L4D2 Boycott

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."

UpInFlames

Yeah, this is the quote that puzzles me the most about this controversy. I haven't played Left4Dead other than the demo...but will these new updates still be coming? Is there a possibility L4D2 will be the DLC they promised? :?

Yeah, this is the quote that puzzles me the most about this controversy. I haven't played Left4Dead other than the demo...but will these new updates still be coming? Is there a possibility L4D2 will be the DLC they promised? :?viewtiful26

I believe all the content now being released as Left 4 Dead 2 was initially supposed to be released as free updates for Left 4 Dead, but Valve decided to go another route once they saw how successful Left 4 Dead was on 360. It's been 7 months since Left 4 Dead's release. Team Fortress 2 saw some significant content released in the same period of time including a host of fixes, patches, engine updates, at least two cIass update packs, a new game mode and new maps. The closer we are to Left 4 Dead 2's release, the smaller chances are that Left 4 Dead is going to see any significant content.

And the PC community starts to flex its muscle. L4D community rallies against sequel.

Over 15,000 Left 4 Dead fans have joined together on Steam to campaign against and boycott the release of Left 4 Dead 2.

They claim Valve has not fulfilled promises of extra content for L4D, and that the announced innards of L4D2 do "not warrant a standalone, fully-priced sequel".

Valve speaker Doug Lombardi addressed fan fears about Left 4 Dead 2 on Friday, stating that the company has not "closed the book" on new content and more support for L4D1. He even promised that "there's more content coming for Left 4 Dead in the fairly short term".

"I think the short answer is: trust us a little bit," he said.

Link to the Steam Community page.

Um, i won't, i really haven't been playing the game lately, but still, thats not a good reason to boycott it.

Can't wait for it :-)

Why not boycott sequels altogether in that case? You know, since they are the same games just with a different coat of paint right?

SemiMaster

[QUOTE="SemiMaster"]

Why not boycott sequels altogether in that case? You know, since they are the same games just with a different coat of paint right?

Oilers99

LOL! Good luck buddy.

one, you're wrong about them not releasing a DLC, they released a free one infact. And 2. these stupid boycotts never work because about 3% of the fanbase boycotts while everyone else has fun with the game you're not playing because you think the big corporations are out to get everyone. you can just rent it if your skeptical.

one, you're wrong about them not releasing a DLC, they released a free one infact.

twentymooseman

And the PC community starts to flex its muscle. L4D community rallies against sequel.

Over 15,000 Left 4 Dead fans have joined together on Steam to campaign against and boycott the release of Left 4 Dead 2.

They claim Valve has not fulfilled promises of extra content for L4D, and that the announced innards of L4D2 do "not warrant a standalone, fully-priced sequel".

Valve speaker Doug Lombardi addressed fan fears about Left 4 Dead 2 on Friday, stating that the company has not "closed the book" on new content and more support for L4D1. He even promised that "there's more content coming for Left 4 Dead in the fairly short term".

"I think the short answer is: trust us a little bit," he said.

Link to the Steam Community page.

SteelAttack

[QUOTE="Grammaton-Cleric"]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.UpInFlames

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.

Actually, continued post-launch support of a game really isn't a great business strategy because it keeps gamers away from newer products. A good business model has a company selling multiple iterations of a franchise every year or two. Who cares if people continue to play your game two or three years later? Unless they are paying a fee to play something like WoW, the financial logistics don't really support the model you are advocating. What you want may be better for the consumer (i.e. free content, upgrades, etc.) but in reality doing that doesn't reward the developer/publisher because after some time any game is regulated to the bargain bin and sales inevitably dry up. It makes more financial sense to release a sequel to L4D than it does to provide free content and DLC because more than likely, gamers are going to shell out premium prices for the sequel. Now, that may not be the most ethical, classy thing to do, but as a business model it makes a hell of a lot more sense than giving gamers free content that technically costs the developers moneyto produce while at best (theoretically) brings new gamers to old software.

Personally, I prefer the model you are advocating because obviously that gives me more for less, which is always appreciated. However, from a business perspective (and yes, despite the pedestal you and your PC-loving brethren placed Valve upon, they are a business) releasing a sequel to a massively successful game is a smart business decision. The problem here isn't my lack of understanding (I spent a great deal of time playing PC games in the past and I am well aware of the post-release model) but rather you have a very myopic view of the issue that has clouded your common sense. Even a person with little to no working knowledge of business and economics would tell you that what Valve is doing makes much more sense from the business end of things but instead of acknowledging that you are opting to invent fiction about generous post-release support being a profitable model for companies, which really isn't true. At least, it's not as economically viable as releasing a sequel or charging for DLC.

As to the issue of what console-gamers will and won't except, that has yet to be determined. I'm not going to rashly judge the situation until I have a clearer understanding of what L4D2 will actually be. If it's a true sequel and not merely an expansion pack in the guise of a new game, I'll happily plunk down the money just as I do for any quality sequel.However, if the offering is athinly veiled expansion pack then of course I'll opt to wait for the price to drop or ignore it entirely. Regardless, console gamers have one expectation: we expect to pay for EVERYTHING. Sometimes it sucks and sometimes I feel pretty good about giving developers an extra bit of cash but either way, this new business model isn't going anywhere, right or wrong.

And for the record, Valve does deserve some derision for lying about the post-release support. Hopefully they will make amends by continuing to support the first game, though I have my doubts.

Exactly.

