Boycott Games For Windows Live

I can’t help but feel a successful campaign will need something a little stronger than a single page of dense text – an entirely ineffectual online petition and detailed instructions on exactly where to post jiffy bags full of dog poo, perhaps – but hell, it’s a start. I’m generally a little too resigned to Microsoft despotism to get terribly upset about their damn-fool misfires, but Games For Windows Live is one thing that really does make me want to take the hose to Redmond executives.

We shouldn’t have to pay to play PC games online as we please. We shouldn’t have to login and be nagged by big, garish Microsoft screens even if we don’t want to play online. And we certainly shouldn’t have Microsoft dictating how PC games should be.

So, here’s NGOHQ self-promoting themselves with a big, bolshy Boycott GFWL page and cut-out’n’keep URL. Yes, linking to it probably achieves very little other than hits for them, so I’m irritated at myself for doing it, but who knows. Maybe helping to stir up just a little more righteous ire amongst PC gamers really will gain the beast’s attention.

The idea is to convince folk not to buy any game that’s got a horrible GFWL growth on it. Not too much of a problem for a Halo 2, The Club or Kane & Lynch, but following the boycott campaign to the letter would may mean not playing Mass Effect on PC once it’s released. Ah. I’m going to have to be like one of those vegetarians who eats fish, aren’t I?


  1. Optimaximal says:

    It’s funny… I mentioned in another thread (possibly on another site) that the recent ‘hits’ that weren’t GFW branded products either a) came out on the PS3 or b) came out on Steam – CoD4 and The Orange Box respectively.

    Does this mean that the only people who can stand up to Microsoft are the large publishers actively pursuing true multi-format releases like EA and Ubisoft?

    The only problem is that the website reads like the Boycott Starforce site (link to, spreading a large amount of FUD and buzzwords to make its point whilst it has the soapbox for 30 seconds… They even managed to miss Microsoft off their ‘boycott these’ list.

    Whilst the Starforce boycott managed to get some steam (hah!) behind it by offering some credible technical reasons for the action, this whole arguement boils down to ‘RAR, WE’VE HAD THIS FREE FOR YEARS!!! Why must we pay now?!?!!!!” and will just be brushed aside as whiny gamers expecting stuff for free when we could be making teh monehs…

    Yes, it will kill PC gaming (or at least drive it to the pay model they want if you actually want to keep playing games) unfortunately, but I can’t see this being as ‘preventable’ as Starforce was.

    One further edit:
    I just posed this question on Blues News…

    For those who have bought them, how do Universe at War and Kane & Lynch, games vehemently slated for being tied to GFW:Live, work over Steam? Is Steam just the distrobution system and the games still require a Live account, or do they work with their own Steam-centric servers & match-making system?

  2. Theory says:

    Anybody who understands these issues is already going to be avoiding GFWL. They’d be doing much better explaining why it was crap and leaving it at that – it’s just as good as suggesting a boycott, since nobody is going to forsake a great single-player game just because it’s got Live in it for multiplayer either way.

    And yeah, I agree with Opimax. They need to cut the 40-50% of their copy that’s waffle. And remove that horrible NGOHQ framing while they’re at it.

    @Optimax’s quote: they behave in the same way as at retail.

  3. Robin says:

    Quick thoughts before I dash off home.

    The main reason that GFW Live *isn’t* inevitable is that, unlike Xbox Live, it’s not the only option available in a walled garden system. The aspects of the system that Microsoft claim wouldn’t be possible without their ‘gaming tax’ are cheerfully provided for free by Steam/Steamworks and various other systems already, and have been for years.

    Nobody has applied GFW Live to a serious PC game yet, it has only blighted misjudged console ports where the free cash / marketing offered by the programme seemed like an easy way to claw back some of the costs. Even MS are starting to rethink the subscription element of the service in the wake of Halo 2 and ShadowRun’s reception.

    GFW Live is the payback that we all knew DirectX and Xbox Live was inevitably leading towards. But (as Vista is also showing) MS are finding that they can’t just expect to use PC gamers as an easily-raided piggybank any more.

  4. Alexander says:

    Time MSFCK bites the dust with their new operating soap. I am really biting my nails here that the wine guys get more cash adrenaline from google and more developers will employ codeweavers for their multi-os gaming solutions.

    Why? Because it’s time this titan of the industry comes down; we’ve taken enough crap as it is, and I am starting to feel victimized by all the ignorant idiots still blindly running the wheel.

