IV doesn't have dedicated servers.

 

You won't be able to get online because Games For Windows Live (I.E: The thing you use to log in and invite your friends to the game) WON'T WORK.

 

All LCPDFR clans are going to die, there's no avoiding that at all.

http://fragnet.net/games/gta4.php

I just called GFWL support... they said you will still be able to play your games ONLINE , but not purchase any new ones. So you can buy GTA IV through steam, but not their marketplace.

This.

http://fragnet.net/games/gta4.php

 

whatttttttt? 

 

 

seriously, wtf? lol. Is this real, or like a scam?

I just called GFWL support... they said you will still be able to play your games ONLINE , but not purchase any new ones. So you can buy GTA IV through steam, but not their marketplace. 

 

I got told different however, i.e. that you can be connected to the Internet, you can (for instance) play IV SP, but MP will be disabled as it uses GFWL for the whole MP segment of the game (like if you used xliveless or a loader that turns off MP).

Same with Ace Combat or Batman or whatever you want, credit to RPS for explaining it in the comments on their article about it.

 

Unlesss somebody steps up and pretty much makes an MP mod from scratch then GFWL being shut down will be like Gamespy all over again. Did I mention I'm bitter about that?

 

It's certainly a hot topic and honestly I'd side with a list of games that will lose functionality rather than GFWL suppor that reads from a script and repeats what their bosses tell them to say.

Not A Problem For Me, Because I Never Use The GFWL Store, And Its Good I Can Still Play Online ;)

whatttttttt? 

 

 

seriously, wtf? lol. Is this real, or like a scam?

We honestly are not 100% sure just yet on it's accessibility for client-side scripts, but yes, it is legit. So far that is it's only draw back since nobody wants to fork out cash for something that might NOT work. We're still monitoring this though, now more than ever.

Hey guys...I have a question.

 

I'm deciding to buy a hard copy of the GTA4 Complete Edition (IV+EFLC) off of eBay (which is where I got my standard IV copy) just for EFLC. When I installed IV, I had to enter the verification code seen on the back of the instruction booklet. Who does that verification go to? If it goes to GFWL, would I have any problem trying to activate it after GFWL shuts down?

Hey guys...I have a question.

 

I'm deciding to buy a hard copy of the GTA4 Complete Edition (IV+EFLC) off of eBay (which is where I got my standard IV copy) just for EFLC. When I installed IV, I had to enter the verification code seen on the back of the instruction booklet. Who does that verification go to? If it goes to GFWL, would I have any problem trying to activate it after GFWL shuts down?

I believe the product code is through GFWL

I believe the product code is through GFWL

That's the same for all versions, even the Steam version. So this is a problem. 

I'm guessing SecuRom is making it possible to activate the game without connection to the internet. 

hahahahahahahaha

 

Another shitty and annoying Microsoft service shutting down. Next we just need Outlook gone.

 

 

 

 

It never worked for me. Ever. I had to use xliveless just to play even before I started to mod.

The only sad part is that we won't be able to play GTA IV in MP anymore. Or would we?

I won't belive anything that is not announcent by Rockstar.

This is certainly an interesting predicament, especially for a consumer rights enthusiast like myself. I guess the question we have to ask ourselves is this: "Is it entirely legal or fair for GFWL/Microsoft delivering a promised service on behalf of Rockstar Games/Take2 just stop its provision come July 2014?".

 

The first place to start is with my game case, the blurb of which says this:

 

Exclusive PC Content

• Stunningly detailed, high resolution graphics
• Video editor allows you to capture and edit in-game footage to share
• 32 person multiplayer with Custom Match feature for optimised experience
• Customize a radio station using your own songs with independence FM

It's there black and white on the case, and because it's there, the law says it is reasonable for me to expect to receive that promised service, if the service isn't provided or doesn't exist it constitutes a breach of the Trades Description Act 1979 which requires goods, including software to be: "as described – match the description on packaging or what the trader told you."

 

Furthermore, I seem to recall a whole bunch of promotional activities/materials produced by Rockstar Games in regards to GTAIV PC Multiplayer - if the service no longer exists but advertisement still in circulation it's therefore misleading and in breach of consumer and advertising regulations.

 

Of course, on the flip side of these two arguments is this little clause:

 

 

 "Any online features require internet connection, may be retired on 30 days notice, and may not be available for all users"

 

But this makes no difference to my statutory rights or my expectation of receiving a service I was advertised and paid for.

 

The only remaining question is who is culpable for this? Rockstar Games/Take2 or GFWL/Microsoft. Well the promise of a service was made by Rockstar, who outsourced the provision of the service to Microsoft and it's GFWL platform, but Rockstar are responsible to ensure the services continuation and quality. That is why, I suspect, Rockstar are so quiet.

 

On a side note, for anyone with purely online games (like AOE) and you've paid money for them, then I would recommend you take up your case ASAP with Microsoft and failing them, trading standards.

 

Anyhow, I haven't much cared for the whole GTAIV Multiplayer phenomenon - I find single player the much superior aspect, so as long as these changes don't interfere with my accessing of my software live and let live I suppose. However, for those who do feel free to use any of my arguments when making your case to Microsoft, Rockstar, trading standards or whoever.

 

Regards,

 

Hench

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That's fine if you think i'm coming off rude, just voicing my opinion, which is not always the nicest.. that's fine you enjoy you're clan, but there are too many and some people over do it, there are only a select few I occationally watch such as yours and the RCMP clan.

You don't need 10 O.P.P Clans and you don't need 10 Toronto Police clans just find one and join.

I don't know why there's so many clans just made for restrictions and so forth, I been to many clans and my experience isn't fun at all and worst of all to me boring, these clans are being to realistic and forgetting what fun is, but that's my opinion. I think though GFWL shutting down is really sad because you cant even play with your friends anymore but oh well.

I believe the product code is through GFWL

Oh snap...guess I better go on and get it!

This is certainly an interesting predicament, especially for a consumer rights enthusiast like myself. I guess the question we have to ask ourselves is this: "Is it entirely legal or fair for GFWL/Microsoft delivering a promised service on behalf of Rockstar Games/Take2 just stop its provision come July 2014?".

 

The first place to start is with my game case, the blurb of which says this:

 

Exclusive PC Content

• Stunningly detailed, high resolution graphics
• Video editor allows you to capture and edit in-game footage to share
• 32 person multiplayer with Custom Match feature for optimised experience
• Customize a radio station using your own songs with independence FM

It's there black and white on the case, and because it's there, the law says it is reasonable for me to expect to receive that promised service, if the service isn't provided or doesn't exist it constitutes a breach of the Trades Description Act 1979 which requires goods, including software to be: "as described – match the description on packaging or what the trader told you."

 

Furthermore, I seem to recall a whole bunch of promotional activities/materials produced by Rockstar Games in regards to GTAIV PC Multiplayer - if the service no longer exists but advertisement still in circulation it's therefore misleading and in breach of consumer and advertising regulations.

 

Of course, on the flip side of these two arguments is this little clause:

 

 

But this makes no difference to my statutory rights or my expectation of receiving a service I was advertised and paid for.

 

The only remaining question is who is culpable for this? Rockstar Games/Take2 or GFWL/Microsoft. Well the promise of a service was made by Rockstar, who outsourced the provision of the service to Microsoft and it's GFWL platform, but Rockstar are responsible to ensure the services continuation and quality. That is why, I suspect, Rockstar are so quiet.

 

On a side note, for anyone with purely online games (like AOE) and you've paid money for them, then I would recommend you take up your case ASAP with Microsoft and failing them, trading standards.

 

Anyhow, I haven't much cared for the whole GTAIV Multiplayer phenomenon - I find single player the much superior aspect, so as long as these changes don't interfere with my accessing of my software live and let live I suppose. However, for those who do feel free to use any of my arguments when making your case to Microsoft, Rockstar, trading standards or whoever.

 

Regards,

 

Hench

First off, there is no Trade Descriptions Act of 1979. I assume that was a typo, and you meant the Act of 1968 or the Sale of Goods Act 1979.

Second off, that is one of the more insane interpretations of consumer-protection law I've ever seen. Do you have any evidence that a court would find that shutting down an online service violates consumer-protection law? Any caselaw on the matter? Keep in mind that, right now, you do get multiplayer with GTA IV. In the future, you may not, but it makes no promises about the future. Based on the quick search I just did (yes, yes, that's not really legit, I don't care), it seems like the important bit is whether statements were true when they were made. Is there one single piece of evidence to support the idea that discontinuing a service while not updating boxart that is already on shelves is illegal? Any evidence to suggest that that disclaimer is insufficient?

There is no consumer laws violated here.  What, you think GWFL will be online for 1000 years or something and if it's not they violated consumer laws?  That's a little unrealistic and not based in any sort of reality. 

 

Not to mention that the billions of lines of copy that is all in legalese covers their asses as well as any possibly scenario you could contrive.  By hitting the  "accept"  button or providing a check mark and hitting the start/OK button is your direct, implicit and specific acceptance of those terms.  

 

But yes, I too wish it was Outlook that went down the shitter...I absolutly hate my companies Outlook setup; always crashing, locking up, I can never find emails I'm looking for, ect.  Absolutly horrid system/client.

 

Anyhow, 

 

Good Day!

 

DrDetroit

Edited September 5, 201312 yr by drdetroit

 

First off, there is no Trade Descriptions Act of 1979. I assume that was a typo, and you meant the Act of 1968 or the Sale of Goods Act 1979.

 

 

Yeah I admit you got me there cp702, both of those pieces of legislation more or less say the same thing, but yes it was a typo, clearly I combined the two together due to their likeness.

 

Second off, that is one of the more insane interpretations of consumer-protection law I've ever seen. Do you have any evidence that a court would find that shutting down an online service violates consumer-protection law? Any caselaw on the matter? Keep in mind that, right now, you do get multiplayer with GTA IV. In the future, you may not, but it makes no promises about the future. Based on the quick search I just did (yes, yes, that's not really legit, I don't care), it seems like the important bit is whether statements were true when they were made. Is there one single piece of evidence to support the idea that discontinuing a service while not updating boxart that is already on shelves is illegal? Any evidence to suggest that that disclaimer is insufficient?

 

 

“There's a fine line between genius and insanity. I have erased this line.” - Oscar Levant

 

Jesting aside however.

 

In terms of case law/evidence, it is very rare any sort of consumer law stuff reaches court in the UK, at least not consumer vs. business - usually you drop a letter to trading standards or the Office of Fair Trading - they say jump, business says how high.

 

Your second question in regards to statements and third in regards to boxart are one in the same - the Sales of Goods Act requires goods sold to be "Fit for Purpose" and "As Described" - this meaning any purpose mentioned by the "offeror" (Rockstar games) to the "offerree" (me). Rockstar mentioned their product could be used for the purpose of engaging in 32-person multiplayer therefore that must be what it does throughout its life, the moment it no longer does that the product is no longer as described nor fit for purpose.

 

An example of where a games company fell fowl of this was the launch of Fifa 13 by EA, in which all of the were offline meaning the multiplayer service wasn't there , as a result the case was investigated on the BBC's Watchdog.

 

The boxart is a means of communication between the offeror and offerree - if the box is saying the product does something that it no longer does - it is misleading, and whilst not illegal per se, it would make Rockstar liable for enforcement action by www.asa.org.uk which can order it updates the information on the box.

 

One specific example that actually backs up my boxart case is this: http://www.asa.org.uk/Rulings/Adjudications/2013/9/Euroferries-Ltd/SHP_ADJ_232723.aspx

 

 

Not to mention that the billions of lines of copy that is all in legalese covers their asses as well as any possibly scenario you could contrive

 

Finally, both of your last questions as to the inadequacy of the clause on the box, a disclaimer doesn't affect my statutory rights, that is the "reasonable" expectation for my goods to be "as described" and "fit for purpose" and achieve a partial or full refund if not, which before it is asked, I can do at anytime, as it may be some time before the defect in the product becomes apparent.

 

 

What, you think GWFL will be online for 1000 years or something and if it's not they violated consumer laws?  That's a little unrealistic and not based in any sort of reality. 

 

No I do not have the expectation that GFWL will be online for 1000 years. I do have the expectation that GTAIV multiplayer will, irrespective of whether GFWL closes or not. As I said Rockstar outsourced the hosting of Multiplayer to Rockstar and is therefore responsible for the continuation of the service and it is the case that if Rockstar do not continue the service that they are in breach of consumer law. GFWL closing is a separate legal issue between Rockstar and Microsoft.

 

Regards,

Hench

 

 

 

Edited September 5, 201312 yr by Hench

In terms of case law/evidence, it is very rare any sort of consumer law stuff reaches court in the UK, at least not consumer vs. business - usually you drop a letter to trading standards or the Office of Fair Trading - they say jump, business says how high.

 

Your second question in regards to statements and third in regards to boxart are one in the same - the Sales of Goods Act requires goods sold to be "Fit for Purpose" and "As Described" - this meaning any purpose mentioned by the "offeror" (Rockstar games) to the "offerree" (me). Rockstar mentioned their product could be used for the purpose of engaging in 32-person multiplayer therefore that must be what it does throughout its life, the moment it no longer does that the product is no longer as described nor fit for purpose.

 

An example of where a games company fell fowl of this was the launch of Fifa 13 by EA, in which all of the were offline meaning the multiplayer service wasn't there , as a result the case was investigated on the BBC's Watchdog.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the BBC's watchdog isn't a government regulatory agency, correct?

The boxart is a means of communication between the offeror and offerree - if the box is saying the product does something that it no longer does - it is misleading, and whilst not illegal per se, it would make Rockstar liable for enforcement action by www.asa.org.uk which can order it updates the information on the box.

 

One specific example that actually backs up my boxart case is this: http://www.asa.org.uk/Rulings/Adjudications/2013/9/Euroferries-Ltd/SHP_ADJ_232723.aspx

This seems more reasonable than what I thought you were saying - saying Rockstar can no longer produce new boxart saying "MP" is fair, though it does seem a bit strange to force a recall of what's currently in stores (particularly because GTA IV can be in stores without Rockstar's knowledge).

Finally, both of your last questions as to the inadequacy of the clause on the box, a disclaimer doesn't affect my statutory rights, that is the "reasonable" expectation for my goods to be "as described" and "fit for purpose" and achieve a partial or full refund if not, which before it is asked, I can do at anytime, as it may be some time before the defect in the product becomes apparent.

I don't see how this answers the question. If the disclaimer is on the box, that's part of how the product is being described, is it not? If you have to buy it to see the disclaimer, that clearly is something that can justify a refund, but if the disclaimer is on the box, isn't that something that's part of the product description? If I have an ad for a cruise, show the most luxurious room on the ad, and say "Tickets starting from $50", is it assumed that $50 will pay for such a room?

No I do not have the expectation that GFWL will be online for 1000 years. I do have the expectation that GTAIV multiplayer will, irrespective of whether GFWL closes or not

I submit that anything that would ever require Rockstar to *exist* forever is a stupid, stupid law.

Also, this is not even close to the first time online games have shut down. City of Heroes was an MMO that shut down. It prominently advertised online play. Its publisher is still in business. And yet, it shut down. If what you are saying is true, it is never legal to shut down MP for a game once you create it.

I'm not sure if Rockstar will simply patch the feature out or not, but technically I don't see why GFWL is needed at all, since as far as I can tell, GTA IV servers are hosted by the client who starts them. Any development company could handle coding some small application that does the same thing. That being said, even if that doesn't happen, GTA IV MP die-hards can always check out that link posted earlier in this thread to that company who hosts dedicated GTA IV MP servers. I feel sad they're taking it away, but I have tons of other games to waste my time on.