Talk:Games for Windows – Live

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Video games (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.


I'm not sure we should call the image currently in the article the "logo." I think it was probably just a graphic used to present the service at E3, just like the title of any other slide might be semi-stylized. Tophtucker 01:51, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

The Live Anywhere logo, as seen at E3 2006
I think that until we see something closer, it should stay. PureLegend 20:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
I made that logo for communicative purposes. It is NOT from Microsoft. It was purely illustrative to accompany my blog post. Longzheng 00:10, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Mass Effect Windows Live[edit]

Mass Effect for PC is being published by EA, not Microsoft. BioWare has not confirmed that Mass Effect for PC will support Games for Windows Live.

According to a Gamespot preview[1] Mass Effect for the PC will not use GfW - Live.

Halo 2 Vista[edit]

The article says it will work with Live Anywhere (I changed to Live For Windows or w/e), then says it won't be. I'm not too versed in this topic, so can a more learned editor please make the correct change? Thanks.XXDucky21Xx 00:40, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

New name: Games for Windows - Live[edit]

I moved the page to the new name ('Games for Windows - Live', including the dash), based on the press release. Jschuur 19:26, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Is the program going to be be vista only or will it be ported later on to xp? If it's vista only does anybody know of a site that has tried porting the beta already ?

I haven't seen the dash anywhere else since. Can we drop the dash? PureLegend

The dash is what Microsoft uses in all their official press releases and such, it should be kept in my opinion. SeanMooney 21:02, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe the dash is there to stop any confusion with the Windows Live brand of web-based tools and applications. And as said above, it's how Microsoft refers to it officially. Espiox 23:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


It should be noted that the Live Interface demands administrative rights to update. Updates will fail when a Live title is being played on a limited user account. The gamer will be logged out of Live services and may be unable to play multiplayer. This can be a significant issue for shared or family comptuers, and is, at the least, an extreme annoyance for gamers that use limited accounts under windows XP to get maximum security out of the operating systems. As an inherent and objective issue, it is worthy of note on the main page. Hopefully, it would not violate NPOV to note that Steam achieves the same features without the requirement that it be launched by an admin. Andrew.kintz (talk) 00:55, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

If you use the same Live account on your PC and XBox, signing into one reportedly signs out the other, preventing you from playing a PC game while streaming Netflix on your XBox. 1 --Johnruble (talk) 20:44, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

"It should also be noted that PC games have, up until the release of Windows Live, not required any additional fee to play online except for handful of games, typically MMORPGs such as World of Warcraft. This change to paying an extra fee on top of the cost of an internet service provider encourages future games to have similar extra costs and may turn off many from games they might otherwise have purchased. One bonus to this is that if a user already owns an Xbox 360 and chooses to subscribe to the paid version of Xbox Live, their one paid Gold account works seamlessly across both platforms, making the service more appealing if the person owns both Microsoft systems." -Entire section removed because it is completely false as the comments below have already proved. The last part was also removed because it was not a criticism as alos mentined below.

Shouldn't something be mentioned in the criticisms about PC gamers being used to not paying for online FPS's? Registered99 15:03, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

They aren't paying for multiplayer. PC-to-PC multiplayer is 100% free. Users only pay for the premium Live-only features like cross-platform play, achievements and TrueSkill matchmaking, which will mostly appeal to those already paying for Xbox Live Gold anyhow. Espiox 16:45, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

The criticism section seems nonsensical, because it only focuses on the fact that developers developing a game under the Live brand may choose not to include certain features. This has little to nothing to do with Live. Unless someone makes a compelling argument, I'm removing it. 18:51, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

