backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 113 comment(s) - last by iFX.. on Jun 11 at 10:12 AM
Left 4 Dead fans voice their opposition to a sequel being released so soon

Left 4 Dead is a popular first-person shooter developed by Valve Corporation that lets you experience what it would be like to be in a zombie survival movie. The game was released in November of 2008 and become a hit due to the quality co-op play.

Unlike the sequels to Half Life which were released years after the release of the original, Valve announced at this year E3 a sequel to Left 4 Dead would be coming in November of 2009. This appears to have upset a portion of the community of players playing Left 4 Dead due to the relatively short time frame between the releases of the two games.

A Steam group called the L4D Boycott (NO-L4D2) has managed to gain the support of over 16,000 members and they have compiled a list of complaints explaining why they are against the release of a sequel so soon after the original was released.

The list of complaints accuses Valve of promising significant content for the original Left 4 Dead that was never delivered. Overall the complaints appear to highlight concerns the original Left 4 Dead will be dead in the water as soon as the sequel is released forcing consumers to purchase the sequel if they want access to new content.

As companies exist to make as much money possible Valve’s decision should not be unexpected. Similar decisions have been made by other major game companies such as Blizzard’s decision to release StarCraft 2 as a trilogy forcing consumers to spend money multiple times in order to enjoy the full StarCraft 2 experience.

Valve's answer to the boycott appears to be deleted forum posts and threats of banishment. A screen shot of Left 4 Dead fans being silenced for speaking out on the Steam forums can be seen here.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
oh honestly...
By TSS on 6/9/2009 8:47:56 AM , Rating: 5
lets review what they have to say point by point shall we?

quote:
WE BELIEVE:
-The release of Left 4 Dead 2 as a stand-alone sequel will split the communities and decrease the quality of multiplayer gaming.


eh, no. *steam* is the community. during any point in L4D (and im sure in L4D2 as well) shift+tab brings up your friends. you can invite your friends and community members to either games from there. even if your friends have L4D2 and you do not, you can always invite them back to a nice game of L4D1.

quote:
-The announced content of Left 4 Dead 2 does not warrant a stand-alone, full-priced sequel and should instead become updates (free or otherwise) for Left 4 Dead.


the standard "give us more free stuff" response. L4D shipped with 4 (co-op) campains, 2 versus maps. now it has 4 (co-op) campains, 4 versus maps, and 16 survival maps. L4D2 will also have 4 new campains, 4 new versus maps and 16 new survival maps (guessing the last one). and a chainsaw.

quote:
-Left 4 Dead has not yet received the support and content which Valve has repeatedly stated will be delivered.


like i said above. there's already been a ton of content. maybe not new weapons, but i have noticed gameplay tweaks besides the new maps and gameplay mode.

quote:
-The release of Left 4 Dead 2 will make Left 4 Dead an obsolete purchase and inferior piece of software after only one year since release.


no. it's already obsolete. and inferior is determined by the game, not the price. diablo 2's priced at 9 bucks, and still it's selling. because it's a good game. L4D is too.

quote:
WE REQUEST:

-That Valve honor its commitment to release ongoing periodic content for Left 4 Dead.


who says they aren't? or haven't already? more people wanting more free stuff here.

quote:
-That Left 4 Dead 2 not be released as a stand-alone, full-priced sequel but as either a free update to Left 4 Dead or an expansion with full compatibility with basic Left 4 Dead owners.


see the above. the only thing L4D 1 and 2 seem to have in common is the gameplay for which we love the game. otherwise, everything seems to be new. including melee weapons.

quote:
-That Left 4 Dead owners be given discounts for Left 4 Dead 2, should it be released as premium content.


GIEV MOAR FREE STUFF!

honestly. valve doesn't owe anything to us. it's a company, it exists to make money. compared to what i paid 50 bucks for, L4D now has twice the content it had 6 months ago, and i didn't pay a dime more. now that's value.

if there's 16,000 members willing to delay the game, then i propose those 16,000 just don't buy the game. that's atleast 16,000 whiners i don't have to deal with while hacking away with a chainsaw in L4D2.




RE: oh honestly...
By Maximilian on 6/9/2009 9:12:09 AM , Rating: 5
TSS Just roll over and let every company stamp on the other side of your face...

A sequel 1 year after the original from a company like valve is seriously out of character and lame. Ill judge it when the games released because valve hasent let me down yet but as it stands things dont look good and it does look a lot like theyre trying to turn L4D into a cash cow.


RE: oh honestly...
By smackababy on 6/9/2009 9:22:46 AM , Rating: 5
Valve already stated this was supposed to be a content update for L4D but was too massive to be one. They were forced to have it a stand alone game. It has a tweaked engine, including destructable zombies, and a more advanced AI Director. It will be a much better, updated version of L4D that people love so much.


RE: oh honestly...
By paydirt on 6/9/2009 9:39:15 AM , Rating: 2
This Internet protest has no legs to stand on.


RE: oh honestly...
By MrBlastman on 6/9/2009 9:39:49 AM , Rating: 5
I like how they complain about only one weapon being released...

Back in my day, they released a game called Doom 2 which only added a Super Shotgun to the mix - and we liked it!

... and we sure as heck did. We played the living poop out of it and didn't look back. We paid full price for it too. On top of that, there was a thriving community who didn't beg for constant free stuff and actually got off their butts and made a TON of mods for Doom - .wads of complete new episodes, maps etc.

Anyone remember Star Wars Doom, how about Alien Doom (the first mod ever!) There are hundreds of mods. The point is, we didn't whine or complain, we made our own content.

The people complaining here, like it or not, are wanton freeloaders who really forget that Valve has to stay in business to keep producing content. They have mouths to feed. If they promised free content - well they sure delivered quite a bit - but to call Valve a bunch of Corporate Whores is going too far given their track record.

