Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Ubisoft busting out the online DRM beams

1495051525355»

Posts

  • LewiePLewieP Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    Unless the codes are behind a scratch panel.

  • SpoitSpoit *twitch twitch* Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    Well, since all these codes have been to download stuff, you'd be screwed just as much in that scenario too, since you couldn't download the DLC either.

    camo_sig2.png
  • RandomVinceRandomVince Registered User
    edited May 2010
    Fair point Spoit, but I think your comment may be focussing on my lack of clarity than the point itself. The proliferation of DLC is only going to mean that all future second hand games and systems become lost when the host platform/online service vanishes.

    Case in point: PGR2 download tracks for Paris and Long Beach. With DLC becoming much more substantial, the problem of incomplete games in future is only going to become worse.

    ULTIMATUM, n. In diplomacy, a last demand before resorting to concessions.
  • DocshiftyDocshifty Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    What incomplete games? What game needs DLC to be considered 'finished'? Release day DLC is fine as long as it isn't integral to the game itself. If I need to download the last mission, we've got a problem. If I can play it start to finish out of the box, offline, its a complete game. Doesn't mean its a good game, but its a complete one.

    docshifty.png
  • RandomVinceRandomVince Registered User
    edited May 2010
    I'm talking about future games. The move we are seeing here wont be the end of it.

    Although I can name two incomplete games already: Assassins Creed 2 and Prince of Persia (2008).

    ULTIMATUM, n. In diplomacy, a last demand before resorting to concessions.
  • .Tripwire..Tripwire. Firman Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    I can't speak for AC2 but PoP'08 was a complete game and I actually thought it was retarded that they extended the story for DLC (that I admittedly haven't played), since the final moments of the game were so potent as is.

    sigi_moe.pngsigi_deviantart.pngsigi_twitter.pngsigi_steam.pngsigi_tumblr.png
  • BiopticBioptic Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    I'm talking about future games. The move we are seeing here wont be the end of it.

    Although I can name two incomplete games already: Assassins Creed 2 and Prince of Persia (2008).

    The latter of which is perpetually incomplete if you happened to be inconsiderate enough to buy it on PC - you'll never even have the chance to buy that ending. Although I think that was just a scummy practice anyway.

    And 'incomplete' is pretty clearly defined - anything that by its absence reduces the overall experience of playing the original game. Dragon Age was a great example of this, in two forms:

    1) Shale the golem was only retreivable by the code you got when you bought the game new (and according the card the code came on, this code will no longer work - you have to pay $15 for him now). He is regarded as one of the better characters in the game, and has a character-specific quest, backstory and unique lines of dialogue throughout the game. The game does not cease to function with his removal, but becomes lesser for it. Mass Effect 2 would have functioned with just Mordin, Jacob and Miranda as characters, with everyone else being DLC - but it would have been a far less worthwhile game.

    2) The only other paid-for launch DLC for that game was an overpriced mini-dungeon, but which gave you the crucial option to store stuff that wasn't on your person. Impressed by your free chunk of Blood Dragon Armout that starts in your inventory? Shame it weighs a ton and your only options until a much higher level are to bin it, sell it, or be able to carry less stuff. Of course this feature was then modded back in later, but as the Total War series shows, overpriced DLC makes it incredibly tempting for a developer to simply block the game from any modification whatsoever.

  • SurikoSuriko AustraliaRegistered User regular
    edited May 2010
    I guess another example of incomplete endings would be Fallout 3.

    Unless you happen to think the ending that shipped with the game was in any way acceptable. In which case what the fuck is wrong with you?

  • GlalGlal Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    Spoit wrote: »
    People keep complaining about how it hurts the resale value, but if you really care about that so much couldn't you just, you know, not use the code?
    They have an expiry date. Dragon Age is only a year old and you're already boned for the DLC part, even if you buy a new copy.
    Bitterly amused that by attacking resale value they've further increased the perceived value of pirated copies, since those don't come with existing content pre-locked.

