasn't in MP3 players anymore. Apple came out with the iPod Touch which was a portable computing device that functioned as a PDA/browser/MP3 player/whatever. The Zune never caught up.

The Kin was another example. When MS bought Danger, the plan was to release a new phone in six months. It took 18 months and when released the phone was buggy and lacked a market. Insiders say many internal decisions doomed the effort. The Sidekicks used Java as the primary language, but being a MS product, that would not be allowed. The product team had to replace the entire OS with Windows CE. That decision alone would doom the six month deadline. There were two internal mobile teams and the Windows CE team refused to help the Danger team as they wanted to kill the project.

Re:Heard this same story over and over with indies

[thomasw_lrd]

It's almost like someone had a time machine during the anti-trust trial and knew that if they split Microsoft into different companies, that would make the Microsoft ecosystem a bigger threat than if they just let it be one giant company that would fail after so many years.

Someone should write a short story about that.

Re:Heard this same story over and over with indies

[Kremmy]

I have an older Toshiba Gigabeat running Rockbox. Sweet little MP3 player, one of the pre-touch ancestors of the Zune (It's a newer rebranded Gigabeat). Microsoft just has a bad case of the Corporations, they like to swallow up things of value but (mistakenly) leave behind the parts that made them valuable. It's sad, it's a sickness, and too many of our fledgling little organizatons grow up and catch it. I get the impression that the fatality rate of Corporations infection is getting ready to go way up...

Re:Heard this same story over and over with indies

[Anonymous Coward]

Done
—Stephen King
 
Also. it has Langoliers...or aliens. Whatever; fuck you!

Expectations of Promotion?

[_bug_]

It seems Rubicon's beef was the lack of promotion by Microsoft of their title. Is this promotion Rubicon pays for or is this an expectation that their app would be freely promoted for them?

Is an app's success due in large part to the operator of the app store promoting said app? That seems like a system ripe for bribery.

Woohoo!

[slashmydots]

Wow, it's such a good thing Microsoft put all their eggs in one basket and made the desktop OS look identical to their tablet. Now if the tablet falls flat (well, it did), that will make even less sense than it did when people were beta testing and screaming about how stupid it is.

Re:Woohoo!

[gtall]

All MS has to do is knacker the I'm-not-Desktop-UI for desktops and leave the mobile thing alone. Problem solved...except most people/companies still won't see any need to go to winders 8. I'm guessing the UI switch was to encourage people to move, but most do not appear to be swallowing the bait, the payoff just is not large enough for most.

Re:Woohoo!

[thoromyr]

I was surprised that a friend of mine is buying Win8. But then I discovered something: he bought his system before Win7 and avoided Vista by installing WinXP. Now he needs a new operating system and MS is practically giving Win8 away.

For products with real cost in their production (meaning something like hardware) last year's models are marked down in an effort to recover costs with the new year models being priced at a premium. But software has no particular production cost (development, yes, but per unit there is no significant cost of production) so pricing last year's model above *this* year's is a way to encourage uptake of the new model. Those who have a need to avoid the new model pay a premium for the privilege, but users as a whole are moved to the new environment.

And that is a win when you are trying to convince shareholders of the value of Metro...

Re:Woohoo!

[Altrag]

That's always been their MO though. You certainly aren't paying full retail price for that OEM version that comes preinstalled on your PC (and since its hard to find a pre-built PC without Windows in the first place, your average consumer would see that OEM version as $0 additional cost since they have no basis for comparison.)

The number of users who would actually upgrade from a prior OS is pretty insignificant compared to the number of preinstall sales (for consumer level anyway. VLK sales might be a completely different story, but then they'd likely also not be getting the retail discounts either so there wouldn't be much comparison in that aspect.)

Re:Woohoo!

[chrismcb]

I think you are misunderstanding how it works. Give it a year (or two) when several hundred million people are using win 8 on their desktop at home and work. Then notice they can have the exact same interface on a tablet or phone...

It's Clearly Microsoft's Fault...

[Revotron]

...that nobody wants to pay for his game.

Okay, so, £52 in the first week? That's about $83. That's roughly $12/day. In the first week. On a brand new platform.

What the fuck was this guy thinking? That when he hit the magic "Submit" button on the developers portal for the MS App Store, money would start raining down from the ceiling? Did he think scantily clad women would arrive on his doorstep within minutes to personally "massage" him in a hot tub full of champagne?

The title might as well read, "Developer Underwhelmed by Product Success, Blames Everyone Else".

Re:It's Clearly Microsoft's Fault...

[MetalliQaZ]

Sales generally peak very early in the release of a game. Opening week is extremely important for a game company.

Don't forget that they have bills and salaries to pay. They can't sit back and live off a trickle of money, hoping it will grow at some point in the future. It's either make decent money or start laying off.

It is a new platform but Microsoft made certain promises to developers, and this story shows that they may not be doing enough to keep those promises. It also shows that they seem to hold great power over them as well.

Re:It's Clearly Microsoft's Fault...

[Missing.Matter]

Sales generally peak very early in the release of a game. Opening week is extremely important for a game company.

This is true as long as the game company actually markets their game. It seems this company expects the app store to do its marketing for it, by way of featuring their game in a highlights section or some other way, and they didn't actually promote the game themselves. They invested a whole *10 grand* in development (absolute peanuts relatively speaking), but then decided it wouldn't be worthwhile to actually promote their work, and expect Microsoft to do all the leg work? Whatever promises Microsoft made to developers, I'm sure "we will handle all promotion and marketing of all apps in our store" was not one of them.