    It’s too bad Bioware (who at some point developed a linux client for NWN) is now agreeing to these horrible schemes with Mass Effect, guess that I will have to pirate it now. [edit] Damn, now I can finally justify it!

  5. Raff says:

    Shadowrun’s fate last year was absolutely tragic, though only partly because of this (price was the other thing). It’s without a doubt the best designed team FPS ever made.

  6. garry says:

    Call me a cynical asshole, but I’m guessing most of the people who actually pay for games already have an xbox live gold subscription.

  7. Mike says:

    Yeah I think Mass Effect will be my ‘vegtarians fish’ as well

  8. Man Raised By Puffins says:

    It’s without a doubt the best designed team FPS ever made.

    Burn the heretic!

  9. Zeno, Internetographer says:

    Good thing I can’t actually run any of these new GFWL games.

    Easiest boycott ever? Easiest boycott ever.

  10. Jocho says:

    Except the fact that the whole website says “we don’t wanna pay for what we hadn’t before” and leaves out everything else that would make better arguments, there is one thing I get annoyed at:

    For example, some companies have added in-game advertisements without lowering the game’s price tag! Why do we have to pay full price to see ads?

    As any gamer with enough knowledge to institute a Live-ban should know, developing a game gets increasingly more expensive. And that price has to get financed in some way, apart from later getting sales. One way to do that is advertisements. Another way is to increase the sells-price. This has been done a lot of times over the years – although most noticeable on console-games, it can be felt even on PC-games. Instead of being unhappy it isn’t cheaper, be happy it isn’t more expensive!

    Another thing is DRM – Gamasutra had a text, that even got linked to “the sunday papers” the other week, that when they made their DRM a bit tougher, less downloads were made. So that means it must have an effect, contrary to what the text is suggesting.

    I do agree with the cause in general – One company shouldn’t dictate what the whole PC-market should do, and shouldn’t have monopoly on the Operative System market, either, really. The PC isn’t their second X-box, and should remain so. But focusing on the payment and building air castles is contra productive, and that’s why I write this. Use the right arguments, and avoid the wrong ones!

  11. alphaxion says:

    The thing is, with pc gaming we are used to being able to run our own servers or connect directly to each other using the wonderful tcp/udp IP based network we have linking us all together, thereby removing the cost of hosting servers from pretty much most publishers – only some publishers keep their own servers running out of their own good will.

    Why would we pay microsoft for the privelage of playing together when we might not even be using their servers?

    Or are we looking at a world where the multiplayer aspect of a game dies when the publisher decides we should all be playing their latest games?

    Then again, I can see a reaction to this – enterprising gamers altering the game configs so that they can point to any server they want and run their own, without the need to pay microsoft for the privelage.

  12. Colthor says:

    Does Mass Effect even require GFWL? I can’t find any consensus; half the time people say it does, half they say it doesn’t (it does Achievements itself).

    And those of us without an X-Box have no reason to have an X-Box Live subscription. And not everyone cares about multiplayer, either.

  13. Michael says:

    The way I see it, unless something spectacular and completely unpredictable happens, this boycott is stillborn. Too bad, but unfortunately if we boycott all the listed publishers, there will be nothing left for us to play.

    Starforce was different as far as I recall, because we only had to deal with specific games. Also, we raged against a particular copy protection scheme, not against copy protection as a concept. As soon as they replaced Starforce with something else, we let go. Not to mention that we fought against a small company somewhere in Barbaria.

    In this case, we’d be fighting against pretty much a business model, as opposed to fighting against a piece of software. Moreover we’d be going against a Microsoft initiative, which to say is pretty futile.

    I’d say the best we can do is stock up on lots and lots of Vaseline. =(

  14. Zarniwoop says:

    Pfft, the more games there are which use the pay-for-multiplayer model, the more room there’ll be for games which provide multiplayer for free.

  15. Piratepete says:

    I think the interesting point about this whole debate is how much less tied into a system of multiplayer you are as a PC gamer. If you have a an Xbox you have to use their proprietary system, not so with Pc games which is both a blessing and a curse (blessing = not tied, curse = harder to use.

    I think GFWL will die a death on the PC i really do

  16. Optimaximal says:

    contra productive

    ↑ ↑ ↓ ↓ ← → ← → B A FTW!!!

    Sorry… :D

  17. Leeks! says:

    A pescetarian.

  18. Alex Grose says:

    Why the flip should we boycott those developers/publishers?

