Mature content banned from Windows 8 Marketplace
Windows 8 will be released later this month.
Microsoft has ruled that apps available on its Windows store must be 'appropriate for a global audience' and must not contain adult content. This will prevent a large subsection of the gaming landscape from having a place on Microsoft's new interface.
Although there is a possible workaround to this situation for some forms of media with the Windows 8 certification guidelines going on to qualify that apps that provide a 'gateway to retail content, user generated content, or web based content' are classified as Storefront apps which might avoid this requirement, the company has also confirmed that the rules will apply to all games submitted to the Marketplace.
These digital storefront rules do not stop mature games being installed on a Windows 8 PC completely and anything can still be installed as a desktop app in the same way that we are all used to. The rules do however prevent them from being sold through the Windows 8 Marketplace, which is the only way to buy software that works with the operating system's new user interface.
Comparisons have been drawn between this scenario and Microsoft's move away from DOS when it released Windows 95 by software engineer Casey Muratori on his blog, Critical Detail. Fears have also been raised that Windows 8 will follow a similar path and attempt to phase out traditional desktop software.
Windows 8 is due for release on October 26. The new operating system has recently drawn criticism from Blizzard, Valve and Mojang who claim that it is essentially a disaster for the games industry and runs the risk of turning the PC into a closed platform.
Previous Article
47 Comments
Discuss in the forums ReplyThis news started after this article was shared:
/sarcasm
Viva la Windows 7
This is the standard argument I hear against Windows 8 and it possibly making systems more closed. I'd say it's following suit by sounding silly and unrealistic.
But why would you buy Skyrim on the store? You'd just buy it on Steam, due to the fact that it would (probably) be cheaper, and has the steam workshop integrated. The windows store is for angry birds and things like that, but it will be a long time before "proper" games move to the windows store.
Also, I believe that Skyrim is actually a 15, so would be allowed.
Let's hope you are right, but recently didn't Steve Balmer said he wanted Microsoft to be more like Apple, in a letter to the shareholders? Mature content isn't allowed in Apple Store, is it?
I personally don't like the idea of a walled garden, I can see the advantages for the average Joe, but you should have always the choice to avoid it legally if you want.
Windows 8 still allows that to a degree, but Windows RT doesn't, and my main concern is that Windows RT is a good glimpse into the future, called Windows 9, running only Metro apps (no desktop mode) and locked down to the Windows Store.
I disagree, I think Windows RT is nothing more than a relatively short-lived compromise that only exists because MS wanted Windows running on ARM. As soon as x86 platforms drop to similar price as ARM or ARM reaches similar performance levels as x86 (whichever comes first) I'd expect RT to disappear.
I hope you are right, I really do. However, the way Microsoft is acting, I think WinRT is here to stay, as well as ARM. Metro, if successful, is an excuse to lock everything down. WinRT tablets are an example of that, with Microsoft demanding them to be shipped with a locked boot-loader and forbidding "desktop" apps to be developed and/or installed for the ARM platform.
The truth is, the ARM platform is cheaper, more efficient, and can attract more hardware/components manufactures, outside the circle of Intel/AMD/Via, and Microsoft will want those other companies to ship with Windows.
When Office and IE mature enough on Metro, the desktop mode will die to Microsoft. My guess is that will happen in Windows 9.
Again, I hope you are right, but I think Microsoft will be doing that if given the chance.
I think that in a few years (in the so called PC-Plus era) we'll be talking about "jailbreaking" Windows 9 powered PCs, that will ironically official stand for "Personalized Computers", according to Microsoft.
Again I disagree. Metro isn't an excuse to lock everything down. ARM tablets being locked down are simply a by-product of what they currently are capable of. MS is clearly trying to provide a certain level of speed and fluidity when using WinRT and given the limited power of the ARM platform the easiest way to do that is to lock down on what can be run.
WinRT is, as you say, a way to get new manufacturers installing Windows on their products but I can't see anything that MS have done anything that would indicate WinRT is where they want to take Windows in the long term. Nor have I seen anyone put forward a credible argument as to why MS would want to do it. Why would MS want to get rid of the desktop? What would it achieve for them as a business interested in selling their software and making money?
Oh well, still have Steam I guess.
