L4D2 Boycott

[QUOTE="Grammaton-Cleric"]

If people bought the game and crossed their fingers for extra content later I have no sympathy for them. When you drop 50-60 dollars on a game you should be making that purchase based on what is on that disc, not what MIGHT come out later.

And L4D had plenty of content for the retail price so frankly, I think those complaining are out of line. Valve doesn't owe any of you a damn thing.

Skylock00

Well, that's a fair point but it also leads right back to my point: an overblownsense of entitlement.

Even if Valve has always been overtly generous with upgrades, they have obviously decided to go a different route with L4D2 and rather than accept that, some gamers are using their past generosity as leverage against them for not releasing a bunch of freebies this time around. Talk about no good deed going unpunished...

Most developers charge for additional content and considering that L4D was a great, complete game to begin with I can't really fault them for opting to release this as a sequel. If it turns out to be too much of the same, the critical and consumer backlash will hopefully slap their hand but regardless, the venom being spewed at them by some people in here for not giving them freebies is ridiculous.

Well, that's a fair point but it also leads right back to my point: an overblownsense of entitlement.

Grammaton-Cleric

Except that sense of entitlement is one that originated with Valve, not the gamers. When you, for example, sell L4D at a discounted price on Steam, with the promise of new content (as noted in an Edge article, IIRC), that leads people to think they're buying a game on the pretense that more is going to be added to it later on, similar to what they see with Team Fortress 2. Then, when you turn around and unveil a whole new game that's going to most likely cost 40-50+ dollars to buy, reactions from the userbase have just as much to do with the developer's conduct as they do the user's personal feelings on the matter.Skylock00

Exactly. It's almost as if people are intentionally misinterpreting the whole thing. When I buy The Sims 3, I am fully aware and prepared to see a whole bunch of expansion packs and zero post-release support. But that's The Sims and that's EA. This is Valve. Also, unlike The Sims 3, Left 4 Dead came with very little content on disc. We got 4 short campaigns, only two of which could be played in versus. That's it, that's all there was. That's not a $50 release to me. However, I loved the demo and had absolutely no qualms in dropping down my money and pre-loading it prior to release - based on the fact that it's a great game, naturally, but also very much so due to Valve's legacy of meaningful post-release support. I can tell you flat-out that if I had known things would turn out this way, I would NOT have bought the game, period. Also, it should be noted that the PC version cannot be re-sold, traded in or whatever.

This is just silly. You guys are being ridiculous. Sure, left 4 dead has been out for less than a year, but this is nothing new in the industry. There have been plenty of games that come out year after year. Look at Guitar Hero. There's 5 titles that are being/have been released in 09. Why don't you guys boycott Guitar Hero so Activision will stop making so many of them at once? Smash Hits is just a compilation of songs that have been released on previous GH games.

Who am I kidding though? Gamers like to :cry:

unlike The Sims 3, Left 4 Dead came with very little content on disc. We got 4 short campaigns, only two of which could be played in versus. That's it, that's all there was. That's not a $50 release to me.

Bungie rehashed the same old stuff with Halo 2 & 3 and both of those games got great scores and people seemed to enjoy them. Why can't Valve do the same without people crying? Is it because Valve has some sort of crazy ass legacy to live up to?Shiroibwoy

Like I say in all these threads, I can't be mad about this until the game actually comes out and it actually isn't worth the money. I have had a great time with Left4Dead, and I don't feel like I got ripped off in the slightest.

Please, wait for the game to actually come out and be lame before you decide not to buy it. If it turns out rad, what is the problem?

[QUOTE="Grammaton-Cleric"]

Well, that's a fair point but it also leads right back to my point: an overblownsense of entitlement.

Skylock00

I guess I live in a different world than some other people because I would never buya game in the hopesfor free future content nor would I ever take anything a developer said in an interview at face value regarding future expansions being free. Valve is still a company being run for a profit and I would never expect anybody to give away something that robust for free. Again, you have a point that Valve's actions are sending mixed signals but I still think people are overreacting to this news because Valve has spoiled them in the past with freebies. This whole thing reminds me of how angry some people became at Criterion when they started releasing upgrade packs for Burnout: Paradise for a fee after having released so manyin the pastat no charge.

