Advocacy FAIL: L4D2 pre-order sales double of original, says Valve

I don't see why.
If they can't make a proper port, there is no use in making it for the PS3, all the negative PR about "It's not as good as the 360 version!" will hurt Sony more than having people complain at Valve.

Games by Valve are meant to be played on PC anyway, there you are guaranteed DLC and updates! With consoles there is always a doubt.

Yeah I hope this gets ported over, because I will not be renewing my Live subscription this December.

Good lord, just buy it on PC. It'll be infinitely better than what's on PS3, and you don't even need a good computer. Hell, if it'll run the original Half-Life, it'll probably run this. If Valve does something well, it's scaling for hardware.

A PS3 port doesnt necessarely have to be bad. It all depends on the developers. If they could get some devs from Insomniac, Guerilla or Sucker Punch or something similar they would have a pretty good chance at succeeding.

@Geist: This laptop can handle Half Life 2 and Team Fortress 2 well. But it can barely run L4D on lowest - way too much lag to be playable.

@Swagman

"If the future, if you want Valve games on Playstation hardware, I suggest you start a campaign to convince Sony not to make PS4 architecture out of proprietary hardware, so that developers do not have to make the hard choice of whether to make games on Playstation or not."

Swag, this makes no sense whatsoever. First, 'proprietary' simply means it is exclusively owned by one person (or group). In other words, *all* consoles have proprietary hardware.

Secondly, anyone who purchases the devkit from Sony has the full knowledge of the PS3's hardware at their hands. First Parties are typically more able to pull of better software because they are usually the most familiar with it (because they spent the longest amount of time with it and had created it) and also because they tend to be the wealthiest companies (Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft here...). However, it should be noted that other developers (Konami and Square, for example) are able to pull off equal or even better graphics than First Parties because they put the effort, cash, and time into it.

Truth is that the difficulty of programming on a particular hardware isn't simply based on how new the technology is, but how complex it is and how similar it is to prior hardware. The Wii is incredibly easy to develop for because it is less complex than the 360/PS3 and probably due to its similarity with the GCN's hardware. On the other hand, the PS3 is the most difficult likely due to the incredible complexity of the Cell chip (and the little similarity between it and the PS2's engine). Sony had this same issue with the PS2 (Emotion Engine). They create complex engines which is supposed to maximize potential power, but end up causing headache due to the complexity.

But of course, as the PS2 clearly shows, ease of development isn't everything. The PS3 is losing developers because the 360 is similarly powerful and has a larger userbase. Obviously, easier development also plays a role, but it is nothing compared to the importance of userbase.

P.S. You are also incorrect about the Saturn. First, the difficulty of the hardware came almost entirely from the tacked on second CPU, which Sega put no thought into, and had hoped that simply having it would mean double the power. Secondly, theoretically, it was more powerful than the PSX, but it didn't seem to work in reality (even First Party games paled to what was available on the PSX).

The boycott rubbed me the wrong way and I defiantly preorderd.

I think hes more closely related to R4P17

Zombie Star Wars?

Yes please.

actually, zombie star wars isn't a bad idea. it worked pretty well for Marvel.

as for L4D2, i'm all for a speedy sequel as long as it's an improvement over the original. that's with any series tho

Nope, Valve is the most consumer-friendly company in the industry. I always give them the benefit of the doubt, and they haven't disappointed me yet.

Same without drastic price cut.

Actually, those protests actually have something behind them to support. SCII's lack of LAN is a terrible injustice that can easily be abused to force a Pay-to-Play Multiplayer system. If ALL multiplayer has to run through Battle.net, what's stopping Activision from charging for the service? Where are the Starcraft fans going to go to for their SCII Multiplayer fix? Nowhere.

The L4D2 protests are just people nit-picking.

The fans are 1 thing. But what about the tournaments?!

Not going to happen. Activision is going to charge for Battle.net, and if they're lucky they won't kill SC2 because of it.

You people are still making the same mistake as these L4D2 protesters: thinking that a small, yet extremely vocal echo chamber on the internet is going to have a huge impact on the sales of one of the biggest releases of the year. Starcraft II, even moreso than L4D, has an enormous mainstream fanbase that is going to buy the game no matter what some group of internet nerds wants to whine about.

I love it when this happens. "Fuck you! You're an idiot for announcing your request/protest!" then in the next sentence "No but this OTHER team of protesters/requesters have it right."

Fucking hypocrites.

Everybody has a legitimate right to voice their dissatisfaction with the way their favorite games are being handled. The real assholes are the ones who tell them they shouldn't make any kind of request/protest at all.

From what I can tell from your comment you are saying it is more like Episodic content for L4D, right? Similar to HL2:Ep 1-3.

The problem is that the episodes are priced at cheaper price point. This will be a full priced game just like L4D when it first came out. That is the problem that a lot of people are having with L4D2.

I'm just annoyed that they can make L4D2 so quickly and I still don't have HL2: Ep 3. Damn you Valve!

thats the entire point ... this game is essentially an episode and you are paying full price for it ... but the consumers never seem to realize it.

Especially when the first one was smaller than a regular game yet cost just as much.

That's what I'm planning to do...

I'm sure it'll be fun, but I don't want to spend $50 on the series this time around.

Yeah, I'm planning on buying it as soon as it is put on one the Weekend Deals. After getting The Orange Box for $10 as a Weekend Deal, I'm only buying things when they go on sale from here on out.

Even if I don't like I game, I'm tempted to buy it when it goes on sale. For example, the other week Empire: Total War, a game/genre which doesn't interest me in the least, went on sale for $25 and I was like, "Oh shit! I must have it!"

Exactly. The main problem is the game is being sold at full retail price. And since so many bought the first L4D when the exact same thing happened (bought an episode for full price) Valve thinks they can get away with it again. And sadly most consumers will fall for it like the cattle they are.

You speak the truth!

Your face says otherwise.

If by surprised you mean cliched, then yes.

Indeed...

Anyway, these pre-orders are more than likely for the 360 crowd, who probably never really expected anything free, given the difficulties Valve are facing getting free and constant updates out for the 360 version of TF2.

Back in the paper days.

I disagree.

They work, but the issue at hand is getting enough people on board. Internet petitions don't work because they don't attract enough people. How many people visit websites like Kotaku/Joystiq/1Up/Etc? And it doesn't help that these websites don't support boycotts (for obvious reasons).

There is a very small amount of hardcore gamers (I'm guessing probably 5-10 million at most) and they're split between consoles. Furthermore, not all of them agree on the same issue. If there was a way to bring enough of the hardcore crowd together and make them agree to not purchase a game, I'm convinced it would work.

Unfortunately, my belief is exclusive to consoles. I firmly believe that piracy hampers boycotts on the PC (of which L4D is also release on). If a company sees that their game is getting a ton of piracy, the primary assumption is probably going to be that people just don't want to pay, not that they're 'boycotting' (of which piracy doesn't fit the definition very well either).

i concur, it is simply counter-strike source with zombie bots ... the visuals are absolutely nothing to brag about.

the gameplay it is own though ... but definitely not a $60 game when it came out

The graphics might be lacking compared to some other top-tier games, but there's nothing quite like you and three friends spending an evening fighting your way through thousands of zombies. L4D has a gameplay unlike any I've seen before.

Oh the gameplay, I've never been obsessed with online versus. L4D changed that. It's amazing to be a zombie....and to kill human ones. Just a well balanced fun fun game. Especially online.

Seriously, your major complaint is about the graphics? This game runs fast and furious and until you've played it with 3 other friends for more than 10 minutes, don't be so quick to judge. Like Quiggy said, they aren't going for 'best graphics of the year' with this game, they are going for balls out fun! I will say though, it seems like you really don't like zombies. If you don't like zombies, than I guess you won't like this game. Other than that, this game is crazy good fun!

"Comments here!"