DreamHack Summer 2013 Finnish Qual.
HLTV Ip's
-
(155)
(52)
(24)
(41)
(52)
(32)
(79)
(13)
(4)
(22)
(179)
(207)
(31)
(29)
(8)
(33)
(51)
(16)
(153)
(17)
(6)
(44)
(73)
(27)
(4)
-
-
-
deStrO
pRopaaNS
FACEIT
moxierawr
eSportEurope
Umeroff-
-
(1619)(1474)(1172)(988)(234)(160)(79)(68)(52)(40)(26)(1)(0)
-
Epsilon16
Anexis3
CPH Wolves15
Wizards15 fnatic0 Western Wolves2
Virtus.pro16 Wizards12
BX316 plan-B6
myDGB.net2 f2^1
/10/16 ELTZ12 fnatic16
Natus Vincere4 plan-B16 Lions1 BX316 Lions14 -
-
-
Cnd & MANU
E-Frag TV
1.6, Economic status 2: Revenge of the stats
2012-12-31 15:52
1.6, Economic status 2: Revenge of the stats.
TD;lr: Screw you. I went to the trouble to get these stats, you can go to the trouble of reading it.
So, it looks like I was wrong.
Some of you may have seen my previous post, where I suggested that the huge popularity of 1.6 compared to GO is due to the low economic status of the countries that enjoy 1.6 have.
http://www.hltv.org/blog/6246-16-players-all-have-wooden-pcs-myth-or-fact-a-look -into-the-16-and-csgo-server-stats-compared-to-countries-economic-standing
However, I decided to go one further with the stats. If my theory of economic status being the huge modifier that is it holds true for gaming in general, then if I extend my stat keeping to other games the same pattern should emerge. This is an investigation into the overall percentage of players from all economies and how that effects the 1.6 numbers.
Method.
Again using Game tracker and worldbank as my data sources, I once again counted up all the servers. However this time I extended my approach to over 17 games, which are as follows.
These games were chosen only due to their large server populations, and no other factors were considered. However these games I feel represent a large proportion of the current FPS playerbase, and a large variety of different graphical engines and game types.
After this, the data was purged of countries that didn't have enough stats. The only qualifier to be considered 'enough' was to have 30 or more servers of one game. 47 of the 105 countries in total were removed for this reason, with Myanmar being removed due to a lack of GNI information, leaving us with 57 countries in total. Overall the removed countries were generally smaller in size, and roughly 8K poorer on average. However the total server population amounted for just over 1% of the overall server numbers, so I feel that removing this volatile dataset overall improves the accuracy of what I was trying to do.
https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B6deaGL2UAmNSlJCQVdsbVF6ZWc
Due to this variety in games, a different method of analysis was needed then previously. No longer can server numbers themselves be used as all of these games will have different playerbases, and different player numbers on each server. We don't care about the size of the playerbases, but the makeup of the player bases, and whether games of a lower graphical quality have a higher percentage of players from lower economic situations then those of a higher graphical quality.
So instead a percentage based system was used. For each game it was worked out what percentage of the playerbase came from each country.
Then the countries were split up into groups of 4 (And one group of 5) in ascending order of GNI, with the average GNI being created for this group in effect creating 14 countries of the following GNI.
The percentage of players for each of these economic bands was then reworked out for each game, and put into a bar char, creating 18 data sets, including the overall average to compare to. This I feel gave a good indication of the overall economic status of the playerbase. This graph can be found here:
https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B6deaGL2UAmNX2dSRGxfcW5JWEk
Results.
This was not as expected. While the initial data presented in my previous analysis still remains true (Over 70% of the 1.6 playerbase comes from countries of low economic spending power), there does not seem to be any major connection between the graphical power of the games and the percentage of the playerbase in other counties (Although there may be a minor connection). The average game has most of its playerbase (75%) in countries of a CNI of 37K or higher, and this seems to hold true even for games of a lower graphical capability.
For instance CS:Z does not seem to be any more poplar in lower economic countries then the similar CSS and CS:GO games, even though CS:Z is clearly the easier option to run. The CoD series seems to have minor adjustment due to graphical capabilities (Cod 2 has a higher percentage of lower economic countries playing it, compared with Cod 4 which has a higher percentage of lower economic countries compared with BO), but nothing on the scale of CS 1.6, even though Cod 2 is similar in capabilities.
