kerosine99 wrote..Thats exactly what i thought, duke3d
Duke Nukem?
-
-
Edited by [user="151473"] @ [time="1137263366"]rizzuh wrote..
I know you're a businessman, and I know you know how the business world works. From a business standpoint, I (and I'm sure you can as well) see why Valve doesn't want these ads up on community servers. Unlike the ads that are in place for plugins or mods (Manimod being a big one right now in Source servers), these are promoting another tangible and money making business. Where's Valve's cut in this area of in-game advertising?
So if Valve was making the money it is fine, but if the server operators make money there's something seriously wrong? I think that's backwards. Valve shouldn't demand anything from the free servers that support this community. Valve should let the server operators and companies that make their online games actually playable do whatever they want with the hardware and bandwidth that so many admins are freely providing to the community.
Do I think servers should have ads? No. Do I think server admins should have the right to decide that for themselves? Yes. Valve has zero place telling server admins what they can put on their servers, regardless of whatever an un-tested EULA states.
Now, I don't know the reason behind Valve's actions on this matter, be it from a concern for the community and a wish to make them happy, or a desire to preserve the game they spent years creating, or a "hey, we aren't seeing anything from this. This isn't fair, let's stop this right now" sort of standpoint. Hey, maybe it's some combo of any of those, or for some seperate reason in and of itself. I don't know, so it'd be foolish to make any presumptions based on that lack of insider knowledge, but I'm going to do just that.
I doubt Valve would mind too much if the profits from the ad placements all went to the server operators, but as Engage is also a business, you know they're taking their "fair" share as well. I also don't believe this would be much of a (legal) issue either if Engage came to some legal agreement with Valve to place these ads in the first place.
Like I said, for those uninformed about the ads in the games, one would think they should be in the maps and may think less of Valve believing that they are the ones responsible for forcing their ads upon the end-user. Thinking less in the company you believe placed the ads in the games would have a resounding negative impact on the future sales from that company.
Personally, I think that if I ever saw those ads in a server I joined, I'd immediately disconnect from it. There's no need for those huge displays plastered all over the map in some of the most asinine locations possible.Comment
-
rizzuh wrote..
The same logic would say VALVe's cybercafé program is baseless. Cybercafé owners also put forth money on hardware and are promoting a VALVe product... yet they're also making their money as a direct result of VALVe's games, and the courts have already ruled in favor of VALVe charging on an ongoing basis for the right to do that.
Valve shouldn't demand anything from the free servers that support this community. Valve should let the server operators and companies that make their online games actually playable do whatever they want with the hardware and bandwidth that so many admins are freely providing to the community.
Here's the basic premise: if you want to provide VALVe's users with a free service because you enjoy doing so (and/or the control and power that comes as a result) then VALVe is perfectly willing to let you use their software. If, however, you wish to pay them nothing, and use their software for your own financial gain, then there's an issue.Valve has zero place telling server admins what they can put on their servers, regardless of whatever an un-tested EULA states.
It would appear that VALVe is probably more focused on Engage's actions, rather than those of specific server admins. Many server owners have been coming up with methods of deferring server costs for a long time (such as charging a nominal amount for admin access / reserved slots) without VALVe ever attempting to interfere.
Engage, on the other hand, isn't deferring their server costs; they're exploiting the popularity of VALVe's software for their independant financial gain. Not only that, but they're doing so in a way that additionally harms VALVe's corporate image. You've got no basis at all from which to say that VALVe shouldn't be concerned about that.
I appreciate the "stirring the pot" post and all, heh, but the argument doesn't appear to hold up very well.Comment
-
I'm sorry.. did.. did Rizzuh just disagree with one of the statements made by Valve? That has to be a violation of article #3306 of the "Running a CS Fan Website" manual, section 43.Comment
-
Valve isn't acting for us, they're doing it for themselves. Remember Sony's BS with the DRM? This is a similar situation. They would be shooting themselves in the foot. The last thing they want is the bad publicity.Comment
-
Black Winter Day wrote..
You can't possibly compare the two.
Valve isn't acting for us, they're doing it for themselves. Remember Sony's BS with the DRM? This is a similar situation. They would be shooting themselves in the foot. The last thing they want is the bad publicity.Comment
-
If adds payed for the server I played on then I wouldnt mind them.
Obviously there would be a limit to how many textures are replaced with adds before I moved onto another serverComment
-
Premo_Maggot wrote..
Posted by Zonk on Friday January 13, @04:06PM
I actually read here first.
Posted by -:Nighthawk:- at 5:40 pm pst - 1/12/06
Shoulda been keeping up to date with the CSN comments. :Pomgomgz wrote..
Despite being fans of the games, we're still not VALVe's corporate mouth, so we're free to hold our own opinions--no matter how wrong they may be.
I'm sorry.. did.. did Rizzuh just disagree with one of the statements made by Valve? That has to be a violation of article #3306 of the "Running a CS Fan Website" manual, section 43.
Comment
Comment