    Fair enough that we shouldn’t use Windows Live stuff, but boycott all those publishers? why?! What is wrong with Epic Games?

    I think that OK, boycott windows live (and maybe those games) but stuff the ‘Say no to these developers/publishers’ part!

  19. Tak says:

    I don’t think we have to worry too much about this on the PC. I see it fizzling out, except on perhaps a few MSFT funded/published titles here and there.

    Gamers have proven that they really don’t have a problem with someone trying to make it easier to play and game with friends if it’s an excuse to get us on your software, and we accept DRM as a necessary evil, as much as it may annoy us. Steam does all the above but we still hand over wads of cash for it, because it’s convenient and usable for us. GFWL is a cash grab, and it feels like a cash grab, and ultimately in no way enhances your PC gaming experience. We can see right through it, and since we have other options we’re chosing them.

    GoW for PC is pretty fun, but ultimately annoyed the piss out of me and now sits in a corner getting dusty thanks to GFWL.

  20. Taxman says:

    Somehow I doubt GFWL will die especially if windows games move more and more into an online delivery model, I foresee Microsoft eventually setting up it’s own online store for GFW/XBLA/XNA games.

    If it does then MS may just throw in the towel and go back to cannibalizing PC gamers for the Xbox platform, no more Xbox exclusives on the PC like Mass Effect, Bioshock, Alan Wake all those devs know were the big money is and would stay console only if MS wanted it.

    They are making money on those consoles now so every sale counts and letting top Xbox games be on the PC is only hurting the Xbox platform by giving those who want to avoid buying an Xbox a way out.

  21. malkav11 says:

    While I agree that GFWL has pretty much faceplanted out of the gate, I don’t get the “OMG, we have to pay to play online” business. Unless something has changed recently, GFWL has always been entirely free for PC-to-PC multiplayer. It’s only for cross-platform matches and multiplayer achievements that you need to have a Gold membership (which you may very well already have if you have a 360). So you’re not getting charged for anything that was already part of the Windows multiplayer spectrum.

    It’s still poorly designed, kinda broken, etc.

  22. UncleLou says:

    Can’ quite imagine Mass Effect is really a GfW Live game – Games for Windows, yes (and there’s nothing wrong about that), but it doesn’t have a multiplayer component at all, does it? The achievements are done through Bioware’s own servers, as far as I know.


    It’s crossed out in the list on the link, too.

  23. Tak says:

    UncleLou, Viva Pinata for PC also utilized GFWL (in that you had to be logged in to save the game, had to be up-to-date on the game and GFWL to log in, etc) and it has no multiplay.

    It is purely an attempt to corner people into using MSFT’s way of doing things only, no other way. At least Steam allows the option of other sources (a game can be on steam and not use Valve’s server browser, engine, doodas, whatsits, etc.)

  24. RichPowers says:

    Know why the Starforce boycott was easy? Because most Starforced games are total crap. It’s ironic that such a draconian DRM scheme was used to protect games barely worth pirating in the first place…

    As for GfWL: it won’t ever take off. As of right now, there hasn’t been a single worthwhile GfWL game and it will probably stay that way. Steam,, and free servers killed GfWL before it started.

    If you’re an avid PC gamer, chances are you’ve dealt with countless configuration options, system builds, etc. Therefore, having competing online gaming services probably won’t scare you off. And if you don’t want to deal with the complexities (real or perceived) of PC gaming, then the GfWL titles probably never appealed to you in the first place…

  25. UncleLou says:

    UncleLou, Viva Pinata for PC also utilized GFWL (in that you had to be logged in to save the game, had to be up-to-date on the game and GFWL to log in, etc) and it has no multiplay.

    Isn’t there some basic mp functionality which lets you send items around or somesuch?

    Anyway, I see your point, but I’ve in the meantime searched around a bit and have found absolutely no reliable information that ME is a GfWL game – quite on the contrary, it’s a rumour that seems to come from a false informtation in a Gamespot article which was later corrected.

    Look here (scroll down a bit to Calvert’s post):

    link to

  26. Tak says:


    Viva Pinata is an excellent game (and don’t even try the ‘too kiddy’ line, lets see a six year old get lvl 100 gardener :p), and it’s bound to GFWL. Mass Effect is a solid title (no real replayability unless you’re an anal completionist) and looks like it will, in some way, tie in to GFWL. I wouldn’t dismiss the games just because of the system they’re on. The system is crap, sure, but the games aren’t automatically crap by extension.

