[UPDATED] The Windows 10 store version of Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare will not work with the Steam version

[bobhays]

On 11/4/2016 at 3:55 AM, GoodBytes said:

Sorry but coming from you that's close to meaningless, I'd like to see actual evidence to that otherwise I knew your speculative position in advance

On 11/4/2016 at 4:03 AM, GoodBytes said:

You've called me an irrational Microsoft "fanboy" before (I'm paraphrasing and extrapolating of course) so that's actually not needed. You like to blame your anti-Microsoft bias but you don't seem to accept you call Microsoft bias from others, not before this cute attempt at being clever anyway. Not to mention actually considering facts, reality and common sense, just to push your anti-Microsoft agenda, and calling "fanboys" anyone who disagrees with you, even backed up with facts.

 

It was ok the first time, but now this is just petty. If you disagree that's fine. 

 

Side note: Your Microsoft bias is clear, but I don't think it's a problem or issue. That being said I think you are right and in this case it wasn't Microsoft fault.

[bobhays]

On 11/4/2016 at 8:32 AM, Bouzoo said:

More different clients is a necessity that we need, otherwise it gives too much power to Valve (like GOG is a reseller, they even gave their super popular games to Steam to resell them). They would be able to raise prices as they see fit, give demands to publishers as they see fit, force DRM that is horrible bad players, etc. Clients with exclusives are up to the individual to decide. On the other hand, separation is something that shouldn't exist from the start. 

 

On 11/4/2016 at 9:30 AM, Jovidah said:

The issue is however that all those things you are talking about is exactly what other publishers did in their shitty propriertary platforms. None of the other clients came anywhere close to being either 'better', 'more convenient' or 'more open' than Steam. Can anyone here honestly say that they are enthusiastic about Origin or that Uplay thing? They are just like herpes; you simply want to play and then you're stuck with that crap.

The reason they are herpes is that they are required for games bought on steam, even single player ones.

On 11/4/2016 at 9:35 AM, Bouzoo said:

I have said it many times, I actually prefer Origin to Steam, it's a personal preference, but many things are pushing me apart from it. I have never had a single issue with to be honest, nor I had with Steam for that matter. Uplay I have because... I can and there are free games nowadays there. The only reason. And I think that GOG is by far the best platforms, and I'm just waiting for them to have more games. 

 

EDIT: As I said, I never had a single issue with Steam or Origin, but one thing that Steam lacks is better customer support. I know many people here had issues and few of my rl friends had as well. That is something that Origin has by far better. 2nd hand experience so to say. The only issues I had with customer support were with my carrier, I had even great experience with Square Enix (multiple times), 2K, and Paypal/Ebay.

 

The ideal solution is to have a game release on all the platforms and let the user decide which one they want to use. That's the whole point of competition because steam isn't making the games, they are only serving them like all the other clients. An issue occurs though in buying multiplayer online games. If someone buys it from one platform and someone else from another how can they play with each other. The solution I can think of is just have the multiplayer aspect login/connect to either the game developer's servers or 3rd party hosted servers. Games with P2P servers might be a bit more complicated but I'm certain that the solution wouldn't be too hard to implement. (i.e connect to a server for pairing and then hand it off to P2P)

[Bouzoo]

29 minutes ago, bobhays said:

The ideal solution is to have a game release on all the platforms and let the user decide which one they want to use. That's the whole point of competition because steam isn't making the games, they are only serving them like all the other clients. An issue occurs though in buying multiplayer online games. If someone buys it from one platform and someone else from another how can they play with each other. The solution I can think of is just have the multiplayer aspect login/connect to either the game developer's servers or 3rd party hosted servers. Games with P2P servers might be a bit more complicated but I'm certain that the solution wouldn't be too hard to implement. (i.e connect to a server for pairing and then hand it off to P2P)

Ideal doesn't make you money. That's why you won't see Battlefield 1, Crysis 3, Mass Effect 3, Dragon Age: Inguisition and such anywhere outside Origin. They can keep the cut that otherwise Steam or GOG would take. 

And Valve (Steam) makes games that exclusive only for their platform, try Dota 2 and TF2, some of the biggest games out there. 

The only really positive on in the whole story is CDPR since they released all of their games on both GOG and Steam. 

 

Anyhow, I'm not sure why I deserved that response. 

[RagnarokDel]

I love how the reaction is always to blame Microsoft. There's literally no reason for multiplayer not to work considering it uses peer to peer connections lol.

