Instead of being one-sided, how about you talk about facts?

This is a sad situation. I own a LAN centre in the UK and we are part of the 85-strong membership of www.iguk.org (similar to iGames but its a non-profit making trade association).

The main reason why all LAN centres in the UK currently boycott Steam and refuse to pay the license fees that Valve have adopted is because it would set a precedent that could bankrupt all LAN centres or force them underground.

If one publisher charges for licenses and the community agree, then all the other publishers would follow suit and they would go our of business with the fees. Most centres make little or no profit as it is.

If they are forced underground to survive, then they could revert to piracy in order to make ends meet. This is the very thing that IGUK and iGames strive to stop in all their centres.

Finally the killer arguement.

Other games publishers such as Microsoft, Novalogic, EA, Ubisoft and many more are taking advantage in the UK of the Steam Boycott and giving their games along with the licenses free of charge! Thus the centres are happy to promote the games like battlefield, generals, Joint Ops, Far Cry et al and the gamers respond to the sponsored prizes the publishers provide.

The result? I have gamers in my centre that go "Counter-what?"

This is true. We are part of UK IGUK too and I can honestly say that since we removed CS a year ago because of the licenses NONE of our gamers care.

They are playing Far Cry. Battlefield Vietnam, 1942, Generals, AOM, Joint Ops (thanks to Novalogic giving out code in advance!). And Call of Duty.

Valve may be pissed that Counterstrike was the biggest online game in the world and they made nothing from it. (erm they didnt maje it either!) But I hope they continue with their stance because the other publishers are seeing the value of LAN centres as marketing assets. But who knows, maybe Valve will see this one day too, and stop using them as Income assets.

Imagine if Valve had used the 1000s of centres worldwide to promote Steam for free?! CS would have exploded as gamers could have taken the game home with them on CDs and then signed up for pay 2 play at home too.

Missed opportunity. Game over.

Entirely reasonable--quit your whining.

BattleGround PC Gaming is using Half-Life to make money, and they need to buy a commercial license (or ten). If Valve has a per-seat license and BattleGround doesn't think that's fair, they can always find another game. They're presumably paying the landlord for use of the premises, and they pay their other commercial suppliers whatever fees are charged. What makes anyone think it's OK to skip on commercial license fees?

If you use someone's product as a core element in your money-making scheme, you should expect to share the wealth. If that's a problem for you, maybe you should go home and cry to mommy. No one in the business community really gives a fat rat's ass about clueless whiners who think life is supposed to be "fair".

Copyright law is not going to go away. Deal with it.

Todd:

I'm sorry, but you are absolutely incorrect. There is no need for a commercial license to play a game. Software licenses are not contracts and cannot reduce rights, only extend them.

If I buy a DVD movie and charge for the admission to a party where the movie will be shown, I am not in violation of copyright law.

"Quit your whining?" Valve needs to quit their whining. If they want to exploit cybercafes, they should make a different version of the game with cafe-friendly features, and charge more for it.

Though Valve is right, in principle, their strong-arm approach will be their demise. It reeks of the RIAA. Valve's games are the same as Halo, Doom, and the thousand other FPS's out their. Aside from the storyline, they are all the same. So when a gamer can't play Half-Life, because their local cyber-cafe is boycotting Valve, they will happily play Halo, and the only casualty will deservedly be Valve. Kudos to Novalogic, EA and the others for allowing a new business model to develop, considering their will be the biggest benefactors. Maybe with their extortion money, Valve can buy a clue.

Tim: you are incorrect about the movie.

If you buy a DVD, you can watch it. You *can't* share it with a room full of people for a fee. Buying the DVD only gives you the right to watch the movie yourself, and maybe with a few friends (don't remember the exact phrasing)

Libraries can't even show movies on DVD without paying a fairly expensive fee for use. Such fees go up astronimically if you're going to charge people to see the movie.

It's analogous to buying a CD then making copies and selling them. RIAA would have a field day with that.

Same deal.

While I agree that this could break some LAN centers or force them to remove any Half-Life games from their systems, I beleieve it's a fair practice.

Think about if you want to use any other software commercially. You have to buy a commercial license which is much more expensive than just buying the software - because this software comes with a private license, not commercial. If you're going to make money with their software, prepare to bone up for it.

Think of it like McDonald's. When you buy/build a McDonald's business it costs millions of dollars, when the cost of the machinery doesn't cost nearly that much. What you pay for is the name and the ability to make money by using it. Kinda the same deal here.

Don't want to pay for commercial licensing? Think it's unfair? Too bad, it's here to stay. If you don't want to pay for it don't use the software.

You think that just because Valve didn't originally develop CS and other Valve games that they don't invest money into it? Look at the updates, I guess those just pop out of thin air eh? Maintaining software costs money just like creating it.

While I believe Valve is going about it in a relatively shady way, don't get your panties in a bunch over it and either pay the fee or stop offering those games.

Ty:
Part of the bunching panties is over the fact that Valve is not saying "pay up or don't offer Counterstrike", they're saying "pay up or we'll kick your arse" Removal of the game is not even an option here.
And your McDonalds analogy is rather specious, unless I can get a "Home McDonalds" franchise for less than a commercial one. Part of the problem here is that Valve isn't content with BattleGround buying 10 copies of HL/Counterstrike and calling it a day. No, they want commercial licenses.
Let's go this a step further. Does any LAN tournament who has Counterstrike played there now need commercial licenses for the (potentially hundreds) of gamers there too? If so, you a) won't be playing Counterstrike there anymore, or b) won't be seeing anymore LAN tourneys.
And where does the line get drawn? What about if you have a LAN party at your house, and it's a pot luck for the BBQ? Technically as the homeowner you're benefitting financially from the free food and booze, so do you need commercial licenses there too?
Valve has built up incredible fan support and goodwill over the last several years, but ever since Steam started up, it seems they're desparate to piss it all down the drain. Maybe they should ask Interplay how that worked out for them....

This is why Piracy is so mainstream. Screw Valve

And lets not forget that even after you pay the $3000 bucks the quality of service is horendous from what I'v heard. A simple email requesting details of their commercial licensing took two months in one GCs experiense. After paying all the cash and a monthly fee I want a software vendor to treat me with some sort of respect. You get this kind og treatment from the high software professionals like IBM or Computer Associates (CA). At least those guys are good for a free lunch once or twice a month.

"If I buy a DVD movie and charge for the admission to a party where the movie will be shown, I am not in violation of copyright law."

Actually, that's completely wrong. You probably won't get busted, but you would be in violation of federal copyright laws. Commercial entities pay copyrights when they use other peoples' intellectual property as part of their business. When a restaurant provides background music, for instance, they're expected to pay public performance fees. If they don't, they're in violation of the law. Same with bars, clubs, etc. The people who wrote Half-Life are in business to make money, and if you are charging people to use the game, they are entitled to a commercial fee. That's how the law works.

