Slashdot Mirror
Windows 10's Store Locks 'Call of Duty' Purchasers Into Windows-10-Only Battles (vice.com)
An anonymous reader writes:
Two Call of Duty games have been remastered for Windows 10, but if you buy them through the Windows 10 Store there's a problem. "Windows 10 Store players will be isolated from other PC versions of the game," reports the Windows Central site, noting a statement from Microsoft which implies that the decision was made by Activision.
"For unknown reasons, Windows 10 Store customers are segregated from customers who bought the game from Steam, which is by far the most popular platform on PC," reports Motherboard. "Call of Duty fans who made the unfortunate of mistake of giving Microsoft their cash are left sitting in lonely multiplayer lobbies waiting for games that'll never start."
Motherboard reports that at least one player successfully requested a refund, calling the situation "another black eye for a digital storefront that PC gamers already avoid like the plague."
"For unknown reasons, Windows 10 Store customers are segregated from customers who bought the game from Steam, which is by far the most popular platform on PC," reports Motherboard. "Call of Duty fans who made the unfortunate of mistake of giving Microsoft their cash are left sitting in lonely multiplayer lobbies waiting for games that'll never start."
Motherboard reports that at least one player successfully requested a refund, calling the situation "another black eye for a digital storefront that PC gamers already avoid like the plague."
Can go FUCK itself.
... is to get all of our games on all platforms.
The developers simply need to allow for this to happen.
There's nothing stopping developers from doing this now. The a couple of reasons it doesn't happen though. One is because multiple large developers all want their own ecosystem for digital downloads. That in itself is good since it helps with the cost of the games in the end, and in most cases leads to significant discounts. See the 20% off or more on titles from places like Greenmangaming, Gamersgate or Gamesrepublic vs say Steam, Origin or Ubi's thingy. Now getting all games on all platforms? More difficult, since developing for multiple platforms becomes expensive. Especially since consoles require a "buy-in" to develop on and for every patch they require you to pay for certification of said patch. Something that doesn't exist on PC's. Steam, Origin or Ubi's, etc., storefronts all take a cut but that's a one-time cut for each sale. Unless it's sold through a 3rd party/authorized reseller. The whole buy-in/patch certification stuff is something that can add a huge amount of cost to a developer, and for small developers failing on a single platform in terms of sales can be enough to cause them to fail financially. You might be able to float $150-450k+cut of each game sold on one console, on 3 consoles? Nope.
Om, nomnomnom...
If you paid for a PC game, and *DON'T* have a disc in your hand as a result, then you are just a plain old sucker. The app store model only works for smartphones, but PC owners DEMAND more. Tell these companies that you won't stand for crappy practices and limited availability. Tell them by not giving Microsoft's store ONE RED CENT!
I disagree. My use of Steam over the last 7? 8? years has been nothing but a pleasure.
The only downside I've ever had with Steam is that it lets me easily buy games from Sid Meiers, which for me are like a life-ruining crack addiction.
The people that continue to support Microsoft's grip on gaming are finally getting what they are supporting: quarantine.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
The app store model only works for smartphones, but PC owners DEMAND more.
Incorrect. Physical sales for PC games have been dead for years. Even if you buy a boxed copy of a game, it will probably just have a Steam code inside. Among developers who release their games for other platforms, it's still common for >90% of a game's sales to be through Steam.
And honestly, it's better that way. I don't need boxes and DVD cases cluttering up my house when I'm going to use them exactly once and then put them away for a few years until the next time I get a new computer and need to reinstall them. Not to mention that it's easy to lose or damage a disc, and for older games it can be very difficult to track down a physical copy that somebody's willing to sell.
Karma: Terrifying (mostly affected by atrocities you've committed)
Getting all games on all platforms is not feasible, no.
But why the flying hell can't the SAME GAME on PS4, XB1, Windows Store and Steam just ... just play TOGETHER?
FF14 has managed to do it, although I'm told Sony really didn't like the idea - but they have PS3, PS4 and PC players on the same servers. They then have OTHER problems if you want to, say, migrate your standalone PC account to Steam, but that's a whole other can of worms.
-=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
Well, how IS the 1990's? Because that's the last time you could reasonably work that way.
