Counter-Strike: Global Offensive Confirmed?

Not a screenshot, obviously.
A thread on the Steam forums seems to confirm that rumours about a new Counter-Strike game – Counter-Strike: Global Offensive – are true, with commenter “Cliffe” (who is Valve designer chap Jess Cliffe) saying “Global Offensive”. There have been a bunch of other references to it, on Twitter and so forth.

And update on the ESEA Facebook page reads “Counter-Strike: Global Offensive… More info in the morning.” So it looks like we can expect something later today.


  1. The-Sexy-Duke says:

    Wut? O.o
    ….there better be no hats!

    • Kebab says:

      Not even armoured ones? That’s… that’s a bit harsh isn’t it? Surely you want something to protect your noggin?

    • dsi1 says:

      …Armored Hats?

      A new breakthrough in hat based warfare!

    • Heliocentric says:

      Armored Fantasy Custom Hats
      link to
      A bargain, no longer will my hats offer only protection vs light bludgeon damage.

    • BooleanBob says:

      “A bargain, no longer will my hats offer only protection vs light bludgeon damage critical hits.”

      2nd ed. 4 life

    • bear912 says:

      I think we should compile a list of things that Valve could add to CS:GO to make people rage. Hats are the obvious one, and here are a couple more suggestions:

      – Killstreaks! Everyone loves those, right?
      – Rocket Launchers

      Please contribute your suggestions!

    • Magnetude says:

      Dedicated melee button (one hit kill, obviously)
      Dedicated grenade button (You get 5 of each kind and they can be thrown miles)
      Dual wield (AWP & shotty)
      Preorder exclusive weapons
      Cash shop exclusive weapons
      Facebook integration

  2. sonicblastoise says:



    What am I saying. I only play on fy_iceworld2k deathmatch mode anyway.

  3. StingingVelvet says:

    And people laughed when I said Half-Life 3 was on hold while they focused on multiplayer stuff.

  4. vladimirblotan says:

    Looking forward to finding out more.

  5. Alexander Norris says:

    Unfortunately, it will probably still be as atrociously designed as CS:S, with mechanics that make it harder for the loser to stop losing, three quarters of the guns that aren’t worth using and a one-body-hit-kills weapon in a round-based-spawning game. :(

    • Cyampagn says:

      CS has always been about that; you, your gun, your skills. And it does take more skill than those so called modern shooters.

    • Premium User Badge

      Joshua says:

      Except that three quarters of guns actualy ARE usefull, but just underrated.

      TMP ftw! :P.

    • Alexander Norris says:

      So a game in which three quarters of the guns are wasted design space is about “your guns?” And a game that rewards one team making a small mistake with the other snowballing to victory is about “your skills?”

      I don’t think your argument has any worth.

    • Scatterbrainpaul says:

      I’d say less that 3/4 of guns are ever used. By my reckoning 4 guns in total? Desert Eagle, AK47, Colt M4A1 or the AWP (if not banned on the server)

      Maybe the shotgun if you’re playing office

    • JackShandy says:

      CS Rube here: If the game is so obviously imbalanced, how has it become so popular? This is an honest question.

    • Amun says:

      I only ever use the P90 or the big machine gun. All maps.

    • patricij says:

      MP5 dude here…and I was pretty good at it!

    • Gnoupi says:

      CS in general is based on a frustration spiral for the “less than best” player.

      The game becomes harder and harder for you as you lose.
      Lose the first round? You have to fight the next one with pistols against machine guns.

      Lost the next one? You may be able to buy some cheap machine gun with your kevlar. Good luck again the enemy team with their M4, AK, and AWP.
      It’s a game which emphasizes the advantage of the winning team.

      And to add to this, since it’s round based, it means that the lesser player spends actually less time playing, and more watching (making it harder for him to actually get better, of course).

      I had some good times on this game (especially with the first shotgun which has a tendency to headshot when you aim for… well, anywhere), and there are some truly glorious moments. But the way the game is organized is really frustrating if you dare not to be an aimbot.

    • Milky1985 says:

      “Unfortunately, it will probably still be as atrociously designed as CS:S, with mechanics that make it harder for the loser to stop losing, three quarters of the guns that aren’t worth using and a one-body-hit-kills weapon in a round-based-spawning game. :(”
      You mean the AWP, that requires a shoot to the chest… and has been int he game for a sodding long time (at least since 1.5 when i played it about 7 years ago.
      Yeah of course its a bad decision, god forbid a sniper rifle actually kill someone when you shoot at them, its not like its one of the most expensive weapons in the game, costing you a good 30% of the max funds you can have, (and tbh can be quite hard to use, its the pros who get the hang of quick switching and aiming etc that do the damage with it)
      ……………What do you mean it is expensive in game?