Valve has been more than generous over the years - you'd never see EA come close to what they have done. This is pretty sad if you ask me, the petition and all that is.


RE: oh honestly...
By fifolo on 6/9/2009 9:56:13 AM , Rating: 2
Then they took the Super Shotgun out in Doom 3... we hated it. Well, I did.


RE: oh honestly...
By MrBlastman on 6/9/2009 10:31:35 AM , Rating: 3
That was kinda a bummer, wasn't it. It was awesome in Quake 2 though. :) I think Doom 3 is the red-headed step child of the series... well that is until you play Classic Doom 3 - a remake of Doom 1 Episode 1 done in Doom 3, with a redone, live heavy metal band playing the original soundtrack. All this was done by the fans in their own free time.

Search for it - you can download it on moddb and it is amazing. If you're really thirsty, check out the doomsday engine for Doom which gives you OpenGL and 3d models for every object - even Cacodemons! (turn off the models for anything that isn't flying). It also lets you install high res textures AND upgraded soundtracks.

This is all end-user content though... Not free stuff id has given us.


RE: oh honestly...
By fifolo on 6/9/2009 6:46:57 PM , Rating: 2
Thank you... downloading it right now.


RE: oh honestly...
By coolkev99 on 6/9/2009 12:12:19 PM , Rating: 5
There was a lot more wrong with Doom3 than the missing super shotgun.


RE: oh honestly...
By fifolo on 6/9/2009 6:42:50 PM , Rating: 2
Yea, so true.
No suspense at all, did they really have to stick a monster behind EVERY door, nook, and cranny? If you put one in every spot, where is the suspense?
The flashlight... the less said about it the better.
How about getting the different monsters to fight each other, they took that out too.
Worst game of the series.


RE: oh honestly...
By Major HooHaa on 6/10/2009 6:31:33 PM , Rating: 3
I think the suspense comes when you are trying not to get vomited on.

I like Left 4 Dead, I must admit that I am not too bothered about any iffy balancing issues. The real strength of the game is the co-op multiplayer with (B movie?) horror film atmosphere and trying to make it through with all four survivors intact.

Verses mode is a laugh* and the new survival mode is fun, but I now don't play this as much as the older game modes. I think my record so far in survivor mode is 5 Minutes 55 seconds.

I think the issue for me, is that it only seems like 10 minutes since the first game was released and now here is the sequel... Which is kind of disappointing and by the way, where in all this is Half-Life 2: Episode 3?

My first impression when I saw the trailer was that it looked too much like the original game. Kind of "Left 4 Dead 1.4, San Andreas".

But I also realise that these are early screenshots.

* Someone once described the Left 4 Dead verses mode as a “hilarious griefing engine” which is accurate :-)


RE: oh honestly...
By rburnham on 6/9/2009 10:50:31 AM , Rating: 2
Alien Doom was down right scary.


RE: oh honestly...
By theapparition on 6/9/2009 1:03:40 PM , Rating: 3
Doom2 added all new levels, new bad guys, and other things that made it fun to play. Hardly just the SuperShotgun.

Still, it was fun a hell to play and I loved making my own levels and modding the wads.

Doom in my mind will go down as the greatest game ever. New games may look more polished, may be more complicated, longer, etc.....but none had the same run and gun feel as Doom. I'll still play Doom now, and it never gets old.


RE: oh honestly...
By MrBlastman on 6/9/2009 1:18:04 PM , Rating: 2
You're right - it added a lot more, just like L4D2 is adding more compared with the original. However, I keep hearing people complain because it is just adding a "chainsaw," hence the super shotgun analogy.

Doom still beats them all, in fact, I've been playing through it all again over the past week or so using Doomsday + upgraded textures, music and 3d-objects. I love it.

I think I must play doom at least once a month, and sometimes online. Nothing beats it for stress release.


RE: oh honestly...
By stonemetal on 6/9/2009 9:15:23 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
hey were forced to have it a stand alone game.


Right the video game size regulators showed up with shotguns and said you must release this as a new standalone game.


RE: oh honestly...
By FaceMaster on 6/9/2009 9:17:38 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
it does look a lot like theyre trying to turn L4D into a cash cow.


And what's wrong with that? Valve have spent the time and effort designing a new and fun game style, why shouldn't they cash in on it? It's not as if you're forced to buy it.


RE: oh honestly...
By ninus3d on 6/9/2009 9:15:18 AM , Rating: 4
quote:

WE BELIEVE:
-The release of Left 4 Dead 2 as a stand-alone sequel will split the communities and decrease the quality of multiplayer gaming.

eh, no. *steam* is the community. during any point in L4D (and im sure in L4D2 as well) shift+tab brings up your friends. you can invite your friends and community members to either games from there. even if your friends have L4D2 and you do not, you can always invite them back to a nice game of L4D1.


You didnt quite get this one.
If I want to play no mercy and I WAS playing a round of "San Fransisco" (one of the new maps, random name for now) I know have to exit l4d2.exe and boot up l4d.exe and now start to search for servers.
Vice versa if I was playing an old map and want to play a new one.
Some interviews with valve has stated that they will "try and avoid" but its not a guarantee, i really think it should be.


RE: oh honestly...
By tviceman on 6/9/2009 9:26:20 AM , Rating: 5
To simplify and paraphrase what you are saying:

Valve should merge the two games together for those that own both games. Having to quit one game and load the other for specific content will divide the community, since not everyone will own both games and it will neither be easy nor ideal to switch between the different L4D's, when it is essentially still the same game.


RE: oh honestly...
By Bender 123 on 6/9/09, Rating: 0
RE: oh honestly...
By tviceman on 6/9/2009 9:56:52 AM , Rating: 2
L4D is an online multiplayer game. COD4 and 5, while having big online communities, have single player campaigns in each of them. It's not the same thing.

