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!

Counter-Strike Opens Weapons Market

CowboyNeal posted more than 7 years ago | from the arms-dealers dept.

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?"

cancel ×

284 comments

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

Hmm... (1)

Kamineko (851857) | more than 7 years ago | (#16166951)

Based on TFA, it seems like this is not optional. (Although it's not explicitly stated)
What the heckfire are they playing at, eh?

Re:Hmm... (1)

joe 155 (937621) | more than 7 years ago | (#16166989)

I'm not sure whats going on with this. So you play the game, and in the game you get money, you can spend that in game money on guns etc.? I really don't see a problem with it. The only issue I would have is if they are asking for real money for it, but I don't see that as being the case.

Re:Hmm... (1)

Skye16 (685048) | more than 7 years ago | (#16167037)

It changes standard gameplay. A pistol may have gone for 650$ to buy normally could now turn into a 2000$ gun because demand is so high. It's a "feature" that wasn't there before that throws entire match strategy right out the window.

Re:Hmm... (1)

bersl2 (689221) | more than 7 years ago | (#16167123)

It's a "feature" that wasn't there before that throws entire match strategy right out the window.

It adds realism. Real terrorists don't always have the best equiptment available.

Re:Hmm... (3, Insightful)

Skye16 (685048) | more than 7 years ago | (#16167131)

If you want to add realism, make it so that 8 shots from an mp5 to drops someone. Whether they're dead or not is completely fucking moot. They aren't going to be fighting any longer.

The game hasn't been about realism... well, ever. If you want realism, play SWAT or Rainbow Shield.

Re:Hmm... (1)

partridge (207872) | more than 7 years ago | (#16167465)

Realism??? How about making it so that tools how jump up and down constantly to get everywhere get killed quickly like the hopping little bunnies they are.

You can always tell a HL/CS player on another game because they move like freaking rabbits. Every time you shoot at them they start jumping up and down.

It DOES mix the game up. (1)

Ruff_ilb (769396) | more than 7 years ago | (#16167609)

The problem with traditional CSS gameplay is that all too often it ends up with a bunch of people buying M4's against a bunch of people buying AK's. This system could potentially force players to use different types of weapons.

Also, I'm SURE that there will be a server variable to turn this change off. I dobut that valve would cast off the old fixed-price weapon system for everything, especially since it's crucial for match play.

Re:It DOES mix the game up. (1)

Dark_MadMax666 (907288) | more than 7 years ago | (#16167949)

Well that is because AK and M4 are most versatile guns . But people do buy other guns as well either due to lack of money (deagle, tmp, mp5, famas, galil) ,either for special purpose ( p90, shotties for office like maps, aug, sg550 for big maps) and of course snipers. I do not see anything being broken. And as old saying goes - "If it ain'broken do not fuckin fix it" .

Re:Hmm... (1)

JamesTRexx (675890) | more than 7 years ago | (#16167651)

In that case there should also be a chance of stealing weapons from a depot or gunshop, or even from people's homes.
Realism also demands that you can get things by stealing them.

Re:Hmm... (1)

MindStalker (22827) | more than 7 years ago | (#16167129)

The article stated that they arn't including pistols in their market. But whats odd is it sounds like their market system completly ignores base cost. Meaning if it becames popular a small generally inexpensive item would become more expensive than an expensive item which in turn could become cheap. This is not how a real market works where there is a general expected cost based upon how much something cost to produce.

Re:Hmm... (1)

bfree (113420) | more than 7 years ago | (#16167293)

The small inexpensive item will not become more expensive then a big expensive item if more money is spent across the game on the small item, it will just become more expensive then it was so less people will be likely to buy it next week so it's price might come back down (or go up less). It'll be interesting to see if the prices stabilise or have large weekly variations, and if they stabilise just how far away they are from the original values (and what has changed price the most).