      You sound lot like i guy i used ot play against in uni, would only use those sort of weapons or the knife. It was great fun, you never knew where the bullets woudl come from, or the wierd hiding spots he would find to leap out and stab you from :P

    • diebroken says:

      MAC10 is the headshot wonder weapon in CS, it’s almost like you don’t even have to try to aim for the head…

    • says:

      Generally the team that wins the first round (during which you can only afford better pistols or Kevlar) gains a huge advantage for the next two as well. During round 2, the winners can opt to buy big guns and no equipment, or buy an inexpensive machine gun and armor/grenades; either outcome makes them likely victors, since the opposing team will likely only be able to afford pistols and armor again. If the winners buy big guns, there’s a chance the other team will pull out a victory and steal those big guns, leaving you with 0 money and them with good money plus your nice guns; for this reason, a lot of teams choose to hedge their bet with the second option. In general (but not always) the team that wins pistol round goes up 3-0 before the opposition can buy equitable equipment and attempt a comeback.

      This is all talking organized, competitive play of course; pub play is chaotic and people don’t synchronize their equipment purchases.

      The thing about CS is that it rewards success and punishes failure harder than most contemporary games. It does attempt to help losing teams out a bit by slowly increasing the cash you gain as you lose consecutive rounds, but the winners always get more and can use this to maintain nicer guns than you. It is also true that most of the available weapons are very seldom used, that lower-skilled players spend most of their time spectating, and that the AWP can be incredibly frustrating to deal with.

      There is a reason why it is so popular, though, and that is because skill differentials are so unregulated. CS gives you total control, both for better and for worse. Gaining skill at the game makes you feel like a total badass. Even if you’re stuck on a garbage team, you alone can win matches (a feat far, far more difficult in TF2 or Battlefield). It is easy (after a while) to understand how and why you died, and by conducting yourself carefully you can have tremendous success (whereas Battlefield is more chaotic and TF2 more focused on strength-by-numbers, aggregate-skill type stuff). Counter-Strike was designed by accident, yet remains one of the most rewarding competitive multiplayer games available; I’ve known a few serious players who have great difficulty enjoying other games simply because they find their skill regulating mechanics constrictive.

    • JackShandy says:

      Thanks, 4xis. That was an excellent explanation.

    • Alexander Norris says:

      @JackShandy: I don’t know! And it is like some dark secret out of Lovecraft, slowly driving me insane.

      @Scatterbrain: USP and MP5, too, and the Scout sees a decent amount of use. The Galil is also a nice assault rifle substitute for the early rounds if you can’t quite afford an AK47/M4.


      and has been int he game for a sodding long time

      Yes, “people have put up with shit for some time” is a great argument for rubbing more faeces all over the place and on more people.

    • Cirdain says:

      Deagle + Head = Death

    • PickyBugger says:

      Where’s the Scout love? That gun is amazing in the right hands.

    • ScubaMonster says:

      In regards to one hit body kills… sure you might not actually die from a body shot but I guarantee you’d be taken out of the fight. People don’t keep soldiering on like Rambo when they get shot in the chest or elsewhere.

    • Magnetude says:

      ScubaMonster: Doesn’t that justify making legshots with a Glock one-hit kills?

    • DrGonzo says:

      I love the arrogance. ‘It’s terribly designed!’ It’s also one of the most popular multiplayer shooters ever made. But oh sorry, you know better. You always do.

  6. Zoonp says:

    It ain’t CS without Gooseman.

    • Radiant says:

      I want to retweet this

    • 0mer says:

      You can play Tactical Intervention, whenever that comes out….

      It’s being fronted by a Korean publisher, so you can most definitely expect massive grind involved to unlock weapons/armor/kits.

  7. Narretz says:

    Wohoo, that means only DotA 2 to be revealed until we finally see Episode 3! (By now I guess they gonna go full retard, eh Half-Life 3. I want a shiny new engine.)

  8. Ennui says:

    There is also quite a lot of detail on the game in its current state from a reddit AMA from one of the lucky CS:S community guys who is currently at Valve getting some hands on time with CS:GO (via

    • Real Horrorshow says:

      “No ironsights” is bad news for me.

      I like CSS just fine EXCEPT for that. It just makes it feel really outdated.

    • Leelad says:

      What’s wrong with a crosshair?

    • Gnoupi says:

      And I would like it especially for that.

      We don’t need no stinkin’ ironsight, we aim with mouses!

    • Milky1985 says:

      ““No ironsights” is bad news for me.”

