• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

The real price of windows 10?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

BSim500

Golden Member
Jun 5, 2013
1,480
214
106
Most of this is just ill will towards MS as a company with zero basis in fact.
After MS's previous history of DRM-saturated failed store attempts (GFWL, Zune Marketplace, etc) combined with their general unhealthy "pushiness" over Win 10 (a Windows Store billboard with an OS tacked on), combined with a long history of leaked "internal long-term understandings" (Halloween Documents, Embrace, extend and extinguish, etc) towards any perceived competition whilst grinning the contrary through gritted teeth in public PR statements, can you seriously blame people for being even a little suspicious towards "Take our free OS and buy all your games from our ultra narrow distribution channel and don't worry about potential strings attached a few years down the line because unlike the past, the only thing on our minds now is 100% honest competition with Google/Apple/Steam after starting 5 years too late" sales pitch? :sneaky:

For those of us who've been using MS products since MS-DOS 2.0 on ye olde 286's, a healthy suspicion / cynicism of long-term intent after observing 30 years of decidedly "mixed" behavior is a far more sane default position than either genuine irrational "M$ H8" at one end or blind naive "they wouldn't dare do that!" fanboyism on the other. ;)
 

Anteaus

Platinum Member
Oct 28, 2010
2,448
4
81
So, (one of) the downside(s) of UWP is that the developer must share profit with MS when selling through the Windows store. This is SUPER bad. BUT, sharing profit with Valve when selling through their store is OK.
It isn't bad that MS wants to share in the profits. No one has a problem with that. If MS simply set up a store and started selling software no one would care. This isn't that.

The steps that MS has taken lately trend in a direction where MS will eventually funnel all software through UWP, thus getting a cut of everything and controlling how software must be developed. Since MS has announced the end of the Windows line and is moving toward "Windows as a service," logic dictates that they must replace those billions in revenue. Windows as a service is another way of saying it will be in the style of XBL, PSN, itunes, etc. where Windows will become a more closed community.

I digress though. It remains to be seen what MS plans in the long run.
 

sweenish

Diamond Member
May 21, 2013
3,656
60
91
He is not overreacting.
Yeah, he is.

What he wants is everyone to use their launcher, not Valve's, not MS's, not anyone else's. Paragon is coming out soon, and he's just rustling jimmies so that maybe their me-too MOBA will blip on the radar by having Epic being in the news more often.

Why should MS be getting a cut when Epic can have the whole pie through their own launcher?

It's the same reason EA left Steam and why Gabe decided to make his own OS. They don't want to share. It's as simple as that. But once again, "gamers" take this nothing and blow it up until no one can actually have a decent discussion about it anymore, because screw the amazing effort in a buy-once, use-on-whatever platform, it's MS. We just hate whatever they do by default.

Obviously it was a mis-step to release games to the store while the platform is still [overly, for PC games] locked down. But the no SLI/Crossfire is a developer problem, not on the UWP. And they've said that they're working on the other stuff like borderless full screen window being the only option (even if it's only been a problem recently, I remember when people preferred that mode). I know they've burnt consumers on PC gaming before, I was one of them. But at least let it manifest itself as a failure before you declare it so. There are what, two games right now? Let's not pretend that Steam was a bastion of light when it first launched. MS should at least be given the same window to fix things.

The steps that MS has taken lately trend in a direction where MS will eventually funnel all software through UWP, thus getting a cut of everything and controlling how software must be developed. Since MS has announced the end of the Windows line and is moving toward "Windows as a service," logic dictates that they must replace those billions in revenue. Windows as a service is another way of saying it will be in the style of XBL, PSN, itunes, etc. where Windows will become a more closed community.
What steps?

And is it seriously believed that MS will suddenly stop making all money from their OS? Is that really a thing that people are thinking? They would just up and kill their main source of revenue in the HOPE that their store proves successful? Even with their renewed focus on consumers, MS isn't consumer-focused. Their bankroll is in enterprise, and I have heard nothing about them funneling everything through the store. It's all baseless conjecture.
 
Last edited:

Sabrewings

Golden Member
Jun 27, 2015
1,942
35
51
Microsoft is not giving up on OS sales. Most of their sales are through OEMs which will continue. Another huge chunk is enterprise sales. The market of home builders or smaller OEMs who might try to reuse a key on another machine is small. And, if you took the free upgrade from Win7, it's tied to your current hardware so your next big build is another key sold.

They're going to be making plenty.
 

