Serious Sam 3 Developer Has Serious Issues with Windows 8

[Asrokhel]

Croteam CTO Alen Ladavac is the latest game developer to lash out against Windows 8, and he did so by posting a rather lengthy message on Steam's forum. Ladavac was commenting in a thread dedicated to a new Serious Sam 3 patch, and he sort of went off on a tangent, complaining about the tiled interface in Windows 8, the certification process, and age restrictions that have prevented titles like Dishonored and Skyrim from appearing in the Windows Store.

The latter complaint was reversed, according to our sister site PC Gamer, but Ladavac's biggest gripe is that tiled UI applications can only be released through the Windows Store and not by any other means.'

"I cannot even begin to stress out just how horrible this idea is! There is no side-loading, except for corporate use inside one company, and that works only on the enterprise edition of Windows 8," Ladavac rages. "Do we all understand what that means? You cannot download an application from the Internet and run it on your computer. You have to get it from Microsoft's store. Even if it is a free app!"

To be clear, Windows 8 doesn't prevent users from installing programs of their desire, they just won't appear in the main interface.

"If it was just about 'being downloaded from Windows store', it would not be a problem," Ladavac added. "It would be nice to have a common hub to download things from. But to get an app onto that store, it has to be certified by MS. This means bringing the 'console experience' onto your desktop. Each app that you will get through the Windows Store will have to adhere to certain requirements imposed by MS."

Ladavac is one of a handful of game developers to voice displeasure with Windows 8 and the apparent walled garden approach Microsoft appears to be adopting. It's one of the reasons why Valve is looking long and hard at Linux, after Gabe Newell now famously referred to Windows 8 as a "catastrophe for everyone in the PC space."

"Gabe Newell did not overreact," Ladavac said.

http://www.maximumpc.com/article/news/serious_sam_3_developer_has_serious_issues_windows_8_987

[Nick H. Supervisor]

"I cannot even begin to stress out just how horrible this idea is! There is no side-loading, except for corporate use inside one company, and that works only on the enterprise edition of Windows 8," Ladavac rages. "Do we all understand what that means? You cannot download an application from the Internet and run it on your computer. You have to get it from Microsoft's store. Even if it is a free app!"

To be clear, Windows 8 doesn't prevent users from installing programs of their desire, they just won't appear in the main interface.

Why? I imagine there was some reasoning behind such a move, but for the moment I can't think of a decent reason for it.

[Xoligy]

Not used or even watched many Windows 8 videos but im guessing the talk is about the tiled interface you can have and how MS want you to download everything through there store, ofc im guessing MS will say that they want some of the action for allowing sales though there store and the application to be allowed on the tiled screen (could be wrong). But what the dev seems to forget is, there will be some programmer right now looking at how to code in a hack or patch that will allow anything there, just like there is a hack or patch for almost everything else anyway back to working on this tile interface hack... if a = 1 then b must be 2 lol

[lecter]

I don't see his problem...he's complaining about Live Tiles, but if he doesn't want to use the MS Store he can simply have the app make a shortcut on the Start Screen, like all the other legacy apps currently make. So it won't be live, it will look as out of place as a 16-bit app shortcut in Windows 95, cry me a river.

[+DKAngel Subscriber²]

the thing is when u install it a tile is put on the start screen. wtf is he smoking

[Noir Angel]

How could these obviously butthurt developers dislike the most awesome thing to happen to computing since the invention of the keyboard and mouse!

/s

[lim3918]

Another stupid developer that is ignorant, my reasons below :

"I cannot even begin to stress out just how horrible this idea is! There is no side-loading, except for corporate use inside one company, and that works only on the enterprise edition of Windows 8," Ladavac rages. "Do we all understand what that means? You cannot download an application from the Internet and run it on your computer. You have to get it from Microsoft's store. Even if it is a free app!"

"If it was just about 'being downloaded from Windows store', it would not be a problem," Ladavac added. "It would be nice to have a common hub to download things from. But to get an app onto that store, it has to be certified by MS. This means bringing the 'console experience' onto your desktop. Each app that you will get through the Windows Store will have to adhere to certain requirements imposed by MS."

Lets take for example iOS. iOS doesn't allow sideloading, unless you jailbreak it. But does anyone actually complain? NO, maybe not that much. Microsoft establish a store just like apple, but of different sense.

The idea of Microsoft Store is only to hold metro apps. Selected few normal desktop applications may also be shown there but it only offers a link for you go go to the website and download it, this is only for desktop apps. You want to be shown in Microsoft store, get certify by Microsoft's rule. What is all the rant about???