  • AJRAJR You took too long Now your candy's goneRegistered User regular
    edited May 2010
    .Tripwire. wrote: »
    I can't speak for AC2 but PoP'08 was a complete game and I actually thought it was retarded that they extended the story for DLC (that I admittedly haven't played), since the final moments of the game were so potent as is.

    Having finished the POP08 I don’t really have any desire to play the DLC. I don’t think the ending needed to be built upon any further, even though I wouldn’t mind seeing the two leads in future POP games. I was expecting a really abrupt ending from what I've read, instead it just kept going.

    AC2 on the other hand, felt like it had a big gap between the final two chapters, like it really was missing something. But it doesn’t sound like the missing chapters did a lot to bridge the gap, at least from what I’ve heard.

  • DocshiftyDocshifty Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    Bioptic wrote: »
    And 'incomplete' is pretty clearly defined - anything that by its absence reduces the overall experience of playing the original game. Dragon Age was a great example of this, in two forms:

    1) Shale the golem was only retreivable by the code you got when you bought the game new (and according the card the code came on, this code will no longer work - you have to pay $15 for him now). He is regarded as one of the better characters in the game, and has a character-specific quest, backstory and unique lines of dialogue throughout the game. The game does not cease to function with his removal, but becomes lesser for it. Mass Effect 2 would have functioned with just Mordin, Jacob and Miranda as characters, with everyone else being DLC - but it would have been a far less worthwhile game.

    Seems pretty shaky to be calling the game incomplete because of laucn day DLC that adds to a game but is not required. Fallout was complete without the DLC on launch, but is it incomplete now that DLC has been released?

    And just because the ending sucked isn't a point either, it still had one. If the marketplace screen popped up the moment you talked to Lyons asking if you wanted to buy the Jefferson Memorial, that would be incomplete. As it stood on release, it was just very poorly done.

    As far as AC2 on the PC goes, I'm not gonna argue. That was a stupid model to even think about and I still haven't bought Settlers because of it, no matter how much I want the game. PoP I've got no idea about.

    docshifty.png
  • ZxerolZxerol The fullest, most luscious beard. Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    If you play POP on the PC, you don't even get the opportunity to even play the Epilogue chapter even if you wanted to, because Ubisoft saw fit to not release it on the platform.

    Then they fixed it up in AC2 and included DLC or some shit from the console versions, but used it to justify the $60 premium price.

    ... but then Splinter Cell Conviction released for that price and it included no such thing.

    What I'm saying is that Ubisoft fucking loves us PC players to death.

  • DocshiftyDocshifty Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    Companies like to do crazy things with PC releases it seems.

    Most of which are pretty unforgivable.

    docshifty.png
  • GrimReaperGrimReaper Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    Honestly, these days I'm becoming more and more inclined to buy used because of the shitty things game companies are doing. I don't buy Ubisoft games new any more because of the shit way they treat pc gamers, I don't touch 2kgames because I got burned by the Bioshock activation bullshit. And don't even get me started on Activision or EA.

    EDIT: Looking at my Amazon order history tells an interesting story, in the last six months i've bought three new games from amazon (probably bought another couple from play.com too). Those three games are red dead redemption, mass effect 2 and batman arkham asylum.

    PSN | Steam
    ---
    I've got a spare copy of Portal, if anyone wants it message me.
  • BiopticBioptic Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    Docshifty wrote: »
    Bioptic wrote: »
    And 'incomplete' is pretty clearly defined - anything that by its absence reduces the overall experience of playing the original game. Dragon Age was a great example of this, in two forms:

    1) Shale the golem was only retreivable by the code you got when you bought the game new (and according the card the code came on, this code will no longer work - you have to pay $15 for him now). He is regarded as one of the better characters in the game, and has a character-specific quest, backstory and unique lines of dialogue throughout the game. The game does not cease to function with his removal, but becomes lesser for it. Mass Effect 2 would have functioned with just Mordin, Jacob and Miranda as characters, with everyone else being DLC - but it would have been a far less worthwhile game.

