There has been, it seems, something of a fuss over the announcement from Valve that they’re releasing a sequel to Left 4 Dead this November. The main point of contention has been that many were expecting more new content to be added to the original game, rather than appearing in the form of a full price sequel. This was underlined when an article on VideoGamer was rediscovered in which Valve boss Gabe Newell stated, “So we’ll do the same thing with Left 4 Dead where we’ll have the initial release and then we’ll release more movies, more characters, more weapons, unlockables, achievements, because that’s the way you continue to grow a community over time.”
We spoke to Valve’s VP of marketing, Doug Lombardi, to ask him about the player response. He talks to us about the reasons why L4D2 is a full sequel, why gamers should wait to find out more about the game before making up their minds, and how there are definitely still plans for the original Left 4 Dead.
RPS: The main point of contention has been that a while back there was a statement from Gabe Newell given to VideoGamer in which he said there were plans to add more characters, unlockables, weapons and achievements to the original Left 4 Dead.
Doug Lombardi: So, we’ve made a number of releases on the PC, and we made a pretty big release on the 360 in terms of the DLC, and we were able to get out for free which I thought would pretty cool, and it was not an easy thing to pull off. Beyond that, we plan to continue updating Left 4 Dead. We’re not done with that title, it’s not over. The SDK stuff just came out. I think we mentioned to RPS that if you’re using the SDK and making maps for it, those will work for L4D2 as well. We are trying to keep the community together – we’re going to be doing more stuff about keeping the community together as we get closer to launch.
I think the short answer is: trust us a little bit. We’ve been pretty good over the years, even with L4D going back just a few months, about supporting games post-launch. Gabe’s always talking about providing entertainment as a service – it’s not about making a game any more. That’s one point of it.
The other point is, we didn’t sit down and say, “We need to ship a sequel next for next Christmas, what features do we need?” That wasn’t the way it happened, that’s not the way Valve works. What did happen was, the team sat down and said, “We’ve got a bunch of ideas of stuff we want to do.” People were really fired up when the game was finished, and there was a lot of feedback and ideas that came from watching people play – on the scale of millions of people, as opposed to hundreds of people that we went through during the playtesting sessions. So we put a lot of those things on the board and said, “What can we do quickly? What’s going to take more time? What’s the best way to get stuff out to customers?” And part of that plan ended up with L4D2, with things like changing the way the finales worked, introducing some new Survivors, giving new dialogue, telling more about the story, introducing new Specials. We said, “Wow, that makes for a nice sequel.” And then there was the stuff in the Survival Pack which makes for a nice DLC. And what we’d like to do is release a great game, provide lots of entertainment-as-a-service type of features, whether they’re technical updates or whether it’s the Survival Pack, and then also deliver more.
RPS: So how did the sequel come about?
DL: One of the biggest pieces of feedback we got after the game came out, and even after the Survival Pack, was: this is all really great, I loved it, but I want a bunch more campaigns, I want more content. In a sense, L4D2 is a response to what players were asking for after the first one shipped. That’s really how it came about. I think if folks spot us a bit more time, they may see where we’re going with all this. The more they learn about how much there is in L4D2… I mean, twenty new weapons isn’t DLC! Three new Specials, and twenty weapons, and five new campaigns: that starts to feel like a sequel. I think as more gets unveiled as we go from E3 to Comic Con and PAX, and show the game in places where the public can play, and then when the demo comes out a couple of weeks before launch, I think people will get where we’re going, and hopefully don’t think that we’ve turned into some sort of opportunist cow milkers.
RPS: Do you wonder whether an aspect of it is that it’s been so quick? Do you think if you’d waited another six or eight months, people might have responded better?