    Whole heartedly agree about the configuration and choice (non-)issues. In my eyes, that’s a good thing too, because community supported connectivity/multiplay/matchmaking options tend to (in my experience) last longer than dev-designed ones in most cases anyway.

    EDIT: Lou: Doh, forgot about that. You can send items from one to another player, yes. It’s utterly useless even in the 360 version, so I forgot all about it. Appologies :)

    And ahh! ME = GFW branded but != GFWL then, perhaps?

  27. Optimaximal says:

    While I agree that GFWL has pretty much faceplanted out of the gate, I don’t get the “OMG, we have to pay to play online” business. Unless something has changed recently, GFWL has always been entirely free for PC-to-PC multiplayer. It’s only for cross-platform matches and multiplayer achievements that you need to have a Gold membership (which you may very well already have if you have a 360). So you’re not getting charged for anything that was already part of the Windows multiplayer spectrum.

    Check out any reviews for Kane & Lynch or Universe at War… Both games multiplayer components are so intrinsically tied to GFW:Live that they don’t feature proper LAN components and you need to have a Gold membership to access most of the features (for example, in U@W, i’ve read that you can’t play more than basic skirmishes with a Silver membership – you need Gold for the tournament battles and world conquest modes).

  28. Stick says:

    Don’t have much to add, except some extra ME rumour control:

    Last info I can find on Bioware forum – from Feb 27 – states simply, they haven’t announced anything about GFW or GFWL yet. Oh, and – like Uncle Lou mentioned – the Gamespot article saying BW would run their own achievement servers was outright refuted.

    There’s also the “EA is publishing, not MS” to consider. So, hope springs eternal, etcetera.

  29. Robin says:

    “Why would we pay microsoft for the privelage of playing together when we might not even be using their servers?”

    This is what galls me about GFW Live, and Xbox Live before it. It’s designed with the assumption that the customer is an idiot who will only ever want to use their hardware or games in a narrow, preconceived way. 10m WoW players give the lie to the idea that anybody who uses a PC for games is confused or scared by the idea of playing online using their own initiative.

    “Moreover we’d be going against a Microsoft initiative, which to say is pretty futile.”

    Remember BOB? ;)

    The overarching impression that I get from Microsoft’s presentations about GFW/Live Anywhere is that the people who actually understood why ensuring the PC was a first class game platform was a goal in itself have long since left. When they built DirectX they courted developers, now they dictate to them. It’s like they’ve become Nintendo while skipping the step where they make anything artful or life-affirming.

    Filling the vacuum are marketing people with no real experience, touting solutions that no-one needs (“Wouldn’t it be cool if you could play an RTS – where all the units were FPS players?! Or buy new hubcaps for you imaginary sportscar on your phone?!”), and which are so paralysed by corporate dogma (Microsoft’s definition of ‘cross-platform’ gaming means Vista, 360 and Zune) as to ensure that they’ll never reach the market anyway.

  30. Wolfman says:

    You know why G4WL will work and get used for more and more games? The fact that devs are already developing for XBL means that getting a PC version going is easier if you use G4WL.

    From the point of view of a developer its much easier for them to code “Live” code which works on both XB and PC rather than code XBL plus GameSpy, or roll-their-own.

  31. Duoae says:

    I just hate the fact that basic functionality is denied people who don’t have a gold account in GFWL enabled games…

    They’re forcing a split on the consumer that shouldn’t exist… just like with the Core 360 and any with a HDD. Which very effectively reduces the appeal of the game and splits the userbase so that the game has a shorter lifespan online.

    Not only this but the game is inevitably tied into the GFWL service which means that support of those features is determined by the publisher/developer’s ability/desire to run those features – Anyone taking any bets on online PS2 games still working after next year?

    Why would any gamer-respecting developer want to do such a thing?

    Oh, that’s right… i forgot. Developers no longer respect their gaming audience. We have become demonised by the men in suits, tracking their ‘estimated percentage of pirating’ with every player potentially being a downloading criminal.
    GFWL is just one more step in taking the piss and not realising that the consumer has certain expectations and if those expectations aren’t met then you can only hope that the next generation of consumers are ‘better trained’ to respond to the producer’s crap.

    You know who i’m talking about, right? Of course you do…. all those little XBL kiddies are going to be buying GFWL enabled games in 10-15 years time and jsut when the PC gaming ‘revolution’ will come in.