Want to know why I bought L4D? Because I spent over 8 hours playing a 15 minute demo over-and-over.SteezyZ

QFT.

The demo sold me the game, and more than got my $50 out of the full release. If you didn't, then I can understand why you wouldn't be interested in buying the sequel, but talking about a "boycott" seems fairly pathetic to me.

I think UpInFlames is one of the only people here who is actually analysing the problem instead of just going "eeeh you're all a bunch of whiny cheapskates kthxbye". Simple matter of fact is that the issue is bigger than the idea of getting free DLC; it's the fact that this move is very unlike Valve. You can tell the people in here who have grown up in gaming with Valve and those who haven't, because those who haven't just don't get the whole argument and are the ones saying "meh they're a company, so what?". Yes they are a company and yeah nice one Sherlock they should make money, but this concept of releasing a game that was light on content, promising to bolster it post-release and then putting all that content into a whole new game instead is something that Valve has never done. Yes many other companies do this, but it's totally against the nature of Valve. People need to understand that most of the people who are complaining about Left4Dead 2 are not complaining because they want a load of free stuff because they are cheap and spoilt, it's because the one company in the industry who long-time PC gamers could respect have seem to have thrown their whole mantra out of the window.machine_B

And really, why should Valve continue to give out copious amounts of freebies? All it does for them is create a bunch of gamers who whine about not getting enough for their money even though L4D had plenty of content.

And understand this: I've been gaming for three decades and the notion that any game company is your little friend is ludicrous. All of these companies want and need to make profits and just because they gave you something in the past for free doesn't mean they owe you that same level of content in every game they will ever make. That's a myopic and juvenile stance to take regardless of how you try and spin it.

Valve is a fantastic developer and they generally make brilliant games so if they need to tweak their consumer model to increase revenue I'll happily support them. I'm a firm believer in paying for content and quality, something this up and coming generation of man-children apparently haven't learned yet.

I don't think it makes sense to boycott Left 4 Dead 2. If you don't think it's enough content to justify $60, well it's more content than L4D, so you probably didn't buy L4D1 and probably weren't ever going to buy L4D2 anyways. If you thought L4D1 had enough content to justify a $60 purchase, well L4D2 has more content so it should satisfy you more.Senor_Kami

Unfortunately, you are employing a concept known as common sense, something that hasn't been in regular supply here in the States for about three decades.

We currently live in a world where it's okay to steal what you don't feel like paying for and where a developer gets threatened with a boycott because they had the audacity to release free content previously and then opted to actually make a sequel to a successful, critically acclaimed title instead of giving it away for free.

How dare they!!!

I guess I live in a different world than some other people because I would never buya game in the hopesfor free future content nor would I ever take anything a developer said in an interview at face value regarding future expansions being free.

Grammaton-Cleric

Valve is a fantastic developer and they generally make brilliant games so if they need to tweak their consumer model to increase revenue I'll happily support them. I'm a firm believer in paying for content and quality, something this up and coming generation of man-children apparently haven't learned yet.

Grammaton-Cleric

If there was announcements of more DLC or expansions being made about L4D that came out along side L4D2, I doubt there would be as many complaints as we are seeing now. I would want to discus this further, but given that you are now resorting to playground insults aimed at other posters, this discussion line is simply becoming a waste of my time.

[QUOTE="Grammaton-Cleric"]

I guess I live in a different world than some other people because I would never buya game in the hopesfor free future content nor would I ever take anything a developer said in an interview at face value regarding future expansions being free.

Skylock00

Actually, the issue is incredibly cut and dry: Valve is making a sequel to L4D and they aren't going to support the original like they have with past releases. People can either accept this or they canboycott but obviously, Valve is shifting their policies and they are probably doing so to generate more revenue. I'm well aware of their history of support (which has been overtly generous) but times change.