There are also several recorded instances of development companies bashing Windows LIVE, saying that it has the potential to destroy what PC gaming has typically stood for by making people pay for what has traditionally been free, that is, if it gets anywhere at all; several of these developers have also mentioned the fact that there are several services that provide LIVE like features for free, i.e. Xfire and Gamespy, among several others. Unfortunately, almost all these quotes I have seen have been in magazines and do not have direct quotes on the web that I am aware of. I will keep my eyes open for such quotes and try to post them as I find them. Seraphimneeded 02:25, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Under criticism, it says that FPS games have been traditionally run by clans and played on player-own servers. I really don't know what they're thinking of here. The golden age of PC multiplayer was brought about thanks to services like TEN (which was for pay), MPlayer, HEAT (GOD I miss that service) and Gamespy. Also, as mentioned above. Also, the complaints that this will change what is traditionally free to a paid service is unfounded, as Silver memberships are free. The only things you must pay for are premium Gold features, such as "TrueSkill matchmaking" and cross-platform play.WraithTDK 12:55, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Removed "If you also have Xbox Live, you can link your Xbox Live Gamertag to your Games for Windows Live gamertag via Windows Live. There would not be any additional cost if the Xbox live file has Gold membership and Vice Versa." not really related to any criticism and this commnet is more like a defence for Live then criticism —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:45, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

The page really needs a criticism section - so I suggest we get a list of citations together so that they shouldn't be removed. For a start - Microsoft has admitted on 8-Mar-2011 there was a 'rocky start' to GFWL. computerandvideogames link —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:01, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Criticism remove[edit]

The criticism section is written as a NegPOV hit piece and is totally without any citation. It should be removed in-total, I will be doing so soon. Wageslave (talk) 06:40, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

While the "criticism" of LIVE seem to be a bit stretched, there is a very important flaw to this system: it is not available everywhere, purely due to decision of MS. One can easily join the LIVE community by lying about his country during account making process and then proceed to use the service, even though it should be unavaiable for his region. My point being, that there are countries in which gamers either have to resign from some features of a game they have paid full for, or will have to risk being cought breaking the law. IMHO such a thing should be mentioned both at the games article, as well as here. (talk) 14:37, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Why is it breaking the law if they lie about their region? It might be against the EULA but that is not the same as law. (talk) 15:01, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

At Wikipedia, we don't like original research, and thus we can't take your word for that. We need proof at the very least to include that sort of thing. Brianreading (talk) 16:20, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Removing the criticism section entirely was lazy, there are articles from kotaku and rockpapershotgun on the continuing problems with the service, including quite a few technical issues such as requiring users to manually download hotfixes to use the service with certain games, not being compatible with 3rd party firewalls, not being compatible with 3rd party game messaging services such as xfire. You will notice however that I am also too lazy after finding the references to include them but they are out there. (talk) 09:01, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm disgusted. This article reads like a press release from Microsoft. After seeing a lot of anger about Bioshock 2 being tied to GFWL, I came here to find out anything I could about the reasons it was so reviled - and it seems chaotic unmoderated internet forums are far more informative than Wiki, these days! The only criticisms were removed en mass by someone who apparently cruises Wikipedia at will removing negative text from Microsoft articles and inserting negative text into Sony and Nintendo articles. How many more years will this Microsoft mole be allowed to freely destroy articles? -- (talk) 01:51, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Over and over in the history I can see where each criticism is remove piece by piece until its just completely gone. This article lacks balance as a result. I guess I'll begin researching some of the old criticisms from the history and adding them back with proper citations, so no one can hide behind "OMG NO CITE" to silence it. ferret (talk) 19:00, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

The article needs a criticism section. Olivier Doorenbos (talk) 17:30, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

The article does indeed need a criticisms section. As a matter of fact, there have been many criticisms on it by various reputable PC gaming sites and furthermore reads like an advertisement for this shovelware. WP:SOAP

Seconded. There are many good articles about GfWL problems. Those articles mesh well with what I have read on game forums, (Eg DoWII) and my own experience. Currently... I can not find ANY criticism in this entry. Longer articles about GfWL without a discussion about its problems are unreliable sources212.85.89.247 (talk) 05:29, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

