bit-tech.net | Counter-Strike 1.6 ads ahoy!

DougEdey 6th March 2007, 11:58

Valve's aren't the only ads in the game!

There is an ad for GameHelper.com in there.

David_Fitzy 6th March 2007, 12:07

I would've thought they'd meld the ads into the space better. Having each board with a mask over it with dirt/rips/bullet holes/graffiti/plants, it looks like a banner ad in that screenshot.

I know advertisers would want their ads unobstructed but if it detracts from the feel of the games then people will be less inclined to play and then the ads will be seen by less people.

A dirty looking advert in game will be ignored by the consious mind but subconsiously it'll register, that's what ads try to do in the real world why not a virtual one.

west4sider 6th March 2007, 12:14

Isn't it right for the game publishers to give the games for free if there are advertisements in them

As in other businesses the advertisers pay the price ...

specofdust 6th March 2007, 12:18

It is, yes. They don't do it though. Of course you can just take the games for free and consider them ad-supported. Like I always say these days, we the consumers have the power - we're the ones who are in control of the money and if we don't like the terms we can take the product for free anyway. Game publishers gotta be careful.

west4sider 6th March 2007, 12:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by specofdust
It is, yes. They don't do it though. Of course you can just take the games for free and consider them ad-supported. Like I always say these days, we the consumers have the power - we're the ones who are in control of the money and if we don't like the terms we can take the product for free anyway. Game publishers gotta be careful.

You got that right :) This advertisement thing is going to spread the piracy even more ... who wants to pay for games with ads ... That Suxxx

;)

mad4it 6th March 2007, 13:09

One thing can you use the spray tags on the billboards? cause if you can a well placed "male apedage" or other funny items could be sprayed in funny places

Almightyrastus 6th March 2007, 13:16

Ok, so I don't play the game at all but doesn't it strike people as a little odd that there are ad boards around the walls of an area called aztec?

whisperwolf 6th March 2007, 13:58

Not really, ancient Aztec culture was well know for its high profile billboard advertising campaigns. ye olde ancient aztec would come home from the temple and look up in adoration at the Quetzalcoatl homemade rug emporium advert.

ps the above may be made up

plagio 6th March 2007, 15:28

:p :D :)

Mother-Goose 6th March 2007, 15:38

If you could shoot the billboards and make it break up that would be cool, obviously it regens each round so no harm done.

flabber 6th March 2007, 15:39

If they'd blend de adds into the atmosphere a bit more,
it wouldn't even hurt the map. AXE have made some
nice adds that don't even strike you as a weird image.
But if they're going to make a neon-add in an Aztec map... ouch :(

Djpuk 6th March 2007, 15:46

Given the outcry there was with BF2 advertising I am surprised there is not more being said as it affects the most popular online game on the planet.

z3rb 6th March 2007, 16:17

I hope this makes people move to Source. I have no idea why anyone would play CS1.6 (Maybe apart from technical limitations) nowadays.

Nix 6th March 2007, 16:18

Expect to see weapons and bombs models being plastered by haliburton advertisements :)

acron^ 6th March 2007, 16:41

Personally don't see what the bloody fuss is about. They don't affect the realism 'cos there isn't any and they don't hinder the game play. Who cares?

Meanmotion 6th March 2007, 16:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by z3rb
I hope this makes people move to Source. I have no idea why anyone would play CS1.6 (Maybe apart from technical limitations) nowadays.

lol

You obviously didn't play 1.6 very seriously.

Mosey 6th March 2007, 16:50

Gah, this is infuriating!
You would think that they would do it with some style, possibly add some torn effects and bullet holes or something. The block colours just don't blend in, it just looks awful.

I own a server (well with my clan) and i don't want to be forking out £25 a month to get an ad-ridden game with no option of turning them off. I can see this killing off some players fast.

randosome 6th March 2007, 17:32

man that just plain sucks

it looks like somone just tacked it on, and ontop of that they havent even fixed any of the problems with 1.6 - theyve just added more

now whats that IGA IP range ... :|

pendragon 6th March 2007, 17:59

wow.. that ad looks terrible.. I sure hope they fix that... I expect a lot of servers wont be hosting de_dust2 and de_aztec much in protest of that

z3rb 6th March 2007, 19:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by Meanmotion
lol

You obviously didn't play 1.6 very seriously.

Damned right, I don't.

Everything Valve does just causes these idiots to complain; liek the time the changed the radar in CSS.

TomH 6th March 2007, 20:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by z3rb
Damned right, I don't.

Everything Valve does just causes these idiots to complain; liek the time the changed the radar in CSS.

This is most-probably because Valve haven't had a good idea surrounding Counter-Strike since they bought the rights to it.

You would have thought that, considering you claim not to have played the game (or CS:S much by the sound of it), that you would've thought twice about condemning the rather large fanbase (remember: most popular online game) as a group of 'idiots'.

You don't know what you're talking about. End of story.

If people want to play Source, they can pay to play Source. Up until now though, CS 1.6 has been largely unaffected by Valve's interests -- this is WHY we play it. It's free, and it's been [almost] unaltered it's since the days of 1.3.

