Crono1973 said:
I am with you on the lack of details but maybe I can shed some light on things.
I think the introduction of this store (which requires console type licensing) is the first step in making the entire Windows OS into a closed store type of environment. I believe that Microsoft is putting their foot in the door, using the fact that they own the OS space, to make Windows just like the 360.
To simplify, you cannot put anything on the Metro store without paying Microsoft a license fee, it's just like a console. You will not see Steam on Metro. You can still run everything with the old desktop but the old desktop is no longer front and center, Metro is. I believe that Windows 9 or 10 will not have the desktop option.
But, does any of that explicitly prevent the game developers from being able to develop, market, sell, and distribute games to the Windows platform? Are game developers going to be
REQUIRED to sell all of their games
SOLELY through the Windows Store? If not, then, as far as I can see right now, it merely represents a threat to their current status quo but not necessarily an end to their business viability, unless I'm missing something in my thinking here.
If we take Apple's Mac App Store as an existing example, it merely represents an additional convenient channel for software distribution and install. It currently does not restrict the user to just that channel for all software, not even under Mountain Lion, as I understand. Third-party developers are still perfectly free to create their own store-fronts (for example, Steam exists quite happily on Mac) through which to distribute their software.
Taking Steam as an example case, Steam enjoys an exalted position on the Mac because, as you know, the Mac platform is rather starved for quality gaming. It's an entire untapped market, and Valve is the first to really tap that market in-mass with Steam for Mac (yes, Blizzard makes games for Mac, also, but only Valve has really opened an entire channel for game distribution on the Mac); so, it has quickly become a primary channel for quality game distribution on the Mac because the Mac App Store does not have the same sort of selection as Steam. Thus, the Mac App Store does not really represent a credible threat to Steam.
However, on the Windows side, the situation is different, in my judgement. As best as I can tell, on Windows, Steam is just another channel, albeit a very successful one. They don't have the privileged position of being a primary channel the way they are on the Mac platform. As a result, Steam's position on Windows may be more susceptible to competitors, such as the introduction of the Windows Store. If nothing else, the Windows Store has the potential to dilute Steam's position on the Window's platform. Contrast this with the Mac platform where such a threat of dilution is, thus far, non-existent. So, given that, of course, they would oppose it because it is not in their interests to have an additional channel that may dilute their position further.
This is what I call vested interest, and it is one of the key substances off of which my Bullshit Meter[TM] is calibrated to trigger. So, I'm just not seeing it. I am just not seeing anywhere how independents and non-independent game companies are suddenly not able to sell their games. But, I do see a couple of outspoken people with vested interests struggling to maintain status quo. However, like I said, maybe I'm just missing something, something subtle that's eluding me.