Xbox team ruining GfW Live - Stardock

By Robert Purchese Published 5 October, 2009

"My friends, you can't do that on the PC."

Digital publisher Stardock believes Games for Windows - Live will collapse if Microsoft continues to let the Xbox team hack away at it.

"I started out as a big Games for Windows - Live advocate. I intended for [Elemental: War of Magic] to be on Games for Windows - Live, but then as we got closer, the Xbox group took it over more and more. And they have things where, oh, if you want to use Games for Windows - Live to update your game, you have to go through [their] certification. And if you do it more than X number of times, you have to pay money," Wardell told ShackNews. "It's like, 'My friends, you can't do that on the PC.'

"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," he added, "I'm done. I'm not making PC games. I would be done."

Wardell rued how his team had to become IT experts overnight to tackle NAT port connection issues with Demigod - something he'd "get for free" if making a game for Xbox 360. He wants access to the Microsoft game servers "without all these strings attached".

Wardell isn't the first to shun Games for Windows - Live: Microsoft-favourite Epic Games ditched the service for Unreal Tournament 3.

Games for Windows - Live was once a paid-for service like Xbox Live, which it sought to emulate. But forcing PC owners, who had choice, to part from their cash proved difficult. That's why GfW turned into a free service last summer.

Elemental: War of Magic, a turn-based fantasy strategy, is next on the Stardock schedule. Head to our gamepage below to find out more.

Picture of Robert.

About Robert Purchese

Bertie is Eurogamer's Senior Staff Writer. When he's not hunting down news stories he's often found playing with his kids or gabbling about fantasy games and strange online worlds.

Read more articles from Robert by visiting the Robert Purchese archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (46) Latest comment 2 years ago

Comments threads automatically close after 30 days, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • matrim83 #1 2 years ago

    He does make some really good points from the POV of a developer. I love GFWL (mostly because it integrates well with my gamertag and there are always achievements to boot) and I would like to see it in more games. Seems MS has some way to go before that happens.

  • kangarootoo #2 2 years ago

    MS killing PC gaming? A turn up for the books indeed.

    If devs suffer extra charges for developing for Windows, I guess they will have to pass it on to gamers. PC games are generally cheaper than console equivalents, so there is a margin that can be eaten into for a little while.

    Hardly ideal though. What we are seeing is a service determined by company strategy rather than customer need.

  • davisorle #3 2 years ago

    Id never pay for Windows Live games.. I pay for XBL cause its more than worth and specially the quality if services and the servers provided but on PC, hell no. I actually even forgot it used to be NON free service for Windows before. Other than that its a good thing that now XBL and GfW are connected thourgh the account/gamertag and the interface is also purdy and not fugly so its all good that far. I hope they dot start forcing ppl to be also online to even get to play their games without another option.

    And you had to pay to repatch etc? If I got that right then MS can kiss my ass. I got a good one too lol

  • PlugMonkey #4 2 years ago

    What does GfWL do that Steam doesn't?

  • bad09 #5 2 years ago

    It's a shame. I'm only just trying GFWL as I move back PC more and more. As a free service (no way I would pay on PC, now I have a PS3 and decent gaming PC I'm finding it hard to justify the £26 a year for Live on 360 TBH) GFWL is pretty sweet and as matrim83 says it does link nicely to your gamertag on 360 which is really cool.

    From the sounds of it though devs might be better off without it. Shame...

  • skillian #6 2 years ago

    When you are charging for a service that people don't want even when it's free, it shows how clueless you really are.

    Perhaps Microsoft could make more money by charging a small fee to remove GfWL from existing games - that is something I would be interested in.

