Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Valve Angry Over Counter-Strike Subway Ads

Zonk posted more than 8 years ago | from the eat-fresh-lead dept.

Games 58

Gamepocalypse writes "I noticed over on GamePro that Valve is considering legal action over the Subway ads that Engage In-Game Advertising was pumping into Counter-Strike matches. Valve's Doug Lombardi: 'Advertising or any other commercial use of our games requires our written permission.'" I'm unclear on this: Were the ads actually in the game already, or was the company just saying they were going to put the ads in? If the ads were displayed in-game, how was that done without Valve's knowledge? If the ads weren't in the game ... why would you make a public claim like this without clearing it with Valve first? Odd all around.

cancel ×

58 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Only King Kong is similar? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14466969)

They list Similar Games:

Peter Jackson's King Kong...
Peter Jackson's King Kong...
Peter Jackson's King Kong...
Peter Jackson's King Kong...
Peter Jackson's King Kong...
Peter Jackson's King Kong...
So King Kong is the only game similar to CS? WTF? At least list SOCOM or Battlefield 2 or even GoldenEye so I can regain enough trust in GamePro to RTFA. I remember the old days, when games like Sonic 3 and editors like Scary Larry (whatever he called himself at a given time) graced the pages...

ridiculous (4, Insightful)

abandonment (739466) | more than 8 years ago | (#14466990)

This is ridiculous. There are hundreds of commercial server rental places that have in-game ads splattered all over CS servers and have for years.

Just because it's a non-CS commercial company that's doing this is irrelevant.

When we hosted CS servers a few years ago (pre 1.5 / steam), we were trying to figure out how to do the same thing. Considering how much money running game servers costs, bandwidth-wise, I don't see how Valve really has any say in the matter.

They should be happy to have server-operators willing to host their games, and if the gamers themselves don't care about the in-game ads to help buffer server costs, then so be it.

It's not like there isn't thousands of servers out there for CS anyways - if players don't like it, then market forces will react appropriately - ie players will go to a different server.

Re:ridiculous (2, Informative)

blanktek (177640) | more than 8 years ago | (#14467094)

The article specifically states this is a legal matter. How the law handles proper use of copyrighted material is what is important, although it does seem unfair. Using the engine may have different arrangements. You did read your EULA, didn't you?

Re:ridiculous (4, Interesting)

Jherico (39763) | more than 8 years ago | (#14467198)

It's not like there isn't thousands of servers out there for CS anyways - if players don't like it, then market forces will react appropriately - ie players will go to a different server.
That's not the point from Valve's perspective. If I was providing downloads of a popular TV show and inserting my own commercials in it, the producer of that show would expect compensation. The point here is that someone is using Counter Strike as a vehicle for profit and the creators of the premium content, Counter Strike, are not being compensated. Whether players like it or not is irrelevant.

Re:ridiculous (3, Insightful)

Guppy06 (410832) | more than 8 years ago | (#14467552)

"That's not the point from Valve's perspective. If I was providing downloads of a popular TV show and inserting my own commercials in it, the producer of that show would expect compensation."

No, the producer of the show would demand compensation regardless. Once an affiliate has bought and paid for the rights to distribute a show, it is out of the producer's hands whether or not there is any advertising included or how much of it there is.

The only way the producer could control the way the content was distributed would be through a clause in the license. And unless the game's license says "you can distribute the maps you make with this software freely, so long as you don't put any advertising into it," I don't see how Valve can have a leg to stand on.

Re:ridiculous (1)

eskwayrd (575069) | more than 8 years ago | (#14467579)

If I was providing downloads of a popular TV show and inserting my own commercials in it, the producer of that show would expect compensation.

That's because you would, in effect, be selling the show. You may not charge anything, but you'd increase your ad revenues by promoting the fact that you provide downloads for the show on your site.

This situation is different. Engage is using Counter-strike as a vehicle to sell something else. They're not actually trying to sell or promote Counter-strike itself.