    This, of course, is just one scenario ;)

  32. darkripper says:

    The whole boycot thing I think it’s erroneously used: you can boycot a corporation that makes a product for a political reasons (due to questionable ethics, economy, treatment of their workers, etc).
    If instead you’re simply not buying a product, because you don’t think it’s worth the cost, it’s market regulating itself; not boycot.

  33. tacticus says:

    Garry half of one my book cases and my entire steam account call you a cynical arsehole
    there is no purpose for me to purchase a xb360 thus no xbox live pay to play your own servers requirement

    GFWL is a buggy useless product that is pointless and insulting to every PC gamer out there

  34. AbyssUK says:

    Much like the recent post on Eurogamer mentioned, piracy once again comes out as the easiest option. Don’t want to run GFWL. Pirates/crackers have you covered,No problems!

    Seriously when will the games industry learn, are all the suits that make these stupid decisions friggin’ retards, or did they all just get fired from the music industry??.

    Hopefully this petition will not go unheard.

  35. sigma83 says:

    Being far too profit minded without caring about the problems given to the end consumer.

    In one corner, GFWL.

    In the other corner, Stardock with Sins of a Solar Empire.

    Zero copy protection, pay if you want updates or multiplayer.

    Very freaking reasonable if you ask me.

    microsoft as a corporation is just too moneygrubbing. They want their fingers in every conceivable pie and they expect people to lick them clean with appreciation.

    DRM and other retarded shit like GFWL does nothing but piss off the consumer. Digital distribution a la steam and indie groups putting out their own stuff online is going to make the corporates shake in their fucking boots. The only problem I see with that is they’ll try and tighten harder.

    Oh yes, the AMD Nvidia etc ‘coalition’. I call bullshit. Rank bullshit, a mile high.

  36. Leelad says:

    Surely any developer with 1/2 a brain would see that it won’t work on the PC platform?

    Referring to what Garry said..The live gold thing works on the Xbox because it’s the only option. it’s how it’s always been and people accept that to get full benefit from playing online on the xbox you need to pay your £30 a year. There are small perks and bit’s of content you can download for paying your money.

    When have PC gamers had to do that? This G4WL thing is a feeble attempt to test the water. It’s going to fail MS know it and we all know it.

  37. Tak says:

    Just because something fails from MSFT doesn’t mean they pull it. See XBox (the first one). They’re now a serious contender in the home console market, but will never recover those costs since they’re still operating at a loss to the best of my knowledge.

    Steam is very much a DRM system as much as content delivery. It’s the fact that Valve is up-front about it and provides lots of extra value-added stuff (hardware surveys, steamfriends, in-game overlay that works with most games, etc) that keeps gamers from waving pitchforks. And, it generally works without breaking all your other stuff. That’s always a plus.

  38. TreeFrog says:

    Xbox is predicted to make its first profit this year, I believe. They’ll have those 4 BILLION dollars back in no time.

    Steam DRM: I seem to be more suspicious of this than most. The bit in the Steamworks announcement about regional control irked me. People buy multiregion DVD players for a good reason.

    I have a pitchfork and a flaming brand within reach, Powers-That-Be. WITHIN REACH.

  39. Toad says:

    Just reading through the article and the comments and am a bit worried about this (not sure if i should be thou). I actually like the concept of G4WL but not sure about not having a choice and needing to have a gold membership for game access.

    If MS / Developers are tying in basic single or multi player aspects of the game that you purchase shouldn’t this be part of the minimum requirements on the retail box or terms & conditions for online purchase. Also shouldn’t that limitation be obvious to the customer?

    Does anyone know anything about the above?

  40. Shawny D says:

    I’m not going to read every response, and I have to clarify something:



    “GFW LIVE” and “GFW” Branded Games are NOT the same. Almost all PC Games offer the GFW brand, they just aren’t “Live” enabled.

  41. RichPowers says:

    Good point, Shawny, but consumers shouldn’t have to differentiate between the two; PC gaming is confusing enough already. When the only difference between a marketing scheme (GFW) and a horrible matchmaking service (GFWL) is one letter, there’s a problem.

    Seriously, a hearty “FU!” to Redmond.

  42. MeestaNob! says:

    Well, I only have one title with GFW Live on it, Gears of War, and I wont be buying another one.
    GoW is great (if shallow) fun, but the GFWL system is bloody awful.

    – Depending on whether I run the Vista->Games->GoW link or autoplay off the DVD it doesn’t always log me in to GFWL.
    – Once logged in I’ve never seen it grab a patch for GoW or GFWL even though I know there are ones available. There doesn’t seem to be anyway to force it to look/download either.
    – It isn’t counting my achievements. I have no idea if I need a Gold account to do this (I’m on the free Silver one and will most certainly not be upgrading), and I cant for the life of me find ANYTHING that tells me which enables what.
    – I’m not even certain I’m logged in properly, or maybe just using a local profile. I HAVE NO IDEA WHATSOEVER which is certainly not good enough.
    – Multiplayer match making through GFWL Gold only. Get fucked. I’d rather get reamed by good players than pay $80 to play n00bs.
    – And further more if I need to read the manual to figure out anything then its SHIT. Even at 1900×1200 GFWL cant they find some screen real estate for some helpful advice on whats going on?

    I dont mean to turn this into a Steam admiration session, but it does all of the above so much better (even when it was shit 2 years ago) that its not funny. If it had multiplayer match making based on stats (which you had better believe must be coming) then it would be fantastic.

    As above, if Mass Effect has ANYTHING to do with GFW Live I just wont be buying it. I wouldn’t even pirate it, its just too awful and painful to use.

  43. TickledBlue says:

    Does DRM and GFWL really piss off the consumer? I think a lot of us, who are hardcore gamers and PC aficionados, tend to forget that we are often not the greatest sample of the consumer market. If we were the PC wouldn’t be seeing declining game sales and the Wii wouldn’t be the runaway success that it is.

    Your everyday consumer wants it simple and fun, they don’t want to struggle with server lists, having to open ports in their firewall or spend 3 hours with a config file to squeeze all the performance juice out. Nowadays they don’t even want to have to install. Put in the game and play it, anything else is too much trouble.

    My understanding of GFW was to try to emulate the console experience on a windows machine – in that sense GFWL follows that model as XBox 360 gamers cough up the extra cash to be ‘allowed’ to play their games online. Will the average consumer give a damn or just see it as the same as World of Warcraft – you need to pay to play?

  44. some guy says:

    GFWL is (mostly) free for the pc to pc right now, but thats only because microsoft isnt stupid. MS is hoping to reach a certain level of market adoption on the pc front with GFWL in order to sell their live format as the one all pc devs should use. Once/if they reach that point, then we will see monthly fees for pc gaming. Avoiding GFWL as much as possible is not a bad idea in this regard.

    As an example, I own Gears of War for my pc, and while it is a great game, the whole GFWL is an annoying clusterfuck. It isnt as bad as STEAM, since it doesnt require you to be online to play the single player component of a game, but the whole format is terrible regardless.

    Multiplayer is where it gets really sick. Due to the fact that Ms has splintered the playerbase. There are a total of 4 different multiplayer versus lobbys (gold ranked, gold unranked, silver unranked, and live list) and all do the same thing. I rarely see more than 5 games going at any given time because of this splintering. Co-op is also absurd, as you require a gold account to set up a private room for you and your friend to start a game in (game invites are no allowed for non-gold). If you run with silver, you are forced to make a “list” game and hope your friend is the first to get in your game as anyone can join, and the host cannot kick once the co-op has started. Thus you have to quit the game and restart and remake the room, etc etc.

  45. Colin says:

    I don’t even see why we should tolerate this kind of behavior. Being able to play and save your game has been a standard of PCs since the beginning. What right does Microsoft have to remove this basic functionality?

    This calls for a petition:

    link to

  46. daniel says:

    hi guy it is my opinion that gfwl is the wortt thing you cane put on a game iv recently bought gta4 and becase of live i cant use normal trainers and i cant use a save games and considering iv bought every gta game out there this is the worst of all because of live i say microsoft sould keep it nose out of gamers buisness and get lost i say down with live and microsoft( bunch of thivin gits)

  47. august says:

    im not much of a PC gamer but for DoW2 i’d make an exception. and for a chance to avoid MS’ shit, id make an exception to that exception, so now im stuck with a wonderful game that i want to play, but was totally ruined by GFWL.
    I wasnt even interested in multiplayer, i was perfectly happy to do singleplayer and move on, but no, i couldnt even do that without fuckin GFWL.
    what a load of shit, i hope it dies and burns in hell.

  48. The Colonel says:

    What is this achievement business all about? Since when were cheap gimmicks like that of any interest to PC gamers?