I am willing to pay full price for L4D 2, I think the amount of content in it justifies that. But I won't pay full price if it splits the community in half, or if I am forced to quit one game and launch the other just to play on a particular map.


RE: oh honestly...
By MatthiasF on 6/9/2009 3:53:01 PM , Rating: 3
I'm sure they'll compromise to allow L4D2 people load L4D1 maps and connect to L4D1 servers so those who buy L4D2 won't need to change applications to play with friends still on L4D1.

See how simple that was? Complaint solved.


RE: oh honestly...
By Dribble on 6/9/2009 9:51:54 AM , Rating: 2
It's partly a console thing as well. The consoles can't have updates that big (remember people with an xbox and 512mb of flash). Hence you need a new game for them.
It would be tough to market that new game on the consoles if it was just an *update* for the PC. Hence PC has to get a new game too.


RE: oh honestly...
By inighthawki on 6/9/2009 1:28:21 PM , Rating: 4
I think the real meaning behind that isnt even so much "switching games", but think of counter strike. Some people bought source, liked it, some people didnt, stuck with CS1.6. Now instead of having a huge community of x players, you have two different game communities with x/2 players. I think what they are saying is that, for those people who don't buy l4d2, you will see a large chunk of players missing.


RE: oh honestly...
By Regs on 6/9/2009 9:15:18 AM , Rating: 3
Boycotting? Whatever happen to not buying the damn thing? It's not like we're back in the 16th century throwing tea off of boats dressed like indians. It's a free market, we don't have to boycott anymore! Hey, who boycotted GM's crap?


RE: oh honestly...
By rdeegvainl on 6/9/2009 9:24:44 AM , Rating: 4
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.


RE: oh honestly...
By Regs on 6/9/2009 9:49:41 AM , Rating: 2
boycotting or free market? O_O


RE: oh honestly...
By rdeegvainl on 6/9/2009 9:51:30 AM , Rating: 2
boycott


RE: oh honestly...
By Regs on 6/9/2009 10:08:10 AM , Rating: 2
Yes, boycotting is the voluntary act of choosing not to buy it. Though why do people need to organize a boycott? Why spread inflammatory remarks all over steam? Do we really need to be activists groups for such non-sense?

I guess everybody has their reasons.


RE: oh honestly...
By rdeegvainl on 6/9/2009 10:16:43 AM , Rating: 5
Everytime I see a boycott, even for the most inane reasons I smile. I love our freedom, even to be stupid.

But boycotts are pretty inefective if they are just done individually. Gathering a large enough group, especially of the target market, will have a much greater chance of getting people heard, even if I don't agree.


RE: oh honestly...
By MatthiasF on 6/9/2009 4:03:59 PM , Rating: 2
Boycotts usually have a good cause behind them.

They boycotted tea in the colonies because of high taxes (making it cheaper for merchants to sell tea in Britain, steering supplies there and keeping the prices down). This was a rebellion against favoritism and unfair taxation.

I don't see a good cause behind this boycott. Just as TSS said, it's a bunch of people that want free stuff and made up a list of issues that really don't pass muster when examined.

Still, 16 thousand people at $30 a game is nearly half a million dollars. Not really much considering there were more than 2.7 million sales. And it's not really a lost sale. They'll probably buy the game when it goes on a 50% weekend sale Valve does often for it's games.

http://www.joystiq.com/2009/05/18/gamerdnas-left-4...

I think a worthwhile boycott would be to push Valve allowing Xbox and PC versions to play on the same servers. But I think that's more a fight against Microsoft than Valve.


RE: oh honestly...
By stonemetal on 6/9/2009 9:19:58 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Though why do people need to organize a boycott?

How do you tell if people didn't buy it because they didn't like it or if they were not buying it to express displeasure at your policy unless you become vocal about it.


RE: oh honestly...
By Regs on 6/10/2009 7:15:40 PM , Rating: 2
i>How do you tell if people didn't buy it because they didn't like it or if they were not buying it to express displeasure at your policy unless you become vocal about it.

*rant warning*

Word of mouth goes a long way. Why don't people buy GM vehicles? Gas guzzlers, cheaper alternatives, and so forth. Too me, the reasoning why they decided not to buy the game is no better than any other product we simply decided not to buy.

We boycotted tea for political gain and to convey a underlining message; the scope of which effected everybody’s way of life. We did not throw tea in the harbor just because we did not like the taste of it! In another example, I remember people trying to organize a boycott on foreign vehicles because they were "taking jobs away from the American working man". To me that was a much more valid concern, even though at the same time it was still laughable because not only was it economically beneficial, most foreign car manufactures operated on American soil (just not very supportive of the unions). Everybody over the age of 25 remembers this, and most would agree that if that same discussion was brought up today, the people that would support the boycott and voiced it on dailytech would get rated down and cussed on.

Why on earth do we need to organize a boycott against video games? To me, boycotting implies protesting in its purist form. It's not as simple as choosing not to buy the product just because they don't like it, but because they want to intimidate the seller or convey a message for a ulterior motive.

I think I have every right to question if their motives justify the means, just as they have every right to organize a boycott like others have said here. Though in my opinion it's just people crying wolf, and throwing around the word "boycott" not knowing it's true purpose or meaning. I’m too tired to be articulate at the moment, but words carry more than just simple definitions in my mind. The word boycott should be used responsibly, in its proper context, and more importantly, people must understand the importance of the message it carries. We use words to convey messages that are passed down by generation after generation. People who cry "boycott" on such trivial things actually insult the integrity of the freedoms we enjoy every day and sometimes take for granted.