I feel that it is the software publishers responsibility to secure their software. If you don't have a lock on your door, expect an intruder. I feel the same goes with these gaming companies. If they want us to fork over a ton of money for a commercial license when 100,000 other people are using it illegally then they should fork over a load of money to research a way to secure their shit!

Brian, you feel that it is their responsibility to secure their own software. And that's absolutely correct; you wouldn't expect anyone else to secure it for them. But the implication of your comment... that until they secure it beyond people's reach, then people should just take it, does not stand. It just doesn't make sense. "It's your responsibility to make sure I don't do anything bad (or illegal)"? How does that make sense?

If you're going to argue that it's not bad to steal or use software illegally, that also doesn't make much sense. To use the same analogy, if an intruder does break down through the lock on your house, trashes the place, steals your computer, maybe hurts some friends/family members... I hope you don't call the police. Instead, you'll immediately start buying new stuff and apologizing to your friends/family, "I'm sorry, it's my fault. That guy would never have made it in here if I'd only had a better lock..."

Ok, I agree with both sides of this, but let me bring a differnt point of view to the table. First Hand experience with Valve/Steam on this.

I own and operate a LAN Center which offers steam to the members. We originally started as a private group where everyone had thier own Steam ID's and used them logon to our machines. This was great and all, and then we noticed new people came in to play, and wanted to try it before they bought it. Now the local EB Games won't allow you to "try" it before you buy, cause the key get registered to the user. So, we had a few id's here that I owned personally due to the fact that I bought the platinum version which had three usable keys inside. I would let people use them, and then after people became addicted to CS, which most do, they bought a cd of thier own. Is that so wrong? Well Valve seems to think so. I got an email from them stating that I had to purchase minimun ten licenses at $10/month. This is after already buying and selling dozens of copies of thier game for them.

I inquired as to if I would recieve and credit for the copies I had already purchased, and they told me no.

Now, if we had enuf copies to go around, and we made the users buy them before they play, they could use them for as long as they want. I will just refund them the money for thier game. Legit? Grey area? Vavle won't take back returned copies of thier games and give me new ones, so I am forced to resell the ones I already have taken back.

Seems like one way around it.

I have another point to make, Companies normally license thier software on a per machine basis. does this mean that I can't use Windows on these computers without some special license? How about internet explorer? Outlook express?

How about the hardware? I am using Personal PC's meant for home use, not comercial workstations? Is AMD gonna sue me next for renting the hardware I bought from them? Surely they have copyrights on thier product? no?

Maybe Steam should come up with some universal pay as you go service that could be spent anywhere. Maybe if they did it like Everquest where the user pays monthly, wouldn't matter. But asking a cyber cafe or LAN center to pay, when people may not be using them that much is ludicris. If it wasn't for my snack bar, I think I would go broke.

I should also add, that we do public veiwings of movies all the time, every sunday night acctually. But, we do NOT charge anything for that.

send flames/comments to sneakynightmuppet@aventuremail.com

In my entertainment room I have big screen TV and a wall filled with my DVD collection. If I were having a party where I charged for admission, then it's understood that everybody has access to my DVD collection. People are playing cards, pool, hanging out in the jacuzzi... Should I have to pay royalties if someone wanted to put in one of my movies? Maybe I should have to pay royalties to the Jacuzzi manufacturer? Or the people who made the pool table?

Valve has the right to do what they please. If any other game developer wants to sack up and make a better game, please, go right ahead.

Until then, CS will continue to be the most popular online shooter.

I've always been a big fan of the Half-Life series, and gaming centers as well. It Seems to me that Counter-Strike really brought LAN centers into a slightly more mainstream existence in the first place.

The worlds largest Counter-Strike competetion is held twice a year in Dallas, the CyberAthelete Proffessional league runs this tournament. What are they supposed to do. They have Counter-Strike installed on over 120 machines, and will only use these copies 10 days out of the year. The licensing fee could be enormous if Valve sticks to their guns. The problem with that is they could also shoot themselves in the foot.
Valve is a relatively small company and they relie heavily on the support of a tight nit community of hardcore gamers. The Half-Life mod community is a sub-group of this overall community. Now if Valve decides to start destroying LAN centers and Tournaments by starting to charge licensing fees, I garuntee you I'll find another game. I will not stand behind a company that is willing to destroy its own community. A community that has given it Counter-Strike, Natural Selection, The Gunman Chronicles...etc. Valve stands to bite the hand that feeds it, if it continues down this path of utter contempt and disregard, they will find my back turned when they want me to buy HL2.

It certainly does seem to be a very peculiar stance Valve are taking. If they really understood their customer base, they would realise that the majority of them object to this kind of corporate bullying. I know quite a few people who have decided to boycott Valve products altogether.

Im just thankful that LAN parties are not affected by this. Because LAN party customers are bringing their own equipment with their own games installed, the LAN organisers are only charging for the use of their network and deskspace. They are not actually charging nor making profit on any of the games played on that network. Its just a shame that LAN centres fall on the other side of the fence on that matter.

The only way in HELL this would be fair is if Valve was charging different prices to different cyber cafes based on seating, average income, popularity of said cafe, and a bazillion other variables.

I can gurantee you this won't hurt larger cyber cafes (at least here in the US) that have more than enough to shell out whatever Valve tells them to while smaller cyber cafes will get punched right out of biz based on the non-negotiable fees Valve wants to squeeze out of the community (that they were lucky enough to have).

I'd rant on more but it would just be flame bait (although justified). Welcome to the world of piracy Valve, I hope you enjoy your STAY.

I *think* a lot of people have read Valve's letter without realizing how they've mixed apples and oranges. Their second sentence talks about licensing issues, while the third talks about "unauthorized duplication and use." Okay fine, but those are two seperate issues. I'm assuming that the BattleGround has purchased enough copies of Valve's software... so where's the copyright infringement? This is almost totally (if not exclusively) a licensing issue and shame on Preston & Gates & Ellis for writing such bullshit.

You've still got time, so write them back (via certified mail) and let them know you'd rather not purchase a commercial license and instead will cease and desist from using their software. Further, request that they either fully detail the *alleged* copyright infringements or formally retract any claims of infringement. Don't think of this as bullying, think of it as a negotiation. Oh, and ignore their ten day crap, thats just to get a reply. Once your letter goes into the mail, the clock doesn't start ticking till they respond again.

p.s. Don't admit anything in your letter. it needs to be one of those "if i had done anything wrong, then..."

feel free to contact PG&E to tell them what you think: http://www.prestongates.com/contact/default.asp
Seattle, Washington
925 Fourth Avenue
Suite 2900
Seattle, Washington 98104-1158
Tel: (206) 623-7580
Fax: (206) 623-7022
1-800-551-4613
E-mail: info@prestongates.com

Wow. That is a one sided article if there ever was one.

Forcing them to use Steam? EVERYONE that plays Valve’s games has to use Steam.

