interview: advertisements coming to cs

[peagle]

Zips wrote..

I don't think I've ever seen an online petition from petitionsonline ever work though. Even for non-game related items.

Wasn't there a petition to remove the shield? I don't see it in source

[WooFerPPK]

Questions un-answered!!?

IN GAME ADVERTISING?!!?

VALVE?!?!?!???!?!!



I have nothing to say, Except that i am extremely disappointed with this company. I thought they were better than this. I guess they are going to become another EA that just produce shit after shit. with ads.

[g0r3gyle]

Edited by [user="451385"] @ [time="1165711013"]

i think its an effort to move people beyond 1.6 on to source. thats why the updates have screwed things up, thats why the bugs havent been fix that were caused by these updates. i think they know its not going to go well, and are actually planing it.

also, what about custom maps, the only way to advertise in those would be the hud/spec screen. so i get the feeling custom maps will become a common playing ground.

this wouldnt bug me if and only if they drastically improve the game and fix the bugs with the revenue.

[Zips]

mouth wrote..

Bullshit there isn't, fuckstick. Only a rabid moron views EULAs as anything of substance. Welcome to the concept of not being able to completely nullify consumer rights simply by creating an unverifiable, one-sided wishlist of presumptuous legalese.

Uh-huh. There's a reason for EULA's and having users agree to them. You don't own the software and the EULA grants the developers the rights to change whatever they like, whenever they like. It's quite sound and any minor legal waters you disturb will not win against a solid EULA/SSA. Good luck trying though.

peagle wrote..

Wasn't there a petition to remove the shield? I don't see it in source

I don't think the petition worked for that. I hated the shield because of how poorly it was implemented (can't shoot through the glass part or the sides at the bottom? WTF was that?).



Then again, most of the community wanted it gone.

[K-16]

Least I could use my hosts file for SWAT 4... I wonder if my Steam account will be disabled if I adjust my hosts file to block Counter-Strike 1.6's ads? Furthermore, would event sponsors (like the CPL) conflict with the in-game ads should the sponsors happen to be a competitor to whatever was shown in-game?



I suppose they could also do what EA did, and show game-related ads like Team Fortress 2 or something. I assume IGA won't do ALL the advertising if VALVe had the administrative control.



Oh and for the record, custom maps won't work since there will be an ad in the scoreboard as one of its implementations.

[Gpig]

Zips wrote..

Uh-huh. There's a reason for EULA's and having users agree to them. You don't own the software and the EULA grants the developers the rights to change whatever they like, whenever they like. It's quite sound and any minor legal waters you disturb will not win against a solid EULA/SSA. Good luck trying though.



I don't think the petition worked for that. I hated the shield because of how poorly it was implemented (can't shoot through the glass part or the sides at the bottom? WTF was that?).



Then again, most of the community wanted it gone.

I thought EULAs didn't hold up in court. Something about not being able to merely click to sign away basic rights. I could have sworn it was something like how rock climbing wavers don't hold up, but maybe it's like NDAs etc. where they actually do

[Zips]

Gpig wrote..

I thought EULAs didn't hold up in court. Something about not being able to merely click to sign away basic rights. I could have sworn it was something like how rock climbing wavers don't hold up, but maybe it's like NDAs etc. where they actually do

A majority of the time they hold up. Otherwise, what would be the point in having one? Most EULA's are so air tight there is virtually no chance of winning a legal battle against one.

[mouth]

Zips wrote..

Uh-huh. There's a reason for EULA's and having users agree to them. You don't own the software and the EULA grants the developers the rights to change whatever they like, whenever they like. It's quite sound and any minor legal waters you disturb will not win against a solid EULA/SSA. Good luck trying though.

There is a reason for users having to agree with them, and it's based entirely on the entirely incorrect premise that it actually proves anything. It's been gone over time and time again, the differences between clicking on a button and signing a physical contract. If the RIAA has such a time applying downloads to individual users via logs and IP addresses despite having the cards stacked in their favor, EULAs are on even shakier ground.



Furthermore, there are several real-world caveats that have yet to be dealt with by a judge that knows his shit. For starters, i'd love to see a real judge's opinion on the notion that people should be expected to read every EULA for every piddling piece of software, especially when they basically add up to an unpalatable, pseudo-legal "Yeah, we'll do whatever we want. Fuck you, user". And especially when they're always presented with those bullshit 300 pixel by 20 pixel windows. And this isn't even mentioning how EULAs are often presented in this unreadable way after the user has already purchased said product, which in this consumer climate is usually unreturnable. And on that note, it's not to mention that they're really not returnable if purchased via STEAM, which leads us back to that nice little consumer rights issue with First Sale and whatnot.



Face it, these things are deliberately made as unreadable as possible. Does that not send up warning flags for you? EULAs are pipedream kitchen sink "gotchas" devised by an industry that wants everything from the user while delivering as little as possible. The only reason they've survived this long is because they simply haven't had much judicial scrutiny, and the only way they'll continue to hold up is if publishers start abusing the legal system by the usual "out-lawyering" tactics pioneered by certain other crazy, consumer-hostile entertainment industries.



Now make yourself useful and go get that fucking followup grilling.

[Fragalishus]

Well I've been boycotting Steam for about a year and a half and see no reason to stop doing so, just another drop in the bucket of worthlessness that is Steam.



My biggest problem with it, aside from the obvious money-grubbing whore-ishness of it all, is that gaming is an outlet to get away from all that corporate branding crap we live with 24/7. Or at least it used to be, I should say.



Now Mountain Dew is going to buy out Pop Dog, fire all the employees and sell the manufacturing plant in pieces.



But I've given up trying to convice other people to boycott. If you really want to be heard, just stop buying their crap. Only way they'll really get the message. Unfortunately, there's still entirely too many saps in the world, and Valve is well aware of that fact.

[Zips]

All well and good... if living in a little fantasy world there. Thing is, EULA's are legally binding contracts. Users are expected to read through them, and if they agree then they say that they accept. That right there is a binding contract between user and developer. It is not the developer's responsibility to ensure that you read it, and if you don't read it and you still accept it, you've nobody to blame but yourself.



They are air tight. Lawyers spend a ton of time drafting these things up to cover any and all liabilities to protect the company from any potential problem and you agree to it. This isn't just any company here, this is Valve, and their agreement has always been made public. Feel free to check the bottom of their steampowered page for a link to the Steam Subscriber Agreement that YOU and every other user agreed to.



This also has absolutely nothing to do with returning a game either, however it's also mentioned that if the product doesn't perform as intended, oh well. There have been cases where Valve has refunded money for an un-working product, but it is very rare and will only happen after much inquiry. Why? Because you bought the product as is. If it works for some, then it could/should work for you and it is your fault it does not work.



They're only unreadable for the lazy and the disinterested. They are meant to be read, but if you cannot find the time or the methods of reading through the contract you are about to sign into, that is your problem. You agreed to it, and you cannot do anything about it in a legal sense. This is just the same as with any contract be it electronic or hand written.

[Gpig]

I hate consumer rights as well.

[entRo]

Is CS-Nation going to conduct a proper interview with Valve?

[Zips]

entRo wrote..

Is CS-Nation going to conduct a proper interview with Valve?

No, we'll continue with these flights of fancy interviews in the future.

[< )))><]

Edited by [user="382762"] @ [time="1165727355"]

Wow. What a bunch of greedy assholes. That's all I can say at the moment. I swear, if it get to the point where I'm playing HL2 and I see ads, I'm going to be enraged.

[mousiehamster]

Um, I dunno how it's done in the US but here in HK and the UK, we have something called "CECO". It stands for Control of Exemption Clauses Ordinance. It basically invalidates contracts that exempt negligence, breach of terms (contained in the contract itself!) and also applies a "reasonableness" test to exemption clauses, using certain guidelines. Clauses such as "in the case of a dispute, valve retains the right to make the final judgment" for instance, wouldn't hold up in court. Then there's also a vast amount of case law governing the whole contractual interaction between consumer and producers. That, and the fact that the EULA is only presented after purchasing the game pretty much voids the legal significance of all the terms. Of course, this is UK law. I'm not sure how it's done in America, but i would envisage though that if I was to sue, seeing that i purchased the game from HK, seeing that my game is an "asia-pacific edition", all lawsuits should fall under local jursidiction.



Valve is getting away with this because nobody has bothered sueing. Understandable, considering the audience of computer/console games in general are teenagers. They don't have the resources, legal knowledge or time - that, and the cost of the video game itself isn't any substantial. But I do think that the audience of computer games is maturing, and it certainly seems that the way games are marketed nowadays, in addition to the hefty hardware requirements, is supportive of an economically dependent target audience. I guess it'll only be a matter of time before the sueing really starts.



As for how i feel regarding the matter, I think valve's actions are immoral and put the consumer at a decidedly large disadvantage. There is no reason to implement ads on pre-existing games. The case of 2142 was bad enough: the ad revenue didn't do anything to make 2142 cheaper, have extra features etc. Basically, the ads are implemented at our detriment. I can already see the direction the game industry will go, and that is a convergence of their behavior.