      If you want to spend all game walking slowly aiming down ironsights go back to cod, i’m glad they don’t have it, its all about the size of your crosshair and actually having to look at your own movment for accuracy stuff!

    • Flukie says:

      It should really have Iron Sights IMO, It may piss off classic CS players but they can keep playing their old game or just play with servers with “Classic” mode or something.

      I just think it makes sense since CS made me first think wow people can actually have realistic health in a FPS, its shooting mechanics however are just outdated nowadays although its still extremely enjoyable.

      This would give the game a breath of freshair imo.

    • Magnetude says:

      The thing with CS is that it’s an arcade shooter wrapped in a realistic skin, much like CoD. Now, ‘realism’ means ironsights and redscreen, so it’ll be interesting to see how this gets received.

      I’ll be playing gungame on those brightly coloured texture maps anyway, the way it’s meant to be played.

    • zeroskill says:

      wowo wow Ironsights in CS that would just be perverted. ~Unthinkable.

    • shoptroll says:

      Iron sights are overrated and need to go away

      There’s no need for them in twitch shooters like CS, Bulletstorm or Borderlands

    • Askeladd says:

      I hope they take that chance to redesign CS in a way that improves its good points and makes it more accessible for all players (gettig rid of bad game design).

    • PickyBugger says:

      Yeah I’m not really a big iron sights fan, they are no more realistic than using a crosshair. Even in games like Red Orchestra and to a much greater extent Battlefield you aren’t having a particularly realistic experience. Considering many games use ironsights as a short range zoom mechanism the realism link is even more tenuous.

    • bear912 says:

      @PickyBugger: Looking down the sights of a gun is unrealistic? I’m not saying that iron sights belong in CS (crosshairs are fine by me), I’m just curious as to why you think guns have sights, if not to be looked down? Perhaps I’m just misunderstanding your post…

      Edit: Yeah, I guess I was. I think I understand what you’re saying, now.

  9. JackShandy says:

    –Reply Fail–

  10. NaturalDre says:

    Wow, I finished reading the article then I looked back at the screenshot and said “Hmm, never seen that before, but it obviously not a screenshot of the game since we have no info…” Then I hovered my mouse over it for 2 seconds to see the caption… I lol’d.

  11. Shih Tzu says:

    I for one am excited… for all the fun RPS will have with the word “Offensive” in the coming months.

  12. MultiVaC says:

    God damn it, it’s almost like Valve is just trolling us by making follow ups to all of their games but Half-Life. At this point I wouldn’t be surprised to see Ricochet 2 before a new Half-Life game.

    • Dominic White says:

      Believe it or not, Valve have multiple teams. They were working on Portal and Team Fortress 2 simultaneously. Given that they’ve kept this fairly secret until now, it suggests that there’s things going on at Valve that none of us know about.

      They’re pretty good at keeping secrets.

    • Echo Black says:

      Before they start work on EP3, they still have to release Left 1-3 Dead, the L4D prequels. Think new Star Wars trilogy.

    • MultiVaC says:

      Oh, I have no doubt that there are. I’m sure there’s something Half-Life related going on at Valve. But with DOTA 2, this new CS project, and continuing work on TF2 and DLC for Portal 2 and L4D2, it’s hard to imagine the kind of work being put into it that a new HL game would require to be finished any time soon.

    • zeroskill says:

      Valve said repeatedly they are still working on a new installment of Half life but it isnt anywhere near a state where it could be shown to the public. And there wont be any news in the near future regarding it. You should accept that unless you want Activision-style sequels year after year.

    • Grape Flavor says:

      Yeah I’m starting to get the feeling Ep3/HL3 is just something a couple of guys are dicking around with in a back room. It’s just not a priority for them.

      It would be more excusable had Ep2 not ended on a cliffhanger and had the Episodes not been billed as a trilogy to be released on accelerated schedules.

      DNF may have been the king of vaporware but no company is as consistently tardy as Valve.

  13. dotslash says:

    If it’s on an updated source engine like a couple of sites say, then maybe this is Valves way of testing this updated source engine prior to HL3/EP3.

    They did after all release CSS beta 11th August 2004, and a full release on 1st November 2004. Both before Half Life 2 on November 16 2004.

    Here’s hoping all hopes of hope, but of course, hats are more important than HL3/EP3…

    Oh and dual elites ftw!

    • Theory says:

      Every one of Valve’s releases has used an updated Source engine.

