Top ten things wrong with Games for Windows

by Kevin Kelly { Jun 2nd 2007 at 7:00PM }

The din about Games for Windows seems to cycle between a very quiet roar (remember their presence at E3?) to a muted hubbub, like the babbling of a crowd at a party that you can't quite make out. But what exactly do people think about the service now that it's getting out there into the wild?

The Hushed Casket has a list of the top ten things wrong with Games for Windows, and we'd have to agree with them. Although #8 on the list is more of a plus for another network -- "Xbox Live users have it so much better" -- it proves how the same company can do two similar things with very different results.

Our own James Ransom-Wiley called GFW a risk back in December, and this list pretty much confirms that opinion. Microsoft has been putting a lot of eggs in this basket, even publishing Games for Windows Magazine (without editorial influence) and mentioning the service left and right ... but will it pay off? Right now they've got a lot of uphill work to do. Check out the list and see if you agree.

Tags: Games for Windows, GamesForWindows

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)

Neebs @ Jun 2nd 2007 7:15PM

Here's another thing: Halo 2 won't let me log in, even if I do log in, my profile is apparently not downloaded, and when I go to download it, I have to navigate through all this bullshit because I have to pretend I need to a create an account because there's no profile found, I cannot connect to Live to download my profile, and when I go to email MS Tech Support, the auto-scan won't find my PID, the PID is NOT in plain sight anywhere in the client, and when I go into the registry to find my PID, it's there, but it's invalid.

Yeah, so that's an issue.

dukemeiser @ Jun 2nd 2007 7:20PM

Note to Microsuck: People aren't going to pay for online support when it's been free forever. That's why other studios aren't going to support GFW.

GeneralGrey @ Jun 2nd 2007 7:33PM

I do have to be nitpicky here and say that Games for Windows in general and Games for Windows Live (what the list references) are different entities. Games for Windows is a large-scale attempt to unify the PC Game market in terms of branding and organization. Live, in contrast, is currently only available in two games that have only been out for less than a week. Thus, I think it's a bit early to judge Live's success, and certainly that of GFW as a whole.

dukemeiser @ Jun 2nd 2007 7:48PM

@GeneralGay
Go suck Bill Gate's balls.

Neebs @ Jun 2nd 2007 7:51PM

Duke - flame much?

KingOfGods @ Jun 2nd 2007 7:52PM

Well, I've been playing Shadowrun for a few days now on Vista with out any problems. after the initial install (you don't need the disc after either) it took me 8 minutes to sign in and download my profile off Live.

Running all settings on High with 2x AA at 1280x720
Intel Core 2 Duo 2.13 GHz 2GB Ram windows Vista 64-bit Ultimate

jp @ Jun 2nd 2007 7:55PM

are ms charging for online play on pc with this games for windows thing?

Brym @ Jun 2nd 2007 8:02PM

Allow me to second General Grey's comment. GFW Live is still unproven and has problems. GFW, generally, is pretty great. I love the ability to plug in my 360 controller to my PC and *know* that it's going to work flawlessly with any GFW game. Consistent branding and money spent on advertising the PC as a platform is huge as well. Unfortunately, what the PC really needs is some kind of antipiracy mechanism that works. That's the real reason console game sales dwarf PC game sales.

Mike Chambers @ Jun 2nd 2007 8:03PM

Maybe if it actually worked well, it wouldnt be so bad. Lots of issues with people not able to connect online:

http://forums.shadowrun.com/forums/3/74906/ShowThread.aspx#74906

http://forums.haloonwindowsvista.com/forums/thread/928.aspx

Which seems to have something to do with incompatibilities with some network cards.

Gee, I don't think I have ever loaded a console game and then have to spend 12 hour debugging hardware incompatibilities...

mesh

Ryan @ Jun 2nd 2007 8:05PM

Windows Live users pay for achievements, not online play and vice versa for xbox

Ryan @ Jun 2nd 2007 8:15PM

I consider it a bonus if you're a Gold member already on the 360.

Shawn D @ Jun 2nd 2007 8:21PM

I'm not hot on GFW Live whatsoever. While I don't mind the "branding" BS, the Live service isn't worth the money, especially since I use Xfire, which is a great program that does everything I need. VOIP is in all multiplayer games that have come out in recent history, not to mention servies like ventrllo or teamspeak are perfect. I couldn't give a flippin' hell about achievements, If I was 16 all over again, maybe.