ImpulsE69

Lifer
Jan 8, 2010
14,793
825
126
Yeah, he is.

What he wants is everyone to use their launcher, not Valve's, not MS's, not anyone else's. Paragon is coming out soon, and he's just rustling jimmies so that maybe their me-too MOBA will blip on the radar by having Epic being in the news more often.

Why should MS be getting a cut when Epic can have the whole pie through their own launcher?

It's the same reason EA left Steam and why Gabe decided to make his own OS. They don't want to share. It's as simple as that. But once again, "gamers" take this nothing and blow it up until no one can actually have a decent discussion about it anymore, because screw the amazing effort in a buy-once, use-on-whatever platform, it's MS. We just hate whatever they do by default.

Obviously it was a mis-step to release games to the store while the platform is still [overly, for PC games] locked down. But the no SLI/Crossfire is a developer problem, not on the UWP. And they've said that they're working on the other stuff like borderless full screen window being the only option (even if it's only been a problem recently, I remember when people preferred that mode). I know they've burnt consumers on PC gaming before, I was one of them. But at least let it manifest itself as a failure before you declare it so. There are what, two games right now? Let's not pretend that Steam was a bastion of light when it first launched. MS should at least be given the same window to fix things.



What steps?

And is it seriously believed that MS will suddenly stop making all money from their OS? Is that really a thing that people are thinking? They would just up and kill their main source of revenue in the HOPE that their store proves successful? Even with their renewed focus on consumers, MS isn't consumer-focused. Their bankroll is in enterprise, and I have heard nothing about them funneling everything through the store. It's all baseless conjecture.
You make a bunch of assumptions based on 'history' to base your case on, yet conveniently disregard known history of actions and missteps of a companies. Yea, makes sense. No one is 'out to get MS', but MS is not your friend. It's the same reason I avoid Apple. They are trying to take choice away. While there may be some merit to some over arching goal, they obviously don't know how to do it in a manner (after all these years) that doesn't make people scratch their heads and wonder what they are really up to. What made Windows good WAS it's flexibility (matter of opinion, but you have to understand the point, or this isn't even an intelligent discussion). Taking that away should be looked down upon. You want locked down play with your phones, tablets and Apples.

It's not about not wanting change, and it's not a witchhunt. They are horrible with PR, have a history of anti-consumer decisions, and their motives should be questioned. Question everything.
 
Last edited:
Aug 11, 2008
10,451
641
126
Why should they get money from other developers. They are getting money from the OS, this has been fine for them for 30 years. Now they are getting greedy on the app store side of things. Screw that.
Yea, I agree. I think there is also a big danger that programs/functionality that used to be part of Windows now becomes some app that you have to download from the Windows Store. The best part of Windows has always been the built-in functionality. Dont need an app for this, an app for that, etc. I think there is real danger of losing that.
 

sweenish

Diamond Member
May 21, 2013
3,656
60
91
You make a bunch of assumptions based on 'history' to base your case on, yet conveniently disregard known history of actions and missteps of a companies. Yea, makes sense. No one is 'out to get MS', but MS is not your friend. It's the same reason I avoid Apple. They are trying to take choice away. While there may be some merit to some over arching goal, they obviously don't know how to do it in a manner (after all these years) that doesn't make people scratch their heads and wonder what they are really up to. What made Windows good WAS it's flexibility (matter of opinion, but you have to understand the point, or this isn't even an intelligent discussion). Taking that away should be looked down upon. You want locked down play with your phones, tablets and Apples.

It's not about not wanting change, and it's not a witchhunt. They are horrible with PR, have a history of anti-consumer decisions, and their motives should be questioned. Question everything.
You skipped the part where I acknowledge they've burnt customers before.
 

Skel

Diamond Member
Apr 11, 2001
6,111
402
136
I'm at the point where I don't think I'll ever understand these arguments. It really seems to come down to some people feeling just because they've been using the OS for so long (at least the Windows platform) that Windows should be treated like public resource and not a IP that a company is using to make money from.
 