Re:It's Clearly Microsoft's Fault...

[amicusNYCL]

This is true as long as the game company actually markets their game.

That's what I was thinking. If this game is so great and mindblowing, then why haven't I heard of it? I've never seen an ad for it.

Re:It's Clearly Microsoft's Fault...

[MightyMartian]

Whatever promises Redmond makes, the one thing they cannot do is put a gun to a consumer's head and force them to pick some RT device over an iOS or Android one.

We said it all along. Microsoft was waaaayyyyy too late to the game. If an established player like Blackberry is getting dust kicked in its face by Apple and Samsung and the other Android manufacturers, then WTF do you expect a company coming four years later into the market to be doing? Yes, I know, there have been previous Windows mobile OSs, but they were marketing catastrophes as well.

But hey, any day now, all those Windows mobile devices are gonna start selling. I know, because MS shills keep saying how incredibly better Surface and the like are than everything else out there, and how legions of developers are getting on board as we speak to rake in the monster dollars to be made from those million sales.

Re:It's Clearly Microsoft's Fault...

[MightyMartian]

Because Bing, Win mobile 7 and Zune were all monster successes.

Tell me, how close is the Xbox division to paying off the money Redmond had to pour into it?

Re:It's Clearly Microsoft's Fault...

[thomasw_lrd]

Yeah $10,000 seems really low for a company to spend on development. Over a tenth of that cost would be just for a Visual Studio license.

Although it seems to be high for phone/tablet game. I'm sure that some of the game studios spend a lot more than that on their games, though.

Re:It's Clearly Microsoft's Fault...

[pla]

Don't forget that they have bills and salaries to pay. They can't sit back and live off a trickle of money, hoping it will grow at some point in the future. It's either make decent money or start laying off.

Any of which counts as Microsoft's problem why, exactly?


It is a new platform but Microsoft made certain promises to developers

So if I write Pong 2013 for Surface, should I expect the full marketing force of Microsoft to make sure my crappy app makes a certain minimum profit?

Microsoft earns its fair share of scorn. They don't deserve any here, however - Rubicon gets all the credit for backing a dead horse.

Re:It's Clearly Microsoft's Fault...

[Mister Whirly]

I said it a year ago, months ago, a few weeks ago, and I say it today.

So basically you just keep repeating something until it may or may not come true. Brilliant predictions there Nostradamus. How long have you been predicting the Year of Linux on Desktops now, 10 years? Keep repeating it, someday it may come true...

Re:It's Clearly Microsoft's Fault...

[artfulshrapnel]

So if I write Pong 2013 for Surface, should I expect the full marketing force of Microsoft to make sure my crappy app makes a certain minimum profit?

No, probably not. But if they promised your and other developers that your games would get strong placement on the internal marketplace, then delisted your product because of an unexplained versioning requirement? (as happened here) I suspect you'd be very upset.

That's why it counts as Microsoft's problem. They didn't tell developers that full cross-compatibility between RT and 8 was required for marketplace listing, but then they penalized a developer for breaking the unspoken rule.

Re:It's Clearly Microsoft's Fault...

[hunterkll]

So let's say that Microsoft promised a market of X users.
Okay, great. Let's assume that for right now, X is 41 million.

Let's assume that of that market, (just for numbers) 1 million is using Surface tablets. So that's a market of 41 million WinRT API/Modern UI/Store devices. Got it. Limit yourself to the ARM devices only: You cut out 40 million possible users. Users like me, who'd actually purchase the game if they could even without a touch screen computer. (I wanted to play this on my laptop....)

Awesome. So you're stuck with 2.4% of the market of clients that could run your product, and you make 52 euros.
What if the same rate of people bought your product if you made it available to 100% of the market?
52 / x = 2.4 / 100 .... x ~= 2080

So by the act of clicking a SIMPLE CHECK MARK they could have potentially tapped this market. --- http://blogs.msdn.com/cfs-filesystemfile.ashx/__key/communityserver-blogs-components-weblogfiles/00-00-00-30-15-metablogapi/2112.image111_5F00_551F8980.png --- (yes, it's really that easy)

On windows 8, when you're coding for arm on an x86/x64 machine. your IDE and compiler and simulator are all executing x86/x64 code. You cross compile for testing on ARM device or for distribution. You get x86/x64/arm all at once. There are no code changes to make / porting to do. Limiting it to ARM devices only is a CHOICE of the developer.

Microsoft's design is that I should be able to install the same app on my tablet or my laptop or my desktop if I so choose. The developer blames Microsoft for not having an option that says "you can only download/use the metro app on tablet formfactor devices" and/or a way to enforce this restriction . The developer has a contract that says they can make this game for only tablet formfactor devices(for some awful reason). So to bypass this, they compiled it for ARM only to comply with their supposed restrictions.

They could have increased potential revenue by an insane amount. Instead they locked out 97.6% of the market.

Of course, some apps may be too heavy to execute on ARM so they will not be compiled on that platform, so won't be visible. However, There's no real justifiable reason to not make the application you're targeting for ARM available on x86/x64 as well, except for arbitrary legal ones like this.

What happens if someone makes a low powered touch windows RT pc? the app can now be downloaded onto that and it's not a tablet formfactor device.... and this violates the developer's contract.... But wait! this means the app isn't available on the Surface Pro! ... which is a tablet formfactor device running the windows store! Oh my, developer, you're going to confuse and fragment the market even worse than the simple split between Windows RT and Windows 8 being merely Desktop App and beefy CPU issues.

