Starcraft II Collector's Edition Announced

[DoctorFinger]

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2745/4502424533_20e19feb5f.jpg (http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2745/4502424533_0a38bc2a73_o.jpg)

Is it considered gauche to announce the contents of a collector's edition before you even announce a release date? The makers of Starcraft II: Wings of Liberty will have to take that one up with Miss Manners.

The $99.99 collector's edition comes with the sort of goodies you expect to see in a box like this

* The Art of StarCraft II: Wings of Liberty, a 176-page book featuring artwork from the game
* An exclusive 2GB USB flash drive replica of Jim Raynor's dog tag, which comes preloaded with the original StarCraft and the StarCraft: Brood War expansion set
* A behind-the-scenes DVD containing over an hour of developer interviews, cinematics with director's commentary, and more
* The official StarCraft II: Wings of Liberty soundtrack CD, containing 14 epic tracks from the game along with exclusive bonus tracks
* StarCraft comic book issue #0, a prequel to the comic series
* A World of Warcraft mini Thor in-game pet that can be applied to all World of Warcraft characters on a single Battle.net account
* Exclusive Battle.net downloadable content, including special portraits for your Battle.net profile, decals to customize your units in-game, and a visually unique version of the terran Thor unit

Blizzard also announced that the standard edition will retail for $59.99. Interestingly it looks like the digital version of the game won't be available at launch, instead it will come ""shortly after" the physical retail release.

Source - Shacknews (http://www.shacknews.com/onearticle.x/63203).

[Update] - It also looks like the Starcraft II will require an active internet connection to play (http://kotaku.com/5512576/does-starcraft-ii-require-an-internet-connection), contradicting previous statements by Blizzard.

[Deadend]

$60?
Fuck Activision.

[Commissar Rob]

Amazon had it at $50 yesterday...but they had Diablo 3 at $60. *le sigh*

[LordDon]

$60 huh? Pulling a "our shit shines like the sun" Disney move. Fuck you Activision.

[DoctorFinger]

At this point shouldn't we be grateful the SE isn't $100 and the CE $150? :D

[Doctor Setebos]

Is that still just the "first" installment? The one where you only get the Terran campaign?

I wonder if they'll offer $100 collector's editions of the next two installments after this one.

[Exodus]

Is that still just the "first" installment? The one where you only get the Terran campaign?

I wonder if they'll offer $100 collector's editions of the next two installments after this one.

....and I didn't hate actiblizzard until I thought about this

Fuck actiblizzard.

[DoctorFinger]

Is that still just the "first" installment? The one where you only get the Terran campaign?

I wonder if they'll offer $100 collector's editions of the next two installments after this one.Yes, they will. Then they'll put out a version with all the campaigns in one package. Then a GOTY edition. Then you get the expansions. $50 is fair price for an expansion, right?

[Dukefrukem]

$60?
Fuck Activision.

Well scratch this off my list of buys at lunch.

[Savok]

Always did know how to put a Collector's Edition together. Still not buying it, or any Activision game for that matter.

Is that still just the "first" installment? The one where you only get the Terran campaign?

I wonder if they'll offer $100 collector's editions of the next two installments after this one.
Funny, that's almost exactly what they'll be here. Standard will be $120 though, always double whatever America pays.

[Scull]

Oh for crying out loud! Talk about nickle and diming (or in this case $10 and $20ing) you to death. First you're getting 1/3 of a game, then you get it at $60, and now you get the CE at $100. And this will be repeated two more times. How many folks here are willing to pay $180-$300 for a single game?

And naturally there will be the "complete" edition with all three campaigns, and the "complete" CE and the expansions (one for each campaign you know) and the inevitable collection of all those in both standard and collectors and game of the year versions.

By my quick math the entire StarCraft II game will run you approximately $7.4 million USD. Bastards.

EDIT: One of my most anticipated games of the year (or next, or 2012) has been slowly falling further and further down the list of games that I actually want to buy. Acti-Blizzaard has taken enough missteps so far that it has just about fallen off my list entirely.

[Squidbot]

Got to love the "1/3 of the game" comments.

[Cit Phil Cit]

To hell with it. I won't even bothering buying it until they release the full-game.