As to the core content of L4D lacking, that's a wholly subjective assertion. I personally feel it has more substantive content than something like RE5, but of course that goes to the issue of how we each personally gauge quality. You obviously gauge value based on quantity, which is understandable, but I personally would rather have less quantity with a higher level of polish and replay value, which I personally feel L4D offers. Valve provided gamers with a hearty demo and the reviews were very clear in expressing just what kind of experience L4D was offering so we all had a choice whether or not to spend out hard-earned dollars on this game and I have no sympathy for thosepeople who feel robbed after the fact. The reality is thatmerely because they have offered such free content in the past doesn't mean they should have to continue that level of support. I personally bought L4D for the content on the disc, not for what might come out down the line and frankly, I question the rationale of anyone who didn't employ similar logic regardless of Valve's past support history.

So yes, in the strictest sense, you are correct: this isn't a typical Valve move. However, I guess I'm one of the few people who understand that companies change the rules all of the time to increase revenue and nothing about this surprises me in the least. If the sequel has plenty of content and plays like a new game, I'll nab it day one. If it does in fact turn out to be a glorified expansion pack at a full retail price, I'll pass or wait for a big price drop.

do you only play each map once or something? i easily put 25-50 hours a week into left 4 dead , this wasn't a game made to be played once or twice threw like halo or something but built around the a.i director and the special infected to change the game every time you play it.07pops07

You don't need to explain Left 4 Dead's concept to me, I was one of the few people defending Valve prior to the game's release saying the same exact things you just said. However, no matter how you look at it, Left 4 Dead was extremely light on content on release day just like Team Fortress 2 was. This is fact. But I was there assuring people that this is Valve we're talking about, that what's in the box is only the beginning, that it'll be Team Fortress 2 all over again. It wasn't. What's worse, now it's painfully obvious that Valve begun development on Left 4 Dead 2 possibly even prior to the original's release. So now we're looking at a full-priced sequel that's not packing much content itself while the original game is being left for dead. By Valve. Valve. And once again just to drive the point home - VALVE.

I honestly don't expect console gamers to understand. Console online communities are, for all intents and purposes, like swarms of locusts going from one release to another. At least PC gamers should understand that it's different in the PC realm. PC gamers tend to stick with games for very long periods of time. People still play games like Ultima Online, Everquest and Counter-Strike 1.6, for heaven's sake. Even The Sims is being replaced once in every 5 years. We expect our games to last for a long time and to be built and expanded upon (for free through the model of post-release support or for a price through expansion packs), but not replaced.

[QUOTE="Grammaton-Cleric"]

Valve is a fantastic developer and they generally make brilliant games so if they need to tweak their consumer model to increase revenue I'll happily support them. I'm a firm believer in paying for content and quality, something this up and coming generation of man-children apparently haven't learned yet.

Skylock00

If there was announcements of more DLC or expansions being made about L4D that came out along side L4D2, I doubt there would be as many complaints as we are seeing now. I would want to discus this further, but given that you are now resorting to playground insults aimed at other posters, this discussion line is simply becoming a waste of my time.

That statement wasn't aimed at anybody in particular but was rather meant as a broad generalization about the world we are living in where people think they deserve to have everything handed to them. However, if you want to change the pitch of this discussion with your pedantic indignation, be my guest. I could just as easily levy complaints at you for asserting I don't understand the situation when we both know I do but merely have a different view.Had I quoted you specifically and interjected that comment then perhaps you'd have a point but I've always treated you with respect so please don't waste my time with this whole spiel about forum etiquette. It's beneath both of us.

Actually, the issue is incredibly cut and dry: Valve is making a sequel to L4D and they aren't going to support the original like they have with past releases. People can either accept this or they canboycott but obviously, Valve is shifting their policies and they are probably doing so to generate more revenue. I'm well aware of their history of support (which has been overtly generous) but times change.

