Bit-Tech: Why GFWL sucks

[defiant007]

http://www.bit-tech.net/columns/2009/01/31/this-was-meant-to-be-a-fallout-3-dlc-review/1

Couldn't agree more. What takes the cake though is the incorporation of GFWL into DoW2 with steam overlaid on top of it....makes no sense.

 

[Climber]

Agreed. GFWL is just a huge pile of steaming poo right now and if they treat GFWL like pretty much everything else, than it will be along time coming for any changes or updates to take place. Its like this is their Zune 2.0

 

[Glyphic]

Wow. There are only 13 people working on steam. Thats crazy.

 

[rampantandroid]

Agreed. GFWL is just a huge pile of steaming poo right now and if they treat GFWL like pretty much everything else, than it will be along time coming for any changes or updates to take place. Its like this is their Zune 2.0

Excuse me? What was wrong with Zune v2? If you mean V1, sure. I agree. V1 sucked. Like most MS V1s. V2s however usually redeem themselves. I remember Steam's early days of being this bad. What is it with people who never seem to remember the past right? People want to think that when XP came out, it worked, and Vista is just garbage - when in reality, XP's launch was as bad - or worse than - Vista's.

If GFWL survives, it'll improve. Their goal afaik is to get to the state of having a similar experience between GFWL and Xbox live.

 

[Blind Man]

of cours microsoft wants a slice of the action.. guess what - TOO LATE. steam is going to own thier faces.. relic is using it in DoW II and it sucks.. to invite a friend to a game you have to click like 4 times. it doesn't even have a chat function, really microsoft?

steam is awesome and has everything going for it.. the store is bigger than ever, steam community is awesome, friends list is working perfectly now, steam cloud is in, modding community beginning to be officially supported on it.. i wish microsoft and stardock would admit defeat and let valve run the show. Kinda defeats the purpose if i need to say "oh, I liked playing with you, now let me add you on GFWL.. wait do you have steam?" ..

oh yeah and you know what turned me off from GWFL from the very beginning... i'm 2 weeks short of being 18 they wanted a PARENTS EMAIL ADDRESS to let me create an account.

 

[LeviathanZERO]

If GFWL survives, it'll improve. Their goal afaik is to get to the state of having a similar experience between GFWL and Xbox live.

Its not going to.
Buy GTA 4 and see for yourself. Its ridiclous, convoluted and pointless, especially if you bought it on steam.

 

[rampantandroid]

of cours microsoft wants a slice of the action.. guess what - TOO LATE. steam is going to own thier faces.. relic is using it in DoW II and it sucks.. to invite a friend to a game you have to click like 4 times. steam is awesome and has everything going for it.. the store is bigger than ever, steam community is awesome, friends list is working perfectly now, steam cloud is in, modding community beginning to be officially supported on it.. i wish microsoft and stardock would admit defeat and let valve run the show. Kinda defeats the purpose if i need to say "oh, I liked playing with you, now let me add you on GFWL.. wait do you have steam?" ..

oh yeah and you know what turned me off from GWFL from the very beginning... i'm 2 weeks short of being 18 they wanted a PARENTS EMAIL ADDRESS to let me create an account.

Yes, because I'm SURE you want Valve to have no competition for Steam. I suggest you look up the term "monopoly" - MS already has a "slice" of the action...and have had it for some time with XBox live.

Competition is good. Critisizing the current GFWL is good, as long as you want to improve it. Else, you're being stupid and asking for Steam to have a virtual monopoly.

 

[infect0]

You cannot compare Steam being bad at the beginning to how GFWL is now. With steam it was originally optional to use. GFWL on the other hand is prebundle on a ton of games and you cannot play/use the game without going through GFWL.

 

[rampantandroid]

Its not going to.
Buy GTA 4 and see for yourself. Its ridiclous, convoluted and pointless, especially if you bought it on steam.

Until I see news that MS has cut the group, it will continue. And the fact that Flight Sim got cut, but GFWL did not tells me they do want to continue to develop it. Now, maybe they'll cut it in the future (they do have plenty of layoffs left) but we can only speculate.

 

[Blind Man]

Yes, because I'm SURE you want Valve to have no competition for Steam. I suggest you look up the term "monopoly" - MS already has a "slice" of the action...and have had it for some time with XBox live.

Competition is good. Critisizing the current GFWL is good, as long as you want to improve it. Else, you're being stupid and asking for Steam to have a virtual monopoly.

