Anti-Games For Windows Live Dark Souls PC Petition

I enjoy gaming, but I enjoy b*tching and moaning about games more.

Not that I agree with all the *****ing buuuutttttt......

Games for windows live does suck >.> and suck badly. Hell I know some guys that... Wait what were we talking about again?

This is why I always like the idea "never listen to the customer". People act like they know what they want when they truly don't.

I guess people just don't want to be happy with anything. I'll be buying regardless probably. Especially if it's still available on steam like Arkham City was. It still used GFWL and it didn't bug me at all.

The masses are asses. I'm just going to stop reading posts/articles about gamer complaints.

If the *****ing and moaning are justified, then why not?
People will always complain, but does that render all complaints unfounded and unworthy?

I will be signing that petition, if DRM is going to be mandatory, I would at least like DRM options.

GFWL has been a source of headaches for me in the past, but if the port is done right that kind of problem just isn't severe enough to be a deal breaker for me.

Games for Windows Live, I really wanted to play Dark Souls until I saw you. I hate you.

its amazing how many people rage about GFWL but jerk off steam, steamworks sucks, if someone wants to use steam it should be their choice.

It seems that unforgivable word among the loudest and shrillest of gamers has popped up again. "Entitled". Dont all the online game system networks have their own individual problems? Knitpickin mutha****as, you give them an inch and they shove it in your rear usb port.

This seriously pisses me off. A company finally listens to one of the thousands of online petitions floating around, and what happens? They ***** and moan about it.

I also forgot to mention that even if the vocal minority/majority ***** about all this stuff, they'll get the game anyway.

Completely disagree with the tone of this article. If you were making a product, wouldn't you want your customer base to tell you A. If they would purchase it and B. What it would take to make them purchase it?

Consumers are terrible innovators--they hate anything new and they don't know how to create anything they'll like--ask them, and they'll be dead wrong. But if you give consumers a known quantity, they can usually determine their future purchasing course of action pretty accurately.

Now, whether or not consumers will be truthful about their intentions in public is another question (I'm looking at you, MW2 boycott), but companies are getting better at extrapolating how the silent majority will react based on the vocal minority's actions. It would be a mistake to dismiss that kind of feedback out of hand.

GFWL actually came with Fallout 3 on the PC, I remembered. It caused problems like crashing and stability issues, but people just patched it away. I'm sure it'll be the same here, some programmer will just make a program that disables GFWL for Dark Souls... unless you need it for multiplayer.

Oh man, people want to get their money's worth out of a game and not have to be stuck with an unintuitive piece of crap that no one uses in order to play it. Sound the ****ing alarms, ring the bells, these *******s are entitled jerks who hate video games.

Or maybe, just maybe, they know EXACTLY what they want, they care about this game, and they would rather have it on Steam (which the majority of PC gamers use) than GFWL (which no one uses). Instead of blaming the consumers, shouldn't you take a look at the producers who aren't making things up to par? I mean, the concept of "make it right, or I'm not going to buy it" is the foundation of capitalism, and isn't it better that they're saying how to make it right rather than just letting it flop?