Following this year's fantastic E3, a number of games were announced and previewed, many of which I am personally quite looking forward to.  At the forefront of this selection, I will be playing special attention to Left 4 Dead 2.  Recently some "brilliant minds" (please note that I am being sarcastic) created a Left 4 Dead 2 Boycott Steam Group in protest of the game.  Why?  They feel that Valve is breaking promises regarding L4D1 and will thus split the community.  They also feel that Valve is simply trying to make a profit thanks to its consumers.  Imagine that, a business is trying to profit.  For shame.  I realize that the boycott group has a number of demands, beliefs and "facts" to which it adheres and if I got any of that incorrect, I quite honestly do not care. 

This, however, is not regarding my stance on boycotts nor Valve, but rather some issues that arose when I read about Valve's response to the boycott.  Most interestingly, Chet Faliszek from Valve said that "It just became very clear that this was a cohesive, singular statement we wanted to make, not a more slow update thing... too much stuff was tied together with too many other things."  This made me think about how we, as gamers, determine whether or not a game has enough content to warrant its price tag and its simple categorization as a stand-alone video game.

I admit that when it comes to paying 60-80CAD$ for a video game, I expect it to entertain me for a fair amount of time.  I expect this either in terms of story (single player game play), online opportunities and/or customization options - including making your own levels, etc.  How much is enough?  This really changes depending on how much enjoyment I got from playing the game. 

The big problem we're being faced with, I feel, is that we are attempting to attribute quantifiable considerations to what is extremely subjective.  Sticking with the games that initialized this discussion, I feel that Left 4 Dead, as is, can be qualified as a full stand-alone game and I am still quite happy with the price I paid.  Some people, however, feel differently.  So what can developers do about this?

Should they be creating a story that will take players a minimum of X hours to go through and complete?  Not if it unnecessarily complicates an already well fleshed out story or if it causes them to add a plethora of banal tasks the player has to complete.

Should they be creating multiplayer options?  Not if it doesn't make sense or if the multiplayer "options" could be stand-alone games themselves. 

Should they be including customization options like map creation?  This can become far too difficult, at least right now, in terms of console games.

Again, it's all subjective.  You may disagree with my answers to the above questions.  It is important, however, to remember that game development is an extremely complicated and lengthy process.  What may seem simplistic to uninformed gamers could actually take months of development.

The best answer to the article's primary question, "How much content is enough content?", is thus "whatever the developer feels is appropriate".  Developers do make mistakes, without a doubt.  We must admit, as gamers, that some of these "mistakes" may simply be a difference of opinion - we simply did not enjoy one of the games they have created and released.  Consumers do have rights and if companies make promises to their fans, then their fans do have a right to feel betrayed if those promises are not fulfilled.  Unfortunately, most people tend to overestimate what exactly is being promised.  They make assumptions which are never clarified by the company.  This simply results a lose-lose relationship between developer and gamer.

What needs to happen?  Increased communication and understanding on both sides, as well as a resistance to knee-jerk reactions such as "BOYCOTT!"  Not everyone can be satisfied and it is the developer's often unfortunate task to choose whom they wish to please.  Today just might not be your day.