    • DeathHamsterDude says:

      That’s true. Valve did an amazing thing with making Source such a scalable engine. It’s pretty amazing how it looks now compared to 2003/2004. That being said, it has definitely reached its peak now, and I always assumed myself that one of the main reasons HL3 has been delayed so long is that they’re working on Source Mk.II to run it. So, considering how interconnected CS and HL have always been, maybe CS:GO (nowhere near as fun or easy to say as CS:S btw) might have that new engine. I mean, one engine for over 8 years? It pretty much unknown. I mean ID Tech has gone through, what, 3 iterations since Source came out? Well, it had been using Tech 3 for a few years by that stage. It was pretty much on it’s last legs when Source showed up.

    • bear912 says:

      @Theory: Amen. This is the point of Source. Hell, I wouldn’t be surprised if they added level streaming for HL3… I’m probably just crazy, though.

    • somnolentsurfer says:

      Pity thechineseroom, and other devs who’re just finishing off update their forthcoming games to the Portal 2 engine.

    • CMaster says:

      The big problem with Source isn’t how it looks – it still does OK.
      What it does have however is a long-winded pipeline with poor tools, that makes developing for it slow and expensive; along with a huge reliance on pre-computed elements, again slowing iteration and making dynamic/procedural content very difficult. It seems ridiculous that a developer that seemingly iterates so much has a system so bad for iteration.

  14. thepaleking says:

    Only fun I got out of CS:S was with the _surf maps. Whoever thought of that concept was a mad genius.

    • Askeladd says:

      Dont forget jumpmaps. Sadly they are no longer played anymore. No good AWP-map servers in europe too.
      Why couldnt I keep playing 1.3 forever?

  15. Radiant says:

    Globally offensive surely?

  16. skinlo says:

    Have no interest at all, CS, CSCZ and CSS are the only Valve games I don’t care about.

    I imagine this will be free to play, but I don’t know.

  17. somnolentsurfer says:

    So, micro-transaction based?

    • Magnetude says:

      At least partly, to be sure. Rumour is that they’re aiming to have a ‘casual’ mode alongside a competitive mode, so I’d expect a free to play version with hats for one crowd, and a hat-free, balanced version for the eSports lot. Have we seen any other instances of the same game being sold in two different ways like that?

    • zeroskill says:

      That would make alot of sense, if you know the hardcore CS community. Lets just say, they dont take kindly to change. At the same time, Valve will want to go down that road with ingame items and casual play. Would make perfect sense to implement such a system.

    • Magnetude says:

      If they do do it like that (and I’m just spec-yoo-lay-tin’ here) I’d be tempted to pay for the hardcore version and get the F2P version as well, just for the option of dicking around with the kids in casual mode before testing my mettle with the big boys.

      For me, that’s what CS:S didn’t have enough of, forgiving servers for beginners. I never got into it because dying 20 seconds into a round and waiting for two 1337s to out-camp each other got so dull that I never played enough to get good at it.

    • hexapodium says:

      “Competitive” mode is just “keep playing CS1.6 like you have been for the last five years”. “Conservative” attitudes just means they’ll ignore new stuff completely.

    • somnolentsurfer says:

      I was thinking more of a real cash option to buy weapons at the start of each round. I can’t really imagine them doing it, but imagining the community reaction amused me…

  18. zeroskill says:

    I call bullshit until I hear Gaben himself saying: “Yes, we are making a new Counter Strike”. Timing would be perfect tho since it looks like we are getting a Dota 2 beta soon after the Tournament.

  19. Pobblepop says:

    The most singularly unexciting game announcement in the history of game announcements.

    • Magnetude says:


      Also, this isn’t an announcement yet, just a load of chat on Twitter. About a new Counterstrike. Which you might have heard of?

  20. Shroom says:

    This is kind of disappointing….I was hoping Valve were doing something original with all their time that isn’t spent on DOTA2 (cause gawd knows they ain’t using that time on HL3) With Valve’s ingenuity, level of skill in nearly all technical aspects of game development and genuine artistic talent they could make something really special that could completely change the video game scene as we know it. I’m sure this game will be good fun and all (I mean, come on, is valve) but I still call What A Shame.

  21. Ham Solo says:

    Pay to shoot weapons or hats and i’m out.

  22. Moni says:

    I hope it has a Payload VIP game mode.

  23. shoptroll says:

    Wow, an entire page of comments without the requisite crying about lack of Episode 3. I’m proud of us.

    This is unexpected, although it would explain the recent spurt of CS:S updates. Although I wouldn’t be surprised if that was preparation for making CS:S F2P too.

    I’m guessing Hidden Path is working on this.

    Hopefully we get more information at Gamescom.

  24. Flukie says:

    I hope Valve don’t listen to these competitive gamers too much, yes the competitive game is important, but a fun game should come first.

