Used to be norm? WHEN? Games took years to develop, because there were less gamers than today.harhol said:I don't see why everyone is making such a big deal about this. Yearly sequels used to be the norm. It's kinda weird in that it's Valve doing something normal for a change, but all these suggestions that it "must be a joke" are frankly ridiculous.
It's kind of a big deal, since a lot of people have bought the L4D even recently after the free weekend and price cuts, and now after November the game will be another abandoned title, because a sequel came out.
I don't think CSS came out one year after CS 1.6.DragunovHUN said:So, does it ruin the experience if 50 000 people are playing at any given time instead of 100 000? I don't think so.Abedeus said:Yes, I am sure that not even 50% of the current player base will buy the new game, and only half of us (at best) will stay.
Also let's not forget that once a sequel comes out, the previous game lands in the "ABANDONED FOREVER" box. You might get a patch now and then. But don't even think about DLC or anything like that.
Besides, that's just a dick move. "We make a game, then instead of making new content for it, we will immediately after 8 months release a sequel, so you either buy it or stay with your crappy old and unsupported game". That's like Blizzard making another 3 WoW expansions month after month. So you have to buy them all or you can't play the "new content" that could've been added with a patch or two.
Look at games like CS 1.6 or even Condition Zero, every Valve game still has plenty of players online even though a sequel or new version came out long ago.