Live data from Hacker News

Counter-Strike's player economy is in a freefall

polygon.com

491–500 of 617 posts

Re: Counter-Strike's player economy is in a freefall

#491
post #489

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Taking it for the public smelting furnace for the state to melt down under the auspices of public safety is a public use.

You can pretty clearly see this isn’t the case. Prior to the reversal of the bump stock ban, owners of bump stocks were required to surrender or destroy them.

That's because the state argued they were unregistered machine guns, thus never legally held property. It is not at all comparable to legal, stamped machine guns then being made illegal.

The EO couldn't have forced an uncompensated surrender of a registered bump stock, were it one existed before the Hughes Amendment.

Re: Counter-Strike's player economy is in a freefall

#492

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Any ranked matchmaking game is designed to addict you by the prospect of being ranked as elite. They have a number of insidious methods to keep your ranking low, some are even patented by the game companies themselves! For example, if someone is getting too high, it’s nothing to pair that person with a known deserter for 1-3 games to drastically slow their progress.

We should probably ban all sports then because it tricks people in wanting to be competitive.

No, just the promises of going pro. The conversion rate for high school athletes to the NFL or NBA is less than a hundredth of a percent combined. There are kids skipping classes and destroying their bodies thinking they’re going to go pro when they’re not.

Re: Counter-Strike's player economy is in a freefall

#493

I bet this is an on-purpose move by Valve, and I view this as a sane action. [1] Having a game where some players only play in order to win money is, for sure, a no go. If the game is fun, then players will keep on playing it. It may also keep some money thirsty (sometimes very toxic) people at the gates. It is also smoothing players' frustration and shopping-spree habits in order to obtain a rare item. If you have t…

I waded through some Tik Tok comment threads on this change and it was so eye-opening: there are a shocking number of people without disposable income who were seriously investing in CS items, thinking it was a retirement portfolio. I fear the crypto era has lead to even further diminished financial literacy at large… Blessed be compound interest and financial regulation.

It's been years now, but I used to be involved in the trading market for Team Fortress 2. There were people who did TF2 trading as a full-time job, exploiting arbitrage between markets and holding items that were expected to increase in value (and sometimes using bots to farm items).

The Mann vs. Machine update in 2012 added a new game mode that would give players loot as a reward for completing missions. Players who didn't care about the trading market (i.e. the vast majority) would look up trading sites after a gaming session to offload their stuff fast without caring much about the value. People who described themselves as "quickbuyers" would aim for the people who wanted quick and simple transactions and then sell the item elsewhere for a markup. I did this for a while and averaged $5-10 of profit per day, usually 20-30 cents per transaction. Someone treating it as a full-time job could probably have made a lot more, like $20+ per day.

That was pretty good money if you a) were a kid with no living expenses, or b) lived in a developing country where the money went farther. I was in group A. Any time I wanted to buy a Steam game, I'd put up my quickbuyer listing on the trading sites and save up the money. But I suspected at the time that most people in the scene were in group B. If I were Valve I'd struggle to pull the trigger on a major change to the in-game economy knowing that it would affect the livelihood of a nontrivial number of people in countries like Venezuela, and maybe that's the reason they seem to have hesitated for so long.

Re: Counter-Strike's player economy is in a freefall

#494

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thank you for sharing your experience and perspective. > we'd lose out on the marketplace cut (10% of all sales I think?); we didn't want people grinding the game to earn money from rare drops; My naive understanding is that by having skins be worth tangible and significant value; this was the primary motivator for players to purchase keys to unbox cases, which was the dominant direct revenue generator for CS. I woul…

> My naive understanding is that by having skins be worth tangible and significant value; this was the primary motivator for players to purchase keys to unbox cases, which was the dominant direct revenue generator for CS. Yes. The Valve philosophy on the cosmetics marketplace (we called it "the economy") is that you distribute random rewards to players and they can trade and sell and discover the value of those goods…

> players grinding out matches just to get random loot box drops

I mean... what you have is people operating rooms full of computers running automated bots to farm drops (and presumably accounts to sell later) [0].

[0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n3yS6_WDb6w

Re: Counter-Strike's player economy is in a freefall

#495
post #489

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can pretty clearly see this isn’t the case. Prior to the reversal of the bump stock ban, owners of bump stocks were required to surrender or destroy them.

That's because the state argued they were unregistered machine guns, thus never legally held property. It is not at all comparable to legal, stamped machine guns then being made illegal. The EO couldn't have forced an uncompensated surrender of a registered bump stock, were it one existed before the Hughes Amendment.

The case law I’m seeing does not seem to provide that level of certainty.

There’s plenty of flexibility in the case law for what counts as “public use”, but nearly all of it is about individual cases where the government takes a specific person’s specific property, or damages it in some way. There doesn’t appear to be much case law at all for the guardrails if the government declares an object to be illegal to possess writ large for safety purposes and requires owners to destroy or surrender those objects.

I’m not saying there’s no path where the courts would require compensation, but for the level of certainty you’re claiming, I’d expect there to be a more clear line you can draw to existing cases.

Re: Counter-Strike's player economy is in a freefall

#496

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Don't they provide the API that those sites use?

Yes, they provide the API that those sites need to function. That doesn't mean the API is exclusively for those sites. Just that Valve is the one enabling those sites, they're not completely independent.

Nonsense argument. They provide an api that players use, that can also be used by boys to perform trades. Maybe the problem you have with this is that they can do trades.

Re: Counter-Strike's player economy is in a freefall

#498

> $1.84 billion in value Correction. $0 in value. Skins do not exist and are worth exactly $0. If you spend money on skins, they are worth… $0 . It’s all a large scale grift money incinerator where the only winner is Valve. + whatever pleasure you derive from it, ig. I can understand loot box addiction, but paying $20,000 for valve character dress up? Not even like a Peter Griffin player model or something, but a sli…

[deleted]

Re: Counter-Strike's player economy is in a freefall

#499

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> My naive understanding is that by having skins be worth tangible and significant value; this was the primary motivator for players to purchase keys to unbox cases, which was the dominant direct revenue generator for CS. Yes. The Valve philosophy on the cosmetics marketplace (we called it "the economy") is that you distribute random rewards to players and they can trade and sell and discover the value of those goods…

> players grinding out matches just to get random loot box drops I mean... what you have is people operating rooms full of computers running automated bots to farm drops (and presumably accounts to sell later) [0]. [0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n3yS6_WDb6w

Right, but they didn’t want that to happen.

It’s just a weird side effect that’s surprisingly difficult to prevent - online games have had gold farmers for pretty much as long as there have been online games with gold.

Re: Counter-Strike's player economy is in a freefall

#500

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>we couldn't prevent people "gifting" items to each other Why not remove trade and use an auction system with a limit? Or not allowing trades under market price?

Because people literally want to give gifts to each other sometimes. A friend I met playing CS get each other a skin every year for Christmas.

Gambling for kids so we can gift skins?
Post reply on HN