backtop


Print 39 comment(s) - last by MrPoletski.. on Jul 2 at 9:02 AM

Valve responds to Left 4 Dead 2 boycott which is 26,000 members strong.

When DailyTech first wrote about the Left 4 Dead 2 boycott, the movement had 16,000 members. In roughly three days membership has grown to 26,000 people prompting Valve to respond. The conflict of interests revolves around Valve’s decision to declare a sequel to the original Left 4 Dead will be released only a year after the release of the original. Unhappy fans believe the content revealed for Left 4 Dead 2 does not warrant what a stand-alone full priced sequel would cost.

Valve’s response came from president Gabe Newell; he conceded the quick release of sequel was new for Valve but he reaffirmed his commitment to older games. In Newell’s response to Kotaku he stated, "Doing a sequel in one year is new for Valve. But providing ongoing support for our titles after the initial launch isn't - it has been part of our philosophy since Half-Life was released ten and half years ago," With respect to the original Left 4 Dead he stated, "We see no reason to change that and will continue to support the over three million customers in the L4D community."

To back up his claims original content was still coming for the original Left 4 Dead, Newell stated, "In addition to the recently released Survival Pack, we are releasing authoring tools for Mod makers, community matchmaking, 4x4 matchmaking, and more new content during the coming months for L4D1."

Newell defended the decision to release a quick sequel claiming the additions are not trivial and would warrant a full priced sequel. Kotaku’s hands-on opinion of Left 4 Dead 2 is that it feels similar to the original. With only six months left in the year, there is not much time to make significant changes whether they are as significant as claimed or not.





Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

By callmeroy on 6/11/2009 3:47:45 PM , Rating: 2
I guess some folks just have a lot more spare time or so little to worry about that they can afford to exert their stress levels and spend the time into a boycott campaign over a computer game.

Having read the story -- yeah, i think Valve is being lame....but is it worth my very valuable time and sanity to get upset over a $50 product? Not so much.

I wish I had so little on my mind as to make room for caring so much over such an trivial issue.




By Morphine06 on 6/11/2009 4:34:37 PM , Rating: 5
Did the irony of your post ever occur to you?


By murphyslabrat on 6/15/2009 2:13:58 PM , Rating: 4
Nah, his valuable time isn't worth the time it takes to consider his words before he speaks.


I'll believe it when I see it...
By True Strike on 6/11/2009 12:27:19 PM , Rating: 2
I am NOT even thinking about buying this game until they offer a free weekend to try it, in it's entirety. They have to prove to me that a 2nd release this soon warrants a purchase.




RE: I'll believe it when I see it...
By Regs on 6/11/2009 1:24:03 PM , Rating: 2
A month ago they had LFD at a 20% discount on the week end, though they would not let you try it in its entirety of course but you had about 30 mins worth of game play. That sounds more than fair to me - 30 mins worth of demo and 20% off retail.


RE: I'll believe it when I see it...
By Morphine06 on 6/11/2009 4:32:47 PM , Rating: 4
I bought it on the 50% off weekend. The first one was worth the 20 bucks I paid for sure. I will purchase the 2nd at a similar value.

How can PC gamers be unhappy that they get a new game? Worthy titles are few and far between, and they complain when they get 2 back to back? Just silly. If they don't like it, wait a year to buy it!


By murphyslabrat on 6/15/2009 2:12:34 PM , Rating: 2
The issue arises from Valve's decision to make the new game, instead of revamping the original.

The original L4D was, I think, released prematurely, and this is them making changes that should have come out with the first release. In essence, I and others feel that we payed for a Beta release. Albeit, an excellent, near release version, but one that was ultimately unfinished.


Childish boycott
By tjr508 on 6/11/2009 6:57:10 PM , Rating: 3
Two things can happen here.

1. The sequel is awesome and well worth the $40. Everyone is happy with their money well spent.

2. The sequel is crap and not a good value. In this case, word gets out quick, people don't update, and the L4D1 community remains strong.

What do they have to complain about?




RE: Childish boycott
By crazyblackman on 6/11/09, Rating: -1
RE: Childish boycott
By Uarmm on 6/11/2009 10:47:41 PM , Rating: 2
Holy shit, dude. could you take Sony's dick out of your mouth for just one second? Please and thank you.


RE: Childish boycott
By crazyblackman on 6/11/09, Rating: -1
RE: Childish boycott
By crazyblackman on 6/11/09, Rating: -1
RE: Childish boycott
By lagitup on 6/14/2009 12:32:51 AM , Rating: 1
trolling fail.


RE: Childish boycott
By MrPoletski on 7/2/2009 8:59:53 AM , Rating: 2
Wrong, trolling success because some douche was hanging around waiting to feed it.


RE: Childish boycott
By omnicronx on 6/12/2009 12:42:07 AM , Rating: 3
Your incredible bias aside, what does this have to do with the OP's post?

Furthermore it is well known the PS3 is not easy to code for , but this is probably not the reason it did not make it to the PS3. Porting a Windows PC game to the 360 or vice versa is very easy. Xbox live integration probably took them more time than the port itself.