  • DaemonSpawn #7 2 years ago

    @ PlugMonkey
    What does GfWL do that Steam doesn't?
    Well, it hides saves from you and does something very bad to them. I have tried to recover savegames of GTA4 after Windows reinstallation and simply couldn't do it. Same goes for many other GFWL games (not all... yet) - recovering save data from another profile (especially offline one) is almost impossible.
    Next thing - its client-server interfaces are total shit. I'm used to more or less advanced interfaces like in most multiplayer PC games (most recent one for me is ETQW), but in GFWL games lobby is awful. GTA4 doesn't even let you see the ping - just some coloured bars (how the f#ck should I know what 2 green bars mean - is that 20ms, 40ms or 100ms?). It is also very gamepad-oriented (lobby interface, I mean).
    So... everything GFWL can do, Steam does - but MUCH better. And cheaper for developers. And with Steam Cloud saves are no longer a problem on multiple PCs (like desktop+notebook).

  • ZeroAX #8 2 years ago

    @PlugMonkey

    What GFWL does that steam doesn't? It sucks

  • Dizzy #9 2 years ago

    >He wants access to the Microsoft game servers "without all these strings attached".

    Since MS is paying for all these servers you have to play by the rules.

    >Id never pay for Windows Live games..

    It is free.

    DoW2 is doing pretty well with GFW... anyway... he can always use Steam if he wants the "easy" update path. Remember Stardock have a competing service :)

    The cross platform possibilities are also pretty good but not used often. Shadow Run had this nailed.
    Edited by 1 at 05/10/09 @ 09:49

  • KDR_11k #10 2 years ago

    Go with Steam instead, all the advantages (well, it doesn't give you a stupid gamerscore but that doesn't really matter) of GfWL with none of the problems. Even comes with a nice online store that sees much more use than that joke of a store GFWL has.

  • penhalion #11 2 years ago

    Can't side with stardock on this one as I'd rather have the XBox team manage games for windows live. No company has to use it for PC games so Stardock then saying they will not make PC games because of it just starts to sound like a "We want to only do console stuff from now on but, need it to sound like we were forced to" type of argument.

    With the likes of Batman, Wolfenstein etc. etc. all on GFWL with no complaints. The stardock story sounds like a lot of excuses. For instance it's dead easy to tell your virus checker to ignore a certain program if it is wrongly identifying it as a virus. So why the heck would Stardock need to patch their code, unless they WERE doing something dodgy to begin with.

  • StooMonster #12 2 years ago

    The only things GfWL does that Steam doesn't is merge achievements with one's Xbox Live account.

    Agree with DaemonSpawn, I had to rebuild my PC and lost my GTA4 saves in the process. :(

    Anyone heard the "Steam" conversation in the new Left 4 Dead 'Crash Course' expansion? "I like Steam"

  • Skurmedel #13 2 years ago

    It's less easy to tell your customers how to do that penhalion. Sometimes software developers will have to cater for things that really shouldn't be their problem. And anyway, that's beside the point. I ain't particularly fond of GFWL either, I think it's another layer on top of everything that gets in the way. Much like Steam is.
    Edited by 2 at 05/10/09 @ 10:09

  • davisorle #14 2 years ago

    EDIT: @ DIZZY
    No man, I know.. I was just making clear at first that I wouldn't pay for it ( which im aware of it being free. even said I forgot it used to be NON free along the lines quiet clear :p )before I say my opinion about the service itself.

    Also since Steam is mentioned, Steam is convinient, worked on for many years now and also simple to use but if you ask me the interface of GfWL isn;t only better looking but its more flexible to be way more usefull than Steam. I already found it too simple the only couple of times I checked GfWL and userfriendly. If you dont wanna use it you just type a random profile name and you dont have to register. And the saves also are easy to find by using the search with also activated to look into invisible folders etc for those interested :)
    Edited by 1 at 05/10/09 @ 10:11

  • Skurmedel #15 2 years ago

    MilkyB: Added development costs usually means a more expensive product. It depends on the margin of course, if they need the price to be competitive they might keep it and take a profit hit. But I'd wager the margins aren't that high.

