Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Counter-Strike Opens Weapons Market 284

kalpatin writes "The ever so popular game, Counter Strike:Source developed by Valve, has a new feature added to the game: A virtual marketplace for the weapons and equipment. According to Valve, every item's price will be updated on a weekly basis depending on the global market demand. Some users have posted their anger toward the new change on the Valve forums and have even started a petition to stop the change. Is Valve turning into Microsoft by introducing features that are not needed or wanted by the community, or are they merely spicing the game up?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Counter-Strike Opens Weapons Market

Comments Filter:
  • We are screwed (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Realistic_Dragon ( 655151 ) on Saturday September 23, 2006 @10:34AM (#16166965) Homepage
    It's ok, if you don't like it just don't download the patch and just continue playing it your way with your mates on the local LAN...

    Oh, wait, it's a Steam Game.

    Guess you are screwed then. This is what happens when you buy locked down products - and if you want more examples, just look at what happened to SWG (did you get a refund when the game turned into something that you were not sold? could you carry on playing the game you *were* sold?) or World of Warcraft (goodbye, forty man raids, around which a lot of players have built their guilds).

    What happens in the future when this kind of crap gets extended to other aspects of life via DRM? Lucas might 'upgrade' every release of star wars automatically when he finishes the new tri-gital remastered version, now with 3D Jar Jar Binks. Apple might cut down the number of times you can burn your purchased songs to CDs without giving you a chance to stick to the old terms and conditions.

    Normally such a rant would end with some message of hope for the future. Well here it is: In my case I'm going to work very hard to make sure I'm on the end doing the exploiting, so I get to enjoy it all the way to the bank.
  • by linuxkrn ( 635044 ) <gwatson@lRASPinuxlogin.com minus berry> on Saturday September 23, 2006 @10:39AM (#16167003)
    Well,

    Like a lot of people on here, I ran out and bought HL2 when it first came out. I had my reservations about steam but wanted to give them a fair shot. That's what I did, and that's why I'm never buying another one of their products again.

    You see, this issue just brings into light the whole concept that is so bad about publisher over-the-net supplied games. Let's compare this to a regular CD/DVD/etc game. Lord of the Rings BFE2 just came out with a major patch that completely changes unit times/strengths, etc. It's almost like playing another game. Not getting into a debate of if it's good or bad, but if **I** decided I don't want to apply it then I can keep playing. As long as others out there don't like it too, I can even play on-line. In CS:S, we are screwed if we don't update. You can't play period. That not only gives steam control over when and where you play, but your game experience. Don't like what they've done now, too bad.

    Who knows how long they will continue to support HL2. But without their auth/update servers, the game will not work. I won't be buying anything like this again for that very reason. Anyone else notice this is the new trend. Even MS is moving toward this model. Complete control, and I'm not going to give it. Voting with my wallet, suggest you do the same too.
  • The CS Community (Score:5, Interesting)

    by onion2k ( 203094 ) on Saturday September 23, 2006 @10:48AM (#16167077) Homepage
    The CS community always complains about any significant change prior to actually seeing how it affects the game. The recent radar change was a prime example. So many people were moaning about it when it was announced, and yet now it's been rather well accepted as a good update.

    This marketplace idea is the same sort of thing. It sounds interesting to me. I'm looking forward to seeing how it changes the game.

    I do have a couple of small reservations though:

    1. It could "unbalance" clan matchs. If Clan X plays Clan Y one week when the M4 is expensive then they'll have a very different game than when they play Clan Z when the M4 is cheaper. While each game is fair I think any comparison of games (we beat Clan Z, how come we lost to Clan Y?) will be skewed.

    2. Weapons that are available to both sides will always have more spent on them than weapons unique to one team. For example, the M4 and the CK are only available to the one side, while the AWP and the P90 are available to both sides. That presumably will mean the AWP and P90 have more spent on them in any one week, pushing them into the top 50% half where prices increase. I hope Valve have thought about that, I'd hate all the shared weapons to increase while the unique weapons fall. Not just coz I'm a P90 spray'n'pray player of course.. :)
  • Competitive Play (Score:3, Interesting)

    by oskard ( 715652 ) on Saturday September 23, 2006 @10:52AM (#16167097)
    This game is not just used by casual gamers. Professional competition gamers play this CS:Source in tournaments both online and offline. I wonder if the weapon prices will affect the way tournaments are held. If a LAN doesn't update Steam in a while, could they possibly have old market prices? Will Valve allow servers to control whether or not their server abides by the market rules?

    All I know is, the competitive community is absolutely opposed to this update. We just want a fun, team oriented game to play. Not an RPG.
  • It's about time. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by rohlfinator ( 888775 ) on Saturday September 23, 2006 @11:00AM (#16167157)
    The traditional Counter-Strike weapon system was one of the biggest flaws of the game, in my opinion. Sure, it added a nice touch of realism and a bit of strategy, but the pricing structure made 90% of the guns effectively useless. It's very rare to join a server and see someone using a gun other than the Colt/AK or sniper, because they're so overwhelmingly powerful and still pretty cheap.

    Basically, this means that the weaker guns will now have a purpose, since they'll be much more affordable. I'm sure the Colt and AK will still be heavily favored, but at least now it'll be harder to get them in the second round of a match.

    And a note to the critics: If you don't care for these changes, CS 1.6 is still alive and well. CS:Source is a great opportunity for Valve to play around with the previously stagnant formula (by adding a new radar system, for example) without alienating older players. Let's not ruin that... we don't need two versions of the same game.
  • Re:The CS Community (Score:3, Interesting)

    by The MAZZTer ( 911996 ) <.moc.liamg. .ta. .tzzagem.> on Saturday September 23, 2006 @11:06AM (#16167187) Homepage

    1. Servers will probably be able to toggle a CVAR to use old prices.

    2. If Valve thought this through carefully enough to separate pistols from other weapons, I think they would've thought about this by now. The game probably considers them both the same weapon price-wise.

  • Gah! Exploitable! (Score:3, Interesting)

    by SanityInAnarchy ( 655584 ) <ninja@slaphack.com> on Saturday September 23, 2006 @11:29AM (#16167363) Journal
    Let's say I hate a particular weapon. The popular weapon to hate, last I was there, was the AWP, so let's use that as an example.

    Set up a server with unlimited buy time and a few million dollars of starting money. Now, start the spammage. Buy, drop, buy, drop, buy, drop. Before you know it, the AWP is completely impossible to afford, no matter what server you're on.

    Suppose only one purchase per round counts. Ok, fine, now add a custom map, and do it with a friend, dropping buy time and time between rounds as much as you can tweak them. Now you alternate. Buy, snipe, respawn, buy, snipe, respawn. You don't even have to drop it this time -- whoever got sniped will have dropped their AWP.

    This can be done for any weapon. Before long, someone will have written a mod that does it automatically. Imagine -- someone doesn't like that weapon you're carrying? They punch one button and their server starts spamming Valve with new price information. If you manage to kill them, they'll never be able to afford that weapon again.

    It's an interesting idea, but Valve is about to learn that it's much more difficult to balance an MMO market, where so many things are in the players' control, than to balance arbitrary weapon prices or abilities. They should've just quietly collected statistics, and then set the prices based on those statistics, probably still having to manually tweak them, and tell us when they're all done, thus giving no one the opportunity to exploit it. Here, they're just asking for trouble.
  • Re:It's about time. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Cowpat ( 788193 ) on Saturday September 23, 2006 @01:31PM (#16168221) Journal
    The traditional CS weapon buying system didn't add any realism. Counter Terrorist Soldiers do not have to buy their weapons out of a budget that comes from their own pocket. Their budget is also not defined by wether they got shot last time or not. Any good CT unit will be armed to the teeth (with armour and grenades and anything else they may happen to need) and will probably be all (or mostly) using the same type of gun - interchangeable ammunition clips are good as you can use 'your' gun all the time and get used to its little foibles rather than having to switch to a completely different gun when the one clip (which is all you could afford) runs out.
    The entire premise behind buying your weapons is broken and it heavily breaks the game - winning the first round gives you a very real advantage in your quest to win the second round (and conversely, losing the first round ties your hands behind your back for the next round).
  • by blindbat ( 189141 ) on Saturday September 23, 2006 @01:33PM (#16168231)
    I have binds for binding and buy items quickly because I KNOW THE PRICE OF THE ITMES. Now you go and buy a rifle and guess what? The 10% price increase means you won't be able to afford ammo. Good luck!
  • by Lord Aurora ( 969557 ) on Saturday September 23, 2006 @02:45PM (#16168801)
    Along the lines of TCE (which I haven't played, but sounds fun, if I can tear myself from FFXI) is the Army's recruiting-tool-turned-awesome "America's Army" game (which I have played). I'm too lazy to link to it, but go to the Army website and poke around, you'll find it. I played it a while ago, before the new update "Overmatch" came out, and if it was fun before, it looks like it rocks now. Most of the people playing are free from "WoW syndrome" (read: free from being a fucktard in general towards anything that moves) and a good majority are actually soldiers. The game is built around the Army's actual training simulators, so it's realistic as hell. Anyway. Check it out, you won't be disappointed.
  • Re:Gah! Exploitable! (Score:3, Interesting)

    by moochfish ( 822730 ) on Saturday September 23, 2006 @07:11PM (#16170791)
    Your comment assumes Valve either never plays their own game, or that they're morons. Obviously buy spamming could be a problem. So you can restrict the amount of data that gets updated to the server PER LICENSE KEY. Maps that encourage one gun over another will obviously skew their stats. And those types of maps (awp map, anybody?) are relatively popular. Don't you think they would take that into consideration?

    What if instead of total popularity, they looked at CHANGES in popularity, relative to that server's last data upload? Or what if they weight popularity of a gun based on how many DIFFERENT people buy it, seeing as some people absolutely love and stick to one or two guns (hmm, AK/M4?).

    I just don't get why you'd condemn them based on such crazy assumptions. If you thought of that little exploit in 2 minutes, I'm pretty sure their product managers, programmers, and testers noticed it months ago.
  • by Airon ( 108830 ) on Saturday September 23, 2006 @08:14PM (#16171233)
    As one of the developers of TC and TC:Elite, I can only say that many of us made this game because we did not like certain aspects of Counterstrike. While I do play an occasional match of CS:Source(it looks good and sounds alright), my favorite games are True Combat and True Combat Elite, because in those games it is a challenge to get the better of your opponent.

    Crosshairs no longer tickle my fancy. It completly destroys the immersion for me, which is why I'm a fan of COD2 as well, though not for multiplayer.

    The 0.49 release on Friday September 29th will introduce some classic CTF, as well as refine a lot of game mechanics, like aiming, moving and free climbing(on boxes and other stuff within a certain height).

    Oh and btw. It looks damn good as well. Check out the teaser video if you don't believe it.
  • by mrchaotica ( 681592 ) * on Saturday September 23, 2006 @09:33PM (#16171649)
    They've got every reason to [retain centralized control over multiplayer], and none not to. Cheating is endemic to CS and centralized control really helps prevent that.

    I have no problem with them having a centralized server network; I just object to them requiring it. I should have the option of running my own server and letting people directly connect to it without getting Valve involved.

    I'll agree that [making it difficult to use the software without it trying to phone home] could have been done better, but it was hardly 'megalomaniacal'.

    Are you kidding? Half-Life 1 could do that with no problem! And so can (hyperbolically speaking) every other computer game in the history of computer games! It's. Not. That. Hard.

    And the odds of [something ever happening to Valve or their servers] are? So close to zero to not be worth the time spent complaining about it.

    But not zero. In fact, on a long enough timescale, the odds approach 100%.

    Besides, it's the principle of the thing: if I buy something (as Valve claims I'm doing when I obtain a game from Steam), I expect to have rights to it in perpetuity. That guarantee simply isn't there, so I can't in good concience use the service. Maybe if Valve would just admit the truth that they're not "selling" anything via Steam at all, I'd reconsider. But then again, maybe not.

    Why should they [make a strong written commitment that they would create a version of the newer games that will certainly continue to work if something ever happened]? What onus do they have to you that would necessitate such a thing?

    Because they claim to be selling stuff! You can't sell something and yet reserve the "right" to take it away again!

    By the way, are you aware of their policies regarding accounts? Did you know that if they decide (unilaterally) that an account got "hacked" or was used for cheating, that they can disable it? And did you know that disabling an account removes all ability to use it, including single-player?

    Let me tell you a story: I own a copy of Half-Life, and although I bought it pre-Steam, it's been registered on Steam so that I could continue to play TFC. Anyway, had I stopped playing for about a year, but then decided to start again. But when I tried to log in, I was informed that my account was disabled (even though I hadn't even touched it)! So, I had to e-mail Valve and beg for it to be reinstated (guilty until proven innocent, you know), and then wait for several days for them to get back to me. I did eventually get my access back, but it tought me an important lesson:

    Nobody who OWNS a program should have to go through that BULLSHIT just to USE the PROPERTY they OWN!

    Valve is run by a bunch of assholes who apparently want to destroy the property rights of everybody but themselves. They need to be stopped, and Steam needs to die.

    And that's the bottom line.

Remember, UNIX spelled backwards is XINU. -- Mt.

Working...