"Community servers are not "relics of the past". It is simply a business decision and Valve has decided to choose the path of greed, laziness, and betrayal. One only needs to look at Minecraft as proof that community servers are not outdated."
I want to point out this article along side that : http://www.pcgamer.com/gabe-newell-pc-gaming-communities-are-keeping-games-alive/ On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 1:43 AM, Cats From Above <spotsfromab...@gmail.com> wrote: > Matthias seems to be confusing two separate issues, deliberately so I > suspect. It is, in my view, the height of intellectual dishonesty to > confuse the creation of custom content with the existence of privately-run > servers; it is possible to have a strong custom-content community without > the need for privately-run servers and I suspect Valve has been posturing > Team Fortress 2 toward such a reality for some time. For example: Workshop > map integration inside the server. If I was a betting person I would > preempt that the true reason for Valve implementing this feature is to > allow their soon-to-be-implemented lobby system to assign a lobby to an > official server, with a stock map or a custom map selected from the > workshop. Such would completely negate the need for custom map servers run > by private operators. > > > As for custom game-modes, which presently do require privately-run > servers, last time I checked private operators with servers featuring > custom game-modes, who put effort into social networking and publicity etc. > are doing quite well irrespective of the existence of Quickplay. > > > The servers struggling the most as a result of Quickplay are privately run > servers which are directly competing with official servers whilst only > holding half the cards. Ergo: Stock-map servers, which miss out on things > that official servers get. Even if the default option was addressed, those > servers would still be holding half the cards. Hence a lesson of history > relevant to privately run stock servers: Steve Jobs was smart enough to > realise that if Apple was in a zero sum game with Microsoft, Apple would > lose. He was also smart enough to realise that he didn’t need to play that > game – That Apple could do something that Microsoft wasn’t doing. Perhaps > stock server operators could come to that same enlightenment in terms of > private servers and Valve. > > > Finally, I would note that the misunderstanding of Matthias’es use of the > term “community” was deliberate as a means of pointing out the > inappropriateness of the term. I personally dislike the term “community > servers” and much prefer the more accurate term “private servers” and > “private server operators”… and I would again express my awe at the fact > that some elements of this mailing list would seem to think that they could > represent other private server operators – Despite the diverse range of > views and gross amount of hyperbole that infests every debate like a bad > stench (Case and point: Just bring up Pinion or Motdgd) I can only imagine > that such representation would be a lot like herding cats. Whilst cats can > make a lot of noise, getting them to go in one direction is impossible… > and it’s not the first time that someone had attempted to establish a > coalition of Team Fortress 2 servers …just look at the failed TF2 Alliance. > > > > On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 2:56 PM, Rowedahelicon < > theoneando...@rowedahelicon.com> wrote: > >> There's no need for negativity, just because server owners now are a >> small minority doesn't mean we can't grab people's attention. A lot of the >> TF2 community simply may not understand what all is at stake. >> >> On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 11:18 PM, Matthias "InstantMuffin" Kollek < >> proph...@sticed.org> wrote: >> >>> Congrats, you managed to exceed the level of pragmatism and transform it >>> into a rant. I don't see any reasons for this. If you have doubts about >>> Valve caring about community servers, I do too. The situation is quite >>> obvious. However I'm not presenting a solution, but a way to make our >>> voices count for the last chance we apparently have. >>> You also misunderstood my reply entirely. I never said we would be >>> speaking for the entirety of the players. I also don't see a reason why >>> Valve would not at least a bit care about community servers (that tiny tiny >>> bit), given that they respect minorities like the competitive groups >>> (compared to other games like csgo and dota). I also don't see any >>> re-playability of small event minigames, some gamemodes that start in a >>> pre-alpha state and barely ever get finished (and create situations that >>> require weapon balancing for the next 20 years), few maps of the same >>> gamemodes and some contracts compared to what a decent community can >>> provide for itself. >>> You're completely oblivious to the weight communities and their gameplay >>> mods have on Valve's products. Please realize that almost all Valve >>> products started out as mods. >>> Killing future products and the talent behind it in its tracks by >>> limiting the platform seems like a very dumb strategy for a company that >>> basically ships ideas created by its own community. >>> >> > _______________________________________________ > To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, > please visit: > https://list.valvesoftware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/hlds > > -- *Matthew (Rowedahelicon) Robinson* Web Designer / Artist / Writer Website - http://www.rowedahelicon.com/
_______________________________________________ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: https://list.valvesoftware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/hlds