  • Darren #16 2 years ago

    As a PC gamer I've had no major or noticeable issues with the GfWL games I'm playing; the interface works unobtrusively, the interface only runs when the game requires it and supplements my Xbox 360 Achivement points.

    The thing is I don't really care about Achievements and even less so on the PC where only a mere handful of games are GfWL anyway. If all PC games were GfWL then we'd have standard Friends list and Achievements for all games but we're in the ridiculous situation were some games are just GfW branded despite having online features, e.g. Bionic Commando, Crysis, etc. and most aren't GfWL or GfW branded anyway so it's a bit of a mess really. Steam, in spite of its overpricing of new games, works far better than GfWL and doesn't require you to have the disc in the drive in order to play the game.

  • Dizzy #17 2 years ago

    >doesn't require you to have the disc in the drive in order to play the game.

    It does require you to be online.

  • Darren #18 2 years ago

    Re: the save game thing with GfWL... all it would have required is a bit of forward thinking by Microsoft to store all GfWL games in a Game for Windows - LIVE folder in My Documents so people could back them up easily. Instead we end up with a situation where some GfWL games are stored in separate folder in My Documents and some in the the hidden Local/Applications folder on the C: drive. Again, it's a mess because Microsoft have not forced a standard for GfWL developers so they all use their own methods.

  • Darren #19 2 years ago

    @Dizzy - Yeah but being online isn't really an issue on the PC these days is it? My own PC is connected to the internet from the moment it boots into Windows to the time it's powered down. If the internet happens to be down then Steam can still be used in offline mode to play the games.

  • kangarootoo #20 2 years ago

    @penhalion

    There's nothing like a good conspiracy theory, right? ;)

  • Bazfrag #21 2 years ago

    How many patches have there been to l4d since crash course on steam? Imagine if valve were charged for that. Pc will always require patches as new products, updates etc unrelated to a game but still break it. Seems daft to make devs pay for supporting their product.

  • skillian #22 2 years ago

    Yes, that was a bit tinhattish.

    Not only are Stardock looking for an excuse to go console only and ditch teh PC, but they are sneaking viruses into patches and worried that GfWL might get them found out.

    Seems daft to make devs pay for supporting their product.

    What's even dafter is that Microsoft should have the right to reject or approve a dev's patch. It should have nothing to do with them!

    Frankly, developers are mad to even think about giving Microsoft that power over them, and I can't understand why so many have already handed those rights over.
    Edited by 1 at 05/10/09 @ 10:55

  • seasidebaz #23 2 years ago

    Their games wouldn't pass certification to begin with.

    Using VB script files for a game = stoopid. And dangerous.

  • StooMonster #24 2 years ago

    I think it's another layer on top of everything that gets in the way.

    My point was that there are many Windows Services that "get in the way" and "steal processor cycles" just as much as Steam, StarDock, etc.

    Steam is practically trivial in its memory usage and processor requirements, so to complain about it one might as well be playing a console instead of using a PC. ;)

  • StooMonster #25 2 years ago

    Darren: Instead we end up with a situation where some GfWL games are stored in separate folder in My Documents and some in the the hidden Local/Applications folder on the C: drive

    This is where I missed out on GTA4 saves, the general data for the game is saved in 'Documents' folder but the actual save files are inside the hidden Local/Apps folder. :(

    Darren, it's not just Microsoft's fault, take EA: Mirrors Edge saves files under ..\Documents\EA Games\ and Dead Spaces saves its files under ..\Documents\Electronic Arts\

  • Mooglepies #26 2 years ago

    @ Penhalion

    Stardock are a PC software company that dabbles, mark you DABBLES in games. Most of what they do is in fact PC customisation software and other bitty non-game software. When they do dabble in games though, the results are usually awesome, at least for the niche community they are designed for.

    PC gaming is NOT the same as console gaming. It lacks the unified hardware specifications and it lacks the same cohesion from the community. Getting the XBL team to manage it in exactly the same way as they manage the XBL service is NOT a good move.