I have been involved with Steam since its Thin Client beta testing and while it has had its problems along the way and I have gotten pretty red faced some times when it was not working probably I consider it to be one of the biggest advancements in the gaming industry. From a gamers point of view it allows you to monitor servers, chat with friends, download updates for all the supported Mods, and to purchase software and download it directly through Steam.

All of this software is for gamers. It is written and designed for people buying their product and while their games are planed at LAN centers it is not Valves responsibility to keep the struggling LAN café’s solvent.

Keep in mind that a large part of the reasoning behind creating Steam was to keep down the enormous amount of software piracy. Valve is a business. They are not Microsoft that can give away the bank to get a foot in the door. They have to establish a business model that will allow them to remain profitable for the long run.

Everyone needs to stop making the stupid, “I am having a party and charging admission and people might watch my DVD’s argument”. Valve is a business, the LAN center is a business, they have to pay whatever is asked in order to use the software. It too much is being asked for then it is a bad business model and will not work over time. The market decides that, not some half brained “what if” scenario.

YES BUT STEAM IS SHITE, CS WAS GREAT BEFORE STEAM, WE DONT NEED THE THINIGS YOU HAVE PLACED ABOVE DO WE, FRIENDS?? WE HAVE MSN AND AOL AND EVERY OTHER DAMNED CHAT PROGRAM ON THE EARTH, AND THEY DONT USE ALL MY CPU AND RAM!!!, WOW, YOU MANAGED 2 STICK 2 EXTRA GUNS ON CS! WHOO, BIG DEAL, JUST STOP PISSING PEOPLE OFF WITH YOUR BUGGY SHITTY SOFTWARE!
I'VE HAD VIRUS's THAT HAVE MADE LESS OFF AN INPACT.

Joe,

Nothing like putting forth an intellectual argument, huh?

Get a new computer.

I dont play the game, I dont even have it. I only know it because my brother plays it and I sell it in a gamestore. As far as I know, counter-strike is a mod created by a fan in the U.S.
If this guy created the mod, and sold the rights to Valve, shouldent he be recieving the fee's? Even if Valve is determind to get those so desired fee's, why don't they create somekind of 3-year usage fee, payed by each cyber-cafe compagny. It would be more payable and both party's get what they want. I agree, what you dont give to the public, they wont miss, but even the compagny's can't ignore the succes of counter-strike. I know only one thing about the game, if Valve keeps being stubborn, it will only get one thing out of it. Gamers who refuse to pay those prices for free games, will simply download them from the net. For every copy they sell, 10 will be downloaded. I warry often about it when I sell a copy of counter-strike, why buy it? You can download it for free and Valve has nothing to say about it. They just want to make some easy money on somebody elses work. I personnaly think thats the real rip-off.

As I was alluding to before, Valve's approach will kill LAN cafes. Now how good would that be for Valve's profits, when copies that could be bought aren't? Valve has to rethink its stance. They are throwing out the baby, with the bathwater here. Many of the opinions supportting Valve's position say the same thing, that Valve wants money. The are already getting money, they just want more money and they want it now. A more cooperative approach, where discussion and negotiation are involved, would prove profitable for everyone in the long-term, whereas Valve seems to want to be the only one to profit and they want their profit today. If Valve manages to squeeze these small businesses out of profitability, they will close. If 9 out of 10 places close and the last remaining 1 boycotts Valve, how profitable is that? Valve's business will rely solely on the hardcore gamer without a conscience, because the ones with a conscience will boycott Valve also. I advise that Valve's employees start looking for work somewhere else, because Valve will eventually not be able to pay them, not because of piracy, commercial licences, or a failing economy, but because of their own actions.

To Valve: A little money is better than no money. Think about it!

Jack,

That is nonsense. They PURCHASED the MOD from the developer. When they buy “counter-strike” at your store they are buying the half life game, not Counter-Strike. They are getting Counter-Strike included for free. No one can go download Counter-Strike and play for free. You would have already had to have purchased Half Life, then you could down load CS for free and play that on the Half Life that you purchased.

It is the same money either way.

You would think that someone that sold this product would have a clue as to how it worked.

Valves approach may very well be wrong and short sited, but it is their gamble to make.

Ok here is my take on this.
1. They made it, and its theirs ( Valves) so cant they decide what to do with it? You have a license to use it thats it, you dont own the software. this is the same way Microsoft makes their $$ so does Valve
2. If a CyberCafe will go under because it doesnt have CS or HL then that sure sounds like to me that the Cafe isnt doing business right.. Is that Valves fault or the owner/operator of the CyberCafe?
3. Piracy is an issue and cant the creator of the software decide how to stop it? and the loss of funds the piracy takes on their total income?
If you think they should not stop piracy do this. go to a mall, dump your money on the floor and walk away leaving the $$ behind you..

Ahh i thought not.......

Personally, if I ran a cyber cafe, I'd tell Valve to fuck off, I'm not charging people to play Counter-Strike. I'm charging them for the amount of time and effort it took me to create and establish this environment. Really, Valve thinks they can charge for something that has already been paid for? It is my property, I'll do with it what I like.

Well i manage a LAN centre in the UK and i have purchased 15 copys of Half Life just for CS. i think Valves tactics are bang out of order. (i agree with Matt's last comment) LAN centres are not going to go under because of this as there are many games that are far better than CS. we currently run CS 1.5 which is not covered by ELSPA and we HAVE BOYCOTTED CS 1.6 (steam)

IPF: You don't work for a cafe do you?

Well we have been a licensed game center with Valve until just recently. We decided to remove their titles from our machines - then they sent us a big invoice - not good.

We have sent Valve several emails concerning the recent rash of lawsuits. I believe Valve has the right to protect their intellectual property and I believe they have the right to ask non-paying centers to remove the software, but I also believe that this move is in poor taste and a very bad business decision.

We will not ever again carry Valve titles, nor will we promote their games in our center or in events. This type of business practice is in the poorest taste and should not be tolerated by gamers or game centers.

If I played CS I wouldn't be now and if I was a center owner that had their software I would remove it immediately!

We don't do business with other businesses that behave in this manner and never will.

1 CD Key = 1 License
10 CD Keys = 10 Licenses
50 CD Keys = 50 Licenses

Why should a cafe pay ongoing, neverending fees if they have already legally purchased 10, 20 or 50 CD keys of each game they offer?

What else is Valve giving the cafes other than the privelege to market their game to the cafe's local customer base? Can the cafe's legally use Valve logo's to print up T-Shirts and sell them to their customers? If a cafe is is licensed by Valve are they totally licensed to do whatever they want to make a buck with Valve products?

Read the Steam forums. (www.steampowered.com/forums) Talk about shitty customer support. How does Valve expect a business to enter into any agreement with the customer support background of Valve.

Check out "Valve LLC" on the BBB.org website. According to the BBB: "Based on BBB files, this company has an unsatisfactory record with the Bureau due to unanswered complaints. Additionally, the company responded to one complaint."

Yeah, I want to do business with them.

I don't really think it's fair for Valve to be charging game centers money that customers at home don't need to pay. It's a benefit for Valve to have their games hosted at game centers, because customers try the game, then go buy it, along with other things. Why would they ignore that fact? It bothers me how sometimes, things are so obvious, but they tend to be ignored on purpose, and that's what I think is going on right now. Why? Probably for extra profit. These guys are such jerks to enforce this kinda stuff, it makes me sick thinkin about it. Yeah, that's what I think. Hah

I can see where Valve is going with this. But all the cyber-cafe owners have to do is license Valve's Steam on a small amount of computers. That way the people who don't have CD-keys can play without a hassle. And then the rest of the computers in the store will not have Steam accounts installed. So on the computers that don't have Steam accounts, the customers will have to use their own CD-key.

And everytime a customer plays CS and then leaves, the user's account name and password can be automatically erased with the use of Symantec's GoBack software (http://www.symantec.com/goback/). It takes only 2 minutes for a computer to be rolled-back to the original condition; especially when the only change was a log-in with a Steam account. Then the next customer will have to have a Steam account to play or he won't be able to play CS.

So in theory, Steam can always be installed on the computer because of Symantec's GoBack program erases the CD-key information. And anyone who wants to use their own CD-key can do that. And Valve won't see any people playing their games without owning a CD key. And for the people who don't have CD-keys, the cybercafe will have to use Valve's commercial licensing for the a small percentage of their comptuers. Let's say they have 10 computers that have Steam accounts on. And 30 computers that don't have access to Steam without an account. That would cut down on their costs a lot but still provide users with access to CS if they want to play.

So Valve has a right to charge cybercafes for profiting off their software. There has to be provisions too, like a cybercafe has to commercially license a certain number of computers just to have Steam's software installed at all. So if they don't license software from Valve, they can't put CS on their computers. As a single-user license is only meant for personal use. If a third-party is making a profit while you play CS at a cybercafe, then Valve has a right to charge them money.

The same logic would be, "Would it be legal if I set up a movie theater, allow people to bring in their own DVD's to watch by themselves (i.e. no friends/family), and then charge them an hourly fee?" Technically, they own the DVD movie but I'm making money off of the exhibition of someone else's work. So that would be illegal. Therefore, this case of cybercafe's complaining about licensing is unfounded. They have a choice of paying a commercial license to have Steam installed on their computer or making a deal with Valve that they have to license a certain percentage of computers while they can let the rest of the computers to not have Steam accounts. That would be the best scenario and would make everyone happy.
And then if Valve wants to make more money off the cybercafes, they can slowly increase the percentage of computers that are required to have a commercial license. So when people are used to this scheme, they can nudge it up to 100% if they feel like they have lots of influence in the gaming community. Because people don't like change, its good to slowly introduce new licensing schemes to them. Gives them more time to adapt- good business sense to let the customers feel comfortable.

"If any other game developer wants to sack up and make a better game, please, go right ahead.
Until then, CS will continue to be the most popular online shooter."

heh - someone here doesn't know their ass from their titties :)

CS has been surpassed by a vast number of titles, both for the team and tactical shooter genre, or for the LAN darling or netcafe cashmonkey.

The reason its popularity continued for so long had little to do with the quality of the game: It was supported by a very effective and simple online authentication system for a very long time (the now defunct WON), it required VERY low-spec hardware to play, and the semi-random nature of the game meant even newbies could jump in and get a few Headshots in a pubby.

So don't think valve can ride out a wave of community displeasure for any length, you are sorely misinformed. Solid competitors are legion, and they have not perfect or near flawless records in every area as their history and legacy - Valve have been cool, but Blizzard they are not.

Whatever your belief on this issue, make no mistake, Valve are in dangerous waters and need to tread carefully. They have enjoyed the highest band of community backing (look at the huge effort that tracked and caught, with overwhelming and damning evidence, the Source hackers), but they are not the most influential nor massive company around - squandering such goodwill on lawyers' fees will likely prove to be more costly than they can afford.

As for my own view, I see no problem with any company ensuring the use of their software is exchanged for by fair payment, but the 'commercial license' model seems totally utterly inappropriate for use on small-time netcafes.
Microsoft's license system borders on the criminal at times (any small business trying to setup a copy of windows 2000 server on an office of half a dozen computers can could expect to discover the truth of this in a most unpleasant manner), but in some ways valve's approach is worse.

Making small, thin profit-line businesses that are in fact doing them a not inconsiderable service by-ways of promotion - and that most evanscent of PR objectives 'Brand Recognition' - pay limitles and inflexible rental fees ATOP a non-token purchase price (for what is essentially a more than decade old technology base), and worse, doing it in a hyperaggressive and overtly undiplomatic manner...
well, it makes me wonder if the manager or advisor in charge of this iniative does in fact have Valve's best interests at heart.

How can they do this fairly?
* Drop the purchase price off (a free commercial download off STEAM for any valve product) in exchange for its monthly charge fee (with a 12 month amnesty for anyone with existing legitimately purchased software)
* Forget repeated license fees altogether, or at the least ask for a one-off additional commercial fee atop the purchase price.
* Enforce by way of persuasion; instead of coming in with all lawyers blazing, why not quietly work out a mutually viable undestanding with offending outfits? The promotional value of a popular local lan-joint is clearly undervalued.
* Any continual license fee should be scaled against the numbers that will be using the product, whilst weighted against the additional exposure a larger audience provides.

Just some thoughts as to how this can be approached more sanely.

This has been building up in me for quite a while, and reading this just popped the cork. Excuse the length and colorful language that follows.

I own a new LAN center. Valve's policies on Steam are bullshit. For one, while I like to provide popular games to my customers, and counterstrike (not half life, not blue shift, not team fortress, not ricochet, not opposing force) is a popular game, I really dont get that many people in that want to just play CS. Maybe I'll get someone every couple of days.

I'm a new center and I love working in this business, but Valve's totally unrealistic approach to this issue is laughable at best. CS is a 6 year old game, and steam is a heaping pile of crap that makes using the 6 year old ancient graphic having game even more of a pain in the butt. People dont play CS because its the super duper greatest shooter of all time. People play CS because it will run on any piece of crap computer that you can buy at a yard sale.

My center, while a large and so far, popular center, doesn't make enough money off counterstrike or even the combined halflife library to justify paying a premium price for a game that is up there in years, when there are much better games that are both newer (such as call of duty or even medal of honor which is about the same age, just a lot more stable and all around better game) and older such as tribes 1 which is free, that DONT have a licensing agreement that is so outrageous.

I like having a wide selection for all gamers. I would think that as my entire customer base is so in Valve's demographic that their PR people would practically wet their pants to be able to advertise their products here, they would realize this and make it as easy as possible for places like mine to be able to get their products to market. Hell Valve, you should be calling me, begging me to let you bring your software here for use.

If you want to be real honest about it, I realize that people like myself and Valve are obviously looking at it from opposite ends of the barrel..here's my take on it.