I would be more worried if like, blizzard owned steam. i can hardly see valve screwing people over with a subscription fee or something if they had no competition.. valve has always supported their games with lots of patches and free content. something I highly disagree with though even more is that a game like DoW II is on steam, but once you run it you realize you now need to also log into Live to play the game >.>

 

[phide]

Yes, because I'm SURE you want Valve to have no competition for Steam. I suggest you look up the term "monopoly"

It seems to me that Steam's made quite a positive impression on the general public despite having no real competition in a number of specific areas. The way I see it, Valve genuinely seems interested in implementing new features purely for the sake of making their own service more attractive and not due to any sort of market pressure. That's not to say Valve's just a good Samaritan of any sort, since they're most definitely a profit-focused company, but at this point, I don't see anything negative about Steam's dominance. I've never once thought "wow, I wish somebody else was doing X, since the way Valve does X is wrong".

On a hypothetical five year timeline in which no other company ever steps up to the plate to provide a product/service comparable to Steam, I actually don't see any sort of decline in the overall user experience. As consumers, I don't think we have to worry about a monopoly in when it comes to achievements and in-game chatting and so on.

 

[mr_zen256]

GFWL sucks because you cannot change your Gamertag without a stupid frickin console!

 

[FreiDOg]

of cours microsoft wants a slice of the action.. guess what - TOO LATE. steam is going to own thier faces.. relic is using it in DoW II and it sucks.. to invite a friend to a game you have to click like 4 times. it doesn't even have a chat function, really microsoft?

It's not too late to challenge Steam, it's just too late to do it with a vastly inferior product as GFWL is.
Impulse, Direct2Drive and other digital distribution services are fine for what they do. They don't have the community aspect that Steam does, but that's a knock against what they do offer. Steam may end up the spot for the PC gaming community, but that doesn't mean I want Steam to be the only respite for PC gamers.

steam is awesome and has everything going for it.. the store is bigger than ever, steam community is awesome, friends list is working perfectly now, steam cloud is in, modding community beginning to be officially supported on it.. i wish microsoft and stardock would admit defeat and let valve run the show. Kinda defeats the purpose if i need to say "oh, I liked playing with you, now let me add you on GFWL.. wait do you have steam?" ..

Steam has very little in the way of back cataloge or Indie games (getting better on the latter, as a few publishers have release mega packs that include their classics), but what gametap offers or what Microsoft is slowly going (mostly on the xBox side still) with XNA creators club offer things Steam is still lacking.

Steam is leaps and bounds better than anything GFWL offers; but lets not declare it king; there's still plenty of room for it to improve.

 

[rampantandroid]

It seems to me that Steam's made quite a positive impression on the general public despite having no real competition in a number of specific areas. The way I see it, Valve genuinely seems interested in implementing new features purely for the sake of making their own service more attractive and not due to any sort of market pressure. That's not to say Valve's just a good Samaritan of any sort, since they're most definitely a profit-focused company, but at this point, I don't see anything negative about Steam's dominance. I've never once thought "wow, I wish somebody else was doing X, since the way Valve does X is wrong".

On a hypothetical five year timeline in which no other company ever steps up to the plate to provide a product/service comparable to Steam, I actually don't see any sort of decline in the overall user experience. As consumers, I don't think we have to worry about a monopoly in when it comes to achievements and in-game chatting and so on.

Thus far, Steam is simply a copy (in most aspects, but not all) of XBox live. You've got achievements, downloadable content and such...stuff XBox did much earlier.

And again, I don't care if you think that they won't be an evil monopoly. Having competition means they will always be competiting to get better prices, better service, better features, etc. Saying you want GFWL to die is like saying you want AMD to die, and Intel to have a monopoly.

 

[Mystic-Micro]

I actually believe one platform is all we need. Monopoly...what monopoly, if steam isn't good, I buy from retail. If not Direct to Drive or any of the other services availaible. I just want a centralized platform, makes things very simple from playing games with your friends, patching your game, and getting involved in the game's community. In that sense steam is darn good, and anyone who has played dawn of war 2 beta, can certainly vouch for how redundant the current implementation is.... If games for windows live were shut down, it would be just like the last 4 years, and I for one can live with that..I have dealt with and enjoyed it before....I can do it again.