The results from TF2, MoH L4D2 and DAYZ all are signs of hope for this theory with these graphically intensive games having almost no market share in lower economic countries, but the similar results from HL2, Garry's mod, and Minecraft all suggest that these figures and patterns are less to do with graphical capabilities, and simply to do with the fact that there are more gamers in these parts of the world.
This however leaves us with an interesting issue in the form of a question in regards to the 1.6 vs GO argument. Why is 1.6 so popular in countries of low economic status compared to every other game? The stats suggest that this isn't a case of GO failing, in fact rather the opposite, in countries of high economic status out of the 17 games CS:GO is the 4rd/5th/6th most popular. Beating BF3, CoD of all versions, being similar to DayZ and 1.6 and only being beaten clearly by Minecraft, CSS and TF2. And if 1.6 followed the patterns of every other game then GO would have similar numbers to it and it would boast similar numbers to GO.
No this is less about the failure of GO, and more about the abnormal success of 1.6 in low economic countries, providing it with its larger player base. Which begs the question Why? These countries cover the face of the earth, from East Europe, Asia, Africa, to South America. They share no cultural connection aside from low economic spending power, yet seem to flock to 1.6 in ways they don't flock to other games. It makes no sense, as there is no obvious connection for them to share compared to the rest of the world.
In conclusion, sometimes when you see data like this, there is only one real comment to make.
WTF
Bainshie.
TD;lr: Screw you. I went to the trouble to get these stats, you can go to the trouble of reading it.
So, it looks like I was wrong.
Some of you may have seen my previous post, where I suggested that the huge popularity of 1.6 compared to GO is due to the low economic status of the countries that enjoy 1.6 have.
http://www.hltv.org/blog/6246-16-players-all-have-wooden-pcs-myth-or-fact-a-look -into-the-16-and-csgo-server-stats-compared-to-countries-economic-standing
However, I decided to go one further with the stats. If my theory of economic status being the huge modifier that is it holds true for gaming in general, then if I extend my stat keeping to other games the same pattern should emerge. This is an investigation into the overall percentage of players from all economies and how that effects the 1.6 numbers.
Method.
Again using Game tracker and worldbank as my data sources, I once again counted up all the servers. However this time I extended my approach to over 17 games, which are as follows.
CS 1.6. CS:GO. CS:S. CS:Z
HL2. Garry's mod. TF2. L4D2
BF3. BF2. BFBC2
Cod 2. Cod 4. Cod Black Ops
Minecraft. MoH Warfighter. DayZ
These games were chosen only due to their large server populations, and no other factors were considered. However these games I feel represent a large proportion of the current FPS playerbase, and a large variety of different graphical engines and game types.
After this, the data was purged of countries that didn't have enough stats. The only qualifier to be considered 'enough' was to have 30 or more servers of one game. 47 of the 105 countries in total were removed for this reason, with Myanmar being removed due to a lack of GNI information, leaving us with 57 countries in total. Overall the removed countries were generally smaller in size, and roughly 8K poorer on average. However the total server population amounted for just over 1% of the overall server numbers, so I feel that removing this volatile dataset overall improves the accuracy of what I was trying to do.
https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B6deaGL2UAmNSlJCQVdsbVF6ZWc
Due to this variety in games, a different method of analysis was needed then previously. No longer can server numbers themselves be used as all of these games will have different playerbases, and different player numbers on each server. We don't care about the size of the playerbases, but the makeup of the player bases, and whether games of a lower graphical quality have a higher percentage of players from lower economic situations then those of a higher graphical quality.
So instead a percentage based system was used. For each game it was worked out what percentage of the playerbase came from each country.
Then the countries were split up into groups of 4 (And one group of 5) in ascending order of GNI, with the average GNI being created for this group in effect creating 14 countries of the following GNI.
1445, 2975, 4312.5,5140,6807,9457,
11387,12460,15870,24362,37890,
44415,48792,75747.
The percentage of players for each of these economic bands was then reworked out for each game, and put into a bar char, creating 18 data sets, including the overall average to compare to. This I feel gave a good indication of the overall economic status of the playerbase. This graph can be found here:
https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B6deaGL2UAmNX2dSRGxfcW5JWEk
Results.
