CS-Nation

Covering the future of Counter-Strike

nav:
cs-nation home
news
comments
cs ads lead to legal trouble

cs ads lead to legal trouble

CS Ads Lead to Legal Trouble

rizzuh @ 5:17 pm pst on 1/13/06 - indie games

Recent coverage of ads within Counter-Strike games has brought the issue to Valve's attention. In a bit of investigative reporting, Mr. Remo of Shacknews e-mailed Doug Lombardi and received the following response:

At no time did Valve grant permission nor discuss these advertisements with Engage. As such, this is now a legal matter. Advertising or any other commercial use of our games requires our written permission.

This should clear up any speculation as to whether or not Valve had a hand in this advertising program. More than that, though, Valve sounds very heavy-handed in the e-mail. They clearly want the ad program to disappear.

Does a for-profit Valve have a real reason to force community servers to be non-commercial? Those community servers, after all, are free to play on, but aren't free to run.


comment #1 DaRk-AnGeL 5:31 pm pst - 1/13/06	Haha, gj Valve. Bringing the game back to where it belongs and what it means to a lot of people. :)

comment #2 Zips Tin God - #csnation 5:33 pm pst - 1/13/06	They do have a real reason. If there was no legal contract between the two parties, there's no way Valve should be made out to look like they're partners with companies such as Subway when they are receiving nothing in return. In terms of what Valve is going to do, I don't think they have any more bubblegum left (off-handed and slightly obscure reference).

comment #3 Scanner 5:37 pm pst - 1/13/06	Don't go patting Valve on the back yet, as they haven't stated that they're taking legal action to preserve the ad-free experience we've enjoyed. For all we know, they're just pissed because they're not getting a cut, and once that's ironed out they'll gladly allow things to be spoiled. That said, I'm not really quite that pessimistic about Valve, and I'm only acknowledging it as a possibility.

comment #4 Zips Tin God - #csnation 5:44 pm pst - 1/13/06	I don't think they're stupid. They wouldn't want to pull a major ad-campiagn in their own games like that. It'd piss off far too many customers, and so far Valve has shown they're not exactly ones to actively piss off their customers.

comment #5 Gpig 6:47 pm pst - 1/13/06	Zips wrote.. They do have a real reason. If there was no legal contract between the two parties, there's no way Valve should be made out to look like they're partners with companies such as Subway when they are receiving nothing in return. In terms of what Valve is going to do, I don't think they have any more bubblegum left (off-handed and slightly obscure reference). I don't think referencing the "I'm only good at two things: kicking ass and chewing bubble gum. And I'm all out of bubble gum" quote can really be considered obscure on the internet. I've never seen the movie but I've seen that referenced so fucking much. Also, I thought assault was a really impressive looking map but other than that and the initial wow effect of source I haven't really drooled at any of the upcoming release screenshots, but man this looks really good. I like the HDR being more subdued like this in CS:S.

comment #6 :.:.: FPSLabs The Hardware Site for Gamers 6:53 pm pst - 1/13/06	Zips wrote.. Valve has shown they're not exactly ones to actively piss off their customers. AWP nerf.

comment #7 snkcube 7:13 pm pst - 1/13/06	Good job Valve!

comment #8 Gpig 7:41 pm pst - 1/13/06	I just realized I talked about militia in the wrong thread.

comment #9 Zips Tin God - #csnation 7:49 pm pst - 1/13/06	:.:.: wrote.. AWP nerf. They didn't actively sit down and go "Hey, let's do this thing just so the 'pro' players have something new to whine about." It's a passive pissing off that only aggitates a handful of people at any given time, and never the majority of players (that I've ever seen).

comment #10 kerosine99 9:21 pm pst - 1/13/06	Gpig wrote.. I don't think referencing the "I'm only good at two things: kicking ass and chewing bubble gum. And I'm all out of bubble gum" quote can really be considered obscure on the internet. I've never seen the movie but I've seen that referenced so fucking much. Duke Nukem?

comment #11 -:Nighthawk:- Xfire me. (91%) My Steam Community 11:06 pm pst - 1/13/06	You read it here first... glad to see VALVe following up on this quickly. In response to pissing people off, the jumping nerf thing I'd say pissed off a majority of players initially back with 1.4, but only the vocal minority really remained pissed. Aside from that, the only truly major things generally had to do with release dates, heh.

comment #12 Ryosuke T 1:31 am pst - 1/14/06	heh. i knew valve wouldn't let this go by.

comment #13 rizzuh 1:47 am pst - 1/14/06	Edited by rizzuh @ 1:53 am pst on 1/14/06 Zips wrote.. If there was no legal contract between the two parties, there's no way Valve should be made out to look like they're partners with companies such as Subway when they are receiving nothing in return. 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.

comment #14 Splatula 7:44 am pst - 1/14/06	No, any modification of the game for commercial purposes without express permission is both wrong AND illegal. This goes beyond EULA and straight into intellectual property. Why shouldn't Valve get a cut of Advertising action, the server software is FREE. I can download HLDS anytime, anywhere and set up a server for nothing. Valve has nothing to do with the money server ops are paying to hosting companies for their servers. I don't know where this, "I paid for the game once, I own Valve now" entitlement crap came from, but you won't see it anywhere else. Why don't you invite me to supper, I could use a new TV, Car and computer.

comment #15 pacers crazy 13 8:34 am pst - 1/14/06	kerosine99 wrote.. Duke Nukem? Thats exactly what i thought, duke3d

comment #16 Zips Tin God - #csnation 10:18 am pst - 1/14/06	Edited by Zips @ 10:29 am pst on 1/14/06 rizzuh wrote.. 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 commu [ read full quote (80 more words) ] nity. 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. 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? 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 #17 -:Nighthawk:- Xfire me. (91%) My Steam Community 10:55 am pst - 1/14/06	rizzuh wrote.. 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. 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. 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 #18 Premo_Maggot 2:20 pm pst - 1/14/06	-:Nighthawk:- wrote.. You read it here first... glad to see VALVe following up on this quickly. I actually read here first. but anyway, server companies have been advertising for years, UK2 for example. jeez valve doesn't have to get it's panties in a bunch and pull a VU.

comment #19 omgomgz You spin me right round. 10:01 pm pst - 1/14/06	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 #20 Black Winter Day 12:34 pm pst - 1/15/06	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 #21 LeRaldo #theMALE 1:40 pm pst - 1/15/06	Black Winter Day wrote.. 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. You can't possibly compare the two.

comment #22 frenzyfol 2:47 pm pst - 1/15/06	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 server

comment #23 -:Nighthawk:- Xfire me. (91%) My Steam Community 4:00 pm pst - 1/16/06	Premo_Maggot wrote.. I actually read here first. Posted by Zonk on Friday January 13, @04:06PM Posted by -:Nighthawk:- at 5:40 pm pst - 1/12/06 Shoulda been keeping up to date with the CSN comments. :P omgomgz wrote.. 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. 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. ;)