Does the "Left 4 Dead 2" Boycott Matter?

For days, I've been reading various posts about the apparent 'boycott' of "Left 4 Dead 2," the recently announced sequel to Valve's popular zombie blasting FPS. Although I was positive about the news, throngs of angry fans voiced their opinions to the contrary. Primarily, they were angry about the fact that Valve had promised to continually provide additional content for the original "Left 4 Dead," something that they are known for as a publisher. Fans of the game imagined that they would be enjoy (free) enhancements for years in the same way that they have for past Valve titles like "Team Fortress 2". Also, many fans (myself included) were a bit miffed that it took months to unlock all of the single player maps in the multiplayer modes, among various other minor complaints. Armed with a little piss and vinegar and a seeming mass of popular opinion, a L4D2 boycott group was assembled on Steam, which as of this writing has more than 25,000 members.

This looks familiar

There's no debate that the announcement of the sequel and the target release date (this fall) is a huge break from the norm for Valve. What I'm struggling to understand, however, is what this 'boycott' accomplishes this early in the process. So far, most of the info we have on the game has come from the debut trailer, which is to say, very little. What gets my goat a little, is how quickly the L4D community feels that Valve owes them something, without really having any concrete details.

There are many parallels between this apparent boycott and how horror fans tend to handle new releases, remakes, and sequels. I'm not innocent in this way. I have, at one point in my life, vowed that I will never see another "Saw" film. Even now, I'm currently plugging my ears and stomping my feet like an indignant child over the premise of seeing "Orphan." We say these things, usually in jest, but I feel like we rarely mean them. However, unlike our cavalier comments about boycotting films, this particular assembly has clearly defined terms, and a seemingly massive support base. What I wonder, is if those factors make this any more significant than your average statement of non-support. I'm thinking not, and here's why.

The medium is different, but the intention is the same: we only threaten to boycott things that we love. If the 25,000+ were moved enough to join the L4D2 Boycott Group, that means that they know a great deal about the game and are willing to express their wishes for its sequel. That core group is extremely important for feedback purposes, but when you consider that "Left 4 Dead" had sold 2.5 million retail copies (excluding Steam purchases) as of the end of March, a "boycott" from the tip of the pyramid so to speak is a bit laughable.

As much as it hurts our ego, we steadfast fans of movies and games are important from a feedback standpoint, but not so much from a dollar sign standpoint. Of course Valve counts on the hardcores for their enthusiasm and community building, but at the end of the day, they've got the mojo to produce hits in their sleep and laugh all the way to the bank. That, and as we discussed on "Prom Night" episode of the podcast, nine times out of ten, curiosity gets the best of us and we end up throwing money at the very thing that we vowed to avoid.

Temptation is a cruel mistress, and I suspect as more details are released about "Left 4 Dead 2," the Cold Car between Valve and its staunchest fanbase will melt away, and the game will end up a success despite all of the hot air.