Slashdot Mirror
Valve Explains Quick Left 4 Dead Sequel
Valve's announcement that Left 4 Dead 2 would be released only a year after the first game has generated a great deal of controversy among fans of the game. There are concerns that Left 4 Dead will not get any additional content, the community will be divided, and that the quick development cycle won't do justice to the sequel. Now, Valve devs and execs are going out of their way to address those concerns. Left 4 Dead project lead Chet Faliszek said, "It just became very clear that this was a cohesive, singular statement we wanted to make, not a more slow update thing... too much stuff was tied together with too many other things." Developer Tom Leonard was quick to point out that work wouldn't cease for the first game: "We are doing updates across the summer, adding new matchmaking features, and new features to facilitate user maps after the SDK is out. ... Additionally, those maps can be transported into Left 4 Dead 2." Doug Lombardi said simply, "Trust us a little bit," explaining that Gabe Newell is "always talking about providing entertainment as a service — it's not about making a game any more."
"Gabe Newell is "always talking about providing entertainment as a service â" it's not about making a game any more." " Which is why most games suck now.
https://www.speakservers.com/
Just after I've bought^h^h^h^h^h^hlicensed an EA game and am presented with the EULA, I certainly feel like I've been served.
Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
Yes, all anonymous cowards agree with you.
Left 4 Head?
Who's going to explain all the quick Guitar Hero sequels?
It has been "coming soon", since last fall, I wonder if Valve plans to only release it for L4D 2, forcing the current players to buy the new game if they want to create mods.
echo '[q]sa[ln0=aln80~Psnlbx]16isb572CCB9AE9DB03273snlbxq' |dc
I'm sure the sky really is falling.
Beeyul... Beeyul!
Fans are a crying whinny lot who will never be happy with any concession you make, and the sooner you shut them out, the happier you'll be.
This isn't that hard to explain. There is profit to be had. They make more money by selling a new game then by releasing free maps for an old one.
Look, companies only understand one thing: sales. Gamers are notoriously bad at speaking with their wallets. They're a hype driven group. Sure, right now people are all pissed off about this. When L4D 2 comes out, those same people will all be lined up on day 1 forking over money for it and caught up in the hype. That pattern gets repeated over and over again.
When gamers as a whole start acting like intelligent customers and less like drug addicts looking for a quick hit, you'll see companies not do this type of quick sequel. In the mean time, there's no consequences for them to do it, so why wouldn't they?
-- "So they told me that using the download page to download something was not something they anticipated." - Bill Gates
Why are games supposedly provided as a service instead of a product? As in, a fully-featured product with the vast majority of the content already there upon release? Seems like each game these days is supplied incomplete and the rest comes through DLCs after release.
Take Tomb Raider: Underworld for example. There have been two DLC chapter addons available for it (and only for the Xbox 360), and these chapters aren't simply side chapters - they're actually a continuation of the story line which was part of the ORIGINAL GAME. In other words, if you didn't have an Xbox 360 and/or didn't purchase these DLCs, you wouldn't actually "finish" the game as it was suppose to be finished. The story would be incomplete. So screw anyone who thought that buying TRU would mean a full game, nah, you have to PAY for the full story line! Now given the DLCs were in part funded by Microsoft, I'm not surprised they're only available for the 360, and it wouldn't have mattered much if they were just side quests that didn't continue the story. But they do.
I don't mind bonus packs that cost a bit but provide extra features, but I do mind cash grabs that seem to emphasize the "release early, finish development later" mentality. Works somewhat for open-source content but shouldn't be tolerated for paid products.
The original game had like 6 guns, 4 levels and about 5 types of enemies.
You could do justice to that in about a month with a mod team, let alone in a year with a full blown dev team.
I was really looking forward to L4D when it was announced, but as games go, L4D was probably the one game I can point to with the most dissapointingly small amount of content I've seen in the last 5 years.
It really did feel like an HL2 mod and nothing more. The idea is fantastic, but the execution of it left a lot to be desired IMO.
I understood why Valve didn't bother with a storyline, but generally if you're not going to bother with that you make it up by making sure there's a ton of levels, game modes, weapons, enemies and so on to deal with. The problem with L4D is that it was devoid of any meaningful amount of any of these things. It had few maps, few enemy types, few weapons, few gameplay modes.
For £30 - £35 I expect a game, not a mod.
The current L4D was very light in content as is and the devs have been promising more would be added to the game. More maps, more weapons, more infected boss types. So I guess now instead of doing that, they're just going to wrap all that new content up, call it a sequal and charge 50 bucks for it. Very sleazy.
Looks like Half-Life 2 Episode 3 is going to go the way of Duke Nukem Forever at this rate... Come on Gabe, quit fscking around with these little franchises and give me some damned closure!
"Software is like sex; it's better when it's free." -Linus Torvalds
Damn you valve, you've swindled me for the first, but last time!
I expected updates, which were promised, and I don't get the, there is no compromise, I WANT CONTENT!
I don't buy promises. I pay for what is delivered.
There are concerns that Left 4 Dead will not get any additional content, the community will be divided, and that the quick development cycle won't do justice to the sequel.
If Valve were to add an additional year to the development cycle, would the fans be whining that it was too long to wait?
If Valve were to add an additional year to the development cycle
Knowing Valve, it'll be delayed by at least that much.
No, but Valve's HR dept might be looking a bit more closely at the payroll budget.
Yay me!
Im a politician.
Forget LFD2, where the hell is HL2: Episode 3? How about making a game for the millions of people who bought Episodes 1 and 2 Doug? "Doug Lombardi said simply, "Trust us a little bit"." I find that somewhat difficult to do. It seems like Valve care more about milking money out of you than giving people what they want. It's probably taking so long for Episode 3 cause they are making some other stuff I don't want to throw in with Episode 3 and give them the ability to charge $60 instead of $15 - $20 for Episode 3 itself.
The most serious complaint seems to be that "significant content for L4D1 was promised," and L4D2 means that L4D won't get the promised content. Does anybody know where these promises are coming from? I don't remember reading anything about that. If this is just some fans griping because TF2 got significant post-release content and L4D didn't, I don't really see the problem. TF2 launched with three or four maps; L4D had 20.
I understand what Valve is saying but I think they may be making a douche move here.
Back when Half-Life came out I was saying to myself how it would be great if they released episodic content on the same engine. The story was so huge in Half-Life, it was fully half of the gameplay. I would have been interested to see more of what was happening with Gordon Freeman. Charge $50 for the first game which covers the cost of engine development, release two or three quality add-ons over the next few years, not the faffing about like OpFor and Blue Shit but real, proper new chapters, just as long as the original game, and then when the tech has improved that's when you release the sequel for $50 again. They tried this with HL2's episodic content except those games were expensive, short, and take just as long to come out as a real game.
When looking at the hardcore wargamer market, it seemed reasonable that something like this could be handled along a subscription model. You pay $50 a year and get a constant stream of updates, more scenarios and models and such. Every five years or so the engine gets an overhaul to bring it up to date and that's part of the release cycle. I figured this sort of thing would make sense in the internet age because there would be such close contact between developer and fanbase. But what this sort of thing has devolved to in real life is like the sports games where a new engine is created for a new console and then the only thing that really changes each year are the team rosters and stats and you get charged full price for that minuscule update.
I can tell you what the game publishers are probably drooling at replicating here -- game store revenues. That's what DLC is about. When you're a D&D player or, God help you, a Warhammer guy, you're constantly shelling out money each month. New books, new figurines, dice, etc. What the publishers like is even if the physical game is resold, it doesn't come with that DLC. (the only exception is when they decide to release a game of the year edition that specifically includes all the add-ons.) So if the game is resold, the DLC doesn't go with it and so the same content can be resold to the new player. Eventually they're hoping for physical media to go away altogether and all distribution will be online with no right of resale. Expect major dick moves all the way along here.
I wonder how successful episodic gaming could really be, if the episodes were priced very low and the publisher kept up a consistent release schedule with relatively short intervals. I know I almost never buy a game at full-price and usually pick them up for $20. If a publisher released quality episodes for $10 a pop and each episode was about a sixth the length of a full game, I could easily end up paying the full $60. If the episodes were good enough, I wouldn't even mind.
Kwisatz Haderach
Sell the spice to CHOAM
This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
No, and I'm not afraid to say it either. Particularly since I paid considerably more for it than I paid for Team Fortress 2, which is, hands-down, a better game.
GLaDOS for President 2016! "Well here we are again. It's always such a pleasure." -- GLaDOS, 2011
http://ve3d.ign.com/articles/news/41219/Left-4-Dead-DLC-Promised
"Chet Faliszek said that Valve plans to get the DLC rolling much more quickly with Left 4 Dead than it has been able to for Team Fortress 2. Plans already in the works call for new campaigns, weapons, and boss infected (the game's zombie enemies). In addition, there were strong hints at a flamethrower coming not long after launch."
Yes, the valve team promised L4D 1 content, including new special infected AND weapons AND new campaigns. Turns out they saved all that for L4D2 instead. L4D2 will have a new special infected (charger), new weapons, and new campaigns. And no, they didn't add any new campaigns in L4D1, just tweaked versions of the old ones for versus, and a single new mini map for survival (the rest of the survival levels are just portions of the old maps in old campaigns)
That same guy at valve in an interview said they have been working on L4D2 since the launch of L4D1.
http://www.shacknews.com/featuredarticle.x?id=1138
"Shack: When did development on Left 4 Dead 2 start?
Chet Faliszek: Pretty much after Left 4 Dead launched."
Given:
1) Valve has delivered the Orange Box before
2) The Valve developers are feeling the heat
3) The two games seem to be compatible
4) Doug Lombardi said "Trust us a little bit"
While I don't know how much Mr. Lombardi keeps his words...but from Valve's track record so far and the above givens, I think there is a fair chance that the new contents in L4D2 will be available for download for the original user (either as a free add-on or for a minuscule fee...say$5?), while the L4D2 buyers can do the same for L4D's contents as well.
This is probably one of the better ways to keep their reputations, appease the fans by addressing their major concerns, while not stopping the money flow by acquiring new users with brighter settings, etc. Also, this should not stop people from buying the original L4D now.
"Doug Lombardi said simply, "Trust us a little bit," explaining that Gabe Newell is "always talking about providing entertainment as a service â€" it's not about making a game any more."
Which explains perfectly why Valve hasn't made a decent game since Half-Life. Half-Life 2 was a glorified tech demo at best, the subsequent episodes of which have all been just as lifeless and pale compared to their late 90's predecessor, both Team Fortress 2 and Left 4 Dead were released in a somewhat fun but half complete state and haven't improved one iota since release (sorry fanboys, but the updates for the former have been universally bad), the Source Engine is held barely above the abyss of obscurity by Valve's own mediocre productions, and Counter Strike has been a negligible offering ever since Valve got its greasy mitts on it. I don't know about you, but it seems almost like the more successful someone in this business gets, the more detached from reality they become. Instead of realizing that fans wanted fun games like Half-Life that were actually easy for a layperson to modify, Valve drank the Engine Salesman Koolaid, almost went bankrupt because of it, and is now more a publisher than a producer because of Steam. Not that Steam itself is bad, it's Valve's greatest contribution to gaming and I'm thankful to have the service, but for buying and playing games not made by Valve because they're just plain bad at it now.
I'd probably be singing a different tune if the Source SDK and Hammer weren't trash, but Unreal 3 is today's modder's paradise. Better stick to your publishing outfit, machinema-based false advertising (I'm looking at you, 'Meet the Team'), and bad in-game memetic humor, Gabe.
They keep saying they'll still support L4D1, but all we see is stuff that was already going to be released. Everything else after that is "the users will do the work and we will claim credit for the additional content". Sorry no, the modding community has already stopped work on L4D1 content to focus making maps that will make use of the new features of L4D2 (and so far it looks like the compatibility is 1-way, otherwise we can easily just copy the new campaigns from L4D2 into L4D1). They have said exactly nothing about support AFTER L4D2 is released. They're still being intentionally misleading about "continued support", just like they were with that quote up there about new stuff for L4D when they really meant L4D2.
What I get for copying the link straight from Steam. Here's the proper one.
by the 50th playthrough.
Oh, so by 50+ hours of gameplay in, you're only occasionally seeing new things? And this is Valve's fault, for only putting out a game that you've been playing for 50+ hours? Or maybe you could try the other four campaigns? Maybe go play a MMO like all of the other crackheads?
L4D is a great game, and wonderfully entertaining in the time that I have to play it. If you have too much time, maybe you should get a fucking job.
I have my issues with L4D, mainly around the matchmaking system, but I'll gladly pay $50 for L4D2 when it comes out. If you don't want to, then don't, but dissing L4D/Valve because you want more free stuff is bullshit. The content and polish that's already there is what I'm paying for, and L4D2 should add even more.
"We have to go forth and crush every world view that doesn't believe in tolerance and free speech." - David Brin
http://games.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1257929&cid=28220765
I remember that interview as well. The simplicity of "making your own story", i.e. them not developing one for you made me think of TF2. Look at what they've done with that and that seems to be what Gabe was talking about when talking about L4D. Now they're dropping a whole new game instead of free updates like with TF2. The problem here is expectations. If I wasn't expecting a TF2-style life-cycle, I wouldn't be disappointed. Of course, I would have expected that type of game to start out at 29.99, not 49.99.
Theyve earned mine with over a decade of very high quality service. Ive arguable gotten more play value from their line of products then pretty much any other form of entertainment. I played CS for YEARS. I will say i was as shocked as alot of other people when they announced L4D2, but I have a feeling it will work out to our mutual benefit in the end. Valve has earned the benefit of the doubt. If anyone should be looked at askance its Blizzard. They are REALLY starting to overmilk the WoW cow. Steins, custom figurines, CCG, miniatures, ads on the forums, motorcycles and guitar axes ( im sorry, but the sound of both of those items would pull me right out of immersion.)
Good-bye