More Left4Dead DLC Planned

[Evil Avatar]

http://evilavatar.com/images/thumbs/left4dead_logo.jpg

The recently sold-out-to-the-man L4D2 Boycott group has a forum post (http://l4d2boycott.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=announce&thread=387&page=1) about their visit to Valve, including word that more Left4Dead DLC is in development.

Now for some good news: There is more DLC for Left 4 Dead coming after CrashCourse. We were given a rough idea of what it should be, however we were asked not to talk too much about it so it didn’t “influence the creative process”. I can tell you this: it’ll either be a new Special Infected, a new Campaign or new Weapon(s). It’s definitely one of the three, perhaps more. This is pretty much the only thing that we were asked not to talk about (remember, *asked* we didn’t sign anything). To that end, we’ll continue to bug Chet about this after Crash Course drops.

I can tell you guys this though; Chet and the rest of the L4D team are still excited about the original four survivors and working the stories of L4D and L4D2 together. To that end, Gabe told us that they’re working on a project that will bridge the stories of L4D and L4D2 and that it will be available through steam (I believe the word ‘free’ was tossed in there too, just don’t quote me on it). It was also hinted at that they were doing something for the Mod community; Agent of Chaos heard more about that though.

I wonder if it will be another $10 on the Xbox 360.

[ruumis]

this is promising. sucks for anyone bought it for 360, but hey... didn't we all learn our lesson from the orange box?

[vallancian]

they wouldnt charge people the dlc for 360 if microsoft didnt charge them "bandwidth" use which is hardly anything. it just seems another one of microsofts forced options to cash in on something good

[Evil Avatar]

they wouldnt charge people the dlc for 360 if microsoft didnt charge them "bandwidth" use which is hardly anything. it just seems another one of microsofts forced options to cash in on something good

Microsoft doesn't charge for bandwidth. Sony does.

Microsoft makes developers charge for DLC in order to keep the Xbox Live Marketplace from becoming the place people go to for 'Free' content. They want the content to have 'value' and so they make companies (even companies like Valve with a history of free updates) charge for their content. It is both a way to monetize the system and a way to keep the 'idea' in place that DLC has value.

On the PC, gamers expected to get all post-release content for free. Microsoft doesn't want that to happen. They never want you to have the expectation that the content should be free.

It has worked like a miracle. I can only guess, but it seems like some games (Call of Duty: World at War) are making more profit from DLC than from the sale of the game.

[Shela Monster]

this is promising. sucks for anyone bought it for 360, but hey... didn't we all learn our lesson from the orange box?
True, I might have missed out on all the PC "benefits" of most Valve games.
However, I don't regret all the fun I had with friends who don't have computers who can play "high-end" games.

Maybe I'll get L4D & L4D2 on PC, should I see the support for the platform be much greater than that of the 360.
Until then, I'll be screaming and running with friends on Live! :D

~Shela Monster

[shadow763]

Maybe I'll get L4D & L4D2 on PC, should I see the support for the platform be much greater than that of the 360.
Until then, I'll be screaming and running with friends on Live! :D

~Shela Monster

The support on the PC is leaps and bounds ahead of anything on Live. I would choose that over Live any day. Plus having to play for each piece of additional content should be reason alone that everyone picks up the PC version over the 360 one.

[yutt]

It is amazing social engineering of consumer expectations on Microsoft's part. I am disheartened each time I see even previous PC gamers who grew up in the generation of gaming where support was part of the product, who now simply accept and parrot the marketing speak.

"DLC has value! You greedy entitled bastard!"

Of course DLC has value. And so does my money and continued goodwill as a consumer. Some companies still realize that.

We live in a world where companies would bill you for a door greeting if they could get away with it. On gaming sites especially, I hear a constant din of pro-capitalist rhetoric, combined with consumers who have never been more willfully ignorant and apathetic regarding their responsibilities to the market.

Alas.

[yutt]

[QUOTE=Shela Monster;1789161]However, I don't regret all the fun I had with friends who don't have computers who can play "high-end" games./QUOTE]My computer is at least 5 years old, was a budget PC then (~$600), and runs L4D perfectly fine.

The hardware cost of being a PC gamer is greatly exaggerated. Especially in an age where everyone already owns some type of PC. It isn't a console versus PC decisions, you already have both. It is a gaming PC versus console and PC decision.

I don't understand where these pernicious exaggerations of PC gaming hardware costs came from. Granted some enthusiasts spend ridiculous amounts of money and upgrade obsessively, but that is hardly a requirement. With a good mid-range gaming PC you can spend <$1000 and get a good 4-5 years life of playability.

And again, you already own a PC. So the the additional costs over most people's desktops can't be much more than a modern console.

I own a Wii and 360 additionally, so no one needs to inform me of the conveniences those can bring versus a PC. I'm just saying, PC gaming isn't as expensive as popular myth suggests.

[Anenome]

True, Yutt. Plus, you don't buy a pc simply to game, so it's not like the entire cost is for gaming. For the utility a pc brings, it might actually be cheaper than a console for gaming. That's a fairly nebulous concept, but it makes sense. Most people -need-, literally need a computer for other areas of their life. Thus, the gaming is 'free'.

[Wyrm]

Microsoft doesn't charge for bandwidth. Sony does.

Microsoft makes developers charge for DLC in order to keep the Xbox Live Marketplace from becoming the place people go to for 'Free' content. They want the content to have 'value' and so they make companies (even companies like Valve with a history of free updates) charge for their content. It is both a way to monetize the system and a way to keep the 'idea' in place that DLC has value.

On the PC, gamers expected to get all post-release content for free. Microsoft doesn't want that to happen. They never want you to have the expectation that the content should be free.

It has worked like a miracle. I can only guess, but it seems like some games (Call of Duty: World at War) are making more profit from DLC than from the sale of the game.

For them, Call of Duty: World at War is a shining example of how to do it right, even though its DLC is mostly overpriced. Then you have Blizzard, splitting Starcraft II into three games.

Where does this end? Do we eventually buy the game bit by bit? Do we pay for each unit we buy in a real time strategy match with actual cash?

I know that sounds insane, but there isn't anyone talking about this. Some industry people are saying how great it is that we have DLC as it allows them to expand the game after release, and the haters are saying that it should all be free. Well, the truth is somewhere in between. New maps that are developed after the game is released should probably cost money. Five or ten dollars is too much money for those things. They know this, but they can charge it because people will buy it anyway.

But we also know, that for every game that produces a few great DLC content packs, there are hundreds more that either don't get DLC, or have content that lacks the polish and flavor of the original (see: Mass Effect).

I think, and this is purely conjecture, that eventually, you'll buy a game, and instead of optional registration, it will be mandatory. It will require a monthly or yearly fee to receive upgrades for the game, and if you choose not to pay it, you won't be able to play online or update your game.

In other words, it would be like Steam, but with a yearly fee.

[prence]

They want the content to have 'value' and so they make companies (even companies like Valve with a history of free updates) charge for their content. It is both a way to monetize the system and a way to keep the 'idea' in place that DLC has value.

They don't MAKE companies do anything. EA/Criterion released a bunch of free content with no strings attached. Hell, they added an entire new chapter (bike license) to their game for free.

If Valve wanted to, I'm sure they could push MS hard enough to give away free DLC. Epic did it with GOW1 and got all pissy when MS tried to make them charge for the second map pack so it became free after a month or something like that. (Of course their 'DLC should be free' strategy pulled a complete 180 with GOW2 because I've spent like 70 bucks on damn map packs.)

[prence]

Err.. that EA/Criterion comment was about Burnout Paradise in case nobody got that.

[saulob]

Another campaign? In another game form.

That's sucks.

[firecut]

I wonder if it will be another $10 on the Xbox 360.

Of course it will. Something has to pay for all the chairs Ballmer breaks. :p

[ruumis]

True, I might have missed out on all the PC "benefits" of most Valve games.
However, I don't regret all the fun I had with friends who don't have computers who can play "high-end" games.

I have a very modest gaming PC, built in March 2004, and with parts that weren't cutting edge even back then. I have upgraded it incrementally, and I am relatively satisfied with the way it plays Valve's source-engine games. Yes, my 360 can probably run circles around it. But I'd still play those games on my PC instead of my 360, without hesitation.