Re:Hmm... (1)

KDR_11k (778916) | more than 7 years ago | (#16167311)

Probably because gathering sales data on pistols would end with all pistols except the deagle costing 1$. Who buys those things anyway?

Re:Hmm... (1)

Scyld_Scefing (722722) | more than 7 years ago | (#16167413)

Hmm... What is the expected cost in the real market for a pair of designer basketball shoes? Is it a 50% or 100% markup on the base cost of production of the shoes in east Asia (not much) or is it based on the willingness of customers in the U.S. to pay -- $100, $150, etc.?

The pricing question involves value -- what is the profit value for the producer and the consumption value for the consumer? The producer wants to maximize profit but is constrained by the consumer's willingness to pay, not by some arbitrary markup limit. If something costs $10 to make and people are willing to buy everything the producer can get to market at $100 an item, the price in a real market may well be $100. About the only reason to lower price would be to discourage competitors' entering the market and selling the same item for $95.

That's not the issue here. This is more like a commodities market -- the pistol is the pistol is the pistol and there is one price which is driven solely by demand relative to other items. The market determines that this shotgun has x% more value than this other shotgun, because that is what the market is willing to pay for it.

Re:Hmm... (1)

clragon (923326) | more than 7 years ago | (#16167837)

The article stated that they arn't including pistols in their market...

TFA said the pistol will be in a different pool as the other weapons.
There are two pools, pistols and everything else. the prices of items is determined by the number of times that item is bought compared to the number of times other items are bought in that particular pool. So as a result, prices of assesories like HE grenades, Flashbangs, Smoke Grenades are going down because they are in the same pool as frequently bought items such as the M4.
With this system, if every item were in the same pool, will result in a large decrease in most of the items while a HUGE increase in price on items like the M4, and AK. For example, items like pistols will not be bought by most players in the later rounds of the game, is put into the same pool as the M4 will cause a huge deflation of pistol prices while boosting the M4, AK prices even higher.
Steam has already started gathering data and showing the price changes on this page [steampowered.com] . As expected prices of the most popular gears (M4, AK, Armour, and Night Hawk) has gone up.
What I wonder how is if Valve will categorize assesories like grenades in one pool because they will usualy be bought less than items like the M4.

Get out of your cocoon (5, Insightful)

fistfullast33l (819270) | more than 7 years ago | (#16167213)

throws entire match strategy right out the window.

Oh no, god forbid you have to change your strategy in a 10 year old game. People, get a grip. I love that some people are crying out for the Wii because it uses a new controller that according to them will revolutionize the way games are played, and yet they still bitch and complain about a change like this. Most times when I play CounterStrike, you usually end up with $16000 really quickly and dominate the match wit hteh best weapons, or you constantly lose and have the SMGs that can't compete as well with the rifles.

I applaud Valve for bringing a change like this. It's time for games to start taking more advantage of the global internet and stop creating a world that is server and instance based. So many people play MMO's nowadays that really, I don't see games like CounterStrike keeping up with them. You're constantly starting from zero and whatever stats are saved are server based only so if you want any progression you need to constantly use the same server. I only hope the "newly announced" TF2 encorporates more of this stuff.

Re:Get out of your cocoon (1)

Kamineko (851857) | more than 7 years ago | (#16167597)

Your Wii analogy is flawed: If you'd played a game for ages, and then suddenly the control style was irrevocably changed by outside forces, would you or would you not see that as a cause for concern?

Re:Hmm... (1)

FhnuZoag (875558) | more than 7 years ago | (#16167765)

I dunno, this sound like a good idea, to force people to change their behaviour from time to time.

Strategy != Everyone camping with the AWP

or you can play True Combat Elite and not worry (4, Informative)

spazimodo (97579) | more than 7 years ago | (#16166955)

http://www.truecombatelite.net/ [truecombatelite.net] - free team based realism mod for the free version of Wolfentein Enemy Territory.

Started playing it a year ago and haven't picked up CS since. It's awesome.

Oh yes! (1)

leathered (780018) | more than 7 years ago | (#16167427)

TCE is awesome, it plays better than CS and is more realistic than CS. But the most amazing thing about TCE is that there are actually nice friendly people playing it. And it's free as in beer!

Oh no! (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16167565)

and it SHOULD be free as in freedom. TCE is a GPL breaker.

Re:Oh yes! (2, Informative)

It'sYerMam (762418) | more than 7 years ago | (#16167865)

Having not played CS, I can't comment, but I'd like to echo the fact that most of the people you come across on TCE are funny and friendly. For people thinking of downloading it, be aware that the new version, 0.49, is coming out on 29th, so you might want to wait. The maps and gameplay are, apparently going to change not insignficantly. Many of the changes are directly down to comments on the TCE forums on realism flaws. Looking forward to trying out the new gametypes and the new official maps (which look awesome from the screenshots) having said that, demolition and (to a much lesser extent) bodycount have kept me occupied. Give me a shout! -- gonzo|FishFace.

Re:or you can play True Combat Elite and not worry (1)

idonthack (883680) | more than 7 years ago | (#16167723)

Looks good, I'm downloading it now.

Re:or you can play True Combat Elite and not worry (1)

bcmm (768152) | more than 7 years ago | (#16167785)

Or NS:CO [ns-co.net] , for Quake 3. I prefer it to True Combat in everything except the aiming system. TCs aiming system is brilliant from a realism viewpoint. The only problem is that there are not always many players online.

Can't it be both? (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16166963)

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?
Couldn't it be both? i.e. they're spicing it up in a way not wanted or needed by the community.

We are screwed (3, Interesting)

Realistic_Dragon (655151) | more than 7 years ago | (#16166965)

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.

Re:We are screwed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16167043)

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.

I can't say I disagree with the mercanry approach. Yes, ok, geeks *were* making a fuss in some cases - but not once something they wanted came along. There were screams about boycotting popular (which generally isn't that much of a big deal to geeks anyway) but as soon as it started getting intoroduced into games it was suddenly "not a big deal" and "it wouldn't be abused".

Well, it was abused, and the reason it was there to be abused is because - if you go back to the release of Steam - you will see that the general Slashdot consensus was "ohh, shiney" rather than standing by their principles. People who were warning of what was to come - what has now arrived - were modded into oblivion.

So, at this point, I see nothing wrong with taking the money and handing out the abuse that you so clearly asked for by overlooking the minor infractions that made the major ones possible.

Re:We are screwed (1)

MMC Monster (602931) | more than 7 years ago | (#16167285)

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.

Well. At least you have a plan. :-)

Ummm, you don't have to update it actually. (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16167339)

Just right click on the game in your steam menu and tell it not to automatically update the game. There you go.

Were you dropped on your head as a child, or do you just ignore certain details to whine about "locked in" platforms?

Re:Ummm, you don't have to update it actually. (1)

Thansal (999464) | more than 7 years ago | (#16167501)

sigh, mod parent up.

AC knows all.

You can either just not update, or wait till the mod community comes out with a plugin for your favorite flavor of server mod that blocks/disables/resets prices.

Re:Ummm, you don't have to update it actually. (1)

WilliamSChips (793741) | more than 7 years ago | (#16167879)

He probably just hasn't used Steam himself and therefore doesn't know that it's not nearly as restrictive as it seems.

Re:We are screwed (1)

allometry (840925) | more than 7 years ago | (#16167397)

I'd expect Valve to also release an option that allows server admins to toggle between "real world" and "traditional" pricing.

It's a nice thought to those who hate this new feature...

Re:We are screwed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16167433)

"...World of Warcraft (goodbye, forty man raids, around which a lot of players have built their guilds)."

You are completely 100% wrong. 40-man raids aren't going away in WOW. It's just that all the new content is designed for 20-man, which is actually POSSIBLE with a pickup group rather than REQUIRING a massive guild which, guess what, not everyone can be in. So QQ noob. Would you prefer that Blizzard never updated the game to give you new content?

Re:We are screwed (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16167661)

"So QQ noob"

I present the parent post as proof that children should not be allowed near a keyboard until they are at least potty trained.

OH, this is on the internet (5, Funny)

lemur3 (997863) | more than 7 years ago | (#16166987)

My first reaction to reading the title was "oh, so they finally decided to sell real guns?"

Why HL2 is the last valve game I buy (5, Interesting)

linuxkrn (635044) | more than 7 years ago | (#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.

Re:Why HL2 is the last valve game I buy (1)

also-rr (980579) | more than 7 years ago | (#16167071)

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 would have thought that the whole SWG thing would have given people a heads up about how publishers think of their players and made everyone stear well clear of anything where the game could be yanked out from under their feet.

Re:Why HL2 is the last valve game I buy (1)

KDR_11k (778916) | more than 7 years ago | (#16167407)

Apropos LOTRBFME, what kind of damage balancing does that have, C&C, Warcraft, AoE?

Re:Why HL2 is the last valve game I buy (2, Insightful)

SanityInAnarchy (655584) | more than 7 years ago | (#16167443)

I think that, for the most part, the responsible thing to do is make all updates tweakable, unless they fix an obvious bug. So, for instance, if they suddenly decided to change the gravity, they should make sure those of us running our own servers can tweak sv_gravity.

This, I think, is far superior to what you're describing with LOTR. In that case, if you don't like the patch, you can't usually uninstall it, you'll have to reinstall the game from scratch. Oh, and good luck finding the 1.1 patch if there's a 1.5 out already.

This is also one thing I liked about the smaller MMOs, the ones which you download for free, and which you only pay a subscription fee. The bigger ones, you have to buy a $50 game so that you get the install cd/dvd. Smaller ones, just download. Try it for a week, with limitations. Then try it for a month for $10. If you don't like it, cancel your account.

But that's only even necessary for MMOs because the strength of an MMO is having tons of people playing on the same server, so of course everyone has to be running the exact same version of the game. Even if they're not, server patches affect everyone, lie it or not.

For my money, I don't know about you, but I buy a game because I like it now, not because I want to enshrine it forever. It's always nice to be able to go back and play the original Half-Life or Doom, but really, if I was able to play through a game a few times, I'm happy. If Valve kills Half-Life 2 tomorrow, I'll be pissed, but I wouldn't feel I got a bad deal.

Re:Why HL2 is the last valve game I buy (2, Insightful)

Thansal (999464) | more than 7 years ago | (#16167493)

Well, first up, you don't have to patch it. (tel lsteam to not update it)
you can thus still paly on LANs, and servers that have not updated.

next up is the fact that some one will disable this rather quickly.

This is going to work in 1 of 2 ways:
1) hard code the numbers into a patch released each day/week/hour/whatever.
2) Stream the data from a central server.

If it is option 1 then you just use any of the Admin Mod/what ever the other server mod utils are plugins that lets you set prices. (Wow that was hard)

Option 2? I am willing to bet that some one will come up with a way to block the connection, or to simply over ride the prices with a new server side plug in. (how about pointing the attempts to get the "new" prices to another server that ismply feeds it back the old prices?)

Remember, the HL Community is one of the most mod hapy communities out there.

On the contrary (1)

Lars512 (957723) | more than 7 years ago | (#16167897)

I think you're making a big deal over a small thing here. I really liked HL2, and I really liked getting it over Steam. I've reinstalled, changed computers, etc, several times. I didn't have to worry about where the hell the CDs were, or about CD keys and crap like that. This kind of convenience for me far outweighs the loss of control you're complaining about.

As for the change itself, it seems like variable weapons pricing will provide more balance and variety to the game. Instead of everyone getting that same weapon they've chosen (or 2 weapons based on price bracket), there'll be incentives to use others. Besides, it's not a MUD or MMORPG where rebalancing has just borked the Lv60 Cleric of Crapacity you spent 2 years and destroyed a marriage to create. A little perspective please.

Wanted: Maghook (1)

sciop101 (583286) | more than 7 years ago | (#16167047)

Cool Fictional Tools/Weapons.

Matthew Reilly Rocks!

http://www.matthewreilly.com/home.htm/ [matthewreilly.com]

Re:Wanted: Maghook (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16167253)

great books, anyone who hasnt read them go pick up his books

The random M$ bash (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16167049)

I'm beginning to suspect that the submission guidelines contain a paragraph I've missed about taking a dig at Microsoft whatever the relevancy to the subject at hand.

Re:The random M$ bash (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16167283)

What a dumbass - everyone knows every story on slashdot is a dig at Microsoft. As are most of the responses. Even if it is not written it is an obvious rule.

Oh yeah, Microsoft Sux0rz - mod me up !!!!!

Re:The random M$ bash (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16167753)

Clearkly this problem can be solved by downloading Firefox instead!I AM GENIUS! GIVE ME TEH UP MODS!

Interesting idea (1)

GTMoogle (968547) | more than 7 years ago | (#16167051)

So guns that everyone wants because they're good/cheap/whatever will end up more expensive. The game will balance itself so that all guns are equally used.

I think it sounds neat.

But then, I don't play CS.

Re:Interesting idea (1)

Hallucienda (893346) | more than 7 years ago | (#16167111)

It's a great idea and something that will add some more interest to the game - well done Valve!

I've played CS... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16167133)

But pretty much given it up - it's totally dominated by people wioth too much time on their hands who have memorised a routine for every map and just stick to it again and again and again, which gets boring fast. Hopefully this will do something about that, though I'm not in the least bit suprised to hear complaints.

Re:Interesting idea (1)

Zidd (1000147) | more than 7 years ago | (#16167233)

it seems like a great idea and brings a bit of realism to the game. the little kiddies are pissed because the price of the deagle soared to like a grand so you cant get it right away. maybe this will make people think about using the underrated and underused weapons in the game.

Re:Interesting idea (1)

Schmodus (875649) | more than 7 years ago | (#16167435)

The guns aren't supposed to be equally used. Nobody buys a sniper rifle to camp near the base. They buy submachineguns or assault rifles. I hope this algorithm they are working with accounts for spending habits and not about even distribution.

defkits? leagues? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16167053)

so in two weeks time, the defkits will cost more than the awp, right? and which effect will this have on the leagues? you can't plan any strategies anymore...they are shooting their own foot with this...now, if it was a feature that could be turned off by the admin, that would be a nice feat for public servers...

Yes. (1, Funny)

ltwally (313043) | more than 7 years ago | (#16167063)

"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?"
Yes.

Re:Yes. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16167251)

And?

Re:Yes. (1)

Mikya (901578) | more than 7 years ago | (#16167431)

Yes.

Re:Yes. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16167483)

Thank you Mr. Boole, you can now go back to your grave.

Re:Yes. (2, Funny)

Fembot (442827) | more than 7 years ago | (#16167527)

No.

The CS Community (5, Interesting)

onion2k (203094) | more than 7 years ago | (#16167077)

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.. :)

Re:The CS Community (2, Interesting)

The MAZZTer (911996) | more than 7 years ago | (#16167187)

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.

Re:The CS Community (1)

Leffe (686621) | more than 7 years ago | (#16167201)

I'm assuming a cvar will be introduced with which server admins can disable this feature.

Re:The CS Community (1)

MiKM (752717) | more than 7 years ago | (#16167263)

If Clan X was good, changing prices in weapons would only minimally affect them.