Valve isnt doing me a favor. Right now there are half a dozen first person shooters out there that are on par and better than Cs and the rest of the hl library(that are all exactly the same). If it werent for hl/CS's ability to run on everything short of a WebTV, it would have gone the way of quake1 a long time ago.

If there is a favor being done here..its is by me for Valve. Keeping their name stuck in their target demographic's face every single time they walk in my door. They need to realize that I am for free, what they paying places like EB games, millions of dollars for every single year. I am marketing, I am advertising, I am promotion, I am one of the best driving forces that will make people go buy their games for personal use at home. People come in here, maybe watch a game of cs and other games, ask me what it is, and I personally HEAR them say matter of factly that they are going to go buy the game(s)..not because they saw it on their little brothers bedroom on his 5 year old packard bell junk box. But because my place, the up to date equipment, its customers, its reputation brought them here so they could be introduced to it.

Hey Valve...guys like me...lancenter owners, we're your front men...your face...We're your best salesmen you idiots. I and my facility that I've sunk 100k+ of every last dime of my personal savings into is what is still making sales for you and your game that should have died 3-4 years ago, possible. Do you think the high profile, interest inducing tournaments get started, promoted, and administered because of all the teenagers that go out and illegally warez your game anyway?

You want money from me to let people know about your damn near decade old games? You think that's fair?...fine, then you better start coughing up my commision checks for all the people that came in here because of my advertising, marketing and sweat keeping the place clean and in running condition, and went on MY recommendation on buying your game as well as directions to a place to find it.

I bought a copy of each game for each machine (oh, and by the way Valve, in case you dont know, your coding sucks so bad, that even though I have totally legit retail copies, I still find servers that i cant get on becaues my key is in use? wanna know why? because key generators for your half ass game by 14 year old code monkeys are as common as hookers in las vegas)

As far as I'm concerned, thats all I should have to pay. Because when it comes right down to it, it's not playing CS that brings people into my LAN center, its my LAN center that brings people in to play CS.

Oh, LAN centers (the "Frontmen") have problems? Boo hoo. Might I remind you LAN centers are only taking the good-natured and non-profit work that we LAN party admins put in LONG before you decided to try and commercialize our hobby and turn it into cash for yourselves?

You try and make money off the developers, you'll have to pay some money. Get used to it, you corporate jackals.

I too was a Cybercafe owner here in Los Angeles and Valve was always the most expensive. All other titles were simply licensed by purchasing one retail copy for each computer. Valve was $2000 per year for the license *AND* 20 copies. Then it scaled up as you added groups of 20 computers.

Valve's problems are financially motivated by their blunders over the past 6 years.
1) Halflife 2 has taken far too long for development.
2) Condition Zero...too long for development.
3) Steam is a large waste of resources and disliked by all. Good for Valve's bottom line since they can further control licenses.
4) CounterStrike 2. Not developed at all.
5) Rather than monopolize on Cybercafes Valve stifles them.
6) Develop Halflife 2 on Internet connected PCs. Machines are hacked, code is stolen.

I could continue but you can already see the point. Valve have wasted their cash on poor choices and have followed them with more poor choices in the licensing arena.

Sad to see a good company waste away.

I must say that I despise auto dealerships (I'm in the US) placing punch-in/bolt-on decals onto the bodies of new autos being sold. The buyer surely isn't getting a break for that free advertising.

As for the McDonald's franchise analogy above, well, why doesn't the consumer/consumer of a Big Mac get to demand a price reduction for a burger taken to go? I mean, if I eat in the park, brandish or otherwise display a McDonald's sandwich bag or wrapper, I am in effect advertising for them.

As for PC games, the licensing is SPECIOUS, greedy, and ought to be illegal. The price on the box is the determined price for product success. If the developers and investors honestly believe they would discover and gain compensation from commercial users of their software, they would have no need for a high price on the box on display. But, since they cannot know ALL commercial users, they raise the price on the box to cover for the inability to charge as much as they'd like to get away with in an otherwise perfect scenario.

Now, if I play a game only at home, I am not subject to a commercial license requirement. Once I go into the public or even play a movie on a laptop or DVD player whilst standing in a movie line/queue, I technically am subject to being harassed by a representative of the title's owners.

Software companies OUGHT to count their blessings and feel lucky their warez have even been bought. The problem is, they often write CRAPWARE. Here is an example: I once bought a sim of Apache at a local Fry's Electronics sometime back round 1994-96. I got home and tried to start and stop each engine, control the rudders and so forth. I expected it to behave like Jane's Longbow Apache.

Well, lo and behold, the damned sim/game lacked sufficient realism in the featuresets that it claimed to possess. I took it back to the store and complained and they told me that since I opened and played it that I was not entitled to a refund.

I was furious, livid, raging, inside, but methodically tore apart their refund policy and demanded that they test each copy of ANYthing the sell and honestly ask would THEY "want to keep this deplorable piece of shit, with its bullshit lying, false, deceptive advertising/artwork"... Well, they refunded my money, I think because that day I may have brandished before the return clerk's eyes the numerous receipts representing over $800 worth of purchases and only 2 or 3 returns that didn't exceed $50.

Really, the way to deal with such bullying licenses is to begin a campaign to force titles resellers to display a playable version, capable of displaying ALL the featuresets. IF they cannot do that, the SCREW'em. Any maker of a title that is only a piece of nice artwork and lousy underlying code, crippled or worthless interface features, and poor documentation and shoddy storylines needs to have never sold the "crapware" to begin with. Consumers used as guinea pigs for a shyster software/title promoter need to learn to sue the asses off such companies.

(This type of deceptive artwork applies to VHS and DVD titles, too. They should be legally required to give the view the opportunity to scan any 10-seconds worth of footage in any and every chapter. This would force lame-assed screenplay writers to clean up their act and deny them any future opportunities to milk the unsuspecting purchaser. Renting a crappy piece of celluloid is one thing; buying it and being told it can only be replace if it is defective, and then even if you don't like it and it's defective simultaneously, you can only exchange it for an IDENTICAL title is pure BS. So long as the movie and game and other software titles' developers, owners and promoters behave this way, I have NO compunction for them or their sorry, drivel, feckless complaints about "piracy". In this mode of operation, it is THEY who are pirates as well, plundering the wallets and purses of duped consumers.)

I used to like CS/HL, but since my combination of flat screen, video card, and maybe poor controller have made for recent unpleasant experiences, rather than tear apart my box's current h/w config to enjoy wasted hours gaming, I just gave my friend back her display and I yanked out my windoze drive and made Mandrake my primary. I am not playing games on it, but I did have other things to do that had priority.

Since valve wants to bully that shop, it is "pulling a microsoft" by forcing the proprietor to pay up and enter a 1-year licensing agreement rather than at least giving them a choice of 3 options. And, to tell the proprietor that they cannot delete the copies nor purchase new, legit licensing via Steam/Valve's offices only makes me thing that the law office itself is a conniving, scheming dirtwad trying to ensure income stream. Rather than chance that Steam will write or ring up saying "Thanks for your retainer status; we've worked it out with the miscreant and won't be needing your services...", that attorney decides to remove reasonable chance for "curing" the problem. This is a common "disease" in some law offices, speaking TOO much on behalf of the wronged who really often may only want recognition and a "cease and desist" compliance.

