From video gaming to card games and stuff in between, if it's gaming you can probably discuss it here!
Please Note: Gaming memes are permitted to be posted on Meme Mondays, but will otherwise be removed in an effort to allow other discussions to take place.
See also Gaming's sister community Tabletop Gaming.
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
What are you talking about?
Not only Counter Strike: GO is over 10 years old, Valve games can be hosted with Valve's official blessing even when they drop support. There are still people who play Counter Strike 1.6 today. This is nothing like what Blizzard did to Overwatch.
I think he's referring to the fact that Counterstrike 2 literally replaced CS:GO. You can no longer access it in any form.
Alright, I see the issue. Even then that's not technically true. I would say it's not user friendly, but CS:GO is still counted as a previous version of CS 2, and you can access and host older versions of Valve games. Here's a guide for that.
Oh word, I didn't realize that. I'm glad that's an option.
Note: had to make a Beehaw account but same op because for some reason Kbin was shitting the bed for me since I couldn't see any comments even though I did get pinged for the notifications.
While you are technically correct, it doesn't really help. Adding extra barriers of entry and releasing a game that is suppose to be a sequel but just replacing an older version is silly. It just feels wrong to bin the old version instead of just launching a completely new instance. Like I love using steam console and I have been using it a ton especially for beat saber (because pointlessly love to kill all the mods with every update that just basically adding new dlc) but to foster a gaming community we should have lower barrier for entry because people don't want to faff about with this kind of thing. I don't know why it was too hard for Valve to keep CS GO at the last version since the easily accessible way of getting it (via the beta tab in properties) is out of date while making a new separate entry for CS2. Like imagine if they did this with CS or CS source. Kill both of them and you are stuck with just CS GO or I guess now CS2.
In principle I agree that it's preferable to have the old game as a visible download on the store but you should understand that it's unusual for evolving online games to offer older versions in any manner these days, nevermind let players host games independently. That Valve provides this possibility at all, even if in a convoluted way, already puts them miles above Blizzard.
CS 2 even allows for players to carry over their whole collection of skins, which is something many players care deeply about and even invested significant money on. Which is itself a questionable matter but I can't deny that this is important for the players. Maybe this is why it was made into a new version of CS:GO rather than a separate thing.
I think it's fair to demand that old CS:GO is added to Steam in a more transparent form, but it's a matter of convenience rather than them taking anything away from the players like Blizzard did.
All I'm saying is having a hacky solution is nice but you can't build communities solely on that. You need methods for the laymen. Imagine if you will they killed Half Life 1 in the same way. You bought a game but they chose to upgrade it for free. You would be stuck with that utter garbage port called Half Life Source. Like sure you can maybe find a workaround via steam console or if you had the disc you can get around it. Its just bad look.
We already heard news that valve may be forced to remove some depots because there were rumors around the times when people were "downgrading" their GTA games because the music licenses were expired and rockstar had to legally remove them (even though that is fucking annoying and sucks). I think we can't just rely on these outdated depots forever.
Heck people still play Ricochet today.
Blizzard didn't do the exact same thing.
Blizard took a paid for game with fair microtransactions and transformed it into a predatory free to play game with an unfair battlepass.
Reception to OW2 would have been better if they kept the freely dropped lootboxes and gave some more compensation to the people that bought the game. Also if they didn't leave the game to dry for several years on an empty promise.
Because with Overwatch 2, the changes were so small and meaningless that it could have just been an update to the original game. CS2 is on a whole new engine and has significant upgrades that couldn't have been implemented in a simple update. Not to mention all the promised features OW2 was supposed to have that they backtracked on. That being said, I don't exactly agree that they should have outright replaced CS:GO, but it's not really the same as what Blizzard did. If they had replaced the original OW but had a significant reason to do so like Valve did, people wouldn't be so upset at them.
Do you know what OW2 changed, since you call it small and meaningless?
Imo the gameplay updates with a move to 5v5 were pretty significant. The engine stayed the same, afaik, but some things were overhauled, although I don't know if it was just visual changes.
According to some comments I've read, CS2 feels somewhat rushed. Some game modes and maps are missing, and the subtick server stuff also seems like a mixed bag.
So, why is it fine for one of these games, but not the other? For someone who hasn't played either game in years, it feels like a similar level of change for either game.
OW2 changed the number of players on a team, rebalance some heros and changes some day maps to night and some night maps to day, nothing that couldn't have just been a big update. The only justification for a whole new game was the free PvE mode, which they walked back on and is no longer free. Not to mention that people who've had hands on with it are saying it's not even very good. CS2 on the other hand is on an entirely new engine with significant upgrades across the board, both in the technical aspect and graphical. I played some just last night and the difference between 2 and GO are night and day, no way it could have just been an update. Also it's been brought to my attention that, unlike what I previously thought, CS:GO is indeed still available to run community servers on, unlike the original OW which is lost completely to the world.
OW2 PvE was never going to be free, and whether people find whatever mode was added fun or not should not matter.
Dota 2 changed their engine and that was handled in an update, we didn't get Dota 3.