I guess I have to do the /. thing, and use a poor analogy to ask a question somehow related to this discussion: If I make hammers, and someone buys lots of my hammers, slaps Subway stickers on them, and then sells them to contractors working near Subway stores, should I expect a portion of the advertising revenue?

Personally, I think not. I, as the hammer manufacturer, have already been compensated. Any extra revenue a marketing company, or other reseller of my hammers, can make as much or as little money as they can. I would watch the marketplace to determine whether I was selling my hammers at an appropriate price, but otherwise, it's no longer my business what the hammer ultimately sells for.

In this case, Valve has been compensated; users purchased Half-Life (or the appropriate Half-Life 2 bundle), and Counter-strike was provided for free. If someone is using features of the game to advertise that doesn't negatively affect game-play, then why should Valve be afforded any interest whatsoever? If they feel slighted, perhaps they should charge more for Counter-Strike.

If this ever goes to trial, and Valve wins, think of what it will mean. This could be the start of a period where _any_ manufacturer of goods, real or virtual, will claim a percentage of any future use of their product. I know it sounds awfully silly now, but would you be willing to pay a fee to Microsoft every time you visited a site with Internet Explorer that had non-Microsoft advertising on it? Would you be willing to pay a fee every time you opened your refrigerator door (because some of the food within is labelled like an advertisement)?

The book publishing industry has been attempting to make this very claim, despite the first-sale doctrine that says they have no further interest in the disposition of books after they are sold. The video game industry is trying very, very hard to make this claim with respect to used games, because that market is huge and they currently see none of the proceeds from secondary sales. So I can see where Valve thinks this make sense.

I think it's a lot of wishful thinking, and I hope Valve does not succeed in this case.

Re:ridiculous (2, Insightful)

valintin (30311) | more than 8 years ago | (#14467875)

Also as the hammer maker your not entitled to a profit from the use to which the hammer is put. You don't get a percentage of every house built by your hammer. Car manufactures are not compensated for adds and they don't get a percentage of taxi cabs profits.

But, what about product placement in movies? Do you have to pay Ford to use their cars in movies? What about cars in comercials? Do movies use generic soda cans because they can't use Pepsi or do they use generic soda because it creates a market for Pepsi to buy placement.

Re:ridiculous (1)

Generic Guy (678542) | more than 8 years ago | (#14471140)

But, what about product placement in movies? Do you have to pay Ford to use their cars in movies? What about cars in comercials? Do movies use generic soda cans because they can't use Pepsi or do they use generic soda because it creates a market for Pepsi to buy placement.

Those are trademark issues (showing a Pepsi product on a table) and are related to the company "image".
A sandwich ad inserted on the side of Valve's otherwise generic building isn't the same.

Re:ridiculous (1)

vertinox (846076) | more than 8 years ago | (#14467694)

If I was providing downloads of a popular TV show and inserting my own commercials in it, the producer of that show would expect compensation.

Online games are not TV shows. First off... Valve wrote the egine... (TV camera and the world), but they aren't the ones recording and trasnmitted the video (the game servers) nor are they writing the script and paying the actors (the players)

The programs and artwork are copyrighted, but its like saying you can't buy a movie poster, take it home, and modify it to have an add and then get sued because your friends saw it.

Re:ridiculous (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14468386)

no, i'd say it's more like someone putting adware into linux

Re:ridiculous (1)

Jherico (39763) | more than 8 years ago | (#14469241)

its like saying you can't buy a movie poster, take it home, and modify it to have an add and then get sued because your friends saw it.
No, is more like if I make an 'Indiana Jones and The Temptation of the Meatball Sub' poster, put it up in my local gaming cafe, and get money from the Subway next door becasue I'm driving business there. I fully expect to get sued by Lucasfilm.

Re:ridiculous (1)

nacturation (646836) | more than 8 years ago | (#14472985)

No, is more like if I make an 'Indiana Jones and The Temptation of the Meatball Sub' poster, put it up in my local gaming cafe, and get money from the Subway next door becasue I'm driving business there. I fully expect to get sued by Lucasfilm.