Unless you hate iOS way of hosting apps, that you have to be certify by apple before showing in appstore, which apparently this same development company "Croteam" have a game "Serious Sam: Kamikaze Attack!" in iOS appstore. Does he hate iOS? No. How come they are able to tolerate the certification rules of apple to release a game there but extremely unhappy to abide to Microsoft store certification rules???

Normal desktop apps and games can still be downloaded from internet or purchased from retail to install and still continue to run on Windows 8, unless what he trying to say is Windows RT's limitation. What is he trying to argue? Like apple but dislike microsoft even though they both got their own stores, with exception that iOS restrict all apps to only available from appstore?

[Noir Angel]

iOS isn't being marketed to desktop class devices, Windows 8 is.

[Arceles]

My money goes to steam. No windows RT app will touch my dear laptop.

[Peter van Dam]

Last time I checked, you can install tiled applications from outside of the Windows Store. If Google Chrome can do it, anyone can. The only issue he can have is losing customers because they already bought a lot of other good games.

[George P Global Moderator]

Another none issue, game devs don't have to use the Windows Store, if we're talking Windows 8 x86/x64 you can install it like you always have on the desktop, no harm no foul. Any app that's installed gets a tile on the start screen, so desktop apps don't have live tiles, big deal, why would I want a live tile for a game exactly? What kinda useful info would it even show? The only apps that need live tiles are those tied to a service or meant to give you updated info often.

And there is no age limit, MS thought about it but changed their mind iirc, you can have M rated games in the Windows Store now. That is also not an issue. Certification? Oh boo hoo, heaven forbid you have to run a simple check to make sure your game doesn't crap all over my system. In fact, doesn't every "store" have a cert process? Windows itself has certification processes for lots of things and has for years, mainly drivers and I think we can all agree that it's a good thing they do.

I've got Win8 installed on my desktop, it works good, my apps work, my games work and I don't jump to the start screen unless I want to. This whole issue with the store is a joke. I also find it pretty funny that people hate Windows having a store yet have no issue tossing out cash to Steam, which is yet another store.

[Ryoken]

Another stupid developer that is ignorant, my reasons below :

Lets take for example iOS. iOS doesn't allow sideloading, unless you jailbreak it. But does anyone actually complain? NO, maybe not that much. Microsoft establish a store just like apple, but of different sense.

The idea of Microsoft Store is only to hold metro apps. Selected few normal desktop applications may also be shown there but it only offers a link for you go go to the website and download it, this is only for desktop apps. You want to be shown in Microsoft store, get certify by Microsoft's rule. What is all the rant about???

Unless you hate iOS way of hosting apps, that you have to be certify by apple before showing in appstore, which apparently this same development company "Croteam" have a game "Serious Sam: Kamikaze Attack!" in iOS appstore. Does he hate iOS? No. How come they are able to tolerate the certification rules of apple to release a game there but extremely unhappy to abide to Microsoft store certification rules???

Normal desktop apps and games can still be downloaded from internet or purchased from retail to install and still continue to run on Windows 8, unless what he trying to say is Windows RT's limitation. What is he trying to argue? Like apple but dislike microsoft even though they both got their own stores, with exception that iOS restrict all apps to only available from appstore?

I hate when people compare iOS to Windows.

iOS was NEVER an open System. It's not sold as such, it's not expected to be one as it never was.

Windows has been an Open system since it first launched, allowing anyone who wanted too to write apps for it, and have it work and install and run the same as if it was done by MS themselves.

Now you don't have that.. sure you can install desktop apps, but Metro, it's go through MS or gtfo.

A good example is the App Store for MacOS ( not iOS ).. they launched it, it was a hit, for a few weeks, but now it's falling apart because the devs don't want to play by those rules. They don't want to have to live in Apple's ideal sandbox.

[Mr. Gibs]

Windows has been an Open system since it first launched, allowing anyone who wanted too to write apps for it, and have it work and install and run the same as if it was done by MS themselves.

Now you don't have that.. sure you can install desktop apps, but Metro, it's go through MS or gtfo.

Then don't code metro apps? Microsoft isn't standing behind you with a gun and saying you better code metro apps for Windows 8 or else.

You can still use win32 just like you could with Windows 7, and face it almost all PC games are going to remain win32.

Now if MS completely ditched Win32 and only allowed Metro apps to run on Windows 8 (not talking about RT here), then yes that's a completely different matter. But they haven't done that, and most probably won't for the foreseeable future.