DL: Maybe, maybe. But two years from now though, would you look back and say that was better? Like I say, give it some time: quick decisions aren’t usually the best ones. I would say that may have been part of it, people may have felt differently about it had it taken longer to produce it. The other thing is, it’s something new for Valve. Valve doesn’t have a reputation for shipping quick sequels! So it’s something different. We had similar reactions when we announced The Orange Box. There were a lot of people who thought, “It’s not going to be worth fifty dollars, all these games are really tiny,” and then by the time the game came out the review said, “The best value in gaming.” Again, I would say, let us tell more of the story before people make their final judgement. And then if they say we’re f’d, then that’s fair. [laughs]
RPS: Do you think part of the problem might have been that the Survival Pack felt like it was finishing the first game. When there were two versus campaigns that weren’t in there, it might have felt like the Survival Pack completed the game rather than added to it.
DL: Maybe. It’s hard to say, I haven’t sat down and had a calm, reasonable dialogue with a group of people that have had [this week's] reaction yet. I’ve been busy keeping it a secret, then we just announced it a couple of days ago. I also want to get more informations, I want to hear more of what their story is and what they’re reacting to, so I can understand it better, and I’m sure Gabe feels the same way. We’ll see what is the genesis of why folks are having this reaction to it. And that [the Survival Pack] might have been part of it as well, but it’s definitely not the case that we’re closing the book on L4D and saying, “Next time you get anything it’s when the sequel comes out.”
RPS: So is there any chance of new content like new maps and new campaigns in the original L4D?
DL: Yeah, there’s certainly a chance of that, and we’re not announcing any of the specifics of that today. Like I say, stay tuned, there’s more coming, there’s more information we’re going to talk about for the sequel, there’s more content coming for Left 4 Dead in the fairly near term, that I think will sort of add to this picture and hopefully change some people’s opinions of what’s happening right now.
Thanks to Doug Lombardi for taking time out of a crazed E3 schedule to talk to us. The RPS hivemind realises people are very passionate about this subject, but remains confident that the discussion below will not make us frown.
Related Stories:
@James T:
Aren’t the major criticisms coming from established expectations from Valve? Someone who has only purchased L4D from Valve would likely see this more in line with what everybody else in the industry does.
@yutt:
Once again, completely unrelated to my initial question. Why was L4D incomplete on release? What exactly was it lacking that kept it from being ‘done’?
Couldn’t they gain those expectations through mere observation?
As for ‘what it was missing’, I didn’t want to actually wade into this bollocks, but I also bought it on the condition of the promised support because I felt (after the demo) that the game as it existed would not provide very many hours at all for me before it began to feel redundant; it is, after all, a very simple game (simplicity works well for some games, not so much for others). Turns out I was right, I was hoping for something to turn the game on its head a little, and justify its pricetag, but it didn’t happen. I didn’t feel all that enraged — although I do strongly disapprove — but I completely understand people who do feel ripped off and have given Valve a tongue-lashing — don’t let the name fool you, disposable income can be anything but for some people. Young people in particular, and I’m sure Valve’s gamership skews young.
People who disregard Valve’s pre-L4D public outlining of their plans, saying that ‘whiners’ just have a sense of entitlement, are essentially insulting people who had the temerity to be intelligent — yet trusting — with their money.
Couldn’t they gain those expectations through mere observation?
Couldn’t they also learn ‘about the developer that has never charged any money for content updates’ (Gurrah) through mere observation?
@I hate airports.
My response wasn’t completely unrelated, and thus I am done wasting my time with you. You did more than ask a single question. If you are satisfied with the L4D situation, kudos to you. I am not and have explained in several thousand words here and elsewhere why that is.
If you do not understand you are not going to.
From what I can gather, on the con side of things, people are saying they want what was promised them, in reference to L4D. It isn’t so much that they’re upset about L4D2, just that it could potentially represent a broken promise in regards to the content that should be present in L4D. Is this about right?
I think that’s a valid concern, and maybe I tend to be optimistic, but Valve does have a pretty good track record. I’m not certain we can assume that the release of L4D in 5 or 6 months time means that they won’t deliver on the promises of L4D. Hopefully this will simply expand the whole experience, and give people a chance to pick from 1 of 8 characters, and a total of 8 or 9 maps, plus the different modes. However, word is that this is a full sequel, so I’m not sure if the games will “merge” in any way, but they are using the same engine, so it does seem very feasible as well. A seqspansion?
