• Rumor - Left 4 Dead 3 to Release next year
    139 replies, posted
Yeah, this is BS. It's based on that "I'm an ex-Valve playtester" reddit post from last summer. With that said, we know it's in the works. We had Steam leaks, Jira leaks, Gooseman saw it in action etc, it's one of Valve's worse kept secrets.
[QUOTE=Source;49497473]I'm just gonna say it.......i couldn't give a fuck about another L4D game.[/QUOTE] I think I played the first Left4Dead with a friend for about a week before getting bored, and that was with modding, too.
Don't see the point of L4D 3 they're just going to release the campaign where they escape the zombies and then drop all support.
[QUOTE=MissingGlitch;49496790]"Reports say" So it is that easy to get on news websites huh? Two can play at that game. Reports say that not only is Valve going to stop update support on their free-2-play shooter TF2, but TF3 is going to be coming out next year. We even got names for some of the new playable classes just as "Scooter, John Doe, and Napalm". Edit: This just in. Our anonymous sources reviled the rest of the classes names. They include Bomberman, Lumberjack, Mechanic, Nurse, Eagle Eye, and Sneaker. Replacing the announcer is her assistant Miss Pauling.[/QUOTE] Nerf Napalm and buff Scooter, there's no way that's balanced.
[QUOTE=Yummy Pie;49496802]Clearly fake. Valve doesn't make games anymore.[/QUOTE] Why Source 2 then?
I'll take anything at this point if it means a new game. Of course there is very little credibility to these rumors, so I'm not getting my hopes up.
Again, this rumor is BS, but we know L4D3 exists in some form.
I wonder how easy it is to email a gaming news outlet with "rumors" and get them published.
[QUOTE=Mark Twain1;49498870]Don't see the point of L4D 3 they're just going to release the campaign where they escape the zombies and then drop all support.[/QUOTE] What about playing the game?
[QUOTE=Mark Twain1;49498870]Don't see the point of L4D 3 they're just going to release the campaign where they escape the zombies and then drop all support.[/QUOTE] The engine features to support a L4D3 game are good for a base engine build to have, and if Valve is to be believed, they want to open Source 2 up as much as possible. Meaning that L4D3 could serve as an introduction to full-fledged Source 2 as a game engine. DotA Source 2 is alright, but lacks features to make a modern first person shooter (Also no code access, so bleh).
If they made a L4D3 I'd love to see them go more crazy with the zombie counts. L4D first brought the feeling of "oh god zombies everywhere" to the masses and I want that feeling again but [I]more.[/I]
Never will be released the l4d3,if you can see,Valve released portal 2, l4d2, half-life 2...
[QUOTE=Sgt.vodka95;49499534]Never will be released the l4d3,if you can see,Valve released portal 2, l4d2, half-life 2...[/QUOTE] CS:GO, though.
It's just a rumor so it has no value. Still, L4D3 is more likely than any other game from Valve. I feel like L4D2 already did a lot gameplay-wise so unless they want to go more complex (which I wouldn't mind) it will be a showcase of the new engine.
2c: Valve is not making a new engine just to show it off and port old games to it. Calm down and have patience. We'll get L4D3, HL3, Portal 3 and Ricochet 2 in due time. All this pessimism around Valve is just frustration after unreasonably getting your hopes up.
[QUOTE=boobs;49497621]You make a moot point because microtransactions only work if [b]someone[/b] out there likes the idea. Evidently that is a lot of people. It seems you people watch a fair bit too much of Jim Sterling and automatically think that microtransactions are illegal or immoral; and you can't expect anything less then perfect PR, games and other products from game developers/publishers. You're spoiled rotten. Every single game released by valve has been either a blockbuster hit or develops a cult-following. I guarantee you own every single Valve game; yet you're mad at them because they decided to take their talents in a new direction? You're a piece of work my friend.[/QUOTE] Forgive me if I also feel that a videogame company I know since my childhood decides to take the 'new direction' and use their 'talents' to make money from the community with little to no effort, with over half the cosmetics in tf2 being made by the community, and the money made from cs go being weapon skins. Forgive me when all I want is to see a new game from them, even though I know fine well that as a company, they'd make more money adding cosmetic updates and maps made by the community for another 5 good years. At least. How spoiled I am.
[QUOTE=MatheusMCardoso;49499589]2c: Valve is not making a new engine just to show it off and port old games to it.[/QUOTE] Actually, if you wanted to be super pessimistic about Valve as a business... Look at the Unreal Engine 4 and Unity markets, see how profitable it is to sell assets, tools, code, etc to game developers. The only issue is that Unreal (and to a lesser extent) Unity use large middleware codes, and have restrictive licenses (in a sense). Valve could be aiming higher, to turn game making itself into a meta-market, they provide an open engine (Source 2) with an asset store (powered by steam), provide cards, make getting your Source 2 game on steam easier (bypassing Greenlight), etc. I could see Valve quickly conquer the market of game making (Profit from asset stores, etc), and also selling those games on steam. Remember that Gabe didn't go to college for computer science, he went for business, and it's what he does exceptionally well.
