Starcraft 2 Expansions to release over a 3 year period

[Sandman]

Yep....3 long damn years.


you'll have to wait at least whole year between "expansions." Said Pardo, "With any luck, it would be like a year for each successive one, but that's going to be a target date, that's not a promise."

Since SC2 won't be out until 2009, you won't be able to play the Protoss single player until at least 2011. That's a long time to wait. Check out what Rob said after the break, and start yer speculatin'.

With the announcement about Starcraft 2 being a trilogy, do we know how long it'll be between releases?

We don't know yet, because we don't even know when the first game is getting released yet. I think there's some feeling out there that because we're treating each of the campaigns as almost like separate products, that people have somehow confused that into they're going to be separate products. In a lot of ways, you should think about the follow-ups as being kind of expansion sets to the original. It's just that the campaigns are not going to feel like expansions, they're going to feel like full, independent stories.

So, you know with any luck, it would be like a year for each successive one, but that's going to be a target date, that's not a promise.

Do you know what the pricing on it will be? People are bristling at the thought of having to pay for a game three times.

We would do the retail price based on the value that we're putting in the box. So, if the value in the box is less than the original, then we're going to price it like that. We're not just trying to get people to pay full price for something that's less, if the followups end up having the feature set of an expansion, then that's how they'll get priced.Blizzard VP: Starcraft 2 Trilogy on the 3-year plan (http://www.joystiq.com/2008/10/13/blizzard-vp-starcraft-2-trilogy-on-the-3-year-plan/)

The more I hear about this game the more I'm turned away.

[Ancalagon]

Hmmmph. When I first heard of this, I thought it would let them finish their story for StarCraft in StarCraft 2, instead of requiring StarCraft 4 to tie things up. I thought they would have it done by next year - releasing the games at maybe 6 month intervals or something.

Well, it appears I was wrong. This is less the Matrix Revolutions (as terrible as that movie was) and more Half Life 2: Episode 2. Is that a bad thing? For a game like this, I would say yes - I really dont see how the story cant be told in one game. Besides, having only one campaign per game means the story cannot advance as much as if 3 factions were playable (well, I'm guessing here I admit).

Also, in the case of Valve and Episode 2, they know its not a full game and dont try to price it as such, which is great. Blizzard's comment here leads me to believe they would oh-so-love to release the expansions at full price, if they thought they could get away with it.

What happened to Blizzard? In one day they went from the shining angel of the industry to a caricature of EA.

[itchyeyes]

I really do not understand the frustration with this. Is anyone complaining about how it will be 2 years before they get the inevitable Dawn of War 2 expansion? Did anyone complain that it took Blizzard 4 years to put out their 3rd WoW expansion? Is anyone complaining about HL2 episode 3? Expansions are the norm to day in PC gaming. The only difference here is that Blizzard was up front about it, and said "yeah we're making expansions, 2 of them, and they're going to be significant expansions". Why are people surprised? Why are people upset? This is nothing new or different.

[Dukefrukem]

I Is anyone complaining about HL2 episode 3? Expansions are the norm to day in PC gaming. .

Ummm yes very much so.

[itchyeyes]

Also, in the case of Valve and Episode 2, they know its not a full game and dont try to price it as such, which is great. Blizzard's comment here leads me to believe they would oh-so-love to release the expansions at full price, if they thought they could get away with it.
That's exactly the opposite of what the announcement said. Their exact words are

We're not just trying to get people to pay full price for something that's less, if the followups end up having the feature set of an expansion, then that's how they'll get priced.


How in the world to you take that quote and get "we're going to try and charge full price for an expansion pack" from it?

[Sandman]

I really do not understand the frustration with this. Is anyone complaining about how it will be 2 years before they get the inevitable Dawn of War 2 expansion? Did anyone complain that it took Blizzard 4 years to put out their 3rd WoW expansion? Is anyone complaining about HL2 episode 3? Expansions are the norm to day in PC gaming. The only difference here is that Blizzard was up front about it, and said "yeah we're making expansions, 2 of them, and they're going to be significant expansions". Why are people surprised? Why are people upset? This is nothing new or different.