No, that's not it. It's as if you get Subway to pay you for wearing a Subway t-shirt in Disneyland. Should Disney sue you because you're profiting from their theme park? You've paid to get in, and unless the conditions of the purchase of your admission pass state that you can't display another company's branding, there's nothing Disney can do. Now a better analogy might be erecting a billboard in Disneyland, but that would be placing commercial ads on *their* property. When you run a game server the server and map are *your* property, not Valve's.

It really does boil down to the license conditions and whether or not this constitutes a violation.
 

Re:ridiculous (1)

Jherico (39763) | more than 8 years ago | (#14473426)

When you run a game server the server and map are *your* property, not Valve's.
The physical server is your property. Not the map, if its a Valve created map. Even if its a custom map thats the same as a Valve map with custom ad textures. That map belongs to Valve. It's licensed for your use and it doesn't belong to you any more than an episode of 'Friends' is yours because you own the TV that received it.

Re:ridiculous (1)

nacturation (646836) | more than 8 years ago | (#14474327)

Not the map, if its a Valve created map. Even if its a custom map thats the same as a Valve map with custom ad textures. That map belongs to Valve. It's licensed for your use...

Right, of course it's Valve's map... what was I thinking. Not sure why I said it would be the server owner's.
 

Re:ridiculous (1)

spammyd (714691) | more than 8 years ago | (#14547643)

here is an article that directly parallels the problem http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0828/p09s02-cojh.htm l [csmonitor.com] to summarize, i video rental store was chopping out all the "adult" scenes from movies and renting them as rated "E" edited. he was sued, not sure how it turned out

Re:ridiculous (1)

typidemon (729497) | more than 8 years ago | (#14469901)

Assuming you got the source media legally, then your licence agreement would cover it. If you were going to onsell someone elses show, they woud charge for it.

How do they do it? (1)

Pedro Picasso (1727) | more than 8 years ago | (#14467019)

Are they hosting CS servers and running ads that way, or do they just have a custom spray paint logo that they go into games and spray with?

Re:How do they do it? (2, Informative)

Premo_Maggot (864012) | more than 8 years ago | (#14468223)

They are server side sprite files.

Sure you can do that (1)

mnmn (145599) | more than 8 years ago | (#14467022)

I havent read the article... but I think people will be allowed to put any graphic into the maps on their servers for matches they want. If Valve allows me to mod the game, and I put a custom JPEG image in there, thats legal. What if I put my own picture into the spray marker? Am I trying to run for the mayor's seat? What if I put the peace sign? Will BMW be sued?

Either they do not allow mods at all (another fishy point if you 'own' the game) or they let people do what they want with their purchased goods. The only issue would be if people modified the game and then resold it.

Without reading the article, I think Valve will lose this.

But what if you write your own game and sell it.. (1)

hackwrench (573697) | more than 8 years ago | (#14467149)

but say it requires the CS engine that the buyers of your game would have to buy from Valve?

Re:Sure you can do that (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14467315)

BWM logo != peace sign

Re:Sure you can do that (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 8 years ago | (#14468487)

BWM logo != peace sign

In other news, BWM != BMW.

I think the poster meant mercedes, whose logo is much closer to the peace sign (though still not ==.)

Re:Sure you can do that (1)

spindizzy (34680) | more than 8 years ago | (#14470128)

By the way, it's not actually the "Peace Sign" as it's commonly but mistakenly referred but rather the CND logo http://www.cnduk.org/INFORM~1/symbol.htm [cnduk.org] . Still not a Mercedes emblem though.

Look at it this way... (2, Insightful)

ReverendLoki (663861) | more than 8 years ago | (#14468043)

Here's a similar issue - let's say you make a Half-Life mod, and distribute it for free on the Internet. Not only is this condoned, it makes Valve smile - this is what made HL the endlessly replayable hit it became, after all. Now, let's say that you start selling your mod, without permission from Valve. As a no-brainer, this is clearly verbotten.

Really, that's all that's going on here - Engage has made a mod that fills the game with advertising, and is being paid for it (though by advertisers as opposed to by gamers) without Valve's permission. Oddly enough, they could have filled CS with unpaid ads, and gotten away with it (though that would be a piss poor business model...)

...and, why? (1)

phorm (591458) | more than 8 years ago | (#14549667)

That works fine in the physical world. If somebody designs an unoffical add-on to my car, it's OK. Unofficial mod-kits are legal too, so long as they meet safety specifications.

The company is not selling Valve's material (the game). They are not giving Valve's material away for free. Valve still gets money for their product. The modification company gets money for theirs, probably in the form of advertisement bucks.

What valve is pissed at is that they didn't think of it, or didn't implement it, first.

Re:...and, why? (1)

ReverendLoki (663861) | more than 8 years ago | (#14550046)

Or, you could look at the game like it was a movie. It becomes popular, and fan sites pop up all over the place filled with fanfics, and even a few videos put together by really industrious fans. This is all fine and good... but just because the studio tolerates, perhaps even condones, these guys, doesn't mean they have to roll over when some third party releases their own edition of the movie on DVD, where all the drinks in the cantina are digitally edited to bear the logos of certain companies paying that3rd party for advertising.

At this point, I realy gotta say that we can only hope to go so far arguing the cases of these analogies. Though the case at hand bears similarities to other situations, we have to acknowledge it's unique properties as well. Thing is, this situation has properties of both a good and an intellectual property, and any argument has to consider that.

Re-releasing the movie (1)

phorm (591458) | more than 8 years ago | (#14550282)

From what I can tell, they aren't re-releasing the game, they make a modification which can be installed on already legitimized versions of the game.

Remaking scenes and reselling an original work would be piracy. Again, this still requires the original work and thus is not.

Re:Sure you can do that (1)

ClamIAm (926466) | more than 8 years ago | (#14468139)

Am I trying to run for the mayor's seat?

Aww man I can see it now, "Vote for St3v3, jailtime for wallhackers!".

Re:Sure you can do that (1)

david duncan scott (206421) | more than 8 years ago | (#14468507)

I think that's the Mercedes logo you're thinking about, but it's not the peace sign either -- the vertical bar needs to go all the way to the bottom of the circle for "peace."

The BMW logo, by the way, is a spinning propellor, a reference to their long history of airplane engine manufacture.

This is a trajedy! (1, Funny)

Feanturi (99866) | more than 8 years ago | (#14467231)

Now how are all the Jerrods living in their mothers' basements playing counter-strike going to get fit? It's not like they go outside much as it is.

Hmmm (1)

Sv-Manowar (772313) | more than 8 years ago | (#14467273)

It seems as if they were using advertising via sprites or via player sprays, which does seem to not be as legitimate as the company trying to do the advertising claim. If it is what I predicted, valve may have a hard time trying to get them in court but eventually they should go down. Don't play in other people's backyards, you will only get kicked out, especially thanks to Steam nowdays.

Re:Hmmm (1)

vertinox (846076) | more than 8 years ago | (#14467655)

Don't play in other people's backyards, you will only get kicked out, especially thanks to Steam nowdays.

If they owned the servers, then I think they should have the right to put ads in the servers. If they don't... Then this is to be handled by the server admins.

Either way, we shouldn't be fighting in court over this.

Its like I made a paintball game in a field in my backyard and put up a billboard on my own property and then the paint ball gun owners sued me just because we used their gear to play the game with.

Re:Hmmm (1)

irc.goatse.cx troll (593289) | more than 8 years ago | (#14467812)

It would be more like if TiVo started inserting their own ads while you watched tv. And I'm pretty sure the tv companies wouldn't be happy about that either.

You're playing in a game they own, on a map they owned, defaced by ads. It's not something valve should just ignore.

Re:Hmmm (1)

vertinox (846076) | more than 8 years ago | (#14467879)

It would be more like if TiVo started inserting their own ads while you watched tv. And I'm pretty sure the tv companies wouldn't be happy about that either.

My local cable company does this... I often see them cut out commericals and replace them with local ads. However, they might have an agreement with the people they buy the tv from.

Secondly, this isn't TV. The players aren't actors and you aren't generating live copyrighted material. If you record a match of a CS game is this copyright of valves? It's like someone who bought a copy of maya 3d or 3d max and found every time they made something it belonged to May or 3dmax parent companies.

This of course is a bit different since they are using copyrighted material such as the artwork and models, but the display of the game engine and what you do with it is not copyrighted by valve.

Lets put it this way... You take someones music and remix it and then add your own lyrics etc. The original is copyrighted and you technically owe them a royalty, but they do not own a copyright on what you produced. Trust me its fuzzy, but what you see on a gaming server is not directly copyrighted by valve. Their stuff in the engine is, but they can't say what you add on to it.

If you bought the game and paid the license and then added onto what your paid a license for then they don't own the copyright to what you added on nor what you produced with their engine.

Re:Hmmm (1)

irc.goatse.cx troll (593289) | more than 8 years ago | (#14468335)

"but what you see on a gaming server is not directly copyrighted by valve. Their stuff in the engine is, but they can't say what you add on to it."

They can specify how you use it, in the same way we specify how people use our code (GPL), or how musicians use your samples.

If you record a demo of a counterstrike match, I don't think its copyrighted to valve, but its pretty useless without using valves content. Sure you could parse it in another engine (Would take Spike a few weeks and I bet he could get them playing in ftequake perfectly), duplicate a map with similar geometry, use new textures and models.. but its impractical. If you meant recording an avi/mpeg movie of an ingame match (as a lot of people do), that is Valves content, they just allow you to use it. You couldn't for example record a movie inside de_dust with their models/sounds/etc, then sell it to Paramount and get it in theaters.

You might own the copyright to your work, but if its a dirivitive(sp?) work of something you don't own, you dont magicly gain more rights. Otherwise I could just sell copies of windows on cd-rs I created and say its mine.

Re:Hmmm (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14470017)

You don't understand the GPL. GPL is only relevant where distribution is concerned.
You don't understand copyright. Copyright is only relevant where distribution is concerned.
You might understand counterstrike. You should be aware that there is no distribution of CS from the server to you, you both already have it.

IHBT, blah blah

Someone should complain, but not Valve. (2, Interesting)

Dual_View (933041) | more than 8 years ago | (#14467313)

Valve is not the one who has the right to complain in this matter; the authors of the modified maps are. (However, if the modified maps were originally made by employees of Valve, then it is most definitely their right to complain.) Most custom maps for virtually all moddable games these days ship with a readme, and this readme has a short legal disclaimer that outlines most or all of the following the following rights:

1. Others may not use the map as a base to build new maps. (But in practice, the author is commonly known to grant such permission if contacted directly.)

2. Commercial exploitation of the map and its supporting files by any method is strictly forbidden. (Such permission is almost never granted under any circumstances.)

3. Otherwise, anyone may freely distribute the map files as long as the readme is distributed along with it.

4. The license ends with a list of copyrights and trademarks that the map author used but that don't belong to him, such as the name of the game that the map was created for.

In general, such mini-licenses are just as binding as the GPL, and should be taken no less seriously. If I wrote a free game engine that people wanted to use for such a method, I would not object. However, I would require them to build their own maps; any maps I built for the engine would be off-limits for commercial purposes. On the other hand, any non-profit modifications they wanted to make to my maps would be perfectly fine, as long as the people playing those maps knew that my map was a base for someone else's work.

Re:Someone should complain, but not Valve. (1)

ratboy666 (104074) | more than 8 years ago | (#14467893)

Fascinating.

I cannot enter such a "license". Copyright would be the closest. There is a convention that says if copying is needed to make use of a program, that copy is permitted.