Its not Skyrim being bought today in the Store, is a PEGI 18+ game having no where else to be bought if Microsoft doesnt change the "no mature content" policy and there is no longer a desktop in the future. Skyrim is just an example.
And why would there be no desktop in the future? What incentive is there for MS to remove the desktop from Windows? What financial gain would it bring to them? How would it enable them to sell more copies of Windows?
Which is something they'll still get if the desktop remains.
Over a long enough period I'm sure they could earn more from the store. However that's still not an argument or reason for why MS would remove the desktop.
Will you use Desktop to run any program in 2032?
Whether or not I, or anyone else, will use the desktop in 2032 is irrelevant. It has no bearing on the claim that MS are currently planning to turn Windows into a closed platform and are wanting to remove the Desktop from Windows. It certainly isn't any sort of argument to support that claim.
I don't think it is that difficult to see: it would render direct profit to Microsoft through app sales (like Impar said), and using Metro apps means they would be platform agnostic.
On the other hand, here Microsoft has a solution to the piracy of software in Windows, which is really well established. Here in Portugal, for example, most people I know will download Photoshop for editing images, Office for documents and WinRAR for making ZIPs. It's so easy to do that no one bothers to look for free alternatives.
In the business sector, companies are starting to look at alternatives. For example, one major insurance company here in Portugal (called Tranquilidade) migrated to Linux, saving 80% of cost per worker in the process. If this set a trend, Microsoft will have to turn even more to the desktop/tablet market for profit.
In the server market, I'm very curious to know what is the impact of including the Metro interface in Windows Server.
Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2
OK, now I know you're tripping. MS-Dos was not abandoned in a nefarious attempt by Microsoft to get us to use Windows; it was abandoned because technology had moved on enough to offer a more user-friendly interface (within which you can still use the command line if you want).
Microsoft will only abandon the desktop if a more user-friendly multi-tasking environment is invented. Not happening any time soon. But you go ahead thinking that Microsoft will all but render useless its own OS so it can lock down the market selling applications for a useless OS. Yeah, that's a logical strategy.
Skyrim might be 18 in Europe and US but here in Britain it's a 15, so would Microsoft allow it's sale in Britain?
This would imply that no one else would sell the game. No steam, no brick and mortar retailers, no online purchases of physical copies. Which is really stupid.
I feel like you're convinced that Windows is doomed for no reason at all, so just go use Linux or something.
Why should they? There's plenty of other avenues to sell mature content, there's no need for MS to allow it in the store.
Well as there's no indication that the desktop is going anywhere anytime soon that's not really something to worry about is it?
The 'global audience' worries me more than the mature cutoff, TBH, given that the restrictions some countries place on games are more severe than PEGI (although a rating system that rates a nipple higher than a decapitation should worry everyone - not least what it says about the culture of its country of origin).
All in all, I think it's rather selfless of MS to give Linux such a boost - assuming Linux can offer a remotely consistent gaming platform in time.
everything u install wont work with the ui, meaning u can still have it on the start menu, or desktop icon i think, but whats the use in getting win8 if u not using it like win8, and why sell something if u think most will never be able to use the ui microsoft???
"These digital storefront rules do not stop mature games being installed on a Windows 8 PC completely ..." what the hell does that mean, scares me.
so if the store is a success, it will be then T-6months before microsoft blocks it entirely to only let u use store obtained ****. i cant play Rayman forever, i want mature since u will take my mature money if i buy win8.
closed system indeed!
if the store
We will have to wait and see if Microsoft changes the no-mature content rule and how popular for developers the desktop will remain.
Get a grip, son. You're getting hysterical.
we also cannot debate this one win8 is release, since they will still play ball somewhat. after 6-12months is maybe ok, since that is when i think they will clamp down in making external products (not from the store perhaps) not work as much. they already say u can install, but it wont work with the UI.
so if the store is very successful, why would they not then stop all support for everything not on the store?
there is a reason why top industry leaders, gabe, blizzard, intel itself, etc have been saying this could end the pc gaming industry and open source...
its all lining up, microsoft wants the xbox to be the all in one entertainment system, and games on the pc is having them share the profits with a rival group which has that groups game play on microsofts OS. microsoft wants a cut of this i think. if u want ur game to work on our system, pay us is what is being said here, or use the xbox.
business sense 1-0-1, win for microsoft, loss for us.