There's nothing to cite because no surveys have been conducted with gamers about Games for Windows Live. I can tell you that the overwhelming majority of gamers hate this service. If I went into...let's say a sample of 10 very popular online games and conducted an anonymous survey among players using chat, and taking screenshots of the results, could one possibly publish that online and cite it? This article is ridiculous. (talk) 18:47, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Criticisms, Cite 1 "In news that ought to please many PC gamers, THQ has revealed that the upcoming Warhammer 40,000: Dawn of War II expansion, Retribution, will be dropping Games for Windows Live in favor of Steamworks. GFWL is hailed by most PC gamers as "A load of old shit," so this is certainly a good thing."

Cite 2: "There was some concern back in June when the collector’s edition was announced, showing the PC version of the game with partly obscured Games for Windows branding on the box. It’s a huge relief to confirm we won’t have to tangle with the maddeningly unreliable GFWL."

Cite 3: "Stardock founder Brad Wardell has voiced his opinion of Games for Windows Live, stating that the service has “too many stings attached” for developers.

Speaking with Edge, Wardell said that when it comes to online game services, including Stardock’s own Impluse, Steamworks has the most features available.

“The key mistakes I’ve seen Games for Windows Live make includes having too many strings attached,” he said. “As a developer, I want accounts and Achievements, and seamless multiplayer. But I don’t want to have to go through some third party to get approval for updates and whatnot." (talk) 11:17, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Tray and Play[edit]

"Many Games For Windows certified games are playable during the game's installation, making PC games more convenient and more similar to console games, in that players aren't required to wait until the game's installation is complete before they can play the game."

Is it nessessary to keep this paragraph in the GfW Live article? It's not really specific to Live titles, as it's a feature that will bein non-Live titles.


Who capitalised Live everywhere? It is officially not capitalised, and I believe Wikipedia doesn't allow for it, even if it's trademarked (see PlayStation 3) 11:36, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the official spelling is in all capitals. See here and hereEspiox 20:39, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's funny, as in some places, MS use the other way [2] 15:24, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Looking at the GfW support site, they seem to use "LIVE" for GfW/Live Anywhere, but "Live" for Xbox Live. I'll make some adjustments in this respect.Espiox 23:54, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I say we use Live. It's preferred on gaming sites, and nearly all places outside of Microsoft PR.
LIVE is preferred on MS sites[3][4] today, but before, Live was preferred[5].
Since Wikipedia does not use 'fancy' trademarks, i would vote for Live. Scepia 03:25, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Im confused![edit]

To use this program, do you donwload it, similar to Steam? Or its it something only accesible in a game that supports it? --Elven6 22:18, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Criticism section[edit]

The criticism section is written as a hit piece and without any citation. It is almost totally Neg-POV attack. It should be removed in-total at this point, and if any relevant, cited information added back into the relevant sections in the future.

It is wholly without value at this point.

Wageslave (talk) 16:28, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh really? So it's alright for you to make unsourced NPOV comments on Nintendo/Sony/Apple related articles, but it can't be done when it is M$ related? Yes, I know who you are, you hypocrite fanboyish f*ck.

We gotta bring the criticism section back, it's unrealistic to assess that Live for PC isn't constructively criticized. That thing's annoying. -- (talk) 18:46, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

A hit piece would be more than fair considering what Microsoft has done with this Steam knockoff. (talk) 18:49, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Leaving the GFWL article without a criticism section is a crime. Sulpherdragon (talk) 16:00, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Generally it is a bad idea to have a criticism section in any article. Although strictly speaking "criticism" doesn't mean "bad things about X", that is what such sections tend to become in practice. Instead, a "reception" section or something similar is preferable, since they are far less likely to be purely negative (and thus is more in lines with Wikipedia's neutrality policies) and it makes it clear that what is portrayed is media/popular opinion rather than hard fact. Alphathon /'æɫfə.θɒn/ (talk) 14:43, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