This is somewhat different because until Blizzcon everyone expected this all to be one game package.

[Ancalagon]

How in the world to you take that quote and get "we're going to try and charge full price for an expansion pack" from it?

meh, I'm reading between the lines here. He says he wants to charge what Blizzard thinks they are worth. So it all depends on what Blizzard thinks they are worth, and if they think a new campaign means a new game, well..... They dont say it will definitely be priced like an expansion, they say if they feel its featureset is comparable to an expansion, then that is how it will be priced (EDIT: its also quite possible that the future expansions wont include multiplayer, or will allow multiplayer only with a certain faction).

As for why this is alarming, frankly I'm not convinced they need to release 2 extra expansions to finish the story. Besides, since expansions are commonly seen as milking the cow because of the lower investment required, but the still relatively high retail price, I think you can understand why this announcement is attracting some anger. Its like telling people that they are going to get ripped off and should enjoy it.

Since games are supposed to pay for their own development costs through sales, it would seem the first game will pay for the entirety of the development - including tools, engine, content etc - and the expansions will just be gravy because the development cost for tools, engine and the bulk of the content has already been incurred. Everyone knows that game developers are businesses too, but gamers hate being reminded of it.

[DiBiddilyBop]

Funny, the more I read, the more I think it's all going to be alright. Basically we're going to have three, much longer, more fleshed out campaigns, with an even longer story arc. I take this announcement to mean they bit off more they could chew with the story and rather than cutting down the story they want to tell, they're going to tell it in three parts.

The good news for the fans is that this probably means we're going to see more with the expansions, including more units, deeper story lines, and more complex multiplayer.

I'm totally ok with this announcement and people who are doom and gloom about it aren't really considering the fact that most PC games have expansions... this is the norm, not the exception.

[itchyeyes]

This is somewhat different because until Blizzcon everyone expected this all to be one game package.
Not really though. What everyone expected was one package with 10 Terran, 10 Zerg, and 10 Protoss missions, and full multiplayer and skirmish modes. The current situation is 30 Terran missions in the 1st game with full multiplayer and skirmish modes, with the expansions holding another 30 missions each and likely updates for the multiplayer.

Blizzard is still putting the same amount of content in the original game as they would have otherwise. Anyone who thought they would put more than 30 missions in is delusional. The only change here is that they're expanding the story over the expansion packs. Yes, that's something some people might be upset about, but it's most definitely not what everyone is trying to spin this as (ie Blizzard taking the content that was going to be in the 1st game only giving us 1/3rd of it for the same price).

Perhaps I was being a little hyperbolic in my 1st post. I can understand why some people would have preferred it to be structured more like the 1st Starcraft. What I can't understand is the indignation and downright anger. People are running around saying Blizzard is the new EA based on this, which is just ridiculous. Blizzard hasn't done anything wrong. At worst it's neutral, some people actually like the idea of seeing 3 Starcraft games in 3 years, considering we've waited a decade since the last one. And on gaming forums where the average person probably spends somewhere between $500-$1500 a year on gaming hardware and software, I find it a little hard to sympathize with people's pleas of being "forced" to spend an extra $30-$50 on a game that they very much want to play.

[Sandman]

What if you didn't really care for Terran and usually play as Zerg or Protoss? I'd be really pissed then.

[DiBiddilyBop]

Then you get 60 campaign missions with the races you enjoy instead of 20.

WOOHOO!

[Hotcod]

well, this clears it up a bit and in a way it makes sense... it's just a shame since i always liked the combined campaigns... but so long as each on its own is worth buying with there own fun way of playing (which they've promised) then i think this may be ok

[Savok]

When I heard trilogy I thought they meant a 3rd SC... not this shit.

Can't they put 1/3 of each campaign into their shitty trilogy? So when they add new units for each race they actually get to be used in something besides Skirmish?

I knew they'd become a bunch of clueless fucks since WoW but this is ridiculous.

[itchyeyes]

Wired (http://blog.wired.com/games/2008/10/qa-starcraft-ii.html) has a good interview up that sheds a lot more light one things. Of particular interest is this segment:
Wired: First off, you guys revealed the trilogy plan today. Is there a concern that ... I wrote a post on the announcement and a lot of people were saying “they’re gonna totally screw us and hold back information to put into the expansion.”

