Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Indie Related Chat' started by Adrian Lopez, May 26, 2012.
According to Ars Technica:
$500 for a compiler of such quality is a trifle. It sets the benchmark that no other dev environment approaches*. And we know, we build on all kinds of systems and are constantly pining to get back on PC purely because of VS. (We're currently on the 2008 version)
* Actually the free mac option is a good second but that's not for pc.
Yeah it's not much. Way less than Abobe Suite for example (although I do believe that people pirate the hell out of that one).
Too much drama for nothing.
You can always use Eclipse with CDT and MinGW and i'm sure that now Clang is available for Windows, you'll be able to use it too. And if you find Eclipse too bloated or whatever, you can use Qt Creator. GCC produces executables of comparable speed to MSVC and Clang is improving in a very fast rate. Also both GCC and Clang have much better support for the latest C and C++ standards (even one of the Visual Studio's engineers recommends GCC if you want good C support). If you need tools like a resource editor, sampling based profiler, graphical debugger, etc you can also use these with OpenWatcom whose compiler is a little less developed but includes a complete toolset.
Sure, none of the above have "Microsoft" plastered all over them, but that means zero. People did, do and will do real work with these tools. Express editions were available since only recently and unless your corebase is complete shit, switching compilers should be small matter (for example making my current codebase to compile under OpenWatcom was a matter of creating a project file for its "IDE" and setting a define in source code options).
Windows probably has more C and C++ compilers than any other platform.
EDIT: also to add, Microsoft isn't removing all options for free desktop application development tools. They will still provide VS10 for those who want a free desktop IDE. And you can always download their VS10 Express .iso and save the registration keys.
I'd rather spend those $500 on something else, but for me the problem has less to do with cost and more to do with Microsoft's plans for the future. Microsoft is pushing Metro style apps along with a distribution model that depends on Microsoft approving and adding one's software to their App Store. I'd rather be able to sell games on my own website, without regard to whatever content restrictions Microsoft might wish to impose on the games they sell through their store.
Microsoft isn't doing this to sell more copies of Visual Studio, but to push its new software distribution model for no real benefit to developers. I consider the Microsoft-only distribution model a loss for both developers and consumers, though I'm sure there will be many who, like those whose vision is clouded by Apple's reality distortion field, will think such a model is actually superior.
Well it works for me. I don't know too much about it atm but I'll be watching closely.
The appearance of the mac appstore has made us put that format on the radar for future stuff. If there's ever finally a built in version for windows then it might be worth a punt.
The problem is not the app store itself but the fact that you can't sell Metro style apps through any other channel.
I also can't help but wonder what Microsoft's model will mean for game pricing and market saturation.
See my post elsewhere about fringe channels. If there's a shop button on the desktop, why would anyone want to sell it anywhere else? The existence of that button is the only reason we'd consider supporting this format tbh.
The 30% cut Microsoft will take for all sales? The chance to sell games Microsoft won't carry because of their content? Not having to submit your games to Microsoft every time a new version is released?
Well, as often - you go your way, I'll go that way.
With Microsoft, it's "that way" or the highway, which is unfortunate. If people don't want to sell outside the app store, there's really no reason to force developers into selling through the app store.
I didn't know that was the intent, but I'm fairly sure there'll be a legal intervention on that one. Thankfully I'm happy with those terms anyway if that's how it sticks.
What sort of legal intervention do you envision?
That's why I'm dropping Ren'Py (sadly) for future games, and moving to Monkeycoder. The only way to sell freely games in future will be from your own website with HTML5 - nothing else.
I really think all this appstore madness is going to hurt negatively the market as you say, saturating it with crappy product but everyone has his own opinions
The usual unfair monopoly shit. Graphics drivers have always caused problems because MS were overuled about trying to keep quality control and testing in-house (refusing unapproved cards to install), by manufacturers who'd prefer to make shite hardware with bad, non-compliant drivers. Just one example, there's loads. These big firms are fighting all the time.
Yup, because non-appstore games are never shite.
I'd prefer to make 100% income selling from my own website tbh, who wouldn't. Unfortunately I can't market for shit, and even if I could my time would still be better spent programming than selling as programming will always be what I do best. You still need marketing to make a major success on an app store of course, but there's also a chance to get visibility on it and sell loads with little effort (I'm living proof). If I were selling GLWG from my own website only, I would've already had to jack it in and go work for the man again a long time back.
The problem is that is not like if you get on an appstore you increase exposure by much, since they're flooded by submissions. Also, they limit your content. I don't make erotic games, but recent games are quite sexy, and while on my site I'm 100% safe, there's always the risk that for some idiot reason they could be removed from those appstores. Any limitation of freedom, even small, sucks IMHO
That said I'll surely put the games on those appstores in future, but still keep selling direct.
I'm afraid you're wrong on that - I'm living proof. When there's an AppStore, there's a forum (or two) where a shitload of people congregate to discuss what's happening on it. Make a good game and get TouchArcade talking about it and you're halfway home with one forum post.
We've had 2.5 million installs of GLWG to date. Where would I have gotten those customers from otherwise? (Granted over half of that number were free giveaways, but I still wanted to find people to giveaway too).
Well let's say that is true, what if Apple tomorrow decides to take 70%? of if removes your app for INSERT_ABSURD_REASON_HERE ? Again, I'm not saying it's bad, but putting all your eggs in one basket, and without any control, is risky. I prefer to sell mostly direct and THEN, have my games on appstores as secondary form of revenues. Look what happened with casual portals, and how many casual devs are there left that are truly independent ?
(removal) If that happens, we're gonna be in the shit up to our necks. But it's hardly a reckless play and is not something I'm losing any sleep over.
(royalty hike) Just suck it down and pretend to like it. It's not as if we have a plan b)