MrBump

A petty and pointless change. Games are application software too, applications are everything that is not OS or middleware. The op clearly called it 'software' cause that's what valve called it on Steam.

What nonsense, you're posting on the forum of one of those "modern greedy games companies", try running two copies of a non-Steam single license Arma 2 game on a LAN and see what happens. This has nothing to do with Steam, but modern game licenses.

The original xbox failed for a number of reasons, restrictive contracts with their own hardware suppliers that stopped cost cutting revisions, lack of exclusives, timing etc, none had anything to do with the OS they designed. That's why they changed everything BUT the OS. Again it would just pollute the market and the brand to do so, MS has built the xbox brand into a success by doing what they're doing, to change any of that would be suicidal.

If it failed miserably because of a custom OS then explain the 360's success? Consoles are extremely expensive to produce, in console-land performance is money, and having a OS that is able to squeeze every bit of performance from hardware is and has always been the key. MS strategy for the xbox is to get one into every household as a primary entertainment hub, having the PC as an auxiliary system works against this idea. It would also be a marketing/branding disaster for MS, these companies spend big to control their brands, suddenly the xbox gets confused with Windows in peoples minds? Also you have the classic PC vs console issue of fixed spec vs variable spec, if MS do this then one of the key benefits of consoles is gone (and one of he key reason for devs to support it too) especially when you consider the tight integration with Kinnect 2. One thing MS has learned (from Apple) is that creating and controlling hardware is the key to creating a solid ecosystem and brand for your platform, for MS to lose this seems crazy. You could be totally correct of course, if so I think this would be a monumental gamble on MS's part and would be very interesting to watch.

Well to me it's only logical if the reasons/issues that made MS develop a specialised OS for their consoles in the first place are no longer there, making the kernal the same is nice, esp for devs, but doesn't magically make engineer's problems go away... Regarding Windows Phone I remember reading that NT actually runs faster than CE on modern, powerful mobile hardware due to how those OS's were tailored, so the swap made perfect sense. I would really doubt the same regarding xbox OS vs NT as the xbox OS was specifically designed with these issues in mind.

It just doesn't seem logical to me that they would throw away all that development on the xbox OS to bolt on a Windows OS with all it's issues like legacy functionality, non-relevant critical components etc?

Where does all of this come from? The idea that the xbox would go from a custom built OS, to a operating system based on the Windows kernal seems ludicrous.

True, but not relevant, firstly because the OP is not in the EU, but also because complaining about how you lost all your games due to not wanting to accept a EULA, after you've already accepted a EULA that clearly states that you'll lose your games, is super lame. (Also I'm arguing more on the idea of 'principal' rather than legal.)

Principles? It's about you agreeing to a EULA conditions, then complaining about the conditions you originally agreed to. You already agreed that all this was ok when you originally signed up for Steam, the EULA says "Valve may amend this Agreement (including any Subscription Terms or Rules of Use) at any time in its sole discretion." and you knew that you could lose all your stuff because it says " If you don't agree to the amendments or to any of the terms in this Agreement, your only remedy is to cancel your Account or to cease use of the affected Subscription(s)." You're using Steam, you agreed, if you want rights then don't sign them away.

They have the right to resell Steam games, but not the ability, and Steam has made it clear they're not changing anything. I can't see the US ever passing such a consumer protective law either, unfortunately.

There are two issues at play here, copyright (the buying of a license) and DRM. Now everyone knows that copyright has swung way too far in favour of rights holders, but this isn't just a Steam thing, this is the same for every software publisher. The courts are still working out what's what with copyright use and licenses, there have been a number of high profile cases involving Autocad and Blizzard, but the verdict is still up in the air. If you're making a stand against this then I suggest don't buy Arma 3, or most software today until it's figured out, or go with open source stuff. As for DRM, well there's always GoG, or just not using Steam in the first place.

I don't get what any of this has to do with not accepting the new EULA? You lost your consumer rights long ago when you first joined Steam, the only thing you're losing now is hundreds of games??

Yep, the exact same wording is in the ARMA EULAs, The Program is licensed not sold, etc. Frankly I don't see what's changed with the new Steam EULA? I don't care about class action lawsuits, not being American or a lawyer.

Everyone knew MS were bastards business-wise but people turned a blind eye cause they could pick up a piece of their action, now that Microsoft's marketing dept. has decided to turn and eat their own all for a few more dimes suddenly attitudes change, risks increase and so fingers are pointed.

I don't see how it's hypocritical, firstly what he was talking about is regarding platform openess, nothing to do with monopolies, plus he wasn't even complaining, just explaining that they were hedging their bets by moving onto another platform because the platform they originally chose (which benefited them by being open) is trending towards being closed. I see some parallels of this in a post I read yesterday regarding the fall of Microsoft Flight, Robert Randazzo a addon developer for the MS Fight Simulator series explained that with the new MS Flight, Microsoft put strict conditions on them for developing any addons including: "All commercial products would be marketed exclusively by MS and we would not be allowed to sell our own products from our own sites" and "The inability to market our own products in the brick and mortar retail market without purchasing licenses to our own products in advance of production", they couldn't even provide free stuff. Someone from Blizzard agreed with Gabe's comments, clearly some in the industry can see the writing on the wall regarding MS developing business practices. Check out the post, it's quite interesting: http://forum.avsim.net/topic/358874-some-thoughts-on-flight/