On a side note, do you really ever believe, GFWL will be Mircrosoft's gaming related initiative...., remember it is second to the their Xbox initiative, and will almost always be.

 

[Derangel]

GFWL has its problems, but the author is bitching about an issue that can happen with any piece of software. Bugs like that can be annoying, but thats the name of the game. Steam was horrible at its start and the number of issues people had with it, especially with HL2, was insane. GFWL's biggest issues are matchmaking and no dedicated servers. Fixing those will go a LONG way towards making it a better service. Also, get the damn video marketplace on the PC.

 

[Derangel]

You cannot compare Steam being bad at the beginning to how GFWL is now. With steam it was originally optional to use. GFWL on the other hand is prebundle on a ton of games and you cannot play/use the game without going through GFWL.

Optional? Really? What about HL2? Steam was required for some games. Worst of all you HAD to be online to play HL2 because offline mode didn't work.

 

[phide]

Thus far, Steam is simply a copy (in most aspects, but not all) of XBox live. You've got achievements, downloadable content and such...stuff XBox did much earlier.

And? Xbox Live is for the Xbox platform. Steam is for the PC platform. What exactly is your point here?

Saying you want GFWL to die is like saying you want AMD to die, and Intel to have a monopoly.

Funny. I don't recall saying anything to that effect.

Really, really great stuff here, guy.

 

[defiant007]

GFWL's biggest issues are matchmaking and no dedicated servers. Fixing those will go a LONG way towards making it a better service. Also, get the damn video marketplace on the PC.

Probably its biggest issue is that the entire drive of the platform is nickel and diming gamers to death for pathetic downloadable content. The fact that developers have to regularly plead with MS to allow them to release free content is a testament to this, MS wants to squeeze every last cent out of gamers.

MS's rigid and stringent processes for validating upgrades and patches is also problematic, look at how long it is taking Epic to fix their major stuff up on GoW which has effectively broken the game!

 

[Derangel]

Probably its biggest issue is that the entire drive of the platform is nickel and diming gamers to death for pathetic downloadable content. The fact that developers have to regularly plead with MS to allow them to release free content is a testament to this, MS wants to squeeze every last cent out of gamers.

MS's rigid and stringent processes for validating upgrades and patches is also problematic, look at how long it is taking Epic to fix their major stuff up on GoW which has effectively broken the game!

If PC devs want to offer free DLC they don't have to use GFWL. No one is forcing them to use it on this platform. They go into it by choice and know what they're getting into from the get go. Oblivion proved that Bethesda would charge for DLC without MS hounding them to do so.

I don't see how validation on patches is a bad thing. How many times have we seen patches that break more of the game than they fix or the patches themselves are broken? Its not like validation holds back patches for months and months. Any dev stating that the reason for a patch taking a long time is due to validation is blowing smoke up your ass. The Gears 2 issues taking this long to fix are entirely Epic's fault. Gears 2 should have never launched in that broken of a state and Epic should have been issuing patches from day one. There is no excuse for the game to be in the sate it was for so long,

 

[defaultluser]

Wow. There are only 13 people working on steam. Thats crazy.

No, it's not. Smaller teams get more done per-person, especially when they're part of a company that isn't riddled with pointless management and layer-upon-layer of useless process. This is especially true now that Steam is a mature product, so you only need maintenance staff plus a small group to code new features. Trust me, I'm a software developer, and have worked on teams of all sizes.

Microsoft is stifled by this very problem - they have layers of management that serves no purpose now that the whirlwind growth of the 90s is over. Said management has overreacted to the public image that Microsoft software is "buggy," and has stifled their creative developers with too much process. Said management also is lacking in collective foresight and patience, so Microsoft wastes developer effort on worthless re-inventions of the wheel, and managers make it priority-one to lock people into their platform, and usability a distant second.

 

[rampantandroid]

And? Xbox Live is for the Xbox platform. Steam is for the PC platform. What exactly is your point here?


Funny. I don't recall saying anything to that effect.

Really, really great stuff here, guy.

I'm not responding DIRECTLY to you with the "wanting it to die" statement; the general sentiment I see in here is that people want it to die. Just like that kid who posts about how steam sucks so hard, and that the game he bought on it won't work and steam needs to die (and then he goes and buys another game from steam not one month later and repeats the cycle.)