This was not as expected. While the initial data presented in my previous analysis still remains true (Over 70% of the 1.6 playerbase comes from countries of low economic spending power), there does not seem to be any major connection between the graphical power of the games and the percentage of the playerbase in other counties (Although there may be a minor connection). The average game has most of its playerbase (75%) in countries of a CNI of 37K or higher, and this seems to hold true even for games of a lower graphical capability.
For instance CS:Z does not seem to be any more poplar in lower economic countries then the similar CSS and CS:GO games, even though CS:Z is clearly the easier option to run. The CoD series seems to have minor adjustment due to graphical capabilities (Cod 2 has a higher percentage of lower economic countries playing it, compared with Cod 4 which has a higher percentage of lower economic countries compared with BO), but nothing on the scale of CS 1.6, even though Cod 2 is similar in capabilities.
The results from TF2, MoH L4D2 and DAYZ all are signs of hope for this theory with these graphically intensive games having almost no market share in lower economic countries, but the similar results from HL2, Garry's mod, and Minecraft all suggest that these figures and patterns are less to do with graphical capabilities, and simply to do with the fact that there are more gamers in these parts of the world.
This however leaves us with an interesting issue in the form of a question in regards to the 1.6 vs GO argument. Why is 1.6 so popular in countries of low economic status compared to every other game? The stats suggest that this isn't a case of GO failing, in fact rather the opposite, in countries of high economic status out of the 17 games CS:GO is the 4rd/5th/6th most popular. Beating BF3, CoD of all versions, being similar to DayZ and 1.6 and only being beaten clearly by Minecraft, CSS and TF2. And if 1.6 followed the patterns of every other game then GO would have similar numbers to it and it would boast similar numbers to GO.
No this is less about the failure of GO, and more about the abnormal success of 1.6 in low economic countries, providing it with its larger player base. Which begs the question Why? These countries cover the face of the earth, from East Europe, Asia, Africa, to South America. They share no cultural connection aside from low economic spending power, yet seem to flock to 1.6 in ways they don't flock to other games. It makes no sense, as there is no obvious connection for them to share compared to the rest of the world.
In conclusion, sometimes when you see data like this, there is only one real comment to make.
WTF
Bainshie.
Virginity level: Over 9000.
Happy New Year by the way.
Happy New Year by the way.
USA flag
Indian blood
I smell it from your comments.
Calling people virgin over internet because you were happiest man when you had your first sex.
Indian blood
I smell it from your comments.
Calling people virgin over internet because you were happiest man when you had your first sex.
Thats true. Sadly you wont know how good sex feels cuz CS:GO is, like The Great Wall of China, protecting your virginity like a bauss!
Lost it 2 years ago. CS:GO is just a tool to make 1.6 nerds mad.
What the hell are you talking about?
Nothing, he plays CSGO half of the time and the rest of the time defending CSGO and talking shit about CSP on the internet, thus has no real life. And all these things act as a force field protecting his virginity.
Greenland flag
God's blood
I smell it from your flag
Making people mad online because // look at your flag
God's blood
I smell it from your flag
Making people mad online because // look at your flag
mad poor Indians, over 1 billion
happy new years by the way
Bainshee havent u learned alredy , they dont like dealing with factual evidence on hltv
Post edited 2012-12-31 16:14:27
happy new years by the way
Bainshee havent u learned alredy , they dont like dealing with factual evidence on hltv
Post edited 2012-12-31 16:14:27
The weird thing is, this is basically me admitting that my previous theory was wrong, and then using stats to prove it.
Put it in the top and not the bottom :P
next time please prove you are wrong again :D
you and your stats.Don't you have some fruitful things to do in life?
Lol.
Didn't even bother to read.
#2
OKAY read it and found the last 3 lines really funny :PPP
and this:
"yet seem to flock to 1.6 in ways they don't flock to other games. It makes no sense, as there is no obvious connection for them to share compared to the rest of the world."
I think is from way back when CS was just launched in 2000 and the following years. People started playing it in cyber-cafe a lot. Maybe more in the low economic countries than in the richer countries. (except for nordic countrys, we don't give a fuck:D)
Post edited 2012-12-31 16:16:11
#2
OKAY read it and found the last 3 lines really funny :PPP
and this:
"yet seem to flock to 1.6 in ways they don't flock to other games. It makes no sense, as there is no obvious connection for them to share compared to the rest of the world."
I think is from way back when CS was just launched in 2000 and the following years. People started playing it in cyber-cafe a lot. Maybe more in the low economic countries than in the richer countries. (except for nordic countrys, we don't give a fuck:D)
Post edited 2012-12-31 16:16:11
Bainshie - Dropping bombs on 1.6 hopes and dreams since 2k12
Actually...
Maybe I should have put this right at the top of the post but this data suggests I was initially wrong. While countries of lower economic status love 1.6, it seems to have very little to do with graphical power.
Post edited 2012-12-31 16:09:13
Maybe I should have put this right at the top of the post but this data suggests I was initially wrong. While countries of lower economic status love 1.6, it seems to have very little to do with graphical power.
Post edited 2012-12-31 16:09:13
shh
"shh, don't tell the 1.6'ers!"
High 5, you understood something!
dAND3h - sAucer
sorry but he hates source too, he hates any bugged games but he loves Quake
anyway Quake > CS:GO anytime anywhere anyone...............
anyway Quake > CS:GO anytime anywhere anyone...............
DId,t read. But what are tryin to show? Why you always make blogs about relationship between economy power and CS:Go? Are you poor or what ?
much ppl said you that they play CS 1.6 cuz
they enjoy 1.6 not CS:GO like me. I have good PC but I still play 1.6. So tell me what is your point.
Post edited 2012-12-31 16:11:42
much ppl said you that they play CS 1.6 cuz
they enjoy 1.6 not CS:GO like me. I have good PC but I still play 1.6. So tell me what is your point.
Post edited 2012-12-31 16:11:42
Didn't read...
and still bothers to answer.
FACEPALM.
It's thread with responses to above blog post and the previous one. If you don't bother to read then go put your comment somewhere else.
and still bothers to answer.
FACEPALM.
It's thread with responses to above blog post and the previous one. If you don't bother to read then go put your comment somewhere else.
i wouldnt stop laughing at this thread and the comments which come with it hahahahahhahahahaha!
Wohoo, an academic CS article. Solid work, although the result was to be expected. Still, the main reason for GO's failure is imo that the game is bad.
Well here's the thing. It's less about GO's failure. In fact quite the opposite. If 1.6 was 'normal' GO would have similar numbers. In fact GO handily beats juggernaught's like Cod and BF with only a faction of the advertising power, and keeps up with 1.6 and dayz, only being beaten by Minecraft, TF2 and CSS.
This is more to due with 1.6 abnormal success in lower economic countries that generally don't play video games.
This is more to due with 1.6 abnormal success in lower economic countries that generally don't play video games.
bainshie u remind me dr. eppes from the tv series "numb3rs" who tries to apply math to basically everything we do.
but in this case, i guess, its just logical to think that cs 1.6 is a legendary game in history which is still played all around the world.
go, on the other hand, is temporary (certainly not the future i hope) and played only in several countries.
but in this case, i guess, its just logical to think that cs 1.6 is a legendary game in history which is still played all around the world.
go, on the other hand, is temporary (certainly not the future i hope) and played only in several countries.
"This is more to due with 1.6 abnormal success in lower economic countries that generally don't play video games." chickenshit you are.why don't you believe this fact that people prefer 1.6 over GO not because they can't afford the game. CSGO is not any wonder of the world that people can't afford the game/pc requirements.Its a lame excuse or statement you are making.Get over this.Lower economic countries? what do you mean by that.If the economy of a country is so poor that it can't afford the game,then remember it,people of those countries have much more important things to do then playing games.They wouldn't even played 1.6.
you really dont know why?imo because people in those countries dont aspire to play competitively therefore are not forced to play csgo,just play the game that is more fun(inb4 flame suck it all 1.6 haters :D)
Yea but that doesn't explain why Cs 1.6 is the only one with such a player base disparity. Minecraft, dayz, TF2. There are were plenty of fun games in this list that have no competitive scene, yet still are primarily made up of a richer community.
The only thing I can think of is marketing that part of the world. But then that's a long shot...
The only thing I can think of is marketing that part of the world. But then that's a long shot...
How about adding to the mix and stats number of major titles won by teams from these countries?
Like Golden Five from Poland and NaVi from Ukraine.
CS 1.6 was pretty big in Poland because of G5.
Basically it's hard to the kids to get better PC in Poland and on top of that there is big, popular game (CS 1.6) with team having major successes.
It's snowball effect. People play more of 1.6, because many people play 1.6.
It's like with CoD on X360 in US: everyone plays it, because... all their friends are playing it.
Like Golden Five from Poland and NaVi from Ukraine.
CS 1.6 was pretty big in Poland because of G5.
Basically it's hard to the kids to get better PC in Poland and on top of that there is big, popular game (CS 1.6) with team having major successes.
It's snowball effect. People play more of 1.6, because many people play 1.6.
It's like with CoD on X360 in US: everyone plays it, because... all their friends are playing it.
It's interessting, but economy isn't real life.
Post edited 2012-12-31 16:21:30
Post edited 2012-12-31 16:21:30
onepointsix is an amazing game. The popularity over 10 years is just wooooot
Bainshie
Why you still go after the economics and other stuff like that to explain why CS:Gay isn't good?
Please the answer to your flaming war is this men: http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m7uo7opNpU1rcv0p..
And you know it's true.
Post edited 2012-12-31 16:31:48
Why you still go after the economics and other stuff like that to explain why CS:Gay isn't good?
Please the answer to your flaming war is this men: http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m7uo7opNpU1rcv0p..
And you know it's true.
Post edited 2012-12-31 16:31:48
stupid or just trolling?
Have you actually read his post and his admittance that he was wrong?
Have you actually read his post and his admittance that he was wrong?
I'm guessing both.
I was going to respond with a facepalm pic, but your comment works just as well.
I was going to respond with a facepalm pic, but your comment works just as well.
I've readed but you know ah... this part:Over 70% of the 1.6 playerbase comes from countries of low economic spending power
You know that there's a lot of people playing 1.6 in rich countries as well.
If you could, maybe, try figuring out why that people in rich countries still play 1.6 and don't move to GO, it would be awesome.
When you talk about poor countries, it's like a direct attack on people that don't have money to upgrade their computers.
I know that people of poor countries want to follow the competitive scene and stuff, need a new computer but since their are "poor", they can't afford it and so, they continue to play 1.6.
But what about rich countries? Why do they continue to play? Why not moving to a "better" (which imo it's not better and I've played on it over 100hrs) and graphically improved version of CS?
I made that comment because of this. Probably you didn't understanding what I was trying to say, but now I hope you do.
Don't you think I'm right?
Post edited 2012-12-31 16:53:12
You know that there's a lot of people playing 1.6 in rich countries as well.
If you could, maybe, try figuring out why that people in rich countries still play 1.6 and don't move to GO, it would be awesome.
When you talk about poor countries, it's like a direct attack on people that don't have money to upgrade their computers.
I know that people of poor countries want to follow the competitive scene and stuff, need a new computer but since their are "poor", they can't afford it and so, they continue to play 1.6.
But what about rich countries? Why do they continue to play? Why not moving to a "better" (which imo it's not better and I've played on it over 100hrs) and graphically improved version of CS?
I made that comment because of this. Probably you didn't understanding what I was trying to say, but now I hope you do.
Don't you think I'm right?
Post edited 2012-12-31 16:53:12
Here's the thing though. I'm not attempting to explain why everyone hasn't switched over, mostly due to that being everyone's personal opinion.
There will be people who enjoy GO more, and people who enjoy 1.6 more. Heck there are still people who enjoy Quake 1 against Quake 3, and attempting to answer such questions with the concept of one game being better or worst than the other is a futile attempt.
This was merely a look into the common claim that a lot of 1.6 players don't play CS:GO due to their economic situation. While this was found to be probably false, it does create another issue. Why is there such a large proportion of 1.6 players from low economic countries compared to every other game? Why hasn't CS:GO and CS:S followed this even through their playerbases are consistent in richer countries?
And I'm sorry if you're offended by the concept of poor countries. But sadly in real life and a monetary situation not everyone can win. There will always be poor and rich people, and poor and rich countries, and that economic status is going to effect peoples lives.
There will be people who enjoy GO more, and people who enjoy 1.6 more. Heck there are still people who enjoy Quake 1 against Quake 3, and attempting to answer such questions with the concept of one game being better or worst than the other is a futile attempt.
This was merely a look into the common claim that a lot of 1.6 players don't play CS:GO due to their economic situation. While this was found to be probably false, it does create another issue. Why is there such a large proportion of 1.6 players from low economic countries compared to every other game? Why hasn't CS:GO and CS:S followed this even through their playerbases are consistent in richer countries?