Re:It's Clearly Microsoft's Fault...

[Mister Whirly]

What you said didn't make me uncomfortable, it made me laugh. Yeah, I certainly will remember a prediction by an AC on Slashdot that *insert Microsoft product here* is a total and complete failure, and could possibly be the end for MS. Because those posts are so rare that it is very easy to remember them all.

Re:It's Clearly Microsoft's Fault...

[flimflammer]

...what? ~$1000+ for a Visual Studio license? What, do you think you need a high end version with an MSDN subscription before you can deploy Windows Store apps?

You can even use the free express edition.

Re:It's Clearly Microsoft's Fault...

[gbjbaanb]

it is great and mindblowing (well, as things go on a phone)... I have the Great Little War Game and will upgrade when I get a better phone... it is shown in the "great apps" section of the Play Store, so I assume people who have Windows RT devices will know about it from that - or at least it'd get pushed to the front page, its not like Microsoft has anything better to promote.

Re:It's Clearly Microsoft's Fault...

[hunterkll]

Suck it up and realize that contract will not fit the model that the win8 store provides and take the loss then. And realize a low power/low cost winrt touch desktop/netbook type thing will mean you're violating the contract anyway.

What's the install base?

[Anonymous Coward]

He should be happy with his 95% market penetration...

Where's the Windows 8 version?

[Tridus]

An RT only version means that you're targeting a tiny portion of the user base. That's what, Surface RT users only? Not a lot of surprise that it failed given that target market.

Re:Where's the Windows 8 version?

[cbhacking]

There are other Windows RT devices (Asus has the Vivo Tab RT at least, probably some others exist too; I know several companies had them planned). Surface is by far the best-promoted one, but it's also in many ways the least available and visible; you can buy the others at any electronics retailer, in person or online, across the country (and spreading around the world). The Surface, by comparison, can only be bought directly from Microsoft either at Microsoft stores (not nearly common enough, and somewhat geographically concentrated) or from the Microsoft website.

With that said, I agree with the core of your comment. ARM is a 32-bit platform, little-endian by default. Unless your game contains ARM assembly language, recompiling it (I'm assuming it's C/C++) for x86 is a trivial operation (change one drop-down in Visual Studio) and even compiling for x64 should be fine so long as you were careful to use sizeof instead of simply assuming that pointers and such are 32 bits wide. I don't understand what they were thinking.

Was the game any good?

[gtirloni]

Sincere question because just "spent $10k on it" does not tell much.

Re:Was the game any good?

[alen]

i played Great Little Wargame on iOS and it's pretty good. it has its short comings but a pretty good strategy/wargame overall

Re:Was the game any good?

[alen]

if you figure $100,000 per year for salary and benefits per developer. then a few weeks work to port and debug a game costing $10,000 is not crazy.

Re:Was the game any good?

[Desler]

Because they have to pay the salaries of the programmers and testers.

Re:Was the game any good?

[Kergan]

Sincere question because just "spent $10k on it" does not tell much.

Yeah, it was. Great Big War Game is, simply put, one of the best TBS games that came out this year on mobile platforms. The 10k figure likely represents the cost of hooking existing C++ code into the Win API (instead of the Cocoa API), so it doesn't seem unreasonable.

Regarding the game itself, the single-player campaign will keep you busy for evenings or weeks, depending on how frequently you play it. There also are a variety of skirmish maps, which you can play vs the AI outside of the campaign, but I'd suggest that the AI doesn't play well enough to be much of a challenge.

These same skirmish maps, that said, also allow to play against other players online, and this is where things get the most interesting if you're into that kind of stuff. It's not limited to a single platform, since they rolled out their own servers. You get to play players on iOS, Android, Windows Phone, Mac and (I assume) Windows RT, complete with ELO rankings and leaderboards. It's turn by turn; most players play a few turns on their way to work and back. Depending on whether your opponents are online at the same time and as long as you are, games can be a single commute business or a whole week business.

Overall, it's a good time waster if you like TBS games, and it's easily worth the pittance that they ask for it. It's also well worth getting the extra maps and units through IAP where applicable (the Windows Phone version has no such thing due to lack thereof, and thus a higher initial price).

Re:Was the game any good?

[chrismcb]

i would say that is pretty low. Even in British Pounds, 16ish K isn't a lot of development effort. Toss in the fact that they probably need to spend some money on equipment, that is insanely low. Must be paying their developers peanuts.
Also 52 pounds is low, but didn't we just hear there are only like a million Surfaces? And some of those might be Christmas presents, as in still sitting under the tree. And a bunch of others are probably development machines.

i wanna know

[Anonymous Coward]

how the hell he got one guy to buy the same thing 52 times...

show me the money

[alen]

if Microsoft wants Surface to have any chance of success they need to start writing checks to the top devs to port their games/apps to RT. otherwise there is no financial incentive since the sales will probably not pay for the costs to port and test the apps

Re:show me the money

[h4rr4r]

They tried that with WinPhone. It failed so far.

Re:show me the money

[LordThyGod]

and bing too ...

Re:show me the money

[davidbrit2]

Yeah, any fresh platform starts out as a bit of a catch 22. Developers aren't going to target it if nobody is buying it, and nobody is going to buy it if there isn't any software for it. The other way to get people buying it is to have a compelling out-of-the-box experience that substantially differentiates it from the entrenched competition (in a good way), and MS has clearly missed the mark there, so the remaining option is to sink tons of money into it like they did with their XBox business. I don't know if it'll work, but I can tell you that Windows RT doesn't hold any significant appeal for me yet.

No shit

[Sycraft-fu]

Also, it is for a game that has already been on sale for awhile, thus many have already played it and aren't interested in re-buying it.

If they think there'll be massive sales on a new platform, well they are dumb. If they think there'll be massive sales on a new platform of a game that is old, they are doubly dumb.

Actually, it *is* Microsoft's fault.

[gestalt_n_pepper]

Either their marketing and sales department is just dumb OR the software development divisions have so much internal clout that they don't have to listen. I'm betting on the latter.

You want your platform to succeed? You need apps. You want a lot of apps quickly, you'd better make it EASY EASY EASY to port existing apps from other popular platforms to your new platform. Preferably, with one click. Another solution would be a near perfect OS emulator. However you do it, you have to do it.

The Fuck You development culture of Microsoft says "No. Go recode and don't bother me with your problems. You're just an ISV after all. The only people we care about are large business customers." The other obvious characteristic that's becoming obvious is the assumption of success. MS obviously has no plan B. No backup to boost sales or make the platform desirable. It's "We're Microsoft. Here it is. Take it or leave it."

Frankly, I don't see how Microsoft is going to last another 10 years this way.

Re:Actually, it *is* Microsoft's fault.

[MojoRilla]

I was asked about porting a major live video application to the Surface recently. The Surface doesn't support flash in web views inside apps. It doesn't support HLS (without a third party library). They stubbornly insist that Silverlight and VC1 are still relevant. My answer to the request was, well, sure, but it will require a new encode farm, and rebuilding the app from the ground up. Which is basically a no-go.

Microsoft is very late to the party. Two other operating systems are there first, have far more users, and are generally more compatible with standards. Microsoft is late to the party, and clinging to all of their old proprietary baggage. And they wonder why they are losing.

Re:Actually, it *is* Microsoft's fault.

[MightyMartian]

I wouldn't even say Redmond is losing at this point. They're not even in the race. You can hear it in the shills that post around here, where the latest explanation is that Microsoft isn't going after the iOS and Android market share, that Windows RT and Surface are so incredibly advanced and superior that they're going to make their own market.

It's like they've hired Baghdad Bob to do the marketing.

Re:Actually, it *is* Microsoft's fault.

[h4rr4r]

Assuming you are smart enough to go the WINE route and just implement the other OSes API I see no reason why it would be a bigger battery drain at all.

Re:Actually, it *is* Microsoft's fault.

[thomasw_lrd]

I would agree with you, but the United States govt. (Dems, Repbubs, Congress, Senate, both Presidents) have shown that a company can be too big to fail, and will actively give them money to make sure they don't. I figure that Microsoft is now in that category. Even if the US wouldn't bail them out, I figure the EU probably would, but I'm not as conversant if they are still primarily using Microsoft products like the US govt/companies/schools/regular people.

Re:Actually, it *is* Microsoft's fault.

[LeopardSeal]

What to you mean "porting a major live video application to the Surface"? The Surface is a device, not an OS and Silverlight is a development framework, not a video format. And since when is Flash a standard?

Re:Actually, it *is* Microsoft's fault.

[fermion]

My feeling that MS, desperate to make the new platform relevant, probably desperately lobbied developer of hit games to port them to the surface. Who knows what promises were made vis a vis cross marketing and the like. One might be lead to expect such support as MS is known for such things. Then, when it did not happen, one can imagine that someone who spent $10K under the assumptions that certain things would happen would be quite angry.

I also imagine that if we do not see some marketing out of MS, then we can assume that MS just gave him a wad of cash to shut up.

Re:Actually, it *is* Microsoft's fault.

[shutdown -p now]

They stubbornly insist that Silverlight and VC1 are still relevant.

How so, given that Silverlight doesn't work in Store apps, either?

On the other hand, you know that it supports HTML5 video, right?

Re:Actually, it *is* Microsoft's fault.

[MightyMartian]

I'm thinking of the whole damned thing. It's like Microsoft has been sleeping for the last few years, suddenly wakes up and notices that one of their core businesses is about to get slaughtered by Apple and the Android ecosystem, and then deciding the only course possible is to fling oodles of shit at the wall. So we have an ARM port of Windows, a GUI that they have foisted on people who have grown accustomed for 17 years to a different beast, some devices that will run legacy software (though no one can really point out why anyone would want to), some devices that won't, so much fucking confusion that I imagine after about 80 seconds of listening to the salescritter at Best Buy prattle on, they'll just say "Fuck it" and head over and grab a Nexus 7 or an iPhone.

The last time Microsoft was this panicked and confused was in the 1994-95 when they were caught with the knickers down and had to release Chicago when a good chunk of its subsystems were still 16-bit, it had no native Office client, and its socket layer had been cribbed from BSD. At that time they had the good fortune of IBM, for a number of good and bad reasons, leaving OS/2 Warp stranded, and so they were able to survive the horrors of Windows 95 in all its inglorious instability.

This time they have no such luck. They are well and truly four years behind in the mobile market, a couple of years behind in the tablet market, and penetration at this point, without an app market worth talking about and prices that definitely don't invite consumers to consider moving from the low and mid-range of Android devices, I just don't see what they're going to do. Hell, they didn't even build some domain integration into RT to give them at least some sort of an edge in the enterprise world.

No trial version

[Missing.Matter]

Gamers on Windows are used to having a trial version. Honestly, if there isn't a trial version I just pass right over it. I've been burned by shitty apps time and time again, I won't risk the money just to find out it's terrible. I've certainly bought plenty of games after playing the trial version, so perhaps they'd see some more sales if they added that feature.

They should also think about porting to Windows 8.... no idea why the limited their app to only Windows RT, as the market share is so small right now.

Re:No trial version

[Desler]

Gamers on Windows are used to having a trial version. Honestly, if there isn't a trial version I just pass right over it.

And yet very few games cone with one and yet. I think you are falsely extrapolating your own wants to the public at large.

Re:No trial version

[Missing.Matter]

Of the paid apps in the US store that I can see, 45% have a trial. For games, this figure goes up to 48%. Of the top 20 apps in the Noteworthy category, 85% have a trial. Not including one is a serious misstep for this developer.

Re:No trial version

[admdrew]

A lot of us grew up on PC game demos.

Re:No trial version

[markdavis]

And when you use Google Play for Android, essentially 100% of apps, games or otherwise, have a "trial", because you can return ANYTHING in 15 minutes if you don't like it.

The trial period used to be much longer... but you can pretty much tell if you are going to like or hate something in the first several minutes.

Again, it looks like Microsoft is trying to push inferior models on many users that already have used a model that is much better.

Re:No trial version

[Missing.Matter]

Refunds are nice and all, but it doesn't help you when the game or app turns out to be buggy. 15 minutes is long enough for maybe the most simple apps, but for more complicated apps only through an extended trial do you get a feel for how it works... if at all. Also, a trial version allows the app developer to offer a limited feature version or ad-supported version that can be upgraded easily from within the app, thus getting rid of app clutter for separate free/trial versions like in the iOS app store.

Re:No trial version

[Mabhatter]

Stop sniveling about a trial version... It's a $3 game. You're just a cheap bastard. The game is a SEQUEL to a game that has sold well on iOS and android... Just the cross-over traffic should have been more than what they made... Unless the game was so buried nobody could find it.

At least on iOS, they have lite versions that are free with pay-to-unlock for GLWG & GBWG.

Wow, that's great?

[h4rr4r]

He is mad about this?
To get that much money every WindowsRT user must have bought it.

Re:Wow, that's great?

[MightyMartian]

Some of them twice, me thinks.

Re:Stupid is as stupid does

[h4rr4r]

There already is, I believe it is on Steam.

Still I bet the iOS and Android versions far outsell that.

Won't promote RT apps?

[Enderandrew]

Microsoft is selling tablets and phones that won't run traditional Windows apps, and can only run Windows RT apps. Microsoft is encouraging developers to make RT the standard for future Windows development, but for some reason they aren't willing to promote RT apps?

Here is the problem. Most people have an Android or iOS device today. If there Android and iOS apps you really love, you probably already purchased them for those platforms (and perhaps for both if you jumped ship at some point).

How many people are jumping at the bit to buy them again for another platform?

What Microsoft really needs is killer new apps that take advantage of Windows in a unique way that aren't on Android or iOS. And I just don't see that happening. Windows RT is dead on arrival for a number of reasons (can't join a domain, can't run legacy Windows apps and doesn't offer anything new for future development).

Re:Won't promote RT apps?

[h4rr4r]

It can't join a domain?
Then why in the hell would anyone even care about it vs iPad and android?

Fail MS, fail.

Re:Won't promote RT apps?

[Enderandrew]

http://windows.microsoft.com/en-US/windows/windows-rt-faq

Re:Won't promote RT apps?

[dcollins]

^ And click on: "What's the difference between Windows RT and Windows 8?"

Re:Won't promote RT apps?

[Alzheimers]

How many people are jumping at the bit to buy them again for another platform?

I've bought and paid for Minecraft three separate platforms so far (PC/Mac, Xbox, iOS).

I might make it four, if I get a Nexus 7 for Christmas (I've been good this year!)

ATTENTION!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

I hate to be so frank myself, but I call your attention to the replacement version of Windows!

Windows RG Edition

Re:ATTENTION!!!

[Galestar]

anyone been able to crack the admin pwd yet?

Re:ATTENTION!!!

[TubeSteak]

The internet says that if you decompile the winrg SWF, there's no admin password

The original blog post

[Anonymous Coward]

"Anyone who caught my previous post might already know that we recently released Great Big War Game onto Windows RT. If you're one of the teeny tiny crowd of people who just bought one of these devices, you can find one of the very small number of âoeproperâ games right here: http://apps.microsoft.com/webpdp/app/great-big-war-game/30f26b23-aa92-4fed-9273-099de3069616

A week after release we have made the princely sum of £52 in sales. That's not a typo. And despite this, and the fact that GBWG is one of only several halfway decent launch titles, Microsoft have confirmed they will not give us any promotional features or help us with visibility in any way.

If you're familiar with their new store, this means our app is forever consigned to the garbage bin, presumably earning us less than £52 a week in future. Even if that rate is sustained, it will take just under two years before we recoup the salary paid to the guy who did the port.

Apple regularly promote our apps. Android regularly promote our apps. Even RIM (Blackberry) regularly promote our apps. We enjoy working with those companies and it's nice to see them acknowledge that we bring them some small amount of additional value to their setup. Firms our size need a bit of a leg up, and we go out of our way to show our gratitude to the above for helping us out in this way from time to time.

Microsoft on the other hand clearly do not value us at all. Even whilst there's almost nothing to promote, they will not feature our title for bizarre admin reasons. And this is whilst their store is empty and they need developers like us to fill their store far more than developers like us need them to pay us £50 a week.

Needless to say we will not be working with Microsoft again to bring any of our titles, old or new, to this platform. A snub is never a nice thing to receive, but when it's from someone who needs you more than you need them, it's doubly insulting. And it's not like we're cutting off our nose to spite our face - even small indies can live without an additional £52 a week.

If other developers get this treatment, that store is going to look might bleak for a long time to come. Please take this as a warning. I know I sound bitter and twisted and there's a reason for that - I actually am. We have wasted a lot of time, resources and money on supporting this platform and all that happened was we got spat on.

If you're not familiar with Great Big War Game, here's some reviews. Not many indie titles get accolades like this: http://www.rubicondev.com/gbwg/reviews.php and certainly none that you'd expect a major platform holder to shun.

I hope this thing falls flat on it's face, but I do hope they don't take other developers down with them. We are fortunate enough to able to suck up the £6,000 it cost to do this port and move on, but other outfits may well not. Don't be one of them.

Here's my usual picture to end on.

http://www.rubicondev.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/bgifdhad.jpg"

Since when are developers entitled to customers?

[detain]

I must be doing something wrong or missed a very important memo. I find it hard enough to get people using my open source software let alone paying for it, and this guy is clearly under the impression he is entitled to a steady instantly large flow of income from his first platform release.

Re:Windows RT is not a gaming platform

[MightyMartian]

By all accounts, people don't seem to buy Windows RT tablets at all.

Looks like a nice game, though

[jonabbey]

I just bought myself a copy for my Android tablet. Thanks, MS!

Good luck with that

[roc97007]

(Side note: Ten thousand pounds to port a game to a new platform? Wow.)

Um, so, porting an application to a new platform that has nearly unmeasurable market penetration doesn't yield outrageous $PROFIT$ in the FIRST WEEK and the developer is surprised? I am far from a Microsoft fan, but there's something wrong with this story.

Re:Good luck with that

[roc97007]

I'm with you on an Android port. (Or any Linux port.) It looks like it would make a fine web appliance once it was reimaged.

Re:Good luck with that

[roc97007]

Actually, I envisioned the guy as a sole developer. There are a lot of them out there. If it really is a company with actually staff, then your estimate would be correct.

The point is, he should have known the level of platform market penetration going in. It should have been part of his business plan. To be whining about poor sales for an app ported to a platform that is a latecomer to that marketing space and has underwhelmed in market penetration strikes me as being a little disingenuous.

Liars, damn liars, and made up figures.

[yoshi_mon]

There is no way I believe the £10,000 dev costs number. Not a chance in hell. And right there with that lie whatever sympathy I might have had went away. It is way too easy a number to make up and then if challenged on it make up even more lies, or half-truths at best, to cover the lie.

Given the immediate backpeddle once MS called and likely paid him off, and I wonder what that actual number was, the story is clearly not about the dev here.

Rather, as most of us who are/were not fanboys/paid shills observed, that MS has a very tough lift with this and it will be interesting to see how much capital they dump into it. Ah la XBox fame.

Re:Liars, damn liars, and made up figures.

[TheSunborn]

You do know, that since Windows RT can't run Android java code, or iPhone objective C code, they most likely had to rewrite large parts of the game.

I Think that 10.000£ development sounds low, considering it is a game which have sold over 100.000 units on Android.
 

Re:Liars, damn liars, and made up figures.

[MightyMartian]

Why is 10,000 such an unreasonable number? We're talking porting and testing here. I don't think for a substantial app that that is completely out to lunch.

Re:Liars, damn liars, and made up figures.

[BLToday]

10,000 pounds for development is low. That's like what 3 guys for a month? Art (sound/graphics) assets get reused. If it was a brand new property, you're looking at a much larger figure than that for anything beyond Tiny Wings. Even if you did it all yourself, how much "paid" did you miss out on? Just because you didn't pay yourself doesn't mean that's not a dev cost.

Re:Liars, damn liars, and made up figures.

[artfulshrapnel]

£10,000 is actually pretty reasonable. Assuming he's got... say... two programmers on staff, and they're good enough to demand industry standard wages? That's about 1-2 months of development and debugging, plus the costs of dev kits, testers, and software licenses.

As near as I can tell, the big issue is that RT can't run the object oriented code favored by Android and iOS. Result is that large portions of any program would have to be completely refactored instead of simply converted and debugged.

Re:Liars, damn liars, and made up figures.

[yoshi_mon]

Replying to all the posts here on this subject. I will stand corrected. Given that it was just a port to me the number seemed very high. However in light of the fact that they had to port to not only another platform but in effect a whole other style of programming I can accept the fact that there was more than just tweaks that had to be done.

That being said those that want to factor in the dev kit costs...no not buying that argument. And or licensing costs...eh I suppose it is possible that they were not smart enough to buy outright whatever assets (artwork/sound) their games would be using. However that strikes me as unlikely.

Still again I will mea culpa this one. It just struck me as such a glib round figure for a port.

Re:Liars, damn liars, and made up figures.

[shutdown -p now]

As near as I can tell, the big issue is that RT can't run the object oriented code favored by Android and iOS.

Can you explain what you mean by "can't run object oriented code"? You can target WinRT from both C#/VB and C++, all object-oriented languages, and all APIs are themselves object-oriented.

Re:Liars, damn liars, and made up figures.

[shutdown -p now]

It can, however, run vanilla C or C++ code, and if they already have their app ported to both iOS and Android, the bulk of it should be that.

The bigger difference is that they'd have to port the graphics engine from OpenGL ES to Direct3D.

Re:Liars, damn liars, and made up figures.

[Kergan]

You do know, that since Windows RT can't run Android java code, or iPhone objective C code, they most likely had to rewrite large parts of the game.

I Think that 10.000£ development sounds low, considering it is a game which have sold over 100.000 units on Android.

That's true for iOS to Java, but I doubt it's true for iOS to Win RT. In most iOS game, you're doing C++ code and wrapping it in Obj-C. Porting to Java means porting C++ to Java. I'm honestly unfamiliar with recent Windows APIs, but I wouldn't be surprised the slightest if porting to Win RT merely meant changing the Obj-C wrappers into C# wrappers for the C++ code, and dealing with the couple of hardware or driver related bugs that showed their ugly face in the process. The 10k pounds figure doesn't seem unreasonable at all; if anything, seems high.

Re:Liars, damn liars, and made up figures.

[flimflammer]

The original post he made mentions one guy doing the entire port. So that 10k was for one person.

Re:Liars, damn liars, and made up figures.

[cbhacking]

Dev kit is free.
If they don't already have VS, there are free versions which can use the dev kit;
If they don't already have Win8, that's $40/seat for the Pro edition.

Testing, specifically testing on a Windows RT device, is probably the biggest cost, at perhaps $500 (baseline Surface). The rest of the costs are almost negligible, aside from developer time.

That said, 2 man-months could cost the dev 10k pounds (especially if you include things like benefits in that computation) but why the hell would it take that long? Coding to WinRT is not hard. I assume their game logic was already in C/C++ (for the Android version; they probably weren't using Dalvik) so it's a matter of rewriting the graphics stack to use DirectX, mostly. That *could* take two man-months but seems unlikely to (although I say that without having a good feel for the game's graphics).

Dance with the Devil

[hduff]

And you'll pay the fiddler.

Re:Windows RT is not a gaming platform

[cbhacking]

Compared to early iPads and most Android tablets, the Tegra 3 is a perfectly good CPU and GPU. Quite a few Android tablets are using them as well, actually. Sure, it's not going to compare favorably to desktop or even gaming laptop hardware, but it will knock the socks off of smartphones.

Dealing with MSFT

[feddas]

It's good to see this happens to people other than Indie developers. Working with Microsoft to figure out how the promotion of Apps in the app store works is not easy. Microsoft makes the process difficult. I waited up to full month for an exclusive Windows Phone game I made, BouncyLasers, to go from submitted to approved on the market. I tried to join multiple Microsoft sponsored marketing campaigns with no feedback other than "your app has been submitted to the campaign". Sure my app isn't too impressive as I'm the single dev, but some more help from Microsoft on how their featuring in the Market process works or what to expect from submitting to one of their campaigns is badly needed.

iPad and the consoles have BIOS DRM too

[tepples]

I still think RT will be a failure because BIOS DRM is asinine.

iPad and the major video game consoles have BIOS DRM too and they haven't failed in the market. What distinguishes Windows RT devices from iPad and the consoles that will make Windows RT devices fail?

Why didn't he work with Microsoft FIRST?

[boethius]

I mean, perhaps he tried to, but it doesn't really sound like it. He moans and complains on a public forum then of course MSFT has to respond yet it's quite possible they were willing to help all along. You don't have to like MSFT and they have a huge, huge uphill battle against Android and iOS but they do have very good developer relationships.

Re:Why didn't he work with Microsoft FIRST?

[Urkki]

I'd say it's either a publicity stunt, or just getting pissed off and blowing some steam before thinking it through. First would be pretty shrewd, not to mention risky when going against something like M$. The latter would indicate serious lack of business sense, and need for some introspectiong, and perhaps some new public announcement rules for the company.

Re:Why didn't he work with Microsoft FIRST?

[gbjbaanb]

no, they *used* to have good developer relationships, but they appear to be blowing that away for the new stuff - you pay them to develop for the platform, and then you pay them for every sale you make, and you have to jump through hoops to get onto the platform in the first place - its no wonder they have little respect for developers anymore, we're not value-adding partners.. we're cows to be milked,

The Internet Forgets Nothing

[Anonymous Coward]

Posted as AC to avoid the lawyers, but here's the original before Microsoft threw buckets of money at him to avoid the bad press (or whatever happened):

Anyone who caught my previous post might already know that we recently released Great Big War Game onto Windows RT. If youâ(TM)re one of the teeny tiny crowd of people who just bought one of these devices, you can find one of the very small number of âoeproperâ games right here: http://apps.microsoft.com/webpdp/app/great-big-war-game/30f26b23-aa92-4fed-9273-099de3069616

A week after release we have made the princely sum of £52 in sales. Thatâ(TM)s not a typo. And despite this, and the fact that GBWG is one of only several halfway decent launch titles, Microsoft have confirmed they will not give us any promotional features or help us with visibility in any way.

If youâ(TM)re familiar with their new store, this means our app is forever consigned to the garbage bin, presumably earning us less than £52 a week in future. Even if that rate is sustained, it will take just under two years before we recoup the salary paid to the guy who did the port.

Apple regularly promote our apps. Android regularly promote our apps. Even RIM (Blackberry) regularly promote our apps. We enjoy working with those companies and itâ(TM)s nice to see them acknowledge that we bring them some small amount of additional value to their setup. Firms our size need a bit of a leg up, and we go out of our way to show our gratitude to the above for helping us out in this way from time to time.

