When we first found out about the whole thing there was some back and forth speculating on what a GFWL shutdown meant and what games would be affected in what way. There are plenty of people that were glad to see it finally sliding off a cliff, while a some doomsday types started pointing at it as the ringing bells for a future DRM apocalypse.

A little news chatter, some debate, and a couple of high profile games got quickly stripped of the service. That was then, and a few months later, nobody’s talking about it. The most recent news I can find is from February where a few companies are basically shrugging it off. There are no followup articles about how customers are angry that games they bought as little as two years ago are about to bite a drm bullet. There are no people pressing for, or volunteering details on something we only know about by accident. And as near as I can tell nobody is asking why you can still freely buy many GFWL games that are known to not be getting fixes without any notification that the experience will change or end for them in about 2 ½ months.

I had hopes that with Bioshock, and Batman getting stripped so quickly that more would follow, but that looks like they're going to be about it. I have a number of games tied to GFWL that don't look like they will be getting any fixes, and I would assume the average gamer would have a something in their collection they would like to hold on to.

The initial reaction seemed surprisingly tepid in retrospect. The main GOG thread on the topic to date has only clocked in about 4 pages. It's somewhat of an apples oranges thing to compare it to the recent GOG policy change outrage, but we know what it looks like when people get serious about something, and this just doesn't seem to be getting people worked up.

Is it just not a big deal? Too early to talk about? Are companies right in thinking nobody cares so why bother, or do games actually need to stop working before people would even take notice their games were making ticking noises?

Many of us prefer DRM free (even tho some of us have a number of games on other services..)so you might not find too many upset its going down the toilet. Having said that, is there a definitive list of affected games and whats likely to happen to them?. Will they all work with an offline profile at all once its shut off?.

It's for me. I'm not yet fully aware which games will be affected and particularly how much. I'm not even aware when that whole thing is supposed to happen. I thought it had already happened and when I ran a GFWL game just a week ago or so the thing that popped up was an update (at a point at which I was expecting an error or something). It's too early for me to go on raging. When it turns out that I can't enjoy some of my favourite games even in single player anymore, THEN I'll get pissed.

It's hard to find much of anything definitive because so little is being said about it. Some old articles even remark about how little the waves are given the possible implications. I've seen conflicting information about SF4, but for the most part Capcom has said it "has no plans" for games like Street fighter x Tekken, which can still be bought. That game specifically is only a couple years old, and one I personally own and would like to keep going. The official word on Dark Souls was "exploring options" which was from January.

As of now there is nothing new on it. The PC version of that game is about 2 years old. With DS2 rolling out it would seem like the smart play to just ignore GFWL and hope people are encouraged to buy the new game. I know SF x T wasn't wildly popular but I like it and it's quite sad that a major game maker doesn't feel the slightest need to support what I would still consider newer games. Maybe if I was 20 then 2 years would seem like a long time, but it takes me 2-4 years to get around to something half of the time.

When it comes to GOG not talking about it I would think that the anti-DRM crowd would be interested in the discussion if only to say we told you so, and from what I'm reading there is a general air of apathy about the issue.

I'm happy about the games that made the switch to Steamworks, I'm unsure which games didn't though.

GFWL clearly lost battle for the consumer against Steam despite having the sheer advantage in corporate weight, though Valve had the advantage of having longer experience in this.
I have to say though, if Microsoft really wanted GFWL to be a succes they should have pushed through like Valve did with Steam and EA with Origin, though I think Microsoft never really cared about PC gaming after they went console anymore.
The funny thing is that all the things I hated about GFWL like being bloatedly present in your game and such have gradually found their way to Steam.
I think Microsoft is going to regret disbanding GFWL someday, maybe all it needed was a namechange.

I found this http://www.joystiq.com/2014/01/17/games-for-windows-live-is-dying-we-check-the-life-support-of-ga/

Best I've found thus far, but it's from January.

I think the biggest issue there was that they never put their corporate weight behind GFWL, whatsoever. Maybe they put some weight behind getting some companies to use it, but they barely put any effort into GFWL itself it seemed.

Most games that use Games for Windows Live can be played with a local profile. The only exception that has a single-player mode is Bulletstorm.

SO this wont work at all?

No. If you try to use a local profile the game says that you can't use it, or something like that. I don't know who came up with the brilliant idea of using Server Side Authentication and Modular Access in a G4WL game.

Bulletstorm got removed from Steam over it I believe.

I hear people say stuff about local profiles, but can you still install if there is no way to authenticate? Then there is patching if you are outside of Steam. Like SSFV:Arcade limits the character roster in the base installer if you aren't connected. It got patched out after an outcry over it, but how do you get the patch post shutdown?

Devs? Publisher?

The same devs/publishers that aren't interested in addressing the issue?