And I'm sorry if you're offended by the concept of poor countries. But sadly in real life and a monetary situation not everyone can win. There will always be poor and rich people, and poor and rich countries, and that economic status is going to effect peoples lives.
bainshie ur work\article is bullshit
i remember in 2000 people in my country started playing cs 1.3 i think. very few could afford a computer those days which even didn't run counter-strike.
so, all the young guys started to collect coins\change for days >> in order to play cs for one hour at the gaming clubs.
If cs:go was that good it would be the same situation, no one can afford a nice pc but everyone would run to clubs to play evrytime they have a chance.
i remember in 2000 people in my country started playing cs 1.3 i think. very few could afford a computer those days which even didn't run counter-strike.
so, all the young guys started to collect coins\change for days >> in order to play cs for one hour at the gaming clubs.
If cs:go was that good it would be the same situation, no one can afford a nice pc but everyone would run to clubs to play evrytime they have a chance.
He still talk bad to people that say GO sucks
PS: I've read it
Post edited 2012-12-31 16:40:19
PS: I've read it
Post edited 2012-12-31 16:40:19
+1
wise words.
wise words.
if thats true, then why tetris or supermario arent in top stats?
good point
Oh good 1.6 fanboys are flaming you without even reading the blog
http://cs6302.userapi.com/u150773127/docs/2d9b331a..
http://cs6302.userapi.com/u150773127/docs/2d9b331a..
#39
Care to answer me then?
Post edited 2012-12-31 17:08:26
Care to answer me then?
Post edited 2012-12-31 17:08:26
Again, CSP's and CS:GO's requirements are pretty much the same, even that one fact destroys all of your theories. Do you seriously think that all CS:GO haters, including me, would all lie that they are not playing the game because they cant run it with their PC? Ridiculous.
Also just watch that movie here and you know why people want CSP(again, which has the same requirements as CS:GO) to replace 1.6 and not CS:GO:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kKt_GhTmE7s
Facts in your face.
And also I won't reply to you because I know it will be useless.
Peace
Post edited 2012-12-31 16:59:38
Also just watch that movie here and you know why people want CSP(again, which has the same requirements as CS:GO) to replace 1.6 and not CS:GO:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kKt_GhTmE7s
Facts in your face.
And also I won't reply to you because I know it will be useless.
Peace
Post edited 2012-12-31 16:59:38
Stop making up bullshit no one wants CSP to replace anything if they did there would be more than 100 players online right now, hell no one even cares about csp appart from the 20 people who deffend it on hltv
http://cs6302.userapi.com/u150773127/docs/2d9b331a..
Post edited 2012-12-31 17:11:39
http://cs6302.userapi.com/u150773127/docs/2d9b331a..
Post edited 2012-12-31 17:11:39
You didn't read the blog did you?
You have no idea how stupid you look right now.
You have no idea how stupid you look right now.
all these stupid comments started from your smart ass stupid article...
The truth is ppl will always play what they enjoy the most. They enjoy games for different reasons.
Some search for graphic,gamplay,community,cooperation with other players,type.... and other.
Personally most of the time i play oldschool games with rather lower graphic but cooperation.
Way less often highgraphic games.
Some search for graphic,gamplay,community,cooperation with other players,type.... and other.
Personally most of the time i play oldschool games with rather lower graphic but cooperation.
Way less often highgraphic games.
tl;dr
what do you mean with this ''but nothing on the scale of CS 1.6, even though Cod 2 is similar in capabilities. '' ?
What I mean is, Cod 2 and CS 1.6 are roughly similar in computational requirements (Both are built off the same engine of IDtech 1). This means that if my theory was correct, then the playbase should be mostly from lower economic countries.
This wasn't the case, although there was a greater percentage of lower economic players in Cod 2 than Cod 4 or Cod:BO, this was nowhere near explaining the huge discrepancies we see in 1.6.
This wasn't the case, although there was a greater percentage of lower economic players in Cod 2 than Cod 4 or Cod:BO, this was nowhere near explaining the huge discrepancies we see in 1.6.
Not at all lol. The requeriments for even playing CoD 1 were higher than 1.6 I can assure you that. Used to play Cod1 and 1.6 back in the day$. 1.6 run perfect 100fps everywhere and I struggled to get 125fps in cod (which are the fps you need to do some jumps like in quake, same engine).
Most of the indians..shifted to dota2...dota2 req better graphics.. but seriously amount of people wasting time to create threads...Get something better to do :\
I enjoy your articles maybe you can get a job offer here at HLTV. As long as you keep up the good work! the numbers don't lie and that's why I enjoy these :)
Good luck and keep pumping these out!
