Topic: Valve taking the high road?

[Xessive]

From Joystiq:

Despite the rise of micro-transactions and pay-per-download content in the PC and console worlds, Valve recently announce it has no intention of charging for downloadables in games such as Counter-Strike and Team Fortress 2.

Designer Robin Walker explains their logic that gives Valve a big gold star in our book: "You buy the product, you get the content ... We make more money because more people buy it, not because we try and nickel-and-dime the same customers."

Micro-transactions were innocent at first, but when we had to pay for horse armor in Oblivion and tutorials in Madden, the line had to be drawn. Kudos to Valve for a step in the "don't make the customers angry" (i.e. "right") direction.

Not bad, not bad.

[Pugnate]

Fuck yes. Steam may be a pain in the ass, but unlike other PC developers Valve still know their roots. They still represent us gamers in a lot of things.

[MysterD]

Fuck yes. Steam may be a pain in the ass, but unlike other PC developers Valve still know their roots.

I do like that Steam makes it easy to access a game out there -- especially older ones. And, this is good, as many older games have been updated on Steam, such as Arx Fatalis. Of course, HL is always getting updates from Steam. That is great. And it's great that I won't need the CD to play anymore, either -- for the most part.

But, the way Steam works is my problem. I can't get a patch separately, in case I just want to back-up the patch. And If I do a back-up for a game onto a disc, it'll be for the entire damn game! And Steam just -- well, it's a resource hog. And I don't like how Steam deals w/ us Single-player campaign gamers, either.

They still represent us gamers in a lot of things.

I'm sure DNF will be out before HL3, the way things are going here....

[Quemaqua]

This doesn't impress me.

"You buy the product, you get the content" ... except for, you know, if you bought something off of Steam, in which case you have no control over the content whatsoever, leaving us free to fuck over your experience at any time when all our stupid software doesn't work properly.

[beo]

can we please not makes this another anti-steam debate?

every time the words "steam" or "valve" are uttered on this forum it devolves into the same discussion we've had a dozen times before. there are downsides to steam, there are upsides. we are all well aware of both. the people who don't like it have made it *very* clear already. for someone like me it's great, because i can buy games at roughly 50% of the grossly inflated uk retail price. anyway, i'm tired of defending steam and valve and i'm simply not going to get drawn into it again.

back on topic. while i'm glad valve have taken this stance, i don't really hold them in any higher regard because of it - it should be the norm. companies that exploit customers with the "nickel-and-dime" routine should be ashamed. two words: horse armour. how much do you think that cost to make, and how much do you think they made from it? i mean obviously the choice is down to the consumer as to whether it's value for money or not, but in my mind it's nothing but exploitation of a loyal fan base.

[Jedi]

From Joystiq:
Not bad, not bad.

I'm sorry are we talking about the same Valve here?

[Quemaqua]

And I was directly addressing his stupid fucking quote, not starting anything.  If he hadn't opened his mouth, I wouldn't have said anything.

[MysterD]

Valve shouldn't be nickel-and-diming gamers for every and any new small piece that they release for their game -- whether it's new maps, new small levels to the game, a SDK, or whatever the hell they add. Neither should any other company, either -- for that matter. We gamers do not really need that trend to begin to become the norm by game companies, anyways.

Kudos to Valve w/ their stance of releasing extra small stuff for no cost to us gamers.

Now, go finish HL2: Ep Two and Ep Three, you bastards!

And improve/fix the issues I have w/ Steam itself, dammit!!

[idolminds]

They may not be nickel and diming us for content...but where do the ads in CS fit into the equation?

[beo]

They may not be nickel and diming us for content...but where do the ads in CS fit into the equation?

they're put in by the servers to pay for running costs, not valve. the servers i regularly play on don't have any adverts.

and sorry que, i wasn't referring to you directly, more d really. every time steam or valve are mentioned (no matter how relevant to the topic in question) i see the same complaints that i've seen a thousand times before, and it just pisses me off. it's a case of, "if you don't like it, buy your games in a shop and stay away from the evil corporation". i'm not against criticism of games or companies, it's productive, and if they fuck up, they need to know about it, but every fucking valve or steam topic! it's been said! it's old! seriously!

gahh, i've done it, i've involved myself in the conversation i didn't want to have.

[idolminds]

Seriously? Last I heard CS 1.6 has the ads built in by valve and a bunch of server ops were complaining because they werent being given a cut. That was like the last major update they made (which pissed off the players because the update added ads instead of gameplay fixes)

[beo]

Seriously? Last I heard CS 1.6 has the ads built in by valve and a bunch of server ops were complaining because they werent being given a cut. That was like the last major update they made (which pissed off the players because the update added ads instead of gameplay fixes)

ah, ok. i only play source now. haven't played 1.6 in quite a while, so i wouldn't know.

that kind of sucks. i guess you can justify it with the fact that they continually patch the game up with anti hack stuff, which is going to cost them money. still not ideal though, especially considering the server ops aren't getting anything for their advertising space.

[Quemaqua]

It's cool beo.  I've been trying to curb my Steam-bitching lately, so was hoping I didn't indulge myself too much.

[MysterD]

They may not be nickel and diming us for content...but where do the ads in CS fit into the equation?

Bah @ ads in games.

Hell, I never even played CS: Source or the Original CS -- and I've had these for years. Never had much of an interest in those.

Are they even any good???

[beo]

Bah @ ads in games.

Hell, I never even played CS: Source or the Original CS -- and I've had these for years. Never had much of an interest in those.

Are they even any good???

depends who you talk to. because the game is so popular, it's had a lot of backlash. from what i've seen the people who prefer other fps games hate it a lot louder than most games, because it has what they feel to be a popularity that is inordinate to it's quality. also, although it was the first big online tactical shooter, it spawned a large amount of clones. this has generated further backlash against this type of game mod. so when asking if it's a good game, you need to bear in mind that a lot of the insults the game gets don't really have much of a bearing on the game itself. although i am a massive counter strike fan, so i may be justifying the derogatory remarks with a certain amount of bias.

in my opinion, it's great. it's easily my favourite multiplayer game ever. if you can find a server with a good group of regulars who use voice coms effectively, and put in the time to learn the maps it can be a lot of fun. frustrating at times (dieing five rounds in a row with no kills isn't fun), but equally satisfying (killing fives guys in one round and defusing the bomb is pure gratification). you'll get your ass handed to you at first, but if you can stick with it, you might end up enjoying it!

[Quemaqua]

I've never liked it.  Has nothing to do with its popularity, it just isn't fun to me.  I hate the theme, there's only a couple levels I really like, and... I dunno'.  Just can't get into it.  Not to mention the community is largely full of asses, or at least it was the times when I tried it out.  It was like a giant pit full of 12 year olds.  Granted, that can sometimes be FPS games in general, but more recent shooters haven't seemed so bad to me as far as the player base goes.

Anyway, I'm not a fan, and the moves with the ads and stuff just make me even more of not a fan.

[idolminds]

I used to play a lot of CS back in its beta days. I mean, it was fun but with the round-based gameplay on the same 3 maps you just get completely burned out. Plus random pubs suck because there are a lot of assholes playing CS, its all trash talk. Beta was cool because everyone was nice and you'd just sit and laugh and shoot the breeze between rounds. Now its all "You suck, I pwned you!" and junk. Plus the objectives are so secondary they might as well remove them and just make strait up TDM since thats what everyone does anyway.

The only time I liked playing recently was some dude from the IGN PCGB would make games where we'd all play. It was a blast...more shooting the breeze and just having fun. But then...we could have played any game and gotten the same.

D, if you've already got the games you might as well try them. If you have buddies playing with you its much better than just joining random servers.

[scottws]

I tried playing CS a few times but I could never get into it.  I came from Return to Castle Wolfenstein, where I loved the class/objective-based gameplay.  CS in comparison seemed like any other TDM game.  Sure, there were objectives and occasionally someone would actually try for them, but like Que said mostly everyone's goal was simply to eliminate the other team.

I've never been much of a fan of TDM.  In UT2004 I always played the game type where you had to hold various strategic locations.  In Lost Planet, I always played Post Grab which is very similar.  I just don't like TDM.

While the single death per round is much more "realistic" than the spawn counter in RtCW and similar games, I found it far less fun to sit out 6-10 minutes than 20-30 seconds.  I always died within the first minute or two of a map.  I mean it was practically impossible to actually have fun.