Browder: No. Not at all. No, fuck that. We’re not doing that at all.

The game, the Terran campaign, just got too big. It’s just too big for it. We coulda nerfed it. We totally could of. It was within our power. We talked about it, about like “we should make this a 12, 10-mission campaign, we’ll just go cram it all in,” but we just couldn't bring ourselves to do it. It would have sucked, right? It is not going to be cool. There’s just so many things that go on with Raynor and the marooned ships he has out there and the other characters.

Plus, we wanted to do new stuff and introduce some new characters with their problems and see them interact.

It was just too rich and too big and we started falling in love with it and we wanted to do it, so we looked at it and said, “Well, we can play the game and try to do it all. Like “a lot” play the game. And I don't think we want to do that. I don’t think the fans would be happy either.

Or, we could just cram it down, which is something we are not going to do, so that’s done.

Or we can break it up into 3 different products and have this really bitchin' Terran campaign. So that’s what we decided to do. And, y’know, looking back on it, there was much concern when we talked about it. We were all freaking out, saying “we can’t do that, but we have to, but we can’t!” We really went back and forth on it a lot.

Looking at it now, after I’ve seen how much further we’ve come in the campaign, I am absolutely convinced it was the right move.

Wired: Why’s that?

Browder: Because it’s such a better experience, because it can breathe a little bit, because it’s not so constrained, because we’re not trying to jam one epic moment after another into a 10-mission campaign until it doesn’t make sense anymore.

[Hotcod]

well, that makes a bit more happy as it seems that this is a decision that came out of what was happening with the game design and one that wasn't taken lightly... rather than something that some one in marketing dreamt up to sell more things... which explains why they've only just told us about it rather than at the start beacuse they didn't know they where going to do it.

[Matthias]

As long as the second and third installments are priced at the expansion range (i.e. no more than $20), I really don't see a problem with this. At the same time, i wish they would cut each race's campaign into thirds and give us some of each in each package. I'm not a huge fan of the terrans myself, and the new features the other races will use sound interesting

[pomeroy]

Then you get 60 campaign missions with the races you enjoy instead of 20.

WOOHOO!

Yeah, two years after the fact.

[Hotcod]

As long as the second and third installments are priced at the expansion range (i.e. no more than $20), I really don't see a problem with this. At the same time, i wish they would cut each race's campaign into thirds and give us some of each in each package. I'm not a huge fan of the terrans myself, and the new features the other races will use sound interesting

from the sounds of it they where trying to get the terrans finished first before moving on to focus the next race and the new campaign... and have had the terrans start to run away with them... which means that the other races campaigns are not nearly as far as long... so to have a 1/3 of each would probably put the realise date right back. So while it's also what i prefer i think this may be the only way to they can go and still have something come out soon.

[itchyeyes]

Yeah, two years after the fact.
Not necessarily. Given what they've said about where they are in the development process, if they were to include the Zerg and Protoss it seems extremely unlikely that we would see the game as early as they plan on releasing it for just the Terrans. Also, people need to keep in mind that this is not going to be your typical RTS single player experience that's essentially just a string of skirmish maps loosely linked by briefings in between. Read the interview I linked earlier and check out gametrailers to see some of the things they're doing (eg branching, non-linear mission structures).

[Vulture]

just as long as i can still play multiplayer as ANY of the 3, then i'm fine i guess.... any word on a campaign builder being included with release? that would offset the negative a bit, by allowing me to play some user-created campaigns while i'm waiting 24 long ass months to play as Protoss.

power overwhelming!

[itchyeyes]

just as long as i can still play multiplayer as ANY of the 3, then i'm fine i guess.... any word on a campaign builder being included with release? that would offset the negative a bit, by allowing me to play some user-created campaigns while i'm waiting 24 long ass months to play as Protoss.

power overwhelming!
In the interview I linked earlier they discuss including customization tools similar to what was in WC3.