The thing I’m mostly excited for is the ramped up Director, and the ability to dynamically create scenarios within a given map depending on your skill. That will make for some heroic stories that are quite varied. The other stuff will be a nice addition, but it wouldn’t entirely change the experience in the way that the new Director has the potential to do.
I’m not quite ready to sign off this situation as a basic corporation money grab, especially since Valve has never before given us that impression, or shown that kind of behavior.
Why would that make them conclude that there wouldn’t be any updates to L4D?
At Jalf
“No, no one is “is complaining that there is no free content updates for half life 2″, and the key reason for that is that Gabe Newell never *promised* free content updates for HL2. For L4D, he did. He promised new weapons, special infected and campaigns. And he promised that these additions would be made available *faster* than was the case for TF2.”
Ummm i think you will find that Gabe ‘promised’ 6 mothnly episodic updates for half life 2….yeah.
gents, stop whining becuase you didnt get things not hinted at in previews.
OMG!
An idea just hit me.
Wouldn’t it be cool if Left 4 Dead 2 updated Left 4 Dead 1 with all those functionality based features and that the point of the sequel is just to present a different story in the world of the zombie apocalypse?
And everyone of all those Left 4 Dead versions will be united under one server browser for user made content.
Left 4 Dead 3: Paris, Left 4 Dead 4: Tokyo, Left 4 Dead 5: Siberia….
A guy can dream.
Hehe, I’d be down with that…
@autogunner: You’re bad at this.
i will take that as a compliment
@markcocjin
They cant.
They need something to justify why they’re selling L4D2 as a full priced game.
If they would update the AI director & etc of original L4D, L4D2 would seem merely like an expansion pack.
I for one share the outrage about L4D2.
If it were a true sequel, it would be in a new engine. It would also be a monster raising sim with some platforming elements, as I expected.
Valve is just making another amazing game where you kill zombies. My sense of betrayal is palpable.
I’m glad im not the only one a bit dissapointed in this announcement. Valve have been a very cool developer for many years so i am going to give them the benefit of the doubt and wait to see what happens. I hope the rest of you guys do too.
It’s called AIM ;)
Thanks for getting us some more info John! I’m now feeling equal measures of excitement and worry. Which for now, will do.
With the arrival of DawgUndawg, I would like to take this opportunity to remind everyone, don’t respond to a comment you *know* is going to be deleted
Edit:I am well aware of the irony
I feel fortunate I purchased the game during their last weekend sale for half the initial price. It’ll be interesting to see how they handle this and if they offer discounts to L4D owners come November (pre-order discounts via Steam?).
PC Gamer UK 195
Left 4 Dead Review: 93%. Must Buy.
‘As long as they keep introducing new missions, there’s no reason why this won’t be sucking on your bandwidth for years to come’ -Craig Pearson
One of the main problems in the L4D2 issue, is that Valve accepted all the feedback alright. However, they took all those neat ideas and tried to earn money off them.
Had any of the feedback people known that the ideas they proposed would be implemented into a new full priced sequel, not into a free DLC pack, they wouldn’t have thought of additions to the game to begin with.
Or they would expect payment if they had chosen to give valve the creative ideas that fuel the games, I think that is what’s fueling the fire.
I believe in Valve and all, but, I for one, would actually sue Valve, if they *SELL* any idea I suggest to improve the game via *FREE DLC* without my consent.
@Osama Haggag: I don’t think so. But If that make you happy, feel free that. But I doubt any game studio “uses” the ideas from forums for the next weapon/etc. It just don’t work like that (I think).
