Windows 10 now wants you to pay for Solitaire
cnbc.com
cnbc.com
This is so blatant. Like there's nobody who can reasonably make the argument "yeah, but how else can we fund the development of solitaire computer games?" It already existed. This freemium / ad-infused software trend is effectively extortion.
You can be disappointed if they make you pay for what was previously free but saying it's extortion to make people pay for software isn't very considerate to all of us who make a living of writing software, isn't it?
When done right, Freemium is a fantastic model which can not only generate more revenue to the company (both short and long term), but is also more enjoyable and a more fun experience for the user.
When done greedily, it's extortion and is by far the most disgusting sales model known to mankind.
The latter is most common.
It's hard not to be sarcastic about this topic, but I honestly want to know which game is more fun freemium than pay once?
The LoL model is controversial. You may not pay anything, but it will take you literally thousands of hours to get most champs and runes. Do you need all? Thats arguable. Can you get IP fast enough to buy champs as they come out? Most people cant, from what i understand.
Dota and tf2 fit in the freemium that cares for the users.
Blizzard has a very solid F2P model, even though theirs is one of the most expensive of the lot.
There is a lot of enjoyment in earning bonuses over time rather than getting everything at once. Since the developer wants you to keep playing the game, they need a hook. For subscription-based games, that hook tends to be anti-fun (spend time grinding, time-gating content, etc). Store-based content allows for a non-time-based hook and pushes the developer to keep releasing content. So yeah, if done right, it's beneficial for everybody.
I find it the contrary. It's a rare sight to find a modern non-indie mobile game that you can pay for and get a version that's completely free of advertisement, phoning-home analytics and other stuff I don't want, except for an actual game.
(Returning to article in question, Microsoft is actually the worst case imaginable. You don't pay to remove ads once, but subscribe for ad-free experience.)
While the stuff parent comment had mentioned is legal, it's at least questionable, and is perfectly valid to complain about, and even call this extortion (given that the comment was about a mild case of gaming addiction).
When I'm reminded of this I'm somehow saddened by the fact users en masse seems to have very self-respect when it comes to such stuff (and/or lack choice), so voting by feet doesn't work.
Software that has already been written and does not require changes is free to maintain and develop.
There is a trend recently for newer versions of software to remove features that older versions had, for varying reasons that are invariably not in the users' interests.
Removing something but then offering to put it back in return for money or accepting ads or accepting spyware or whatever other onerous condition is user-hostile. Some would say it's just business, but to many it seems malicious.
Promoting new software that does this as being an upgrade, and trying to seduce users into making the switch by giving away the new software freely but not openly disclosing what the user will lose by switching is misleading advertising.
There are cases where the "gotta cover the costs" argument applies, but this is not one of them.
Otherwise, I said NOTHING even close to suggesting that "software developers shouldn't make a living." That straw man you just made doesn't look even slightly like me.
I think that a lot of traditional users just want to buy something that does what they want without being nagged for further paytments. That is why thousands of people bought MS Office for normal domestic use. It was expensive but they bought it anyway. Now all they get is an invitation to an app store or a monthly payment plan. It is like selling a toy without batteries included.
Strangely Ubuntu feels like a premium product in comparison. It comes with lots of good software pre-installed that just work. The app store is filled with high quality free software with no spam or malware in sight. A lot peripherals will just work without having to install new drivers. In comparison Windows feels cheap and tacky.
Microsoft should sell Windows with Office bundled and make it expensive ($200+). Include a collection of high quality free software to get people started and emphasise content purchases instead of apps.
> saw how Apple censors GPL software from App Store
GPL grants you freedoms. App Store terms take them away. I think it's clear who's doing the censoring.
Not to say I wouldn't prefer there to be no ads at all, or that I don't find the price extortionate, but these articles seem a bit overblown.
> Microsoft Solitaire has been free to play for the past 25 years on Windows, and continues to be free to play on Windows 10. Users can access and play everything within the game for free, including new premium features like Daily Challenges and Star Club. The Microsoft Solitaire Collection game experience and Premium Upgrade features such as Double Coins for Daily Challenges, and removal of advertisements, is identical to the Windows 8 version that has been available for purchase for years
Source: http://www.windowscentral.com/heres-what-microsoft-says-abou...
Not sure when the ads and IAPs were added. I bought a new Windows 8.1 machine a month or so ago and the version in the Store already included the IAP prompt.
I copied sol.exe and cards.dll from their retired XP machine.
Works great, just a bit small now. (Aislerot solitare from Linux is a clone with scalable cards, I wish windows' solitare went that way.)
On iOS one can simply deactivate Siri and iCloud, that's it, two settings. On Android it's almost as simple (remove GoogleNow widget, use Samsung/HTC/Sony/etc. non cloud-only apps). Windows 10 requires 25 settings to be changed, and two can only be changed in the Enterprise edition, and to decide yourself which updates should be installed the very expensive Enterprise Long Term Servicing Branch edition is required. What's wrong with Microsoft? Who would trust such an operating system? Nadella seems to be the worst CEO of Microsoft to date; he receive advance praise unjustified for earlier work that still Ballmer decided. Microsoft should fix that.
See, a couple of years back some of us correctly called that this kind of crap was on the way, but we got shouted down with the usual "hur dur slippery slope fallicy" argument.
This smells like vindication.
In reality, I think Microsoft is suggesting we compare Solitaire from different vendors, and go that route, instead of using what they provide. They are so thoughtful!
"A one month upgrade will run users $1.49, while a year-long upgrade costs $9.99."
I'm personally used to pay only one time for a game (except perhaps for MMOGs, where a subscription really makes sense).
Spotify took something that previously cost money and made it free with ads.
There's also the fact that people can view Spotify as a ongoing service easily while people view MS solitaire as a component of a product. Normal people dislike when you turn their products into services needing ongoing payments