MS is barking up the wrong tree if they think PC FPS players are gonna buy into this sham. Halo2 and Shadowrun not only gimp the mouse by slowing down the speed and making your reticle blow up to the size of a grapefruit on screen whenever you turn, they add aiming "tweaks" to any controller user, PC or 360. I'm sorry but that's just BS. That is considered a cheat in any other PC FPS.

If the controller users want to play with the M/K players, you know the way your supposed to play FPS, they should have to deal with getting spanked, or just play with controller only players. Why should the M/K players be gimped for having the best solution? This just further proves the argument that crossplatform play is never going to work with FPS. The controller is just not on par with a M/K, period. Otherwise, they wouldn't have to add auto-aim or sticky aim.

Screw MS for trying to capitalize on PC Gamers and I hope it burns to a steamy pile of ****

Flippin' Discussion over.

jay @ Jun 2nd 2007 8:26PM

I like Shawn D, it's the voice I never use.

Back to Half Life 2 Deathmatch.

Gavin @ Jun 2nd 2007 8:27PM

Maybe MS's strategy is to drive away PC gamers in hopes that they get a 360.

Resvrgam @ Jun 2nd 2007 9:13PM

Both Shawn D & Gavin make very valid points: Microsoft IS trying to force sales: sales of their shiity new OS, sales of their handicapped console and sales of their monthly subscription service. This is VERY bad for PC gamers and FPS games as a whole.

Why? Well, as mentioned above, Microsoft is taking the Harrison Bergeron (Google it) approach to the superiority of the M/K over their console controller issue. The bad news doesn't stop there: They're also giving game developers HUGE incentives to limit their games' technology so it can conform to the limitations of the 360 hardware (I watched developers deliberately limit game design so it can fit into the confines of the 360 hardware).

Also, despite me not particularly liking Sony, games are being developed to centralize around the 360 so superior platforms (the PS3, PC) won't look or perform any better despite the higher quality and horsepower.

Microsoft is contributing to a huge decline in the quality and accessibility of videogames. I had a bad feeling when they unveiled their intentions to enter the console market back in 1998 and to see the damage they're causing in the name of short-term gains is nearly unbearable to this gamer/developer.

It looking like gone are the days of FREE add-on content (MODs) and rewarded innovation and soon the day will come when you'll have to pay MS everytime you turn on your TV, radio or wipe your ass.

The industry's only hope is that WFG/Live fails and the majority of people refuse to pay for what is already free.

Virduk @ Jun 2nd 2007 9:48PM

I certainly like the idea, and I want it to succeed but it does seem like a very poor first step.

Mad @ Jun 2nd 2007 10:13PM

You have to remember for the PC this service is brand new. The original XBox Live didn't offer all that much at first if I remember correctly.

Surey M$ will update this to be on par and who know's if not better than the 360 version.

Who knows maybe M$ next console won't be a console, but just be Games for Windows. I'm sure after the red light fiasco and the millions of PC's out there M$ are considering this.

I'm Pretty Sure I Hate You @ Jun 2nd 2007 10:15PM

Oh man this guys is on target I mean he has "played games “professionally” and won thousands of dollars doing it", I wish I could make thousands of dollars doing something... oh wait I due it's called my pay check from being a programmer.

I wish Apple or one of the 32 thousand flavors of Linux tried to make gaming better for me, I mean then it would be so awesome... oh wait no it would suck. But at least if Apple did it, it would have a flashy user interface and make random attacks at MS (Shit sorry I mean M$... sweet now I'm cool) while it sucked.

So lets see... consoles seem to be the new king of gaming... people like the features of consoles (and by that I mean Xbox Live as Sony and Nintendo could not look more incompetent in the area of online gaming) so lets move that to PCs.

Hmm... It didn't work perfectly in the first month, any idea why? Oh could it be the 5.3 billion different configurations people run on their PC's? But who cares about that, I mean most have you have almost got that copy of "Hello, World" debugged... shit I mean if you, living in your mom's basement, can get hello world on your OSX/Linux/Pirated Windows (I mean who pays for windows? the 70,000+ employees are all part of the evil plan to destroy/copy your awesome Linux/OSX, why should they have an income, you don't) working why shouldn't MS be able to make a flawless product the first time?

Alright let's go to the list!
10) Wait complaining about the launch? When did computer geeks become Hollywood big shots... it launches when it launches... but this guy is "an engineer by day - hardcore gamer by night" so I mean EVERYTHING he touches comes out on schedule... clearly he is that awesome.

9)Wait so its a problem that GFW-Live requires that you have launched a GFW-Live product? Meh, I'll give him this one, it would be cooler to run Live without a game to play... oh wait... you know what pisses me off? I have to have OSX installed to use Garage Band... I mean that's just pointless

8)For an engineer this guy seems to be a little off. So 2 iterations of a service on a hardware controlled device is better than the first try at a piece of software running on any given PC? I'm starting to think his use of the word engineer has something to do with trains.

7) Holy shit! What really? You mean you expect every cool awesome feature to work instantly? Me too! Glad I didn't buy a PS3 they control their hardware and can't make this stuff happen. My guess is no one posting on Joystiq in the past 24 hours has the exact same setup... what this means is that making the cool little things happen is a whole hell of a lot harder than it is on a console.

6)THE FUCKING WEB PAGE! His number 6 complaint is the web page... should the web page be better? Sure, but what the hell does that have anything to do with... well anything? I've never cared for Firefox's web page but what the hell does that have to do with the application?

5)Wow back to the web page... yes 20% of this guys problems resolve around something that most likely is not even controlled by the same programmer as the actual application... but apparently that doesn't matter! Yeah broken links are bad but I think its summed up all by this statement: "Example: Although it's fixed now, a link on the Shadowrun page used to take me to a page about Alan Wake (which didn't contain much information either)." Wait... what? They fix problems? For shame Microsoft... for shame.

4)Alright... this is something that you would think would have been an initial feature... if only this wasn't the first and only release of this ever. It's like Xbox Live I mean it has not added one feature since it began, it's exactly the same.

3)Heh, alright limiting the number of people in your buddy list probably wasn't the best idea... let's put it this way, if you have 100 friends that you need to keep be in contact with at any given time you are clearly one awesome dude, hell the weird guy in my office who never showers has 2000 friends on myspace so I think we can draw comparisons.

2)Alright half of this argument is moronic, the other half is pure hilarity. Alright the main link from something that requires Vista says you have to be using XP... that's actually quite funny, but I mean they will never fix that so clearly that's why this should be the number 2 complaint. On the other hand requiring Vista and not making this work for XP is actually just a smart decision... Will anything and everything written for OSX support OS9? Probably not, but hey Apple isn't MS so you would never put those kinds of requirements on them.

1)For the love of Allah! No 3rd party support? Uh hello Nintendo! Come on, they just released this why does everyone hold MS to this godly level but at the same time bitch at everything they do!

Oh and Resvrgam saying that the PS3/PC (don't get me wrong I love the PC... I do think the PS3 is something that should probably have been the PS4 and release in 2010 with a decent video card) are superior platforms shows that you don't have a clue as to whats going on, which thereby invalidates all of your claims.

Oh and I understand that the current generation is unable to read this many correctly spelled words with punctuation, so to sum this all up don't bitch until you have tried something that is 1/10th of what MS is trying, if you have and find that your idea is better, don't bitch because you just became the next billionaire... I mean assuming you can get over that fear of talking to people and move out of your parents basement.

O_o @ Jun 2nd 2007 10:19PM

O rly?

Lord Chako @ Jun 2nd 2007 10:21PM

"The industry's only hope is that WFG/Live fails and the majority of people refuse to pay for what is already free."

Sensationalize much?
I also like this comment

"see the damage they're causing in the name of short-term gains is nearly unbearable to this gamer/developer."

Bite the hand that feeds you much?
If you really are that upset about what ms is doing to the "industry", why don't just start making mac games only?

And I would really like to know how Games for Windows (not GFW Live) is hurting video games? If it really was THAT bad, wouldn't we be seeing a developer outcry?

Michael the Randy @ Jun 2nd 2007 11:04PM

Is there actually some system or somesuch called Games for Windows? I thought it was just a logo.

P.S. Actually I knew about Games for Windows already, because I had seen the magazine entitled Games for Windows on. I assumed this was a new magazine title from some publishing house who also happened to have published a few games, like PC Format.

refinedsugar @ Jun 3rd 2007 12:38AM

I'm not going to pretend I know the in's and outs of the whole issue, but if Xbox Live is any indication gamerpoints are a good move from a business perspective. That's all I have to say on the matter. Asking people to pay for services that have been free on the PC side forever of course is silly.

GeneralGrey @ Jun 3rd 2007 1:07AM

Here's the key: If you don't like it, don't buy it. Nobody is forcing you to buy Halo 2 Vista or Shadowrun. Third parties haven't signed on to GfW-Live, your games, save for these two, remain free to play online. If you like XFire, stay with XFire. If you like TS and Vent, keep using them. There is absolutely nothing preventing that. I really don't see what the issue is here. Are people worried that this is indicative of some attempt by Microsoft to perform a hostile takeover of the PC Gaming market? While I wouldn't put it past them, at this point it is far too early to make that kind of judgement. Plus, that sort of move is dictated by the consumer more than the company.
The main point is this: It's your choice. Like live, use it; hate it, don't. It's really that simple. People whining about cost should realize that gold is only 5 bucks a month. Compare that to most MMOs where its 15. People complaining that it was free before should stay with the thousands of games that still are. People moaning about how bad the service is shouldn't use it. Now I am not advocating GfW, I am merely doing my part in the hopeless quest to prevent moronic, misinformed, and false verbal excrement from further permeating our beloved Joystiq.

Kevin @ Jun 3rd 2007 2:15AM

Wow, this is a really lame list. How does a quiet launch count against the service? That doesnt affect the service at all. "Xbox live users have it so much better" how in the heck does that affect GFW-live users? "The feel of gamesforwindows.com" they got really desperate for flaws. This list should not exist.

Bill nye @ Jun 3rd 2007 3:33AM

I'm Pretty Sure I Hate You lay off the espresso and get a little shut eye you seem a little twitchy. The big bad evil public that does not give a crap about your line of work will still not give a crap when you wake up. It also does not make their argument mute if they have not wrote a similar program, go read a book on critical thinking.

Anyway this isn't any different for Microsoft. Their whole business model revolves around locking people into their service. They don't even deny this fact, they take pride in knowing they can
take a current standard and change it slightly to make their system the standard and lock everyone into windows. Getting developers into
GFW is just another attempt at doing what they do best.

ssuk @ Jun 3rd 2007 4:46AM

What's wrong with GFW? Well, it's new. EVERYTHING NEW IS BAD. DOWN WITH M$!

Nicolas Redfern @ Jun 3rd 2007 7:24AM

GFW-LIVE is bad. However, the GFW certification is quite good: guaranteed widescreen = WIN!

Josh @ Jun 3rd 2007 8:09AM

"are ms charging for online play on pc with this games for windows thing?"

No.

You can play online with other PC users for free.

If you want to play with XBox 360 owners, you have to pay for Gold, which makes sense.

SeriousKriss @ Jun 3rd 2007 9:51AM

Anyway you look at it, Xfire blows GFW Live out of the water, so why bother?

Sidepocket @ Jun 3rd 2007 10:38AM

@ GeneralGrey

Erm, you do not get it. Microsoft makes up 90% of all PCs. They lock you in through upgrades because they are so big.

See, even though Sony fucked up with PS3, they did one thing right: They keeped the PS2 around. They are not forcing you to upgrade to the new expensive system to which the overall fun value is not really an upgrade. You still have Gears of War, Guitar Hero and such.

Microsoft says: You wanna game! DirectX 10 only works on Vista because we say so! Games for Windows because we say so! Live because we say so! Oh, and do not go to those alternatives...we made them "illegal wares" to the US government!

I remember when they said that while the DirectX 10 demo was running on XP, on retail it would only work on Vista because they want to sell Vista at GDC 06. Big fucking boo on the audience.

They do that shit all the time. Remember the Microsoft backwards compatability. "Why play this old outdated game you love, we want you to blow money on the crappy sequel for 06!"

Worked very well for them. Fuckers.

Mr Khan @ Jun 3rd 2007 10:50AM

@ Mad

I've always thought about it like that, too

the next Xbox: Xbox Core, a $700 gaming PC that would be about double the power of the current 360 (somewhere in the neighborhood of 6 Ghz, 1 gig RAM), and all Games for Windows in the five years following that point will have to meet those minimum requirements

Its all about convergance

Mr Khan @ Jun 3rd 2007 10:52AM

feh, cut off my post

But i also think that they are going to have to tailor all of the LIVE content to PC users who have (unless they play MMO's, damn) gotten very used to good and free online service, something that eludes the console world as of yet

shirizaki @ Jun 3rd 2007 11:24AM

Paying for internet gaming sucks. Why should I have to pay for a machine to hose a game and have it switch off? I knew when Live first started it would open the gates to paid downloads.