As to the core content of L4D lacking, that's a wholly subjective assertion. I personally feel it has more substantive content than something like RE5, but of course that goes to the issue of how we each personally gauge quality. You obviously gauge value based on quantity, which is understandable, but I personally would rather have less quantity with a higher level of polish and replay value, which I personally feel L4D offers. Valve provided gamers with a hearty demo and the reviews were very clear in expressing just what kind of experience L4D was offering so we all had a choice whether or not to spend out hard-earned dollars on this game and I have no sympathy for thosepeople who feel robbed after the fact. The reality is thatmerely because they have offered such free content in the past doesn't mean they should have to continue that level of support. I personally bought L4D for the content on the disc, not for what might come out down the line and frankly, I question the rationale of anyone who didn't employ similar logic regardless of Valve's past support history.

So yes, in the strictest sense, you are correct: this isn't a typical Valve move. However, I guess I'm one of the few people who understand that companies change the rules all of the time to increase revenue and nothing about this surprises me in the least. If the sequel has plenty of content and plays like a new game, I'll nab it day one. If it does in fact turn out to be a glorified expansion pack at a full retail price, I'll pass or wait for a big price drop.

Grammaton-Cleric

I honestly don't expect console gamers to understand. Console online communities are, for all intents and purposes, like swarms of locusts going from one release to another. At least PC gamers should understand that it's different in the PC realm. PC gamers tend to stick with games for very long periods of time. People still play games like Ultima Online, Everquest and Counter-Strike 1.6, for heaven's sake. Even The Sims is being replaced once in every 5 years. We expect our games to last for a long time and to be built and expanded upon (for free through the model of post-release support or for a price through expansion packs), but not replaced.

UpInFlames

"Uhhhh, yeah....we dumb console player no understand big PC game machine ...you guys so intellktual..."

I mean seriously? You really want to hit this pitch?

Everything you stated is common knowledge and I do empathize with you to an extent but at the same time things change. We don't even know yet if Valve has completely abandoned the first game so perhaps the best thing to do is wait and see.

[QUOTE="Grammaton-Cleric"]

Actually, the issue is incredibly cut and dry: Valve is making a sequel to L4D and they aren't going to support the original like they have with past releases. People can either accept this or they canboycott but obviously, Valve is shifting their policies and they are probably doing so to generate more revenue. I'm well aware of their history of support (which has been overtly generous) but times change.

As to the core content of L4D lacking, that's a wholly subjective assertion. I personally feel it has more substantive content than something like RE5, but of course that goes to the issue of how we each personally gauge quality. You obviously gauge value based on quantity, which is understandable, but I personally would rather have less quantity with a higher level of polish and replay value, which I personally feel L4D offers. Valve provided gamers with a hearty demo and the reviews were very clear in expressing just what kind of experience L4D was offering so we all had a choice whether or not to spend out hard-earned dollars on this game and I have no sympathy for thosepeople who feel robbed after the fact. The reality is thatmerely because they have offered such free content in the past doesn't mean they should have to continue that level of support. I personally bought L4D for the content on the disc, not for what might come out down the line and frankly, I question the rationale of anyone who didn't employ similar logic regardless of Valve's past support history.

So yes, in the strictest sense, you are correct: this isn't a typical Valve move. However, I guess I'm one of the few people who understand that companies change the rules all of the time to increase revenue and nothing about this surprises me in the least. If the sequel has plenty of content and plays like a new game, I'll nab it day one. If it does in fact turn out to be a glorified expansion pack at a full retail price, I'll pass or wait for a big price drop.

Skylock00

I have to agree with this. I think if Valve are moving to a new business model then I'm definitely going to protest against it. I may not 'deserve to have everything handed to me on a plate' but from Valve I am used to post-release support and I'm sure going to fight for it to continue, regardless of whether or not I 'deserve it'. I think personally it would be worse to just accept this and let this be the new model forever than protesting against it to try and stop it. If Valve want to change, fine, but if enough people sound off then perhaps they will try and find a new model that fits in better with their traditional values and their long-time customers' values.