    I mean seriously these guys ONLY play the games they are competitive at, reading the reddit thread this guy had NEVER played a Half Life game. I just think listening to these guys impressions and making it the base of the gameplay leads to sequels that have nothing unique about them other than a fresh coat of paint. People don’t play Source because it doesn’t feel like 1.6 did. Sure they may not think it’s a better game but asking for this game to be 1.6 is just silly, if you want to play 1.6 play 1.6 and if your complaining about 1.6 not being pretty enough, recreate it yourself.

    But me I’d like a new game in the series to feel like a new game in the series rather than a remake of a older title. I mean yes I love the fact that aztec and dust is back but from what I’ve heard there arn’t any new maps… Which just astounds me. Give it new content, bring in a new audience, if its good and its solid a competitive scene will build itself, don’t try to migrate people from a earlier title by making the same game again.

    • The-Sexy-Duke says:

      Really it astounds you at this early stage? and it appears you didnt really read what he said on reddit….did he say at any point he wants it like 1.6 ? No he wants it to feel like a counterstrike game. It is easy to worry about it becoming call of duty as shooters are being dumbed down so excessively these days and i think the fact that they are bringing in hardcore players is great. Valve are grown-ups remember so they wont wuss out on disagreeing with these players.

  25. Magnetude says:

    So there’s all this talk of CS:S vs CS 1.6, competitive versus fun, hitboxes and bunnyhopping and so on, which got me thinking…

    How worthwhile is it for a company to make an eSport level game? Does Blizzard profit in any way from those endless Starcraft tournaments? A lot of the debate about CS:GO seems to be about whether it’s geared towards the F2P fun crowd or the pay-once hardcore crowd, just wondering which model actually makes them more money.

    • shoptroll says:

      Don’t tournaments have to register with to be recognized? Presumably Blizzard gets some sort of cut from that. So it’s basically free money unless they’re providing some of the prizes.

  26. Tei says:

    Makes sense. Valve has CS:S that is one of the most important e-sports, only second to Starcraft, and we all choose to ignore it, because we can’t wrap our mind about it. But it exist, and is absolutelly incredible popular. Valve has done nothing with it, because e-sports are very delicate, basically you can’t change anything, even the weight of a bullet making it afecting gravity. So heres Valve tryiing something, a new CS with what seems the CS players like (But who knows what these player want? probably more CS) and a better foundation.
    To be honest, I have played a lot of CS years ago, I may revisit it again wen this release :D

    • kyrieee says:

      No, CS 1.6 is a big esport, CS:S isn’t, never has been and never will be

    • Premium User Badge

      Joshua says:

      CS:S actually is a eSport, just google it.

      What is the hate everyone bears against cs:s anyway?

    • Dominic White says:

      ‘Pro’ CS 1.6 players are among the most outspoken and obnoxious people on the internet. It’s their way of the highway.

    • kyrieee says:

      I don’t need to google it because I’ve followed the scene for a decade, CS:S is insignificant as a competitive game.

  27. kyrieee says:

    I won’t let myself even hope that this is going to be good.
    CS:S is a piece of shit compared to 1.6, I can’t see them getting it right.

  28. krimx says:

    The majority of the guns on CS:S have their place, its just generally considered more efficient to keep your money for when you can afford the one you are going for. Money balance and round control is much more complex than regular players understand. It takes years to get to a point when you can really understand cs:s match mechanics. Blanket commenting that losing the first round means loosing the first three is ignorant, and wrong. Love to see you play a real team, win the first round, and watch what happens to you.
    Iron sights aren’t CS-like. Anyone who thinks CS needs bringing into the group of “new” games is an idiot. COD (other than 4) is a pub game, its mechanics are nothing close to source, its entirely unskilled, just to keep the kid sitting at home on his ps3 happy and thinking he is a gamer. CSS and 1.6 wouldnt have come this far for no reason, think before you speak.
    And to those who think that the updated engine is “old”. Read up on these things before you comment. Halo’s engine is an update of Pathways, which was inspired by Wolfestein 3D, one of the first (if not hte first?) 3d first person shooter. Goldsource became Source, became Orange, and will go further. Unreal engine? Look at old games with Unreal, then the new tesselation cabalities. Turn brain on before saying source is outdated.
    We will know very quickly whether the game will flop or not, after release. That being said, cause its a CS, it’ll probs start off extremely buggy (as with all stupidly fast pushed out games these days).

    • 0p8 says:

      finally a person who has made proper sense.
      the comments about losing first round etc etc make no mention at all of something called tactics, and havin the ability to change them.

  29. ankh says:

    I’m usually all for change, but when it comes to cs? No. No changes. Ever. 1.6 or gtfo!

  30. Paool says:

    ya but, GW2! XD