I’m getting overexposed. I’m as narcissistic as the next guy who refers to themselves in the third person in the name of an article and even I am not that interested in my opinions.
At PAXX I gave an interview to Shacknews primarily on Elemental but we talked about all kinds of other things including my thoughts on Games for Windows Live.
It’s no secret that I’ve been an advocate for Games for Windows Live. But over time, a handful of the emerging policies have come up that came to a head when I was asked directly about it.
The particular GFWL show-stopper I have had is having to have your app go through any sort of approval process before being updated. On the console, that makes perfect sense, particularly with regards to a universal achievement system. But on the PC, where we have to make updates for reasons beyond our control, that’s a problem.
For example, on Windows Vista last week, Microsoft released an update that broke WindowBlinds on Vista. We were able to fix it and get an update out in less than 24 hours. But imagine if we had had to go through some approval process at Microsoft?
Then there is the issue of being charged for these updates. To date, Microsoft hasn’t charged anyone to do an update but it’s been made pretty clear to me that that there would be a limited number of “free updates”. I don’t want to go through an approval process with a third party to put up an update to my software.
But I do love the concept of Games for Windows Live. I like the idea of the platform owner (Microsoft) having a series of services available to be used. I’d even pay for it. I don’t want to have to worry about match making and network connectivity. Anyone who was part of the Demigod launch knows the pain it can be to work out that sort of thing. But using such services shouldn’t mean that they gain some control over my updates.
All of Stardock’s recent titles and new games use Games for Windows (not GFWL). I very much like the program of there being some standardization for game developers to adhere to and don’t mind going through an initial certification. It is the post-release update certification I object to as well as the potential of having to pay for it unless the value add was far greater than what it is today.
I wasn’t intending to “slam” GFWL. I simply could not abide by the current model of GFWL and hope/think they will change it as it evolves. Hopefully all my friends at MS won’t beat me next time I’m over visiting.
Related Articles:
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/95194-Stardock-CEO-Dishes-on-Sales-Numbers-GFW-Live-and-More
http://www.bit-tech.net/news/gaming/2009/10/05/stardock-slams-games-for-windows-live/1
http://www.co-optimus.com/article/2713/Stardock_CEO_Reveals_the_Truth_of_Digital_Distribution_and_the_Industry.html
http://www.destructoid.com/brad-wardell-on-gfwl-you-can-t-do-that-on-the-pc--150639.phtml
http://www.neoseeker.com/news/11923-microsoft-charging-devs-for-games-for-windows-live-patches/
Now how can I twist these words and blow them out of preportion?
Don't see how these articles "twist these words and blow them out of [pro]portion". Brad has an issue with how GFWL works at this point, and those articles pretty much state that. Or did you just read the titles of the links?
You see that. That's a clear statement that Stardock plans to boycott all Microsoft products and ban their mail system. You heard it here first folks...
j/k Brad
So, Stardock is dropping support for all Microsoft products and operating support and is now exclusively developing for the Mac and Linux platforms?
Oh. Gotcha. Thanx.
I really need to take a screenshot of what I said on facebook that instigated that whole UPS nonsense so people can see just how ridiculous it was.
Well, it could be worse - you could've parked a red Porche 911 Turbo across two handicapped parking spaces in front of Stardock HQ and be unlucky enough that someone took a picture of it and somehow posted it on the internet.
While I also like the concept of GFWL, it is not very popular.
Threads at Amazon, Steam, and popular gaming sites are filled with anti-GFWL sentiment. One criticism of GFWL that I find valid is the new account locking that Microsoft has implemented. GFWL is now a DRM platform of sorts, as it locks CD keys to user accounts, which in effect is a source of "double DRM" (assuming that some other sort of DRM is present, such as Steamworks, see Dawn of War II), and major no-no in pro-consumer practices.
Thus, GFWL is an additional barrier to resale, which in no way helps the PC platform (consoles will always be more attractive if they have a used game market and we are forced to buy new). With a few tweaks and the removal of the account locking requirement, I would support GFWL with far greater enthusiasm.
Oh what a Jerk that would be! Somebody would really have to be a hateful, petty, vindictive person to steal a handicapped person's spot with their ritzy car.
... unless of course is was well after hours of operation and nobody ever used the spots anyways and it was just a setup as a practical joke.
Should I have used the [sarcasm] tags for my post? I thought the emoticon was enough...
Hmm, my sarc meter detected high levels of it in your post.
I don't know, but it seems like I should have!
Honestly I think GFWL sucks very badly.
Poor features, worst UI ever seen and last but not least is another way to rise in strenght Microsoft attempt to monopolize PC gaming and bind it definitely to Windows... Which, yeah, doesnt' change so much now with Windows already dominating, but it can be very bad in the future.
I don't like GFWL and GFWL supported games because it only supports 26 countries in the world and my country is not one of them (Turkey). I bought GTA 4 and Dawn of War 2 but I can't play them online because my country is not supported. This is really annoying, they are selling their game in my country but I can't use all features. I won't buy any GFWL titles in future. I hope Stardock and other companies won't use that console thing in their games. I don't think but I hope Microsoft will support all around the world.
Over my cold dead body.
GFWL leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I won't get into why, because it will be a long tirade, but terrible programs like GFWL make me dislike Impulse as well. I don't want to have Steam, Impulse, GFWL, EA Download Manager, and 100 other programs downloaded onto my computer to make my gaming and updating experience "easier" from every decent sized company. The crappy programs make me loathe the system, which makes me dislike all similar programs, including the ones that work fine, and I'm sure I'm not the only one.
In this aspect, I would one program that lets me update my game, search for new titles, etc. That single program used to be called the Internet, but that version wasn't good enough so it got "improved." I don't mean I want Steam or Impulse to rule the Market either, since there are obvious downfalls with that idea too, but when it comes to adding new features and programs to "help" me that I don't get to choose, control, or have any choice in their installation, less is more.
I'm still using Steam and Impulse, but I won't use games that require GFWL (such as GTAIV), and I avoid EA for a few reasons. It wouldn't take more than 1 bad experience to turn me off of either of those programs though, because of bad experiences with programs just like them.
Well, it's interesting to hear about the qualms with GFWL on the developer's side, because from a consumer's perspective I wouldn't touch a title that uses GFWL. Most posters have already beaten me to the why of it.
GFWL really comes across as a haphazard attempt to bring PC games into the same family as XBOX games, very typical Microsoft embrace/expand/exterminate strategy. It doesn't seem to have worked, though. I think the problem is that the PC-gamer audience doesn't want this kind of technology. There is no market need for a centralized game facilitator service. From a publisher's end the standard and centralization is good, but for the average gamer they just want to double-click an executable and be done with it; if you're going to add hoops, you'd better give a good reason why we should jump through them.
I honestly was really pissed off when I learned about Impulse. I'm a consumer and Impulse is a hoop the publisher makes me jump through. Fortunately, Impulse earned enough points (the big one is that I can actually turn the thing off without issue) that I don't begrudge it like I do Steam or GFWL.
Well as I mentioned somwhere else, when GFWL came out and was talking about charging the users, I pretty much dismissed it entirely and never looked back. Now it's being mentioned by Brad and I think Richard (Gearbox) so info is circulating around again, and I still don't get it. I prefer Direct IP above anything else. The multiplayer games that I enjoy with Direct IP still work, the ones that relied on some sort of service, don't without work arounds like Hamachi because those service provdiers are gone. Direct IP + something else is fine as I know finding games is an issue for some, but paying for that service, getting locked to that service and only that service, no thank you.
Well the problem I have with GFWL is that they seem to require me to have an account that I sign in with to be able to have saved games (or other game related data). I don't know if the saved data is kept online or not, but I have TERRABYTES of data storage capacity on my machine. I don't need a service to store the stuff or to restrict what I can have. I get a bit angry when a PC game has something like 5 save files or something.
Mind you, I only have 3 games that have GFWL (I plan on avoiding any future titles that have it), so my knowledge is somewhat limited.
However, if I only needed an account play online, well that would be another story...
what really sucks about GFWL is that its a half hearted attempt at changing the way gaming is done on the pc.
as it stands right now pc gaming is not broken and works very well. In game server browsers works very well and the third party server browsers offer a great alternative to finding even more online gaming goodness.
GFWL attempt at changing this is one big pile of Fail . It offers nothing that improves or makes finding games to play online better than what is currently offered. What is realy sad about this is that there is no reason for it, as the bar is not that high.
Unfortuneatly it appears microsoft does not want to invest the neccassry efforts to make GFWL a viable system for hooking gamers up to each other . and instead they are focusing on policies and restrictions that hampers gamers from enjoying their games .
Until Microsoft actually shows something that at least rivals steam i will not be conveinced that they are serious about the pc as a gaming platform.
and lets not forget they once held the key to a service that woul have been the keystones in building a real GFWL service with a community match making and online market. It was called The Zone .
But they killed it .
and i beleive they are going to do the same thing to GFWL as they will fail to implement a system that should be very easy to implement because they dont have the desire to follow through with it.
and its ashame because microsoft could do it if they really wanted to.