And I have to say, much as I dislike the concept, Steam has been flawless for 13+ years for me and I don't buy games any other way any more.
I do claim my games on all platforms (e.g. GOG Connect, Origin etc.) when they allow or I have extra keys from bundles, just to spread them out and give me a game if Steam should ever be down. But I have 1000+ games on Steam and I can't see me stopping absent serious problems.
By comparison, I've never even looked in the Windows Store, I just disable it on all machines (work ones that I manage, and personal) and all my Games For Windows Live games have been retired or stopped working properly. Same for GameSpy and others.
I realise the limitation and I'd love every game to be DRM-free but it's just not practical in this day and age. Steam is the best compromise there is, and it shows.
But the last time a disc touched my PC? Years ago. They're all sitting upstairs and I *re-bought* most of the games I was keeping the discs for on online downloads (like Steam or GOG) just for the convenience factor. I'm probably never going to put those boxed games anywhere ever again and a lot of them are hard to get working nowadays anyway.
So your sentiment is so misguided. Sure, ideally, it would work like that. But it doesn't. That's the simple fact of the matter. And you're 13 years too late to change that. Kids these days don't even understand the concept of a machine that's not on the Internet, programs that don't just download and install at the touch of a button, or things like serial keys. They literally were born AFTER that stuff was dead.
And good luck buying a laptop with a CD drive nowadays, or one with an OS that lets your old games run without you having to do anything.
One is because multiple large developers all want their own ecosystem for digital downloads. That in itself is good since it helps with the cost of the games in the end, and in most cases leads to significant discounts.
OK, your UID is too low to be an astroturf account, so, seriously, you're advocating a distribution monopoly as the key to low prices? Really?
See the 20% off or more on titles from places like Greenmangaming, Gamersgate or Gamesrepublic vs say Steam, Origin or Ubi's thingy
Wait, maybe you worded the first quote wrong or something? Origin is EA's "own ecosystem for digital downloads" and unsurprisingly isn't big on discounts. Steam OTOH is famous for "80% off" sales for older games. I have hundreds of Steam games, lots of them big-budget titles, but my average purchase price is well under $10.
Now getting all games on all platforms? More difficult, since developing for multiple platforms becomes expensive. Especially since consoles require a "buy-in" to develop on and for every patch they require you to pay for certification of said patch
Overlap between console peasant gaming and PC overlords isn't necessarily good for game quality, and mobile gaming is the same deal - three different worlds with three different ideals for good UI and good gameplay.
OTOH, making all "PC games" available for Windows, Mac, and Linux is certainly worthwhile. Smaller devs might not be able to afford to test everything thoroughly on three platforms and be wiling to stand behind it, but that's what value-added distributers like GOG could come in. GOG, for the old games they sell, does the work to make DOS and early Windows games work well on modern Windows (and they're starting to do that for Mac, but again for old games). There's certainly room for a Mac-specific GOG-like, that makes indie games run flawlessly on Mac for a larger cut. Ditto Linux. For an indie dev, that's still more money coming in than not being on that platform at all.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
windows store locks out mods and other stuff that you get with non sandboxed steam and gog games.
It doesn't work in some genres, especially for PvP.
Let's take Overwatch, for example. PS4 and XBOX gamers, using a game controller, are at a significant disadvantage as compared to mouse/keyboard. For instance, Torbjiorn got a nerf on consoles, but not on PC, because people can track and aim more quickly on PC, negating his advantage there. So you may not want to matchmaker those people together, as the PC gamers will, on average, own the console gamers.
But for Windows Store and Steam not getting matched together? Yeah, that's insanity.
-=Lothsahn=-
Speshual Olympusch for you then.
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
Because PC players would simply curbstomp console players all the time.
A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
If anything to prevent Microsoft from getting more power and making Windows 10 worse and more closed.
In general it's better for power to be distributed among several companies instead of having a few have a lot of power. When software companies do we all know they'll try to lock you into their ecosystems. So in this case I prefer Steam has the majority of gamers into their store instead of Microsoft.
They already have a lot of power over games with Windows and Xbox and if they were to get more they'd only get worse.
Also I must admit I'm mad at Microsoft for what they've turned Windows into
Stories like these just makes me depressed and realizing that we have a world worse than what's depicted in Max Headroom.