Competition is inherently good. If MS wants to spend time on it, that's great. If it doesn't improve, developers won't use it. It's part of MS' move to go with services (Live being the underlying service here - the behavior of GFWL mimmicks XBox Live, in that saves are tied to Live accounts. It works great on XBox, and can work great on PC as well, I believe - IF it has more work done on it.

 

[defiant007]

If PC devs want to offer free DLC they don't have to use GFWL. No one is forcing them to use it on this platform. They go into it by choice and know what they're getting into from the get go. Oblivion proved that Bethesda would charge for DLC without MS hounding them to do so.

I don't see how validation on patches is a bad thing. How many times have we seen patches that break more of the game than they fix or the patches themselves are broken? Its not like validation holds back patches for months and months. Any dev stating that the reason for a patch taking a long time is due to validation is blowing smoke up your ass. The Gears 2 issues taking this long to fix are entirely Epic's fault. Gears 2 should have never launched in that broken of a state and Epic should have been issuing patches from day one. There is no excuse for the game to be in the sate it was for so long,

You are skewing the argument into completely different territory, we are talking about why GFWL is inferior as a platform. Irrespective of whether the devs knowingly sign up to with knowledge that MS is going to want their share of the pie, why would we want to use a platform designed to nickel and dime you to death? Imagine if valve decided to charge for every major update released for TF2, or the future updates for L4D.

And I am not talking about GoW2, I am talking about GoW1 PC. The whole issue is concerned with MS security validations, so yes there is a pretty good chance the entire hold up is due to MS.

 

[Derangel]

You are skewing the argument into completely different territory, we are talking about why GFWL is inferior as a platform. Irrespective of whether the devs knowingly sign up to with knowledge that MS is going to want their share of the pie, why would we want to use a platform designed to nickel and dime you to death? Imagine if valve decided to charge for every major update released for TF2, or the future updates for L4D.

And I am not talking about GoW2, I am talking about GoW1 PC. The whole issue is concerned with MS security validations, so yes there is a pretty good chance the entire hold up is due to MS.

Valve isn't every developer on the planet though. You can't compare Valve offering those free updates with what other developers want to do. Devs know going in that MS isn't going to want to let them offer free DLC. Its their choice whether to use it or not and its our choice whether we believe the DLC offered and the price its offered at makes it worth while. No one is holding a gun to your head and forcing you to buy DLC. You're only being nickle and dimed if you allow yourself to be. True nickel and dimming is what those "free" MMOs do that force you to buy things with real money if you want to have good enough equipment to make it through parts of the game.

Its not related to GFWL. Its a certificate in the exe itself that is a form of DRM. Epic fucked up and put an expiration date on it. Once again, entirely Epic's fault.

 

[rampantandroid]

You are skewing the argument into completely different territory, we are talking about why GFWL is inferior as a platform. Irrespective of whether the devs knowingly sign up to with knowledge that MS is going to want their share of the pie, why would we want to use a platform designed to nickel and dime you to death? Imagine if valve decided to charge for every major update released for TF2, or the future updates for L4D.

And I am not talking about GoW2, I am talking about GoW1 PC. The whole issue is concerned with MS security validations, so yes there is a pretty good chance the entire hold up is due to MS.

I wonder why the iPhone app store is faring so well...maybe because every app is 99 cents? Forget that all those apps add up over time, but hey - people don't think about the future, only the here and now.

What would you prefer, slightly cheaper games with downloadable content that you can opt into (thus also encouraging ongoing support of games) or a one time fee, maybe one or two patches, then having the devs forget the game ever existed?

 

[defiant007]

Valve isn't every developer on the planet though. You can't compare Valve offering those free updates with what other developers want to do. Devs know going in that MS isn't going to want to let them offer free DLC. Its their choice whether to use it or not and its our choice whether we believe the DLC offered and the price its offered at makes it worth while. No one is holding a gun to your head and forcing you to buy DLC. You're only being nickle and dimed if you allow yourself to be. True nickel and dimming is what those "free" MMOs do that force you to buy things with real money if you want to have good enough equipment to make it through parts of the game.

No that is a seperate issue because steam as a platform does not require developers to charge for additional content, which GFWL does. Whether devs are cognisant of what they are getting into with GFWL is not the point, the point is that on steam devs are not forced to charge for content, thus making it a superior platform.

The other point is that nickel and diming occurs more than just in the sense you suggest. It also arises where devs release new online content which effectively forces everyone to buy it to prevent fragmentation in online gaming.....e.g. BF booster packs and Halo 3 map packs.