For instance, a program must be copied from a disk into memory to execute it.

A "map" is only of use with a "server", so a copy is normal if using the product.

I am also allowed to rent, resell, and otherwise exploit works commercially. Again, this right is passed to me via Copyright.

I can also modify a work and resell it. Really.

I would LOVE a case like this to get into court -- one time it happened, the court ruled that an unauthorized person EXECUTING a program was a violation. I would also LOVE for shrink-wrap licenses to gain FULL power.

IP Police: STEP AWAY FROM THE KEYBOARD! YOU HAVE NOT BEEN DIRECTLY AUTHORIZED TO USE THAT SOFTWARE, AND ARE IN VIOLATION OF FEDERAL IP LAW!

But we aren't there. Not by a long shot. This (USA and Canada) is not a Facist society, and you do have rights.

Ratboy

Re:Someone should complain, but not Valve. (1)

Luthair (847766) | more than 8 years ago | (#14469628)

Where your post falls down is that the map file may not need to be altered to show adverts. Its been a long time but iirc server's could supply 'entity files' for Quake maps (ie, drop in an textured ad obj).

If I'm not mistaken, (1)

heistgonewrong (808413) | more than 8 years ago | (#14467317)

I'm pretty sure the company who was showing the ads just put up a bunch of fast servers and either inserted some textures in official CS maps or just made completely new original maps with the advertising in them.

Meh (2, Insightful)

Guppy06 (410832) | more than 8 years ago | (#14467501)

"Valve's Doug Lombardi: 'Advertising or any other commercial use of our games requires our written permission.'"

Translation: we want our cut!

I might feel sympathy if their stance was "There will be no advertising in our games," but as it stands now I couldn't care less. Let the lawyers deal with it.

Examples (5, Informative)

Chabo (880571) | more than 8 years ago | (#14467531)

Here [imageshack.us] are some examples of advertising in-game. This is inside Valve-made maps, not custom maps.

Re:Examples (1)

Chabo (880571) | more than 8 years ago | (#14467584)

Just some clarification and citing: I originally read this story here [halflife2.net] .

And this advertising is being implemented on multiplayer servers by server admins, not by users or Valve.

Re:Examples (1)

Dual_View (933041) | more than 8 years ago | (#14467698)

Ouch. A bright red billboard among the more subdued colors of the CS maps. The people who dropped that in there didn't even *try* to make it look like the rest of the game, which is what would annoy me the most. "Obtrusive" is the description I would use. Those ads severely interfere with what game artists call "the suspension of disbelief", which should be the top priority for designing any game.

If the servers running the modified versions of those maps (and/or a mod that inserts the ads into the maps) could sit empty as a lesson to these people, it would be great. It's a shame that people actually have to *play* the maps before they realize that they contain ads, though. Gamers will just try to ignore them, and leave it at that, so this won't get any farther on that front.

Re:Examples (1)

crotherm (160925) | more than 8 years ago | (#14468031)


When you are running around dodging bullets while spraying your own lead about, those ads can be overlooked very easily. Valve would not be where they are today without the thousands of game hosting sites. If these ads help to lower the costs of hosting games, then I think it would be a good thing cause it should result in more games being hosted.

Re:Examples (1)

idonthack (883680) | more than 8 years ago | (#14469704)

One of those ads was placed right in the CT spawn, and another in an area where there is relatively little action but in the direction players are normally looking as they pass through. Also, the seem very out of place to anybody who is familiar with the map. Players would notice them very quickly.

Re:Examples (1)

MrResistor (120588) | more than 8 years ago | (#14469889)

Those ads severely interfere with what game artists call "the suspension of disbelief"

Right, because similar ads in the real world are carefully crafted to blend in with the environment, so as not to intrude upon the "feel" of the envirnment in which they're placed...

If anything, I'd say it makes the maps look more real.

Re:Examples (1)

F_Scentura (250214) | more than 8 years ago | (#14490272)

Sometimes "real" is overrated. Obnoxious advertising is certainly one of those times.