[Hotcod]

for those of you still thinking about how awful this is... think about films, say lord of the rings. Did you go see all 3 films? did you pay to see and/or own them on dvd? did you get pissed off that they didn't put them all in one film that you could just pay once for? or did you agree with them that there was to much stuff to fit in to one film and if they had done it would have been awful?

I know it's not a perfect example as the films are based on 3 books (if one over all story) so 3 films make sense but there are parallels here that i think are worth thinking about... i bet most of you who where fans of the books probably didn't think twice paying 3 times to see 3 "full" films telling the full story in a way one film never could... seems like the same kind of thing to me

[Kryopsis]

Looks to me like die-hard Blizzard fanboys are trying to justify how Blizzard's decision to suddenly start violently raping their supporters in the ass happens to be a good idea.

I never liked StarCraft so this decision should not concern me, in theory. I am worried however that other companies will try to imitate this maneuver in the future.

Also, please stop comparing this with Dawn of War. Dark Crusade was a 30$ stand-alone product that added a new, revolutionary campaign mode and TWO NEW RACES. And it's not like the original Warhammer 40,000: Dawn of War shipped with only one playable race either.

[Kryopsis]

for those of you still thinking about how awful this is... think about films, say lord of the rings. Did you go see all 3 films? did you pay to see and/or own them on dvd? did you get pissed off that they didn't put them all in one film that you could just pay once for? or did you agree with them that there was to much stuff to fit in to one film and if they had done it would have been awful?

Lord of the Rings wasn't supposed to be a single film that was split into three several months before the release date. I am sure you wouldn't like having each installment of the trilogy turned into a 3-part movie, which would be closer to the current situation. The Matrix 'trilogy' would be a much better comparison. It was one movie that did so well commercially that the company decided to release two lousy sequels that the fans hated. They added absolutely nothing to the story but brought WB millions.

[Ghostbear]

well, this clears it up a bit and in a way it makes sense... it's just a shame since i always liked the combined campaigns... but so long as each on its own is worth buying with there own fun way of playing (which they've promised) then i think this may be ok

I agree with this. Who the fuck cares? They pretty much did the same thing with Dawn of war and I didn't hear the wail of the internet then.
Looks to me like die-hard Blizzard fanboys are trying to justify how Blizzard's decision to suddenly start violently raping their supporters in the ass happens to be a good idea.

I never liked StarCraft so this decision should not concern me, in theory. I am worried however that other companies will try to imitate this maneuver in the future.

Also, please stop comparing this with Dawn of War. Dark Crusade was a 30$ stand-alone product that added a new, revolutionary campaign mode and TWO NEW RACES. And it's not like the original Warhammer 40,000: Dawn of War shipped with only one playable race either.

Uhh but the single player campaign was only one race. so yeah, Dawn of war is the perfect comparison. Considering starcraft 2 will have fully featured Multiplayer, the comparisons only get stronger.

[Hemalin]

Also, please stop comparing this with Dawn of War. Dark Crusade was a 30$ stand-alone product that added a new, revolutionary campaign mode and TWO NEW RACES. And it's not like the original Warhammer 40,000: Dawn of War shipped with only one playable race either.
And it's not like Starcaft 2 is going to ship with one playable race either. Like Dawn of War only having a campaign for the Space Marines, Starcraft 2 is going to only have a campaign for Terrans. Also like Dawn of War's expansions providing enough content worth the price, Starcraft 2's expansions will provide enough content worth the price.

[KingGorilla]

Looks to me like die-hard Blizzard fanboys are trying to justify how Blizzard's decision to suddenly start violently raping their supporters in the ass happens to be a good idea.

I never liked StarCraft so this decision should not concern me, in theory. I am worried however that other companies will try to imitate this maneuver in the future.

Also, please stop comparing this with Dawn of War. Dark Crusade was a 30$ stand-alone product that added a new, revolutionary campaign mode and TWO NEW RACES. And it's not like the original Warhammer 40,000: Dawn of War shipped with only one playable race either.

You cannot really compare it to anything, because there is no info on price. For all anyone knows they will be free for anyone who bought the game in the first place.

[Hotcod]

Lord of the Rings wasn't supposed to be a single film that was split into three several months before the release date. I am sure you wouldn't like having each installment of the trilogy turned into a 3-part movie, which would be closer to the current situation. The Matrix 'trilogy' would be a much better comparison. It was one movie that did so well commercially that the company decided to release two lousy sequels that the fans hated. They added absolutely nothing to the story but brought WB millions.

like i said it's not a perfect comparison, i was just making the point about paying multiple times for the same story.

Now splitting up each of the 3 lord of the rings film is nothing like they are doing here as that impels no new content relative to what you where expecting. Given that any new content to the story would be pointless it becomes even less of a useful example in that context.

Just take a second to think about what is actually happening here. So bear with me and try and use that grey lump between your ears, that it, we call that your brain... we use it to think with and make logical and reasonable deductions about things in the world. Now what did we start with in terms of starcraft 2, a game with 3 races, 3 10 mission campaigns and mulitplayer. What do we have now? we have 3 games, each one with a race, with a campaign of 30 missions with added content to mulitplayer each.

So what is that, thats 90 missions instead of 30, what is 3 times the content than they had planed for one game. Do they sell it all together for the same price as the first way they had planed? in which case they are getting paid only a 1/3 for the work than they would have other wise... or do they sell them over all for around 3 times the price and get paid the same?

See what i'm trying to get you to understand is that the value per hour of game play is not changing here... you simply can get more if you want it. So how blizzard is raping people in the ass by providing three times the content for (probably) less than 3 time the price? again use your brain and think about it for a moment.

Now, no one is saying that this with out a doubt a good move, it could turn out to be an awful mess but we have to move past this idea that they are just trying to charge three times the price for the same thing we thought we where getting until yesterday. We are getting 3 times the content at around 3 times the price.

[Harv]

I still see no problem with this plan. Assuming we get to play all three races in multiplayer in the first game I have no problem with the various campaigns/stories being split into three games as it really sounds like they are going for a crapload of content in all three.

[Kryopsis]

HotCod,
Using that logic, you can just buy a single game with, say, 1,000 missions, and play it. Do you honestly think that three 30-mission campaigns are necessary to convey an epic conflict? Would you have the patience to play the same race for 30 missions straight?

Alright, clearly I am saying things you do not want to hear so I'll keep my bile for the blog that is graciously offered by CoG. No need to get so defensive. :0)

[Hotcod]

what the hell has your post got to do with anything i said? is there a starcraft game with 1,000 missions i'm missing? or are you trying to say that the value of a game is relative? which your right about yet the conclusion you draw from it is simply wrong

Until today you where willing to pay a given amount of money for a given amount of content... they are now tripling that content and are some how now raping people when they asked to be paid around triple for it... the relative value of the game was already set and people where happy with it, that relative value hasn't change.

The cost you are paying 'per hour of gameplay' is not changing, they are just giving you more hours... is this a good or a bad thing? god knows... i'm not making a judgement on that yet until we have some feed back from people who have played the campaign... You have every right to think it's not going to be good, that's perfectly fine and your view. All i'm contesting is this remarkably stupid idea that some how awful of them to give more content and charge more for it.

It's also got nothing to do with you saying what i do or do not want to hear, it's just got to do with fact and logic. I personally have rather big doubts about the game, i just don't think it's going to be that good but that simply dose not change the fact that blizzard is not at all raping me if i do buy all the games... you could say they are trying to milk the franchise but it's no more than what dow did or any rts game with 2 expiations hasn't done. They've just be up front about it beacuse the design team felt the campaign they where doing was so good they didn't want to cut it back and they wanted to do the same for the other 2 races...

It that a good idea or not in terms of the game? i have no idea but that's not been at all the point people have been making... i'm sorry if i'm coming across a bit harsh but i've been hearing the same rubbish all over the place about some how it's wrong of blizzard to triple the content they where planing and to charge for it... when it's all been based on stupid stupid logic

[Kryopsis]

From my perspective, tripling the content is simply unnecessary. Think for a moment: why would they do that? Did anybody ask for it? I believe that a StarCraft fan would as well replay the game on a higher difficulty rather as play mission 17 and 18. I am incredulous to believe that the game warrants the 30 missions. Who knows, maybe it does.

What Blizzard did in this case is secure themselves a market niche for the next 3-4 years by planning to release three products on a planned schedule. They have turned a single game into a lucrative trilogy that in the end will bring them more profits. You will not be able to convince me that they are doing it for the good of heart. In this case, they are bloating, inflating a product for the sake of profits and I do not like this tactic. I was not planning to buy StarCraft II save something unexpected would've happened. In this scenario, I am definitely not interested in paying for three products nor playing 90 missions for the sake of the story.

My point was, to sum it in one word, 'variety'. There is only so much you can do in an RTS game and it's very hard to keep the player involved and interested in a 10-mission campaign. Now imagine having to create 30 distinct maps, making each memorable and engaging. Is that even possible? Will you remember what was mission 23 all about? Wouldn't it be better to invest more time in a coherent 'skirmish' mode instead like Dark Crusade did? The '1,000 mission' example was only to point out that sooner or later you'll be bored of playing the same bloody game. I would rather invest, say, 150$, in 3 different, distinctive RTS games. Is this more clear now?

[Hotcod]

From my perspective, tripling the content is simply unnecessary. Think for a moment: why would they do that? Did anybody ask for it? I believe that a StarCraft fan would as well replay the game on a higher difficulty rather as play mission 17 and 18. I am incredulous to believe that the game warrants the 30 missions. Who knows, maybe it does.

Because the game designers found them self's wanting to create bigger more interesting campaigns for each race. You do know that there choices about what missions you take don't you?... or at lest stuff along those lines "none liner choices" as they put it in the wired article, not exactly sure how its going to work but there is choice... which will be done in hugely different ways with each race... which means it's not a case of sitting and playing 30 missions in a row and that it will have a good chunk of replayability.

So in that sense each game could very well warrant the 30 missions as it may let them do very interesting things will branching paths and so on. I'm starting to wonder if you've read anything at all about what is going on with the game.


What Blizzard did in this case is secure themselves a market niche for the next 3-4 years by planning to release three products on a planned schedule. They have turned a single game into a lucrative trilogy that in the end will bring them more profits. You will not be able to convince me that they are doing it for the good of heart. In this case, they are bloating, inflating a product for the sake of profits and I do not like this tactic. I was not planning to buy StarCraft II save something unexpected would've happened. In this scenario, I am definitely not interested in paying for three products nor playing 90 missions for the sake of the story.

You where never going to like the game and seem to have some underlying hate for blizzard so it's unlikely that i will ever be able to convince you of anything. Yet i point you to that wired blog, where they say that to expand the game in to 3 was a choice made by the design team... and unless you think they are flat out lying about then i don't know what else to say... it's a huge risk, announced at an odd time in development for a company that dose not need to milk anything at this point... so i'm hard pressed to believe that it's purely about the money.

That said you brought up dow2... a game with 3 expiations... we all know that star craft 2 was going to get them at some point too so why is so evil of blizzard to embrace the idea from the get go and use it to do something new and interesting in terms of making and selling games along the same line as valve?


My point was, to sum it in one word, 'variety'. There is only so much you can do in an RTS game and it's very hard to keep the player involved and interested in a 10-mission campaign. Now imagine having to create 30 distinct maps, making each memorable and engaging. Is that even possible? Will you remember what was mission 23 all about? Wouldn't it be better to invest more time in a coherent 'skirmish' mode instead like Dark Crusade did? The '1,000 mission' example was only to point out that sooner or later you'll be bored of playing the same bloody game. I would rather invest, say, 150$, in 3 different, distinctive RTS games. Is this more clear now?

Again, the campaigns are going to be some what no liner and the wired article talks about how they want every map to be engaging and interesting and simply cool in it's own right and a larger campaign lets them space out and pace the epic moments as well as how they are doing stuff with the campaigns that has never been done before.

the rest of this part of the post is purely your view that you have ever right to... but it simply seems you hate blizzard and are blasting what they are planing to do while knowing fuck all about it.

I honestly don't have a problem with you not liking what they are doing or the set up if you know what the hell is going on... but you don't... you your spouting useless pointless crap beacuse it gives you an excuse to hate on blizzard.

The funny thing is that there are a lot of valid concerns about all this that you'd have every right to bitch about... and yet you make your self look stupid while trying a point while being amamzing uninformed and given there's a god damn link on the last page which if you'd read it would have adressed a number of your major points... its just really freaking stupid

[diablopath]

I agree with this, still, for one point they made.
There is simply so much content they want to put in.

They could do three different things with this:
1. What they are
2. Nerf it all
3. Ship it unfinished, priced DLC later on.

I do not like games being nerfed. If a game developer isn't happy with their product, most likely, we wont be either.

I personally despise this trend of shipping unfinished products, so I would be vehemently against option 3, and I imagine Blizzard is too.

It has been *ten* years since we saw the last iteration of this franchise. There is a lot of story in between that. I can understand their dilemma, and I think they're approaching it nicely. At least StarCraf 2 is a trilogy, and not expanding that into StarCraft 3 and 4 as well, which I guess should be another option added to the three above.

I trust them.

[Kryopsis]

Just because a developers says something during a PR stunt doesn't make it true. Of course he says good things about the game. What, you actually expect him to say that he disagrees with the decision to turn the game into a trilogy? The interview does fuck all to address my concerns. It's the same PR nonsense that Bungie was spewing in the Halo-themed edition of the Wired magazine. It's the same old story that comes with the development with every single major release in history and the same kind of a justification every other company used in defense of some controversial decisions. You want an example? Here is an interview (http://pc.gamespy.com/pc/hellgate-london/786714p1.html) that GameSpy did with Bill Roper regarding the (then) shocking news that the game will have a paid subscription. Watch how he tries to twist the fact to make it seem like they are doing customers a favour with this stuff.

Seriously, Hotcod, if you weren't so busy drinking Blizzard-flavoured Kool-Aid and insulting me, you'd probably figure things out for yourself. Weren't you saying something about "that grey lump between your ears" a while back?

[Savok]

Cod, I really can't see how having to wait 2 years for Protoss players to get their campaign is defensible. What about new units, an expansion staple? The Terrans won't get to use them in their campaign.

If this were 10 missions for each race per game, you'd probably have a point, but it isn't.

[Hotcod]

If it was 10 missions per race each game the games would not be out for another 3 years. They have late in the game made a choice to triple the content... they can either not ship for a long long time over the years its going to take to finish it or they can go down the root they are now. They have said in the past they planed to finish each campaign in turn, so the other 2 are no where near as far as long as the terren and to get them up to the same level even if it was only the first 1/3 would take a hell of a lot longer than it would to get this one out the door... so its a case of either get something "now" and more later, or nothing until later...

Which is why Kryopsis i tend to think that this is not a marketing based stunt beacuse it's effectively really rather messy. Yes of course they are going to say good things about the game but i very much doubt that he would flat out lie, in that artitcal it's stated that it was up to the design team... if he was just spining the PR line i would expect the language to much different... again if this had nothing to do with the dev cycle then its a damn odd choice to make in the middle of it. I could easily easily agree that it was purely about the money if they had said this from the off but they haven't and they've left them self's in a mess that no marketing or sales person would want to have them selfs in.

You keep saying i'm some kind of blizzard fan boy when i've time and time again sat here and said that i have no idea if the game is going to be good and that i have huge doubts about it... you just seem to be blinded by your hate for blizzard and can't take a step back and look at what you are saying.

Also i forgot to dig up this video.

from the 2007 blizcon
http://uk.gamespot.com/pc/strategy/starcraft2/video/6176222/starcraft-ii-single-player-campaign-blizzcon-preview

which is a case in point, this video shows what they where planing to do just for the terren campaign before they made a choice to expand it... i think something along those lines could be interesting but that my personal view... The reason i bring it up is you ask why they are not doing something along the lines of the what DC did... yet this video from last year shows they are in fact doing stuff along those lines with non liner choice and so on...

You where never going to buy the game, you've admittance as much and your posts show a blind hatred of blizzard along with a lack of knowledge about the game... so it shouldn't surprise me that your talking crap... it just seems odd to me that you feel the need to be so hateful about it all when it's clearly something that shouldn't matter to you in anyway what so ever.

There was another point i was going to make but its 3:30am and my brain is shutting down so i forget...

Simply, i don't know if the game is going to be any good... i had my doubt before this change and i have bigger one after... i'm going to wait until we start getting some real feedback about how the campaign plays. I'm just damn sick of seeing pointles blind hate against games and companies for next to no good reason when there are lots of valid reason to be concerned or upset that are much more interesting to talk about than some DoW fanboy who hates on blizzard simply beacuse he thinks it cool... i can think of no other reason for you to be a full of vitriol has you have been.

edit: i think what i'm trying to say is that you can think it's going to suck and i have no problem with that but do it based on what we know about the game and what they are doing rather than a blind uninformed hate of blizzard. I honestly have rather big doubts about all of this and so far i've not really been able to talk about them beacuse i've been to busy replying to people who, like you, are stupidly over reacting to it and who with less reason that i have to think other wise thing blizzard is going to rape them in the ass... it got the point i've written a massive blog about that part of all this... we've started to move on some what from that thankfully... i think i'll see what your reply to this mess of a post is and i may make one last one tomorrow before trying to move this on to some valid discussion about why it may end up sucking and being a really bad idea or i may just give up and slap the laptop lid down on my head until i die in a pool of my own blood

edit 2: in fact i think i have honestly just gone insane, lack of sleep to much caffeine and crazy uni work... keep an eye our for a half naked man running around the streets hitting people with fish... beacuse for some reason that seems like a good idea, one that is more productive that the time spent arguing about crap that really dose not matter in this thread

[OrangePulp]

Just because a developers says something during a PR stunt doesn't make it true. Of course he says good things about the game. What, you actually expect him to say that he disagrees with the decision to turn the game into a trilogy? The interview does fuck all to address my concerns. It's the same PR nonsense that Bungie was spewing in the Halo-themed edition of the Wired magazine. It's the same old story that comes with the development with every single major release in history and the same kind of a justification every other company used in defense of some controversial decisions. You want an example? Here is an interview (http://pc.gamespy.com/pc/hellgate-london/786714p1.html) that GameSpy did with Bill Roper regarding the (then) shocking news that the game will have a paid subscription. Watch how he tries to twist the fact to make it seem like they are doing customers a favour with this stuff.

Seriously, Hotcod, if you weren't so busy drinking Blizzard-flavoured Kool-Aid and insulting me, you'd probably figure things out for yourself. Weren't you saying something about "that grey lump between your ears" a while back?

Thing is, it's Blizzard. You can call it drinking the kool-aid all you want, but I've never been disappointed by a blizzard release. Hell, look at their earlier games, like Rock n Roll Racing, Lost Vikings, and Blackthorn. As far as I'm concerned, they've built up enough good will that I'm perfectly happy giving them the benefit of the doubt.

Also, I take it those of you that are upset are primarily single-player only? As, personally, regardless of what the single player is like, the multiplayer will keep me perfectly happy with my purchase.

[Savok]

Having played WoW for years, I can tell you that Blizzard flat out lie all the time.

[Hemalin]

Also, I take it those of you that are upset are primarily single-player only? As, personally, regardless of what the single player is like, the multiplayer will keep me perfectly happy with my purchase.
I figured it'd be the opposite, multiplayer only players are concerned with unit additions and tweaks between the 3 games as well as a split player base. I figured the singleplayer only players would be happy that we're getting three times the content of the first Starcraft.
Cod, I really can't see how having to wait 2 years for Protoss players to get their campaign is defensible.
The game would have been delayed otherwise so they would have been waiting anyway. Protoss players should be excited that they'll get three times the originally planned missions without other bothersome factions that they don't care about.

[OrangePulp]

I figured it'd be the opposite, multiplayer only players are concerned with unit additions and tweaks between the 3 games as well as a split player base. I figured the singleplayer only players would be happy that we're getting three times the content of the first Starcraft.

I don't see how the multiplayer players would be upset; Who would turn down two expansions, instead of one? And, if the game is good (as it probably will be), anyone who enjoys it is liable to pick up both expansions regardless. Seemed like that was the case with Starcraft, as well as D2 and WC3; most people who played it consistently got the expansion.