When Should DLC Become a New Game

Valve's announcement today of new DLC for Left 4 Dead got me thinking. How long should a developer continue releasing new DLC for a game, and when should they start banking their ideas for a sequel? |Gameinformer

Read Full Story >>
Pandamobile4848d ago

So this guy is basically complaining that Valve supports their games for too long after release, rather that working on a sequel.

Yi-Long4848d ago

... take Forza for instance: game has been out for quite some while, and they're still DLC-milking it with new car-packs.

I'd rather see them just release a game with everything in it, and from that point on, focus all their attention (content-wise) on the next game.

I just want to buy complete games, instead of having to keep paying money afterwards for new content. Just make that content for the next game and include it in that!

TheIneffableBob4848d ago

But the Left 4 Dead updates are free.

Yi-Long4848d ago

... that's the right kind of support through DLC! ;)

Valve is usually pretty good at supporting their products and keeping their fan-base happy.

budbundystyles4848d ago (Edited 4848d ago )

My budget for Borderlands has no borders, man.

The Great Melon4848d ago

I am just waiting for them to release a Game of the Year edition with all four DLCs.

Cheeseknight284848d ago

Or all 5 DLCs. Ya never know.

ThatArtGuy4848d ago

Burnout Paradise is a good model to go on. I'm ready for the sequel now, but EA put Criterion on NFS.

Terarmzar4848d ago

When DLC cost over 30 bucks
*cough dragon age*

TABSF4848d ago

The thing with Valve is they always support there games years and years after release
They still support Counter Strike almost 10 years since release

I would rather have the game supported for years on end than get a sequel within a year

Also how can they be milking it all Valve's content after purchase is 100% FREE

DeFFeR4848d ago

"I would rather have the game supported for years on end than get a sequel within a year"

November 18, 2008 - Left 4 Dead releases
November 17, 2009 - Left 4 Dead 2 releases

Just saying...

Pandamobile4848d ago

Yet Valve is still supporting the original. Most devs completely abandon the first game when they release a sequel.

DeFFeR4846d ago

I know that - I was just explaining to him that he was asking for something NOT to happen, that happened to the specific game in the article.

He's asking for a game to be supported for years on end RATHER than have a sequel within a year.

Best of both worlds IMO.

Show all comments (16)

Valve Made Left 4 Dead 2 Because The First Game Was A Broken Mess

Left 4 Dead lead Chet Faliszek describes the original Left 4 Dead game as "such a broken thing that nobody wanted to touch it."

Number1TailzFan4d ago

And then couldn't be arsed to make a third game.

If they can add a lot more stuff to a 2nd game in just 1 year why didn't they make a third game a few years later with tons of stuff extra? Because that shows they could've.

I know Source 2 was kind of broken and was a reason they cancelled L4D3 but it seems wasteful to just toss it away.

Don't know what Valve were thinking.. it's like nobody wanted to fix the issues to get going. They certainly aren't the Valve of 2004 that released fun games with pretty cutting edge graphics.

cthulhucultist2d ago

Valve is allergic to number 3 it seems. It would be easier for them to release a Left 4 Dead 2.5 enhanced version instead of releasing a game with "3" slapped on its title.

rakentaja1d 22h ago

They stopped making games a long time ago. Steam brings in so much money that it's really not worth the effort. Nowadays, people only look for faults in games, and spend more time whining on Twitter/X than playing the game anyway. Valve says a big fat no-no.

anast2d ago

Value is the Blockbuster of video games. They have no need to invest in deving a game, when they can make handfuls of cash renting them.

-Foxtrot4d ago

What are they talking about? Seemed pretty alright to me at launch it just wasn't supported the way Valve promised us

They should have just worked on a revamp / massive update to the game but they didn't they jumped straight to a sequel with brand new characters despite having some sort, if small, story about where the original survivors were heading.

I didn't care for the direction they took the sequel, the original games tone and atmosphere was missing in the second game and is still unmatched. Daytime levels, more whackiness, melee weapons where you could attack a Tank with a frying pan...just wasn't the same to be honest and the new survivors just didn't hold up the originals.

Here's my speculation. I think they did a sequel because they didn't want to update a game co-developed by Turtle Rock, they wanted the franchise to be known as a Valve game only and knew if they updated the first one Turtle Rocks name would still linger on it.

shaenoide2d ago

I want broken games like L4D all day long...

GhostScholar2d ago

Well the first game was by far the best