That statement wasn't aimed at anybody in particular but was rather meant as a broad generalization about the world we are living in where people think they deserve to have everything handed to them. However, if you want to change the pitch of this discussion with your pedantic indignation, be my guest. I could just as easily levy complaints at you for asserting I don't understand the situation when we both know I do but merely have a different view.Had I quoted you specifically and interjected that comment then perhaps you'd have a point but I've always treated you with respect so please don't waste my time with this whole spiel about forum etiquette. It's beneath both of us.

Grammaton-Cleric

[QUOTE="Grammaton-Cleric"]

Actually, the issue is incredibly cut and dry: Valve is making a sequel to L4D and they aren't going to support the original like they have with past releases. People can either accept this or they canboycott but obviously, Valve is shifting their policies and they are probably doing so to generate more revenue. I'm well aware of their history of support (which has been overtly generous) but times change.

As to the core content of L4D lacking, that's a wholly subjective assertion. I personally feel it has more substantive content than something like RE5, but of course that goes to the issue of how we each personally gauge quality. You obviously gauge value based on quantity, which is understandable, but I personally would rather have less quantity with a higher level of polish and replay value, which I personally feel L4D offers. Valve provided gamers with a hearty demo and the reviews were very clear in expressing just what kind of experience L4D was offering so we all had a choice whether or not to spend out hard-earned dollars on this game and I have no sympathy for thosepeople who feel robbed after the fact. The reality is thatmerely because they have offered such free content in the past doesn't mean they should have to continue that level of support. I personally bought L4D for the content on the disc, not for what might come out down the line and frankly, I question the rationale of anyone who didn't employ similar logic regardless of Valve's past support history.

So yes, in the strictest sense, you are correct: this isn't a typical Valve move. However, I guess I'm one of the few people who understand that companies change the rules all of the time to increase revenue and nothing about this surprises me in the least. If the sequel has plenty of content and plays like a new game, I'll nab it day one. If it does in fact turn out to be a glorified expansion pack at a full retail price, I'll pass or wait for a big price drop.

Skylock00

Are you really, honestly, surprised that a company has lied to you regarding their support of a game? Really?

You think this is about defending Valve but what I trying to explain to you is that Valve isn't any better or worse than any other company, they're just venerated because of their past history of support. Maybe the problem is that I'm being a bit too harsh in my dismissal of long-time fans who feel betrayed by this move but sincerely, none of this surprises me in the least, especially in the current climate of micro-transactions. I completely agree that L4D2 is an attempt to get more money out of the consumer but isn't every sequel?

Maybe I'll be angrier if the final product feels like an expansion pack but until then I don't really know. Were I running Valve I'd probably do the same thing in their situation, though I would have been a bit more judicious about making promises I couldn't keep.

[QUOTE="Skylock00"]

As for the comments, given the context of this thread, and the people who are going to be reading it, it seemed to me that the direct targets of the comment were the posters in this thread that you are generally arguing against. If that was indeed not your intent, then I of course apologize for misreading/misinterpreting your post. You know that I have no qualms with someone being strong with their assertions at times, but I /have/ to also insist on proper etiquette, given that I'm pretty much the only GGD regular that's on the mod team at the moment. So again, if that wasn't your intent, I apologize.

QUOTE]

To be fair, that man child comment was probably a bit harsher thanrequired so if you feel the need to edit or delete the post, it won't offend me in the least.

Are you really, honestly, surprised that a company has lied to you regarding their support of a game? Really?

You think this is about defending Valve but what I trying to explain to you is that Valve isn't any better or worse than any other company, they're just venerated because of their past history of support. Maybe the problem is that I'm being a bit too harsh in my dismissal of long-time fans who feel betrayed by this move but sincerely, none of this surprises me in the least, especially in the current climate of micro-transactions. I completely agree that L4D2 is an attempt to get more money out of the consumer but isn't every sequel?

