I agree with the whole let L4D owners preorder L4D2 at a discount, this makes good business sense for Valve.
I think what makes people upset is that they are calling it L4D "2". I don't recall any Wow players starting boycott groups when the first two expansion packs came out. Or any other game that released additional content as an expansion pack and the developer charged additional for. Valve should have avoided this backlash, by calling it L4D: The "other" survivors or something similar. Allow people to play it without having the original installed, thus is could work as it's own game, but still be referred to as an expansion.
CoinOperatedBoy
Golden Member
- Dec 11, 2008
- 1,809
- 0
- 76
I have not been under the impression that L4D2 will require the original to be installed. It's not an expansion pack, so why would they treat it like one?
Seriously, is this just about pricing? If it were free or deeply discounted, would the boycotters still bitch about "fracturing the community"? I guess I just don't understand. L4D was a fun game; the sequel might be better. I would rather play it sooner than later, and if it really is a full-fledged standalone game instead of some hussied-up DLC/expansion pack, I have no problem paying "full price".
If it's about people feeling burned because they paid MSRP for the original, expecting significant content updates, well, I guess I just don't get that either. If the game was not playable for you at the time of purchase, or was somehow suboptimal, then why pay for it in the first place? It's a little foolish to bank on vague promises of updates, and even then, who's to say Valve won't deliver more in the meantime?
Seriously, is this just about pricing? If it were free or deeply discounted, would the boycotters still bitch about "fracturing the community"? I guess I just don't understand. L4D was a fun game; the sequel might be better. I would rather play it sooner than later, and if it really is a full-fledged standalone game instead of some hussied-up DLC/expansion pack, I have no problem paying "full price".
If it's about people feeling burned because they paid MSRP for the original, expecting significant content updates, well, I guess I just don't get that either. If the game was not playable for you at the time of purchase, or was somehow suboptimal, then why pay for it in the first place? It's a little foolish to bank on vague promises of updates, and even then, who's to say Valve won't deliver more in the meantime?
Now EA doesn't seem so bad do they. At least their sport games are numbered by year so you know ahead of time that a replacement version comes out next year. Valve should just start numbering it, Left 4 Dead 2010.
When I bought Left 4 Dead I fully expected the same type of support they gave TF2. Let's face it, unless you played versus mode, the 4 campaigns that take about an hour to complete is too short for a 50 dollar game. The new survivor mode is a step in the right direction but once you get gold on a stage, it's unlikely that you'll be playing it again.
While I won't be joining the ranks for the boycott, I do understand where they're coming from and I hope Valve reinvests the gobs of money they received from the original to hire new level design programmers to release a new campaign every 3-4 months that includes some aspects of the new game. An example would be dynamic climax events so survivors aren't always camping some corner when they activate events. That should ease the the conscience of those who bought the original at full price fulling expecting consistent updates for the original instead of all the promises and improvements being immediately shifted to the new game.
While I won't be joining the ranks for the boycott, I do understand where they're coming from and I hope Valve reinvests the gobs of money they received from the original to hire new level design programmers to release a new campaign every 3-4 months that includes some aspects of the new game. An example would be dynamic climax events so survivors aren't always camping some corner when they activate events. That should ease the the conscience of those who bought the original at full price fulling expecting consistent updates for the original instead of all the promises and improvements being immediately shifted to the new game.
HeroOfPellinor
Lifer
- Dec 27, 2001
- 11,272
- 1
- 0
It's multiple things.
What you'll mostly hear in these arguments is a reference to TF2 and the exceptional manner in which Valve has updated that game. Rather than be grateful for such extreme value, you have people who are now demanding the same thing for every title. It's basically the definition of a brat.
The economy. People are a little more conscious and sensitive about what they're spending money on. If you're shopping for a car and it isn't selling for 10k under invoice you turn your nose up at it.
Steam makes this an extra sensitive issue compared to most other titles. You have a segment of gamers where the only games they've actually paid money to play are the ones exclusive to Steam.....because they warez everything else. They resent every cent they pay to Valve and you can see it in shitfits like this that seem to come out of left field.
So you've got a convergence of many factors that makes this a volitile issue.
KeithP
Diamond Member
- Jun 15, 2000
- 5,664
- 201
- 106
I believe you are portraying the situation inaccurately.
When Left 4 Dead was originally released, one of the few criticisms of the game was lack of content and the price was a little high for what was provided. Valve, through Gabe Newell and others, indicated that a lot more content was coming. Essentially the game was a work in progress. Given Valve's history with TF2 and some of their other properties, people believed Valve when they said more content was coming.
It is not a question of people assuming something with no reason to do so. Valve promised a lot more content and they haven't delivered on that promise. They have now decided that what they developed was good enough to be charged as a separate game so instead of releasing it for free, they are going to charge for it.
-KeithP
CoinOperatedBoy
Golden Member
- Dec 11, 2008
- 1,809
- 0
- 76
I'm curious how people can make this decision more than five months before the game's release date.
- Nov 30, 2005
- 50,231
- 118
- 116
I paid $20 for L4D and it still feels overpriced, considering how little I play the game. That said, the more I think about what seems to be a rather quick release for L4D2, the more I realize that Valve is a business and I really can't blame them for getting this out as a sequel as soon as possible.
Something like TF2 is an anomaly with how they provide continual free content and to expect that from every release is not reasonable.
At this point I don't care anyway, since I barely play L4D and I wouldn't have planned on buying any sequels or expansions, no matter when they were released.
KT
Something like TF2 is an anomaly with how they provide continual free content and to expect that from every release is not reasonable.
At this point I don't care anyway, since I barely play L4D and I wouldn't have planned on buying any sequels or expansions, no matter when they were released.
KT
HeroOfPellinor
Lifer
- Dec 27, 2001
- 11,272
- 1
- 0
First of all, you proved my point referring to TF2 again. So thanks. Second, I don't know if I'd be accusing other people of being deliberately inaccurate when you make statements like the bolded sentence. The game was polished as hell. And, yes, one of the few knocks against it was a lack of content........and those knocks were footnotes under reviews that were giving it 90% or higher.
My 5 year old hit me with that a couple times. You make plans and they don't work out and they tell you "You promised!!!" and the pouting commences.
As for me, I have no idea wtf they promised because I never cared. I wasn't asking Valve to marry me, I was buying a game. Their unofficial plans for it weren't factored into my buying decision.
If you bought L4D expecting it to double in size, I don't know what to tell you. TF2 has only had one significant map addition to it in Goldrush and other than that has just had optional new weapons....very few of which are radically different than their original weapon counterparts. What you have got so far in L4D is a new game mode that's probably given you more replayability than two new scenarios. I'm sure more will come eventually.
But here's the key. When I read about L4D I understood why these weren't features they could just shoehorn into L4D1. Adding new weapons and new infected and new maps all goes hand-in-hand. They need to be designed around each other. You can't just drop chainsaws and railguns into L4D and get the same tone. A new map or two for L4D would be nice too, but how long before they felt repetitive? It all needs to be a new experience....collectively. Hence L4D2.
L4D, I'm sure will get other new things, but they'll fit L4D and not necessarilly L4D2 and vice versa.
BTRY B 529th FA BN
Lifer
- Nov 26, 2005
- 15,188
- 401
- 126
Well, I've been suckered before, this is a fresh perspective.
People think, "its a company, how could they be dishonest and sucker us into buying the same game twice?" If that feeling or notion doesn't cross your mind, then I have a game I want to sell you too.
People think, "its a company, how could they be dishonest and sucker us into buying the same game twice?" If that feeling or notion doesn't cross your mind, then I have a game I want to sell you too.
Valve said they were still going to continue to patch and update L4D1 or did they not?
Also, Valve is not obligated to provide free content until the end of time. Be grateful they provide so much free content as it is.
Ungrateful, never satisfied customers like yourself do not encourage any company to provide anything for free.
Lets cry now and rant about the name of one of the most popular PC FPS to have ever been created.
Perhaps Valve should hire you on just to brainstorm creative names for their games since you are apparently such an expert.
Not many people have the balls to state on a public forum that they make promises to their children that they have no intention of keeping.
HeroOfPellinor
Lifer
- Dec 27, 2001
- 11,272
- 1
- 0
CoinOperatedBoy
Golden Member
- Dec 11, 2008
- 1,809
- 0
- 76
You don't know what you'll be getting out of the game. It may be similar in spirit to L4D1, but that's all you really know beyond some character designs and new weapons. It could be massive in scale, have incredible gameplay, be the best multiplayer game of the year... and you're willing to state you won't pay more than $30 for it before you have any real idea. Conversely, of course, it could suck donkey knob and all the people saying they'll buy it no matter what will get owned. I just think it's funny when people pull imaginary spending limits out of their asses on games that aren't out yet.
there's a difference between being stuck with lousy parents and getting to choose whether or not you give a company your money for their product
minmaster
Platinum Member
- Oct 22, 2006
- 2,041
- 3
- 71
i'm comparing the cost to the price i paid for the original L4D. it's not coming out of some ass like you say. no matter how you put it, i and many generally have a good idea of what the game will deliver. it won't be a world of difference from the original. stop being thick skulled. 30 bucks is what i paid for original, and since this is the sequel to the very same game, it's the price i won't pay for. is it that hard to get that through your skull?
BTRY B 529th FA BN
Lifer
- Nov 26, 2005
- 15,188
- 401
- 126
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 20K
-
-
-
Facebook
Twitter