VR still isn't catching on, and people are starting to notice

It looks like the Black Friday/Cyber Monday weekend were not kind to VR, because I'm suddenly seeing a lot of stories like this one, from bizjournals.com:

This year was supposed to be a breakout one for virtual reality.

For the first time, motivated fans of the technology can choose from Facebook’s Oculus RIft, Google Daydream, Sony’s Playstation VR, HTC Vive and Samsung’s Gear VR. One analyst estimates some 4.1 million people will buy a VR headset by the end of the year — far from the breakout that had been expected.

In a new report, SuperData says Sony will likely end the year selling just 750,000 PlayStation VR headsets, significantly lower than the firm’s earlier forecast of 2.6 million units. Daydream will likely sell 261,000 units this year, lower than SuperData’s estimate of 450,000.

Meanwhile, sales of the Gear VR, HTC Vive and Oculus Rift will likely come in at 2.3 million units, 450,000 units and 355,000 units respectively, roughly in line with SuperData’s earlier forecasts.

High cost, lack of content, and low demand are cited as the reasons why VR isn't catching fire the way VR evangelists have been insisting was about to happen any day now. Superdata, remember, who are getting all kinds of exposure today for revising their VR sales forecasts downwards, were predicting (not very long ago) that VR would be worth $30 billion a year in revenue by 2020; it looks like reality is starting to reassert itself, instead, reality being the things that continue to be true regardless of what you want to believe.

VR's (not-at-all) surprisingly low sales performance may explain why Ubisoft just announced that all of their VR games will feature cross-platform support for all of the different VR headsets available, including Vive, Rift, PSVR, and the upcoming Windows 10 PCVR flavours. It may also explain why HTC is already hard at work on Vive 2.0, which will apparently be lighter and more comfortable to wear/use, among other things (HTC Vive has only sold 140,000 units so far).

I stand by my earlier predictions on VR. The technology is not ready; it's not only too expensive, lacking a killer app, and suffering from low consumer interest, it has fundamental unsolved problems which will prevent VR developers from solving those three problems for years to come. And until VR is not only more powerful, more comfortable, more portable, more versatile, easier to use, more useful, and less expensive, it's not going to see wide adoption.

CNIL gives Microsoft more time to get their homework done

I supposed this really shouldn't have surprised me.

From Tech Republic:

Microsoft has asked for more time to make Windows 10's data collection comply with French data protection law.

In the summer, the chair of France's National Data Protection Commission (CNIL) claimed that Microsoft's flagship OS violated the French data protection act and highlighted the "seriousness of the breaches".

Microsoft was given three months to change how Windows 10 collects data about users in order to comply with the act. Now Microsoft has asked the CNIL for more time to respond to the authority's formal notice and has been given an extension until January next year. If Windows 10 still doesn't comply after this point the company could be fined up to €150,000.

So, there you have it Windows 10 users -- your entirely valid privacy concerns will not be addressed by Microsoft at all until next year, when they'll probably do the bare minimum to comply with French laws, and find some way to keep those changes exclusive to France. More and more, I find myself glad that I didn't switch to Windows 10.

Did I mention yet that Zorin and Fedora have new, improved versions out this week, that are specifically geared to the needs of people switching from Windows 10?

Linux developers start to mobilize

When October's OS market share numbers were published, Windows 7 & 8 were clear winners, with Windows 10 stagnant and MacOS & Linux apparently struggling. Apple seemed to be intent on repeating Microsoft's GWX mistakes, and Linux vendors just didn't seem to be able to get their act together to capitalize on consumer ambivalence about Redmond's new OS, with no clear Win10 alternative packages available.

That last bit appears to be changing, with not just one but two Linux distros now openly advertising themselves as Windows 10 alternatives. Better late than never, I suppose.

First up is Zorin. From betanews:

Windows 10 is a really great desktop operating system, but it is not for everyone. For those that care deeply about security and privacy, an open source Linux-based operating system is a wise alternative. The problem? Learning a new user interface can be hard for some. If you have always used a Windows OS in the past, moving to a desktop environment like GNOME or Unity can be confusing and scary.

Luckily, for those that have difficulty with change, there are some Linux-based operating systems that are designed for Windows-switchers. One fairly popular such offering, Zorin OS, has now reached version 12. It is designed to be familiar to former users of Microsoft's OS. While the company does charge for an "Ultimate" version, the "Core" edition of Zorin OS 12 is entirely free.

"Many of the built-in system apps have seen extensive improvements both visually and under the hood. Zorin OS 12 is powered by Linux Kernel version 4.4, which now works with even more hardware and introduces performance enhancements and security improvements. As Zorin OS 12 is based on Ubuntu 16.04 LTS, it will be supported with security updates until April 2021. This makes Zorin OS 12 the ideal choice for large deployments in businesses, governments, schools and organisations", says The Zorin OS Team.

Next up is Fedora 25. Again, from betanews:

After the release of both alpha and beta versions, Fedora 25 is officially here and ready for production machines. If you aren't familiar with the popular Linux-based operating system, please know that it is the distribution of choice for the founder of the Linux kernel, Linus Torvalds.

One of the most endearing qualities of Fedora is its focus on only offering truly free open source software. Also, you can always count on a very modern version of the Linux kernel being available. Despite having very up-to-date packages, it is always very stable too. My favorite aspect, however, is the commitment to the GNOME desktop environment; other DEs are available, though.

"Providing many of the latest open source developer and desktop tools, Fedora 25 Workstation delivers a host of new features, including the long-awaited official debut of the Wayland display server. Replacing the legacy X11 system, Wayland has been under development for several years and seeks to provide a smoother, richer experience for graphical environments and better capabilities for modern graphics hardware. To further enhance ease-of-use, Fedora 25 Workstation also features GNOME 3.22, which offers multiple file renaming, a redesigned keyboard settings tool and additional user interface improvements. Workstation users will also be pleased with the inclusion of decoding support for the MP3 media format", says Fedora Team.