Maybe I'll be angrier if the final product feels like an expansion pack but until then I don't really know. Were I running Valve I'd probably do the same thing in their situation, though I would have been a bit more judicious about making promises I couldn't keep.

Grammaton-Cleric

"Uhhhh, yeah....we dumb console player no understand big PC game machine ...you guys so intellktual..."

I mean seriously? You really want to hit this pitch?

Everything you stated is common knowledge and I do empathize with you to an extent but at the same time things change. We don't even know yet if Valve has completely abandoned the first game so perhaps the best thing to do is wait and see.Grammaton-Cleric

It has nothing to do with intelligence, but simply exposition. If one is not exposed to something then it's natural he lacks a certain level of understanding of its concepts. Also, if that is such common knowledge, then most of the people here should see what's the core of the problem. Quite frankly, I don't see that in this thread. It's exactly the opposite, actually. The business model of free post-release support (which, as history has shown, is as viable as any) seems to be completely lost on most people in here. Most of the counter-arguments boil down to "tehh durr, freeloaders!" which is asinine and showcases the lack of understanding of PC gaming's basic concepts.

To be fair, that man child comment was probably a bit harsher thanrequired so if you feel the need to edit or delete the post, it won't offend me in the least.

Grammaton-Cleric

It's hard to blame gamers who are upset by this sudden, unexpected twist in Valve's business practice (if such practice will become standard for them remains to be seen). The background that Valve has regarding support for their products way after release dates has earned them a level of respect and trust that no other developer/publisher in the world has, neither on the PC or console realms. Valve has shown, time and again, that they care about gamers and not only the money that those customers drop; and this is not about getting free stuff, but instead about Valve historically caring about going lenghts to let their costumers know that they made a good decision by purchasing their games.

It seems as though this has changed significantly. We can't blame Valve for following a sound financial model. They can conduct their business any way they see fit. It's hard to see, though, a developer/pub so respected and loved by the gaming community go this route, a route that many people thought they would never walk.

Seriously, if you paid full price for L4D and got at least 50 hours of gaming time the money was well spent I think.

I think people should actually be happy that the sequel is coming, see DNF. XD

Quite a lot of people (including myself) plan to boycott Valve's upcoming sequel, Left 4 Dead 2. And for good reason if you ask me: By them releasing Left 4 Dead 2, it's them saying "We're not going to release any new maps for Left 4 Dead (the original) or any new content at all. Buy our new game, Left 4 Dead 2." This tells me that I should probably not buy Left 4 Dead 2 right away (if at all), not only because they're so cocky that they're probably going to release this **** for 40 or more dollars, but also abecause I know that within a year they're going to be moving on to bigger things.

Just by looking at the comments on several L4D2 videos and announcements you can tell how a lot of gamers feel about this. They're saying Left 4 Dead 2 should have come in the form of free DLC for L4D, and can you blame them?

What are your thoughts?

also:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ai9qa1T_I3o

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2u4rNH9cqIM

Did people ever do this with the Call of Duty games? :|monkeymoose5000

[QUOTE="monkeymoose5000"]Did people ever do this with the Call of Duty games? :|Skylock00

But for their explaination as to why they didn't, they said the sort of content they ended up thinking would be the best to add was the sort of stuff they couldn't just add on through DLC, that they would essentially have to make a new AI director and everything.

Once again, I'm not saying Valve is right here, I'm saying that we don't know. Until the game actually comes out and feels like it should have just been DLC, I can't be angry at them. Wait for it to actually happen, then be angry. Don't be mad about what Valve might do or the quality of a game that will not be out for half a year.

But for their explaination as to why they didn't, they said the sort of content they ended up thinking would be the best to add was the sort of stuff they couldn't just add on through DLC, that they would essentially have to make a new AI director and everything.

AtomicTangerine

So if in the future Valve offers games which boast high content to value ratios but which charge for non-held back DLC people are going to skip the games because the DLC isn't free? To each his own, but I can see why so many traditionally PC only developers are moving into the console arena.

i think that the fact that it sold so well on 360 affected this decision since dlc and updates work very differently on 360 compared to pc gaming and are not as easily released due to the way ms runs dlc on the 360 and i think it is much easier for the company to release this as a sequel rather than just new pieces of content.

i think that the fact that it sold so well on 360 affected this decision since dlc and updates work very differently on 360 compared to pc gaming and are not as easily released due to the way ms runs dlc on the 360 and i think it is much easier for the company to release this as a sequel rather than just new pieces of content.lexxxy52

Yeah, Left 4 Dead selling so well on the 360 is essentially the root of all this. The Orange Box didn't do so hot on the 360, that's why they went with a PC-friendly model for Team Fortress 2 while basically ignoring the 360 fanbase. Now the tables have turned and Valve is catering to the 360 fanbase which will obviously accept full-priced yearly installments sporting little content with their hands wide open. However, it's a dangerous decision because Left 4 Dead sold extremely well on PC and I'd wager a lot of those people won't be very happy with this. It would make sense if PC gamers ignored Left 4 Dead in the same way 360 gamers ignored Team Fortress 2, but that obviously isn't the case. Valve is still a small developer which employs only 180 people so I suppose they had to make a decision. What stings is that they decided to ignore the rabid fanbase that got them to where they are now and went with a fanbase which only recognized their genuis this last November.

By the way, here's an interview with Gabe Newell from October of last year:

Valve intends to support hotly anticipated zombie survival shooter Left 4 Dead post-release with new characters, new maps, new achievements and new weapons in order to grow the community, Gabe Newell has revealed. "One of the things that we're doing is we seem to be in a transition between games as a package product and games more of a service. So if you look at Team Fortress 2, one of things that's really helped grow the community is the continuous updates, where we release new maps, new character cIasses, new unlockables, new weapons. And we tell the stories about the characters, like the meet the sniper, or meet the sandwich. And that ongoing delivery of content really seems to grow the community.

"So each time we've released one of those for Team Fortress 2 we've seen about a 20% increase in the number of people who are playing online. And that number is really important because it determines how many community created maps there are, how many servers are running, and so on. So we'll do the same thing with Left 4 Dead where we'll have the initial release and then we'll release more movies, more characters, more weapons, unlockables, achievements, because that's the way you continue to grow a community over time."

[QUOTE="Grammaton-Cleric"]"Uhhhh, yeah....we dumb console player no understand big PC game machine ...you guys so intellktual..."

I mean seriously? You really want to hit this pitch?

Everything you stated is common knowledge and I do empathize with you to an extent but at the same time things change. We don't even know yet if Valve has completely abandoned the first game so perhaps the best thing to do is wait and see.UpInFlames

It has nothing to do with intelligence, but simply exposition. If one is not exposed to something then it's natural he lacks a certain level of understanding of its concepts. Also, if that is such common knowledge, then most of the people here should see what's the core of the problem. Quite frankly, I don't see that in this thread. It's exactly the opposite, actually. The business model of free post-release support (which, as history has shown, is as viable as any) seems to be completely lost on most people in here. Most of the counter-arguments boil down to "tehh durr, freeloaders!" which is asinine and showcases the lack of understanding of PC gaming's basic concepts.

Anybody with even a rudimentary knowledge of this medium knows what the standard model of post-release support is for PC gaming. It's not some mystery or some well-kept secret among PC-enthusiasts. That doesn't change the fact that the expectationof free post-release support isn't particularly realistic in this current climateregardless of how plentiful it was in the past. And while I can understand your disappointment, did you really think the wine would flow free forever? There is no economical reason why a developer should hand over free content when the current market proves they can glean a healthy profit by charging for it.From a business standpoint, it would be foolish of them not to.

[QUOTE="lexxxy52"]i think that the fact that it sold so well on 360 affected this decision since dlc and updates work very differently on 360 compared to pc gaming and are not as easily released due to the way ms runs dlc on the 360 and i think it is much easier for the company to release this as a sequel rather than just new pieces of content.UpInFlames

Yeah, Left 4 Dead selling so well on the 360 is essentially the root of all this. The Orange Box didn't do so hot on the 360, that's why they went with a PC-friendly model for Team Fortress 2 while basically ignoring the 360 fanbase. Now the tables have turned and Valve is catering to the 360 fanbase which will obviously accept full-priced yearly installments sporting little content with their hands wide open. However, it's a dangerous decision because Left 4 Dead sold extremely well on PC and I'd wager a lot of those people won't be very happy with this. It would make sense if PC gamers ignored Left 4 Dead in the same way 360 gamers ignored Team Fortress 2, but that obviously isn't the case. Valve is still a small developer which employs only 180 people so I suppose they had to make a decision. What stings is that they decided to ignore the rabid fanbase that got them to where they are now and went with a fanbase which only recognized their genuis this last November.

That's a rather simplistic analysis, don't you think? Orange Box, while in my opinion one of the best values in the history of gaming (and I bought it day one) wasn't advertised particularly well and it contained a mishmash of older and newer content. For manyconsole gamers, their only previous exposure to valve was the XBOX 1 version of HL2, which sucked something fierce. Also, OB was released at an insanely busy time of year, dumped into the middle of the fall buying season of 2007, which was frankly a stupid decision given the torrent of software released on the consoles, specifically the XB360. By contrast, L4D was given a serious push in the mediaalong with a meaty demo and plenty of ad space so claiming that console gamers "only recognized their genius this last November" is fallacious logic.

Also, technically speaking, XB360 owners are getting just a screwed as PC gamers, assuming you choose to look at the announcement of a sequel that way. If L4D2 was an XB360 exclusive then of course you'd have a point but the bottom line is that if the support for the original dries up XB360 users suffer just as much as PC gamers.

Even if you think that you have legitimate reasons not to buy Left 4 Dead 2, it's not a "boycott" if you choose not to buy it, it's just a personal choice not to purchase a video game.

Feel free not to purchase L4D2, but don't fool yourselves into thinking that you're leading some sort of consumer revolution; you aren't.

Anybody with even a rudimentary knowledge of this medium knows what the standard model of post-release support is for PC gaming. It's not some mystery or some well-kept secret among PC-enthusiasts. That doesn't change the fact that the expectationof free post-release support isn't particularly realistic in this current climateregardless of how plentiful it was in the past. And while I can understand your disappointment, did you really think the wine would flow free forever? There is no economical reason why a developer should hand over free content when the current market proves they can glean a healthy profit by charging for it.From a business standpoint, it would be foolish of them not to.Grammaton-Cleric

Even though you say you understand the concept, you once again showcase a lack of understanding by referring to it as freebies. Post-release support is a sound business model. By constantly energizing the existing playerbase, developers make sure that their game is always played by a high number of people which is very beneficial in attracting new players. Who is going to buy a multiplayer game a year or two from release if nobody's playing it?

Sure, potentially they can make more money by throwing out yearly sequels and it makes sense from a business standpoint. Such a model works better in the console market whose online communities are way to small to support a wide array of multiplayer games for long periods of time. A market where a game lives or dies by its launch. That's why the protest is stemming from the PC side where such a model is not only unwanted, but unproven. Console-only gamers stubbornly want to apply console market concepts to the PC market and it just doesn't work that way. That's why this thread is what it is.

Also, technically speaking, XB360 owners are getting just a screwed as PC gamers, assuming you choose to look at the announcement of a sequel that way. If L4D2 was an XB360 exclusive then of course you'd have a point but the bottom line is that if the support for the original dries up XB360 users suffer just as much as PC gamers.Grammaton-Cleric

No, because this thread clearly demonstrates that console gamers don't expect post-release support and they're clearly very accepting of yearly installments.