    I can agree with Brad, mostly because I've spoken to him online before (he actually frequents the company's IRC channel on occasion) and he's been utterly committed to creating good products; GFWL wanting to have control over DLC, servers etc is one thing (that a company may even be willing to pay for) but if you find a gamebreaking bug in your game and you have to jump through hoops to get it released (and pay for it if it happens again) rather than, say, just immediately release a hotfix using your own distributution software, then you begin to understand where Stardock are coming from.

  • Darren #27 2 years ago

    @StooMonster - Yeah, I agree. Old games had no standardised save game policy so most used to save to the actual game folder. Since XP though, more and more games have stored them under the My Documents folder, which is fine, but all it would take is a bit of commonsense and an internal memo to the developers to make sure that the saves for all new games are ALL stored there, whether they're GfWL or not.

    It's a logical place for game saves since it is very easy to backup the My Documents folder. Whoever at Microsoft thought it was a good idea to store save games in a hidden folder on the C: drive too wants sacking IMO. Where's the logic in storing save games in such a complicated way that users don't know where they are? Would someone care to enlighten me on that?

  • the_mtfr #28 2 years ago

    We love you Brad!!!!!!

  • skillian #29 2 years ago

    Where's the logic in storing save games in such a complicated way that users don't know where they are? Would someone care to enlighten me on that?

    It's the lowest common denominator problem I think. MS would rather hide the savegames away rather than see a few idiots delete or otherwise modify those files.
    Edited by 1 at 05/10/09 @ 12:55

  • penhalion #30 2 years ago

    I'm not sure how anyone is defending stardock. The fact remains that in the PC world, you simply don't have to use GFWL or Steam or any other type of service if you don't want to. So how can any software house be using GFWL as an excuse for not wanting to make windows games?

    edit:Danged spellin'
    Edited by 1 at 05/10/09 @ 13:13

  • Skurmedel #31 2 years ago

    StooMonster: You completely missed my point. When it doesn't work it gets in my face, that's what I'm talking about, et cetera. With Steam there's not that much to care about, except when your connection dies and their promised offline play doesn't work. With GFWL there's other stuff as "ugh I need to sign into my account" et cetera, that does get in the way, and it means even more stuff that can break down.

    I'm not saying it doesn't work most of the time, but it's extra stuff to worry about. And the last time I used GFWL, it was quite alot to worry about.

    Penhalion: Maybe not defending that point, but that doesn't mean their whole argument is moot.
    Edited by 3 at 05/10/09 @ 13:22

  • MENTAL1ST Verified Senior Software Engineer, Picsel UK Ltd. #32 2 years ago

    What the hell are people doing putting Visual Basic into games?

  • BobsUncle #33 2 years ago

    "What does GfWL do that Steam doesn't? "

    It must do something as Dawn of War 2 required them both. And you got updates though Steam too, so I'm not sure why he's moaning about updating through GfWL if he can do it through Steam.

  • UncleLou #34 2 years ago

    And you got updates though Steam too, so I'm not sure why he's moaning about updating through GfWL if he can do it through Steam.

    I guess they still have to go through the Microsoft certification process if it's a GfW game, even if the updates are eventually distributed over Steam.

  • skillian #35 2 years ago

    The problem is if a real ecosphere built up around the service then you wouldn't want to be a developer on the outside looking in.

    Yeah, that's the real problem, and that's why Stardock are pointing out the issue now even though at the moment there are other options for patch delivery etc.

  • StooMonster #36 2 years ago

    @Skurmedel: fair point on all the stuff that can break down, I hate the fact that GTA4 also requires Rockstar's applet to run as well as Steam and GfWL.

    Guess I am pretty lucky as I don't get any connectivity outages (fingers crossed) so "online" is not an issue for me.

    To be fair to GfWL, don't you only have to log in once to enter the serial number of game (that Steam gives you); that's certainly been the case with Batman AA for me.