Well, this is too long a piece of writing, but I really think once you pay the cover price, you can play and charge as long as you don't break open the code, if the product is proprietary. If it's open source, then there's not much of a problem. If the displayer or player of the app or game is creating a venue for other players, then the best thing the title developer/owner can do is create or enhance networking playability, intensify the marketing, and attempt to more palatably increase its followership. Seems to me Steam and it's steamrolling counsel are just out for a buck.

David Syes

Our company has site licenses for a number of Microsoft products including servers and application software. We pay over 350,000 every 3 years for those licenses.

This is the cost of doing business. The same goes with Internet Cafe's and LAN Centers. Doing it legal costs money. Not doing it legal will cost a lot more once you get caught.

As far as the DVD analogy goes, if you plan on making money primarily of the movies that you show, or promote those movies in any way, then you are breaking the law. You likely won't be busted for it, but it's a poor comparison anyway.

You're not STEALING from Valve if you don't buy those licenses, but you are not giving them their due compensation if you don't get them. You won't go to jail, but you'll lose your business.

May I offer you, Greg, some advice?

Take just 10% of your profit and secretly funnel/divert it to your new or favorite Open Source developers. Give a shot of it to www.flightgear.org or your new or favorite Open Source game or sim.

In just 2 years or even less, you will have increased the time and devotion an Open Source developer has and encourage him/her to legitimately provide software that is useful and fun for many people.

I want to take Blender, AC3D, and GIMP and maybe LinuxCAD and once and for all model an naval environment I have designed. It is a ship, and the detail and my narrative freaked out a Linux-based representative of a US defense contractor who cringed when I explained why my rendition of the DDG-51 has dual pairs of fin "de-stabilizers" (it has to do with deceiving and decoying inbound missiles by changing my hull's aspect angle to the missile while my ship continues on its course and being able to keep her secondary weaponry trained on secondary or tertiary targets)... My drawing is something I'd been toiling over a few weeks at a time since 1986, based on naval architecture books and my own research prior to serving 4 years in the USN (surface fleet, 1984-1988). I made NO secret about my SSN's and DD/FF designs. Officers marveled at my attention to detail, and one strongly suggested I let the navy send me to design schooling. Even at 21, I knew that that maneuver would doom my right to express my artistic self because somewhere, eventually, I'd be exposed to classified or highly sensitive construction techniques or just then-sensitive know-how. Nowadays, so many nations participate in ship building (the French build warship hulls for Taiwan, I think it is) that it would be hardly enforceable for the industry or government to shut me down, particularly since I am not drawing circuits or actual weaponry. I just detail the heck out of my ships, down to a scale of 1"=20'; each crew member has a bunk stowage locker, work space; each major frame section has watertight doors, scuttles, ladders, and passing ports identified. Compartments use the USN name/location scheme; redundancy is apparent, and traffic flow is well-planned. My hull out-guns the USN DDG-51, is superior in helicopter stowage and maintenance space, and boasts a better space allocation for command and control station, particularly CIC. Of course, I am not an engineer. I readily admit real engineers would have to scan my drawing and use their own noggin or the computers' to adjust some equipment locations for stability and fuel efficiency reasons, but I made sure my hull carries more fuel than the DDG-51, my book gives the fuel range (after I analyzed brochures and nav/arch material spanning 40 years of war documents or reports in numerous books and compared oil-fired vs gas turbine-powered ships, thanks to the USN and GE and Rolls Royce)... Yep, my ship carries over 2280 tons of fuel, and at 14 knots or so will traverse over 10k nm.

But, to take this thing to the digital stage, as a global game, I'd have to either have millions of R&D dollars, subject myself to a "grab-all" investor (assuming I'd not find any angel investors), or I'd have to sell the drawings on the market (which I did last year) and wait for someone respecting my copyright to want to fairly work with me to digitize the thing better than I could. Hence, I could run a CAD/Design/Internet Cafe/Tutorial Center/Open Source Advocacy Center all in one.

However, I am better at grid paper and ink and my mind's eye of 3D than the current offerings of CAD software available to Linux users. But, eventually, I would like to see my digital ship linked to Flightgear via the Internet, offering a very rich gaming environment at a low cost, developed by Open Source developers, playable by anyone whose computers hardware and software follow STANDARDS.

I wrote a business plan for an Internet Cafe I for which I sought funding. In my plan, I budgeted for about $200-$500 per month to go to Open Source-friendly developers. I figured that if my shop was benefiting from games play, I'd make sure that developers wanting to join the fray would get some resources. (this was not considering any commingling of my drawings/hobbies...)

Now, mind you, SOME commercial/proprietary titles holders would suffer a thrombosis, diarrhea, and an aneurysm simultaneously if they found out you were sending a total of some $10-20k per year to several Open Source games developers, right? Right. They'd pull your license and whip out that overlooked No Compete clause faster than you could scratch your nose.

If you don't do it, eventually someone else will. And when their shop has lower costs of operation, less licensing, less GREEDY-based/control-based licensing costs and terms of agreement, then they might be your new competitor instead of co-member. Many people don't go into business to just make do. Some want to become extremely wealthy, in the face of odds against them. Rather than suffer the anguish of not being rich, I'd rather skim off some retained income and do a little political and social re-engineering of the software industry.

While writing my plan, Carnivore and Echelon came to strike fear into me. How to deal with it? Set up a policy of regular rotation and destruction of equipment. Regularly irregular. Place placards admonishing patrons that they must be on their best behavior. Admonishing them that I may be under orders to comply with a wiretap, one that blasts past the demarc, and might be in the keyboard, the mouse, the chassis, or in the webcam. If when the placards come down, be suspicious. As long as they're up, be suspicious.

I also planned to place a copy of the Patriot Act on PDF file and on paper next to each computer, and remind them that Librarians are subject or struck with fear by it, so even if they no longer patronized MY planned establishment, the issue running them away from me still would exist anywhere else.

If the governments to tap patrons, they can kindly do it at the demarc, or sit in their camouflaged microwave trucks or point a microwave laser from a sedan, or come in with a wearable wi-fi computer and soak up the air--ANONYMOUSLY. Proprietors need not be dragged into the debate, and librarians need not be forced to divulge the reading or surfing habits of ANY patron. Not at the expense of rights and freedoms that threaten to JAIL a human, when a piece of technology can and IS already doing it but is being lied about in the name of feigning agency compliance with privacy laws or restraints.

ISPs surely must comply, but it may only be a matter of time before the law slams the individual coffee shops/cyber cafe's. Unless you rip out surfing and just reduce your computing to games only.

What say you, sir?