Right, so … I’m not sure that this needs to be repeated, but I wanted to add my .02 …
L4D was fucking short. I beat the entire thing in a weekend, and experienced everything the game had to offer, on expert, in 2 weeks. For a game that costs $20, I would be happy with this. For a game that costs $50, it feels like a tease – especially from a developer like Valve, who I trust to release content that is worth my dollars.
Long story short, before L4D, I was in the mindset that I would purchase anything Valve released on day 1. Now I feel a bit betrayed, and I am more skeptical of L4D2. If it releases at $20, then I will probably jump right in, but if they expect me to shell out another $50, $100 total, for one complete game, then … well, that’s a joke.
You’re judging it in terms of a single-player game, from the sound of it. If that’s how you see it, fine, but I don’t think it’s all that accurate to do so.
and @ all the irrational comparisons to HL2:
HL2 was a 20+ hour single player FPS, with multiplayer, and free mods. Worth $50 for sure.
L4D can be beaten entirely in one night, and has very limited, very shallow multiplayer.
There’s no value comparison, and that’s where the disconnect is. We all EXPECT Valve games to be worth $50, and for most of us, L4D was too short to be worth $50 at release… hence the whole furor about a sequel.
I, for one, would like to kill more zombies as I hate their kind. I am willing to pay money for this opportunity, which is why I work for a living (sorta).
Not sure if anyone saw this yet, but they seem well aware of the possibility of a disjointed community and are looking to try and salvage the two.
What amazes me about this is not that people are displeased (which I can understand, even if I don’t fully agree), it’s the sheer amount of fury. Valve did not insult your mom, or rape your dog. (Though I’m pretty sure that DRM, and possibly Bioshock, were already responsible for both of these.)
@ Tei: Yes, I too miss the halcyon days when RPS was a club of gentlemen, when we wore smoking jackets and swirled brandy, discussing the latest electronic entertainments of the day. Also, back when everyone wasn’t so shouty all the time.
Well, here’s my thing. When I got Left 4 Dead, I did so under the expectation that they’d update it with plenty of extra content – like, a new full campaign or two. I am fine with letting a game grow into itself. With Left 4 Dead 2 coming out now, very probably they’re not going to release new campaigns for Left 4 Dead 1. Possibly, also, modders are going to make their new campaigns for Left 4 Dead 2 (though if there’s compatibility between the two, then I suppose we can hope that most modders prefer to make them compatible with the original).
Essentially, the announcement of L4D2 means that my expectations of ever getting the L4D1 expansions that, at the time of purchase, I thought I’d get have been reduced drastically. This is probably my own fault for expecting more than what the game started with at launch – like I misinterpreted what they meant when they said they’d follow the TF2 model – but it still stings a bit.
@Thirith
It’s an interesting point, that due to the way L4D is played the maps are more equivalent to a single player game, albeit with a lot more care taken to avoid ’sploits.
Because players are running past things A-B and not fighting in an arena, there’s only so many times someone can run the same course without getting jaded.
It does get repetitive, especially in VS where the tactics are quickly generally well known and you are expecting the ambushes at largely set times.
Re: “Yes, I too miss the halcyon days when RPS was a club of gentlemen, when we wore smoking jackets and swirled brandy, discussing the latest electronic entertainments of the day. Also, back when everyone wasn’t so shouty all the time”
@Smithee: I edited my comment removing that, to avoid putting more oil in the fire. Thanks anyway. I think this site is still what you describe.
@Smithee
I would consider myself more disappointed than angry. It’s the kind of disappointment that you might have when your star pupil graffitis the school. You expected better and suspect the rough kids were involved somehow.
Also, when I heard the news the shock caused my monocle to drop straight into my brandy, splashing my silk smoking jacket and ruining all three. Harumph!
@Smithee
I for one welcome our shouty angrylords, etc.
Besides, smoking jackets weren’t doing it for me.
I wont be in the least bit surprised if i don’t feel ripped off when I buy L4D2.
“What amazes me about this is not that people are displeased (which I can understand, even if I don’t fully agree), it’s the sheer amount a fury. Valve did not insult your mom, or rape your dog. (Though I’m pretty sure that DRM, and possibly Bioshock, were already responsible for both of these.)”
I break people’s arms for looking at me funny. Nailing Gabe’s cat to the front of a 4×4 and going to play dodgems on the highway is not fury, merely mild-irritation-tinged-with-disappointment :P
As someone said earlier, L4D feels more like a mod than a game. It’s Valve’s problem as far as I’m concerned. If they want to bring out a sequel now fair enough, however since the first has proven to be little better than a short thirty minute diversion they’d have to work incredibly hard to convince me to pay full price for a sequel.
‘The engine used has not progressed one bit so there are no technical limitations with this, this is just Valve gouging with one of their most popular titles, plain and simple.”
I’d think a rather large overhaul of the AI counts as engine progression.
It’s funny that on one hand people will demand a new engine/game entirely, then complain that it’s not like the old one. I’m not saying you’re doing this, but frankly, I love the idea of L4D2 this soon.
People are totally spoiled by this company, and the second they ever charge money people are up in arms. They’re adding 20 new guns, new special infected, new normal infected (in terms of models/texturing/etc), new maps, new modes, new ends to maps, new TYPES of weapons (melee uses), new ammunition types, and overhauled the AI Director.
How do you think these people make money? Giving this all away? That’s a lot of fucking work.
Erlam wrote “I’d think a rather large overhaul of the AI counts as engine progression.”
I don’t think so, I guest all that code is on the “gamecode” and not on the engine. Part of the mod. But I could be wrong. Also, since the “engine” is really modular, what you call engine or mod is somewhat moot point.
@Erlam
Actually on the ‘types’ of weapons. I believe Chet made a sideways reference to the Gas Cans etc. being melee weapons (when picked up). I would not be surprised if these new ones worked in the same way i.e. can only be used or dropped but not carried.
That’s a guess, they may well add a weapon slot for these.
For all the upset manscreams, a big thankyou to the hivemind for your continued efforts with comments moderation (not to mention persisting articles of splendour).
It must be tough having to deal with so many over the top, venomous posts.
@JonFitt
No, from what I’ve seen that’s accurate. They seem to be dropped when you get pounced the same way a gas can would be.
@I hate planes.
Hey now. I would pay good money for Boomer Jarate, imbalance or no.
Seriously though, I don’t quite understand why people feel betrayed by Valve over broken promises. They really aren’t looking out for your best interests, with *any* of their games.
Buying left4dead for content that didn’t actually exist at the time was probably a bit silly.
Good to get some word from Doug on this. Events are as I called it, it seems. Hopefully next time there is a ‘gaming surprise’ the usual suspects of AIM won’t be so fast to pass judgement.
If we can have a Valve game this Fall, I’m all for it. This is far from a UT2003/UT2004 deal, come on. People just aren’t used to Valve releasing sequels without a decade in between. The best news out of all this so far is that the SDK will work for both.
Well when Valve can’t even make a proper conversion between dollars and euros then why should I trust them?
@ JonFitt
re: “It’s the kind of disappointment that you might have when your star pupil graffitis the school.”
I think that’s a fair comparison. Valve has set such a high bar relative to the rest of the industry that it’s easy to feel let down, especially given the expectations that we would see more L4D DLC than just Survival mode and the final two vs. levels. I feel it too. I would have preferred that Valve spend a bit of time to give us another campaign or two, then move on to the sequel. (To be fair, maybe we will see more content – but at this point it looks like we’ll just get improved matchmaking, the SDK, and some bug fixes.)
Does that mean I’m disappointed there’s going to be a L4D2 with all sorts of shiny new features? Not at all. I’m glad to see new L4D, whether its free DLC or not.
@ apnea
Other formalwear is also accepable. A tuxedo, perhaps.
w/e, still no word on EP3 ?
