• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Looks like GFWL is being axed too. Will be discontinued July 1st, 2014

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

GodisanAtheist

Diamond Member
Nov 16, 2006
3,064
1,558
136
CAN I GET A HALLELUJAH!!!

Sucks that you'll probably have to download the patch/hack a game anytime you reinstall it though. GFWL: Even in death I still suck...
 

Anteaus

Platinum Member
Oct 28, 2010
2,448
4
81
I own about 5 GFWL games and for every one of them I created offline accounts. To this day I have never had a GFWL online account. I would imagine as long as the background activation servers stay active and the GFWL applet installs with whatever game your playing then it won't matter that GFWL is dying online, but I'm not sure.

I just wish Uplay would die...in my opinion it is twice as bad as GFWL ever was.
 

smackababy

Lifer
Oct 30, 2008
27,028
78
86
I own about 5 GFWL games and for every one of them I created offline accounts. To this day I have never had a GFWL online account. I would imagine as long as the background activation servers stay active and the GFWL applet installs with whatever game your playing then it won't matter that GFWL is dying online, but I'm not sure.

I just wish Uplay would die...in my opinion it is twice as bad as GFWL ever was.
This is what I was thinking. Couldn't you just play all those games offline?
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,876
460
126
Yeah, I'll miss GFWL like I would miss cancer.
If cancer came with crabs and the burning drip, then I'd agree.

Big problem with GFWL is that Microsoft doesn't want you playing games on the PC, they want you playing on XBox. Much bigger royalties, much bigger market per game.
 

Rinaun

Golden Member
Dec 30, 2005
1,195
1
81
I read it earlier and as much as I was surprised, I wasn't.

So some games that have only been out 1-2 years will be killed if they aren't patched as well as all the other games that use the service and MS gives less than a year warning. This is really bad because a lot of these games wont even allow you to play them without logging into the service first.

I'm glad it is dying, it has been nothing but a joke in the gaming community.
100% agree. I first encountered GFWL through GTAIV. I've never used such terrible software in my gaming experiences. I had two different logins just to play the game.
 

AdamantC

Senior member
Apr 19, 2011
478
0
76
Well for Fallout 3 "Fallout Mod Manager" would spit out a fake xlive.dll that worked like a charm and there is xliveless for GTA4
 

2is

Diamond Member
Apr 8, 2012
4,294
129
106
Good riddance. Between Steam, Origin, UPlay and GFWL, GFWL was easily the worst followed by UPlay not far behind, hope that goes away too. I love Steam and Origin is pretty good too.
 

BrightCandle

Diamond Member
Mar 15, 2007
4,763
0
76
I had so many problems with GFWL in F1 2011 and again in F1 2012. It would keep loosing connection. I would loose saves because of the disconnects and I never could play the multiplayer. The patching process was dreadful as well, requiring you to get into a game and login before you saw the patch, then the game restarted and again you logged in and again there was a patch. I think with F1 2011 when I installed it last I did that 10 times before it finished. Manually patching would have been better than that constantly relaunching of the game. So I for one am glad its dead, it was really really terrible.

But every time a DRM service like this goes it takes some of my back catalogue of games with it. I still go back and play games I bought in the 90s and I am presumably going to loose my F1 games (since Codies never go back and patch things broken in their old games), batman and a few others. I am never a fan of DRM for this reason and it seems I am going to get screwed by it again, as are we all. Most of the publishers will just say to buy the latest game instead and just leave their old games to disappear.

If these publishers want to keep themselves out of trouble they really ought to be committing to ensuring all these games will work once the service goes down. I suspect a successful lawsuit could be taken out against them to compensate unless they do. If Europe passes its digital rights legislation by the time this goes then this will be illegal, presumably resulting in more fines for Microsoft in Europe and potentially a criminal conviction or two.
 
Feb 4, 2009
29,849
10,400
136
I am betting that MS will offer a new service and games will be ported to that or they will unlock the DRM or give keys to some other service.
Although I could be wrong
 

BladeVenom

Lifer
Jun 2, 2005
13,541
16
0
Big problem with GFWL is that Microsoft doesn't want you playing games on the PC, they want you playing on XBox. Much bigger royalties, much bigger market per game.
I'm pretty sure the whole point of Games For Windows was to transition gamers and developers to the Xbox.
 

Anteaus

Platinum Member
Oct 28, 2010
2,448
4
81
The implimentation and subsequent failure of GFWL offers no insight on MS's intention regarding PC gaming. If MS wanted to kill PC gaming it would be far simpler to just stop supporting DX and tell gamers to buy a console. The far more likely situation is that it simply failed commercially and now they can focus more on Microsoft Store Online.

PC gaming is one of the main reasons why Windows continues to dominate for home users. It's in MS's best interest to keep PC gaming going and anyone who believes they would actively sabatage it is misguided. Ask any number of people why after trying Linux they ended up coming back to Windows, the most numerous responses tend to be lack of games and hardware support.

They do see higher profit streams from Xbox from gamer's specifically and I'm sure they would love everyone to buy Xboxes, but keeping PC gaming viable is important for their bottom line, even if they don't necessary profit from it directly.
 

pmv

Diamond Member
May 30, 2008
8,174
3,183
136
Microsoft won't care if you're angry regardless. GFWL was a win-win scenario for them. If it took off they could force OS "upgrades" to play old games you already owned simply by obsoleting old versions of the GFWL DRM software. Instead it was rejected, but on the way out it gets to poison the well of the PC Gaming market, a market that deep down Microsoft despises because it is a competitor to their beloved Xbox. The only winning move with GFWL was to avoid anything and everything that used it and hope that the damage from the second option was limited. Now some games that were infected with it may have the cancer cut out of them and survive, others might be lost to time if the developers or publishers are defunct or uninterested. But Microsoft will be back with a new assault, a new branding a initiative, new marketing campaign. They don't feel pain, or pity, or remorse. And they absolutely will not stop, ever, until PC Gaming is dead.
I partly agree with you - though I don't really care very much as I'm not really into gaming any more. But mostly I just like the way you expressed it. I'm too easily swayed by rhetoric, dammit.

Where I disagree with you is I don't know that MS are as coherent or as consistent as that. I am not convinced they've had much idea what they are doing or where they want to go. For a long time they've seemed a rather Attention-deficit-disorder sort of corp to me - some internal politics causes them to suddenly set off in one direction, then they, as a corporation, can't quite remember why they were doing it or where they were planning to go with it.

Maybe one could argue they must be doing something right to have remained so dominant for so long, but seems to me they have just benefited from market inertia and barriers to competition. They've never struck me as having a clear direction or being leaders. Even under Gates they misjudged lots of things (underestimating the internet, overestimating multi-media).

Their strategy towards PC gaming likewise seems opaque and self-contradictory to me.
 

BladeVenom

Lifer
Jun 2, 2005
13,541
16
0
I guess the real question is "how will Ballmer's replacement feel about PC gaming"
If they wanted Windows to win the gaming market, they could make Gabe Newell CEO, and make Steam the Windows gaming platform. Of course it's not that important to MS.

After shutting down Microsoft Gaming Zone, and now GFWL, no one should ever trust any Microsoft system for games.
 

Barfo

Lifer
Jan 4, 2005
27,553
210
106
If they wanted Windows to win the gaming market, they could make Gabe Newell CEO, and make Steam the Windows gaming platform. Of course it's not that important to MS.

After shutting down Microsoft Gaming Zone, and now GFWL, no one should ever trust any Microsoft system for games.
I don't think Gaben would want that.
 
Feb 4, 2009
29,849
10,400
136
Gaben going home and save the thing he help create. I think he wouldn't be against it.
funny I almost mentioned lets hope Gabe gets the job. Then I thought about it.....tens of thousand MS employees doing whatever they want whenever they want wouldn't work at MS. I'd prefer Gabe as a board member.
 

ibex333

Diamond Member
Mar 26, 2005
3,968
66
91
Crap, I bought AOE Online collection and didn't get a chance to play it much. I'm sure they will patch GFWL games because it wouldn't make sense to leave so many people in the dust...
 

Nintendesert

Diamond Member
Mar 28, 2010
7,761
5
0
If they wanted Windows to win the gaming market, they could make Gabe Newell CEO, and make Steam the Windows gaming platform. Of course it's not that important to MS.

