onside
No CS game was successful within the first 6 months of release. It took 3 years for the original counter strike to become a successful title. CS 1.6 was plagued with haters at the start who loved 1.5 (1.5 having been the staple fps game for 15~ months), yet cs1.6 was the most popular and successful FPS game for 9 years.
The fact that you're attempting to compare cs:go's release to that of 1.5, 1.6 and css is ludicrous. Every CS game, including cs:go, has had an awful release. The original CS was a mod that became popular and was refined to a great game over the course of 3 years (after coming out of beta). CSS had the worst release. When the game came out, it was thoroughly slammed for being a shoddy port, and the only tournament that initially took source over 1.6 was the WCG in 2005. If you remember that, you'll remember how badly that went down, and the game was henceforth slated by the 1.6 community (and rightly so at that point). Sadly the 1.6ers never touched the game after that and didn't see how it improved.
CS:GO was the first CS title that valve actually worked a relatively hard amount on to get working before release. I am in no way saying CS:GO at release was even remotely close to a good game. It wasn't. It was rife with flaws, lacked important things such as GOTV, grenades didn't interact with the environment correctly, recoil was messed up blah blah blah.
How many of those issues still exist? 2~ months after release, and the game is 95% there. Parts that are missing/need fixes: convars to limit molotovs; m4 silencer; sliding when you jump and land; awp inaccuracy.
Let's put that in perspective:
1.6 - 3 years of development from first public release.
CS:S - 2 years of development post release; however it took almost 6 years from release for valve to address the multiple issues with server inconsistencies.
CS:GO - since game release, the game has been almost completed.
In regards to your useless question, 1.5 had the most success. Why? It was the first truly stable release of CS. Following a couple of years of regular success in the game with pro's such as HeatoN, Potti, Ksharp, a release that wasn't changed for over a year allowed the game to really progress. There were 5 CPL events for 1.5, in just over a year, and the first ESWC. 1.6 naturally lived off this success, and rightly so, as it was improved even more.
Now let's look at Source's birth. After a quiet start, some organisations choose to back source as the "new, better looking game". One line really sticks out from this article on gotfrag ( http://www.gotfrag.com/css/story/2896/ ): "With this change to source, the only major LAN organization sticking with 1.6 right now is ESWC." Everyone knows how badly received it was at WCG, and how 1.6 just continued to grow in strength. Source finally received necessary updates and was picked up by the CGS, but the only reason the CGS chose to take source over 1.6 was because the game would appeal to a larger, less knowledgeable audience, appearing as a newer game. Alas, the CGS was even more corrupt than the CPL.
I don't have stats on the amount of money offered for 1.5 vs 1.6 vs cs:s vs cs:go within 6 months of release, but I can guarantee you that source is at the bottom of that list.
Please, list this evidence that you claim to have, I would love to read it.
