Why are people that make Windows applications so reluctant to put them on the Windows store?

Why are people that make Windows applications so reluctant to put them on the Windows store?

sage for windows

Gee, I don't know

Who in their right mind does (((Windows))) applications? (unless it's crossplatform)

Major companies that do business applications

Objection: Steam exists

Is this a fluke, a sign of the future, or are game devs just naturally more cucked?

delet this

...

the majority of the population not making Android applications?

Because there is no real incentive, no real benefits. GNU/Linux needs software repos because GNU/Linux programs aren't as ubiquitous as Windows applications. It was done out of necessity over convenience

Rebuttal: The Steam store has a superior marketing strategy compared to the Windows store.

If you ask any normalfag in your engineering department about steam, these would be the things that come out of his mouth:

1. Frequent Sales
2. Friend connection feature
3. Community Trading Gambling
4. Huge Library managed by its own developers
5. Frequent Sales

In addition, Valve isn't directly promoting a walled garden tied to an operating system. Their walled garden can be installed on Windows, Linux-32, and OSX. In fact, multiple OS support was created as a response to a Microsoft Store walled garden. Valve is also promoting Vulkan, OpenGL, and their directx-to-opengl wrapper. Keep in mind, Gaben was/is a Microsoft millionaire.


Ask them about Windows Store, and they can't give you a reason. They might say

1. Fake Apps
2. Phone tier quality
3. There are better places to get software.


I'll give you a very good reason: They are taught to do Microsoft solutions since basic school, and do not consider any other solution. To make matters worse, we have Indians teaching undergrad technology courses. The universal Indian mindset is that their way is only way, every other way is wrong. They have a huge confirmation bias, and when something appears not to work, they will shriek at you.

its DRM, its got walls by definition

Steam worked because it provided a benefit over what we had before. No more having to use download managers to handle large and unstable downloads, having to have at least double the space necessary free, unpacking an exe that installs a set of files with a setup.exe, manually patching the frequent and mandatory patches of online games, shitty uninstallers that delete your whole games directory, dealing with installing DirectX in a separate window every fucking time, having to keep a dozen CDs on your desktop so you can "insert disk 1" for copy protection, having to keep backups in physical media which is just seen as clutter once you've passed childhood, etc..

With the Windows Store, it mostly just gets in the way and is a shitty experience. The problem is Microsoft has replaced most of its white people with Pajeets and they aren't bothered by the shitty experience as they're used to being literally surrounded by shit. Microsoft prided itself on doing 'dog fooding' but you need to have people that mind eating dog food for that to work

In other words, the (at least early on, somewhat sincere) veneer of consumer-friendliness compared to every other option.

Do developers or normalfag gaymers really care about this, aside from a handful of open sores autists? From a statistical standpoint, impact of this on Steam remains a token effort.


But all that inconvenience is still the case for normal Windows applications, some kind of centralized, unified updater service. seems to make a good argument as to why it happened on Linux (although none of them actually support payment of any kind), as just the sheer difficulty of downloading, configuring, and installing everything otherwise.

If I were to think of a reason why, it has less to do with walled gardens specifically, and more to do with exorbitant revenue sharing and draconian design/submission demands… But a partial counterpoint there, aside from Steam, is Apple's Mac App Store. I think that only got through as far as it did because of phone users and phone devs priming the pump with people who never used normal software, thus creating an incentive to attract some more desperate normal devs.

I guess this doesn't apply to Microsoft specifically because nearly all of their users are inherited from PCs, so they know better.

UWP is the source of some controversy.

Doesn't it have to run on .NET which would require a rewrite in C#/Victoria Bitter?

They dropped that requirement, but there are still countless architectural restrictions regarding permission, API, and hardware access.

steam worked because you had to use it in order to play one of the most popular games of that decade. that was the only reason anyone even had it between 2003-2007.

Windows store has zero purpose.
Nobody puts stuff on marketplace because there is no reason.
List an item, Microsoft takes your cut.
List it on your own site, you get all of it.

Daily reminder steam is literally killing gaming.
Valve is just a marketplace operator at this point, I'm surprised they don't have more legal issues with the whole CS:GO stuff and marketplace potentially being manipulated by Russian mafia. They are a shady company, contrary to popular belief, just like Nintendo.

Yes and? Steam isn't an entire OS. You can use any game store you want on your OS still. Your point is pointless.


This. Only reason I got steam was because one day I went to join a CS game through gamespy and I couldn't. I had to get steam in order to play CS again.

Steam is not DRM, it's distribution. If you released a game tomorrow on Steam and you didn't want it to have DRM, I could purchase it, download it, stick it on a thumbdrive and install it on a dozen, airgapped, LAN machines and have a LAN party.

If you did want DRM, however, they're not going to tell you that you can't. If you don't have your own to use, you can use Steamworks, which is DRM.

But >96% of Steam users are on Windows, and 75% of the game store market is monopolized by Steam (especially since much of the rest are either single-publisher private services, or use Steam for DRM and other services. In light of this, Steam might as well be an entire OS, the only one so far as gaming is concerned.

I'm gonna point out the obvious and mention SteamOS. It's far from perfect, but it's better than Windows in nearly every way, and if it gets built up to a market dominant position (of OSes) we'd be in an entirely better spot than now. Of all things SteamOS would rely on, really only the browser (Steam client), VAC, and the games themselves would remain completely proprietary. I'm okay with that and I think it's a step in the right direction.

As an aside, I think Steam doesn't release the source for their browser because it's an embarrassing mess.

The browser for steam is chromium....

The client will never be open source because you could break drm from major games which valve needs to make the publishers happy.

Again, Steamworks is separate from the client. I'm pretty sure it's server-side.

Open source wouldn't actually prevent DRM any more than it makes Linux servers cryptographically insecure.

Except it's not because you can still use what ever store you want. Microsoft would lock down windows like that in the future.


SteamOS is a failure.

Let me guess, because you're not using it on your desktop?

Vulkan is hardly implemented in any games yet, which is meant to be a core component of SteamOS and a requirement in order to break-up Microsoft's market dominance in gaming. Moreover, SteamOS is fresh out of beta and doesn't work on much hardware yet, so you're speaking well too soon.

If Valve wanted SteamOS and Steam Machines to succeed, they should've struck at the nadir of the 7th console gen circa 2010, any rushed attempts at 8th gen would've been caught with their pants down, and the console industry would've been financially annihilated. I can't believe it's been this long and the entire "platform" is still beta quality.

Steam games work while offline, so I doubt it's server-side.

Steamworks is optional DRM
Valve historically has encouraged publishers not to use it
It's a little more murky now in the past few years, considering a lot of the steam integration, but Steam is mostly just a distribution platform for games that aren't AAA, that offers optional DRM for publishers.

I know, I already said that:

If it has SteamWorks or other DRM it does not work offline. Hence my rationale in suggesting that the DRM check is server-side. Certain games will check with Steam/third-party servers first.

suggested that the client was something more than just Chromium, when it really isn't. All it does is display HTML from Steam servers, the client itself is not or does not have DRM. They could release the source code, but I'm guessing the source is an embarrassing mess.

Whenever I see Vile Gates' ugly mug, I feel like stabbing it. What a repulsive, immoral, sickening excuse of a human being.