How many things must we boycott out of improper in justifications, emotional gain, or pure egocentric nonsense until we find out later how badly it effects the greater good?


RE: oh honestly...
By Regs on 6/10/2009 8:19:36 PM , Rating: 3
In other words....all ready many developers went bankrupt, got sold off, or liquidated. Though not because of boycotting, but because their product's or business model's, lack of better word, sucked. I don't like the term boycotting thrown so easily around because it's a powerful word that carries a meaning more than centuries old. It's indignifying to use the term, in my opinion, just because of a bunch of agitated gamers didn't get what they want. As the poster above me stated, they're simply using the word to draw attention to something that is not needed or justified. The story is not the game, the story is the boycott. Nothing more, nothing less.


RE: oh honestly...
By tviceman on 6/9/2009 9:28:05 AM , Rating: 2
Owners of both games should be able to launch whichever campaign they choose from 1 executable.

If Valve does not merge the two L4D's somehow, then it will just create a huge mess and diminish the value of both games.


RE: oh honestly...
By Vivi22 on 6/9/2009 9:35:13 AM , Rating: 3
I'd normally agree with you that this is just people crying because they don't get free content, but in fairness, this is wildly out of character for Valve. They've not only never done a sequel a year later, they've set multiple precedents for getting tons of content for your money with both the Orange Box, and multiple free updates to TF2 that have dramatically changed the game.

The fact that they're likely taking what would have been an update to L4D and making it a stand alone retail game means that it had better be relatively cheap. The short development time has me thinking it will be more along the lines of an expansion than a totally new experience warranting regular price.

I do agree that people who don't like it should vote with their dollar though. It's the best way to get a company to listen after all.


RE: oh honestly...
By TGIM824 on 6/9/2009 10:10:58 AM , Rating: 2
I will have to wait for November to pass judgment, but Valve has never screwed me before, so what I will probably end up with when buying L4D2, is a fully functional key for L4D1 that I can gift to a friend.
When Orange box was released, I did not feel screwed when they threw in HL2, HL2 Deathmatch, Episode 1, Portal, and TCF2, just to get Episode 2.


RE: oh honestly...
By ku on 6/9/2009 9:41:45 AM , Rating: 3
I don't agree with all of your points, but you've also neglected to address a key issue:

L4D is still a young game. There is still a LOT that could be done with this game (and they promised us this), but it seems Valve just wants to make more money by cutting the life of a game short and releasing a sequel. Yeah yeah, you can still play L4D even with L4D2 comes out, but how many prequels continue to strive after the sequel is released? Few, but those that do are because the prequel has been fine tuned/the sequel just sucks (CoD:MW and CoD:WAW are the exception). Ultimately, you are killing a young game with a lot of potential before any of it had a chance to be realized.

Also, I don't think your argument of crying "give us free stuff" really applies. Their promises for future content are a part of the product that we purchased. We don't just buy a game thinking that what is in there is all and only what we are buying; we don't buy bug patch updates, do we? And going on this issue, patching bugs and making updates and tweaks to gameplay is NOT an added service. It is assumed, and it's a part of their duty to their product. You can't count this as "work," as, in the perfect world, these would have been all a part of the game straight out of the box.

Basically, continuation of work on L4D is what we expected when we bought the game. It's a part of what we were buying. This drew in a lot of audiences because we all believed that it had a lot of potential. By releasing L4D2, they're pulling back on this promise since there is no real viable way to keep L4D alive while promoting L4D2 (it just doesn't work this way... sorry).

That said, I bet all this dissent would never have been if they announced this as an expansion pack (and I think it should be since the changes are not significant enough, and it seems justified that we have to dish out a little more for what is seemingly "original" content).


RE: oh honestly...
By tential on 6/10/2009 12:47:07 PM , Rating: 2
I agree completely. If a company releases a new product every year generally and I know what I'm getting into I'm fine. But Valve never releases sequels like this. This is a game without an ACTUAL story line and they really want us to pay another 50-60 dollars for a game with nothing completely new only updated? I don't see that as fair at all to the people who bought the original L4D. This is a little bit like how when Apple dropped the price on the Iphone. People weren't happy that they paid the higher price and apple gave in and refunded them money back. If Apple can give in and realize it screwed it's customers so can Valve. If the content is too big to be an expansion or an update I'm FINE! But it shouldn't be a full priced game it should be 30 dollars and even if L4D2 can't play with L4D users L4D2 should have EVERY SINGLE map L4D had and then L4D2 stuff as well. I don't see why I should have to switch between 2 clients just to have fun killing zombies.

I would equate Valve to someone like Blizzard who doesn't release games back to back. That's like after Warcraft 1, 2 and 3 have come out releasing Warcraft 4 in 2009 and Warcraft 5 in 2010. Something completely unforseeable and while great the gameplay of the genre is similar forcing you to update or be left to play with a significantly smaller community.

For people saying this won't kill L4D you are certainly wrong. When Warcraft 3 Reign of Chaos was out people loved it but when Frozen Throne came out people all left to play the expansion and the RoC game was at least 1/8 the population it used to be. After probably 3 months I gave up on it and switched. This will most certainly make L4D a lot less fun playing and kill off a game that is still fun to play.


RE: oh honestly...
By Crazyeyeskillah on 6/9/2009 11:04:34 AM , Rating: 4
i logged in just to vote this guy down. If anyone has spent serious time playing l4d they understand the frustration on the part of the gamers. None of the 'corporate nonsense' need apply to this discussion. It is a faithful core of valve customers that are feeling both neglected and shortchanged from the whole original left for dead release. Since this new release (l4d2) was originally planned for l4d (1) i don't see how paying a full 49.99 for it is remotely ethical.