[Jovidah]

1 hour ago, bobhays said:

 

The reason they are herpes is that they are required for games bought on steam, even single player ones.

 

There really isn't any technical reason why they should be required to run a game. It's just hardcoded in there to force that crap down your throat. I wonder if that's even legal. It's like buying a car only to find it that it comes with a hobo in the backseat who you're forced to drive around all the time.

[bobhays]

59 minutes ago, Bouzoo said:

Ideal doesn't make you money. That's why you won't see Battlefield 1, Crysis 3, Mass Effect 3, Dragon Age: Inguisition and such anywhere outside Origin. They can keep the cut that otherwise Steam or GOG would take. 

And Valve (Steam) makes games that exclusive only for their platform, try Dota 2 and TF2, some of the biggest games out there. 

The only really positive on in the whole story is CDPR since they released all of their games on both GOG and Steam. 

 

Anyhow, I'm not sure why I deserved that response. 

I think the discussion was relevant to what you were talking about. I understand it's not ideal for the developers but it hardly stops them from making money. AAA games have been on steam for years I'm certain EA would still thrive on different platforms. Also Dota 2 and TF 2 are free (but I get your point for other games like Half-Life and CS:GO).

 

Also side note, it just boggles my mind that developers like Valve can make steam add a ton of complex features and even make SteamOS but can't just let us rename games in our library.

[jagdtigger]

Just now, RagnarokDel said:

I love how the reaction is always to blame Microsoft. There's literally no reason for multiplayer not to work considering it uses peer to peer connections lol.

Because MS is the one who still pushes that dead POS "platform"?

[AlTech]

9 minutes ago, jagdtigger said:

Because MS is the one who still pushes that dead POS "platform"?

It's not a bad platform. There is nothing genuinely wrong with it.

[jagdtigger]

Just now, AluminiumTech said:

It's not a bad platform. There is nothing genuinely wrong with it.

Well then if thats the case why it wasnt able to became widely adopted? Even if it has some niche advantages it will be still inferior to win32(itwas designed for mobile devices after all). Its failed on WP, on win8, on win8.1, and then now on 10. How many times they have to fall onto their face until they realize that it is over...

[AlTech]

2 minutes ago, jagdtigger said:

Well then if thats the case why it wasnt able to became widely adopted? Even if it has some niche advantages it will be still inferior to win32(itwas designed for mobile devices after all). Its failed on WP, on win8, on win8.1, and then now on 10. How many times they have to fall onto their face until they realize that it is over...

You don't know jack shit about UWP and so you're not a good person to judge it.

 

UWP is a FRESH approach to the same problem. It is different to Windows 8/8.1 and Windows Phones.

 

They did not succeed to due to limited amount of people using the OS and the lack of interest from developers. UWP is already surpassing all previous attempts!

[Dabombinable]

6 minutes ago, AluminiumTech said:

They did not succeed to due to limited amount of people using the OS and the lack of interest from developers. UWP is already surpassing all previous attempts!

That's not really saying much about UWP since previous attempts did very poorly.

[RagnarokDel]

22 minutes ago, jagdtigger said:

Well then if thats the case why it wasnt able to became widely adopted? Even if it has some niche advantages it will be still inferior to win32(itwas designed for mobile devices after all). Its failed on WP, on win8, on win8.1, and then now on 10. How many times they have to fall onto their face until they realize that it is over...

Win32 was here since when? windows 95? You think it was always good and perfect?

[jagdtigger]

Just now, AluminiumTech said:

You don't know jack shit about UWP and so you're not a good person to judge it.

 

UWP is a FRESH approach to the same problem. It is different to Windows 8/8.1 and Windows Phones.

 

They did not succeed to due to limited amount of people using the OS and the lack of interest from developers. UWP is already surpassing all previous attempts!

You forget something. You do not need to know details about a platform to decide if it is good for you or not. And people just did that. UWP is just an somewhat improved version of the modern apps that debuted with win8, it failed miserably. Then they came out with 8.1, failed again. Here we are with win10 and the 3rd try with even bigger user base but its still a fail since its still pretty much ignored. And these failed attempts with games just drive away more people.

 

@RagnarokDel

Of course not, but it was better than the old ones before it came if im not mistaken. In the this case MS wants to "replace" win32 with an inferior solution.

[Misanthrope]

EDIT: N/M

[Nowak]

Microsoft refunded someone because nobody's playing the Windows 10 Store version of the game.

 

https://motherboard.vice.com/read/windows-10-store-refunds-call-of-duty-player-because-nobodys-playing-it