The team also says, "Fedora 25 Workstation now makes it easier to for Windows and OS X users to get started, with Fedora Media Writer serving as the default download for those operating systems. This tool helps users find and download the current Fedora release and write it to removable media, like a USB stick, allowing potential Fedora users to 'test drive' the operating system from that media environment. Fedora can then be installed to their systems with the same process".

With two Linux-based Windows 10 alternatives launching in the same week, both openly advertising themselves as alternatives to Microsoft's latest OS and doing everything they can to make the process of switching less daunting for new users, we could well be about to see Linux gaining back some if the OS market share that they'd lost to Windows 7 & 8. It will be interesting to see if privacy-conscious and tech-savvy users decide to opt for a free Windows alternative, or stick with the Microsoft products they already know; all of those new Win7 & 8 installations are good for another few years, after all.

Reminder: Microsoft are still dicks, and Windows 10 is still annoying

From TrustedReviews:

Windows 10 has effectively become that annoying vegan friend who judges you when you order a burger and tells you the harrowing story about how it came to your plate.

As part of a new series of Windows 10 tips, Chrome and Firefox browser users are being informed ‘you know what, actually, Edge is far safer for you.’

As spotted by illCodeYouABrain on Reddit, Users are seeing a pop-up on the Edge icon saying “Microsoft Edge is safer than Firefox. It blocks 21% more socially engineered malware.”

It then offers a link to do “learn more,” which in this instance is Microsoft’s “you should really educate yourself about the issues.”
...
If you don’t want to hear Microsoft’s ‘annoying vegan friend’ act, the firm told VentureBeat that tips can be easily switched off in system settings.
...
Or you could listen to Microsoft, which has gleaned that 21% safer figure from a report it commissioned NSS Labs to create.

I'm genuinely puzzled by this one. Not because I expected Microsoft to learn anything from the GWX backlash that has 48% of all PC users sticking with Windows 7, but simply because I can't figure out who the target audience is, here.

People who are tech-savvy enough to still be using other browsers aren't going to fall for this; all Redmond is accomplishing is to irritate them. Meanwhile, everybody who lacks the technical savvy to know better is probably already using Edge, just as they were probably using IE before being switched to Windows 10. Who is this for?

Also, didn't Microsoft already try this same tactic, with zero results? I'm pretty sure they did, before trying outright bribery to try (and fail) to lure users to their new browser. What makes them think they'll get better results this time?

Also, commissioning a dubious report that you then cite in propaganda? That's lying with statistics, again, and they aren't even trying to be subtle about it.

Also, how exactly is Edge supposed to be protecting users from social engineering? The whole point of social engineering is that it relies on bad habits on the part of users to bypass the systems that would otherwise protect them.

The single biggest problem with this approach, though, is that it does nothing to address the issues with Edge that sent people back to Chrome, Firefox, et al. Edge didn't support extensions out of the box, and doesn't have any extensions available to download now that Redmond finally have added this critical feature of modern browsers, because there are no users of Edge. Software developers don't develop for users that don't exist.

Which is why users of Chrome outnumber users of Edge by 10 to 1, and why Edge only grew its browser share by 0.1% last month. So, yeah, I understand why they're desperate; they're losing, and they're out of ideas. Desperation isn't attractive, though; I don't they're going to catch any more fish this time around, using this same rancid bait.

What's up with Microsoft and CNIL?

On July 20th, France's National Data Protection Commission (CNIL) served notice to Microsoft to fix Windows 10's privacy deficiencies, or else.

The deficiencies included:

• excessive or irrelevant collection of data (i.e. telemetry); 
• inadequate security with the PIN system used to secure users' accounts;
• the ability of Windows' and other parties’ apps to monitor user activity and offer targeted advertising without obtaining users’ consent;
• lack of information regarding, and no option to block, cookies; and 
• continuing to transfer data outside the EU on a "safe harbour" basis, which violates an Oct. 2015 decision by the Court of Justice of the European Union.

Microsoft was given three months to address these issues, and at the time said that they were happy to work with the CNIL to work towards an acceptable solution. Again, that was in July, on the 21st.

That three-month deadline, Oct. 20th, has come and gone, without so much as a peep from either Microsoft or CNIL. So, what's happening?

That's not a rhetorical question; I'd really like to know. Because I've been googling "Microsoft CNIL" for a couple of weeks now, and... nothing. Is anyone in the actual journalism business asking this question of CNIL's press service, or of their own contacts inside CNIL? Because journalists are supposed to have some of those, aren't they? Why isn't any follow-up reporting being done on this story?

Canadian cord-cutting accelerates because cable companies are the worst

Once upon a time, Canadian cable customers were unhappy.

They were so unhappy, in fact, that the CRTC actually noticed, and held hearings. They asked Canadians what was wrong with Canada's cable television options; they asked consumers what they wanted to buy, and how much they were willing to pay for it.

The answer was clear: Canadians wanted pick-and-pay. They wanted a bare-bones package, at a reasonable rate, that they could supplement with the additional channels they wanted, and only those channels. They wanted reasonable access to the content they wanted to see, at a reasonable price, with no onerous conditions or restrictions.

Given those things, Canadians would happily pay for cable; in the absence of those things, they would happily choose Netflix instead; and, if Netflix failed to provide the content they wanted to watch, then they'd pirate it, rather than continuing to pay through the nose for bundles that forced them to pay a premium for channels they never watched, just to access to the few that they were interested in.

Canada's cable companies, long used to dictating terms to customers that lacked other options, wanted to continue restricting the options and charging more than was reasonable or fair, and they lobbied hard for the status quo. The CRTC, somewhat surprisingly, sided with consumers on this one, and mandated $25 skinny cable packages, along with individually-priced channels that customers could pick and choose. 

What cable companies actually provided, though, was shit.