Microsoft on the other hand clearly do not value us at all. Even whilst thereâ(TM)s almost nothing to promote, they will not feature our title for bizarre admin reasons. And this is whilst their store is empty and they need developers like us to fill their store far more than developers like us need them to pay us £50 a week.

Needless to say we will not be working with Microsoft again to bring any of our titles, old or new, to this platform. A snub is never a nice thing to receive, but when itâ(TM)s from someone who needs you more than you need them, itâ(TM)s doubly insulting. And itâ(TM)s not like weâ(TM)re cutting off our nose to spite our face â" even small indies can live without an additional £52 a week.

If other developers get this treatment, that store is going to look might bleak for a long time to come. Please take this as a warning. I know I sound bitter and twisted and thereâ(TM)s a reason for that â" I actually am. We have wasted a lot of time, resources and money on supporting this platform and all that happened was we got spat on.

If youâ(TM)re not familiar with Great Big War Game, hereâ(TM)s some reviews. Not many indie titles get accolades like this: http://www.rubicondev.com/gbwg/reviews.php and certainly none that youâ(TM)d expect a major platform holder to shun.

I hope this thing falls flat on itâ(TM)s face, but I do hope they donâ(TM)t take other developers down with them. We are fortunate enough to able to suck up the £6,000 it cost to do this port and move on, but other outfits may well not. Donâ(TM)t be one of them.

Or people are willing to pay more

[aepervius]

Maybe there is less concurrence, and people are willing to pay more for app, and 5-7$ is the right price points. I recall a long time ago that some of the apple app were highly priced by maybe my memory is bad.

To recover $649 plus $99 per year perhaps?

[tepples]

Perhaps a lot of applications that would be free on Google Play Store cost $0.99 or $1.99 on Apple's App Store to recover Apple's higher developer cost. These include $649 to replace the PC that a developer already owns with one of Apple's computers and a recurring fee of $99 per year.

What about Android/iOS First Week?

[Golddess]

Anyone happen to know what the first week sales were for the Android and iOS versions? TFA seems to be lacking in this detail.

Re:Not surprised

[mcgrew]

Microsoft is floundering something big.

Well, of course they are. They're stuck in the 1990s when they had that monopoly and didn't have to deliver quality. Now, they can't, and it's biting them in the ass.

That's A Lot

[jareth780]

Hey, in India that's like $20,000. Why don't they just outsource it?

Re:Since when are developers entitled to customers

[Kergan]

Maybe -- just maybe -- you're merely grown accustomed to catering to a tiny user base of paying customers, but he isn't. :-)

It's a numbers game, really. A 0.01% market penetration per month on iOS, for instance, means roughly 40k new paying customers. 0.01% of the 500k WinRT at the same price point is, in contrast, only a few notches above zero.

Re:Windows RT is not a gaming platform

[admdrew]

In order to play a game you need a decent CPU and graphics card

A lot of traditional PC games, sure, but not games designed specifically for the mobile market.

Ballmer

[koan]

is fail.

Re:Windows RT is not a gaming platform

[Kergan]

In order to play a game you need a decent CPU and graphics card

Imho, four decades of game development prove you wrong, again and again. Many of the very best games that came out during that time span had little to no need for a decent CPU or graphics card. Only remakes and rehashes did. Think Pac-Man, Breakout, M.U.L.E., Elite, Donkey Kong, Mario, Mario Cart, Gauntlet, Dungeon Master, The Bard's Tale, Wasteland, King's Quest, Leisure Suit Larry, Sim City, Civilization, Master of Orion, Lemmings, WarCraft, and so many others... This being a matter of taste, there are many great games I'd fail to mention that others would argue should make it into this list.

The point is, most of these games had little to no needs for out of the ordinary CPU or GPU performance; rather, they introduced something new and original to the game play, or outclassed precursors in many ways. Each are landmarks. When these games needed strong GPUs, it was chiefly due to the development team being perfectionist in their time and figured that by the time they released gamers would have more powerful PCs anyway -- nothing else. In the latter cases, the game would have worked just as well with not-as-good graphics or sounds, and you'll encounter many an old-time gamer who will argue that games -- RPG and TBS in particular -- went downhill just around the time that graphics and sounds became more important than game play. I'd place this somewhere in the mid-90s; we've been eating dog food since then, with very few exceptions.

There arguably were a few interesting projects on Kickstarter of late, which will hopefully reshuffle the whole industry and turn it upside down. But I'm not crossing my fingers. The truth is that today's mass-market gamers have very different expectations from yesterday's gamers, and as much as it's fun to periodically crack Cut the Rope puzzles or help your kid crack one, it's nothing like the thrill you could get from playing M.U.L.E. or Lords of Conquest with your family.

Re:Since when are developers entitled to customers

[Kergan]

So what you're saying is he stupidly set his sights and expectations too high.

Nope... Merely pointing out, for all intents and purposes, that (paying) RT customers are even fewer and farther in between than (paying) Linux customers. And that there are greener fields out there if you want to actually make money.

Tough call

[Anonymous Coward]

It must have been a tough call deciding if it was piracy or bad OS that was the cause of loss sales.

Free market capitalism

[Legion303]

Suck it up, pussy. Unless there's a contract stating otherwise, MS doesn't have to promote shit. And if there is, why are you whining about it in public instead of in a courtroom? Maybe you should have done your homework before spending 10K pounds on a port.