Good luck and keep pumping these out!
Seriously, you need a girlfriend.
Nice read though.
Richer countries (USA, Germany, UK, etc.) tend to be very easily influenced by the big corporations (they have videogame ads on tv as an example, in Brazil we haven't), so the newest games sell better in these places, the comapnies put a lot of focus and effort to sell in rich countries. That doesn't happen when it comes to Russia, Brazil, China, etc. Countries with A LOT of people, but people that aren't influenced at all by advertisement and marketing, when it comes to gaming. They play what they like, not what they are conditioned to like.
BR doesn't have television yet
Post edited 2012-12-31 23:49:59
Post edited 2012-12-31 23:49:59
good point.
i agree rich countries tend to try all the new games because they can afford + they have more free time.
poor countries don't even know whats new, never heard about it, but obviously (bashiash's research proves) they know whats BEST!!!
i agree rich countries tend to try all the new games because they can afford + they have more free time.
poor countries don't even know whats new, never heard about it, but obviously (bashiash's research proves) they know whats BEST!!!
well cs 1.6 is the most addicting game of the world and i say that as a gamer from jordan i played cs:go and didn't find it more addicting than cs 1.6 for example and i get like 300+ fps on it in medium settings its just if the game is addictive u play it and can't stop that's the case with 1.6 i think
Unfinished theory. Those poor people you mention in your article hás games with better graphics: battlefield and cod. Csgo is and will always be a fail. My favourite gameplay game is cs and graphics' battlefield and i live in a country where you call it poor while i call it corrupted.
+1
Again same old story Bainshie boy
"Why?"
I have the answer. Nowadays CS 1.6 requires a cheap computer to play well, and "high-speed" internet connections are no more a thing for the elites in those countries (I live in Brazil so I know what I'm saying. Back in the day a 128kb/s DSL used to cost 50 bucks a month, so go figure how much a 1mb was supposed to cost).
The thing is: soccer (football, if you will) and 1.6 share this thing in common. If you go to a favela nearby, all you need is a freaking ball to make all the kids have something to do everyday of the week. With CS 1.6 the process is similar, but you need some extra money for this as you'd need a good number of people with computers and internet, but still, its no more a thing for the elites. And it was a success with the elites one day because, as we all know it's an awesome, nearly flawless, and satisfiying as hell, game, so it's not a big surprise it's still a success for those who just now managed to be able to play it the way we (elites of those poor countries, or if you're european or american, elites of the world) did.
Post edited 2013-01-02 11:23:53
I have the answer. Nowadays CS 1.6 requires a cheap computer to play well, and "high-speed" internet connections are no more a thing for the elites in those countries (I live in Brazil so I know what I'm saying. Back in the day a 128kb/s DSL used to cost 50 bucks a month, so go figure how much a 1mb was supposed to cost).
The thing is: soccer (football, if you will) and 1.6 share this thing in common. If you go to a favela nearby, all you need is a freaking ball to make all the kids have something to do everyday of the week. With CS 1.6 the process is similar, but you need some extra money for this as you'd need a good number of people with computers and internet, but still, its no more a thing for the elites. And it was a success with the elites one day because, as we all know it's an awesome, nearly flawless, and satisfiying as hell, game, so it's not a big surprise it's still a success for those who just now managed to be able to play it the way we (elites of those poor countries, or if you're european or american, elites of the world) did.
Post edited 2013-01-02 11:23:53
exactly, i have money to spend on anything, but i still choose 1.6
its so much better to play and have fun
its so much better to play and have fun
This theory is so retarded. Back in the Days when cs 1.5 came out, the computer was much more expensive, though many people in poor countries had one to play cs. The game was the best in every fucking aspect. Imo it still is the best fps game nowadays. Csgo is a failure because they made some shit with graphics to sell like water in the desert using counter strike name. They said it would substitute 1.6 because its community is the most passionate of all versions. The reality is that Csgo is an upgrade of cs source. I have the game and i play once a week for fun with friends, only because the game is cheap. Cs 1.6 is much better and i play it everyday. Valve wanted to capture our community using the pros, paying them to say They liked the game and playing it on high level. Although the game is so fucking boring to watch. Gameplay fucked up.
Login or register to add your comment to the discussion.
