Short of doing extensive background research on a title, Steam has no indication of a game's dependence on some third party launcher or cloud service, so every time I run a new game for the first time I have to clench and pray the Windows Live overlay doesn't drop down.
Arkham City requires GFWL, almost made me quit the game I bought and go pirate it. Still considering it, honestly.
Not only did it fail to log me in the first time and totally dropped my first hour of gameplay, but I ended up having to reset a password and spend over half an hour trying to get Arkham City and GFWL live to work together.
I lost over 1.5 hours of time to that bullshit, and a pirate would have lost 0 hours.
I am ONCE AGAIN bitten in the ass for being a legitimate customer instead of a dirty pirate.
Fable 3 doesn't mention GFWL anywhere, except that it's published by "Microsoft Games Studios" which would be a big hint... if you look at publisher info.
Which is why I say it's usually a crap shoot. :(
EDIT: In terms of Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon Future Soldier specifically, it doesn't mention Uplay anywhere on the Steam store page at all. It's like "surprise! This 3rd party launcher / DRM / rootkit comes with it, absolutely free!"
Just spotted it, the Batman games hide it in the System requirements:
> Online play requires log-in to Games For Windows – Live
So I guess it's in the DRM list if you need it to play singleplayer, and in system reqs if you don't. Seems fair, but I'd still rather have it be consistent. No reason S8 couldn't list it in both spots.
Still, I habitually don't read System Reqs. I'd expect something more like one of the "Single Player", "Multi Player" bullets under the ESRB rating. "Requires 3rd party bullshit"
Agreed. There's no game that my desktop doesn't meet the minimum requirements for, and won't be for at least a few years. I don't make a habit of checking them.
Couldn't Steam pull the game from their shop? Prevent new people from buying it and remotely de-activate/remove existing installs of the game?
Proponants of the walled garden 'App Store' model point out how it's good for users, since it's more secure. Well, is this a case for that? Will the closed app store model step up to the plate now?
Or is the walled garden no better for users, but much better for the sellers of software?
When a walled garden actually is better for users, they could choose to participate. When users aren't allowed to choose, you can be pretty sure who the primary beneficiary is.
Meaning: I feel your pain, brother.