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)

To chime in here, I feel that using the shortened gamesforwindows.com would be just fine. While only an essay, the MoS for Computing states that "If the target website provider has provided shorter alternative URLs to the webpage, use them" and I think in this case, that applies. It's easier to remember for the reader, and links to the same place. I see no real reason for not using it. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 10:23, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Well looks like the result of Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/28 July 2011/Games for Windows is unanimously in favor of the short version of the URL. So, I am going ahead and changing the article accordingly. Fleet Command (talk) 07:01, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

You can't be surprised that no one responded a month later. That doesn't mean you can change something we did decide on a long time ago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VividNinjaScar (talk • contribs) 14:02, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Consensus can change. You should discuss why you disagree with the changes and the consensus achieved at MedCab as opposed to reverting to your preferred version. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 01:40, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

With all due respect, we have. The gameforwindows.com domain only redirects to the page listed, which, because at the time it didn't, was one of his points for keeping it. He seems to be dead set on only being right and having the last word. VividNinjaScar (talk) 03:54, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, there are three inputs in MEDCAB case and all three are in favor of the less complex URL. And with no due respect whatsoever, you have discussed me instead of the contents all along but I have been polite and said nothing. (e.g. "He seems to be dead set on only being right and having the last word.") We now have a consensus and you are edit-warring. I will give you 24 hours to un-revert your revert or I will continue down the chain of dispute resolution. Fleet Command (talk) 05:00, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

You mean this? Go ahead and go down your chain. I don't feel like I'm in the wrong here, so I have nothing to fear.

As for discussion on the edit, I will go over this again. When this started, you didn't even know the sites were merging. You sent me several messages claiming for a source, when looking at the site itself would have given you that. In fact, you even reverted the first edit made by Darkquest21 claiming it was vandalism. At first your reasoning for keeping it was the fact that it wasn't a redirect. I had pointed out that it isn't being updated anymore, as the Deal of the Week was expired and new games were not being posted, unlike the Xbox site. You claimed that was origional research, even though it was from a primary source. You could have easily verified it yourself, but like when this whole thing started, you didn't look into it first. That changed later in the week, as it started to redirect to the Xbox url. Since that point, you have been trying to get gamesforwindows.com back on here.

Going on, I can see when a shorter URL would be easier to remember, but it is unknown when that URL will stop redirecting and then just be a dead link. I know I won't check it every day. Maybe you will, I mean you came back to a discussion about a URL a month and a half later, but I doubt it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VividNinjaScar (talk • contribs) 16:33, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Also, a problem with using the alternative gamesforwindows.com URL is that it will take the reader longer to load the website. If the website URL continues to be marketplace.xbox.com/PC, it only needs to redirect to the reader's country version of that website (e.g. marketplace.xbox.com/en-US/PC). If we set it to gamesforwindows.com, it has to redirect to marketplace.xbox.com/PC and then to marketplace.xbox.com/en-US/PC (or another URL based off of the country you live in). I believe it's not worth 4 characters to make the reader wait longer and use up more bandwidth to load up the same website. Darkquest21 (talk) 18:56, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Apart from the fact that VividNinjaScar is still commenting on me instead of contents and DarkQuest21's reason is highly questionable, both these reasonings are against replacing the link, which is not what happened at all! I did not replace the link. So, you guys have reverted me without even knowing what I did? Looks like you guys just want to fight and revert, no matter over what. Therefore, I have reported both of you to Administrators Noticeboard. Fleet Command (talk) 10:09, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Of course, don't take it as a threat or anything. Usually, Wikipedia doesn't block or ban anybody unless the case is extreme. They will simply ask you to comply. Fleet Command (talk) 10:42, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I reverted it, not Darkquest21. The only thing I reverted on your September the 7th edit was your changing of the URL. It seems you are claiming you didn't change that at all, when that is not the case.

I have given you addition reasoning as to why that link should not be here. I didn't 'personally attack' you by telling you why I thought you reasoning is wrong, and pointing out how it changes when 'your reasoning' becomes invalid. VividNinjaScar (talk) 16:35, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

As one of the three mediators from this MedCab I would like to point out that if a general consensus was agreed by mediation process based on advice given by 3 different editors (in regards to changing the URL to a more appropriate one) in relation to the main subject of the article; then that URL should be used. The article itself is based on the subject Games for Windows and not XBox, to which Marketplace for Xbox link. In using the Xbox link, you are in theory misleading the readers in to thinking Xbox and Games for Windows are one and the same; which is not the case. Both owned by Microsoft, but separate gaming systems. If disagreement continues, then I suggest that MedCab be reopened, or perhaps escalate it further by requesting further discussion at WP:RFC. Wesley Mouse (talk) 19:39, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Understandable, but the issue with that is they are the same. Games for Windows is just a subset of Xbox now. Xbox has become a brand, and soon the PC branch will follow suit and will be named accordingly, which is why I am against using the old URL in the first place. Eventually it will stop redirecting, which will only confuse people more. As for the link being confusing, I doubt that. The page is clearly labled 'Games for Windows', as is the page it directs to.

Why is it only an issue on this page, and not on the Games for Windows - Live wiki itself. Games for Windows - Live is the PC equivilant to Xbox Live. They are exactly the same, with the exception of the platform and name. They use the same IDs, APIs, ports, everything.VividNinjaScar (talk) 02:44, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

It may be so that the PC branch will "soon" be changing name, but this article, as with any Wikipedia article, must remain WP:NPOV. Until such change occurs then the original URL MUST be used to keep in line with the main article itself. You also need to avoid WP:NOR as wikipedia isn't a crystal ball, so WP:Speculation about what may happen in the future with regards to a company shouldn't be taken into account, until such event(s) have taken place. If you are still in doubt, then please contact myself via my talk page, or refer to the guidelines at What Wikipedia is Not!. Wesley Mouse (talk) 10:17, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong however, to stipulate within the article, about the possible name changes, in a new heading on the article. That way you are keeping the reader informed of what facts you may know (as long as they have sources to go with them). Thus you can keep a peaceful resolution by including both URLs, or a short paragraph to inform the reader about the 2 URLs now being the same. Wesley Mouse (talk) 10:21, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

This URL site may help compromise the entire situation. It is the generalized website owned by Microsoft for purchasing PC Games online, and is in fact different to both the xbox marketplace and gamesforwindows.com sites that you are disputing over. http://www.microsoftstore.com Wesley Mouse (talk) 11:46, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

It isn't just the name change, but the fact that it will eventually stop redirecting as I've said. If he wants a short link, then why aren't we using gfwl.com, or even gfw.com? It is another ridirect that goes to the PC marketplace page on Xbox.com as well.

Unfourtnatly, the link you provided wouldn't work in this case. This article is about Microsoft's Games for Windows service, a digital download outlet, while microsoftstore.com is their online shop for physical products. It has no links to the digital store, so it would only make things more confusingVividNinjaScar (talk) 16:35, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

May I please remind you VividNinjaScar, that I was (and still am) the mediator in this dispute. Please do not patronise or speak down to me, or I will have no option but to escalate things further. Remember that that Wikipedia is not a battleground nor is it all about winning, but it is, and always has been, an encyclopaedic site.

It appears though that the mediation may have been closed prematurely, due to the fact that a dispute is still in the air, and all parties involved are still struggling to come to a mutual consensus. So I shall re-open the case, and conduct a thorough mediation cable. All parties involved must remain partial, and agree to bide to the overall consensus once a conclusion is drawn. Would it be easier to hold the medication cable on this talk page, or via a new discussion page back on WP:MedCab? Wesley Mouse (talk) 16:49, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't talking down to you. It wasn't meant to sound like that, so my apologies if it did.

I haven't been involved in previous disputes besides this one, so whatever you think is best. VividNinjaScar (talk) 16:59, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm looking into the possibilities of reopening the now "closed" medcab case, to prevent having to submit a new one. But either way, mediation is best going ahead again, as it is very clear that an overall consensus between all parties hasn't been reached, and I advise that you all do need to come to some mutual compromising agreement, so that you may continue to edit the article in peace. Wesley Mouse (talk) 17:20, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Reopening of Mediation Cable

I, Wesley Mouse, formally offer my services as mediator in the reopening of your previous dispute, which still appears to be unresolved and may have had MedCab closed prematurely. Would interested parties please indicate whether or not they accept this suggestion, by signing below this comment. Wesley Mouse (talk) 17:24, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

• Accept, as the user who closed the MedCab case due to inactivity. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 00:45, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

The MedCab has now been reopened here. Would interested parties (especially parties involved in this dispute) please indicate whether or not they accept my mediation here. And as MedCab has been reopened, I kindly request that all parties refrain from altering the URL on the main article, until a conclusion has been reached. Wesley Mouse (talk) 17:28, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Xbox Live on Windows

There has been an announcement that Xbox Live is coming to windows under the name Xbox Live for Windows. No doubt this will replace Games for Windows and Games for Windows - Live. What should we do about the articles? Here is the link: http://majornelson.com/2011/09/13/xbox-live-and-windows-8/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by VividNinjaScar (talk • contribs) 21:57, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

New information today makes it look like GFW is not being rebranded, but rather Xbox Live on Windows is just the hub to access all the game information. Games demoed were still labeled "Games for Windows - Live", but it is possible that is only because they haven't updated the boxarts as of yet, or do not plan to. VividNinjaScar (talk) 22:20, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

How about adding games that tend to crash on startup

SimCity 4 and SimCity 4 Rush Hour occasionally; very often, crash on startup, requiring you to Task Manager shut them down, and then restart the game. However, if you shut down the game, then shut down GFW/GE, then go to restart the game, you get the SAME crash. I finally had to disable GE, and no problems since LReyome254 (talk) 19:48, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

We would need a reliable source that documents this problem and/or solution. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:53, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Games for Windows. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110605042641/http://www.1up.com/do/blogEntry?bId=8693243&publicUserId=1002446 to http://www.1up.com/do/blogEntry?bId=8693243&publicUserId=1002446

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:27, 10 October 2017 (UTC)