Just think. By the time you bought about 5 new campaigns, you'd have spent the same amount as you will for Left 4 Dead2

Actually, continued post-launch support of a game really isn't a great business strategy because it keeps gamers away from newer products. A good business model has a company selling multiple iterations of a franchise every year or two. Who cares if people continue to play your game two or three years later? Unless they are paying a fee to play something like WoW, the financial logistics don't really support the model you are advocating. What you want may be better for the consumer (i.e. free content, upgrades, etc.) but in reality doing that doesn't reward the developer/publisher because after some time any game is regulated to the bargain bin and sales inevitably dry up. It makes more financial sense to release a sequel to L4D than it does to provide free content and DLC because more than likely, gamers are going to shell out premium prices for the sequel. Now, that may not be the most ethical, classy thing to do, but as a business model it makes a hell of a lot more sense than giving gamers free content that technically costs the developers moneyto produce while at best (theoretically) brings new gamers to old software.

Personally, I prefer the model you are advocating because obviously that gives me more for less, which is always appreciated. However, from a business perspective (and yes, despite the pedestal you and your PC-loving brethren placed Valve upon, they are a business) releasing a sequel to a massively successful game is a smart business decision. The problem here isn't my lack of understanding (I spent a great deal of time playing PC games in the past and I am well aware of the post-release model) but rather you have a very myopic view of the issue that has clouded your common sense. Even a person with little to no working knowledge of business and economics would tell you that what Valve is doing makes much more sense from the business end of things but instead of acknowledging that you are opting to invent fiction about generous post-release support being a profitable model for companies, which really isn't true. At least, it's not as economically viable as releasing a sequel or charging for DLC.Grammaton-Cleric

I already acknowledged that it makes more sense from a business standpoint in the very post you're quoting. However, it works mostly for the console market, not so much the PC market - once again, that's why the protest is stemming from the PC side. Also, it's not a given even in the console market. There is nothing to guarantee that a sequel will sell.

All I'm trying to disprove is the notion that the model of post-release support is without merit. Keeping a high number of players is beneficial to developers not only because they can keep selling the game over long periods of time (which is common in the PC market and uncommon in the console market), but they're also effectively keeping people from buying other people's games. They create a fanbase, keep the fanbase and keep making them happy and you have a pretty good idea just how many people are going to buy the sequel when you offer one up. It's a mutually binding relationship which definitely isn't easy to pull off, but it does pay off. Valve and Blizzard got where they are today thanks to 2 basic yet equally important reasons: 1. making stellar games, 2. cultivating a thriving and loyal community.

And yes, it would seem that Valve is just another business in the long line of businesses trying to suck our every dime. You have no idea how much it pains me to say that. Maybe I'm naive, but I guess sometimes you have to think that someone, anyone is above that even in today's cynical world where seemingly everything is justified if it can bring in a profit. They were the last developer that I truly trusted and that seems to be going to hell.

As to the issue of what console-gamers will and won't except, that has yet to be determined. I'm not going to rashly judge the situation until I have a clearer understanding of what L4D2 will actually be. If it's a true sequel and not merely an expansion pack in the guise of a new game, I'll happily plunk down the money just as I do for any quality sequel.However, if the offering is athinly veiled expansion pack then of course I'll opt to wait for the price to drop or ignore it entirely. Regardless, console gamers have one expectation: we expect to pay for EVERYTHING. Sometimes it sucks and sometimes I feel pretty good about giving developers an extra bit of cash but either way, this new business model isn't going anywhere, right or wrong.Grammaton-Cleric

My comments are based on not only an understanding of how the console market works, but also the reaction of gamers in this very thread. Most people here said that they found Left 4 Dead's amount of content plentiful (which to me indicates that they don't expect much to begin with as the game was extremely light on content) and that they'll be buying Left 4 Dead 2 (which as of now seems to be packing slightly more content than the original did).

And the PC community starts to flex its muscle. L4D community rallies against sequel.

Over 15,000 Left 4 Dead fans have joined together on Steam to campaign against and boycott the release of Left 4 Dead 2.

They claim Valve has not fulfilled promises of extra content for L4D, and that the announced innards of L4D2 do "not warrant a standalone, fully-priced sequel".

Valve speaker Doug Lombardi addressed fan fears about Left 4 Dead 2 on Friday, stating that the company has not "closed the book" on new content and more support for L4D1. He even promised that "there's more content coming for Left 4 Dead in the fairly short term".

"I think the short answer is: trust us a little bit," he said.

Link to the Steam Community page.

SteelAttack

Edge now reports almost 20,000 members. This is the power of the PC community.

Why dont you pay Valve 300 million dollars not to release it? Problem solved

I hate it when developers release a sequel to a game a year after the original came out. Can they let the damn franchise marinate for a bit before releasing a sequel?

I do admit I was expecting at least more campaigns for L4D1 and new weapons, zombies, etc. I would even pay for it with MS points. ANd yes, a sequel is too soon. Although I won't boycott it is disappointing and out of character from Valve. Also, the new characters are very bad...except for that Uncle Phil (Fresh Prince) coach guy...he's pretty cool.

TBh Valve has given my free content than most current day developers. I mean have you seen what they have done Tf2. They give a lot, they added on a new mode for l4d, while it was nothing special it was something. I am disappointed in valve but they have been good to us. So we should be good to them.

Stumbled across this article on Kotaku which contains a 5 minute gameplay montage video of L4D2...It should help people make some distinction as to whether the game feels/looks more like a sequel or an expansion pack. I'm personally more towards the latter than the formal.

HEre's the simple facts for me:

1: I tried out the first l4d but didn't buy it.

2: the only reason I didn't buy it was because teamwork with 3 random strangers online proved frustrating and difficult.

3: If valve somehow makes publiconline teamwork less frustrating, then I would gladly pay them twice for it.