BSim500

Golden Member
Jun 5, 2013
1,480
214
106
Yea, I agree. I think there is also a big danger that programs/functionality that used to be part of Windows now becomes some app that you have to download from the Windows Store. The best part of Windows has always been the built-in functionality. Dont need an app for this, an app for that, etc. I think there is real danger of losing that.
We're already there now. The great "$10pa ad-removal rental fee of former $5 ad-free games" dumbing down has begun:-
http://static2.businessinsider.com/image/55b6862b2acae76e098b8fa1-1280-1000/microsoft%20solitaire%20collection%207_27_2015%2012_24_07%20pm.png
 

ImpulsE69

Lifer
Jan 8, 2010
14,793
825
126
I'm at the point where I don't think I'll ever understand these arguments. It really seems to come down to some people feeling just because they've been using the OS for so long (at least the Windows platform) that Windows should be treated like public resource and not a IP that a company is using to make money from.
You make a good point, however Windows really has transcended just an IP to make money from. It is practically a core of world processes now. With that comes a certain responsibility. They made themselves a public resource with all the OEM licenses.

If it is just an IP to make money from, then it is the consumers choice to go to 10 - or whatever version they want and do whatever they want with it, however MS is widdling that choice away from the majority of users. Others being outdated, better, none of that matters and would be the responsibility and CHOICE of the user. Again, the key word being choice.

Capitalism has never been a pretty word. You are right, companies are just out to make money, but exactly how does the world suddenly just stop using Windows? It can't, not overnight.
 

bystander36

Diamond Member
Apr 1, 2013
5,154
132
106
You make a good point, however Windows really has transcended just an IP to make money from. It is practically a core of world processes now. With that comes a certain responsibility. They made themselves a public resource with all the OEM licenses.

If it is just an IP to make money from, then it is the consumers choice to go to 10 - or whatever version they want and do whatever they want with it, however MS is widdling that choice away from the majority of users. Others being outdated, better, none of that matters and would be the responsibility and CHOICE of the user. Again, the key word being choice.

Capitalism has never been a pretty word. You are right, companies are just out to make money, but exactly how does the world suddenly just stop using Windows? It can't, not overnight.
We are not talking about Windows here, but Windows Store. A competitor to Steam, Origins and other distribution sites. Of course they deserve a cut for helping distribute software. And it appears they are also adding a service to make software work for 3 platforms with little work, which I assume is how they plan to make it more attractive than Steam and Origins. It's that last part that may be of worry to Origins and Steam.
 

sxr7171

Diamond Member
Jun 21, 2002
5,079
40
91
We are not talking about Windows here, but Windows Store. A competitor to Steam, Origins and other distribution sites. Of course they deserve a cut for helping distribute software. And it appears they are also adding a service to make software work for 3 platforms with little work, which I assume is how they plan to make it more attractive than Steam and Origins. It's that last part that may be of worry to Origins and Steam.
I don't see how AAA games will run on mobile so I think it's silly to shoehorn those into a platform whose platform is meant to get apps to operate on mobile. There will have to be levels of compatibility and that brings fragmentation. I don't care if it's just a store and a DRM model, that's fine. That's what Steam is. But to change the makeup of these AAA games to fit into something they were never designed to do is pointless.
 

TeknoBug

Platinum Member
Oct 2, 2013
2,083
30
91
I remember the mobile version of Battlefield Bad Company 2, ughhhh should have never happened.
 

bystander36

Diamond Member
Apr 1, 2013
5,154
132
106
I don't see how AAA games will run on mobile so I think it's silly to shoehorn those into a platform whose platform is meant to get apps to operate on mobile. There will have to be levels of compatibility and that brings fragmentation. I don't care if it's just a store and a DRM model, that's fine. That's what Steam is. But to change the makeup of these AAA games to fit into something they were never designed to do is pointless.
I figure the cross-platform features won't be used by AAA games, so it shouldn't be a big issue for us. It's just a new distribution service, and one that will offer cross-platform features for some simple games.
 

ImpulsE69

Lifer
Jan 8, 2010
14,793
825
126
We are not talking about Windows here, but Windows Store. A competitor to Steam, Origins and other distribution sites. Of course they deserve a cut for helping distribute software. And it appears they are also adding a service to make software work for 3 platforms with little work, which I assume is how they plan to make it more attractive than Steam and Origins. It's that last part that may be of worry to Origins and Steam.
The problem is is ISN'T just a store. It is not like Steam or Origin. A store should simply be a place to purchase things and make things easier. That isn't what UWP is.
 

sxr7171

Diamond Member
Jun 21, 2002
5,079
40
91
I figure the cross-platform features won't be used by AAA games, so it shouldn't be a big issue for us. It's just a new distribution service, and one that will offer cross-platform features for some simple games.
Sure but why gimp these games to fit onto a platform not suited for them?
 

Skel

Diamond Member
Apr 11, 2001
6,111
402
136
You make a good point, however Windows really has transcended just an IP to make money from. It is practically a core of world processes now. With that comes a certain responsibility. They made themselves a public resource with all the OEM licenses.