You see, while they were legally required to have a basic package, they weren't required to advertise it, and many didn't -- consumers had to know about the $25 skinny package, ask for it specifically, and insist on getting it, rather than being shunted back into the bundle ecosystem. Additional fees were added to the $25 skinny packages that the bundles didn't have; additional channels saw stand-alone costs of cost four or five times what they cost when bundled by cable companies.

The result was skinny packages that the cable companies weren't actively selling, and had made so unpalatable that customers weren't interested in buying them anyway.

The CRTC was flooded with complaints, as customers who'd wanted a fairly-priced, basic, a la carte cable option, found that it simply didn't exist, in spite of the CRTC's mandate. Cable companies smugly declared this to be a good thing -- evidence, basically, that they'd been right all along, and that "skinny" basic cable packages had been proven to be unnecessary.

From CBC News:

When asked whether nearly 600 complaints is concerning, [CRTC spokeswoman Patricia] Valladao responded that big changes always require an adjustment period.

She added that the new deals aren't going to appeal to everyone, and that customers can always stick with their current packages. "It's not like they're under the gun to change," the CRTC spokeswoman said.

The Consumers' Association of Canada has also been inundated with complaints about the skinny packages — more than 300 at last count.

President Bruce Cran is less sanguine about the flood of unhappy comments.

"We weren't expecting this," he said. "The sort of common theme is that nobody thinks the skinny package is of any great value."

That was March 17th -- just weeks after the mandates skinny packages were first rolled out. It is now November 13th. How do things look for Canada's cable customers, and cable providers, today?

Once again, I give you CBC News:

The lure of a $25 basic TV package has not helped stem the tide of Canadians cancelling their cable subscriptions. And critics believe the added pick-and-pay channel options coming next month may not help much either.

Canadians continued to cut the cord in record numbers following the launch of the CRTC-mandated basic TV plans on March 1.

This is according to Mario Mota, with Boon Dog Professional Services, an Ottawa-based research and consulting firm. Mota crunched subscriber numbers for Canada's seven major publicly traded TV providers, including Bell, Rogers, Telus and Shaw.

He found they lost a combined total of 98,476 TV customers in their first two fiscal quarters during the period of March through September.

That's a loss of 13 per cent more customers than the same period in 2015.

So.... about as I expected, really.

Cable companies decided to play cute with the CRTC's rules, here, making pick-and-pay options so unattractive that people would see them as completely worthless. Well, guess what? It worked. And those people are now opting out of cable subscriptions entirely, just like they said they would.

GG, Canadian cable companies. GG.

Because here's the thing. Those customers, having finally taken the plunge into a cable-free world? They're discovering just how liberating and inexpensive it is to not pay for cable anymore. They're discovering that they like it. They're wondering why they put up with their cable company's bullshit for so long, when there were other, superior, and less expensive options.

The fact that cable companies are grudgingly going to start offering customers what they'd wanted for years is just too little, too late.

HTC Vive goes wireless!

And it'll only cost you an extra $220. On top of the $800 that the Vive itself costs. And, of course, the $1500 or so for the PC that you need to drive this thing, because HTC haven't yet managed to do what Oculus have done with the Rift, and make it work with existing mid-range gaming PCs.

Yeah... good luck with that.

From UploadVR:

HTC today announced a tether-less VR upgrade kit for its SteamVR device, made by TPCAST, one of the first of 33 companies to join the Vive X Accelerator. A preview version of the kit was shown off today at Alibaba’s “11/11” global shopping festival in Shenzhen, China. This is not the wireless prototype device in the works at Quark VR.
...
Speaking to UploadVR in a phone interview, Graylin said that the experience would “greatly improve” the overall Vive experience, with no “noticeable difference” for factors like latency. The product will be available to pre-order with a standard battery, though Graylin said that a bigger battery will be sold eventually. We’re told the standard battery can deliver around one and a half hours of power. The bigger battery would rest in a user’s pocket.

Oh, that's right! I forgot all about the battery life problem! Although I suppose it may be less of a problem that the cable thing, since the average user won't be able to spend all that much time in VR at stretch, anyway.

I guess I shouldn't snark too much, though, especially since I'd identified the tethers as one of the many issues that VR needs to solve. I don't know that this counts as fully solving it, and it makes the Vive look even more like a half-baked dev kit rather than a finished product, but it's a start, anyway.

Still, though... $220, on top of the Vive's already premium cost, for this?

That looks to me like a tough sell, especially since it doesn't actually make the Vive any more useful. It makes it easier to use, yes, but not more useful, because VR still isn't any more useful than it was before this dingus, which means that the HTC Vive is now a $1000 spend for something that's going to spend most of its time gathering dust next to users' PCs. And looking ugly. I'm with Jim Sterling on this one, that's some ugly design.

About that "D1 in D3" experience...

I know, I know... I said was done with this, and this really is the last post on the subject. I promise. This is just one last PSA for any Diablo III fans who might stumble on my humble little blog.

In case you were wondering if you should reinstall D3 to check out the "Darkening of Tristram" limited-time event... you shouldn't. You really shouldn't.

I knew that without needing to actually test the content; in fact, I was so convinced of it, that I had my BNet account deleted, rather than waste time testing this crap. But you don't have to take my word for it.

Instead, you can take Kripparrian's word for it:

I'll say it again: Diablo really is dead, Blizzard really are out of ideas, and I don't regret the decision to delete my BNet account at all. But I think that there is one way that the Darkening of Tristram content might make a kind of practical sense... at least, from Blizzard's perspective.

Of the criticisms that have been directed at Diablo III by old-school Diablo fans, most of them seem (to me, anyway) to have fallen into two main categories. One the one hand, are the people (like myself) who were complaining about the game's mechanics and gameplay. To those people, D3 was just poorly designed, and no amount of superficial polish could compensate for the shallowness and hollowness of the core experience.

Others, though, had a different complaint: aesthetics. D3, they said, just didn't look right. It was too bright, too colourful, too slick and glossy, and the soundtrack sucked compared to Matt Uelmen's now-iconic work. D3, the argument went, just didn't look or feel like a Diablo game; Blizzard just needed to fix that.

Pretend, for the moment, that you're an exec at Blizzard, faced with the challenge of winning back a Diablo fanbase that have mostly headed for the hills as a result of a) Diablo III, and b) the way your own people insulted and belittled them for daring to complain about Diablo III. You, Blizzard exec, have to choose between one of two options:

1. you can rebuild all of the gameplay elements of D3, from the core outward, at an enormous cost of both time and money, with no guarantee that doing so will win back the trust and goodwill of alienated Diablo fans; or
2. you can greenlight a "D1 in D3" mod instead, which retains all of the gameplay of the existing game but overlays the D1/D2 aesthetic on the experience, at a fraction of that cost.

You're an executive, remember. Which do you choose?

It's a rhetorical question, obviously, since we already know which one was chosen. The Darkening of Tristram, intentionally or not, serves as a perfect test of the aesthetic argument. If D3's mechanics really were solid, and its problems purely aesthetic, then TDoT would have made D3 awesome. Because it really is D3 with a D1/D2 look and feel, including the awesomely eerie Uelmen music.

Instead, it sucks. Because what TDoT essentially does, intentionally or not, is strip away the superficial gloss and polish from D3, leaving its gameplay utterly exposed. Gone is the fluid feel created by D3's excellent animation work; instead, D3's gameplay is forced to carry the entire load. And the result, according to players like Kripparrian, is no fun at all to play.

Kripparrian, remember, liked this game. He's the first person to kill Diablo in Inferno, on Hardcore, before they nerfed Inferno to actually make it playable.; in fact, Kripp & Krippi may be the only people to do so. He played a ton of D3. He used to stream D3. And yet, when presented with D3's naked gamplay, stripped of the fluid animations and slot-machine-stimulating light show, he hated it.

The logic is inescapable. If D3's aesthetics really were the problem, then TDoT would have been the solution. They aren't, so it isn't. Layering D1/D2 aesthetics over D3's just serves to reveal the real issue: utterly unengaging gameplay, the result of a core design that's rotten with terrible decisions.

The one good thing about TDoT is that it's only available for one month at a stretch, and only for one month of the year. Blizzard clearly weren't sure how people would react, and limiting availability serves to a) keep people wanting more, if they did end up loving it, and b) limit the damage, if they didn't.

Microsoft will try again to unify Windows 10 & XBox gaming

From neowin:

For years now, Microsoft has been diligently working on a strategy to converge its gaming ecosystems on Xbox and Windows. Though we’ve seen bits and pieces of these efforts show up, it won’t be until the launch of Xbox Scorpio next year, when the company’s vision fully comes to life.

The company’s struggles and strategy to bring together Xbox and Windows gaming are bundled together in a single strand, codenamed Project Helix. Originally publicized by Kotaku earlier this year, Project Helix involves creating one platform, that allows easy access and performant tools for developers to craft games, while giving varied choices and mobility to the player base to move around in the ecosystem.

If this sounds familiar to you, it’s because you might be thinking of the Universal Windows Platform (UWP). That’s the runtime that Microsoft developed for all of its Windows ecosystems, which has largely the same mission statement as Project Helix. And that’s by no means an accident, seeing as the UWP is an integral part of the company’s gaming ambitions.

Yes, it looks like Helix = UWP 2.0. The fact that UWP already needs a 2.0 should tell you just how badly it's failing. So far, UWP is Games for Windows Live all over again; Microsoft seems to be banking on Helix, and the Scorpio console that will be the de facto standard for XBox going forward, to turn this trend around, but I have my doubts.

Or, as neowin put it:

The unified ecosystem will all be based around the UWP platform and run through the Windows Store, though XDK will still be highly important. As this comes to pass, Microsoft will finally have a unified, integrated ecosystem, capable of sustaining its users across all platforms.

Whether this succeeds in any meaningful way in the market remains to be seen. Steam is still the dominant platform on PC, and for good reason. Microsoft’s recent missteps with the launch of the latest Call of Duty as a Universal app, have highlighted the nascent platform’s weakness. If users continue to ignore the Windows Store and Microsoft fails to entice them, Project Helix may be little more than an technical achievement. But you don’t get any Gs for trying.

With Steam now working hard to improve their service, and thus retain their customers' trust and loyalty, Microsoft's hill just got tougher to climb, and the steady drip of UWP failures like CoD will only make that harder. The fact that Microsoft is doubling down on a strategy that isn't working now is probably a solid sign of them not having a plan B, either.

Microsoft keep trying to "integrate" everything inside of their walled garden, with them as gatekeepers and sole arbiters of what will (and won't) be allowed on users' PCs, but it's becoming increasingly clear that PC users mostly don't want that, just like they didn't want it in Windows 8. Unless Microsoft stop trying to be Apple, and stop trying to make Windows 10 into iOS, they're going to continue to struggle with this.

Steam adds personalized recommendations (and more) in latest update

From Twinfinite:

A new update from Valve has given Steam a better way to suggest games that you might like.

The new update, called the Discovery Update, includes recommendations that are made based on the games that you have played in the past, and based on what your friends are playing.

One of the better aspects of the update is that the recommendations are customizable. If you look at the highlights section of the store, you can see why certain games were recommended to you. This involves simple tags like “horror” and “Action”, and it also allows you to avoid certain kinds of games you aren’t keen on. On the preferences screen, you are able to choose up to three different tags for games you’d rather avoid. Not too keen on puzzle games? Well you can banish them from your sight.

No more FPS recommendations, or MMOs, or Sports games? Sign me up! You can also exclude Early Access titles, VR titles, pre-orders, and more:

The fact that recommended titles now list the tags that put them into your recommendations is a welcome bit of transparency, too:

 

Will this solve all of Steam's "discoverability" issues? Probably not. It will go a long way to making it easier for users to find the kinds of games they're interested in, though, which should only help sales of even niche titles, and it definitely makes for a better user experience. All in all, I'm going to call this one a win.

Even bigger win? Valve continues to be engaged, and working actively on improving their service. It looks like they've finally woken up, and plan on staying that way. Good on them.

The case for VR may be even weaker than it first appeared

From lifehacker AU:

I think we all thought racing games would be perfect in virtual-reality (AKA VR). We almost took that for granted. Actually, anything that involved sitting seemed perfect for VR.

Sitting in a mech, shooting people. Perfect for VR.

Sitting in a spaceship, shooting other spaceships. Perfect for VR.

Sitting in a racecar, racing other racecars. Perfect for VR.

It makes sense. There’s perceived issues with virtual reality as a concept. We’re all agreed that, while VR has made spectacular leaps and bounds over the last couple of years, there are still problems to be solved.

Prime among them: player movement.

How does one run in VR? How does one jump? How do we climb and how do we shoot? So many of the classic video game verbs don’t really work in VR.

Driving though. We can handle that one, right? Yes. Probably.

But a strange sensation. I’m currently playing Gran Turismo Sport. I’m playing using the PlayStation VR headset. Literally five minutes ago I was playing Gran Turismo Sport like a relatively normal person: a normal person who somehow has a PlayStation 4 Pro and a really great 4K television.

I’m still trying to work out which one I prefer.

Remember when I said that VR wasn't going to revolutionize gaming? This is why I said that. Even in a seated experience, playing a game which literally sits you in a cockpit and asks you to interact with nothing but your vehicle's controls, VR isn't better. It might be as good, but it isn't better. And at $600 a throw, it needs to be better than the alternative, not just different.

Hell, considering how many things don't really work in VR, even at $300 a throw, VR needs to blow users away when doing at least those few things that it does relatively well. But it doesn't. I've tried VR, and I can say this from experience. VR is different, it's even interesting, but it didn't blow me away. It's worth trying, but it isn't worth buying, and won't be for a long time yet.

Not that 4K displays are about to be a thing, either. For most people, 1080p will work just fine for everything, gaming included, so don't go thinking that you need a pricey 4K screen to play PS4 games. You don't. But you don't need PSVR, either, which is a problem since PSVR was the headset that VR advocates were counting on to convince the masses to join the VR revolution.

Microsoft's upcoming $300 PCVR headsets will lower the price bar for entry, it looks like they'll be locked to Windows 10 (thus limiting adoption to a maximum of 22.5% of PC users), and no more useful than any other VR headset, I wouldn't bank on them changing the game significantly, either. There are just too many problems with VR, and not enough to be gained from buying in.

Mark Serrels' lifehacker article (well worth a read, BTW, so go give it some clicks) describes this situation as, "Weird." I'd call it not to much weird, as inevitable. The only remaining question is, how long does it take the rest of the world's tech bloggers to catch up to reality?

Chrome crushes Edge while IE and Firefox fade

How's that for a hype title?

From HotHardware.com:

Despite all the effort Microsoft is expending in getting Internet users to try out and stick with its Edge browser, Chrome continues to the popular choice. Even worse for Microsoft, Chrome's popularity is growing—it now accounts for more than half of all desktop browser usage and has nearly double the market share of Edge and Internet Explorer combined.

Market research firm Net Applications has Chrome sitting pretty with a 54.99 percent share of the desktop browser market, up from 31.12 percent at this moment a year ago, while Internet Explorer and Edge combine for 28.39 percent and Firefox stuck at around 11 percent. Even more interesting is that when Windows 10 launched to the public at the end of July 2015, Chrome had a 27.82 percent share of the market while Internet Explorer still dominated the landscape with a 54 percent share. Now the script has flipped.

Well, I guess we now know why Microsoft has switched from soft bribery to something a little more in-users'-faces. Seriously, is any part of their Windows 10 strategy going to plan, or is it a total fiasco? Because if there is some of part of this strategy that's actually working as intended, I'd really be interested to know which part.

Well, that answers that question

Gamers are just about the only group of Windows PC users who've mostly switched to Windows 10, with only a little grumbling. I suspected that this was mainly because gamers are used to being shit on by the big corporations in their lives, and just sort of rolled with it when Microsoft did the same. They weren't jazzed about Windows 10, and they weren't planning to switch from Steam to the Windows Store for their gaming purchases -- they were just convinced that Microsoft was going to find a way to force Windows 10 on them anyway, so they got the switch over with.

Well, today, we got a pretty clear demonstration of that being exactly what's happened. Our case study: Activision's Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare.

From Motherboard:

Every year, Activision releases another Call of Duty and gamers across the world scramble to get their hands on the new shooter. Fans love the single player campaign, but the game’s polished, fun, and fast-paced multiplayer mode is the real draw.

Of course, it only works if you have other people to play with. A few gamers who bought Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare through the digital storefront built into Windows 10 have discovered they can only play with other gamers who also bought the game from Microsoft. Xbox One players can only play with other Xbox One players, and PlayStation 4 players can only play with other PlayStation 4 players. This has always been the case. The trouble is that this time not all PC players can play with other PC players. For unknown reasons, Windows 10 Store customers are segregated from customers who bought the game from Steam, which is by far the most popular platform on PC.

That’s like buying a game from Target and learning you can’t play with people who bought it from Best Buy. Call of Duty fans who made the unfortunate of mistake of giving Microsoft their cash are left sitting in lonely multiplayer lobbies waiting for games that’ll never start.

However, it appears that Microsoft is giving out refunds.

Microsoft is doing everything they can to promote the idea of cross-play between different Windows 10 platforms, so this is mostly likely a decision by Activision, but even so, it means that implementing cross-play between different Windows PC versions was so problematic that a developer with Activision's resources didn't bother doing it for something as important to them as this year's CoD.

That's not a good sign for the Universal Windows Platform initiative. The fact that not enough Windows 10 users bought the game from the Windows 10 store to make a multiplayer mode viable, in spite of the fact that there are at least 60 million of them (they're over half of Steam's 125M user base, remember), is also not a good sign for UWP.

Good on Redmond for giving refunds for this, but still, it has to be a double-plus un-good sign of something when the most "enthusiastic" (I use the term very lightly, here) Windows 10 users are avoiding the Windows 10 as if it's leprous, or something. Microsoft really needs to give this strategy a sober second look.

UPDATE: CoD's Infinite Warfare fiasco isn't doing Activision any good, either.

It's currently being outsold by Farming Simulator 17. Ouch.

From Destructoid:

Is this the end for Call of Duty?

That's right, Farming Simulator 17, a game about being a modern farmer and driving expensive tractors is currently destroying the just-released Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare on Steam, at least numbers wise. According to Steam's own stats, Farming Simulator 17 is number 23 on the top 100 games list (at the time of writing) with 26,044 players today, while Infinite Warfare is number 36 with over 10,000 less at 15,436 players. Obviously not a terrible debut for most games, but pretty bad for one of the world's most popular series, at least on PC.

Farming Simulator 17 has been out for weeks, of course, and has a much lower price point, both of which will be helping its sales, but still... this is CoD we're talking about here. Up until Ghosts, Activision's flagship franchise reliably brought in a billion dollars of revenue for the company with every annual release, but now... 36th??? With performance like that, Activision may well stop making CoD games, or at least scale back to bi-annual releases the way Ubisoft is doing with Assassin's Creed.

Confirmed: Diablo is dying, and Blizzard is out of ideas [UPDATES below the fold]

Was it just this morning that I was writing about how broken Diablo III still is, and how desperately Blizzard has been trying to appeal to the nostalgia of Diablo II fans to breathe life back into their moribund franchise? I think it was:

Of all the recent BlizzCon Diablo rumours, this is the one that I believe, simply because it's exactly the kind of desperate, pandering bullshit that Blizzard have been doing for years, trying to convince Diablo II fans to come back to Diablo III (and buy its expansion pack) in spite of the fact that D3 is simply an inferior game, in spite of its gloss and polish.

Well, wait no longer, Diablo fans, because the pandering is real.

From polygon:

Diablo 3 players will get access to a brand new character, the oft-requested Necromancer, as an update to the Reaper of Souls expansion next year.

Blizzard showed off a trailer for the Necromancer during its BlizzCon 2016 Opening Ceremony Friday. Blizzard co-founder Frank Pearce said its addition was something fans had been asking for since Diablo 3’s launch in 2012.

The new Necromancer, Pearce said, is inspired by Diablo 2’s version of the character, and "takes advantage of everything Diablo 3 has to offer."

No details yet on exactly what the hell a "character pack" is -- my guess is paid-for DLC, because the players who've been begging for Blizzard to add Necromancers to D3 for years will obviously be stupid enough to stump up some green for that shit. I'll tell you what a "character pack" isn't, though. It isn't an expansion pack, or a sequel, or prequel, or even an HD remake of D2. 

The class itself will be shit, too -- even if it takes advantage of everything D3 has to offer, D3 is such a shallow, hollow shell of a game that "everything" amounts to more of the same boring skill system, broken itemization, and mind-numbing gameplay that have sent D2 fans fleeing en masse.

So... Blizzard have now delivered basically nothing for their Diablo fan base for a third straight BlizzCon, and on the 20th Anniversary, no less, except for one new class that should be added to the game for free but which will probably cost $20. Diablo fans have every right to be disappointed, and so far, it looks like quite a few of them are.

Did I mention that Path of Exile is running an all-weekend race event? And has a huge content patch coming in the next 2 weeks? With the beta for their even huger 3.0 content patch coming on the heels of that? And that PoE is completely free? No wonder the Father of Diablo calls it the ARPG that's actually pushing the genre to new heights.

GG, Blizzard. GG.

Here we go again...

Just when you thought it was safe to update your Windows PC...

From PC World:

When Microsoft’s Windows 10 deadline passed, many heaved a sigh of relief, thinking that Microsoft’s obnoxious popup reminders had finally been laid to rest.

Surprise! Microsoft’s at it again, reminding users to sign up for Microsoft Rewards (formerly Bing Rewards) by using Edge, Windows 10’s built-in browser. My colleague Brad Chacos was hit by the ad above after hours, reported it, and immediately erased Edge from his toolbar.

...

A notification here, a suggestion there: Microsoft’s gently slipped in promotions for Office as well as its third-party apps off and on since Windows 10 was launched, and then sneakily reset those options once the Anniversary Update launched last summer. (Here’s a list to turn off those Windows 10 ads if you’re still seeing them.)

But here’s the problem. Brad turned off his ad settings; the Anniversary Update reinstated them. Brad says he turned off the ad settings again—and once again, Microsoft reinstated them.

I guess bribery didn't work, then, so we're back to coercion? So much for Microsoft getting their shit together.

The one bright spot in this fresh bit of Microsoft hell: unlike their horrible GWX campaign, this will only affect Windows 10 users. Those of us who were smart enough to avoid switching in the first place, or to have switched back, don't have to worry about this one. Maybe this will convince a few more Windows 10 users to roll back to an OS that doesn't come loaded with quite so much of Microsoft's shit. Windows 7 may not be the new Windows XP yet, but Microsoft certainly seem to be working at making it happen.

Never10, bitches! Windows 7 forever! Woo!


#Windows7≈WindowsXP2.0
#Never10
#Windows7forever

BlizzCon cometh... whoopity do...

I've blogged before about my Diablo III experience, but just in case I wasn't clear enough before, let me state this explicitly: I believe that D3 is shit.

It's very glossy, highly-polished shit, to be sure, all glossy and kinda pretty from a sufficient distance, but if you get close enough to smell what it's made of... well, there's just no mistaking what it's made of:

• of D3's four primary attributes, two are mechanically identical to each other, a third is mechanically equivalent to the first two, and the fourth (Vit) goes up at the same rate for all classes as they level, meaning that it may as well not exist, either;
• of D3's many, many skills, most are so boring and useless as to see no use at all; the only ones that get used are those with 6-piece sets, or set-compatible legendary items, to support them;
• breaking the game's attribute system actually broke its combat mechanics, creating a "hit box" problem which gets worse as characters' move speed increases, which is (at least partly) why characters' move speed bonus is capped at 25%;
• breaking D3's attribute system broke its itemization, too, resulting in a game where every character, regardless of class, uses exactly the same gear, where the gear is mostly boring and interchangeable, and where melee characters need 30% of extra damage reduction to be viable;
• gutting the game's RPG systems and putting all of its gameplay into the loot system resulted in a game where short-circuiting the loot hunt is game-killing, according to Blizzard themselves, and yet also essential, which is why they added Kanai's Cube (and its multiple legendary-yielding formulae), and eventually Haedrig's Gift (which just gifts you with a 6-piece set if you play the latest season);
• leveling a new character is so trivialized that it's possible to reach the level cap in just 33 seconds; 
• the story is so lacklustre that Reaper of Souls added an entirely separate game mode in which players don't have to interact with the story at all; 
• even in that mode, bounties are so boring that people only run them when they need the crafting mats that you can't get any other way, and rifts are only run to obtain greater rift keystones, resulting in an expansion that actually contracted the experience, leaving all of the remaining active player base doing one thing, and only one thing, which is running grifts over and over.

Do I need to go on? Because I can. You know I can.

Most of these issues have been issues since the game launched in May of 2012; four-plus years of additional development have added polish and gloss, but haven't actually fixed the game, since the developers have been either unable or unwilling to admit that the game's problems all have their roots in these core design flaws. D3 is a game which feels very fluid, thanks to some stellar character animation work, and which is neurologically stimulating, thanks to glossy visuals full of flashing lights, bright colours, frantic motion, and constant chiming sounds, but it's pretty and stimulating in exactly the same way slot machines are stimulating; and, like a slot machine, it's designed to be addictive without being engaging at all.

That's why the Reaper of Souls expansion sold so poorly that Blizzard won't talk about its sales numbers, and redefined the term "Reaper of Souls" at the end of RoS's release quarter to mean all basic game licenses going back to the base game's launch in May of 2012. It's why Blizzard quietly stopped telling Diablo II fans to take off their "rose-tinted glasses," and started talking up their love of the Diablo legacy at BlizzCon 2015. It's why they started nakedly pandering to Diablo II fans with features like Kanai's Cube, which was literally pitched as being reminiscent of the older game:

Those who played Diablo II might remember the Horadric Cube, a unique device which allowed you to combine items. Useful as it was, it was easily surpassed in power by the item from which it originated, Kanai’s Cube. In Patch 2.3.0, players will be able to discover this powerful ancient relic and utilize its incredible potential, including the ability to break down Legendary items and equip their special effects as passive skills (which are separate from your other passive skills), convert crafting materials from one type to another, and so much more.

Diablo III is a highly polished turd, a glossy, smelly mess which sells millions of units whenever launched in a new market, but which totally fails to retain those players. Blizzard desperately needs to bring those older Diablo fans back into the fold, but can't just admit that their latest Diablo game is crap, or apologize to Diablo II fans for having spent years talking smack to and about them.

So, if you were wondering why Blizzard is leaked the concept art this week for a new Necromancer class that could be coming to D3... well, now you know why.

Of all the recent BlizzCon Diablo rumours, this is the one that I believe, simply because it's exactly the kind of desperate, pandering bullshit that Blizzard have been doing for years, trying to convince Diablo II fans to come back to Diablo III (and buy its expansion pack) in spite of the fact that D3 is simply an inferior game, in spite of its gloss and polish.

D3's problem is not that it lacks a Necromancer class; its issues are all the result of terrible design decisions which continue to cripple the game from its core, and a terrible story that even Blizzard themselves would rather you not think about anymore. I know, there are some active D3 players who have been basically begging Blizzard for years to add a Necromancer class to the game, and I'm sure they'll get some enjoyment from playing with it, but even Necromancers can't raise D3 from the dead. And when Blizzard eventually add the Druid class (which you'd better believe is next on the list), it will not shape-shift D3 from a shit game into a good one.

So, it's the wee hours before BlizzCon, but I'm not excited. Why would I be? More than anything else, the one and only thing that I want from Blizzard this BlizzCon is closure... which I'm not going to get, because they're still trying to sell their expansion-which-contracts-the-game-experience pack to me. 

D2 fans are not going to get an apology from Blizzard for having fucked up Diablo so badly, or for years of belittling and insulting us when we complained about their terrible product, or about the broken state in which it launched. Instead, we're going to get a broken, boring, bastardized D3 version of a popular D2 class in a desperate attempt to pander to exactly the same nostalgia that Blizzard spent years mocking us for.

Oh, and a pre-recorded video of Dave Brevik helping to celebrate Diablo's 20-year anniversary... pre-recorded because he's overseas, helping Grinding Gear Games launch Path of Exile in China, a game that he describes as pushing the ARPG genre "to new heights" in exactly the way that D3 didn't. GG.

BlizzCon 2016 starts today, and Path of Exile is running a three-day race event, with thirty-four races in three days. I think I'll do that instead.

Reminder: UWP is a broken mess, especially for gaming

Seriously, I couldn't make this shit up.

From polygon:

Maybe don’t buy Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare from the Windows 10 Store

Windows Store copies don’t play nice with other platforms

Call of Duty players who purchase a PC copy of Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare and Call of Duty: Modern Warfare Remastered from the Windows Store on Windows 10 won’t be able to play with people on other platforms, like Steam, according to an update on Activision’s support website.

Infinite Warfare and Modern Warfare Remastered won’t support cross-platform play between Windows PC and Xbox One — the titles aren’t part of Microsoft’s Xbox Play Anywhere program. That’s not much of a surprise; the majority of Xbox Play Anywhere supported titles are developed or published by Microsoft.

More surprising, however, is the lack of cross-platform compatibility on PC. Buying the games for Windows 10 from the Windows Store will apparently restrict players from playing with PC gamers who purchase it elsewhere. From Activision’s support website, via NeoGAF:

Can I play Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare or Call of Duty: Modern Warfare Remastered for Windows 10 on Windows Store with my friends that are playing on another PC platform?

No, you can only play these titles with other users of Windows 10 on Windows Store.

Q: Why would anyone buy games from the Windows 10 Store? They always seem to have some weird issue that the Steam/Windows 7 version just doesn't have, and they're never better.

I stand by my theory of yesterday: Steam users may have mostly switched to Windows 10, but it's not out of any great love of Windows 10. They all just figured they'd be forced to switch anyway, so they got it over with. They're not loving the new OS, they're not loving Universal Windows Apps, they're not loving the Windows 10 Store's offerings, and shit like this is not helping to change any of that.

Reminder: Windows is not the planet's most-used OS

Mobile devices now outnumber desktop and laptop PCs, and the most common mobile OS is not Windows. It's Android. And it's not close.

From c|net:

Google's Android operating system was the big winner in a big time for worldwide phone shipments, market researcher Strategy Analytics reported Wednesday.

Android captured 88 percent of all smartphone shipped in the third quarter of 2016, a period that also marks the fastest growth rate in a year. "Android's gain came at the expense of every major rival platform," Strategy Analytics' Linda Sui said in a press release.

"Apple iOS lost ground to Android and dipped to 12 percent [market]share," primarily because of "lackluster" sales in China and Africa, she said.

And don't bother looking for BlackBerry and Microsoft Windows phones in the mix. They "all but disappeared" in the period between July 1 and the end of September.

To put this in perspective, even with the smartphone market reaching maturity, and with Samsung's Galaxy Note 7 being recalled, there were still about 375 million smartphones shipped in the third quarter of 2016, up 6 percent from the same period last year. 88% of that is 330 million, which means that there were nearly as many Android smartphones shipped in the 3rd quarter alone, as there were PCs switched to Windows 10 in all of the last year.

If you were wondering why Windows 10's stagnant growth is a big deal for Microsoft, look no further. If you're wondering why Satya Nadella is talking up AR and VR for their shareholders, or why Microsoft is still spending on ARM-based versions of their OS, or trying to ensure that Windows 10 forms a big part of the Internet of Things, look no further.

Windows 10 gains again on Steam

If Microsoft is looking for a straw to grasp at, this is probably it.

From Neowin:

Last month, Steam's hardware survey showed a slight decline of 0.05% for Windows 10 in market share - its first drop since the operating system's launch. However, it appears that this was just a minor hiccup as the OS is now back on track once again, showing an overall increase of 0.64%, climbing to its highest ever market share of 49.33% on Valve's gaming platform.

47.98% of the Steam user base now utilize the 64-bit version of Windows 10, while 1.35% use the 32-bit version, accounting for a total of 49.33%. This is a 0.70% increase for the former and a 0.06% decrease for the latter.

Windows 8.1 64-bit was the only other iteration of Microsoft's operating systems to show an increase in market share, accounting for 8.70% of the user base - a 0.07% increment as compared to last month. In contrast, all other versions of Windows showed a stagnation or a decline in terms of user base. The Windows operating system maintained its crown as the most used OS among gamers, with 95.46% of gamers utilizing various versions of the OS.

Neowin goes on to (rather dubiously) cite this as evidence that Windows 10 "will continue its impressive run, in terms of user base," an assertion so for which there's no evidence at all, and which is actually contradicted by every other available metric. Still, there's no arguing that the small subset of PC users that make up Steam's user base have mostly make the switch with minimal grumbling, even if those that haven't switched yet are migrating much more slowly than before.

So, there you have it: gamers were so already used to being shit on by the big corporations in their lives that they just rolled with Microsoft's shit when it started falling on them. Some of them may even be using Windows 10's "Play Anywhere" feature, and a few of them probably even bought Gears of War 4 from Win10's busted storefront, rather than waiting for the inevitable (probably superior) Steam release -- although, given that Gamestop is citing underperforming sales of October releases in lowering its quarterly sales forecast, there probably aren't nearly as many of them as Microsoft was hoping for.

So... yay, Redmond?

Windows 7, 8, and 10 all gained market share in October

Last month, tech bloggers were gobsmacked when Windows 10 actually lost market share, while Windows 7 and Linux both gained. Well, NetMarketShare's October stats are out, and the good news for Microsoft is that Windows 10 has managed to tick upwards slightly, as has Windows overall, with Linux & MacOS both ticking downwards, and Windows XP finally falling behind Windows 8.1.

The bad news for Redmond's strategy is that Windows 7 & 8.1 are also up, and both are up by more than Windows 10.

Here are September's stats:

And here are October's: 

Listings of 0.00% or less are not included.

October was the last month when Windows 7 & 8.1 PCs would be available for sale, and Windows PC sales overall have been flat for some time now, so it might not be much of a surprise to some that the older Windows versions had a strong showing this month, but the big takeaway for Microsoft appears to be clear: whatever their Windows 10 strategy might be, it isn't working.

I'll update this post with any reactions to the month's market share stats (as soon as there are some), and I'm also watching for updated Steam Software Survey numbers (Windows 10 lost ground to Windows 7 there last month, too, so it'll be interesting to see if that trend continues), but right now, I'm most interested to see what Microsoft does next.