I doubt Valve are dumb enough to try this argument, but in any case, breaking an informal contract (see pre-release comments from Valve staff) carries — in this case — an informal cost (ie, a loss of the naturally fragile trust between consumer and producer, and your revenue suffers).
*** VALVE GIVE PC CUSTOMERS COLD SHOULDER SHOCKER ***
Okay, well that’s a bit of an extreme way of putting it, but I’m mostly thinking that it has more do to with the console version than anything else. I’ll explain.
Every time Valve wants to update a console version they have to pay Microsoft tens of thousands of dollars for it to go through compliance checks and if they don’t want to charge for it (and let Microsoft take a cut) they still have to pay Microsoft for their bandwidth. My flatmate (the more console-inclined of the two of us) was playing TF2 on the 360 the other day. They still don’t have the Kritzkrieg. They’re missing a ton of map updates, unlocks, fixes (I saw people building teleporters through the doors on Dust) because it’s expensive to deliver the service we get on the PC through Microsoft.
So, yes, in theory Valve could do L4D as updates, or they could do it as DLC, but they have to pay Microsoft more money if they do this. If they sell the same as a fresh disc they only have to pay someone else for the advertising space and the distribution, all the other costs can be absorbed by Valve.
But there’s another stumbling block which is more to do with practise than theory. The 360 only has a puny 512MB of RAM. All of the extra content like weapon models, textures and sounds are all loaded into RAM when you start a game. So if Valve want to mix extra content together and have it in the game at the same time (i.e. new weapons + old weapons; new Special Infected + old Special Infected), they would need to find a way to compress it all into no more than 512MB at a time. This isn’t as much of a problem on the PC where anyone who can run L4D needs at least 1GB RAM (this is the minimum spec on the box). Valve have also cited this reason for why the 360 DLC for TF2 (with the weapon unlocks and maps) is taking so long.
So Valve is between a rock and a hard place because they wanted a bigger piece of the pie and they wanted a presence on the consoles, but it seems like doing this is making them compromise the awesome relationship they have built with their PC customers. This is the root of much of the ill feeling: the PC customers know this can be done as DLC and it doesn’t need to cost the same as a full-price game; we know this should be L4D: The Survivor Diaries and not L4D2. This should be HL2 Episodes cost bracket, not HL2 cost bracket.
They could give the DLC free or cheaper to PC customers, but then they would piss off the console customers. They didn’t have to worry about this as much with the OB customers because they were getting an awesome deal anyway with 5 games in 1. Or maybe their market research is telling them that the console customers are pissed they can’t have the updates the PC customers get, so they wanted to make it more ‘equal’. Anyway, I don’t see how Valve can do this without pissing one of their customer bases off, unless they absorb the cost of DLC on the consoles or give PC customers an almighty Steam-only discount.
@James T:
I’m not saying that Valve should have made these promises if they’re not willing to keep them. Although, they might still, but I think probably not.
People seem to have bought left4dead on the assumption that they would receive great additional content post release along the lines of tf2. Regardless of what Valve should have done, I find this incredibly naive. They didn’t enter into anything binding, and if it makes more sense to them to charge for a sequel, that’s what they’ll do, whatever their track record.
The lesson here, I suppose, is to assume nothing.
@Daniel Rivas
There was nothing binding but there was an explicit statement in interview.
Statements are pretty much as firm as you’re going to get with games. We only have statements to suggest that the Demoman and Soldier will get unlocks for instance.
They’re also pretty flimsy, look at Mr Romero and Mr Molyneux for instance.
But reputations are built and destroyed in the games industry based on statements vs reality.
Plant42, I’m not sure if you’re trolling this thread or not, but no, you didn’t wait a year for the other two versus campaigns. They came out five months after the release.
@JonFitt:
And so, people should not buy TF2 on the promise of Demoman and Soldier unlocks. It doesn’t matter if “Statements are pretty much as firm as you’re going to get with games.”, a nonbinding statement shouldn’t be enough to sell a game, at least not if you aren’t prepared to get burned by the company.