Now Valve have realised that this free game, whom so many people play day-in, day-out, is costing them more money than they can absorb from their other product sales (their own stupid fault for not releasing HL2:E2 soon enough), because of the bandwidth requirements used-up to deliver it by Steam.

The answer is apparently to include ads in the most popular maps played, in the hope that it increases revenue -- they don't really care about CS 1.6, or the people that play it -- they want people to play CS:S, it's their cash-cow-baby and they want you all to pay money for it.

So long as Valve keep screwing up CS:S with stupid ideas like the arms market (but we're idiots, so that can't have beed bad idea), I would not want to move away from CS 1.6. It's got all of the gameplay, all of the memories, and none of the meddling.

Back on topic: I do wonder how many people Gabe fired for shouting 'TORRENTS, YOU FOOL!' at the 'How can we make 1.6 profitable?' meeting.

Aankhen 6th March 2007, 21:14

I played 1.6 exclusively for a year or so, when I was first introduced to CS. I still don't understand why people prefer it to Source, aside from the fact that their computers can't handle Source.

jezmck 6th March 2007, 21:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by acron^
Personally don't see what the bloody fuss is about. They don't affect the realism 'cos there isn't any and they don't hinder the game play. Who cares?

what he said.

specofdust 6th March 2007, 22:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by acron^
Personally don't see what the bloody fuss is about. They don't affect the realism 'cos there isn't any and they don't hinder the game play. Who cares?

Clearly lots of us. Given the number of posts any thread about CS 1.6 getting ads garners.

DXR_13KE 6th March 2007, 22:50

Ads on a paid game is a NO in my book.
as for the CSS VS CS 1.6, really don't start that here, they are 2 completely different games, get over it.

nphekted 6th March 2007, 22:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by specofdust
Clearly lots of us. Given the number of posts any thread about CS 1.6 getting ads garners.

You forget that Valve can't even change the radar without being accused of ruining the game and killing competitive play though.

Every time Valve touches CS, 50 kittens die. Or so the community would have you believe.

acron^ 7th March 2007, 00:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by specofdust
Clearly lots of us. Given the number of posts any thread about CS 1.6 getting ads garners.

Obviously, but I think the motive behind these complaints is pretty lacklustre. One argument seems to suggest that ads in a game should mean it's free. What the hell? Magazines (for instance) are full of advertisements. You don't see people crying because they're not free!

I believe people are all to quick to jump on the "Valve are greedy" bandwagon. That's idiotic. As I've said in numerous posts, Valve are one of the most integral games studios out there. Adverts in games is a fantastic way to bring more revenue into the industry in general - not just into Valve. Take product placement in films for example. It's been going on for years and without it, we wouldn't get such heavily funded titles.

This is a natural progression for bringing games into the media limelight(sp?). Stop fighting it and just accept it. No one plays 1.6 to look at the walls. You should be looking for your enemies heads. That's what I do.

ZERO <ibis> 7th March 2007, 00:38

I run my own CS:S server currently 315 and climing in world rank.

If valve was to release ads for CS:S I would still host dust_2 office ect. but I would host them with the names Dust_2_noAds and cs_oddice_noAds becasue they would be the original maps(the ones without ads). I would only put the valve maps that have the ads in them on my server if valve gave me money to do so. This way the ads benefit me and reduce server cost.

Besides why show some one elses ads when I can use mani to place my own ads telling people to buy admin. :D

hobbs 7th March 2007, 01:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by acron^
Obviously, but I think the motive behind these complaints is pretty lacklustre. One argument seems to suggest that ads in a game should mean it's free. What the hell? Magazines (for instance) are full of advertisements. You don't see people crying because they're not free!

I believe people are all to quick to jump on the "Valve are greedy" bandwagon. That's idiotic. As I've said in numerous posts, Valve are one of the most integral games studios out there. Adverts in games is a fantastic way to bring more revenue into the industry in general - not just into Valve. Take product placement in films for example. It's been going on for years and without it, we wouldn't get such heavily funded titles.

This is a natural progression for bringing games into the media limelight(sp?). Stop fighting it and just accept it. No one plays 1.6 to look at the walls. You should be looking for your enemies heads. That's what I do.

They take a product that you have to buy and a product that they do NOT support anymore and they place ads in it because they want more money. YES valve is greedy, they manage to suck every last time they can milk out of cs 1.6 same thing when they started to charge for mods like garrys. Valve is stupid, they only see money and nothing else.

zero0ne 7th March 2007, 03:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by acron^
Obviously, but I think the motive behind these complaints is pretty lacklustre. One argument seems to suggest that ads in a game should mean it's free. What the hell? Magazines (for instance) are full of advertisements. You don't see people crying because they're not free!

the problem is, your magazine theory doesn't hold true, since you can consistently find subscriptions for the cheap... (ebay and whatnot, you'll maybe spend $5 for a 12 month subscription)

and in that case, you end up not really paying for the content, but instead the paper it was written on, and the ink that was used, along with delivery charges etc...

Javerh 7th March 2007, 06:18

Ancient Aztec cities didn't have huge billboards but they sure did have people tossing flashbangs and shooting bullets.

acron^ 7th March 2007, 10:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by zero0ne
the problem is, your magazine theory doesn't hold true, since you can consistently find subscriptions for the cheap... (ebay and whatnot, you'll maybe spend $5 for a 12 month subscription)

and in that case, you end up not really paying for the content, but instead the paper it was written on, and the ink that was used, along with delivery charges etc...

Well if you want it that way, the ads are paying for either the distribution packaging, CD pressing etc and/or they're paying for the upkeep of Steam and the Steam servers. That means you're paying for content and you cannot deny that Valve games quite easily deliver £30 worth of content.

Valve offer more than most and therefore require more funds than most.

Quote:

Ancient Aztec cities didn't have huge billboards but they sure did have people tossing flashbangs and shooting bullets.

Exactly!

[USRF]Obiwan 7th March 2007, 13:13

never seen a add in cs...

oohh my mistake it was the old cs... do people still play cs: old ?

randosome 7th March 2007, 16:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by [USRF]Obiwan
oohh my mistake it was the old cs... do people still play cs: old ?

yes i think its 1 of the most popular steam games

I wouldn't mind them adding this crap, if
a) they did it tastefully
b) they actually worked on the game which they are just trying to kill (eg fix the insesent hacking issues)

Without that, its just plain wrong to add this crap to the game just because its there
Why should everyone out there have to pay for the servers, but valve get the money from this scheme ? if valve were hosting the servers it would be another issue - but they don't

acron^ 7th March 2007, 17:16

If you care so vociferously, don't host a server.

randosome 7th March 2007, 17:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by acron^
If you care so vociferously, don't host a server.

I dont host a server, but that attitude wont solve anything, it still invades my game, and no-one is benefiting but valve
Its like saying, oh a nuclear missile going off doesn't bother me as long as it is in another country ..

orb 7th March 2007, 17:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by randosome
I dont host a server, but that attitude wont solve anything, it still invades my game, and no-one is benefiting but valve
Its like saying, oh a nuclear missile going off doesn't bother me as long as it is in another country ..

It doesn't

Mosey 7th March 2007, 17:36

Why can't the community just make de_dust3 and de_aztec2, making negligible changes or no changes at all to the map structure and textures, but merely eliminating the ads. Then just run the new maps instead of dust2 etc?

acron^ 7th March 2007, 17:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by randosome
I dont host a server, but that attitude wont solve anything, it still invades my game, and no-one is benefiting but valve
Its like saying, oh a nuclear missile going off doesn't bother me as long as it is in another country ..

It doesn't invade your game at all though. You're arguing against them for the sake of it. There's loads of other wall space for you to admire in aztec if that's what floats your boat.

z3rb 7th March 2007, 19:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by hobbs
when they started to charge for mods like garrys.

Garry chose to start charging for Garry's Mod. I for one am glad of that move because it allows him to create a better game (Full Source SDK)

bloodcar 7th March 2007, 19:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by acron^
Obviously, but I think the motive behind these complaints is pretty lacklustre. One argument seems to suggest that ads in a game should mean it's free. What the hell? Magazines (for instance) are full of advertisements. You don't see people crying because they're not free!

I believe people are all to quick to jump on the "Valve are greedy" bandwagon. That's idiotic. As I've said in numerous posts, Valve are one of the most integral games studios out there. Adverts in games is a fantastic way to bring more revenue into the industry in general - not just into Valve. Take product placement in films for example. It's been going on for years and without it, we wouldn't get such heavily funded titles.

This is a natural progression for bringing games into the media limelight(sp?). Stop fighting it and just accept it. No one plays 1.6 to look at the walls. You should be looking for your enemies heads. That's what I do.

The biggest reason I don't think that Valve is in the right here is the fact that they're not hosting the servers that you play on. They're not paying for that bandwidth and they're definatly not cuttings checks to the people who are paying for the upkeep of their servers. The game itself is pretty much not supported anymore so, yes, they are being greedy for placing ads in a game that hasn't received any major updates in, what, half a decade? If Valve wants to recoup the costs of distributing CS:1.6 over steam, then they need to put their damn ads on the download screen and not place them into the maps.

My point of this is...if they're going to put ads in games, FINE. But place them in games as they [b]come out[b] and not a decade later. It's their constantly mucking around with things that already worked and are now broken that have caused me to steer away from any Valve games of lately. Hell, Half-Life2 ran just fine on my computer when it first came out but thanks to one of their many updates, it's unplayable.

yodasarmpit 7th March 2007, 20:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by yodasarmpit 24-12-2006

I bought this game with the knowledge there would be no ads in it.

Valve do not cover the cost of the servers which make the game possible, as I stated in the other post the people who pay for the servers are the ones that make it possible for Valve to sell the game, no servers would equal no game.
Now why should an individual or company pay the running costs of a server that could potentially run ads for their competition.
My example would be the bit-tech/intel server potentially running hexus/AMD ads?

Also, think of it another way, would you be happy for Toyota to come along and put ad stickers on the side of your car 5 years after you bought it?
It wouldn't effect the driving capabilities of the car after all.

Log in

Counter-Strike 1.6 ads ahoy!

Related