Well then almost every EA Games aren't Games for Windows :lol:
It will be quite interesting if EA and other developers/publishers take this scheme seriously or not. As the extras required will all cost extra in development costs or left for patches in the future, which probably means they couldn't have the certification on the box I can see a number of them just shrugging their shoulders and asking why bother.
Microsoft will probably push this hard though, they need gamers to become early adopters of Vista and it looks like the "Games for Windows" will be a big part of that.
The statement on the offical Games for Windows web site seems very vague. Games for Windows branded titles "even support widescreen resolutions and more." What on earth does that mean?
There are many different widescreen resolutions. Which ones must be supported? Why can't they specify?
Also there is more than one way to implement widescreen support such as horizontal+ or vertical-. Can a game get the GFW brand if it simply stretches the 4:3 image to fill the screen?
Most curious of all, what is the "more" referred to?
I think these are the games that can run on media centre PCs (ie with widescreen LCDs)... which is retarded, because since when do you want to be playing an RTS game from your lap. Ok, so maybe a racing game with a pad is nearing being appropriate, but a mouse heavy game where you need to scroll around really fast? I dont think so
A friend who is a developer said that one of the other requirements for it is to be able to be installed for a certain distance away xD