Re:The CS Community (1)

Jackmn (895532) | more than 7 years ago | (#16167487)

When you are playing in CAL (the only league really worth considering) you get moved up to a tier where you are at a similar skill level compared to everyone else (the tiers being O, IM, M, P, and I). Modified weapon prices could lose you a match, especially if you just spent the last week scrimming only to have your price-dependant strategy invalidated.

Re:The CS Community (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16167539)

If they have difficulty adapting, then they don't belong in the higher tier.

Re:The CS Community (1)

MiKM (752717) | more than 7 years ago | (#16167607)

Yes, but as I was saying, strategy shouldn't depend on weapon prices.

Re:The CS Community (1)

Altima(BoB) (602987) | more than 7 years ago | (#16167551)

Changing weapon prices would only add to the dynamic of can x vs clan y vs clan z. It'll be something equivalent to weather changes in football. "Oh, we played team X and beat them, but when we played team Y in the rain/snow, we lost." With the exception of some indoor sports, very few games can realistically offer identical conditions for every competition.

Plus, what's more boring than players who memorize and exploit unchanging systems like video game levels?

Competitive Play (2, Interesting)

oskard (715652) | more than 7 years ago | (#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.

William T. Tecumseh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16167141)

have even started a petition to stop the change

War games are hell.

Re:William T. Tecumseh (1)

Andrew Kismet (955764) | more than 7 years ago | (#16167593)

Indeed. [everyone-dies.com]

Well, back to 1.6 then... (2, Insightful)

UnderDark (869922) | more than 7 years ago | (#16167145)

I guess to get the old CS back, I'll just have to play 1.6...

Great news for spawn awp'ers... (0)

(H)elix1 (231155) | more than 7 years ago | (#16167147)

As every round takes an extra few seconds to sort out the price of the week. This sort of thing would be a fine optional plugin, or something tuned at the local server level... but to base 'demand' on all the servers globally? Hmmn. Can't say that I like it.

Would be nice to see them fix some bugs rather than add new features. Every time I start up the game and load up a list of servers, my menus are all crunched together. Every month or so it wipes out my favorites and history files - making me dig up the IP address of the servers I haunt. Strikes me as amateur hour, anyhow, so an update like this scares me.

(Course, Defcon is out the end of the month too - so Steam may have CS sorted by the time I get back to it)

Re:Great news for spawn awp'ers... (4, Funny)

moonbender (547943) | more than 7 years ago | (#16167409)

As every round takes an extra few seconds to sort out the price of the week.

Hey I've got an idea, figure it out once and then just don't forget it for a week.

Re:Great news for spawn awp'ers... (1)

clem (5683) | more than 7 years ago | (#16167843)

Your strange idea gives me a headache just thinking about it. Can someone lend me some cache to buy some Bufferin?

It's about time. (4, Interesting)

rohlfinator (888775) | more than 7 years ago | (#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:It's about time. (1)

edmudama (155475) | more than 7 years ago | (#16167317)

I can't wait for my autosnipers to be $50

Honestly... (1)

Khoa (935586) | more than 7 years ago | (#16167181)

Who looks at the prices when buying these weapons...? This is totally useless.

Re:Honestly... (1)

UnderDark (869922) | more than 7 years ago | (#16167211)

it's not that people look, it's that people won't be ale to get AWPs on the 2nd round anymore :) (BTW: my favorite gun is the M3, jumping-100m-shotgun-headshot FTW!)

Re:Honestly... (1)

600Burger (986100) | more than 7 years ago | (#16167235)

Who looks at the prices when buying these weapons...? This is totally useless.
Exactly.

Moreover, I always thought the guns were "balanced" based on doplegangers of weapons for each time. I.E. M4 for CT cost about and acts similar to the AK for the Ts. Also, most weapons can be purchesed by both teams.

Also, I'm almost 100% sure there will be a server side mod to change it all back. Like the gun game.

Re:Honestly... (1)

KDR_11k (778916) | more than 7 years ago | (#16167445)

Moreover, I always thought the guns were "balanced" based on doplegangers of weapons for each time.