If it is just an IP to make money from, then it is the consumers choice to go to 10 - or whatever version they want and do whatever they want with it, however MS is widdling that choice away from the majority of users. Others being outdated, better, none of that matters and would be the responsibility and CHOICE of the user. Again, the key word being choice.

Capitalism has never been a pretty word. You are right, companies are just out to make money, but exactly how does the world suddenly just stop using Windows? It can't, not overnight.
Thank you for illustrating my point. Linux (which is a option for a computer OS, even if you don't like it) would be more of a public resource as it's created by a group of people for the express purpose of being a public resource. Windows has always been created by people PAID by Microsoft (and massive parts licensed from other people PAID by other companies for the express purpose of making money for those companies)for the express purpose of generating money for Microsoft. There's no such thing as transcending because a bunch of it's users decided that they don't like the direction.

I'll tell you what.. I'll start agreeing that Windows should be a public service right after we all start paying taxes (not choosing to buy a license for our wants and needs) but paying a government tax that expressly is funding the Windows system. As for all the "choice" stuff.. man up and install Linux like the rest of us. Until then you choose to switch, you're agreeing to go with whatever direction MS choose to go.
 

ImpulsE69

Lifer
Jan 8, 2010
14,793
825
126
Thank you for illustrating my point. Linux (which is a option for a computer OS, even if you don't like it) would be more of a public resource as it's created by a group of people for the express purpose of being a public resource. Windows has always been created by people PAID by Microsoft (and massive parts licensed from other people PAID by other companies for the express purpose of making money for those companies)for the express purpose of generating money for Microsoft. There's no such thing as transcending because a bunch of it's users decided that they don't like the direction.

I'll tell you what.. I'll start agreeing that Windows should be a public service right after we all start paying taxes (not choosing to buy a license for our wants and needs) but paying a government tax that expressly is funding the Windows system. As for all the "choice" stuff.. man up and install Linux like the rest of us. Until then you choose to switch, you're agreeing to go with whatever direction MS choose to go.
You pay for Windows (in one way or another), you don't pay for Linux. It really isn't that argument so quit trying to make it that. It has nothing to do with it. Microsoft does owe and have to answer to its consumers with its actions. It is not as simple as 'not' using Windows (for the majority). Making the jump to Linux doesn't work for everyone or everything, and that line of thinking isn't actually helpful. What I mean by transcended is the way they wormed their way into everything. My larger concerns mentioned here probably belong in the Software forum, but it all relates to the UWP.

Basically though, in the context of the discussion, if you are running Linux, this discussion isn't even relevant because from a 'gaming' perspective you already have limited resources. So most people are not running only Linux for gaming. The issue is much broader than that in general though once you start bringing applications and business, and the pure user saturation into the equation. I do not have issues with Linux (and use it regularly) but let's not forget its shortcomings and why people cling to Windows.

There's a much larger discussion here and I don't disagree that one can abandon Windows (at a price), but probably not the topic for it.
 
Last edited:

Skel

Diamond Member
Apr 11, 2001
6,111
402
136
You pay for Windows (in one way or another), you don't pay for Linux. It really isn't that argument so quit trying to make it that. It has nothing to do with it. Microsoft does owe and have to answer to its consumers with its actions. It is not as simple as 'not' using Windows (for the majority). Making the jump to Linux doesn't work for everyone or everything, and that line of thinking isn't actually helpful. What I mean by transcended is the way they wormed their way into everything. My larger concerns mentioned here probably belong in the Software forum, but it all relates to the UWP.

Basically though, in the context of the discussion, if you are running Linux, this discussion isn't even relevant because from a 'gaming' perspective you already have limited resources. So most people are not running only Linux for gaming. The issue is much broader than that in general though once you start bringing applications and business, and the pure user saturation into the equation. I do not have issues with Linux (and use it regularly) but let's not forget its shortcomings and why people cling to Windows.