  • AphoticCosmos #37 2 years ago

    See, I quite like GFWL, but I wish that it incorporated all my PC games, and I wish that it wasn't so bloody hard for PC devs to do anything with it.

    Get it sorted, or Steam will take over. Not that that's a bad thing, mind you.

  • hiddenranbir #38 2 years ago

    The complaint is if GFWL becomes the standard for ALL games that want to use the Microsoft Operating System. That is their goal. They want to integrate GFWL into the OS so all games will work through MS owned services. It is basically an attempt to close up the open nature of the PC.

    Here is to hoping their strategy fails!

  • kangarootoo #39 2 years ago

    @penhalion

    "So how can any software house be using GFWL as an excuse for not wanting to make windows games?"

    The whole article is about the evolution of GFWL, from a service that devs might want to use to a service that some of them don't want to use anymore. Stardock are just voicing the general opinion that making profitable games for Windows is tough enough as it is, and stuff like GFWL (specifically the direction it is heading) is amking it harder.

    I'm sure they don't have some fanboy agenda, and certainly no motive to lie about this stuff. You suggest they are using it as excuse to pull out of PC game development, but seriously... since when did any dev need an excuse? They don't need our permission or blessing you know.

  • Machiavellian #40 2 years ago

    What it sounds like to me is that GFWL certification asked the developer to be more responsible for their games before releasing to the system. I am thinking the certification asked the developer to make sure their game live up to a certain standard so that we the gamer do not have silly crashes that should have been taken care of before the game released. The fact that you have to pay for cert after 3 tries pretty much mean that maybe you should pay more attention to getting things done right.

    We all wants PC games to be as bug free and stable as possible and if GFWL put that on the developer to do then I see no problem with the service. Maybe Stardock should worry about producing a solid product then they would not have to wine about the cert.
    Edited by 1 at 05/10/09 @ 16:16

  • kangarootoo #41 2 years ago

    Question.

    Do MS or Sony charge devs to release game updates via XBL or PSN?

    The answer seems pivotal to this discussion imo.

  • skillian #42 2 years ago

    @kangarootoo

    Not sure why that matters? They are completely different platforms.

    edit: I googled it anyway and found this: "When asked if he thought Capcom would support the game post release with patches, Sirlin replied: "It was very hard to get Puzzle Fighter patched at all. There's a lot of difficulty in patching console games. First of all you have to pay the console makers for each of these patches and second you have to do QA and bug testing on these patches." [link url=http://www.videogamer.c om/news/street_fighter_hd_designer_reveals_patch_frustration s.html
    ]http://ww w.videogamer.com/news/street_fi...[/link]

    So it sounds like MS at least do charge to devs to release patches.

    Edited by 1 at 05/10/09 @ 16:51

  • kangarootoo #43 2 years ago

    @skillian

    It was a reference to the comment "The fact that you have to pay for cert after 3 tries pretty much mean that maybe you should pay more attention to getting things done right."

    Stardock are saying that having to pay each time they want to release an update is making PC development less attractive. I was thinking that if the same charges apply to console development then suggestions that these charges are driving devs from PC development hold less water (though Stardock never really talked about bailing to console development - it was posters here that made that part of the picture).

  • Skurmedel #44 2 years ago

    Stoo: Yeah, well, in that case I remember it being Rockstars fault or maybe they all contributed. I rarely have network outages either, but they've been borked in other ways that weren't that fun. I got my Steam account hacked once (probably some fault on my part there), and GFWL wouldn't connect to Live at my parents house for unknown reasons.

    I guess it'll evolve into something nice given time.

  • Nephirion #45 2 years ago

    I would rather pay an extra fiver to have Live multiplayers support than shitty gamespy or the horrible EA battlefield 2142 browser type thing

  • craziii #46 2 years ago

    GFWL tried to charge for a service that is already free on the pc, I mean how IDIOTIC do you think pc gamers are?

    it works for console gamers since multiplayer is brand new to them, just don't expect the same for pc ones.