Re:Examples (1)

Glacian (674566) | more than 8 years ago | (#14471132)

Those look like plain ole sprays to me, not part of the map.

Re:Examples (1)

Chabo (880571) | more than 8 years ago | (#14471824)

Couple things about that:

1) Sprays, at their maximum, take up less area than that. There is a pixel limit, so the largest a spray can be is about 3 in-game 'feet' wide. Those ads are about 7 or 8 in-game 'feet'.
2) Read the article [halflife2.net] I linked to in my reply. The company that offers this service definitely exists.

I hate advertising. Period. (2, Interesting)

MaWeiTao (908546) | more than 8 years ago | (#14468073)

One of the fundamental reasons why I hate in-game advertising, beyond the fact that I already paid for the game, is that these ads are complete and utter garbage. First of all, no effort whatsoever is put into making them attractive or interesting, and secondly they just drop them in random places on the map.

It's pathetic.

It's like the crap that passes for advertising on the internet. At some point I had hoped that internet ad design would improve. It really hasn't, primarily because the barrier for entry into web design is so low. Any inept designer can slap together a web graphic and apparently thats sufficient for the web. These guys obviously don't put any effort at all. But I'm forced to stare at this garbage, advertising products I have no interest in whatsoever.

The best part is stalking around in a terrorist hideout and finding that the interior designer of the group decided to adorn the walls with soft drink and fast food ads.

Eat Fresh? (3, Funny)

Rapter09 (866502) | more than 8 years ago | (#14468238)

Nothing like stalking through the ancient Aztec's holy temples and waterworks trying to headshot some n00bs to find out they loved to "Eat Fresh."

Re:Eat Fresh? (1)

Retroneous (879615) | more than 8 years ago | (#14468673)

Nothing like desperately playing for a "5: Funny" and failing absolutely abysmally.

howto (4, Interesting)

joe094287523459087 (564414) | more than 8 years ago | (#14468407)

in case anyone was wondering, i was one of the first people to figure out how to do it and i wrote up a detailed howto on how to add these to maps (as well as add spawn points, convert map types, and other things)...

here's the instructions
http://www.joe.to/cstrike/ents/ [www.joe.to]

Valve angry they didn't think of it first (1)

Kawolski (939414) | more than 8 years ago | (#14470204)

With every server and player required to connect Steam to play Counter-Strike, Valve can use this control to make extra money by inserting ads into their games and using the Steam system to make sure the ads are up-to-date since Nielsen Entertainment determined that ads [boston.com] in [yahoo.com] video [forbes.com] games [joystiq.com] apparently work.

What Engage In-Game is doing is no more illegal than someone hosting a custom mod on their server. This particular mod just happens to show pictures of brand-name sandwiches with a price tag. Bandwidth and server resources aren't free, and if this is how Engage In-Game is going to support keeping their servers online for free public use, they can stick advertisements on the virtual game walls. Would you rather they use bots that spam in-game chat every 5 minutes with text ads? The ads are far from intrusive, and if you don't like them, don't play on their servers.

Now, if Engage In-Game was paying players to go to other people's servers to spray and spam advertisements everywhere, that's going over the line because then they'd be intruding on OTHER people's servers.

Valve has the right to (1)

tenchi90 (668754) | more than 8 years ago | (#14471229)

I Dont blame Valve suing them. In the Steam EULA, it states in E-iii: "You are entitled to use the Steam Software for your own use, but you are not entitled to: . . . (iii) exploit the Steam Software or any of its parts for any commercial purpose." The advertsement is breaking the Steam EULA by the company is making money off products that Valve makes with out consent from them.

Porn in CS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14471891)

how "funny" that Valve never went after people who sprayed porn even though they say themselves that the group of people who play the game is between 13 and 22? (what not). I RTA and I know those images are perm, and if they were not - would they still care? DRM issues? Or CS is open source?(after all CS in a mod of HL)If it is an open source, why they complain about it?

  Rael
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?