Just do the math, PS3 still has 2/3 the install base of the 360, sometimes if the PC version is the focus, it does not make sense to spend all the extra time for an install base of 20 million.

Don't get me wrong, PS3 exclusives are thing of beauty, but you cannot take how easy the 360 is to code for and how similar it is to PC coding away from MS, it was quite smart if you ask me. MS may not know their hardware, but they know their software.


RE: Childish boycott
By crazyblackman on 6/12/09, Rating: -1
RE: Childish boycott
By omnicronx on 6/12/2009 11:39:10 AM , Rating: 1
Valve does not control the 360 version of L4D because it was not their project. I am sure development was done in parallel and it certainly uses the source engine, but it was Certain Affinity and not Valve that was in charge of the 360 release, i.e it was never directly supported by valve.

I don't own the game so really I could care less, I am a PS3 user now, but I am not going to spread this kind of FUD like you to justify my purchase. Even a blind man can see that developers are not putting the effort into PS3 games for crossplatform releases.


RE: Childish boycott
By crazyblackman on 6/13/09, Rating: -1
RE: Childish boycott
By christojojo on 6/14/2009 11:14:15 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Jesus, go out and get a girlfriend....or a boyfriend.


I just wiped out four votes here hoping, just hoping, you are a eunuch, CBM

BTW: I hate the racial title of your name too. It is wrong and offensive on many levels.


RE: Childish boycott
By Cheesew1z69 on 6/12/2009 9:16:57 AM , Rating: 1
It's still a Sony, no thanks!


L4D community?
By JDHack42 on 6/11/2009 2:56:13 PM , Rating: 2
Please, the servers are empty when I log on.

I wish these people would just quit, I want my chainsaw!

Maybe I should create my own L4D2 NOW! group and see who get's more members.




RE: L4D community?
By tviceman on 6/11/2009 5:40:01 PM , Rating: 2
Valve ought to merge the L4D 1 campaigns into L4D2 among PC users that own both copies. I do not want to have to fire up a particular game to play a specific campaign. It's a multiplayer game and it would be a significant hassle to have to switch between executables, find new servers, and try to maintain the same group of friends you're playing with (or against).

That said, if Valve announces or says for sure that they're doing this then I'm sold.


Does anyone here remember...
By crazyblackman on 6/11/09, Rating: 0
RE: Does anyone here remember...
By Chris Q on 6/12/2009 2:32:29 AM , Rating: 2
I do agree with you that clearly the PS3 is technically superior to the Xbox 360 and that the exclusive titles look better on the PS3 than the exclusive titles on XBOX 360 (for the record I do own both consoles).

I would like to offer an alternative way to think about this issue. I think that the discussions about the relative difficulties of programming for each platform miss the central issue pertaining to developing software for multiple platforms. The real issue is not the absolute difficulty programing for each platform. The real issue is the differences between programming for each platform.

What I mean by that is that it doesn't matter if the PS3 is easier or more difficult to develop for than the XBOX360/PC, what matters is that it is a significantly different process to develop for that platform. I live in the Bay Area and know a lot of video game developers and from my discussions with them I have learned that programming for the PS3 requires large chunks of code re-writes for games developed for the 360 and PC. This obviously works the other way, where games developed with the PS3 in mind require significant re-writes to work with the 360/PC. Software companies are faced with a number of issues when developing new games. Most prefer to focus their development efforts on the platform that either has the largest user base or the technical capabilities to run the game as its developers intended. Thus most developers build games for the 360 first and then the PC and PS3.

Like it or not, these companies are all businesses, and they like most businesses, have resource limitations. When thinking about porting a game to the PS3 they have to determine if the effort is worth the return. The more different the programing process is from the original platform, the higher the costs and the more unlikely they will be able to give the go ahead.

The differences in programming styles between the PS3 and the 360 also affect the staffing decisions that companies make. Companies build competencies aligned with their product strategy. If they are primarily focused on the 360 and PC, then they are going to hire people with expertise in programming for those platforms. These companies in turn may not have the financial capabilities (or willingness) to hire a full-time PS3 programming staff for a number of reasons.

One final point is the nature of the Art Assets for video games. The PS3 can handle higher quality art assets relative to the 360. Having said that it makes relatively little sense for companies to develop art assets that cannot be used on their primary development platform. It also makes very little sense for companies to have two development pipelines for the same game with the platform being the only difference.

In the end it all comes down to dollars and cents. It is expensive to support multiple platforms and sometimes the costs do not make sense in light of the potential revenues. These costs are not just measured in terms of financial expenditures but also in terms of opportunity costs (spending time on porting software from one platform to another takes up resources that could be used developing new content or new games).


RE: Does anyone here remember...
By crazyblackman on 6/12/09, Rating: -1
RE: Does anyone here remember...
By FaceMaster on 6/12/2009 9:11:01 AM , Rating: 2
Please, crazyblackman, just shut up. You've posted too many posts on this article, crying about the same thing.