New look[edit]

I just got an update for GfWL which has changed the look completely, I assume it also provides suport for displaying avatars in the NXE, but it seems to work better. Golden Dragoon (talk) 22:23, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Could you upload those image to wikipedia?. --SkyWalker (talk) 01:18, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Sure thing, will upload a few screen shots. Golden Dragoon (talk) 02:00, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks.--SkyWalker (talk) 02:08, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Here are a few, if there are any specific pages you want me to ss then let me know, I left the messages and friends ones out on purpose, due to the messages tab having a summary of my recieved messages on it, and the friends one as whilst it dosn't bother me having my gamer tag put up for all to see I cannot speak for themGolden Dragoon (talk) 02:22, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Wow that was fast. --SkyWalker (talk) 02:26, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Yup, thanks for sorting out the formating, I was just about to come back and do that myselfGolden Dragoon (talk) 02:28, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Here is another depicting the version information page, unfortunatly it dosn't list a version number, so I can't add it to the article. Golden Dragoon (talk) 02:36, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

No problem iam glad to help. Not sure where to add the rest of the image. The article is small and only few images can be added. Hopefully when the article get larger more image can be added. Maybe we have to ask in GFWL forums.--SkyWalker (talk) 02:42, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
New version number is v2.0 as shown at the download page: Complete Prat (talk) 22:02, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
It is added by someone.--SkyWalker (talk) 08:39, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Availability in diferent countries[edit]

Shouldn't we mention, that Games for Windows - Live is totally unavailable in Russia, CIS countries and many other countries? (talk) 14:08, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


I see that there used to be a "Criticism" section but it was too negative. Regardless, we do need a section detailing how it is basically Satan to the world of PC gaming. Smurfy 21:47, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

You should be warned that it is your opinion that it is "Satan to the world of PC gaming". Especially since you're not a notable reviewer, and you're certainly not espousing NPOV, I don't see what your argument is for adding it back. It should also be noted that the section wasn't removed because it was "too negative". Take a look at my last response in one of the several other sections regarding this subject. Brianreading (talk) 03:28, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
It wasn't added back in either despite the fact that there is criticism from kotaku and rockpapershotgun as well as other online magazines, if you are sooo NPOV brian please take the time to add back the published criticism. (talk) 09:05, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
heres the most relevant anyway [6]. there are other articles, xtreme mag had an article which mentioned how version 3 still suffers from a lack of out of game client, there are some older pieces on kotaku about early issues to the service and a more recent one on problems with gflw for the fallout 3 dlc launch demonstrating the platforms lack of maturity (steam had launch issues in its early days). The articles are out there, sorry for the lack of links but wiki lost my edits and i've wasted enough time here for today. (talk) 09:31, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Go ahead, be bold, and add your information. After your contribution, I will most likely be looking for the use of weasel words and the use of only reliable sources that have been properly formatted. Basically, be very careful of how you word it. Be very specific in who says what, and make sure your source is a notable reviewer. Brian Reading (talk) 13:16, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Misleading Picture[edit]

Why was the new gfw live theme image removed and the old one kept. That does not make any sense, it seems very misleading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cobra4455 (talkcontribs) 09:52, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I know there were some images that were removed in January because they were deleted from Wikipedia. Apparently, they were not correctly uploaded as copyrighted images with proper fair use statements. It was the uploader's fault. Brianreading (talk) 16:25, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Supported countries section[edit]

Do we really want the countries section deleted? If Xbox Live and this article were so similar to not need differentiation between the supported countries, then why are there two separate articles? Either merge the articles, or put the section back, because it doesn't make sense to just leave it as is. Brian Reading (talk) 17:37, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

