![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Well, just sell L4D and buy the sequel. Oops...
It's about time people realize that Valve is only looking out for #1.
It makes them just like every other publisher in the world. There are plenty of developers who care more about games than money.
I believe it's more widespread than you think
All indications point to L4D2 being a full stand-alone game, as that's precisely what Valve's said on the matter. I assume that Valve isn't mixing the terms "expansion" and "full game", as they're well aware of the differences.
This is more than a mere tweak to Valve's business model: this is more like a complete about-face of Valve's commonly-touted customer-oriented principles.
You're trying to attach a very particular, very confused and in all likelihood very erroneous view of the typical boycotter's mindset. You ascribe the dissention to a sense of self-entitlement when the reality is that the dissention exists because of claims made that never became reality.
If a company alienates their customer base, from whom do they expect to reap profit?
Why did you ignore my "it's against Valve's previous track record?"
Again, it's against their track record. There's no contract, this isn't court. However, it was expressed many times prior and following L4D's release that we would be getting new content. New content that WASN'T Survival Mode, mind you (although that definitely counts as new content). Who's to say we still won't get more stuff? No one, really... but I know for a fact that there's more/new stuff in L4D2, which is looking to be a full-priced game.. only a year after the release of the first one.
Get used to it? It's that public mentality that gets them to even think these schemes up. "Well, there's going to be dissenters but obviously they'll be in the minority - the idiot masses will still pay up!"
They mean the quality of the L4D multiplayer community. Obviously, if L4D2 is released as a separate title, that's less people for L4D owners to play with. That's what they mean by hurting the multiplayer community. They're alienating the owners of the first game with such a soon release of the second.
1. Nope. This is all precautionary.
CS Source was released a year after CS? Or even a year after 1.6?? Not nearly the same, dude.
Fixed.
valve went downhill with tf2
no grenades, wtf?
bboynitrous said:
Fourth, at least, by my count.
I'd love to believe that but living in the corprate world I've seen many instances where people would sell their own mum down the river for a cookie... let alone to line their pockets.I believe it's more widespread than you think
Again here though we are moving on assumptions; it may very well come across as a full priced game it's hard to say. Personally I've always questionned Valve's pricing model considering they are cutting out publishers etc... granted those costs are replaced by servers and bandwidth, who knows maybe this ended up being a more expensice endevor than initially anticipated.
Again this happens; many companies have had to move from one business model to another because the economic enviroment warranted it or just corprate greed demanded it. Believe me I'n not saying that this isn't a dick move, because it is but it's not something I'm going to begrudge them for. I'll likely not buy L4D2, (frankly the novelty of L4D wore off long ago and updates wouldn't have changed that...)
There is probably a fair mix of both in the group; some that are legetimately annoyed that the support hasn't come because it was promised and other that just think they deserve it. Like I said in an earlier post; the 'Gimmie it, it's mine' generation seems to be alive and well.
I'm saying it may very well be; we don't know because we as the general public don't have a view into the inner workings of the company. The stuff they release for free might very well cost them more than it is worth to release it; there fore it becomes a very bad business to release it right?
Lets be honest here; of the people bitching how many will actually not buy the game? If you enjoyed the first you'll likely buy the second; all this talk of principal is all well and good but I've only found a handful of people in my lifetime who's principals weren't for sale in some compasity. Bleak outlook maybe but this is what I've experienced.
Oops?
Oh wait, they never promised anything, right?
So they should be held to a different standard than any other company? Why? Track record doesn't amount to anything in todays world, (largest auto manufacturer in the US going belly up.) Falls back to the old addage 'Shit happens.'
I'm not seeing a point here; maybe TF2 is more economically viable of a product? Maybe Gabe has a hard-on for the spy who knows. The decision on L4D/L4D2 is likely a purely economic one; ultimately they are a company out there to make money. If they feel supporting games like TF2 will get them more money than supporting L4D than that is the way they'll roll it.
Again this is likely an economic decision; think of it this way; they may need the revenue from L4D2 to continue to support both packages... without insider insight it's all conjecture.
This is part of the risk/reward system that most if not all companies work under. "How far can we push something before it breaks... OK now lets back that off to the point where we break some but keep most and keep our cost/expenditures at the correct level."
Doesn't seem to have held true with CS1.6/CS:Source, both seem to have a fairly large following yet... point for Valve was they were able to charge for CS:Source...ergo revenue.
Where is the logic in this? I think you may do something so I'm going to premptively kick your ass... eeh?
Again you think one publisher should be held to a different standard than others... maybe Valve just wanted to increase revenue and this was the most effective way to do it... could be worse they could micro-transaction the game so if you wanted new weapons that would cost you x, new maps x+2 etc...)
That's nice...Valve wants Valve to be profitilble... Free doesn't feed the kids.
You Googled it so it must be true... though it probably is; and I don't blame them for it; it's not easy nore cheap any more to develop games, (AAA games), and if they feel they can't recoup their initial costs for buying the IP and finishing/expanding everything with the release of one game and the continued support of that one game; then yes I would sell the next one as well.
no idea when the 2 were released; though they are the same, (exact same) games only difference is CS:Source can generate revenue, 1.6 cannot.