I I agree MS would ultimately succeed on that but people who stand for freedom would also succeed one way or the other.
I foresee this: Instructions: Install Windows 10 version xxxxxxx dual boot with your current Windows 10 installation. Keep it offline. Download cut paste xxxxxxx from your online OS to your offline OS. Unrar the setup and run. Complete installation. Play. Enjoy!
Nope, so far I don't see any freedom that is gone with respect to installing stuff. You're still free to use a local account, completely ignore the Store and install only Win32 programs. All the scare-mongering being done here relies upon the daft idea that MS will manage to successfully turn Windows into a 100% walled garden and force every Windows software developer to use only the Store, with no non-Store stuff ever being allowed. Heck, even Apple (yes, despite what some would have you believe) and Google have the good sense not to be so damn restrictive with OS X and Android respectively, despite both having their own app stores! As PC World mentioned, if you hate the Store, vote with your wallet and send the app devs an unambiguous message that you'll not buy Store games. As simple as that. MS knows there's absolutely no chance they can ever pull off turning their desktop OS into a 100% walled garden (something even Apple hasn't managed to accomplish yet) without alienating a huge section of Windows developers (and end users) who would never want to be tied to the Store (especially when so many also rely on Windows' well-known backwards compatibility to run legacy non-Store software or software that just cannot be recreated as a sandboxed Store app). Anyone who thinks otherwise is delusional about how much power MS has in this day and age. Speaking of stores and games, why is almost everyone so comfortable with Steam anyway? Why aren't more people demanding that games be stand-alone like they used to without increasingly being tied in to a single service? Hypocrisy, much?
Most people who play games on PC probably have most of their library available on Steam. And if you're comfortable with that, you probably don't want to fragment your library across various other services or even standalone if it could be avoided. Game availability aside, Steam itself does have some pretty neat features as well that some might find useful. With that aside though, the tiny bit of Windows Store I've seen is a total joke. I didn't install 7-Zip and tried opening a RAR file and was curious to see what the Store would offer. I thought Google Play was bad with some garbage apps, but Windows Store looks to take the cake on that I haven't looked at Apple's store yet, but I imagine their mostly walled-garden approach prevents that sort of garbage from being offered. If that's the case, then wonderful, because nobody deserves to be exposed to that...
No one should have almost complete control over software and games because desktop is very different from other devices.
I'm questioning why people (especially those who hate MS' Store) are so comfortable with that in the first place. Neat features aside, it still represents to me a concentration of power in a single entity. Those who want to legally install and play games without having to install Steam seem to be finding themselves increasingly out of luck, which is a shame. They are trying hard to convince developers of the advantage of UWP Apps, but not only were they very late to the party but the majority of Windows developers as far as I can tell are still unconvinced that they should convert their apps into sandboxed Store versions (at least those who can) and hand MS a cut of every sale. Windows' decades-long legacy of software that had nothing to do with a Store along with developer and user expectations are the roadblocks to MS ever making the Store the only way to obtain software for Windows PCs. Let's not forget that even Store apps can be sideloaded. Even Linux, that has a history of wonderful package managers that most users rely on, has never considered making it impossible to obtain and install software from other sources. Every desktop OS maker knows that it is simply impossible to have every single software distributed only via their app store. People for example often download and install/run utilities developed by others, including accomplished developers here at MDL. Can anyone ever imagine that MS would block these and force even a small independent hobby developer to share his utility via the Store while adhering to the Store's strict guidelines? What about adult software as another example? Clearly these will never be allowed in the Store. Does anyone think MS will suddenly tell people that they cannot install these sorts of programs on their own systems? I could go on and on but you all get the idea. I can see that some people love to imagine the worst and spread fear about how MS will lock everything down, but anyone with bare minimum common sense will know this is just not feasible and MS knows if it is ever dumb enough to do this it would lose a massive chunk (if not almost all) of its developers and customers. So yes, of course they will try their best to push the Store, but it will never be the sole way to obtain Windows software. If you find yourself really wanting some software that's only available via the Store, let the developers know through messages and (lack of) purchases that their distribution policy is unacceptable to you. If enough people do that, the software will automatically be made available via other means, at least if the developers wish to remain in business.