I think that both Aldous Huxley and George Orwell underestimated what we would come to.
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
Nothing from MSFT or UWP, technically or licensing wise prevents cross platform.
This was a decision by Activision.
That's retarded.
Ezekiel 23:20
No one will use UWP for serious 3D games - Angry Birds, sure. CoD, never.
We tried to make a cross-platform video streaming app with it and it took 6-8 months longer than expected (mostly due to Microsoft bugs and limitations, as you said) and in the end STILL didn't actually work properly on most "Windows 10" devices. We couldn't even get it to work properly on all Windows 10 Surface Pro tablets and PCs (let alone non-x86 tablets and phones). Made Android platform fragmentation seem simple in comparison.
If you paid for a PC game, and *DON'T* have a disc in your hand as a result, then you are just a plain old sucker.
Just because you have a disc doesn't mean you own anything, in fact you license the software and that's the way it has worked for decades. So if you think there's a difference between having the game on a physical disc or downloaded to your hard drive then you haven't been paying attention.
The app store model only works for smartphones, but PC owners DEMAND more.
No they don't, the runaway success of platforms like Steam PROVES that.
And PC players have options for outside-game chat and voice programs that let teams coordinate or stealthily share info better.
When I was a kid that was called a TELEPHONE. I agree with the rest of what you said, but please don't make it sound like console players have exactly zero options for voice communication.
-=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
Yeah, I played with a guy in FFXIV who played on console. He set up his laptop next to his TV so he could join Teamspeak with us.
Because, as was warned many years ago, M$ is on the path of turning a PC you buy and then buy windows anal probe 10 and install it on there into a XBone and you will be boned, paying double digit licence fees on top of the invasion of privacy for any software that runs on top of Windows (don't forget they can not un-install any software on you computer with each compulsory upgrade, you agreed to it). They are actively working towards blocking software and content that has not paid a windows licence fee, manage to get around the block, no problem next compulsory upgrade they will fix that for you. Windows 10 is FUBAR as a end user operating system.
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
I still see no functional difference what so ever. Both options in your example are identical.
Publisher takes the servers offline?
Then no you can't download the software from them anymore.
If you have a copy of the downloaded software, you can't activate it because the servers are down, and it is useless.
If you have a copy of the software on disc, you can't activate it because the servers are down, and it is useless.
They look functionally the same to me so far.
In order to get either copy to work, you have to modify the software in a way deemed illegal to do.
But legality aside let's say we go down that path.
I can go to the pirate bay and download the patch to modify the software to run without activation.
That patch will apply to the software you have on disk.
That same patch will apply to the software from the download servers, which will be on the pirate bay included with the patch.
In both cases the software would then work. Again they look functionally the same to me so far.
The only real difference is if you refuse to download anything, including the modification to patch the software to work.
In THAT case, my downloaded software can be fixed with the downloaded patch and will work.
Your software on disk will still require that patch to work, which you refuse to download.
Downloaded version works, disk version does not.
In any realistic situation both versions of the same bits are identical.
Only in an idealistic world where you never download anything is your method of having the software on disk worse off in the end and leave you with non-functional software.
Even at the most basic telemetry level in Windows 10 home or Pro, Microsoft still sees a list of all applications and device drivers installed on a machine, as well as the IMEI of the aircard if one is installed. This information can be used to incriminate a user if a prosecutor or civil plaintiff gets a judge to approve a subpoena for it. If you want, I can describe more specific hypothetical cases that could arise.
Just because you have a disc doesn't mean you own anything, in fact you license the software and that's the way it has worked for decades.
No, no no. That is the paradigm that they want you to believe. I have never believed it for an instant. If I give you money to use something, *I* get to choose how I use it. This "licensing" bullshit is just that, bullshit. Nobody gets to dictate to me how I use something.
Does that mean that I break software that tries to enforce some sort of licensing scheme? Certainly. Do I care if it what I am doing is considered illegal? Not at all. Fuck everyone who thinks they can control me. I am free and independent. I will do what I want. Go ahead society, cage me. I have already won more than you can take. Take your "licensing" paradigm and shove it where the sun does not shine.
"Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen