Talk:Games for Windows

The Birth of this Page

This page began as a reference only to the "Games for Windows" magazine. I took the liberty of adding a lot to it about the entire "Games for Windows" Microsoft campaign. Feel free to edit this page as you wish!

Also, please format to Wikipedia standards as you see fit. And anyone with more info about "Games for Windows" out there...please add whatever you can. I tried to add a logo but got a "protected page" error. I hope this page is now a bit more informative about the info I have gathered in the last few days. -Scotty --Scottymoze 04:06, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I fixed it up. Please add your signature to the end of your comment. :-) — Frecklefoot | Talk 15:50, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

A. Isn't the actual name of the magazine going to be Official Games for Windows Magazine? I know that the guys on the podcast spent some time making fun of themselves for the new name. B. The references requested for Jeff Green's comments can be found on the magazine's podcast available through cgwradio.1up.com, but how would one use that as a citation? 204.69.40.7 11:26, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I've got an image up onto the article. -Hugh784

Suggested Replacement for PC

As Microsoft is hinting at a full-on-categorization for this campaign, would it be wise to add a Games for Windows status column to new PC games?

• I think that's a good idea but tons of peeps would complain "MS Supremacy is Biased" maybe.--Scottymoze 02:46, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Games for Windows Requirements

The requirements mentioned on this page, such as compatibility with xbox 360 controller and x64 compatibility, I think are simply rumors Paul Thurrott heard (anonymously) about the future of the Games for Windows logo requirements (under Vista, maybe?). This page does not mention that these are speculation and fails to mention most of the current official requirements found at http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/directx9_c/Games_for_Microsoft_Windows_Logo_for_Applications.asp Perhaps this page should have two sections: current requirements and future requirements for Games for Windows labelling? Ombre42 10:49, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Image Uploading being stupid

Here's a screenshot I took from my Vista thing: [1] However, Wikipedia's upload tool is being downright retarded and giving me a "." is not a supported filetype error. So, here it is. Upload it, whatever, it's all good. --Mgrinshpon 17:54, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Read this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Contents/Images_and_media --SkyWalker 18:22, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Games explorer

I saw a dead link for the Windows Vista Games explorer on the requirements list. Rather than start a new article which would most likely end as a stub anyway, I have added a section with a picture on the Games explorer. I have also redirected Windows Vista Games Explorer to that section--Wiki Fanatic | Talk 04:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC).

Games list

The games listed in the article only be for released titles, leaving the unreleased/speculative games for the gfw category. Also, Dungeon Siege II, Night Watch and Neverwinter Nights 2 does not bare the logo. Freelancer, Train simulator and Rallisport Challenge are older than the initiative itself (unless there is info). Any info regarding these, or any other games about the gfw status would be appreciated so the list can be cleaned up. -sciss0rz 00:21, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Regarding games older than the initative. It can be retroactivly applied. This is usually done when the game is repackaged or rereleased (think Half Life vs. Half Life Game of the Year Edition). BTW, Games for Windows has been around for a long time. Only recently has there been the big stripe at the top annoncing Games for Windows.--Wiki Fanatic | Talk 01:57, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Regarding games older than the Games for Windows initiative. It appears that the windows file legacy.dll contains the information about older titles that are not part of the GFW. When a game is installed that is GFW false (no GDF file) and legacy.dll listed true (title is listed in lagacy.dll), the game information will be updated into Games Explorer. If the title is GFW true, it will update Games Explorer using the data in the GDF file within the title. If neither is true, Games Explorer does not update automatically making it necessary to drag in your own icon which will not contain rating info or box art. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.31.184.166 (talk) 00:05, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Adding games to Games Explorer

There's a reliable method to do this (go to HKEY_Local_Machine\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\GameUX\$computer_ID\, edit a game that works into a game that doesn't, remove WMGameID, then open the game you replaced to get it to add to GE again), though I'm not sure how/where to add it. This I can confirm gets around everything other than the recommended WM Performance score, and none of the games I have installed have that, so I can't test it. (I assume this could replace the 'dragging to GE' tip)

Program Available to Add/Edit Games

There is a program available in Beta that adds games to the Explorer Window with the ability to add custom BoxArt, etc. It looks like it's nearly finished, the only thing it doesn't do is add the old game back to the explorer and it doesn't edit existing boxart at the moment. There is also a great guide that shows how to do it manually too. Try it out here.

Ryan R (M_3628905) 01:12, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Italics?

Should the title of the article be in italics. I'm not really too sure. Sdornan 14:19, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Starcraft Compatibility

This is a very strange turn of phrase in the Windows Vista Game Explorer section, "Compatibility generally depends on the age or popularity of the games with newer games having better compatibility. For example, Starcraft is fully compatible despite being nearly a decade older than Windows Vista." How is Starcraft, a 10 year old game, being fully compatible with the explorer an example of newer games having better compatibility? This was probably meant to be something about the popularity of the game, but it needs rephrasing and/or clarification. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TV4Fun (talk • contribs) 22:14, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

Silver / Gold details?

Don't you think details about these two account types is required? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.250.191.150 (talk) 09:56, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank You!

It's been a long time since I first tried to get this page going. I can't thank everyone enough for the great work and the great page this has become, full of great info (which is the point of Wikipedia, for those of us that might have lost sight of that). I haven't contributed nearly as much as I was when I tried to get this page going...mostly due to exclusionists on here really, really turning me off...but to see a page like this take shape is truly what Wikipedia is all about. Thanks again, and please everyone have a great 2008 and beyond. Happy editing!! (And sorry to post a forum-ish edit here, but I had to say thanks.)--Scottymoze (talk) 03:03, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Tray and Play

This article needs to be merged here. It is not notable enough to have a separate article.--SkyWalker (talk) 16:10, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Support Merge it asap, there is no reason to have it there.--Crossmr (talk) 01:09, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Xbox 360 Controller Support

I have read and reviewed the Games for Windows about page and have come to the conclusion that the Xbox 360 controller compatibility under "Platform Standards" is flawed.

The controller compatibility is vague. In fact many games for Windows only support the Xbox 360 controller or another controller, not both at the same time. For example, Shadowrun and Quantum of Solace only support the Xbox 360 controller, which is contradictory to the Games for Windows site. This is a direct result of many games being ports from Xbox 360 games.

The Xbox 360 Controller being compatible with PC games appears to be merely an added bonus and novelty item to many games, and at this point it may be deserving of a different section. For example, a section of possible features: Tray and Play, Online Play, and Xbox 360 controller. This would accomodate all three features because they have not been used in many games (Live - 12 games, Tray & Play - 1 game).

Another option would be to just plain remove the Controller support. While it wouldn't have any impact on the history of PC games, since they are notorious for not supporting joysticks and joypads, it wouldn't be appropriate since it is one of the major points of the "Games for Windows" line-up.

Regardless, as an encyclopedia there needs to be more research done than just assume that what people say is correct. That's what researchers do, they look up information and verify the facts. And the fact is that in the 3 years that the "Games for Windows" line-up has been out very few games have taken advantage of all the features or lived up to the many desires that Microsoft has for the games. Sadly most authoritative figures will only establish that controllers are supported while not specifying if it only relates to the the Xbox 360 controller or other gamepads as well. 65.3.192.141 (talk) 18:04, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what your point here is. The requirement is that the game support the Xbox 360 controller IF the game supports other controllers. The requirement does NOT state that the Xbox 360 controller must be supported if and only if other controllers are supported. Basically, the statement is a simple conditional statement, not a biconditional one. It is thus, not flawed or contradictory in the way that you state. This does not mean that the statement is not vague, but vagueness can be a characteristic of the standard.

Also, be aware that Wikipedia's policies do not allow for original research from Wikipedians. We are not professional researchers, and we rely on the support of reliable sources to gain our information. Sources are listed at the bottom of articles, and it is the reader's responsibility to determine if that source is credible enough for them. If enough editors for a particular article feel that the source is NOT credible, then that source will most likely be eliminated. If you're simply talking about looking up information, then please give me a source for your own conclusions that you state above. Thanks for your input.

-Brianreading (talk) 22:27, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Vista vs Windows 7 Games Explorer and "Program Available to Add/Edit Games" - BEWARE

I just wrote up a bunch of material in the "Features removed in Windows 7" article discussion regarding this issue so I will be brief here. Games Explorer operates very differently when comparing Vista and Windows 7. Vista allowed a user to edit shortcuts in Games Explorer - Windows 7 for the most part does not depending on how the shortcut was made (Games for Windows installation - Legacy game detected by windows legacy.dll - user dragged in shortcut). VGEE (ie: Vista Games Explorer Editor) is not fully operational in Windows 7(I can't speak as to how it works with Vista, but I assume from the product name that it may not have these issues in Vista). From my personal experience using it in Windows 7 64bit: 1. Error message every time I open it but I can continue dispite the message (something to do with Debugging log). 2. Cannot select any "Games for Windows" title or the standard microsoft titles included in Windows for changes (for example: cannot select "flight simulator x" or "Chess"). 3. You cannot enter command line switches after the program name (such as <path>\bf2.exe +menu 1 +fullscreen 1 +modPath mods/xpack +ignoreAsserts 1) - however if you force the issue, type it anyway, and save, you WILL corrupt the games explorer registry. If you copy a working shortcut into games explorer with command line switches like above, then use VGEE to add box art, etc. you will lose the command line settings on saving. I am sure that the issues I have experienced relate to the removal of editing ability that was dropped in Windows 7 that the programmer probably used in Vista. I am hoping that the programmer can get this working in Windows 7 since the only other solutions to editing in Games Explorer for Windows 7 are learning to use the GDF maker in the DirectX SDK or by major registry hacking. Better still, I just wish Microsoft would just return Windows 7 Games Explorer back to Vista functionality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.31.184.166 (talk) 22:28, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

there needs to be a section on criticism

currently the article gives the impression no significant amount of gamers have any problems or grievances with GFW. GFW is not loved by all gamers, can someone put in a small paragraph about criticism. the article on Steam has a section on criticism so this obviously needs one too. I'd better not do it because i hate GFW and would find it hard to stay neutral in my writing! Olivier Doorenbos (talk) 16:39, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Huh? GfW is merely a certification system. The only criticism I can think of at the moment is that they aren't doing a very good job *cough* Fallout 3 *cough*. Maybe you are thinking of Games for Windows – Live? --MushroomCloud (talk) 23:52, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Website URL Change

I got several messages about the website's URL being changed, so I thought I should clarify. Gamesforwindows.com is being moved over to Xbox.com. As of yet, nothing is being renamed or rebranded. Look here for a source. As of right now, Gamesforwindows.com is still up and running, but it will likely be taken down within the week, just like the forums were after the new ones launched. VividNinjaScar (talk) 00:08, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Games for Windows and XBOX.com merger

The Games for Windows website started merging with XBOX.com on July 11, 2011 (the day that I changed the website in the article to the new Games for Windows Marketplace section on XBOX.com). The website in this article currently links to the Games for Windows Marketplace. How ever, a little while after I changed the website to that, Microsoft posted a new Games for Windows page on XBOX.com that is more of an introduction to Games for Windows (and the website includes a link for the marketplace). Do you think it is better to keep the website that links to the Games for Windows Marketplace or change it to the introduction page for Games for Windows? Darkquest21 (talk) 04:08, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

The introduction page would probably be the best one to link to, considering this is an article about Games for Windows, and not just the marketplace. VividNinjaScar (talk) 12:09, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with change. They aren't merged yet. I advise keeping the original link. If you wish however, you can keep both. Fleet Command (talk) 08:51, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Alright, VividNinjaScar: It is being phases out? First, were is your source? If it is your own impression, then WP:NOR. Second, what is wrong with not keeping the both URLs when the old one is neither broken nor a redirect? It seems to be a fully working website. Fleet Command (talk) 23:17, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

First off, stop thinking every edit I do is a personal attack on you. You sent me messages over reversing your change to the website in the first place, only to look into and realize you were wrong. If you would do that here you would see it is the same case. Look at the 'Deal of the Week' on Gamesforwindows.com and look at it on the Xbox.com site. The Games for Windows site lists it as F.E.A.R. 2, last weeks deal. The Xbox site lists it as Batman and the DLC, this weeks deal. Also, look at the games. The new Harry Potty game isn't listed on the old Games for Windows site, while it is in the Xbox mirror. If you would just do a little of your own research you would see that. I was going to hold your hand and link you directly to the pages in question, but guess what? Now Gamesforwindows.com redirects to the Xbox mirror.VividNinjaScar (talk) 04:50, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, you seem to have had no source; but it was a correct guess. So, we don't need to do anything. Oh, I never though you are personal attacking. You are cool.

Still, I think we should keep with the old URL. It is easier to remember: "Games For Windows dot Com" instead of "Marketplace dot xbox dot com slash ee en u es slash PC". Fleet Command (talk) 08:58, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm... You guys are silence. No objections? Then I guess that means you agree. Fleet Command (talk) 10:37, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

No, I told you I disagree with you a long time ago. I gave you sources that you rejected. www.gamesforwindows.com is no longer the home page. Stop putting it as such. VividNinjaScar (talk) 14:28, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Gamesforwindows.com now redirects to marketplace.xbox.com/PC. Because that is now the website for Games for Windows, that is what should be in the info box. There is no point in putting gamesforwindows.com if it is going to redirect readers to marketplace.xbox.com/PC anyways. And because of that, I also changed the official website external link to marketplace.xbox.com/PC and added the Games for Windows - Live external link that redirects to xbox.com/Live/PC since it mentions it in the article. Darkquest21 (talk) 19:01, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

@VividNinjaScar: Huh? No you didn't. First, you didn't give me a source. (It was your original research.) And your disagreement was with keeping both links not keeping the redirect only and not with my reason of Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Computing)#Website addresses. Besides, the page is not down; it is a working redirect.

@Darkquest21: Man, do you understand that you two are the majority here and I cannot contest you if you explicitly disagree? So, instead of saying "there is no point" (which is not true) say "I read your point and I disagree". Fleet Command (talk) 16:22, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I get the feeling you just want to be right and won't give up until that point. First of all, all research has to start from somewhere. You are misreading those guidelines. What I gave you was easily verifiable at the time, and therefor does not count as original research. They were my source, that you claimed wasn't one. Just because you do not accept a source, does not mean it isn't one. It was directly from Microsoft, as it was their own website. That is as good of a source as you will get. I'll quote the line for you exactly: "The term "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and stories—for which no reliable published source exists."

As for keeping both links, it is redundant. It gets you to the same page, but one isn't the actual URL and will be taken down completely eventually. It is pointless to keep it. Dark and I have both said this. VividNinjaScar (talk) 21:52, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and that issue is concluded. The second issue was keeping the redirect instead of the main link per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Computing)#Website addresses. That is concluded too, in your favor. You won. So, stop beating the dead horse. If you are just continuing to convince me that your original research was not original research, then good luck!

But use caution, newcomer: As you browse Wikipedia, you will encounter articles in which infoboxes have both main links and redirects. Do not think that the consensus here between you and Darkquest21 allows you to remove those link too. And if you think I am playing hardball with you, please prepare yourself for a nasty surprise that is bound to come one day. Fleet Command (talk) 09:37, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

You are beating it just as much as I am. What I gave you was a Primary_Source, therefor not original research.

I don't care about other pages. They are irrelevant to this page. Redirects are pointless and they only bloat the page farther. I myself have been editing this page for over a year, so I doubt that qualifies as a newcomer. Now stop it. This has just become a pissing contest, and I will not participate anymore. VividNinjaScar (talk) 10:33, 24 July 2011 (UTC)