RE: oh honestly...
By forgotmypassword on 6/9/2009 1:15:09 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
eh, no. *steam* is the community. during any point in L4D (and im sure in L4D2 as well) shift+tab brings up your friends. you can invite your friends and community members to either games from there. even if your friends have L4D2 and you do not, you can always invite them back to a nice game of L4D1.


I think they refer to modders community, not players. People capable/willing of creating new content will be divided between 2 games, or, more likely, work on newer engine only.


RE: oh honestly...
By 999 on 6/9/2009 2:22:54 PM , Rating: 5
For the people who can't rap their heads around it, it's pretty simple. Valve said they were going to have content updates like TF2 for L4d. They didn't sign a contract, it's not legally binding, but a big part of their image is that they continually update their games with new content for some time, not just leave them to die and create a sequel every 5mins (a la EA).

They say they've been working on it since Jan, but more then likely have been working on it since the first came out. They have every right to what they want, but doing that removes people who could be fixing all of the bugs/issues with the first game, which in itself was put out as an unfinished product that was rushed out for the holiday season. Again, they don't have to do anything, but their image/history has a lot of do with their game sales.

SDK, according to interviews near launch, it would be out a couple weeks after launch so modders/map makers could get to work. We just got the beta of the sdk a few weeks ago, and are supposed to get the full thing within the next week or so, but knowing the way things have been going who knows. You can call it conspiracy theory or whatever you want, but it's possibly because a large chunk (not everything) that's in L4D2 can be done with a full sdk. I can't remember a game that's taken this long to put sdk tools that actually put any out. The only other theory I've heard is that as soon as the first came out they already had plans for the second, and trying to tie the tools to both games, which is still crappy for the community. They still don't have the matchmaking setup that will even allow for extra Campaigns/mods without workarounds.

There are some people that say L4D1's still going to get content updates, and those people do not seem to be in touch with reality. Why would they devote a team to anything other then bug fixes for a game that's already being depreciated with the announcement of it's sequel? There is no history of this happening from Valve, and I can't see it happening now as it makes no sense.

As for the
quote:
GIEV MOAR FREE STUFF!
crap, please remove head from sphincter then post. This is about a company going "EA" on their own community that sustains them. No one really expects this for free, but if you are able to get anything out of a situation it's best to go a little farther then what you reasonably expect so the outcome is closer to what you want.

I love L4D, I'm getting close to 300Hrs of gameplay, I'm working on a campaign/"movie" for it, but what they're doing is making any of the effort for this game worthless. The majority of this boycott group want what's reasonable. We know there's not going to be any real new content for the first game. We know that the second is a reskin with new camps and a couple other changes, make it an expansion. Tie the two together like said elsewhere in here, sell it at an expansion rate, and I think most will be fine. But selling it as a full game on it's own is like a giant middle finger to a large part of the reason Valve has any success at all.


RE: oh honestly...
By eloquentloser on 6/11/2009 6:13:25 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
the standard "give us more free stuff" response. L4D shipped with 4 (co-op) campains, 2 versus maps. now it has 4 (co-op) campains, 4 versus maps, and 16 survival maps.


Oh Please. The original content of L4D was pitiful to say the least - and even with the add ons available now is certainly not worth the asking price.

L4D is just a mod of Half-Life, using an outdated graphics engine. It wouldn't have cost a lot to make, yet it's priced like a full game. In the past it would have been a free mod, encouraged in order to get people to buy HL. Now Valve want to profit from every small interaction with the community. That's fine, as long as the price is reasonable: but it's not.

People want 'Free Stuff' because they've already paid too much for the game in the first place.

quote:
honestly. valve doesn't owe anything to us. it's a company, it exists to make money.


..and we're consumers, entitled to comment in public if companies are ripping us off and not living up to their promises. It seems quite a few are availing themselves of that right as we speak. :-)


no sympathy
By invidious on 6/9/2009 9:22:49 AM , Rating: 2
The game wasn't worth the $50 these people paid in the first place. If you were dumb enough to be their cash cow last November dont be suprised when they treat you like a cash cow next November.




RE: no sympathy
By darklight0tr on 6/9/2009 9:44:05 AM , Rating: 3
I agree. I believed the hype and paid $50 for just after it came out and after playing through it I felt ripped off. It isn't worth any more that $20 for how short the game is.

I am not interested in the sequel, especially since it looks to be more of the same.


RE: no sympathy
By Meinolf on 6/9/2009 9:49:50 AM , Rating: 1
I love the game and will buying LFD2 I play the game with a group of people and we all want to play the next game. Yes I will pay $50 for it I have that much fun online with it.


RE: no sympathy
By Jackattak on 6/9/2009 11:20:19 AM , Rating: 2
Word.


RE: no sympathy
By MrBlastman on 6/9/2009 11:24:01 AM , Rating: 3
I spoke with my wallet. I played the demo, I didn't like it - I didn't buy it. Pretty simple and as free market as you can get.

I spent 50 bucks on the Orange Box and it has been worth every penny. Team Fortress 2 has loads more entertainment value than any other online FPS out there right now.


RE: no sympathy
By Tsuwamono on 6/9/2009 11:30:29 AM , Rating: 2
I didn't buy it either. I downloaded it, tried it, and was not impressed.

There really isn't any intriguing storyline. Its just get to the other side of town on a bunch of different towns.


RE: no sympathy
By Tsuwamono on 6/9/2009 11:30:41 AM , Rating: 2
I didn't buy it either. I downloaded it, tried it, and was not impressed.

There really isn't any intriguing storyline. Its just get to the other side of town on a bunch of different towns.


RE: no sympathy
By Tsuwamono on 6/9/2009 11:36:38 AM , Rating: 2
wtf? Firefox fail right there? lol


RE: no sympathy
By Totally on 6/9/2009 1:20:26 PM , Rating: 2
I just love laughing at when people judge L4D, ignoring the multi-player in which is the core focus of the game, judging it based solely on the single-player, and then go on to praise TF2!! Same thing but but sides have guns and more people.


