Because no software can ship on this future platform without it going through the Windows Store, the team that built Skyrim would have to send it to Microsoft for certification. Then Microsoft would tell them if they could ship it.

Do you know what Microsoft's answer would be?

I do. It would be "no".

This is not speculative; it is certain. Skyrim is a game for adults. It has a PEGI rating of 18. If you read the Windows 8 app certification requirements you will find, in section 5.1:

"Your app must not contain adult content, and metadata must be appropriate for everyone. Apps with a rating over PEGI 16, ESRB MATURE, or that contain content that would warrant such a rating, are not allowed."

And that's the end of it. No Skyrim for the Windows Store, unless of course the developers go back and remove all the PEGI 18-rated content.

However, the CCS LABS, requires your help! If you have received a letter from the US Copyright Group please contact the CCS LABS and formally request them to represent you as your technology experts. They will need your case number of personal contact details which will not be made public. You will also have access to the full report produced by the CCS LABS, instead of a summary disclosure report.

The technology supplied will be tested for "fitness" and can receive one of three classifications NOT CERTIFIED, eDiscovery Certified, or Forensics Certified. Only Forensics Certified software may be used to provide "expert evidence" in court. If the technology receives a NOT CERTIFIED classification then the technology is not fit for any intelligence gathering use.

1) Is the file downloaded the file that is expected?
2) Are the IPs listed providing the chunks expected or false chunks?
3) Is every action logged?
4) Is a full report produced?
5) Are problems displayed and analysed by humans later?
6) What is the user documentation like?
7) Are the users of the technology fully trained on the technology?
8) Do we have access to the developers?
9) Is the technology's confidence level known?
10) Are the results produced by the Technology repeatable?
11) Has the technology been assessed by an external auditing authority already?
12) How automated is the system?
13) What level of redundancy checking is used?
14) If hashing used, which algorithm(s) is/are used?
and many more...

One clause that I haven't seen get the attention it deserves is the provision that would require a federal license, based on criteria determined by the Secretary of Commerce, to provide cybersecurity services to any federal agency or any "information system or network" the president chooses to designate as "critical infrastructure." It's hard to overstate how bad an idea this is. Cybersecurity is a complex and fast-moving field. There's no reason to think the Department of Commerce has any special expertise in certifying security professionals. Indeed, security experts tend to be a contrarian bunch, and it seems likely that some of the best cybersecurity professionals will refuse to participate. Therefore, it's a monumentally bad idea to ban the government from soliciting security advice from people who haven't jumped through the requisite government hoops. Even worse, the proposal leaves the definition of "critical infrastructure" to the president's discretion, potentially allowing him to designate virtually any privately-owned network or server as "critical infrastructure," thereby limiting the freedom of private firms to choose cybersecurity providers.

When thinking about cyber-security, it's important to keep in mind that an open network like the Internet is never going to be perfectly secure. Providers of genuinely critical infrastructure like power grids and financial networks should avoid connecting it to the Internet at all. Moreover, the most significant security threats on the Internet, including botnets and viruses, are already illegal under federal law. If Congress is going to pass cybersecurity legislation this session (and it probably shouldn't) it should focus on providing federal law enforcement officials with the resources to enforce the cyber-security laws we already have (and getting the government's own house in order), not give the government sweeping and totally unnecessary new powers that are likely to be abused.