Who says they aren't going to be?

Re:Honestly... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16167267)

You will, now!

Enjoy your STEAM, sucker! Hahahaha!

This is a really clever piece of design (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16167195)

Having the value of weapons reflect the real world demand is a very nice idea, and in theory should make the game a perfectly even playground. Although having the players balance the game for you seems almost lazy...

I agree though that the fact it's not optional is crap. You don't expect that from a PC game. However, the HL series has always been easily moddable - can't someone mod this out of counter-strike for those who don't want it? Or is modding an official mod not allowed?
Of course, Steam basically means that people who aren't happy being dictated to don't have HL2 anyway, so I don't see this affecting CSes popularity.

My second thought was that this is hackable. Run a ton of servers, populate them with bots (yours, not official ones), have the bots spend all their money on sniper rifles, et voila: no more snipers. Presumably they'll control against this somehow, but it seems like something fun to play with.

I am sure they have thought of this already.. (1)

Daysaway (916732) | more than 7 years ago | (#16167207)

What happens when the unscrupulous player decides to falsify the buying habit information to steam, and sends a million hits to the guns they dont play, just to drive the price of the guns they want back down?

Re:I am sure they have thought of this already.. (1)

Supersonic1425 (903823) | more than 7 years ago | (#16167563)

or when a server bans the sale of certain weapons, such as the AWP, which is banned on half of all the CS:S servers currently running. this only made me laugh.

Economies of Scale. (2, Funny)

dohzer (867770) | more than 7 years ago | (#16167229)

So if one gun is sold more why don't the manufacturers start producing more of that weapon? Then the cost of each individual gun would fall, and they could sell it for less.

Re:Economies of Scale. (2)

Kelbear (870538) | more than 7 years ago | (#16167907)

Economies of scale don't exist everywhere. I sure wish it did, but it's not always the case. And even where it does occur, it's not the lone determinant in price. Anyway, it's a game, and they've simplified it down to the very basic supply and demand cross-curves.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply_and_demand [wikipedia.org]

What's next? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16167273)

So now are they going to start paying out differently to each member of each team? Terrorist get money whenever Osama puts out a new video, or a terrorist attack happens. Counter-T's get paid some sort of salary plus hazardous duty pay. Next, we'll change every map to include some hidden amount of oil- hell, instead of hostages the terrorists can guard that- either that or sell it to us for $80 a barrel. Then when that's all said and done, W comes out and praises Allah at the end of each round. Neat idea though, keep them optional Valve.

Think too small (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16167291)

All those companies who use micro transactions think too small. Forget about selling weapons -- sell ammo!! 500 rounds for 5 bucks. or maybe gas for the cars.

Gah! Exploitable! (2, Interesting)

SanityInAnarchy (655584) | more than 7 years ago | (#16167363)

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.

Uh, not exploitable.... (1, Informative)

DarkMan (32280) | more than 7 years ago | (#16167555)

From the article:
A (somewhat) closed system. In Counter-Strike, each gameserver is its own instance of the game world.


So, what you do on your server (and it has to be your server, in order to be able to tweak the options like you want), you can do this. But it won't affect anyone else.

Re:Gah! Exploitable! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16167559)

The prices are updated on a weekly basis.

Anyone else think this is actually pretty cool? (1)

donscarletti (569232) | more than 7 years ago | (#16167385)

I know a lot of people are fuming about the nature of Steam and having patches forced upon you, I understand that because I've hated steam from day one.

But does anyone else think this is a really, really good idea? If a weapon is popular, it becomes expensive, if a weapon is unpopular, it becomes cheap. This will ensure that a fair price is given for every weapon, a diversity of weapons are used and the game isn't saturated by the same overpowered weapons. Weapons will cost the right amount because they cost what people are willing to pay for them. Isn't this every game balancer's dream?

The problem is that it sounds a bit like one of those shifty real money for virtual items scams that game manufacturers are running these days. Which of course it isn't, They should call it "laissez-faire pricing" or "free-market weapons" costs or something that sounds like the inbuilt game feature it is, rather than a exploitative "service".

The actual numbers (3, Informative)

harrsk (654320) | more than 7 years ago | (#16167439)

...can be seen here: http://www.steampowered.com/stats/csmarket/ [steampowered.com] Though I agree that forced mods stink, the change to the game will likely be insignificant.

Smart idea (3, Insightful)

jmichaelg (148257) | more than 7 years ago | (#16167561)

Tweaking game play is one of the hardest aspects of developing a video game. You're balancing personal preferences against what works well for the most people. I wrote the original Star Wars arcade port for the C64 for Parker Brothers. The project manager couldn't make up his mind on how the cursor should feel and so I ended up coding a roll-your-own cursor feedback tool for him so he could tweak the acceleration parameters himself. It was far more productive to write the tweak code and let him fart around than it was for me to burn a prom give it to him, have him say something like - "it should be more responsive" or "it's too responsive."

By making this patch, Valve has in essence, coded their own version of letting the players roll their own parameters. Instead of a small group's opinion on what the prices should be, it's the combined player's opinion that matters.

For the younger players, it's an introduction to price/demand responses. Of course, it's artificial in that the comodities have no production cost so from the producer's perspective, the weapons could be free. Nonetheless, it conveys the message to younger players that tho more people do or don't want something, that will affect the price of the something.

Turning into MS? (1)

znx (847738) | more than 7 years ago | (#16167667)

This isn't a radical departure, the outcome of matches will not be drastically effected by this. All it will mean is that its going to reduce the chance of getting that favourite weapon in the second round. I see this as a big positive, the weaponary will now slowly evolve to a static price based on usage!

Value++

Projection: (1)

lewp (95638) | more than 7 years ago | (#16167701)

AK-47: $16000
M4: $16000
AWP: $16000
MP5: $5000

Everything else (since the deagle is apparently excluded to "preserve the pistol round"): $1

No problem for me... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16167761)

I only play gun game, no buying involved.

Introducing? (1)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 7 years ago | (#16167803)

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?
Didn't they start introducing these a long time ago, with Steam and that silly online activation scheme?

i like it (1)

cjdkoh (991723) | more than 7 years ago | (#16167823)

personally, i like the idea, although i think it should be optional if players wish.

Online community / ala WOW (1)

ayeco (301053) | more than 7 years ago | (#16167841)

Counter Strike is an online game. Valve is trying to more of a community out of CS. This is no different than the auction house in World of Warcraft - supply and demand. Blizzard regularly changes things in WOW with patches, this is what Valve wants to be.

it is a server side change (1)

dns_server (696283) | more than 7 years ago | (#16167875)

Steam supports server side scripting such as http://www.zombiehorde.com/ [zombiehorde.com] . The marketplace would be something that could potentially be dissabled server side if you feel like it. My isp has a wide range of game servers with different maps and server rules it is something that could be customised to allow for people that like the old prices to stick to thair own server with just the default prices and not be part of the new wepons economy.

Infinite supply... (1)

ph4s3 (634087) | more than 7 years ago | (#16167881)

...should cause the price to go to zero. Demand only drives up prices when there is scarcity in the market. This is a world in which a weapon exists because a server says it does; how does that translate to scarcity? I suppose you could look at valve as the sole vendor so they've got a monopoly or something.

If they really want to introduce economics to the game, they should make money persistent from session to session and server to server and let each server set their own prices either fixed or with their own weighted algorithm. Once prices were posted and aggregated for the multitude of servers, people would presumably flock to where they could get more equipment for less money. Admins could drive up traffic by lowering prices, etc. In which case, real world economics could come into play and admins could start advertising on server splash screens or something, which of course Valve would want a piece of.

Perhaps that is why they're introducing it now... Maybe they're on the path to a new revenue stream.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>