Microsoft is no different from Apple or Google in wanting to establish a closed monopoly ecosystem. But none if them are going to restrict developers from creating stuff for their platform --quite the contrary. If Skyrim attracts users to their ecosystem, they will sell it. Gabe et al. are just proclaiming doom because they want to do the same and see their own ambitions scuppered.
Apple has had its own quality control issues. The MacBook Air had overheating and screen hinge issues. The iPhone 4 had manufacturing quality issues. iOS 6 has big map issues.
I also wonder who of you guys is old enough to remember Windows 95. Not Windows 95 enhanced with IE4, which pretty much changed the whole GUI to be identical to that of Windows 98, but the original Windows 95 as it came out. It was far from a polished product.
change the subject: if u buy a BMW... and then u want to add new tires, and BMW tells you u can only by tires from us, or u can buy ur tires and keep them in the car but they wont work on the car. u wont like that as much since the tires u like is not sold by them, and the only way u gonna get them is if that tire manufacturer has to go through the BMW whoops and pay them to sell their tires through BWM. (hussel?)
which will run most small tire business' out of bussiness and only the big tire companies having the money to sell through BMW. this move is not increasing the potential of the tire business through competition, but reducing the amount of companies that can now sell their tires. and in effect, creating a monopoly, which is for a reason illegal in most countries.
so with that, gabe's view that it could kill the gaming and big chunk of the pc industry is valid and not from a fearful view. as is mine and many others. closed platforms is at its core counter intuitive to growth where open source is the life blood of the pc user.
Apple has always been closed. Apple software on Apple hardware, which can be repaired or expanded with ideosyncratic Apple-specific parts only. The PC has always been open, and Microsoft has always gone to extraordinarily complicated lengths to make sure that Windows works with any PC, in its most freakishly outlandish configuration possible, with obscure parts from the farthest, darkest corners of Taiwan or Korea. Now, which OS has the dominant market share? Exactly.
Now do you think Microsoft is going to sacrifice that for a closed ecosystem like Apple's? No. Microsoft has always aimed for having its cake and eating it. Not an iOS for mobiles with closed market and a somewhat more open OSX for computers, but a single OS for both, with a closed market and an open market. Apple stands for a smooth, sheltered user experience; Microsoft stands for choice, warts and all. Always has, always will. It is working more towards the smooth, dumbed-down user experience because that is what people want, but it is not forgetting the basis for its success: that it offers an OS for any system, any purpose, any market. Apple stands for prestige and exclusivity; Microsoft stands for everything to everybody.
And just out of cutiosity: just how open do you think the games console market is? And has that stifled it?
I wonder why the EU fined Microsoft over IE and Windows Media Player, and doesn't do anything about this...
Various degrees of choice if that much, as you can't buy a laptop (and some barebones) with a licence of your choosing, or with no licence at all.
If one takes into account Secureboot, I suspect it's going to be more difficult to see true choice on this regard.
Microsoft is taking baby steps towards becoming Apple, minus the hardware deployment (although, even that might change if Surface is a huge success)-
Indeed, that's the regulators job. However, they don't seem to care about that. IMO one of the consequences of fining Microsoft over IE and WMP was that the EU acknowledged indirectly that PC implies being powered with Windows. That's probably why Microsoft doesn't care that much about paying the EU, adding the browser choice link or making Windows N.
As far as windows 8 "openness" goes, let's wait and see. However, I'm really not optimistic. I suspect that in a few years some of us will be playing a heartfelt violin tune (feel free to add 10 years to the dates), but for the sake of the consumer, let's hope not.
I'm sorry but Gabe's view has nothing to do with trying to protect the industry or the 'life blood' of the PC user and has everything to do with him (and Valve) not wanting to have to compete with MS. But they can't just come out and say that because it doesn't look all that great PR-wise; much better to sensationalise the entire situation, claim MS are trying to turn PCs into a closed system and have them look like the bad guy trying to bully the rest of the PC world.
Well said!!
Microsoft isn't going anywhere from Desktop....besides if t hat ever does happen I pretty much guarantee you the games developers will know that waaay before we find out and will have already started developing primarily for Linux....whereas right now its kinda done as an after-thought...if at all...I'm pretty sure Gabe has already thought about it.