RE: no sympathy
By MrBlastman on 6/9/2009 1:21:02 PM , Rating: 2
Same thing? You have got to be kidding. They are completely different types of multiplayer games.

One can be played like a team sport (a la alta tennis, soccer, rugby) and the other is more like a game of whack-a-mole or a bloody rampage.

Don't get me wrong, L4D is fun, it just isn't my cup of competitive tea.


RE: no sympathy
By Totally on 6/9/2009 1:47:47 PM , Rating: 2
I play both, and payload has a lot of similarities in basic mechanics


RE: no sympathy
By Totally on 6/9/2009 1:54:04 PM , Rating: 2
*DT needs edit button*

If red was made melee only *crit backstabs*, and remove unlimited respawns from blue. I'd say that's pretty similar.


RE: no sympathy
By MrBlastman on 6/9/2009 2:06:09 PM , Rating: 2
Payload is _not_ true Team Fortress. Play a CTF map, or one of the many customs out there. That is true TF. The second closest is maybe CP maps like Granary and Labor.


RE: no sympathy
By Sazar on 6/9/2009 12:21:11 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
by darklight0tr on June 9, 2009 at 9:44 AM I agree. I believed the hype and paid $50 for just after it came out and after playing through it I felt ripped off. It isn't worth any more that $20 for how short the game is. I am not interested in the sequel, especially since it looks to be more of the same.


Seriously?

The game is a designed for co-operative play. It has multiple modes and is designed to be enjoyed with friends or steam friends.

The re-playability value of the game is far beyond anything else on the market when it comes to longevity, originality and things of that nature.

This is a very short turnaround but if there are indeed newer features and longer campaign modes, heck, no harm in the game getting my $50. The original has been worth the price paid many times over. And Steam always has weekend deals, several for TF2 and L4D.

Don't buy it if you don't want to. Those that love the original will likely purchase this next installment.


RE: no sympathy
By GodisanAtheist on 6/9/2009 2:26:05 PM , Rating: 2
And when your friends get bored of the game?

Fact is a lot of people payed full price for what was effectively a 20 dollar mod (the game's biggest feature was its AI director, which was far less spectacular than it was made out to be) with the expectation (and promise, mind you) of additional content. People may have no sympathy for early adopters, but Valve has never given anyone reason to pause until now.

L4D was one of the very few games I ever bought close to full price, I got burned and it has only reinforced my "buy used/buy cheap" philosophy. L4D2 will receive a lot more caution on my part than its predecessor ever did.

On the plus side, the forward compatible SDK might see L4D2 features back-ported to the original by some disgruntled joe...


RE: no sympathy
By Sazar on 6/10/2009 12:09:20 AM , Rating: 2
Then they move on to the next game. Gamers WILL get bored of games they have purchased. The games we purchase are not designed to played over and over and over ad-nauseum. As much as I loved playing Far Cry, I stopped after about 7th or 8th time completing it.

Valve has released and will apparently continue to release additional content for the game to support it. Considering the number of hours spent playing the game v/s the initial investment, L4D has indeed been worth it.

Also, people will have the option to purchase on the weekend deals that will inevitably be there.

Honestly, I am quite surprised that so many people are up in arms. No one is forcing people to purchase the game any more than people forced people to buy COD: World at War, which WAS an inferior game with no re-playability and weak multi-player (v/s COD4).

However, I am still going to buy Modern Warfare 2.


RE: no sympathy
By darklight0tr on 6/10/2009 6:01:46 PM , Rating: 2
I did play it coop with one of my friends. After the first time through the whopping 4 hour campaign, we played it again because the AI Director was supposed to really mix things up. The funny thing was, it really was no different the second time around.

L4D is just not worth $50 for the limited content you get.


RE: no sympathy
By FITCamaro on 6/9/2009 12:23:45 PM , Rating: 2
The game was insanely fun. I plan to get L4D2 on the 360 when its released.


RE: no sympathy
By TennesseeTony on 6/9/2009 5:41:21 PM , Rating: 2
I disagree somewhat with the tone of the post, VALVE is one of the most generous software companies on the planet, something is always 50-75% off on the weekends. I paid $20 for the game, during one of the weekend specials. And let's not forget what an incredible value the Orange Box was

But I agree with the sentiment you have, that few titles are worth $40/$50, and that the whiners should shut up.

To the whiners:

The game HAS been added to, significantly. VALVE has more than fulfilled that promise.

They are adding more than just a chainsaw and a few maps. You also get a frying pan and a baseball bat. No kidding!

"If I came running into the room and gave everyone a bucket and told you to ' Quick! Run outside! It's raining gold coins!' I'd have 10 of you stay behind and whine about 'Why isn't my bucket as big as so-in-so's? ' " - Jack Humboldt, VP DENSO MFG TN INC at a question and answer session with employee's.


RE: no sympathy
By Noliving on 6/9/2009 8:50:29 PM , Rating: 2
Really tennesseetony? So have they have added new skins/models to L4D? Have they added new weapons to L4D? Have they added entirely brand new coop campaigns or just brandnew maps to do survival and Versus instead of just making versus and survival out of the orignal 4 maps that came out for it. In case you hadn't notice, but almost all of the features or content being talked about for L4D2 was promised to be free downloadable content updates for L4D after it was released, that was the primary reason people bought L4D when it came out with so little content which it still has very little content.


Jeebus People...
By Jackattak on 6/9/2009 11:18:56 AM , Rating: 4
I love Left 4 Dead and I am personally happy that Left 4 Dead 2 is coming out so soon.

