In the face of a growing boycott of Left 4 Dead 2, Valve co-founder Gabe Newell has said that his company will continue to support the first game in the series after the sequel launches.
"Well we’re going to continue to do DLC for Left 4 Dead. That hasn’t stopped at all. We’re continuing to do updates for Left 4 Dead even after Left 4 Dead 2 ships. So, that hasn’t changed. We’re just doing Left 4 Dead 2 - different settings, different characters, and continuing to push the technology forward", Newell told G4.
"If the AI director 2.0 and stuff like that makes more sense to do where you’ve got new geometries and can take advantage of that rather than trying to take advantage of that in pre-existing maps and build new monsters and take advantage of it as well. So, we’re going to continue to do DLC for Left 4 Dead and continue to support that product. And then, also do Left 4 Dead 2."
The boycott group (nearly 26,000 strong at the time of publication) claims that Valve has failed to provide the support for Left 4 Dead that it promised. It also claims that the release of the sequel will render the first game obsolete. If Newell's claims hold up, those concerns should be put to bed.
You can read more about the whole fiasco here.
Source: G4
"Well we’re going to continue to do DLC for Left 4 Dead. That hasn’t stopped at all. We’re continuing to do updates for Left 4 Dead even after Left 4 Dead 2 ships. So, that hasn’t changed. We’re just doing Left 4 Dead 2 - different settings, different characters, and continuing to push the technology forward", Newell told G4.
"If the AI director 2.0 and stuff like that makes more sense to do where you’ve got new geometries and can take advantage of that rather than trying to take advantage of that in pre-existing maps and build new monsters and take advantage of it as well. So, we’re going to continue to do DLC for Left 4 Dead and continue to support that product. And then, also do Left 4 Dead 2."
The boycott group (nearly 26,000 strong at the time of publication) claims that Valve has failed to provide the support for Left 4 Dead that it promised. It also claims that the release of the sequel will render the first game obsolete. If Newell's claims hold up, those concerns should be put to bed.
You can read more about the whole fiasco here.
Source: G4
Read More Like This
Comments
Joji 11 Jun 2009 12:21
1/2
Really, I don't see what all the fuss is about (well I do really), but boycotting the game seems dumb. All fans should be doing, is asking Valve to release L4D2 in 2010 instead, then we'd hopefully get enough single player stuff from it.
And there I was thinkng these same people, would support boycotting Activision over the Brutal Legend fiasco instead. Oh well.
And there I was thinkng these same people, would support boycotting Activision over the Brutal Legend fiasco instead. Oh well.
Hyper 13 Jun 2009 01:33
2/2
The one group of people that seems to be missing in most of the comments on the boycott group site and the articles on the web are the server owners.
As a server owner, I support L4D by paying for 4 West Coast servers out of my own pocket that have had in total roughly 17000 players since they were started 4 months ago. As well, I work for a server company that provides numerous servers for TF2, L4D, CS:S and other Valve games.
One disturbing trend I have seen is the daily cancellation of L4D servers. Since the 'Survival Pack' the company I work for has seen a 70% increase in server cancellations of servers that service Central North America and the West Coast. That number increases daily.
The biggest drop was right after the 'Survival Pack' when people began to realize how minor the changes actually were. Most people played Survival mode until they got the achievements and then moved back to Co-op or Versus. We lost 45% of the servers within days of that release.
The second spike was right after the news about L4D2. That was about 20% of the servers. The other 5% has been just due to attrition since the DLC was released.
Now, obviously there have been new servers started, but the total loss of server coverage totals about 70% in the company I work for, and I work for a s**tty little hole in the wall no one even knows about. In actual numbers that means about 110 servers are now shut down in the past couple months with my employer alone. I wonder how this has affected Gameservers or Darkstar.
I should mention that most of the people canceling servers have been very vocal about why they're canceling them, and I agree with the majority of their reasons, especially about the release of L4D2.
So, I pose this question to you, do you think splitting the games community base will increase or decrease the number of servers for both games?
Secondly, do you think server owners that are canceling their servers will be rushing out to start a L4D2 server after they feel that they've been burned by Valve?
The answers are pretty obvious.
All you flame-baiters screaming about the boycott group being a bunch of whining retards might want to think about that, because without the server owners, you'd have no where to play either game.
As for myself, I don't have any choice but to 'get' the game since it's purchased for me by my employer for troubleshooting and testing. However, I'll be shutting down my servers the day L4D2 is released unless both games can be serviced by a single server and other significant issues about the release of L4D2 are satisfactorily dealt with by Valve.
As a server owner, I support L4D by paying for 4 West Coast servers out of my own pocket that have had in total roughly 17000 players since they were started 4 months ago. As well, I work for a server company that provides numerous servers for TF2, L4D, CS:S and other Valve games.
One disturbing trend I have seen is the daily cancellation of L4D servers. Since the 'Survival Pack' the company I work for has seen a 70% increase in server cancellations of servers that service Central North America and the West Coast. That number increases daily.
The biggest drop was right after the 'Survival Pack' when people began to realize how minor the changes actually were. Most people played Survival mode until they got the achievements and then moved back to Co-op or Versus. We lost 45% of the servers within days of that release.
The second spike was right after the news about L4D2. That was about 20% of the servers. The other 5% has been just due to attrition since the DLC was released.
Now, obviously there have been new servers started, but the total loss of server coverage totals about 70% in the company I work for, and I work for a s**tty little hole in the wall no one even knows about. In actual numbers that means about 110 servers are now shut down in the past couple months with my employer alone. I wonder how this has affected Gameservers or Darkstar.
I should mention that most of the people canceling servers have been very vocal about why they're canceling them, and I agree with the majority of their reasons, especially about the release of L4D2.
So, I pose this question to you, do you think splitting the games community base will increase or decrease the number of servers for both games?
Secondly, do you think server owners that are canceling their servers will be rushing out to start a L4D2 server after they feel that they've been burned by Valve?
The answers are pretty obvious.
All you flame-baiters screaming about the boycott group being a bunch of whining retards might want to think about that, because without the server owners, you'd have no where to play either game.
As for myself, I don't have any choice but to 'get' the game since it's purchased for me by my employer for troubleshooting and testing. However, I'll be shutting down my servers the day L4D2 is released unless both games can be serviced by a single server and other significant issues about the release of L4D2 are satisfactorily dealt with by Valve.