---

What's funny is all these developers that you hear speaking out against the MS store (Valve, Blizzard etc) are ones that won't ever make a metro app (regardless of the store restrictions) since it doesn't really apply to them and doesn't give them the flexibility / performance that they need.

[ThisSiteHasLostItsCharm]

inb4 ms fanboys,

damn, too late.

I thought windows 8 sounded good, but the more I read about it, the worse it sounds.

[HawkMan]

inb4 ms fanboys,

damn, too late.

I thought windows 8 sounded good, but the more I read about it, the worse it sounds.

Why? And maybe you should actually try it instead of reading biased reviews?

[articuno1au]

What HawkMan said.

There's nothing wrong with 8.

Most of the people speaking out against the Windows Store are doing so on the basis of dooms day prophecies of Microsoft only allowing metro apps and nothing else.

I personally don't see that happening any time soon, and I think the people speaking out about it miss the damn point.

Either way, try it.

[Ryoken]

Then don't code metro apps? Microsoft isn't standing behind you with a gun and saying you better code metro apps for Windows 8 or else.

You can still use win32 just like you could with Windows 7, and face it almost all PC games are going to remain win32.

Now if MS completely ditched Win32 and only allowed Metro apps to run on Windows 8 (not talking about RT here), then yes that's a completely different matter. But they haven't done that, and most probably won't for the foreseeable future.

---

What's funny is all these developers that you hear speaking out against the MS store (Valve, Blizzard etc) are ones that won't ever make a metro app (regardless of the store restrictions) since it doesn't really apply to them and doesn't give them the flexibility / performance that they need.

Actually you can't just use Win32 apps..

You can in the x86/64 version, sure.. But they are now gimped, you can't appeal to the whole market, and you can't integrate it into the OS the same way.. not PG, no tiles for you.. now the user HAS to deal with both metro and the desktop, with vastly different experiences in both, all because MS decided your app doesn't meat their criteria..

Also, with RT, now those x86/64 apps just can't be used, your only option is Metro, but you can't release Metro cause only MS can.

If you can't see why companies are annoyed by this, then you are wearing blinders.

[Mr. Gibs]

Actually you can't just use Win32 apps..

You can in the x86/64 version, sure.. But they are now gimped, you can't appeal to the whole market, and you can't integrate it into the OS the same way.. not PG, no tiles for you.. now the user HAS to deal with both metro and the desktop, with vastly different experiences in both, all because MS decided your app doesn't meat their criteria..

You can still pin tiles of Win32 apps, they just won't be live tiles. You can still appeal to the whole market because Windows 8 =/= RT.

All the Win32 APIs that exist in Windows 7 exist in Windows 8, so yes you can integrate into the OS in the same way. The start screen =/= the OS.

And the user doesn't have to deal with both metro and desktop. The only time I ever see metro is the start menu, everything else I do using the desktop. Some people may prefer using metro apps for mail, news etc and for those people the option is available. Others (like me) prefer using regular good ole apps, and nothing has changed in that.

If you can't see why companies are annoyed by this, then you are wearing blinders.

The companies that are annoyed by this are game publishers who WON'T ever release a metro app regardless of an MS store existing or not. Metro doesn't have the flexibility or the performance that Win32 does so Blizzard/Valve etc aren't going to ever use it to code their games. So the metro app installation restrictions don't even apply to them.

[Noir Angel]

What HawkMan said.

There's nothing wrong with 8.

Most of the people speaking out against the Windows Store are doing so on the basis of dooms day prophecies of Microsoft only allowing metro apps and nothing else.

I personally don't see that happening any time soon, and I think the people speaking out about it miss the damn point.

Either way, try it.

I personally take no issue with the store at all, in fact having competition in those markets is beneficial to all, it's the removal of glass and the start screen that I hate.

[spaceelf]

The companies that are annoyed by this are game publishers who WON'T ever release a metro app regardless of an MS store existing or not. Metro doesn't have the flexibility or the performance that Win32 does so Blizzard/Valve etc aren't going to ever use it to code their games. So the metro app installation restrictions don't even apply to them.

It actually has the same performance. WinRT uses all DX11 interfaces. You can get the same out of Win32 using Directwrite/Direct2D/D3D11. Claiming it doesn't have the performance that Win32 does is ridiculous.

It also has more features such as the return of a hardware audio path and enhanced programming languages.

[Lord Method Man]

Windows has been an Open system since it first launched, allowing anyone who wanted too to write apps for it, and have it work and install and run the same as if it was done by MS themselves.

Now you don't have that.. sure you can install desktop apps, but Metro, it's go through MS or gtfo.

Desktop Windows has been Open since it first launched and remains to this day open in Windows 8.

Metro Windows is a whole new system that, like iOS, has never been Open.

Microsoft has taken NOTHING away. The comparisons to iOS to show the idiocy of these whining developers are 100% spot-on.

[Stoffel]

Looks like another no story.

Question: I know developers can put their desktop apps in the store, it will link to the website of the developer, but you still get the exposure. Do they have to pay for this or is that free? Does MS then take 30% of the profits?

I feel that if MS doesn't take the 30% for win32 apps in the store then all these Game studios are full of crap. All they have to do is go through a certification process, making sure your app stores data in the right places and uninstalls properly, which makes sense to me. After that they get all the extra exposure. And even if they don't want to use the store, MS still allows you to install any kind off win32 app you want.

WinRT is a different thing, it's a new platform that from the start is closed. MS has good reasons for doing this They want to make sure that when you use a device running WinRT you have a similar experience like people on the iPad. Always snappy, the apps can't ruin the OS, no viruses,...

So if the Game studios want to develop for this new platform they'll just have to play by the rules, just like they do on iOS.

If they don't , well they can still develop for the Desktop and collect all the money

I just see more choices and more chances for revenue, what's so bad about it?

[George P Global Moderator]

Looks like another no story.

Question: I know developers can put their desktop apps in the store, it will link to the website of the developer, but you still get the exposure. Do they have to pay for this or is that free? Does MS then take 30% of the profits?

I feel that if MS doesn't take the 30% for win32 apps in the store then all these Game studios are full of crap. All they have to do is go through a certification process, making sure your app stores data in the right places and uninstalls properly, which makes sense to me. After that they get all the extra exposure. And even if they don't want to use the store, MS still allows you to install any kind off win32 app you want.

WinRT is a different thing, it's a new platform that from the start is closed. MS has good reasons for doing this They want to make sure that when you use a device running WinRT you have a similar experience like people on the iPad. Always snappy, the apps can't ruin the OS, no viruses,...

So if the Game studios want to develop for this new platform they'll just have to play by the rules, just like they do on iOS.

If they don't , well they can still develop for the Desktop and collect all the money

I just see more choices and more chances for revenue, what's so bad about it?

I don't know if it costs to list your desktop app like it does to put up your metro app but for desktop apps MS takes 0% of any sales. This was made clear the first time they talked about the windows store in general half a year ago or longer.

[HawkMan]

Desktop apps are free to have listed since they're only linked to the download site.

HOWEVER. there's a few requirements

- it cannot require UAC elevation to run (ie it needs to be coded decently, and not by retards)

- it needs to pass a few security checks for code and memory faults (again, good coding practices and not crap coded)

- it needs to pass checks for buffer overflow attacks (again, needs to be decently coded, notice a pattern?)

and some other small things, it all goes towards a well coded app that doesn't mess with things it shouldn't and not having obvious security flaws int he code. You know how a certain self improtant hack of a coder whop made a for smoe reason popular game called Minecraft refused to have his game lsited despite it being free, offerign him more exposure and he would be given free support in fixing any flaws in his game. Well one of the coders who would have helped him decided to check it out anyway, and it would have taken between 15 minutes to an hour to get his code up top standard and be more secure and not require UAC and such.

So yeah, only modern apps will give a 30/20% cut to MS.

[Stoffel]

I don't know if it costs to list your desktop app like it does to put up your metro app but for desktop apps MS takes 0% of any sales. This was made clear the first time they talked about the windows store in general half a year ago or longer.

That's what I thought, but I wasn't sure.

So my point stays the same, what are the Game Studios talking about? This is a no issue

Desktop apps are free to have listed since they're only linked to the download site.

HOWEVER. there's a few requirements

- it cannot require UAC elevation to run (ie it needs to be coded decently, and not by retards)

- it needs to pass a few security checks for code and memory faults (again, good coding practices and not crap coded)

- it needs to pass checks for buffer overflow attacks (again, needs to be decently coded, notice a pattern?)

and some other small things, it all goes towards a well coded app that doesn't mess with things it shouldn't and not having obvious security flaws int he code. You know how a certain self improtant hack of a coder whop made a for smoe reason popular game called Minecraft refused to have his game lsited despite it being free, offerign him more exposure and he would be given free support in fixing any flaws in his game. Well one of the coders who would have helped him decided to check it out anyway, and it would have taken between 15 minutes to an hour to get his code up top standard and be more secure and not require UAC and such.

So yeah, only modern apps will give a 30/20% cut to MS.

That's what I also understood the certification process was.

Seems very reasonable to me