Dog forbid a company actually tries to make money. They're a business, after all.

Dog forbid a game developer actually puts out a sequel quickly rather than waiting a decade to do it.

But whatevs. If the boycott causes Valve to make the sequel cheaper for those of us who bought the original, so be it.

I just think a lot of people are biting the hand that feeds.




RE: Jeebus People...
By Tsuwamono on 6/9/2009 11:46:25 AM , Rating: 4
First of all WE are the hands that feed them. Not the other way around as you tried to make it seem.

Second of all, its GOD forbid. Not DOG forbid. Not sure if you're hard of hearing or just an idiot. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. :)


RE: Jeebus People...
By Jackattak on 6/9/2009 2:16:16 PM , Rating: 3
My dog is more realistic than any god ever.


RE: Jeebus People...
By Tsuwamono on 6/10/2009 1:05:27 AM , Rating: 3
lol very true.


RE: Jeebus People...
By iFX on 6/9/2009 3:33:05 PM , Rating: 2
So what do you do at Valve? PR?


RE: Jeebus People...
By Jackattak on 6/9/2009 3:46:05 PM , Rating: 2
Wait, just because someone doesn't share your points of view you automatically assume that they work for the company you have decided to bash/boycott/stomp your feet at?

Intelligent. Very intelligent.


RE: Jeebus People...
By iFX on 6/9/2009 10:06:52 PM , Rating: 2
You're right. Viral marketing never occurs and no one in the gaming industry ever reads or posts on online techie forums filled predominantly with gamers.

The next time you have a thought... let it go.


RE: Jeebus People...
By Beno on 6/10/2009 1:38:22 AM , Rating: 2
how do you know that? do you work with them?


RE: Jeebus People...
By iFX on 6/10/2009 9:39:03 AM , Rating: 2
The media has been reporting on it for years. If you weren't under a rock you'd know about it.


RE: Jeebus People...
By Jackattak on 6/10/2009 7:34:56 PM , Rating: 2
Troll.


RE: Jeebus People...
By iFX on 6/11/2009 10:12:26 AM , Rating: 2
That you are.


L4D2
By FaceMaster on 6/9/2009 8:49:09 AM , Rating: 3
I was shocked at the announcement. I thought it was a fake trailer when I saw it, but when I realised it wasn't I was confused. 1 year between the first one and the second? How can they make the game in that sort of time? (Especially when you see how long it's taken them to make the Half Life 2 episodes recently). I guess they're trying to cash in on the winning formula before anybody else has the chance. I find it upsetting that they're making L4D2, when they could be doing so much more. COUGH Half Life 2 Episode 3, CSS2, Portal 2, and new games we haven't played before. Why L4D2?

Valve certainly know what they're doing. I don't think that anything like L4D has been out before, and the way they craftily launched Half Life 2 on Steam to make it the ultimate online gaming library was very smoothly done to say the least. Oh and don't forget about the Orange Box. Or the way they've been upgrading the old Steam engine since 2004.




RE: L4D2
By Dabruuzer on 6/9/2009 9:04:27 AM , Rating: 2
Best guess is that L4D2 was actually supposed to be a content release(s) for the original L4D, but shareholder/publisher/greed/etc. pressure is forcing Valve to release it as a separate game, with a new price tag. Money talks, as always.


RE: L4D2
By iFX on 6/9/2009 9:19:49 AM , Rating: 2
Valve is a privately owned company so there are no shareholders other than the owners.

My best bet is that the game really wasn't finished last November but Valve wanted to make the Christmas buying season so they released it early. I thought the game was low on content then which is why I didn't buy it.

I might buy L4D2 if it is actually a complete game now and has support for 8-12 survivors per game. Of course, Valve is going to have to have a free weekend because I am done paying them upfront - I have to see the product myself before I put down any cash. I hope your reading this, Valve.


RE: L4D2
By Tsuwamono on 6/9/2009 11:40:20 AM , Rating: 2
Its called torrents. Thats what I do. I download it, Try it. And within an hour or two I know if I want to dish out the cash for the entire game. With Left 4 dead it was fun for 30 minutes and then it was the same old thing. Which is why I never bought it.


RE: L4D2
By FaceMaster on 6/9/2009 9:15:28 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, I do the same for movies. I watch it illegally, then I go 'Oh that was a bad film, pleased I didn't buy it!' or 'That was a good film! No need to buy it now that I've watched it.'

Pirating stuff really helps developers.


RE: L4D2
By Tsuwamono on 6/10/2009 1:04:07 AM , Rating: 2
First of all RENTING movies doesnt help and neither does RENTING console games. Which is why here in Canada it is LEGAL.

But I would buy it if it was good. Stargate SG1 for example. I downloaded all 10 seasons and watched every episode and then bought all ten seasons on DVD which cost me over 250$ since i bought them individually.


RE: L4D2
By Beno on 6/10/2009 1:19:59 AM , Rating: 2
except pirating steam products is another story.
you cant access servers etc etc..


RE: L4D2
By Tsuwamono on 6/11/2009 1:13:26 AM , Rating: 2
ya well if you're only testing the game anyway then you really dont need to access the steam servers while your testing the game.


RE: L4D2
By Teancum on 6/9/2009 1:03:50 PM , Rating: 2
Don't forget sham Valve played with Day of Defeat Source DoD:S was to be Day of Defeat on the Source engine or so we were told... The Source version was barely a shell of the original with half the weapons/classes missing and four official maps at launch. Needless to say many fans of the original DoD were pissed that after waiting with such anticpation for this new engine what they got was a $49.99 half game that sucked a$$. But Valve didn't care. They suckered us for our money and got us to pay for the game based on our love for the original Day of Defeat. (No beta or preview available to play before you payed) Seems Valve is up to its old tricks again. Classic bait and switch


RE: L4D2
By FaceMaster on 6/9/2009 9:13:18 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
They suckered us for our money and got us to pay for the game based on our love for the original Day of Defeat. (No beta or preview available to play before you payed) Seems Valve is up to its old tricks again. Classic bait and switch


It wasn't actually Valve that made DOD:S. It was the original mapping team for DOD:S. You sound like a bitter fanboy. People that I've talked to have been very happy with DOD:S. TF2 has also been a major success. I personally don't like either, but that's because I'm more of a CSS person myself.