You do however have a point with previous CSGO versions still being accessible, if that still works.
OW2 PvE was 100% originally going to be free, then they cancelled it outright and only brought it back when the community spoke up about it, but now for a price. But yeah, as far as I'm aware CS:GO is still available so unlike OW2, you don't like the new one, you don't have to play it, you still habe options. Another commenter posted the how to if that's something you're interested in.
edit: also as far as I'm aware, Dota 2's engine update was just a graphical update, they didn't change anything fundamental to the game. As I said before the difference between CS:GO or CS2 is night and day, they changed a lot.
Edit 2: also I think it's a little disingenuous to imply that the quality of a game mode that people now have to pay for doesn't matter
If you search for results before the OW2 PvP release last year, you'll find a bunch of articles and comments, that say PvP is free, PvE is going to cost money.
You said repeatedly, that the engine changes between CSGO and CS2 are night and day, and I'm not disputing that. I just think, going from 6v6 to 5v5, reworking and rebalancing heroes to accommodate that, is also a night and day difference.
When I was talking about how the quality of a game mode shouldn't matter in this discussion, I meant only when comparing the "name changes" for OW2 and CS2, and if a game "deserves" to be called a sequel.
Fair points I suppose. Tho I think the real game changer here is that CS:GO is still available, while the original OW is not, thus making all other points moot. If I don't think that CS2 deserved to be a full on sequel instead of an update and would rather keep playing CS:GO, nothing is stopping me. I think that's why Valve "got away with it" as you put it. They haven't forced the new changes on anyone like Blizzard did. Players still have a choice. Whether or not it deserves to be a sequel is meaningless when the previous game is still available for free.
I think the real game changer here is that CS:GO is still available, while the original OW is not
Absolutely. This is the main difference for me, which I didn't know in the beginning, although it makes sense, since it's been known that Steam has this functionality. If that gets some "official" support (selecting the version in the game properties like a beta), and not the current hacky solution, it would be great.
To be honest though, I still think for a lot of people across the internet, it's totally a Blizzard bad, Valve good, situation.
You're not really wrong that people think "Blizzard bad, Valve good" but they're kinda right in a way. Valve have a much better track record when it comes to not screwing over their customers compared to someone like blizzard (or EA, or Ubisoft, etc). Screwing up OW2 was one more grievance on top of a mountain of them and there's no hope that the community will get what they want. Valve on the other hand has shown they actually give a shit about their fans and are willing to listen (an example being how so many user requested features have been added to the steam deck remarkable fast). Valve is one of the few major companies left in the AAA space that seem to have any soul left, everyone else seems to have succumbed to corporate greed. So yeah, people might react less harshly when they do something like they just did. Honestly tho, if people are really upset about it, I don't doubt that valve will here it and do something about it, it's much more likely that Blizzard bringing back OW1
Note: OP of the thread just with a beehaw account now since Kbin shit the bed for me and I can't see comments.
Except its only technically available. If you want to use steam console shenanigans sure you can technically play CS GO and while there is a beta version up for CS GO it is an outdated version. Nothing is stopping Valve from having a new steam id associated with CS2. While there are servers up for both 1.38.7.9 (the one available via beta) and 1.39.4.8 (latest build) it is clear the move Steam did has basically killed that community.
To technical users they have a choice, the less savy users they don't. We shouldn't get angry at one company for doing something bad but ignore when another but more beloved company does a very similar thing but we ignore it because there is a hacky solution to it. Imagine if they did the same exact thing to CS 1 or CS Source. Hell really imagine if they fucking killed Half life 1 and replaced it with that abomination Half life 1 source. Like its cool to have an answer to possibly help but we can't expect most users to do the hacky solution.
Having CS2 and GO as separate entities would go a long way for sure, but I don't think what they've done is quite as egregious at OW. To be clear, I'm not saying I agree with it, but it's no where near as bad.
If enough people cry out for an easier way to access CS:GO then I would not be surprised in the slightest if valve heard them and did something about it. They're pretty good about listening to their community and that's more than I can say for Blizzard. That tends to be why people are less harsh when they screw up because they don't have a history of screwing up and they tend to fix them too
I think people's issue with OW2 replacing OW wasn't the inability to get into the old game, it was the irrevocable changes. Like, I think there is more issue with the changes to free loot crates and characters than "but my OW1!"
From my understanding, CS2 doesn't have glaring changes like this.
However, to your point for new games replacing old ones - I'm conflicted. On one hand, there's little point booting up Star Wars Battlefront 1 by EA, but it would definitely have been shitty if EA had replaced it with BF2.
But as someone else mentioned, you can also still boot into CS:GO. So if the issue is wanting to play with friends, that should still be possible. It comes down to how it's done I guess.
Thinking about it, it only seems like some IP's can really do this anyway. Battlefield probably can't, unless they decide to stop using themes for the games. Battlefield 1 just can't exist in Battlefield 5. Call of Duty could probably find a way to accomplish it though.
If CS:GO was preserved as a beta version in the game's properties that would be great. Apparently they are doing that now with some sort of replay player version but it's broken?