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!
This is what drove me to GNU/Linux. Was OS X user, saw how Apple censors GPL software from App Store, and saw 8-year-old kid with iPod touch getting his allowance stolen by a solitaire iOS game that charged him real money to cheat when he got stuck (which you can do with real cards, obviously) while advertising at him to eat at McDonald's. I decided I couldn't trust Apple anymore, and no way would I trust Microsoft.
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.
Yeah because software is free to maintain and develop.
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?
I work in the games industry. A lot of the freemium models are absolutely extortion. Some of the worst ones explicitly target children and gambling addicts to maximize profits on vulnerable people or abuse the family's card details.
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.
Any multiplayer game when you cant buy anything that helps you win, yet receive constant free gameplay content built with moneys of those who want to buy cosmetics, i.e. league of legends, team fortress and the like.
Disclaimer: I was a dota player, which has some rivalries with LoL
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.
Hearthstone and Heroes of the Storm come to mind. They are free to play games which can be 100% played without paying once (even at a high level, although it takes time). In-game items can be earned or paid for with money. And overall it's quite a fun experience to pay for bonuses (optional gameplay or cosmetic items) in both games.
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.
> When done right, Freemium [...] is also more enjoyable and a more fun experience for the user.
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.)
"Freemium" is usually means you pay for extra gameplay or cosmetic content (or in the case of non-games, extra features). "Pay to remove ads" is usually separate. I was specifically addressing the "freemium" part of the sentence "This freemium / ad-infused software trend is effectively extortion.".
While your point that software development is not free is valid, it's more a matter of ethics, not economics here.
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.
Yeah because software is free to maintain and develop.
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.
Seriously? You're going to use the very argument I mentioned? You're arguing for "there are costs to cover" for the concept of running solitaire on computers?
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 don't have any particular moral objection to this kind of business mode, I just doubt it will be good for Micrsoft. It coninues the trend of devaluing the PC and elimating any kind of premium pricing (outside of Apple).
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.
The problem is not the GPL, the problem is Apple's rules for the App Store. The GPL prohibits restrictions on the rights granted by the license. Yet the App Store terms contain restrictions (most prominently, the freedoms to redistribute copies or copies of modified versions) on what you can do with the software obtained therefrom. Thus, they are not compatible with the GPL.
GPL grants you freedoms. App Store terms take them away. I think it's clear who's doing the censoring.
I get the feeling it was a suggestion from an enterprise customer. The other thing: it isn't needed anymore to teach people how to use the mouse. It was amazing how that one game taught a lot of computer haters how the mouse worked. That damn card game was an addictive motivator. Not a bad lesson to learn if you have an interface concept that you want people to learn and practice.
Paint and Wordpad are two of the "classic" utilities that stayed untouched in Windows 10 - even though Paint could benefit from some touchscreen-friendliness, for users with touch screens, that is. But Microsoft already has something called "Fresh Paint" in the Windows Store, with IAPs that can cost as much as $99.99 (according to the app description).
I feel like these titles are pretty disingenuous, as far as I'm aware you get all the functionality of the old Solitaire game and more for free without being shown any ads at all, while the ads are only in a new game mode.
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.
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 wish I could go back and check but didn't this happen with Windows 8.1? Seems weird to be outraged now as opposed to back then (unless I'm wrong of course).
Yes, in Windows 8 / 8.1 Solitaire (as well as other casual games published by Microsoft, such as Minesweeper, Sudoku, etc.) did include ads. They were shown in small boxes on the start screen, if you swipe to the right, and in the end game "you win" screen. In addition to those, I occasionally saw a full-screen ad when starting a session on the PC, but not on the tablet.
Solitaire added ads to something that was previously free and ad free and added ads.
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
To be fair to Microsoft, you used to have to pay for Solitaire to get your free copy of Windows, now they've unbundled it you can get Windows 10 for free without having to buy Solitaire.
Ads inside an operating system (startmenu) and in applications that are included by default (Solitaire). I never saw that, not in Android, not in iOS, not in OSX. All telemetry, key and audio capturing and auto-cloud-upload, peer-to-peer-updates, forced updates, ...these new "features"/annoyances aren't well received. What's going on at Microsoft campus?
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.
WTF! Windows 10 is basicly Adware. Telemetry and Ads in the Startmenu can't be disabled, unless running the Enterprise Version! Hopefully someone invents xposed/xprivacy for Windows now.
Y'know, there's one place I have seen ads in the OS before: Ubuntu's "Amazon Shopping Lens" in Unity. That was ugly and tasteless, too, and I hope Microsoft gets a similar backlash.
>> Ads inside an operating system (startmenu) and in applications that are included by default (Solitaire).
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.
> 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
I have older family that are winows solitaire addicts. The windows 8 options were just bad: Huge fullscreen only, sounds, fancy menus you have to navigate first...
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.)
42 comments
[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 89.7 ms ] threadIn 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!
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.
https://www.fsf.org/news/2010-05-app-store-compliance/
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.
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.
"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
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.
> 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...
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.)