    Seems pretty shaky to be calling the game incomplete because of laucn day DLC that adds to a game but is not required. Fallout was complete without the DLC on launch, but is it incomplete now that DLC has been released?

    The Fallout DLC wasn't woven into the larger narrative, though (aside from Broken Steel) - it was a series of standalone areas and missions that could be tackled at any time. Analogous to 'The Continuing Adventures of...' in other forms of fiction. You do not own 'The complete Fallout 3' without the DLC, but your experience of the base game's content will be no different with or without it.

    Launch DLC is, at best, developers being forced to cut stuff for time in the hopes that they'll be able to put it back in later, and at worst simply stripping existing content to claw back more money by either charging extra for it or making it contingent on buying the game new. Shale was always a character in Dragon Age, but was cut to allow more time to code around the bugs his larger character model introduced. And will now cost you as much as the entire game does to buy.

    But frankly, the issue's more with the method than anything. If Shale was a free download (since by actually installing the original game you've proved you own it or are capable of pirating stuff anyway) then none of this would be a problem - it's just the mentality behind it all, especially since there isn't even a market for second-hand PC games.

  • StormwatcherStormwatcher Uee Citizen Record #2051 Über Star CitizenRegistered User regular
    edited May 2010
    I would rather see the whole Broken Steel thing as a positive change. The game was complete but had an utterly stupid and inconsistent ending. some time ago, it would be "tough luck, yeah, it sucks". And we had plenty of shitty endings. Hell, Atari games had no ending and 99% of games that had endings in the entire 90's just showed you some engrish text or some shit.

    Bethesda actually fixed the shittiness and gave us a better ending because we bitched and moaned so much. And they still only include a simple disk check or steam default DRM on their games. I would never include Bethesda with the likes of Ubi and Activision.

    EA is doing a much better job too.

    Steam: Stormwatcher | XBL: Stormwatcher 21 | PSN: Stormwatcher33 | Gamecenter: Stormwatcher33 | 3DS: 0130-2805-2850
    steam_sig.png
  • KlashKlash Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    Ok, so, I just wanted to say:
    .Tripwire. wrote: »
    It is mysterious to me the type of mind that is happy to trade in Dark City to afford a copy of Biodome, but my ways are equally alien to that person.

    Yes. Yes to Dark City. So much. I thought I was the only person who liked that movie.



    As for Project Ten Dollar, similar plans and DLC in general, my problem lies in mode of media and nature of the DLC. I'm a completionist player, meaning if I don't have every scrap of available game related to the game, I'm not feeling like I played the product as intended nor do I feel like I've gotten the full product. This comes to a head when DLC is only DLC and never sees the light of day in retail form. I'm a strictly physical buyer, I don't like DD (which is not to say I'm against DD, it is to say I'd like the option of either or), which cuts me out of the loop on the good parts of the DLC right away. "Free" DLC is included here, as I don't like having to jump around registering with silly companies just to get something I supposedly already payed for. I finally started playing Mass Effect (which is fantastic so far) and noticed I could get Bring Down The Sky free. So, I hit the BioWare page and find out I need an account. Well... alright, sure. Try it, and I can't. I can't even register to BioWare without first registering to EA? Thats silly. Luckily, I had already registered to EA in a misguided attempt to play C&C 3 online. After about 20 minutes I finally had my serial number to install the freely downloadable item (the .exe itself didn't require registration, oddly). Not a big deal, but I felt silly jumping about between the sites registering, especially given I have fuckall use for their registrations and don't care for their sites. I wasn't going to be using a fake e-mail, since this is linked to paid for merchandise. Bit of a silly complaint, I know, but I just want the DLC ready to go when I start up the game.

    Also, I don't like the nature of some DLC, and BioWare in the absolute worst offender (almost the only offender in this). Looking at ME2 and Dragon Age half the DLC are single items available through promo-codes at places like 7/11. Half the DLC becomes unobtainable when the promo ends, as a result. Then there are countless exclusive pre-order items based on region, country, store, etc. I don't intend to be buying 5 different copies of the same. More over, all these little things could be slipped into a nice and well worth it bundle pack, instead they're just left out and I'll never to see 'em.

    http://dragonage.wikia.com/wiki/DLC
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_Effect_2#List_of_downloadable_content

    The items no longer available aren't big items, a piece of armour here, a weapon there. As a completionist, though, I do not like having these items locked out for me. Full quest lines are nice and understandable, but all of this could be repackaged into some form of bundle with a combined price of the DLCs. Never happens. The only time I can think of it happening was Oblivion's Knights of the Nine (and it was still short one piece of DLC, and all of it should've been included in the fucking GOTY anyways).

    At the end of the day, I don't like these DLC plans because they don't get bundled into a worth while package and they're rarely available retail. I don't like the feeling of an incomplete game (incomplete being different from unfinished, where one has additional available content, the other is lacking content, respectively). Oh, and when DLC isn't even available on a given platform. SR2's DLC never made it to PC. Basically making it system exclusive content for a multiplatform title, which is a load of shit.
    Bioptic wrote: »
    I'm talking about future games. The move we are seeing here wont be the end of it.

    Although I can name two incomplete games already: Assassins Creed 2 and Prince of Persia (2008).

    The latter of which is perpetually incomplete if you happened to be inconsiderate enough to buy it on PC - you'll never even have the chance to buy that ending. Although I think that was just a scummy practice anyway.

    And 'incomplete' is pretty clearly defined - anything that by its absence reduces the overall experience of playing the original game. Dragon Age was a great example of this, in two forms:

    1) Shale the golem was only retreivable by the code you got when you bought the game new (and according the card the code came on, this code will no longer work - you have to pay $15 for him now). He is regarded as one of the better characters in the game, and has a character-specific quest, backstory and unique lines of dialogue throughout the game. The game does not cease to function with his removal, but becomes lesser for it. Mass Effect 2 would have functioned with just Mordin, Jacob and Miranda as characters, with everyone else being DLC - but it would have been a far less worthwhile game.

    2) The only other paid-for launch DLC for that game was an overpriced mini-dungeon, but which gave you the crucial option to store stuff that wasn't on your person. Impressed by your free chunk of Blood Dragon Armout that starts in your inventory? Shame it weighs a ton and your only options until a much higher level are to bin it, sell it, or be able to carry less stuff. Of course this feature was then modded back in later, but as the Total War series shows, overpriced DLC makes it incredibly tempting for a developer to simply block the game from any modification whatsoever.

    I've heard about that. I haven't bought DA: O, yet, waiting for Christmas sales. Is that true? Can anybody verify that? Because goose that. If the DLC thats free isn't even free, then I don't see myself picking up DA: O, despite how badly I want it.

    The only reason I actually bought Oblivion and Fallout 3 was their respective GOTY editions. The idea of all available content in a single easy to get package was way too good to pass up. Oblivion's GOTY was a goose that didn't have all the content. F3 on the other hand, I couldn't imagine a more worth while set-up. I'm sure I'm not the only one that goes "OH BOY!" every time they see a bundle pack.

    Also, I've seen GameStop sell used Steam locked titles. Yeah. I don't think they'll notice the missing DLC.

    Edit:
    I would rather see the whole Broken Steel thing as a positive change. The game was complete but had an utterly stupid and inconsistent ending. some time ago, it would be "tough luck, yeah, it sucks". And we had plenty of shitty endings. Hell, Atari games had no ending and 99% of games that had endings in the entire 90's just showed you some engrish text or some shit.

    Bethesda actually fixed the shittiness and gave us a better ending because we bitched and moaned so much. And they still only include a simple disk check or steam default DRM on their games. I would never include Bethesda with the likes of Ubi and Activision.

    EA is doing a much better job too.

    So, small thing, but F3 in all its retail forms uses Games for Windows Live. Oblivion just does a disc check. Doesn't matter, though, because F3 GOTY is one of the best things I ever bought. In like, ever, for reals, guys.

    We don't even care... whether we care or not...
  • StormwatcherStormwatcher Uee Citizen Record #2051 Über Star CitizenRegistered User regular
    edited May 2010
    Klash wrote: »
    I would rather see the whole Broken Steel thing as a positive change. The game was complete but had an utterly stupid and inconsistent ending. some time ago, it would be "tough luck, yeah, it sucks". And we had plenty of shitty endings. Hell, Atari games had no ending and 99% of games that had endings in the entire 90's just showed you some engrish text or some shit.

    Bethesda actually fixed the shittiness and gave us a better ending because we bitched and moaned so much. And they still only include a simple disk check or steam default DRM on their games. I would never include Bethesda with the likes of Ubi and Activision.

    EA is doing a much better job too.

    So, small thing, but F3 in all its retail forms uses Games for Windows Live. Oblivion just does a disc check. Doesn't matter, though, because F3 GOTY is one of the best things I ever bought. In like, ever, for reals, guys.

    Oh, ok, I had forgotten that GFWL is DRM too.

    Steam: Stormwatcher | XBL: Stormwatcher 21 | PSN: Stormwatcher33 | Gamecenter: Stormwatcher33 | 3DS: 0130-2805-2850
    steam_sig.png
  • KlashKlash Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    Oh, ok, I had forgotten that GFWL is DRM too.

    I... I can't tell if that was sarcasm. I know you've been against GFWL in the past, but the wording sounds sarcastic to me. Clarify, please? >_>

    Anyways, since the used market is in discussion, I found this interesting, and I like what this man says:

    http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/100837-Sony-VP-Wants-Content-on-Discs-Not-DLC

    The writer seems to be a bit confused, but I'd say the notion of GOTY style packages is the pretty logical conclusion for DLC. Why not take all the bits and pieces and set 'em up for proper purchase? If Borderlands does that, I'll be all over it like Winnie the Pooh on honey. I've been hesitant to buy the past 3 RPGs to cross my radar (DA: O, ME 2, Borderlands) because of the ensuing waves of DLC and the uncertainy over whether I'll ever actually get them. If I can get my hands on a final-package contain all DLC, even if I have to buy the vanilla game separate, I'll pay top dollar for such experiences. I tend to see some inherent value in anything "bundled" and am more willing to spend higher.

    We don't even care... whether we care or not...
  • ZxerolZxerol The fullest, most luscious beard. Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    Kinda related, that reminds of something stupidly hilarious when Activision released Call of Duty 4 - Game of the Year Edition on the PC. One of the marketing points was that it included the Variety Map Pack for free. Except you know, it had been folded in to patch 1.6 a while ago.

  • Phoenix-DPhoenix-D Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    GWFL -can- be DRM, but in the case of FO3 it isn't. You can ignore it, and the only loss is achivements.

  • LewiePLewieP Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
  • DrakeDrake Blow it all up ForeverRegistered User regular
    edited May 2010
    LewieP wrote: »
    It can be modded out too.

    Now I'm a little bit more interested in FO 3.

  • KlashKlash Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    Phoenix-D wrote: »
    GWFL -can- be DRM, but in the case of FO3 it isn't. You can ignore it, and the only loss is achivements.

    Sure its DRM. Its locked into the program, and you can't run it without GFWL. Yes, you can run it in an offline profile, but GFWL is still required to run the program. No different than basic SecuROM running to ensure you have a disc.

    Of course you can mod it out, but isn't that just like saying you can get a crack for any other DRM method?

    We don't even care... whether we care or not...
  • Phoenix-DPhoenix-D Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    No, you can IGNORE it. I have never once signed into a profile- offline or otherwise- with FO3. It isn't DRM.

  • KlashKlash Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    That runs contrary to my experience and understanding of GFWL. That experience being that GFWL is required for any GFWL product. What you're telling me, and I'd hope its true, is that I can uninstall GFWL from my computer and Fallout 3 won't care?

    Every time I run F3, GFWL pops up to tell me its running and all I need to do is hit Home to see it. Its not interfering with the workings of the game, by any means, but it does seem to be necessary. Otherwise, why in the hell would you need to mod it out? Just don't install it.

    For the record, I'm running an offline profile. My understanding of that is it is an entirely local profile, stored directly on my machine and by all means, amounts to GFWL not even really being there, just popping up to say hello. None the less, I'm under the impression the game requires GFWL, or a profile, online or offline, to run.

    Edit: Also, my profile remains always logged in. I never actually logged into it, but I guess upon creation of the local profile, any GFWL title automatically recognizes it exists and goes into upon starting. So as far as logging in, that gets handled automatically.

    We don't even care... whether we care or not...
  • DocshiftyDocshifty Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    Having online be a code unlock is some bullshit, I think we can all agree?

    docshifty.png
  • DarkWarriorDarkWarrior __BANNED USERS
    edited May 2010
    Are people arguing FOR online unlock codes?

    ...it's in the shape of a giant c**k.
  • DocshiftyDocshifty Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    Well, I'm not for them, but I don't really see them as some dark storm on the horizon. Something they're trying. Might work, might not. Like I said, most of my games come new, so my opinion doesn't really matter much since it won't affect me.

    docshifty.png
  • SpoitSpoit *twitch twitch* Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    But wait, I thought we got to the whole code thing from downloading DLC that you get with a new game thing

    camo_sig2.png
  • StormwatcherStormwatcher Uee Citizen Record #2051 Über Star CitizenRegistered User regular
    edited May 2010
    Klash wrote: »
    Oh, ok, I had forgotten that GFWL is DRM too.

    I... I can't tell if that was sarcasm. I know you've been against GFWL in the past, but the wording sounds sarcastic to me. Clarify, please? >_>

    Anyways, since the used market is in discussion, I found this interesting, and I like what this man says:

    http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/100837-Sony-VP-Wants-Content-on-Discs-Not-DLC

    The writer seems to be a bit confused, but I'd say the notion of GOTY style packages is the pretty logical conclusion for DLC. Why not take all the bits and pieces and set 'em up for proper purchase? If Borderlands does that, I'll be all over it like Winnie the Pooh on honey. I've been hesitant to buy the past 3 RPGs to cross my radar (DA: O, ME 2, Borderlands) because of the ensuing waves of DLC and the uncertainy over whether I'll ever actually get them. If I can get my hands on a final-package contain all DLC, even if I have to buy the vanilla game separate, I'll pay top dollar for such experiences. I tend to see some inherent value in anything "bundled" and am more willing to spend higher.
    I was serious, I was thinking of its DLC download thing and all the other extra functions, like friends list, achievements and MP (on some games). I never thought of it as being just DRM.

    Steam: Stormwatcher | XBL: Stormwatcher 21 | PSN: Stormwatcher33 | Gamecenter: Stormwatcher33 | 3DS: 0130-2805-2850
    steam_sig.png
  • Phoenix-DPhoenix-D Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    Klash wrote: »
    That runs contrary to my experience and understanding of GFWL. That experience being that GFWL is required for any GFWL product. What you're telling me, and I'd hope its true, is that I can uninstall GFWL from my computer and Fallout 3 won't care?

    OK, I never checked to see if GFWL was running, so it might have been, but again: I never logged in. I didn't have HAVE a GFWL profile until Red Faction 3 got all bitchy about needing one. If that's DRM that's pretty fail DRM. :P

  • ElvenshaeElvenshae Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    Klash wrote: »
    That runs contrary to my experience and understanding of GFWL. That experience being that GFWL is required for any GFWL product. What you're telling me, and I'd hope its true, is that I can uninstall GFWL from my computer and Fallout 3 won't care?

    In fact, if you're running certain mods (like most FOSE-requiring mods), you must disable GfWL.

  • KlashKlash Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    I was serious, I was thinking of its DLC download thing and all the other extra functions, like friends list, achievements and MP (on some games). I never thought of it as being just DRM.

    Well, of course they're trying the Steam route. Thing is, we're all clever enough to know that beneath the shiny services (regardless of quality of said services), lies the heart of the matter, which defines why these programs are required to run the games: DRM.

    I was actually surprised when they announced the new Lara Croft would have Steam. Instead of saying "the Steam service" they said "Steam DRM". It felt like a nice bit of vindication to have a developer actually cop to the fact they're only anchoring the game to a service because the underlying nature of the service is the DRM.
    Phoenix-D wrote: »
    OK, I never checked to see if GFWL was running, so it might have been, but again: I never logged in. I didn't have HAVE a GFWL profile until Red Faction 3 got all bitchy about needing one. If that's DRM that's pretty fail DRM. :P

    Well, if you set up that RFG profile prior to F3, then it was probably running along and you didn't even notice. Also possible is if you modded F3 with any over-haul mods, the mod-out was included. :P

    Truth be told, as far as local profiles/offline goes, GFWL is... well... flawless. I don't mean that its useful or valuable, but that you'll never notice it, it'll never interact with or interfere with the running of the program. The only reason you'll know its running is because it pops up to say "Hey man, hit Home to visit your profile!" when you start a game. It doesn't even keep running after you close the program. It loads with the program, closes with the program. Being designed by Microsoft, though, its of course pretty easily written into Windows functionality. I brought GFWL online, just out of curiosity, and updates were available via my Windows Update alongside my Defender updates and such.

    But Steam lets me use in-game browsers and is therefore wicked awesome and totally radical to the 10th degree of coolitude.

    Edit: I'd like to preface the above with: in my experience. I know GFWL has been the habour of a malevolent all consuming evil for some people.

    We don't even care... whether we care or not...
  • LewiePLewieP Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    Does GFWL still do that thing where it will boot you out of the game (if you are using an online profile) if someone turns your Xbox on?

  • ZxerolZxerol The fullest, most luscious beard. Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    That's what you deserve for gaming on PC when you could be playing on Xbox.

  • DracilDracil Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    Zxerol wrote: »
    That's what you deserve for having an Xbox.

  • Phoenix-DPhoenix-D Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    Klash wrote: »
    Well, if you set up that RFG profile prior to F3, then it was probably running along and you didn't even notice. Also possible is if you modded F3 with any over-haul mods, the mod-out was included. :P

    I did not do either, no.

  • override367override367 Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    Klash wrote: »
    That runs contrary to my experience and understanding of GFWL. That experience being that GFWL is required for any GFWL product. What you're telling me, and I'd hope its true, is that I can uninstall GFWL from my computer and Fallout 3 won't care?

    Every time I run F3, GFWL pops up to tell me its running and all I need to do is hit Home to see it. Its not interfering with the workings of the game, by any means, but it does seem to be necessary. Otherwise, why in the hell would you need to mod it out? Just don't install it.

    For the record, I'm running an offline profile. My understanding of that is it is an entirely local profile, stored directly on my machine and by all means, amounts to GFWL not even really being there, just popping up to say hello. None the less, I'm under the impression the game requires GFWL, or a profile, online or offline, to run.

    Edit: Also, my profile remains always logged in. I never actually logged into it, but I guess upon creation of the local profile, any GFWL title automatically recognizes it exists and goes into upon starting. So as far as logging in, that gets handled automatically.

    You don't even need to be logged into a profile to play fallout 3. It even puts your saves in a different directory if you don't use GFWL, you can just hit the button again to get out of GFWL without ever logging in (offline or not)

    XBLIVE: Biggestoverride
    League of Legends: override367
Sign In or Register to comment.