RE: Does anyone here remember...
By omnicronx on 6/12/2009 11:49:54 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
What I mean by that is that it doesn't matter if the PS3 is easier or more difficult to develop for than the XBOX360/PC, what matters is that it is a significantly different process to develop for that platform. I live in the Bay Area and know a lot of video game developers and from my discussions with them I have learned that programming for the PS3 requires large chunks of code re-writes for games developed for the 360 and PC. This obviously works the other way, where games developed with the PS3 in mind require significant re-writes to work with the 360/PC. Software companies are faced with a number of issues when developing new games. Most prefer to focus their development efforts on the platform that either has the largest user base or the technical capabilities to run the game as its developers intended. Thus most developers build games for the 360 first and then the PC and PS3.
Exactly, the 360 is still DirectX based and has hardware very similar to that of a PC, the PS3 uses their own proprietary version of OpenGLES and hardware unlike any other platform. Almost any Windows PC game these days is DX based which makes it very easy to port one to the other. Even an OpenGL windows game would still require rewrites to get the most out of the PS3's hardware.(and this is if you discount the the fact they have to change the code to curtail to the Cell processors, not matter what this will require major code changes)

It all comes down to this, develop for 30 million 360 user base plus whatever the PC user base and then port over to PS3, or develop for a user base of only 20 million and port to the masses. Any dual development project I have seen turned out to be a strain on the dev studio, and they probably did not make very much money because of such.

Lucky for me I only play sports games, which are almost always crossplatform, the only one I play that is not is The Show and it is a PS3 exclusive, so I am happy ;)


How about an expansion pack?
By TomCorelis on 6/13/2009 12:52:21 PM , Rating: 2
Would all the fanbois get hurt if they called this an expansion pack instead of a sequel? I think not...




RE: How about an expansion pack?
By lagitup on 6/14/2009 12:35:35 AM , Rating: 2
well from the sounds of it they're aiming for full price, which an e-pack couldn't fetch.

I really do hope valve doesn't stoop as low as EA and sell a quarter of a game for full price (mirror's edge which i beat in less than 5 hours of gameplay, i'm looking at you)


new orange box?
By Beno on 6/14/2009 6:04:06 AM , Rating: 2
is episode 3 ready?
would be great if they put (EP3, L4D2, ..) and call it a Pink Box.




RE: new orange box?
By MrPoletski on 7/2/2009 9:02:27 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
would be great if they put (EP3, L4D2, ..) and call it a Pink Box.

[Insert lewd zoe joke here]


What it really boils down to
By clovell on 6/11/2009 2:37:42 PM , Rating: 2
I mean, let's be honest about what's really going on here. L4D has developed, as all PC games do, a community. Whenever game like this has a sequel debut, the community is broken up. As those with the hardware and the cash move to the new game, severs make the switch, as well. The original is left an orphan.

These folks don't want to let go of their community so soon, and that's what's at the heart of this, I'm sure. You can argue all day about costs, content, and corporate/consumer loyalty, but at the end of the day, these folks just want to come home from work or school, boot up the ol' PC and play some L4D with their buddies.




history says otherwise
By the goat on 6/11/09, Rating: -1
RE: history says otherwise
By Regs on 6/11/2009 1:21:04 PM , Rating: 4
Valve, your despicable. You should start selling stuff free everyday. *sarcasm*

On a more serious note, maybe they can give better warning or advertising next time around. For instance, I thought HL2 part 2 and part 3 were suppose to episodes? Turns out each ep spends at least 3-4 years in development. Crap, I'm old now, I don't think I even have time to play ep 3! Obviously HL is more involved than LFD, as it's the flagship game, so you would think it would take more time to develope.


RE: history says otherwise
By omnicronx on 6/11/2009 1:23:38 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Just like how Valve screwed over the original Half-Life/counter-strike multiplayer community by shutting down WON (World Opponent Network) as soon as they released their Steam DRM system.
So they replaced WON which was uncontrolled BS with their own network that has worked wonders for them and its a bad thing?

In fact there was barely a difference between the two, WON would limit to one CD key playing at a time and would periodically BAN CD keys that have been overused. Or the fact that anyone can signup for a steam account, and anyone with a valid CD key had access to everything they did before? Furthermore Steam online is much better than the WON ever was, the cheating got so bad it was no fun to play.
The only DRM here is to stop people from cheating, there is nothing restrictive about Halflife/CS on Steam aside from that.

You always post your DRM BS on DT, and nobody wants to hear it.


RE: history says otherwise
By UNHchabo on 6/11/2009 8:14:32 PM , Rating: 2
Additionally, they didn't shut down WON "as soon as they released... Steam". Steam was released in 2002, and became popular in late 2003. The WON servers weren't shut down until July 2004, at least 6 months after Steam became the more popular option.

Plus you can still use the WON network today to play CS 1.5, if you patch your original executables to use third-party servers, or if you're content with LAN-only games.


RE: history says otherwise
By GeorgeOu on 6/12/2009 5:56:56 AM , Rating: 2
You can STILL play halflife and counter strike on Steam using the original keys you purchased. They didn't "screw" anyone. In fact, Counter Strike Source never got as big as Counter Strike BECAUSE Valve didn't shut down the old games.


"We don't know how to make a $500 computer that's not a piece of junk." -- Apple CEO Steve Jobs
Related Articles
















botimage
Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki