Support NeoGAF

[Akia]

Since the announcement thread is sort of dead. I thought I'd make a thread for the L4D2 sequel debate. I missed the other thread so I thought that since this is a divisive topic amougst the PC community we ought to have a thread to talk about it. So feel free to carry the discussion as to why Valve went with a sequel instead of more TF2 style free content here in this thread.

L4D2 is basically what L4D1 would've been if the game had the full Valve blessing from the beginning. If it was a Valve in-house title from the beginning it probably wouldn't have been annouced until 2008 and then released in 2009. But since Turtle Rock announced L4D1 in November 2006 back when they thought Valve was only the publisher; Valve didn't really have a choice but to release it Holiday 2008 after the one year delay from Holiday 2007. People were already pissed that it was delayed when it looked done in 2007, all hell would've broke loose if it didn't come out in 2008.

From the interviews I've read, it seems like the main reason they're putting out a sequel so soon is because Valve really didn't like the way the story was told in L4D1 (as standalone unconnected campaigns). There really wasn't a way to change that major underlying issue without a delay or even through post-launch DLC.

So instead of making new campaigns to fit a structure that they weren't fond of, they choose to do the story properly by starting anew with new survivors. Since new survivors/story structure means sequel, all the new multiplayer, weapon and gameplay improvements that could've been L4D1 DLC would come along with L4D2. As Chet said in Janaury 2008, Valve had a meeting to decide what the scope of the new L4D project that the team was working on since L4D's release. Since Valve employees get to choose their next projects and the team was eager to fix the problems with L4D1, a sequel just made sense.

I for one think that the game is going to be delayed until 2010. The situation really sucks for people who only bought L4D at launch because of the promise of continued support. Faced the decesion of angering fans by delaying L4D1 an additional year to 2009 or the choice of releasing the game in 2008 knowing that it doesn't live up to their expectations, I think Valve that they were stuck with a really tough decision. In the end, we got a great game in 2008 and we're getting the definitive verison that Valve is happy with a year later.

I personally bought 2 copies of the game (one for my bro) and haven't gotten to playing it yet. So yeah, I can't help but feel burned myself.

 

[Gravijah]

Money is good and we all love money.

 

[jax (old)]

Money is good and we all love money.

THIS.


FULL DOLLAR vs partial dollars.

 

[gdt]

Oh come on.

I love love love Valve and will buy L4D2 day one---but we ALL know the reason why.

$$$

 

[Nabs]

because l4d is crack and they realize they can get more $$$ out of us.

 

[WickedLaharl]

don't care as long as i get more l4d and it's good

 

[Bluth54]

Oh come on.

I love love love Valve and will buy L4D2 day one---but we ALL know the reason why.

$$$

I play way more TF2 then L4D yet Valve isn't trying to get more TF2 $$$ out of me.

 

[fernoca]

I wouldn't mind it being delayed, since they recently released the 'Game of the Year' edition, which I'm planning on getting.

 

[Cynar]

my friends and I feel pretty burned by this announcement , probably will be avoiding l4d2 unless more is announced for it.

 

[Firestorm]

Because it's not a new game and is just DLC/expansion.
Believe.

Seriously, not buying this for more than $30. TF2 > L4D.

 

[gdt]

I play way more TF2 then L4D yet Valve isn't trying to get more TF2 $$$ out of me.

It's a different situation. L4D is actually profitable on both consoles and PC. Much more potential for profits than TF2.

 

[Deleted member 22576]

Listen to the Rock Paper Shotgun podcast.
He actually goes into some detail on why they are making a new game.. and it got me FUCKING HYPED FOR IT.

 

[Anony]

if they let l4d2 out a year later, i would be fine

not even a year and a full release

the survival mode came out not too long ago too

20$ and call it an extension and i'd be happy

 

[rass]

i feel a bit burned, i bought L4D in the weekend sale and havent really played it yet (TF2 is owning my soul) I wish I had of waited, or that this wasn't so soon.

 

[Sibylus]

Put it in a box with some other new games plz.

 

[kenta]

I really want to be hyped for this but watching gameplay videos makes me all the more conflicted. Everything down to the fonts and prompts and icons and animations are exactly the same as the first game.

I don't really buy into the argument made in the OP, mainly because I honestly don't see what's so different about this game than the first aside from the storytelling. As if they couldn't have strung something together for the first game, and as if Valve has ever been reluctant to delay a game

 

[element]

Valve see yearly COD and says 'We can do that, and better...'

L4D2 is basically what L4D1 would've been if the game had the full Valve blessing from the beginning.

errr if the game didn't have Valve's blessing then why...

1. Sign the Game in the first place
2. Buy Turtle Rock

If it was a Valve in-house title from the beginning it probably wouldn't have been announced until 2008...

Well Valve was the publisher, so Valve announced it.

People were already pissed that it was delayed when it looked done in 2007, all hell would've broke loose if it didn't come out in 2008.

It's Valve we are talking about. Valve can delay, people get mad, people are happy when it comes out. SO WORTH THE DELAY.

 

[Gravijah]

Put it in a box with some other new games plz.

As long as it includes Fort Teamtress, an Anime inspired take on Team Fortress, I'm buying.

 

[MutFox]

Hopefully, if you have L4D, steam will recognize that, and give you a discount...
Here's to hoping...

This really does't feel like Valve, at $50 launch, I was expecting years of free content.
TF2 was like $20 at launch, and look at it now...

 

[RiskyChris]

Gee I wonder what hits a bigger audience. A $10 DLC or $60 retail game on retail shelves?

 

[GreyMatter]

Sure, why not.

I'll wager Valve is using the console presence of L4D to bring a more definite source of funds for a future pet project they'd like to work on. Perhaps they've come to a point where they no longer feel the Source engine is sufficient and believe a more apt means of subsidizing the cost of building a new engine from the ground up is on their recent breakout hit.

Much in the vein of Call of Duty, Left 4 Dead can be a yearly title as long as it is updated in significant increments. The only wrench

Spoiler

(crowbar?)

in the works is that this is Valve, and it is not how they "roll".

 

[Troidal]

I enjoyed the demo (on 360) a lot, but exhausted by the time I bought the retail version so I ended up selling it pretty quickly.

A sequel feels like it's so soon, but I didn't know it has been taking forever for a release all these years. That's really unfortunate for those who were waiting :/

 

[NotWii]

I still want new campaigns for Zoey, Louis, Bill and Francis!
And I don't see why they can't add melee weapons, new weapons and the new really gory zombies into L4D1

They can keep the revised Director, weather/branching path stuff for the L4D2 campaigns.

 

[Son of Godzilla]

I'm glad it's a new release. The game needs a retooling. LFD1 had more issues than just content.

 

[Alphahawk]

Money

I personally bought 2 copies of the game (one for my bro) and haven't gotten to playing it yet. So yeah, I can't help but feel burned myself.

No one to blame but yourself. Seriously why is this so prevelant among Gaffers? The longest I've ever gone owning a game without playing it is two days. It's called willpower people...

 

[myDingling]

Well it's a pretty stupid move for my part at least.

L4D DLC means I woulda paid up to $30 for that shit.

L4D2 in 6 months means Valve gets $0 from, because I sure as hell ain't paying $60 for an expansion pack (or the game that should have been released in the first place).

 

[BeEatNU]

make money. duh.

 

[ghst]

because valve saw the way you morons tuck in to the annually trite, full price hampers of your favourite console franchises and decided to make a quick buck out of it.

 

[ezekial45]

I'm more than positive that i'll buy it on release. At first i was a little apprehensive, but after seeing more videos and reading up on the changes, i'm really looking forward to it.

Also, anyone wishing that Valve make this a $10 DLC or free update need to get real. The content in this game is way to substantial to give away.

EDIT:

Listen to the Rock Paper Shotgun podcast.
He actually goes into some detail on why they are making a new game.. and it got me FUCKING HYPED FOR IT.

Got a link to it?

 

[Anony]

I still want new campaigns for Zoey, Louis, Bill and Francis!
And I don't see why they can't add melee weapons, new weapons and the new really gory zombies into L4D1

They can keep the revised Director, weather/branching path stuff for the L4D2 campaigns.

then they cant sell l4d2

 

[bdouble]

I don't think it was just money though. They just wanted to change so much in the game that it just wasn't viable anymore to do incremental upgrades. They decided to go all out and just start all over.

They have proven they can make a lot of money with the free content so that argument is bs in my opinion. This is a way to start over and basically use L4D as a beta.

Listen to the Rock Paper Shotgun podcast.
He actually goes into some detail on why they are making a new game.. and it got me FUCKING HYPED FOR IT.

Yep this is what made me from going "wtf why?" to "oh this is the full game Valve wants to make including all the sweet design choices, making it more balanced (no more camping hell yes), more weapons, enemy deformation, different enviroments more risk reward for exploration (incendiary rounds? fuck yes)" It will be worth it and I don't regret buying L4D. I have a feeling it won't die. Not only did they say they would support it I wouldn't be surprised if they put all the content from the original on the new disc.

I don't really buy into the argument made in the OP, mainly because I honestly don't see what's so different about this game than the first aside from the storytelling. As if they couldn't have strung something together for the first game, and as if Valve has ever been reluctant to delay a game

There is a lot different. Take a listen. There are reasons as well. The original wasn't developed from the start by Valve this one is

OP you should add the RPS podcast. Its basically the most info we have about the game.

Left 4 Dead 2 comes off like a content pack to me rather than the next step forward for the franchise, which is really atypical for Valve. Numbered sequels are rare for them.

Not just content though. They are reworking core gameplay mechanics and from the sounds of it they just wouldn't work as ad ons for the previous campaigns.

 

[mattiewheels]

i wanted l4d to be a platform, but i guess valve didn't like certain things about the first iteration. i could only see valve doing something like this because they feel like they need to create a better platform.

i'm just pissed off that i just bought the first l4d.

 

[SapientWolf]

I want more improvised weapons and interaction with the environment. You should be able to barricade a door or set up devious traps. I want to see makeshift turrets, remote explosives attached to cameras, rc cars/planes, etc. I guess what I'm really asking for is Gmod 4 Dead.