 

[rampantandroid]

No that is a seperate issue because steam as a platform does not require developers to charge for additional content, which GFWL does. Whether devs are cognisant of what they are getting into with GFWL is not the point, the point is that on steam devs are not forced to charge for content, thus making it a superior platform.

The other point is that nickel and diming occurs more than just in the sense you suggest. It also arises where devs release new online content which effectively forces everyone to buy it to prevent fragmentation in online gaming.....e.g. BF booster packs and Halo 3 map packs.

There is plenty of free content on XBL. AFAIK, you aren't FORCED to charge, I imagine you can set the price. Unless you know the plans for GFWL, I suggest you don't make wild claims.

 

[defiant007]

I wonder why the iPhone app store is faring so well...maybe because every app is 99 cents? Forget that all those apps add up over time, but hey - people don't think about the future, only the here and now.

What would you prefer, slightly cheaper games with downloadable content that you can opt into (thus also encouraging ongoing support of games) or a one time fee, maybe one or two patches, then having the devs forget the game ever existed?

Those are not really fair comparisons. Firstly, the existence of DLC has not been used to subsidise the initial game purchase.

Secondly, most DLC is not worth the price of admission IMHO.

Thirdly, if anything DLC encourages devs not release new content, but in reality to break existing planned content into multiple pieces.

 

[Derangel]

No that is a seperate issue because steam as a platform does not require developers to charge for additional content, which GFWL does. Whether devs are cognisant of what they are getting into with GFWL is not the point, the point is that on steam devs are not forced to charge for content, thus making it a superior platform.

The other point is that nickel and diming occurs more than just in the sense you suggest. It also arises where devs release new online content which effectively forces everyone to buy it to prevent fragmentation in online gaming.....e.g. BF booster packs and Halo 3 map packs.

Steam is superior, but not just for that reason. I just see it as a non-issue. I'm saying that PC devs that use GFWL and offer DLC are doing so because they want to charge for it. They're not being forced to do anything on the PC. Its an open platform. This isn't the 360 where studios don't get any choices. MS can't force devs to do anything they don't want to already do with GFWL. Its a separate issue than how its run on the Xbox. Nothing forces a studio to use MS' Live servers to host content. They can host it themsevles and charge what they want to, if anything. You're making an issue where there isn't one. Thats the essence of the PC as a gaming platform.

There is that, but still no one is forcing you to buy it if you don't want to. Of the x million number of people that own those big games and play them online routinely I wouldn't expect them all to buy every map pack that comes out. But, again, its is a console thing. It doesn't apply to PCs for the above reason: Its an open platform. If maps or any DLC cost money its the fault of the developer or publisher plain and simple.

 

[Derangel]

There is plenty of free content on XBL. AFAIK, you aren't FORCED to charge, I imagine you can set the price. Unless you know the plans for GFWL, I suggest you don't make wild claims.

There are examples of forced charging. Mass Effect, Gears, Gears 2, and one or two others I'm forgetting about.

Those are not really fair comparisons. Firstly, the existence of DLC has not been used to subsidise the initial game purchase.

Secondly, most DLC is not worth the price of admission IMHO.

Thirdly, if anything DLC encourages devs not release new content, but in reality to break existing planned content into multiple pieces.

Gonna have to agree with you on all three points here. I'm not really pro-DLC, though I'm no against it either. I believes developers should be rewarded when they release good DLC. If Criterion offers some good DLC stuff for the Paradise on the PC I'll probably buy it due to all the work they've put into their game on consoles over the year since its release. These are people who could've charged $5-10 for the Cagney update and at least another $2-3 for the bikes and it would've sold like ice cream in the desert. Yet they didn't.

Fallout 3 is a semi-good example as well. Operation Anchorage was overpriced by a few dollars, but it was still a good bit of DLC and its obvious they've learned from Oblivion. I'm more than willing to buy The Pit next month, but not day one-near hour one like I did for this one. I'll wait and see how it turns out. OA is the first DLC I've ever bought so its not like I'm the type to run around and buy that shit.

 

[defiant007]

There is plenty of free content on XBL. AFAIK, you aren't FORCED to charge, I imagine you can set the price. Unless you know the plans for GFWL, I suggest you don't make wild claims.

Proof is in the pudding, I will eat my hat if MS starts giving away free content on GFWL.

