Stardock Boss: “If Games For Windows Takes Over, I’m Done”

[Webslinger]

http://www.maximumpc.com/article/news/stardock_boss_“if_games_windows_takes_over_i’m_done”

 

[Ammo]

Thanks for the link. It was a interesting read.
It's true that the GFWL is a absolute horror. Why do we have to log in GFWL just to save a game, to apply patches and the like? To me, this is more of a 'big brother' syndrome. Microsoft wants to monitor our game activities. Sadly nothing will be done. It's Microsoft after all. I've got Batman:Arkham Asylum and it took me a good bit of an hour just to play the game! Madness! I had to create a account, apply patches, etc.
I really hope that they take the money out of their ears, backside and stop burying their heads in the sand. Start listening to the customers. We don't want another pre vista mistake! It will be even better if they they drop it altogether. It will make PC gaming much more pleasurable. Just my two cents worth.

 

[Webslinger]

l. I've got Batman:Arkham Asylum and it took me a good bit of an hour just to play the game! Madness! I had to create a account, apply patches, etc.

3 of 5 English moderators bought that game. This game gets a thumbs up from me, even though I typically dislike consolish games (I mean this one could be a coin-op and work, really, with a few changes) except for the unimaginative boss battles and the stupid save checkpoints (pc games should always let you save--except, perhaps, during boss battles).

Here's the thing: you don't need to create an account. You just won't have your achievements recorded, and you won't be able to do any challenges against other people's scores (I think). Also, your top scores won't be recorded for bragging rights online.

And can download the patch, without creating a GFW account:
http://forums.eidosgames.com/showpost.php?p=1187823&postcount=1


I'm not saying I'm a GFW fan, but realize that what Brad Wardell is complaining about is the certification process and the amount of money PC gaming developers have to pay Microsoft as a result. He's saying that if he has to update a game x number of times, he has to pay Microsoft more money. And he's arguing that console games require less updates, which can be true especially for the reasons he gave. So if he develops a game for the PC, Microsoft is potentially making him pay a lot more money just for the certification process (if he has to provide a lot of patches).

So he's not complaining, based on what I can tell, from an end-user perspective. He's complaining from the perspective of a developer.

Now keep this in mind: if a gaming developer has to pay a lot of money to Microsoft to keep issuing patches for games, where is the incentive for the developer to produce patches then? That does affect the end-user. Also this affects the end-user, especially if PC gaming developers leave the industry because Microsoft's certification process is costing them too much money.

Okay, so why would Microsoft charge more money if a lot of patches are made available for a game? Well, server bandwidth, right? Uploading costs money . . .
Now I have no idea what reasonable prices are for server upload bandwidth, but based on what Brad Wardell is complaining about, the price Microsoft is charging must be considered unreasonable (at least to him).

As it is gaming developers and publishers tend to flock more towards consoles due to a perceived issue with piracy on the PC. Now if you throw Microsoft's certification process into the mix, that may even annoy the PC gaming industry further . . .

I suppose people could argue that PC gaming developers don't necessarily require Games For Windows certification. But as a consumer, when I see that label I know that the game is guaranteed to work with Windows 7 and Vista x64 editions.

“On the console, I don't have to update my game because an anti-virus program got an update and is now identifying my VB scripts as viruses and I have to apply an emergency patch. That would just add insult to injury. We've had to upgrade our games plenty of times over the years, not because we found some bug, but because some third-party program, or driver, or whatever screwed it up. If Games for Windows Live maintains that strategy and they take over, I'm done. I'm not making PC games. I would be done.”

I can kind of see his point. There are more issues to be dealing with on PCs than with consoles. The potential need to issue more patches is greater . . . That said, if an antivirus program is wrongly identifying something as a virus or trojan, I feel the onus is on the antivirus vendor to issue a virus definition update rather than the gaming developer to issue a patch. But he's right about third party drivers, etc.