Left 4 Dead 2 comes off like a content pack to me rather than the next step forward for the franchise, which is really atypical for Valve. Numbered sequels are rare for them.

 

[Grayman]

As a player it sucks to not get free content but it's all about the benjamins. Valve should "fuck over" their customers as much as possible to make as much money as they can.

 

[Grayman]

Gee I wonder what hits a bigger audience. A $10 DLC or $60 retail game on retail shelves?

steams empirical data says that the lower cost product makes more revenue.

 

[Akia]

Valve see yearly COD and says 'We can do that, and better...'

I really think that the base game wasn't where they wanted it yet. Chet said that the L4D team had a long list of major improvements/ideas they wanted in there. Before they commit to iterating on it for the long run I think Valve likes to have a good solid foundation to start with (like TF2 at launch).

errr if the game didn't have Valve's blessing then why...

1. Sign the Game in the first place
2. Buy Turtle Rock

Blessing is probably the wrong word, I was trying to say that originally Valve was just publishing and the design decisions were primarly being made by Turtle Rock. By the time, Valve bought Turtle Rock they focused on polishing what they had instead of gutting things that would take to long to fix to get it to their liking.

Well Valve was the publisher, so Valve announced it.

They annouced it before they bought Turtle Rock. I think they would've done it differently if they knew that they were actually developing it instead of publishing

It's Valve we are talking about. Valve can delay, people get mad, people are happy when it comes out. SO WORTH THE DELAY.

I know but annoucing in Nov 2006 and then releasing Holiday 2009 is a long stretch even for Valve.

 

[kenta]

There is a lot different. Take a listen. There are reasons as well. The original wasn't developed from the start by Valve this one is

OP you should add the RPS podcast. Its basically the most info we have about the game.

I am not going to listen to a however-long-that-is podcast in order to be convinced to buy something, it shouldn't take that. Valve needs to communicate whatever they say in that podcast or someone needs to make some bullet points on their behalf or something

 

[Son of Godzilla]

They have proven they can make a lot of money with the free content so that argument is bs in my opinion.

I think they have recently proven they can also make a lot of money without the free content too.

 

[Akia]

I don't think it was just money though. They just wanted to change so much in the game that it just wasn't viable anymore to do incremental upgrades. They decided to go all out and just start all over.

This plus Valve in hindsight didn't like the standalone structure of the campaign and starting over on a new one with new characters verges on sequel territory.

I wonder if there were disagreements about this decision at Valve pre-L4D2 announcement?

 

[Sean]

It's a money grab plain and simple.

Valve may say there's a ton of new content, but from what they've shown so far, there really isn't. It looks exactly the same as the first just in different levels (ie what would've/should've been DLC) and character reskins. There are also melee weapons but I can't imagine those being anything more than a novelty - is anyone seriously gonna be using a frying pan as their main weapon? From what we've seen they've delivered the bare minimum to qualify as a sequel.

 

[RiskyChris]

steams empirical data says that the lower cost product makes more revenue.

Cool, well a $30 retail game would still sell gangbusters compared to DLC. The price isn't the barrier to entry, the method of distribution is.

 

[NotWii]

then they cant sell l4d2

If they hired me, I could suggest a gazillion new things they could add/change for L4D2

 

[kenta]

I wonder if there were disagreements about this decision at Valve pre-L4D2 announcement?

*cough*

 

[TheFallen]

I'll never understand this 'debate'. You guys are happy to shell out $10 for 2-4 maps from other games, but refuse to acknowledge each campaign from L4D spans just as many levels. 5 campaigns in L4D2 would be equal to $50 worth of that if not more. Add to that new characters, bug fixes, better AI director, weapons, etc, and I can't see how someone can complain.

 

[Buckethead]

Because DLC is shit that should have been in the game in the first place, this is a different game entirely, and Valve needs money to finance Half-Life 3.

 

[mattiewheels]

mainly, i'm just pissed off that my copy of l4d won't have anyone playing online next year.

 

[radjago]

Gee I wonder what hits a bigger audience. A $10 DLC or $60 retail game on retail shelves?

Truer words were never spoken. Let's say it's a $20 DLC pack, ala GTA IV. GTA IV would be lucky to have a 15% sell-through rate for DLC sold to owners of the retail game. With numbers as large as GTA's audience, the math works out pretty well, especially after that nice $50M dollar sombrero MS gave Rockstar. When you're talking about L4D's audience of 1+ million things get a little tighter. Let's say you got 20% of owners of the original game who didn't trade it in and are still playing the game a year after launch and still want new content for it. That's about $4M in revenue, which for retail means ~66K @ $60/unit, which even the Orange Box pulled off on 360. I think a highly anticipated sequel like L4D2 would certainly garner higher numbers than that, maybe even higher than the original.

 

[outsida]

I'm an admitted Valve fanboy/game addict and I will be avoiding this sequel like the plague. I can't believe this company of all company's is trying to pull this crap.

 

[-tetsuo-]

because they like money?

 

[GeneralIroh]

Want I want to know is where is Episode 3? Why release l4d2 so soon and attract less people?