Kotick is an asshole

[DemolitionSquid]

Am I missing something here?

Only one thing.

The person can be smart.
People... well, people are stupid.

[Pandonetho]

What's so great about fallout 3 anyway? I played it, beat it, felt disappointed to be honest.

[Xyvik]

What's so great about fallout 3 anyway? I played it, beat it, felt disappointed to be honest.

I have to agree with this, actually. I enjoyed it, but it reminded me too much of Oblivion: it's great for the first week/two weeks until you realize that there's not a whole lot going on under the surface.

To be perfectly honest I enjoyed Stalker a heck of a lot more than I enjoyed Fallout. Stalker had more atmosphere and pure scare factor and it just felt more real than Fallout 3 ever did. Oh, and I hated starting the game as a child. Why can't developers put their tutorials outside of their games instead of wasting a good hour of our lives?

Only one thing.

The person can be smart.
People... well, people are stupid.

Ah, how true. To put it in one of my favorite ways:

A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it. Fifteen hundred years ago everybody knew the Earth was the center of the universe. Five hundred years ago, everybody knew the Earth was flat, and fifteen minutes ago, you knew that humans were alone on this planet. Imagine what you'll know tomorrow.

[Gifted]

[sandwich_bird]

See, this is exactly what I don't get about the anti-L4D2 faction. Allow me to see if I can understand it.

Fallout 3, to use your example, cost $50 at startup. I don't know how much the DLCs cost when they first came out, but right now you can buy 2 2-packs for a total combined price of $40.

By all accounts the DLCs didn't actually include all that much new stuff in them. By all accounts L4D2 is even bigger than L4D1, with 4 full campaigns, five new "uncommon" zombies, three (or was it 4?) brand new zombie heroes, a slew of new melee weapons, completely new and upgraded models for all players AND zombies, an updated Director that completely changes the levels even MORE than the last time around, including weather and time of day...

It is essentially a giant DLC pack all rolled into one. If Valve had released it as such nobody would have raised an eyebrow. But they tout it as a sequel, which it rightly is as big as one (and larger than many sequels I've seen) and people suddenly think this is a bad thing?

Am I missing something here?

No I meant Fallout 3 without the DLC(DLC that cost are really a bitch trend) has more value than L4D and L4D2 combined. My point is not that they should have released 12 DLC for 20$ each instead of a sequel but that they should have made more content from the start. Since they didn't, they could have supported the game with free DLC like their frist one(which added survival and versus mode to 2 more campaign, once again something that should have been there from the start), the crash course campaign or like what they did with Call of Duty world at war and their free map packs. Instead, they make another game with the same value as the first one and will make us pay the full price for it once again. This game will sell because the REAL idiots will buy it and by doing so, will tell Valve that they can charge the same price as a great game for an unfinished one.

Obviously this argument doesn't stand for SC2 like someone tried to say in the thread. WOL will be a full game from the start and will be worth way more than L4D + L4D2 + L4d3 combined and so saying that SC2 trilogy is a way to milk the franchise is stupid.

[Xyvik]

Your logic is kinda circular. If you don't like L4D1 then why are you even worried about L4D2? I'm not a big fan of L4D myself, but that doesn't mean I go around accusing Valve of being irresponsible.

The L4D2 BoyCott Reality

Might want to take a look at this.

[sandwich_bird]

Your logic is kinda circular. If you don't like L4D1 then why are you even worried about L4D2? I'm not a big fan of L4D myself, but that doesn't mean I go around accusing Valve of being irresponsible.

The L4D2 BoyCott Reality

Might want to take a look at this.

I liked L4D1, I just hate the fact that the game lacked so much content.

About this article:

By September, Valve personally invited the group founders to their headquarters and let them play test Left 4 Dead 2. When the group leaders came back, they reported that the sequel was actually coming along well and felt very improved over the first game and had also announced that Valve had more DLC planned beyond Crash Course.

L4D2 is coming out in 2 weeks. Even if they make more DLC for L4D1, why would you even want it when you have L4D2? It's too late at this point.

[Xyvik]

But if you don't want to shell out the bucks for L4D2 you still get additional content for L4D1.

I'm really not trying to be argumentative here, I really don't enjoy arguing. I'm seriously just attempting to figure out where you're coming from. I mean, technically Valve nor any other company owe us anything for free, and yet they've done just that for TF2 and L4D1. What does L4D2 do to disrupt that? I seem to recall reading somewhere that there were technical reasons the content in L4D2 couldn't have been included in DLCs, most notably the Director 2.0.

I'm not trying to sway you here, just trying to understand.

[newcomplex]

I liked L4D1, I just hate the fact that the game lacked so much content.

About this article:

L4D2 is coming out in 2 weeks. Even if they make more DLC for L4D1, why would you even want it when you have L4D2? It's too late at this point.

If it lacks content, then do not buy it. The funny part is, valve is even delivering on their promise of free content above and beyond what most companies support, even as the sequel is being released, while releasing a sequel that people will buy because...logically...they want to play it.

What are they doing wrong here? Keeping their promise? Releasing free content? Or releasing a sequel that people want to play?