Well I don't know about the works "very well" part. I mean look at what you might wind up doing to play a simple game. First you are dealing with routers which, let's face it, the interface for those are pretty awful and haven't changed since I can remember. Nothing user friednly about routers. Then, you are dealing with anti-virus and firewall conflicts. HOMM5 pretty much said you had to uninstall McAfee to run their game (no I don't use them anymore nor do I play the game now so I don't know if that issue was fixed). And if you are messing with all those things, and something still doesn't work your best recourse is a user forum because most companies have terrible support and once they find our you have a firewall and router, well you might as well just forget it.
So the alternative is what, hosted servers which costs someone money to keep going which means, down the line they might just stop that expense and leave you dry down the road.
I am all for trying to improve multiplayer on the PC, but I am not anxious to lay all our eggs in one basket whether it be MSFT or some other company. I am all for alternatives and improvements.
I agree with Nesrie, the sheer number of hardware combinations makes PC Gaming a nightmare in some cases, and solutions like GFWL help overcome that burden somewhat and ensure a smooth(er) play experience for all involved. Just look at Demigod's own launch as proof of what can happen without some kind of standard system in place.However, as Brad pointed out, Microsoft are trying to control this platform outside of what is necessary - requiring third party certification for updates to your own program slows down the process of updating, and adds a completely pointless hoop for developers to jump through into to provide customer support. I doubt a developer is going to release a harmful update to their own software, and they understand their own program better than Microsoft's people ever could, so I see no benefit from either the customers point of view or from the developers point of view - however, if Microsoft charge for this certification, I see a great benefit for them.I also have to agree with Kodiak888 in that it seems every day another download manager, another background program updater, another third party application burning through my computer's resources is added to my list of startup programs - everyone appears to want to have their own standard platform, and aren't willing to sign onto anyone elses - Steam and Impulse are the exceptions, of course.Now, Impulse is how a platform should be - I can turn the damn thing off when I want to and still enjoy my games. Steam, on the otherhand, needs to run in the background at all times. Even in offline mode. EA Download Manager has a nasty habbit of re-activating itself in my startup programs list, even after I've uninstalled all EA Games from my machine, and I often wonder why my PC takes longer to start until I see that little green tray icon. And Blizzard's background downloader can go to hell as it loves to suck up monthly bandwidth without even asking or informing me in any way that it's doing so.
I still fail to understand the hard to play pc games online attitude.
every game i have played online be it interstate 76, allegiance (before and after microsoft dropped support for it), counter strike, counter strike source, (various half life engine mods from science and industry to natural selection before steam) unreal tournament 2002 and 2004 americas army, unreal3, battlefeild 1942, battlefeild 2, battlefeild 2142, and countless other games .
i have had 0 problems for hooking up and playing online.
the steps (install, patch, run game, maybe login, browse for server, get killed)
if you have a router problem gfwl is not going to solve this .
antivirus firewalls is easily resolved by not installing norton or mcaffe and any other antivirus that wants to install a firewall just say no.. if you are behind a router you do not need a software firewall running. if you are not then use the windows firewall it is just as good as the nortons or mcaffes. save your self some headaches and use a simple effective antivirus like avast or nod32 antivirus.
but game for windows live does nothing for these problems.
pointing to demigod as an example of poor pc online gaming is just wrong. they went with a untested networking platform and methodolgy. if they would have implemented a system like age of empires, starcraft, or diablo used i bet it would have been a perfect launch . because how did these games do it ?? and some of them on dial up ??
Game For Windows Live does nothing better than the games i have listed above nor does it resolve any of the issues from agressive firewalls or poorly setup networking.
Again There is no reason for that, Microsoft if they wanted could best all of these examples and make something truly awesome for the pc. they have had over 3 years now and still we have a half hearted attempt at... im not really sure what to call it.
but it is for damn sure not the future of pc gaming.
GFWL is a good idea that went horribly wrong.
On the Xbox, making a multiplayer game requires less work then on the PC (or PS3) because a lot of the necessary stuff is already built and provided by Xbox Live. It's a good thing. Doing something like that on the PC would also be a good thing for game developers that don't want to have to deal with all that stuff (it'd also mean that if it works in one game, it should work in all of them, since its the same network code).
Unfortunately first they screwed it up with user fees that almost nobody was willing to pay. Then they talked about this update certification nonsense. You can tell its being run by the console guys, because they completely miss the point. They don't have the forced lock in that they have on the Xbox, acting like a dictator will just send developers to some other platform.
Until they figure that out and start to behave like a partner, GFWL will be a failure.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