The article might not be similar. The countries section is similar. What is the point of having so many of those?. Adding those countries list is making the article even more uglier. --SkyWalker (talk) 18:30, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't follow your logic. The articles are on two different subjects, therefore the similarity of the countries doesn't have any relevance in removal. Look at it like this. Let's say you were just a casual reader on the web looking for information regarding Games for Windows - Live. You come across the Games for Windows - Live Wikipedia article, and don't see any section detailing where the service is available. Why would that person have any idea to head over to the Xbox Live article to look for that info? Do you see my point? It belongs here. Aesthetics are barely relevant as well. How ugly you think something looks doesn't mean the information isn't relevant here. However on a side note, I disagree with you about how it makes the article look "more uglier". Brian Reading (talk) 20:34, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Out of game client,[edit]

The so-called out of game client does nothing but allow access to the marketplace, Live users must still be in-game to use the guide. You cannot send messages, track friends, or use voice chat while out of game.-- (talk) 04:26, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

History Section unorganized[edit]

The History section seems not pertaining to being the actual events happening in Games for Windows - LIVE. Some are just placing announcements of certain games with simple sentence and doesnt include any events that happened as to why that game just released and what are the reasons behind. We need to put a proper constructive and structural sentences. Just like if its the first time microsoft resumed releasing PC games by 2010 from there gaming division. Dualshock03 (talk) 15:57, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

article written by Microsoft PR[edit]

"The features of the service will initially be limited, but will grow just as the features of Xbox Live have over the years."

In Germany we call this kind of remark "Glaskugelei". It's obvious this was written by some Microsoft PR-guy. The whole article, in fact, is utterly useless because it feels like a Microsoft press release. I came here, looking for information about this, and all I got was a big advertisement. Wikipedia fails.-- (talk) 08:03, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
I wouldn't say the whole article reads like an advert, but that line certainly does (and has been removed, along with the one following it, as it is not relevant for the lead). I havn't read through the article in a while, so I may well have missed other instances, so if you could point any out that you think sound like PR they can certainly be changed/removed. Alphathon /'æl.f'æ.ðɒn/ (talk) 12:24, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Despite what the article says, GFWM is not available in Hungary[edit] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 3ICE (talkcontribs) 21:58, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

We'll need more proof than that. It would appear that the listing there is for the Windows version, not the GFW Live version, so it is possible that GFW Live is not available on the Hungarian version of Windows XP (due to the lack of a hotfix), but it is certainly available in Hungary. At it states "In order to sign in to Games for Windows — LIVE, you must be in a supported locale. The list of LIVE supported countries is available at" - following the link shows Hungary is supported).

Controversy talk, part III[edit]

I can't seem to put my finger on it, but the Controversy section seems to not belong here.

I can't tell whenever it's not NPOV, but I know it doesn't belong here.

Didn't remove it because I don't have a reason for it to be here.

NOTE: If you look at the history, someone had deleted the section before someone reverted it bringing it back again. Karjam, AKA KarjamP (talk) 21:03, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I have since removed it (Somehow, the edit summery only said "Doesn" instead of the intended "Doesn't belong here"). Karjam, AKA KarjamP (talk) 15:40, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Further Confirmation of shutdown[edit]

The shutdown confirmations seem rather vague and imply uncertainty. Is there really a lack of confirmed sources for it? How reliable is this source: It explicitly states that a game which was using GFWL is switching away from it because MS is shutting it down. Taltamir (talk) 20:07, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

It's 2015, GFWL is still around despite the Games For Windows Live Marketplace being shut down. Microsoft's naming of their products is confusing, but I can't believe that nobody bothered to catch on to the fact that Games For Windows Live and Games For Windows Live Marketplace are different things. They don't even share the same client software. You don't need the Marketplace client to use G4WL. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:59, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Introduction part of the article should mention that this service is obsolete. Yeah there might be some server running still because few old games require GFWL as authentication method, but what is the latest game to use this? Last update of G4WL facebook is from 2013 and I cant really find G4WL client download for windows 10 anywhere. -- (talk) 14:13, 19 November 2015 (UTC)