|
|
Earlier this week, Valve formally announced plans to release the first DLC package for Left 4 Dead in the spring (presumably of this year, but the mysterious ways of Valve Time are sometimes difficult to discern). Entitled the Left 4 Dead Survival Pack, the content is reported to contain a new game mode (”Survival”) and two more campaigns for its Versus mode, bringing the total number to four. As an added bonus to PC users, the Left 4 Dead SDK, the toolset used to create campaigns and maps, will also be released in the spring. Modders rejoice.
Valve has been quoted in the past as saying that they believe support for their software in the form of downloadable content provided to users should be free, however the ultimate determination of this is left in the hands of the platform owner. As expected, the rumor mill is abuzz with information about content pricing, the general consensus among users that the content will be free for the PC, but will cost money for our console brethren (thank Microsoft). After all, can anyone remember any recent worthwhile content available via Xbox Live that didn’t cost money? (UPDATE: Valve has announced that the content will be free for both PC and Xbox users.)
I find this trend in gaming troubling for a number of reasons. Left 4 Dead, while a truly oustanding game, was shipped back on November 18th with what can only be described as a poverty of content. A measely four campaigns were included at release, each one taking just over an hour to complete by even the most novice players. Adding insult to injury, only two of those campaigns are available for Versus mode. Each campaign is broken down into 5 different sections, resulting in 20 maps for single player/co-op games and 10 for multiplayer. While this might normally be an adequate stockpile of content to sustain interest, gameplay dictates that these maps are traveled quickly and linearly, which causes the campaigns to become stale more quickly than usual. The game’s overhyped AI (the “Director”) helps to alleviate the situation only marginally.
For a game with content that can be completely exhausted over the course of a couple of gaming sessions, Valve has dedicated a lot of resources to ensuring that Left 4 Dead has maximum replayability. Here they have been met with resounding success, as it is the game’s Versus mode that has made L4D an instant classic. It also begs the question, why werent all four campaigns available in Versus mode at launch? It seems obvious that the two new multiplayer campaigns in the upcoming Survival Pack will be the ones that are currently only available for single player and co-op play.
Now here’s the disturbing part. There’s very little work that goes into readying an existing campaign for Versus mode play. So little, in fact, that modded multiplayer servers already exist that make use of these campaigns as-is, without making use of developer tools. It has been speculated that these two campaigns were intentionally held back so that they could be released at a later date, perhaps to make players feel like they’re receiving more for their money, or, in the case of Xbox users, so the publisher can dip deeper into your pockets. While conscious of the fact that the game was supplied with only two Versus campaigns, it seems to be the opinion of most Left 4 Dead players that all four campagins really should have been available at release, and I am in agreement.
Is this the new business model for game production? It’s bad enough that the acceptance of patch culture has led to an industry which constantly releases bug-ridden products that would have been considered beta builds ten years ago, but the new trend seems to be enticing players with downloadable content. If the DLC being offered simply consists of features and content stripped from the vanilla release then developers and publishers are doing an injustice to gamers that borders on criminal.
On a related note, some developers believe that offering free DLC may be an effective deterrent to software piracy. Relic Entertainment, creator of Company of Heroes, claims that they will be releasing regular DLC for their upcoming title, Dawn of War 2, for just this reason. Having played the beta extensively, I question their stated motives. While tactically challenging and very rewarding for skilled gameplay, DoW2 is shipping with very few maps, a limited number of units, bare-bones features, and a poor user interface. Despite having pushed up their release date by several days, it seems as though offering DLC is just a covert way of extending the game’s development cycle while simultaneously recouping costs. Sure, DLC may fix these problems in the long-term, but in the meantime we’re paying to become unwitting beta testers. In the end, nothing is gained, and the overall quality of our games suffers.
But, hey, things could be worse–they could be charging subscriptions. Not that they haven’t already tried.
Similar Posts:
- Left 4 Dead Update 3/25/09: Survivor Melee Nerfage
- nVidia 8800 Series Performance Issues with Left 4 Dead Update 01/14/09
- Left 4 Dead Update Released - Quick Melee Exploit Fixed
- Microsoft Confirms Left 4 Dead DLC Coming April 21
- New Information on Dawn of War 2, Interview and IRC Live Chat
| Posted in Commentary, News, PC gaming, Xbox 360 | |  |
Loading ...
February 22nd, 2009 at 12:06 pm
“content” is thw word killing the industry right now, the game has 20 maps, maybe, but it is incledibely fun, play versus, or play on expert, and you won’t finish in one hour.
February 22nd, 2009 at 4:20 pm
I agree that the game is incredibly fun, and that expert mode won’t be finished in an hour, however different difficulty levels are not content–they are an artificial way of extending a game’s length. Adding an expert mode may make it seem like there’s more substance to a game, but it’s really not much different than adding another grind to World of Warcraft, or adding more achievements. They are just different ways of experiencing the same stuff that’s already there, but without adding anything fresh. It’s a very old tactic in the developer bag of tricks.
“Content” may have taken on somewhat of a buzzword connotation, but it’s an important term in discussing gaming regardless.
February 22nd, 2009 at 7:36 pm
Valve already confirmed in a press release that the downloadable content is free on both platforms. Read up before you start ranting.
February 22nd, 2009 at 7:36 pm
Admittedly you wrote this before Valve announced the DLC was free across the board but I think you’ve picked the wrong developer to illustrate creeping charges for DLC.
Concentrating on the PC, Valve have always supported their products well. If we look at TF2 there could already be enough content there for a paid for expansion pack if they wanted to, which they haven’t.
You could argue that there was not much content to begin with with TF2 but, like with a lot of multiplayer games, you’re essentially paying for replayability as human opponents create such random events. Furthermore, anyone that bought TF2 has not had to part with money for any of the new class weapons, maps, etc. Trickling the content out also helps to keep and rekindle interest. Valve probably have a similar road map for L4D as well.
I’m sure the situation is, every time there’s a content update for TF2 Valve get a lot of new sales, paying for development of the content (and then some?) but also opening TF2 to an even larger audience which could generate more sales via recommendations.
So if you look at the detail the company you chose is probably the champion for *free* DLC. I doubt Valve shares their exact figures though so whether other developers, like Relic, will adopt completely free DLC remains to be seen.
It doesn’t help that consoles muddy the water either.
February 23rd, 2009 at 1:05 am
@Odyssey1319
It typically helps to read articles before making ignorant remarks about them. Not only is the fact that the content is free explicitly addressed in the article, but you have missed the entire point of it, which is to condemn the practice of baiting consumers with DLC as a way sugarcoating the release of unfinished software.
@Red Squirrel
Valve has indeed, in the past, been a champion of free downloadable content and superb support for their products, however they are really falling down on the job with Left 4 Dead. Team Fortress 2 is not a good comparison because it was only one small part of what was not even a major release (the Orange Box). Most everyone agrees that this commercial mod has been well-supported, but it would be a different story if, for instance, several of the classes had features missing at release only to be added later, trumped up by Valve’s marketing department has “free DLC”.
That’s kind of where we’re at with Left 4 Dead adding multiplayer support to 2 of the existing maps and acting like it’s a big deal. The fact that you can already play these maps with a simple server mod is testament to this fact. They’re simply taking features that should have been in the game to begin with, but weren’t, then announcing the patching in of the old features as if they were being some remarkably generous benefactors.
February 26th, 2009 at 10:04 am
@Danny, It’s true the game was rather unpolished at launch, but has considerably improved since then (i.e. all of the major bugs are fixed).
There are 20 maps in total, 10 being versus playable. What I think you’re missing is that Valve do take a lot of time to play-test maps for balance issues. Even then, they go through many revisions of a map before hitting one they think feels right.
So it’s not just a simple matter of churning out playable maps, they have to live to a standard, especially with Left4Dead’s mood.
Left4Dead makes lighting and background detail being very prominent as well as crescendo points needing to be specially crafted and tweaked.
I’m not sure where, It may have been an interview with Chet or perhaps the commentary in the game, but valve themselves have said they just didn’t have enough time to get the two other campaigns ready for versus.
Also, yes, you can turn on a serverside cvar and make a campaign map playable in versus mode, but clearly you haven’t experienced it first hand.
Both of the maps have unfinished infected spawn areas, places with no infected access ladders, rescue closets are still in (very imbalanced for versus play) and geometry allowing unfair survivors shortcuts.
The vanilla campaign maps are tailored to be balanced for campaign only, not for versus.
In actual fact there are 30 maps, the other 10 being the versus versions of the same campaign maps.
You know, it’s very easy to say that it’s a simple matter to create versus versions, or that having only 4 is a measly amount, but realistically you have no idea.
I don’t think valve are baiting anyone, unless you can show me somewhere valve promises there will be 4 campaigns being versus playable then I don’t really see any validity in your article.
February 26th, 2009 at 12:26 pm
@s
Having worked on mods first hand for the better part of a decade, I have a very good idea of just what kind of work goes into map-making. You seem to be giving Valve far more credit than is due with regards to making the necessary alterations to campaign maps in order to make them viable for versus mode by citing a few minor incompatibilities.
Rescue closets a problem? Those same closets still exist in No Mercy and Blood Harvest, however the respawn feature has been deactivated from them, either by manual map edits with the SDK or automatically by a hardcoded feature built into versus mode. Either way, very little work is needed to fix the issue.
Are infected ladders missing? Yes, however the maps are still fully playable without infected ladders (ie, you can still get to wherever the survivors are by means of whatever route the survivors themselves took).
Are there geometry changes? Sure, but they’re few and far between, at least with respect to No Mercy and Blood Harvest. The physical changes to map layouts are mostly limited to the finale anyway, with the intention of making it easier for the infected team, according to the developer commentary. The maps are still fully playable without the changes.
No, they didn’t promise 4 playable campaigns in versus mode. They also don’t promise you condiments when you purchase a meal at a restaurant, but if they refused to give you salt and pepper you might be a little put off. If they waited a few hours after serving you and finally gave you what you expected, regardless of what was explicitly promised, would you be more inclined to feel gratitude or anger?
It’s no coincidence that this game was shipped right before Christmas with extremely limited content.
March 23rd, 2009 at 11:32 am
In regard to the last paragraph, releasing DLC’s doesn’t stop people from illegally obtaining the DLC. I actually know someone who illegally downloaded the Fallout 3 DLC’s without paying for them… see what I mean? Doing the whole DLC to prevent piracy wont work