After shutting down Microsoft Gaming Zone, and now GFWL, no one should ever trust any Microsoft system for games.



Sorry but Valve is run like a bunch of retarded school children from a business standpoint, they just had the vision to get there first. There's no leadership, no direction and no vision at Valve now. MS got there first in many markets too but it's the long term viability that is in question for both.

Origin is arguably delivering a better product now with the return policy and is leveraging something Valve seems unable to do now, deliver original content. Valve has the advantage of brand loyalty and people staying with Steam due to all their games being there, but once they are forced to enact the EU's requirements that we are able to resell our property people will be free to choose any other service they want. Valve needs to step up their game, or I suppose just keep offering trading cards. :rolleyes:
 
Sep 7, 2009
12,960
3
0
Sorry but Valve is run like a bunch of retarded school children from a business standpoint, they just had the vision to get there first. There's no leadership, no direction and no vision at Valve now. MS got there first in many markets too but it's the long term viability that is in question for both.

Origin is arguably delivering a better product now with the return policy and is leveraging something Valve seems unable to do now, deliver original content. Valve has the advantage of brand loyalty and people staying with Steam due to all their games being there, but once they are forced to enact the EU's requirements that we are able to resell our property people will be free to choose any other service they want. Valve needs to step up their game, or I suppose just keep offering trading cards. :rolleyes:


While I agree, I think it's actually a good thing for valve.


They have a good product, and their lack of change is what helps strengthen the brand and make it consistent. A steam/origin type platform for games needs to be VERY stable, and you have to trust that it will continue on without negative changes.



Don't even get me started on origin/EA. I threw in the towel with ANY EA product after they robbed me of Sim City. It was simply the last straw.


I don't care how good origin is, everything EA touches goes to shit. These steam/origin platforms are almost an investment... Most people have thousands of dollars in games in these platforms. No way I will trust EA with that sort of outlay.
 

KaOTiK

Lifer
Feb 5, 2001
10,884
7
0
Sorry but Valve is run like a bunch of retarded school children from a business standpoint, they just had the vision to get there first. There's no leadership, no direction and no vision at Valve now. MS got there first in many markets too but it's the long term viability that is in question for both.

Origin is arguably delivering a better product now with the return policy and is leveraging something Valve seems unable to do now, deliver original content. Valve has the advantage of brand loyalty and people staying with Steam due to all their games being there, but once they are forced to enact the EU's requirements that we are able to resell our property people will be free to choose any other service they want. Valve needs to step up their game, or I suppose just keep offering trading cards. :rolleyes:
They are run by retarded school children yet they are doing very well and not just with Steam. Dota 2 and TF2 are doing great for them. They have a totally different way of doing things and you know what? They proved it works. They are a financially successful independent company that doesn't have to answer to anyone else.

The catch with that Origin return policy I see lots of people overlooking is, it is for EA games only, like Need for Speed/Dead Space/The Sims/Dragon Age/etc. Steam doesn't even sell new EA games anymore.
 

smackababy

Lifer
Oct 30, 2008
27,028
78
86
They are run by retarded school children yet they are doing very well and not just with Steam. Dota 2 and TF2 are doing great for them. They have a totally different way of doing things and you know what? They proved it works. They are a financially successful independent company that doesn't have to answer to anyone else.
The problem is would they be able to continue as a company if they relied solely on the income from their IP? I find it hard to believe. They are doing great with Dota 2, but even if it is losing money, it doesn't matter because they are making it hand over fist with Steam. They don't produce enough content on their own to sustain that model. Let's face it, HL3 is the new Duke Nukem Forever.

The catch with that Origin return policy I see lots of people overlooking is, it is for EA games only, like Need for Speed/Dead Space/The Sims/Dragon Age/etc. Steam doesn't even sell new EA games anymore.
That is why EA can do that so easily with Origin. They control everything. Steam has to deal with other developers for the refunds, or create a system where it differentiates resale of those licenses that were refunded (and not give the lion's share of those profits to the developers / publishers like it is now).

This, however, won't likely be implemented in the US anyway, as a court has ruled software is not a good covered under the law that gives consumers the rights to resale.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY