What The Left 4 Dead 2 Boycott Means For The Games Industry
Left 4 Dead 2 was announced at E3 this year. A group of disgruntled gamers have since started a boycott of the game. I don’t want to speak about the specifics of the boycott, but instead, touch on what this means for the games industry.
Lets get straight into it, the L4D2 boycott means the following:
- The games industry has reached mature adult status
- Depending what Valve does from here, it may not see itself in the “Big 5″ for much longer
- It’s not just about the money
The games industry has reached mature adult status
This isn’t the first time gamers have complained about a game. Truth be told, gamers don’t stop complaining about games. However, this is the first time a large group of gamers, with an intelligent manifesto have come forward with a mature complaint. Gone is the tantrum styled foot stamping the games industry is used to. We’ve moved beyond our simple bitching and into the realm of mature adults, where genuine concerns are raised and a solution put on the table. The ball is now in Valve’s court…
Depending what Valve does from here, it may not see itself in the “Big 5″ for much longer
Firstly, you may be asking what the “Big 5″ is. This is the group of major game studios that are highly respected and form the backbone of the games industry as it stands. I’ve formed this list after many late night discussions with game developers discussing who’s doing it right, and who everyone really wants to work for. These include:
- Valve (L4D, Half-Life)
- Relic (Homeworld, Dawn of War, Company of Heroes, The Outfit)
- Bioware (Baldur’s Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Mass Effect)
- Blizzard (Starcraft, Warcraft, WOW)
- Bethesda (Morrowind, Oblivion, Fallout 3)
A mature, valid complaint has been handed to Valve. How they react to this is going to shape both their business into the future, as well as the games industry as a whole. If Valve treat this as the prepubescent tantrum they are used to, they could see themselves in deep water.
The easiest solution for Valve is to simply ignore the boycott and move on, business as usual. This is the most likely outcome, however they have a great opportunity to set an example for other big studios. Surprisingly, it’s been gamers who have stepped up to the mark with this mature response. It’s important that Valve think long and hard about how they respond to this.
It’s not just about the money
This brings me to the core issue here. Since games were first made, there has been a gradual movement from making great games, to making games that sell well. While this was inevitable as game studios moved from backyard, small teams to large corporations with share holders to keep happy. This has gone on in the background and gamers have more or less accepted it. The symptoms have been a reduction in game quality, a focus on sequels/safe games and what some call a “watering down” of what games are really about. The boycott has brought this quest for money into the open and is asking one of the worlds greatest game studios a question. What’s more important, great games, or lots of money?
Some of the bullet points I saw were directed at the design of the game itself (being daytime, in the South, ‘boring characters’, etc.), and were completely outside the scope of the main issue. That irritated me a bit…
Actually, now that I’ve checked out the page again, it looks like they trimmed all the fat I was bitching about and actually got right down to the important parts. Excellent. Now I can join the group and not feel stupid.
Anyway, I was a bit dismayed by one of Valve’s explanations saying they were simply trying out different distribution models:
: “There’s definitely not a change in policy,” said
: Leonard in response to Gamasutra’s inquiries as to
: whether this move represents a new direction for
: Valve’s multiplayer efforts.
: He pointed out that Valve has always experimented
: with different types of development and
: distribution. “With the various things we’ve
: done — Half-Life 2, the big splash game that takes
: forever; or the episodic content; or the [Team
: Fortress 2] updates — as a company we try to explore
: different ways of delivering value to the customer,” he
: explained.
Full article: http://www.gamesetwatch.com/2009/06/e3_valve_talks_left_4_dead_2s.php
Fortyseven-
Thanks for the link and quote. I’m also glad they’ve trimmed the fat and kept a clear, concise list of problems.
Valve need to take some time before making an official response and decide exactly where they want to stand on this situation.
What a load of rubbish. Developers have done far “worse” than this and seen very little hit on their sales. My prediction is these gamers will forget about this little boycott when the game is released.
“A group of disgruntled games”? I’m really hoping Skynet isn’t involved here – that’s one AI you don’t want having tantrums…
From the L4D2boycott boycott page:
“Therefore, we – the members of this Left 4 Dead 2 Boycott – promise to abstain from the purchase of Left 4 Dead 2 until our requests are addressed.”
…or it reaches the bargin bin? That’s were I buy most of my games these days… Damn you full priced Supreme Commander!
hemebond-
I agree that developers have done far worse, however no game has had this kind of boycott. Also, it’s not so much about what Valve did, but the strong (and mature) reaction too it.
This “little boycott” is becoming bigger by the day.
Dools, love your work
I have to question your “Big 5″ however. Of the developers listed, Relic, Blizzard and Bioware are owned by major publishers (THQ, Activision-Vivendi and EA respectively). Bethesda self-publishes, I believe Valve does the same and has a distribution deal with EA.
To make the argument about games vs. cash is to, I feel, trvialise the issue somewhat. Companies in Valve and Bethesda’s positions are much more reliant on generating new sources of revenue, whereas other studios are given operational budgets within which they need to work. This immediatly pegs them at different levels, though still does not stop the better funded companies from releasing incomplete games.
Also, while I realise the list of devs above is hardly the point, it is a fairly PC-centric (and therefore Western list). I feel saying the above companies form the backbone of the industry is over-stating their role somewhat (however amazing some of the games are they’ve released). I’m sure Cliffy B would be very upset to see he was not among your greats
Your last paragraph is an issue that each art form has gone through before us; literature, visual art, film and music have all done battle on the art vs. money ground, the difference is those mediums have been around long enough to be in a place now where they can balance the interests of a variety of stakeholders. That doesn’t make it right, but as this industry continues to mature it is going to happen.
As a last point, Valve have set an incredible example when it comes to releasing and supporting free content for their community. Would it be fair to suggest part of this backlash is people complaining about the perceived removal of content yet to be created? Who among (and this is a genuine quesiton, not a shot) the other Big 5 have proffered the kind of support for the community that Valve have over the past decade?
David Gillespie-
I agree that the “Big 5″ list are both PC-centric and heavily Western. That is primarily because the people I’ve spoken to within the industry have a strong focus on both of these.
This boycott has a heavy focus on the “game vs cash” issue as it raises the issue of sequel versus expansion. The former generally generates more cash, while fragmenting the market.
I comletely agree that Valve have set an incredible example with supporting the community. Some of the backlash may infact be from the perceived removal of content.
I would argue though that most of the other Big 5 companies have given a similar level of suppport. Starcraft is a great example of a game that is still being patched over 10 years after release. Relic have an entire network dedicated to their modding community.
I have well and truly got my monies worth from L4D1 and will pay for the second installment. I agree that valve promised a lot of things in L4D1 that are in L4D2 but at the end of the day they are a company and companies like to make profits.
I have paid much more for less gameplay time than what I will pay for L4D1 and 2 combined.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=koM4wyfCA_c
Bleevo that is gold