Is GFW Live actually odious, in your eyes? Besides the DOW2 beta, the other reason I ask is that I picked up Kane & Lynch the other day ($10, and I'm curious about it), but haven't installed it yet because I have to sign up for GFW Live. Is GFW Live truly a spirit-sapping experience? Should I take special pains to avoid it?

Games for Windows Live is hardly odious---way to tap into that Internet zeitgeist, blogger man! It's just lacking in features compared to Steam and it's from Microsoft so people are already poised to hate it.

Some people have had problems with its installation, but no more than is standard with any PC application. Steam is as "odious" using "installation problems" as your sole criteria.

My own "odious" experience with GFWL was clicking on two buttons to download the Fallout 3 DLC.

I couldn't care less about the "Internet zeitgeist", Steve, and installing Games for Windows Live is something I've long since moved past. I've had it on my PC since the first game that supported it was released (Shadowrun, I think?). So I'm speaking strictly from my own experience. If you'd like, I'd be happy to write up a blog tirade detailing my problems with Games for Windows Live when I tried playing Fallout 3 on the PC, which was preceded by the hassle of trying to get Gears of War running on a LAN for my weekly LAN party, as well as how much it got in the way of multiplayer for Universe at War (it basically killed that game's multiplayer community). My blog tirade can conclude with the enormous pain in the butt of trying to get Games for Windows Live to let me into the Dawn of War II beta to work, which took the better part of an evening and culminated in me having to download and run some obscure undocumented hotfix from Microsoft's support site.

Just because lots of people share an opinion about something doesn't mean they hold the opinion simply to share it. So, yes, Games for Windows Live is odious. Glad you got it working in two clicks, but some of us have much more extensive experience with it.

Did you expect everyone to know your exact problems with Games for Windows Live? Because without any explanation, it looks like a cheap shot.

I'd argue that a person is more willing to take a cheap shot, or at least to throw something out without explanation, when they know few people will call them out for it. And right now, the Internet meme of the week is "Games for Windows Live, LOL!11! Chris Early got fired because it sucks!!! There are Games for Windows, LOL!!!"

Or to put it another way: If you were having similar problems with Steam, would you describe it as an "odious" service? Maybe you would, maybe you wouldn't, but I suspect you know that if you did, it'd cause even even bigger shitstorm than "the five reasons I don't like World of WarCraft" because gamers like Steam. They like Valve. They don't like Microsoft. And they definitely don't like Games for Windows Live, even if most of them have never used it.

"So, yes, Games for Windows Live is odious."

Well, glad we settled that! Your anecdotal evidence, support by angry message board posters, trumps my own anecdote! You win, good sir!

(Some of us have had just as much experience with Games for Windows Live. Some of us have played Shadowrun, and Gears of War, and Universe at War, and Fallout 3, and Grand Theft Auto IV, and even Quantum of Solace, even though we don't like to admit the latter one.)

In all seriousness, does the Dawn of War beta require the (pretty much useless) standalone client? Because as far as I know, that's what requires the hotfix. It sucks, but it's part of the joy of Windows.

Some people are having problems with savegames, largely because it follows conventions of the 360 instead of behaving more like a Windows app. Saved games are tied to a profile. If you switch profiles, your saved games are kinda gone (they're still there, but they're associated with your other profile). If you never create a profile and play offline, your saved games are tied to your offline profile. Once you go online to download the DLC, you suddenly need to create an online profile and *poof*, your saved games are tried to your offline profile, not the online one that has your DLC. The 360 works like this too, and would create similar problems if you were swapping profiles.

Its retarded, but it's retarded on two platforms.

Steve, it's a one-man blog. It's going to be peppered with references to my opinions that aren't always fleshed out. But I'd think you of all people would give me more credit for not simply jumping onto the "Chris Early got teh FIRED because GFWL suxx0rs!!!!" I didn't post about Early leaving and I don't pretend to have any insight as to whether it's related to my opinion on the service being "odious".

And, yes, I have said less than kind things about Steam when it was a big pain in the butt (I think you need only look back two weeks to find one such jeremiad on this blog!). Maybe after Games for Windows Live has had as much time to get its act together as Steam, I won't so readily sling adjectives like "odious" at it. But FYI, the only reason I'm typing this message right now instead of playing DOW2 with a friend of mine is because he's having the exact same problem logging into Games for Windows LIve that I had.

Here's where my sad face emoticon goes.

"Steve, it's a one-man blog."

That's a pretty lousy excuse. All it would've taken is: "the odious Games for Windows Live, which I've experienced nothing but problems with across multiple titles since it was launched."

There, you've personalized it and it given some context, however minor, which is more than most blogs give for their snarks. "Gertsmanngate, LOL!!1!"

OK, here's my real issue. Blogs create memes, largely through repetition. Most lack any sort of context because the repetition IS the context. Like, they become truth, or at least a sort of truth, because people keep repeating them. Hell, it's how politicians work.

Readers adopt those views even with no first-hand experience. I mean, I can't be exposed to every issue with every single title, so I'm likely to form opinions based on the available info. And it's hard not to believe info that's being repeated over and over again by people I've become comfortable with. And this new "personal" journalism/blogging is supposed to make everyone more comfortable and friendly, right?

So y'all should take this shit more seriously, because once a meme is established, it's hard to get rid of. In this case, maybe it's warranted but it's still no excuse not to give pretty damning statements (or praise) even the slightest bit of context.

hahahahahahah

The context for the atrociousness of GFWL has already been set by the gaming community, and for good reason.

Steam didn't get to where it is now without the same growing pains, and you championing your cause on a 'one-man blog' isn't going to change anything.

Steam has changed little in terms of interface. windows live is horrible. now stfu fanboy.

"the five reasons I don't like World of WarCraft"

Screw that! I only need ONE reason - fifteen bucks a month (after you buy the software). I mean really...if they're gonna charge a monthly fee to play, you should at least be able to download the software for free. Don't get me wrong; I'm sure that if I ever started, it'd be the the most fun I've ever had playing a computer game (I'm a huge fan of all of Blizzard's games & I grew up playing text-based MUDs, after all). But there's just no way I could justify paying $30-$40 plus $15/month to play a MMORPG - not when I can entertain myself with one of the many other games out there. Hell, if it's a great game, I don't even mind paying the $50-$60 to buy it the first week it's released.

Interesting side-note early on in Beta (when it was for Soulstorm purchasers only) the game would start freezing up for people at the exact moment that GFWL would pop up on the screen. BUT this wasn't actually GFWL's fault. The only way to fix it was to activate Steam's in-game notifications. There was some sort of compatibility issue between the two DRM programs running simultaneously.

hi

bwzk2a

like to try it