 

[rampantandroid]

There are examples of forced charging. Mass Effect, Gears, Gears 2, and one or two others I'm forgetting about.

Do you know that they were FORCED? They being Bioware. Are you sure Bioware made no decision to actually charge for the DLC?

I see no evidence of it being forced, and wikipedia mentions nothing about this, that I can see.

 

[Derangel]

Do you know that they were FORCED? They being Bioware. Are you sure Bioware made no decision to actually charge for the DLC?

I see no evidence of it being forced, and wikipedia mentions nothing about this, that I can see.

I was a regular on their forums for months. I believe I recall something being mentioned about them wanting it to be free. My memory could be faulty (not a stretch), but thats still only one less example.

 

[defiant007]

Steam is superior, but not just for that reason. I just see it as a non-issue. I'm saying that PC devs that use GFWL and offer DLC are doing so because they want to charge for it. They're not being forced to do anything on the PC. Its an open platform. This isn't the 360 where studios don't get any choices. MS can't force devs to do anything they don't want to already do with GFWL. Its a separate issue than how its run on the Xbox. Nothing forces a studio to use MS' Live servers to host content. They can host it themsevles and charge what they want to, if anything. You're making an issue where there isn't one. Thats the essence of the PC as a gaming platform.

I hope that is the case, but would not be surprised if MS used their influence on devs to force the inclusion of GFWL in multi-platform releases, e.g. fallout 3.

There is no denying that MS has at its disposal the ability to say to a dev, "look, if you want to release this game on our console, you are going to have to be amenable to including GFWL in the PC version".

Unsurprisingly, all of the GFWL games released to date have been multiplatform, apart from DoW2 (and why the hell relic would do that when they are already using steam is beyond me!).

 

[rampantandroid]

Proof is in the pudding, I will eat my hat if MS starts giving away free content on GFWL.

GFWL went from requiring a subscription to being free.

Not quite what you said, so can we meet halfway? I'll give you a hat to eat, so you don't have to eat your own.

 

[defiant007]

GFWL went from requiring a subscription to being free.

Not quite what you said, so can we meet halfway? I'll give you a hat to eat, so you don't have to eat your own.

MS did that because they did not have a hope in hell of convincing PC gamers to pay for a service which they effectively got for free from a variety of other sources. If gamers needed an excuse not to use GFWL, that was a pretty good one.

 

[Derangel]

I hope that is the case, but would not be surprised if MS used their influence on devs to force the inclusion of GFWL in multi-platform releases, e.g. fallout 3.

There is no denying that MS has at its disposal the ability to say to a dev, "look, if you want to release this game on our console, you are going to have to be amenable to including GFWL in the PC version".

MS isn't in any position to piss off developers or publishers. That 5-6-whatever million lead over the PS3 can easily be lessened by big games going exclusive to Sony's console. GFWL provides an easy service for DLC. Its simply code they insert into the game and snap its all supported. MS provides all the support and help needed for it to work. Steam doesn't have that kind of set-up yet for non-Valve games. IF MS can work on the GFWL marketplace they could really gain some publisher attention. DLC is a big potential market even on the PC. Cheap to make, only need to sell a few copies to make money so its low risk.

 

[Derangel]

MS did that because they did not have a hope in hell of convincing PC gamers to pay for a service which they effectively got for free from a variety of other sources. If gamers needed an excuse not to use GFWL, that was a pretty good one.

Didn't help that Gears was buggy, horrible port, and Halo 2 was...Uhh...How do I put this nicely? Fugly and archiac.

 

[GenBanks]

I think the problem with GFWL is that they try to be unimposing in some respects (no standalone client like steam) but are a huge hassle in other ways that Steam isn't - ie requiring you to sign in to save a game etc.

But I'd disagree that it's all bad... They just need to develop it more. I thought the implementation in Dawn of War 2 was pretty good. I quickly added a few friends to GFWL, and it's made multiplayer easier without being too much of a hassle.

Steam is still better though, and GFWL isn't going to be going very far unless they put a lot of work into it.

 

[mastercheeze]

As an end-user, there seems to be no valid reason for GFWL. Patches? I can download my own patches, or the dev could integrate on their own. DRM? Maybe, I suppose, but again, dev could come up with their own solution. Buddy lists? We're talking about PCs - we already have our own tools for communicating with friends. Briefcases of cash? Most likely.