Look on metacritic. Day of Defeat: Source scores 1% higher than the original. Not bad, considering the first game's success. With a rating of 9.2 from the users, it's not too bad either. The only people who rate it down are a couple of people who go 'this is a half game that sucks a$$'... much like you. The rest of them enjoy it.

http://www.metacritic.com/search/process?sort=rele...

Oh, and the game's $9.95.


l4d is an amazing game, dont ruin it
By mfed3 on 6/9/2009 9:14:13 AM , Rating: 2
the one thing i am boycotting is game unbalance. after watching the videos and seeing the "incendiary clips" that you can infinitely pick up and light any infected on fire in one shot (including tanks), they are definitely unbalancing the game.

the new melee weapons have a disadvantage, no range. the new special infected fills the gap of an enemy that can do some damage to a slow moving clumped up group.

incendiary clips that work in every weapon and light any enemy on fire in one shot not only unbalance gameplay and create camp spots, but they just dont make any sense at all! they need to seriously reconsider this retarded element and PUT WAY LESS AMMO IN THE GAME FOR SURVIVORS. the god damn pistol has unlimited ammo, but its almost impossible to run out of primary ammo when there is a pickup spot every 5 minutes. especially with melee weapons filling that gap as well.

i will buy l4d2 the day it comes out but they better not pull a gears of war 2 and fuck up everything to appeal to the retard noob masses.




RE: l4d is an amazing game, dont ruin it
By Tsuwamono on 6/9/2009 11:43:35 AM , Rating: 2
Or pull a Halo 2/3?


RE: l4d is an amazing game, dont ruin it
By joeindian1551 on 6/9/2009 11:51:07 AM , Rating: 2
Or Resistance 2?


By Tsuwamono on 6/10/2009 1:07:40 AM , Rating: 2
Really? I was going to buy that. I never played Resistance but it looked good.


Two Words
By lukasbradley on 6/9/2009 8:23:58 AM , Rating: 3
Electronic Arts




RE: Two Words
By Xavier434 on 6/9/2009 8:30:55 AM , Rating: 2
I wouldn't be surprised.


RE: Two Words
By Hiawa23 on 6/9/2009 8:55:46 AM , Rating: 2
I really did not care too much for L4D, but given these economic times, I tend to agree, companies have to try to make as much money as possible in a much shorter time frame, so not sure what a boycott is going to solve, but more power to the protestors.


But what about HL2E3
By TxJeepers on 6/9/2009 12:13:51 PM , Rating: 2
Well that is fine and dandy. I tried the demo and wasn't impressed enough to buy it. Probably will try the demo for part 2 if they have one. But come this fall many other titles will be out or coming out, so lot's of competition for gaming dollars.
Valve, where the heck is HL2 E3? We all know the die hard Valve fans want our HL!




RE: But what about HL2E3
By Sazar on 6/9/2009 12:27:05 PM , Rating: 3
IIRC, the demo is only campaign modes. The true value of L4D is in the versus mode, especially now that ALL the campaigns are open. Versus is a different experience every time and by far the most fun I have had playing a multi-player mode :)

People stopping short at the demo have no idea what they are missing out on.


RE: But what about HL2E3
By DJMiggy on 6/9/2009 12:42:35 PM , Rating: 2
Stopping short? You stole my move!


Sad
By therealnickdanger on 6/9/2009 8:27:22 AM , Rating: 3
I love L4D and play it excessively. Do I wish they would release more content? I sure do - I would love just ONE more "movie" to play through. However, I'm going to buy L4D2 the moment it is released because Valve has never let me down and they have EARNED my money. I want more games like this and will pay to support it. Don't buy it if you don't want to get "ripped off".




RE: Sad
By MrPoletski on 6/9/2009 8:47:26 AM , Rating: 3
yeah I'll be doing the same but I can totally understand the community being upset. L4D is a great game and only recently has it been updated to a state I'd consider a full release (i.e. all vs maps included).

The survival mode is great but once you've got stupidly long survival times you don't bother playing it anymore.

They promised downloadable content and instead we are getting another price tag wheras we should be getting all the apparant extras in L4D2 (melee weapons, new characters and a new mode similar to survival) as downloadable content for the L4D we already bought.

Otherwise, ths idea of a game being bought with free downloadable content starts to become:

"we havent finished this game yet, but want to sell it now, in six months it'll be the game we wanted to release and thats where the story ends, mr paying beta tester"


Expansion Pack
By StraightPipe on 6/9/2009 10:13:19 AM , Rating: 3
This should have been an Expansion or DLC (I hear it may be too big for DLC, but a Standalone expansion would have been perfect).

Anyway, you've got the same engine, new skins on the people, new skins on (some new) enemies, new maps (also essentially skins), and the same basic game. The same physics, the same rules, the same game.

So instead of splitting the community into two groups (people burned by L4D2 and those about to be burned by L4D3), keep them all together in one big group, where everyone can play together.

A pefect example of devs creating such a rift is COD4 and COD4.1 WaW. While WaW was really just a skin pack for COD4, it split the community apart. (yes it's fun, but people who bought COD4 shouldnt have had to pay another $60 for WaW...)

I understand splitting up if the game has been released for 2-3 years, or if you are making a radical overhaul to the system