It's probably going to be an expansion. A.. really big one. That they will call ''Left 4 Dead, 2''
Hoxton said:holy.SHIT
http://ve3d.ign.com/videos/48626/PC/Left-4-Dead-2/Trailer/E3-2009-Debut-Trailer
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.
Woah woah woah hold it. REAL COD games only come out every 2 years. The rest is made by a bunch of gimps called Treyarch, who were hired by Activision because Infinity Ward wasn't willing to rush their games.Abedeus said:CoD 3 was an abomination.Ashbax said:/sigh. Its not coming out 'half a year later' its coming out A year later, (Ok so its off by 2 days. Go flame it then.) But listen here - The COD games all have a 1 year gap, except cod 1 to cod 2, but since then its 2005 - Cod 2, 2006, cod 3, 2007, cod 4, and 2008, cod 5...And later in 2009, guess what? Cod 6.
And those were all good games. SO CALM, THE FECK, DOWN. Thank you.
And they are not Multiplayer-based games. They have potent single-player.