Too many commens to read, may be someone made this suggestion: you need to write an agreement with players that when they starting to play in your cafe they "buying" the full game from you, so they like playing the game they bring with them. So, no any commercial uses! One good lawer stops all Valve's intentions to make money on cafes... May there is another way, but the satement is: "People are commercially using only hardware, the software is free!"

David, that comment was good...

Valve do this because they are making money for the LAN centers by making a game.

If valve said that CS will stopped being updated, their lose

If i buy a CD, DVD etc and charge $1 for each showing, and giving it to the owner of the DVD (the Movie company, its theirs, just you get to use it)
Then why should they let me make a profit, and see people who arent going to buy it at home because they have seen it, and come back to see it for less then 'its' worth?

I live in sydney, australia, and go to a net cafe every 3rd or so weekend.
They have 70 Computers, latest games, best hardware, and they have steam because they can run it, 70 liceneces are a lot of $$$

I own CS at home, and go to netcafes why?

Because i want to meet new people, play with my friends and have fun

Steam lets me talk ingame, chat with people from CS and not cluttering up my MSN/AOL/whatever list...

I'm against it, but its perfectly legal and should be

FYI : NetCafes get HL2 and any other future VALVe steam releases

You just gave me another good idea for Valve: MAKING MONEY ON PATCHES! Wanna get rid of all those bugs? Only $19.99 for CD!!! FYI: CS wasn't made by Valve.

I understand the principle of if you don't like the rules of the EULA don't by the product but what about changing the rules after you buy a product. How would you like it if you bought a microwave 5 years ago for $500 and the company now says that you must pay $100 a month now to use it. Well thats how I feel. I paid $1000 for 50 copies of HL then dist by Sierra. I sent letters and emails to their corp offices asking if I needed to pay any extra to use it in my cafe. I have documentation from them that says I dont have to.

Now I get letters from the lawyers of valve telling me to pay up. On top of that
1) every time I talk to valve I get a different answer on my situation
2) I was told I could buy 10-20 licenses and use SL to rotate them to all my computers. Now they say no
3) Steam sucks and I should sue them for the downtime and employee time it drains not to mention the customer problems it causes.
4) They don't keep their promises
whether its HL2 or what valve has a history of blatant lies.

Even if I wanted to I would never give my money to a company that is blatently dishonest. If I had never bought HL then everything would be fine but I bought it so I should have the right to use it with the rules at that time.
I also wouldn't mind so much but to be lied to is something I can't stand and that is what valve has done and that is something that shouldn't be tolerated and is fraud. Personally I think a LAN center that has paid this license should sue them back for
1)Fraud
2)misrepresentation
3)Check the rules for worms and viruses, the damages that steam does technically can qualify as mailicious and damaging code
4)negligence

THIS IS THE GAYEST THING A SOFTWARE CO. COULD DO AND U GUYS HAVE MY SUPPORT (EVEN THOUGH I PLAY CS THE MOST OUT OF THE CUSTUMERS U GUYS HAVE ANY WAY I AM HERE TO SPEAK OUT (AS ALWAYS) FOR U GUYS! OK

P.S. IF U HAVEN'T NOTICED IM PISSED!!!!!!!!

Take a long times to read all those comments :) (i really did read them all)...anyways...

From what i saw , i heard

1.)Valve is want to make money from "attacking" those lan-cafe....

The net cafe i always go , the owner brought like 15 "real" half life copies, just for us to go online and play. But he still got a letter from Valve ( every1 know wht happan).

Wow sound like we brought our "real" Half life is not making gd enough money for Valve?!!!(4X$ (CA) per game cope and we brought 15 of it!!!)

Is Valve think Cs really making "gd" money for net cafe owner? it is all just becos it can run by a suk system , not thing really special about a 5 years game.

Talking about copy right?! Why Valve want to catch all those buying "real" copies of half-life "good" net cafe ?! then those using Cd- gen, or just playing 1.5 ver Cs "Lan"-game center?!

It is just so unfear to those net cafe who buy real copy w/ real money. Those net cafe installed those Cs or other half life Mod, but it is our right choose wht game we play,he just rent his computer to us . He have nth to do with what we play ..right?!

Ps. CS ?! i can BoYcott iT anytime.anywhere..!

Valve just want money to keep working on their 5 years super long slow project "half- life 2" .....By the way...when it will come out? like never..?!

First things first. Valve is retarded, and counter-strike is a pathetic excuse for a game. I never understood why game centers carried that wretched waste of software anyways. I think the only reason anyone ever played it was because it was easily accessible and everyone played it. Well, I think the fact that valve is taking away the only think that made it's piece of junk game playable is quite ironic, as well as fitting. The fact that they're trying to extort game centers out of money they don't really have for actually promoting their god-awful game is pathetic, and reeks of corporate greed. They're simply digging their own grave, and giving more game-center owners an excuse to get rid of that horrible FPS, and get better games, like Revolt, the new mod for COD. And for the record, any of you morons who think that valve is justified in trying to ruin a newly budding section of the game industry by trying to squeeze more money out of a horribly overused game, well, maybe you should ask to borrow some money from the cash grubbing companies to buy a clue, you dorks. Yeah, I think I'm done ranting now. No one needs CS anyways, waste of hard drive space.

Heh do I understand it right that they want $2000 per year if you have HL installed on the gaming rig in the cybercafe, even if noone uses it and therefore you don't have any profit from it?

And to think I was unpleasantly surprised finding out id Software charges 12,5% of the actual profit you have from using the software (and only if the profit is higher than $5000 a month). Well now I say I'd sign for id's licence happily if I would need to, and never ever look at Valve's direction.

BTW the only reason why I respect CS is that it was created by one person and as such, it used to be pretty impressive. But if such a product (mod) gets into some 'talented hands' in Valve just to be completelly screwed by industry professionals, that's not normal I say. I really have tried to find something, anything interesting on CS, but my last (and very last) attempt was spoiled by the fact that my CD-key is in use. Oh well, thanx. Valve is not gonna get any mone from me, ever.

I AGREE

does this not include the eula for 1.5?
or is it ok to use 1.5 cs?

Cs Suks major and valve is ganna lose out in the long run anyways.

Cs is to old and out dated and if Valve thinks Half-Life 2 is ganna make them any money at all they should think "Hay Y we sue every lan center, now no one is playin r news 5 year old peace of crap game." O darn.

This is most certainly the opening move to the release of Half Life 2.

How many LAN Centers are going to want to be without that?

Every LAN Center is going to have to do a cost calculation - will the game make them $2,000 in a year plus $50 per computer for a copy.

I was a partner in starting a cybercafe/brewpub/computer store about six years ago, just after HL hit the shelves and just before CS appeared. We grew it to 20 machines, and caught the attention of the local Sierra sales reps. They were extremely excited that we were featuring their games and selling their games to customers. They came in with all kinds of promotional materials and free copies of their games for us to try. I mean, people bought computers from us just to play the game! Shortly after that, we received a letter from Vivendi Universal telling us we owed them $1000 for a site license and we were required to purchase 20 copies of HL from THEM at $24 each (we already had more than 20 copies) PLUS pay a $200 "administrative fee." Vivendi Universal is the real culprit here. They own Sierra and therefore pull the strings at Valve. The Sierra rep that was our contact came in shortly after with some more posters and stuff. We told her what happened. She was "appalled." She quit shortly after.