Why would a hardware company racking in loads of cash suddenly start making sequels to old games? It doesn't make any fucking sense.
[QUOTE=glitchvid;49499693]Actually, if you wanted to be super pessimistic about Valve as a business... Look at the Unreal Engine 4 and Unity markets, see how profitable it is to sell assets, tools, code, etc to game developers. The only issue is that Unreal (and to a lesser extent) Unity use large middleware codes, and have restrictive licenses (in a sense). Valve could be aiming higher, to turn game making itself into a meta-market, they provide an open engine (Source 2) with an asset store (powered by steam), provide cards, make getting your Source 2 game on steam easier (bypassing Greenlight), etc. I could see Valve quickly conquer the market of game making (Profit from asset stores, etc), and also selling those games on steam. Remember that Gabe didn't go to college for computer science, he went for business, and it's what he does exceptionally well.[/QUOTE] They would have to offer great tools and support comparable to Unity and Epic though. It can be totally free (they said you only need to launch your game on Steam) and totally modifiable(they said other engine manufacturers can use their code) and all, if it's not as good, I don't see why the majority would flock to it. Unless people flood it with shit like GL. UE and Unity have big established communities and both those companies engage with them. Now let's look back how Valve handled their licencees and modders...
[QUOTE=glitchvid;49499693]Actually, if you wanted to be super pessimistic about Valve as a business... Look at the Unreal Engine 4 and Unity markets, see how profitable it is to sell assets, tools, code, etc to game developers. The only issue is that Unreal (and to a lesser extent) Unity use large middleware codes, and have restrictive licenses (in a sense). Valve could be aiming higher, to turn game making itself into a meta-market, they provide an open engine (Source 2) with an asset store (powered by steam), provide cards, make getting your Source 2 game on steam easier (bypassing Greenlight), etc. I could see Valve quickly conquer the market of game making (Profit from asset stores, etc), and also selling those games on steam. Remember that Gabe didn't go to college for computer science, he went for business, and it's what he does exceptionally well.[/QUOTE] middleware? I thought UE4 was completely open source
[QUOTE=jazzpunk;49499717]They would have to offer great tools and support comparable to Unity and Epic though. It can be totally free (they said you only need to launch your game on Steam) and totally modifiable(they said other engine manufacturers can use their code) and all, if it's not as good, I don't see why the majority would flock to it. Unless people flood it with shit like GL. UE and Unity have big established communities and both those companies engage with them. Now let's look back how Valve handled their licencees and modders...[/QUOTE] Yes, it would require a lot of changes on Valve's part, but I don't think it's beyond them. As for getting people to come from Unity and Unreal? Assuming they can provide competent development tools (And IMO, Source 2's hammer is a better [I]editor[/I] than Unreal and Unity) I can see Source vets moving over as well as new studios (What's better than a free engine*). Also depends on who you were as a Source engine licensee, I know a few teams (Aside from it costing a lot) that had a rather pleasant experience dealing with them. *Documentation :v: [editline]10th January 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=eirexe;49499758]middleware? I thought UE4 was completely open source[/QUOTE] PhysX, Scaleform, TrueSKY, a few others that I don't know off the top of my head. Source 2 on Dota 2 uses Miles still, but I could see that being ripped out. Also, UE4 isn't open source. It has accessible source code, but it's not under a FOSS license (Neither will Source 2 probably).
[QUOTE=glitchvid;49499767]Yes, it would require a lot of changes on Valve's part, but I don't think it's beyond them. As for getting people to come from Unity and Unreal? Assuming they can provide competent development tools (And IMO, Source 2's hammer is a better [I]editor[/I] than Unreal and Unity) I can see Source vets moving over as well as new studios (What's better than a free engine*). Also depends on who you were as a Source engine licensee, I know a few teams (Aside from it costing a lot) that had a rather pleasant experience dealing with them. *Documentation :v: [editline]10th January 2016[/editline] PhysX, Scaleform, TrueSKY, a few others that I don't know off the top of my head. Source 2 on Dota 2 uses Miles still, but I could see that being ripped out. Also, UE4 isn't open source. It has accessible source code, but it's not under a FOSS license (Neither will Source 2 probably).[/QUOTE] UE4 is open source, open source means open source, it does not need to be free software to be open source. All in that list is completely replaceable and actually has some sort of replacement, except physx I think, or maybe not idk, scaleform can be replaced by blui, truesky is not a built in thing.
[QUOTE=eirexe;49499832]UE4 is open source, open source means open source, it does not need to be free software to be open source. All in that list is completely replaceable and actually has some sort of replacement, except physx I think, or maybe not idk, scaleform can be replaced by blui, truesky is not a built in thing.[/QUOTE] Lol, open source is not just [I]open source[/I], nowhere will you find Epic calling it open source. It is also incompatible with many open source licenses (Meaning you can't have open source code combined with the non-open code of UE4). As for replacing parts of the engine, yeah, you can tear massive sections of the engine out and replace it with alternatives, but that's costly and studios who can afford to do that will probably do their own engine (Or buy a legacy engine like Source and rip almost everything out of it, see Titanfall). Truesky IIRC is what powers the skyboxes that are in the engine by default. The reason UE4 was a big deal (other than technology wise) was how it really democratized the game developer scene (Granted, Unity was first to this, but UE4 seriously one-upped them) by talking to middleware providers, striking deals with them, and making a very simple $19/mo (Now free + 5%) price for the engine and its middleware. If Source 2 came up with comparable technology, no middleware, and a modified popular open source license, it could seriously shatter how the industry handles game engines (Especially if S2 went full open source, that would be nuts*). *On the topic of S2 going full open source: Valve makes a lot of money off of steam, we know this, so more games existing, more market items existing, etc. All of those generate revenue for Valve, and if you can offload some work of engine maintenance onto the community, that saves money; Opening Source 2 all the way up could be a very good thing for Valve.
[QUOTE=Hogie bear;49499616]Forgive me if I also feel that a videogame company I've know since my childhood decides to take the 'new direction' and use their 'talents' to make money from the community with little to no effort, with over half the cosmetics in tf2 being made by the community, and the money made from cs go being weapon skins. Forgive me when all I want is to see a new game from them, even though I know fine well that as a company, they'd make more money adding cosmetic updates and maps made by the community for another 5 good years. At least. How spoiled I am.[/QUOTE] You seem to forget most of the Valve development team is working with the Steambox, Controller, VR gaming AND Source 2; you know, an [b]engine[/b] that will not doubt provide you more great experiences and games then one single playthrough of half life 3 would. It's like you people literally don't see farther then microtransactions and hats. That is such a minuscule part of Valve development time that you even said it yourself; it's done by the community. Spoiled fucking children. No, you're actually worse. You're spoiled [b]man[/b]children.
I simply cant get hyped for a new L4D. Don't get me wrong the they are good games but I personally find them extremely boring and repetitive. Once again focusing on the wrong franchise.
[QUOTE=glitchvid;49499877]Lol, open source is not just [I]open source[/I], nowhere will you find Epic calling it open source. It is also incompatible with many open source licenses (Meaning you can't have open source code combined with the non-open code of UE4). As for replacing parts of the engine, yeah, you can tear massive sections of the engine out and replace it with alternatives, but that's costly and studios who can afford to do that will probably do their own engine (Or buy a legacy engine like Source and rip almost everything out of it, see Titanfall). Truesky IIRC is what powers the skyboxes that are in the engine by default. The reason UE4 was a big deal (other than technology wise) was how it really democratized the game developer scene (Granted, Unity was first to this, but UE4 seriously one-upped them) by talking to middleware providers, striking deals with them, and making a very simple $19/mo (Now free + 5%) price for the engine and its middleware. If Source 2 came up with comparable technology, no middleware, and a modified popular open source license, it could seriously shatter how the industry handles game engines (Especially if S2 went full open source, that would be nuts*). *On the topic of S2 going full open source: Valve makes a lot of money off of steam, we know this, so more games existing, more market items existing, etc. All of those generate revenue for Valve, and if you can offload some work of engine maintenance onto the community, that saves money; Opening Source 2 all the way up could be a very good thing for Valve.[/QUOTE] There are no massive sections to tear apart, scaleform is not part of the engine neither truesky is. Both have official integrations, but do not come with the engine. I don't know if the engine can run without physx, but it surely can run without gameworks.
[QUOTE=Buck.;49500068]I simply cant get hyped for a new L4D. Don't get me wrong the they are good games but I personally find them extremely boring and repetitive. Once again focusing on the wrong franchise.[/QUOTE] You're right, I've been awaiting the Ricochet sequel for over a decade now. Outrageous that Valve still hasn't gone back to a dear game of mine
[QUOTE=boobs;49500046]You seem to forget most of the Valve development team is working with the Steambox, Controller, VR gaming AND Source 2; you know, an [b]engine[/b] that will not doubt provide you more great experiences and games then one single playthrough of half life 3 would. It's like you people literally don't see farther then microtransactions and hats. That is such a minuscule part of Valve development time that you even said it yourself; it's done by the community. Spoiled fucking children. No, you're actually worse. You're spoiled [b]man[/b]children.[/QUOTE] Oh yes. He is a spoiled manchild for wanting Valve, what started as a game development company mind you, to make a new game or at least acknowledge that a new game is in the works.
[QUOTE=onebit;49500147]yeah how hard is it to make a game[/QUOTE] good point all of the other developers must be cheating
[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;49500156]good point all of the other developers must be cheating[/QUOTE] They take their previous game, change up some things and sell it as a new game in november. Think its about damn time Valve got with the times.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.