Now if the PS3, which does support the M/K setup were to, say, intertwine their online matchmaking with Xfire so that you could cross platform game for free, there might actually be a contender.

Finite @ Jun 3rd 2007 4:10PM

Sidepocket,

Your argument doesn't really make much sense..

"See, even though Sony fucked up with PS3, they did one thing right: They keeped the PS2 around. They are not forcing you to upgrade to the new expensive system to which the overall fun value is not really an upgrade. You still have Gears of War, Guitar Hero and such."

Ignoring the fact that Gears of War is not a ps2 title, what your saying is exactly what MS is doing. No, sony is not forcing you to upgrade to the PS3.. unless you want to play PS3 games. Ahh, eh? You could even replace a few words in your initial post to match exactly:

"See, even though Microsoft fucked up with Vista, they did one thing right: They keeped XP around. They are not forcing you to upgrade to the new expensive OS to which the overall fun value is not really an upgrade. You still have Many existing and future games which work on XP."

Then you said this: "Microsoft says: You wanna game! DirectX 10 only works on Vista because we say so! Games for Windows because we say so! Live because we say so! Oh, and do not go to those alternatives...we made them "illegal wares" to the US government!"

First, Games for Windows is not vista only, it's a branding of PC games adding certain requirements (Good ones, such as widescreen support) in order to boost the PC games market.

I'm not sure what Your comment on "illegal wares" is really referring to, so I'll ignore it.

The rest is really their choice. They decided, instead of giving users of their 5 year old OS ALL features of the new OS for free, they would hold some things back that would encourage people to upgrade. You aren't FORCED to upgrade unless you want that new feature, it's not like they suddenly took Directx9 away until you bought Vista. People need to realize that this really isn't something odd that MS is doing, Many software companies do this. They support their product, perhaps add some features, but when they feel it's time, they'll bundle many other new features into a new version of their product and sell it as a 2.0.

Almost EVERY feature in ANY 2.0 software product COULD be added to the original program and given as a patch.. but it's only wrong when MS does it? Odd.

Does this make sense to you?

J.Goodwin @ Jun 3rd 2007 7:13PM

Microsoft does not publish Games for Windows magazine. Ziff Davis publishes it.

Their agreement concerns use of the name "Games for Windows" by the magazine that was formerly known as Computer Gaming World. No money changed hands, Microsoft does not give preferential treatment to GFW versus PC Gaming or other major outlets in terms of review hardware (something they do provide these days). Microsoft does not have any editorial influence on the magazine or the podcast, or the associated website.

staxontoplyon23 @ Jun 4th 2007 9:07AM

I oddly get GFW magazine, man they put the screws to Peter Moore on this very issue, that if games all start taking the GFW Live route, then features that PC gamers have enjoyed for free for years and years will be taken away. This is why theres little or no third party support, and why I hope to god it stays that way. I play PC games because I like PC games, I couldn't care less that some retard can't look at the box and understand the system specs, and I don't want the PC to be any more controlled by MS than it already is. I see a future of micro transactions instead of all of the really cool free stuff that I'm used to, if there's enough dumbass MS fanboys (and I probably don't like you either) to buy into it and GFW live becomes a standard. I will make the distinction that just plain GFW sounds like it will be far less intrusive, but again what do I care that they simplify specs or standardize box sizes. I wouldn't be surprised if that doesn't have its costs down the road as well, and I'll have to go buy Vista.
And you assheads that think that DX10 Vista only is just business as usual and the most benevolent thing MS could have done, why am I not stuck with DX8 on my WIN2K rig? Oh, yeah because its entirely possible and apparently not that hard for them to support the software they sold us before and made billions off of. They could have cut it off at XP and I wouldn't mind, but cutting customers off that bought their very expensive OS up to only a year ago is BS, and for them its unprecedented. This is a new attitude for MS and I don't like it, and just because I own a PC that pretty much has to use their OS to game on doesn't mean I have to like it, so take that tired "use linux or OSX if your so unhappy" shit and shove it. Apple is overpriced trendy b.s. and Linux would bankrupt MS if you could game with it.