Whether it can reach wider audience or not is beside the point - of course we expected there to be some sort of appstore-like storefront for windows 8 that's highly regulated by microsoft (a replacement for gfw.com that does apps as well as games, if you will). Even revenue cut was expected if you want to buy apps straight from microsoft. Nobody expected that you can't make a metro app that you can't distribute youself. Why is it a disincentive? Because Metro interface is microsoft's long-term strategy of what the PC platform represents in the future. It's clear at this point that they want to turn it into a closed platform like iOS or xbox. For now they're going to allow open software and appstore software to co-exist (through windows 7 interface), but this sets a very dangerous precedent for developers and publishers everywhere.
Imagine metro were a success and Windows 9 only came with metro interface. What then? Will MS allow firefox to run on metro? Will VLC? will Steam? They now have to ask for Microsoft for permission to exist on their closed platform. And do you know how cumbersome and painstaking it is for self funded indie developers to get certification for their platforms? Whats the future of PC gaming then? Metro's success is the LAST thing we want.
/developer rant over
edit: oh - I think misread the article. It does say at the end that you don't have to publish metro apps through Windows 8 appstore. Nevermind
edit2: actually... the wordings in both article (the one linked and the source) are bit ambiguous to tell for sure. The source makes it seem as if apps using metro interface have no choice but to publish through windows 8 store.
Whatever. The definition of "PC gamer" will change from windows gamer to linux gamer in 5~10 years time if this sticks.
This comment was edited on Sep 19, 2011, 14:07.