For all who are saying "boo-hoo" I would have to say you don't understand what a good cybercafe does. Ours was a gathering place for a wide range of people in the community. The ages ranged from about 11 to 50+. We had people playing who didn't even own a computer. We had people who met their best friends or lovers at the game center. We were an outlet for the latest and greatest in new games. Not just the ones from Sierra either.

We ended up avoiding anything owned by Vivendi. I wouldn't blame Valve. I think there are dedicated folks there. But the emphasis is clearly on the money squeeze. Can't blame them too much on that, but I think the developement of Steam has taken away from the developement of the games. Good luck!

Cyber Cafés are still such a small market segment that software vendors haven't given much thought to them. Vendors are all over the map when it comes to licensing. (You think Valve is extortionate? Check out the licensing terms from id. If your local cyber café has Quake, I bet you a nickel it's not licensed.)

Valve's licensing terms have started to seem more reasonable lately. They now ask $10/month per active license for all their cyber café titles. They are about to release a cyber café license server, as well as a version of steam that doesn't try to force updates on each PC every time you try to launch a title. Still, cyber cafés are seldom very profitable, so they can never become a major profit center for game vendors. OTOH, cyber cafés ARE a significant channel for user exposure to new titles. I believe the real value to game vendors will be the use of cyber cafés as marketing focus points, providing customer exposure and giving a channel fo gathering feedback. In exchange for these benfits, I think a game vendor might consider PAYING a cyber café to feature their titles. Sort of like the product placement fees that grocery manufacturers pay to retail grocers for favorable shelfspace.

I used to work at a LAN center in Dallas, and have been a semi-active member of the Counter-Strike competitive community since late 2001. A major concern that posters here have raised is, why on earth do people keep playing CS? It's been the subject of quite a bit of puzzlement among the community, because there are a lot of games out there (Quake 3, Call of Duty, Unreal Tournament 200x) that are prettier, newer, what have you. The random factors in the game that enable new players to feel successful early on have a lot to do with it, as well as the player base that somehow keeps growing and growing. The Cyberathlete Amateur League, the premier online league for CS and numerous other games, encourages that growth with their highly structured and developed competition system. People can jump right in and start playing with a team, and then they get talked about and become recognized members of the community. They tell their friends, and they get involved, and the growth continues. This, coupled with the standardization and unity within the community -- compare to vanilla and CPM Quake3, and the boundless little modifications to the UT games that keep the playerbase fragmented -- prompts a strong following that doesn't fizzle out and continues to grow. CS has only gotten bigger since its inception, and there is no end in sight.

In response to Bitterhops, Valve is now an independent corporation. They are not controlled by Sierra, Vivendi Universal, or anyone else. Sierra does not even exist anymore, as Vivendi dissolved the publisher a few weeks ago. And the original creators of Counter-Strike, Jess Cliffe and Minh Le, now work for Valve. Valve has full control over everything that happens to CS and Half-Life related products. What they are doing is taking that control and using it to capitalize on the enormous success of the HL franchise. Which is fine. The United States is a capitalist country, and Valve is doing what they believe is best for themselves. But I think that the exorbitant licensing fees for LAN centers are evidence of the problems inherent in taking something that once was free and expecting to make money off of it. I've often wondered how exactly Valve makes money, since HL is dirt cheap and Steam is free.

It would be good for cafes to join together to buy an economic study to determine what the software is actually worth to a cafe.

Obviously, Valve should be compensated for their product, which is being rented out by the cafes, and is part of the reason the cafes exist. I think it's within reason for them to demand payment for a commerical license, but only if this license has already been sold widely, and a fair market price has been established. (Has it? I don't know, as I'm unfamiliar with this market.) If this pricing is new, or higher than what the market is currently paying, then, it's pretty bogus for them to demand that the courts enforce the price.

It's bogus for Valve to demand that the company purchase a one-year license ahead of time. If the company wants to stop offering Valve product rental, they should be allowed to do so.

All the people defending Valve unilaterally aren't looking at the whole picture. The relationship between Valve and the cafes needs to be cooperative, to some extent. If it's hostile, they'll destroy each other with greed, and then Microsoft and AOL will step into the market and destroy the small companies.

To the people saying "boo hoo":
Although Valve has the right to defend its copyright, does it have the right to suddenly change its terms, then expect people to pay up, without the option to cease using the product?

Regarding the concept of allowing people to use software/dvd's they own on your equipment and charging for the privilege:
Why not? You are not profiting from the "performance" of the software/movie, you are profiting from the rental of your equipment. If I loaned you my DVD player and a projector and charged you $50, is it illegal to allow you to play your own dvds on it? NO. I think that the idea of a "cybercafe" having copies of a game installed, but only letting people play it with their own CD key *should* be legal as the CD key indicates a license for that person to use the software, and all the cybercafe is providing is computer hardware. All the crap about "number of copies" is just a load of bull. If software licenses are all about CD keys these days, then the license should be tied to the CD key, not to the copy of the data used.

Regarding counterstrike: Screw it, the game sucks anyway :P

I own an internet cafe here. we received the same letter. I personally play cs competivly but as for our customers no we are a business place.Not a gaming place, we make our profits off business people. We would just unistall cs only real reason its here is cause i play it. sometimes i close early and somefriends come and play as well. We own all our copies legit. I understand thats not enough. Basically the letter says we cant unistall the game. and have no choice in the matter but pay them. With what profit we dont make off the game i know other places make huge profits on the game. Its damn unfair and makes no sense. I dont make anymoney off them why should i give them our money. Ive been playing cs since the bigging but they are soon gonna be personal payed accounts like every mmrpg. That is what steam is ive been with steam since the beta. I have issues with it and also like it. but whats the point of having to lock my doors claim bankruptcy cause im screwed to pay them in there claim. So basically i need more legal advise on this matter. Thanks a lot

The LAN center I go to got the infamous letter. BUT, 2 other LAN centers within 15 miles of my LAN center did not get the letter. The other 2 centers are primarily CS only centers, but they have not recieved a letter.

I know all of the owners and have known them all since they opened.

Why should one center pay Valve when 2 of their competitors are not even being approached by Valve?

Valve askes center owners to turn in other centers that are using Valve products. Sure, like any of these owners are going to turn in each other. That will never happen.

What is Valve offering to a LAN center other than the opportunity to offer their games? there are a lot of cetners doing that already and they aren't being asked to pay.

Valve will never be able to enforce these outrageous commercial fees. This crosses State and International borders. It is not fair to a center who has worked harder and built up a bigger market for themselves to have to pay when those flying under Valves radar do not.