There's a much larger discussion here and I don't disagree that one can abandon Windows (at a price), but probably not the topic for it.
The point I'm making is you are agreeing with Microsoft's choices when you buy a license for the OS. If you don't like what they're doing, stop buying the license and make the (possibly painful) migration to a different platform. Maybe enough people would do that and MS' direction would shift. That is the ONLY option you have as a consumer. It's beyond ridiculous to act like just because you really like using the platform, or you've been using it for a long time that you have any right to pretend like you own it in any way. That's what's happening a lot here, people think that just because they've been using Windows for years somehow means that they should be the ones to decide what direction MS is going down. It's even more laughable as very very few of those people can see outside of their own wants in making a PC gaming machine to address all the other needs the MS business has. Those stockholders need to be addressed, and paid for that right way more than a consumer. MS bought and paid for the right to make whatever they want with the Windows platform, including shelving it so no one can make use of the tech. That $100-400 (depending on how you got the license for Windows) is chump change to what MS put into making it. But hey... they were successful for a long time, therefore (by the logic of your other post) because people really like using it, we should just take MS' resources and turn it into a public resource. Thanks for the investment MS, now don't change anything and let the market pass you by because I really like my life how it is! It was awesome that you could make a product so awesome it "transcended" into something that everyone should own.

When you buy into the ecosystem you're buying into a company deciding how to be make money out of it. The sad part in this topic is MS is in a bad place as tech changed out from under them. The best way for them to compete in the new market is to align it's software. If that doesn't work for you, stop buying the licenses and buy into one of the other systems. I'm sure Valve would love you to buy into the SteamOS.
 

C1

Platinum Member
Feb 21, 2008
2,261
56
91
MS Win was simply undergoing too many changes and some not necessarily for the better.

I finally bit the bullet and had to buckle down with some books & tutorials & give Linux a try & Im really impressed with it actually.

If enough people would switch to open source(s) then it's hard to see why it wouldnt all evolve across the board to get even better.

MS stuff (particularly its office products) are remindful of the old days when company software products would keep morphing to the point where their product just became unappealing, particularly to potential new users (eg, they had to keep adding things to a word processor to justify new version to the point that the product was spanning other genras such as databases and sped sheets). Finally the thing just got too messy & hard to use and the company would go under as sales plummeted.

In ways now, MS Office (as seen on the public library system) presents as a complicated mess to 99+% of uses.

Even MS's morph of Hotmail into "Outlook" is getting to be slow & cumbersome. (A guess is the massive amount of inefficient code added to support the 1% of new functionality that is hardly used/needed takes away from what is used 99% of the time, and I know of many now who have just thrown up their hands & switched to something else.)

I said it decades ago that what most people want/need is not "more" but instead "better."

(It is easiest to keep adding crap. The real genius is in making a thing continually better.)
================================
"Keep fix'n it till it's broke."
 

sweenish

Diamond Member
May 21, 2013
3,656
60
91
If enough people would switch to open source(s) then it's hard to see why it wouldnt all evolve across the board to get even better.
It's actually quite easy to see why. People disagree, the code is open, they'll take a fork and do what they want. And enough people switching doesn't motivate a dev pool that barely grows that much more. If I switched to Linux full time, I couldn't contribute to make it better. I'd be another person on a forum telling them that yes, the snap feature introduced way back in Windows 7 is amazing. And before someone chimes in, I know that it exists (kind of) in Linux.

Some better than others, but as long as the developer pool remains as fragmented as it is, you'll continue to have many many alternatives that almost catch up instead of a few options that really shine.

Still too many little things on top of gaming and office to keep me from switching permanently. The differences in browser behavior alone can be infuriating.

OpenSuse is the closest I've seen to a distro that allows a user to never touch a shell if they don't want to.
 

Anteaus

Platinum Member
Oct 28, 2010
2,448
4
81
I know I've been pretty negative on these boards in regards to MS and UWP, but one aspect I'm optimistic about is that this may open the door to improved mutual cooperation between major Linux developers. Love or hate Unity, recent Ubuntu builds have been pretty amazing in regards to hardware support and pushing 3D visuals to a new level. 16.04 LTS is on the eve of release. KDE Plasma 5 is extraordinary.

Up until now, the virtue of Windows for gaming has been MS's commitment to API and its otherwise lack of involvement in third party development. With UWP, MS is positioning itself to be more assertive and controlling. This may very well be the catalyst we need to get the Linux community to voluntarily agree to standardize certain key components of Linux, such as real API competitor to DirectX. OpenGL and OpenAL are great, but they are only two pieces of a larger pie.

I think PC gaming is about to go through a renaissance of sorts and I think MS is sadly mistaken over what their role will be in it.
 
Last edited:

sweenish

Diamond Member
May 21, 2013
3,656
60
91
Plasma 5 is amazing.

I wish red-hat based distros were more popular. Linux can't even decide what format its packages should be distributed in. I don't see any unification happening any time soon.

At least the GNOME 3 fallout gave us Cinnamon.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS