Difference between revisions of "Talk:CS Beta"

From Valve Developer Community
Jump to: navigation, search
m (typo)
(I wasn't replying...)
 
(7 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown)
Line 5: Line 5:
 
::Woah woah woah, no way would that be the case. This is a way for VALVe to make more money on the most popular first-person shooter game. '''[[User:DogGunn|DogGunn]]'''&nbsp;<sup>([[User talk:doggunn|Talk]]&nbsp;|&nbsp;[mailto:[email protected] @])</sup> 02:01, 22 Feb 2007 (PST)
 
::Woah woah woah, no way would that be the case. This is a way for VALVe to make more money on the most popular first-person shooter game. '''[[User:DogGunn|DogGunn]]'''&nbsp;<sup>([[User talk:doggunn|Talk]]&nbsp;|&nbsp;[mailto:[email protected] @])</sup> 02:01, 22 Feb 2007 (PST)
 
:::This is only a way to get money, and a brilliant one at that - I highly doubt VALVe would make free a game which is so immensely popular, and unless these ads hinder the playability or performance of the game, I see no reason why server administrators should complain... --[[User:Steamfraiser|Steamfraiser]] 11:54, 27 Feb 2007 (PST)
 
:::This is only a way to get money, and a brilliant one at that - I highly doubt VALVe would make free a game which is so immensely popular, and unless these ads hinder the playability or performance of the game, I see no reason why server administrators should complain... --[[User:Steamfraiser|Steamfraiser]] 11:54, 27 Feb 2007 (PST)
 +
::::The contention here is that we people who have already paid for counter strike are feeling wronged. We don't like in-game ads, and they weren't there when we made the decision to buy the game. Valve getting double-paid at our expense feels more like a betrayal than a logical business plan. We paid for our copies of the game, we pay for our servers, why should we be exploited like this?
 +
::::However, that's not to say that it's not an entirely bad idea if it's implemented properly. For instance, Valve could set it so that CS is free game with ads, but people who've paid for it don't have to put up with the ads at all. Another option would be to have the valve-produced levels containing tasteful and appropriate ads in-game, as long as they enhance realism instead of harming it.[[User:LOLRANDOM|LOLRANDOM]] 17:19, 10 Mar 2007 (PST)
 +
:::::Could someone post a link to more information on this (sorry I have been looking but to no success), like how it looks - how it works (will server owners get kickbacks from amount of players etc.) interesting concept and I think it will only help game development. [[User:Monolith|Monolith]] 20:20, 19 Mar 2007 (PDT)
 +
::::::Bad idea! I wrote some satire then got bored, here's the thread:
 +
::::::http://www.rememberteh.name/NEEDadsvalve.zip (Valve decided to censor me since they don't wany anyone speaking ill of the ads)
 +
::::::Unless [[User:Katana314|Katana314]] is right about this leading to CS 1.6 becoming a free game then this is very stupid. If it were to become a free game with ads in it then people exempt us paid users from the advertising, I think that making CS 1.6 would be a good idea as people might use it as a trial for Source, since Counter-Strike 1.6 is currently sold for $10 in the Steam store it shouldn't be too hard to make that back per-user in advertisements. --[[User:Agret|Agret]] 05:23, 24 Mar 2007 (PDT)

Latest revision as of 20:12, 24 March 2007

This is the dumbest idea I've ever heard. People already paid for the game and Steam shouldn't be allowed to make more money from us playing it in our servers. If you are going to have ads then you need to also provide a free server for everyone that plays counter-strike. Or have them be disabled by default because I would want no such thing on my copy or my server.

I heard that this would be leading to CS 1.6 becoming a free game...is anyone able to confirm this? --Katana314 18:28, 17 Feb 2007 (PST)
Woah woah woah, no way would that be the case. This is a way for VALVe to make more money on the most popular first-person shooter game. DogGunn (Talk | @) 02:01, 22 Feb 2007 (PST)
This is only a way to get money, and a brilliant one at that - I highly doubt VALVe would make free a game which is so immensely popular, and unless these ads hinder the playability or performance of the game, I see no reason why server administrators should complain... --Steamfraiser 11:54, 27 Feb 2007 (PST)
The contention here is that we people who have already paid for counter strike are feeling wronged. We don't like in-game ads, and they weren't there when we made the decision to buy the game. Valve getting double-paid at our expense feels more like a betrayal than a logical business plan. We paid for our copies of the game, we pay for our servers, why should we be exploited like this?
However, that's not to say that it's not an entirely bad idea if it's implemented properly. For instance, Valve could set it so that CS is free game with ads, but people who've paid for it don't have to put up with the ads at all. Another option would be to have the valve-produced levels containing tasteful and appropriate ads in-game, as long as they enhance realism instead of harming it.LOLRANDOM 17:19, 10 Mar 2007 (PST)
Could someone post a link to more information on this (sorry I have been looking but to no success), like how it looks - how it works (will server owners get kickbacks from amount of players etc.) interesting concept and I think it will only help game development. Monolith 20:20, 19 Mar 2007 (PDT)
Bad idea! I wrote some satire then got bored, here's the thread:
http://www.rememberteh.name/NEEDadsvalve.zip (Valve decided to censor me since they don't wany anyone speaking ill of the ads)
Unless Katana314 is right about this leading to CS 1.6 becoming a free game then this is very stupid. If it were to become a free game with ads in it then people exempt us paid users from the advertising, I think that making CS 1.6 would be a good idea as people might use it as a trial for Source, since Counter-Strike 1.6 is currently sold for $10 in the Steam store it shouldn't be too hard to make that back per-user in advertisements. --Agret 05:23, 24 Mar 2007 (PDT)