GOTY for me. $60 for 1/3? GTFO.

If I want some genuine cool Starcraft art, I'll go look at 40k art; It's better, anyways.

[Scull]

Got to love the "1/3 of the game" comments.

If what we've been told is true that's about accurate though. You get the three race campaigns separately, and from the rumor mill you can only do multi with the races you own. So if you want to play all three races in campaign or multi, it really does sound like you need to get all three releases. At full price. If each campaign dropped at $20-$30 that might be an easier pill to swallow.

[Adam Blue]

Well, people will buy it, just like 2.5 million told Acti that the MW2 map-pack was worth $15.

While $60 is certainly not the norm for a PC game....does the $10 difference change anyone's mind? I'll be getting the CE personally.

[Adam Blue]

If what we've been told is true that's about accurate though. You get the three race campaigns separately, and from the rumor mill you can only do multi with the races you own. So if you want to play all three races in campaign or multi, it really does sound like you need to get all three releases. At full price. If each campaign dropped at $20-$30 that might be an easier pill to swallow.

I'm pretty sure you get all for multi...otherwise the multi games would be all Terran...

Now they SAY the campaign is the size of a single game, which is why they are doing this. I'm skeptical of that. But we'll just have to wait and see.

[Dukefrukem]

Well, people will buy it, just like 2.5 million told Acti that the MW2 map-pack was worth $15.

While $60 is certainly not the norm for a PC game....does the $10 difference change anyone's mind? I'll be getting the CE personally.

Yes.

I haven't bought MW2 yet, I haven't bought AC2 yet and I won't be buying this.

[Housemixer]

The singleplayer terran campaign (what you call 1/3 of the game) will be as long as the original SC (Terran+Protoss+Zerg Campaign), and you have all units and races available to you in MP right from the start. At least that's what they say in about every preview and interview. You could call the first installment of SC2 1/3 of the game, but in the end you will have about 3x the game that SC was ;) (at least that's what I'm hoping for)
Now the price is a different thing, and I expect those 60USD to end up being 60EUR... :(

[Mike Kelehan]

Got to love the "1/3 of the game" comments.

Considering that Blizzard flat-out said that was the case when they split it up, yeah, I think that's accurate.

I mean, you know, free market and all. If Activision wants to charge $180 for a really big game, more power to them. But I'm sure not buying them until we get the $40 Battle Chest in a few years.

[Adam Blue]

Yes.

I haven't bought MW2 yet, I haven't bought AC2 yet and I won't be buying this.

Is this done as a boycott to hopefully stop them from what they are doing? 2.5 Million sales of DLC say that won't be happening anytime soon, also without any previous successful video game boycott, I say do yourself a favor and try to enjoy some gaming.

[Hotcod]

*sigh*

It's amazes me how stupid people can be some times.

[Savok]

Still a bloody stupid way of doing things, as shit will of been tweaked by the time they get to the last game so the last race is going to have the best technology and the first will be crap by comparison.

Should of done it like they always did it, main game and 2 expansion packs. Oh wait, you can't charge full price on an expansion pack, HAHAHAHAHAHA silly me.

[Talanvor]

Jesus Blizzard, $60? Man I was really looking forward to SC 2, even if I had to hold my nose to keep from choking on the Activision stink. Now I just don't know.

I'm not buying into the "1/3 of a game" hate train myself. Until we see exactly how large the SP campaign is all we're doing is jumping to conclusions. If the campaign is as big as the original, I don't see the problem. Now if it's significantly shorter, then we'll have a legitimate gripe.

[Adam Blue]

Considering that Blizzard flat-out said that was the case when they split it up, yeah, I think that's accurate.

From Blizzard's site:

The StarCraft II Trilogy consists of the base StarCraft II game and two subsequent expansion sets. StarCraft II is subtitled Wings of Liberty (working title) and will include a lengthy single-player campaign that focuses on the terrans and puts players in the role of Jim Raynor, one of the series' main heroes. The first expansion set, Heart of the Swarm (working title), will follow later and include a single-player campaign focusing on the zerg and Kerrigan, Queen of Blades. The second expansion set, Legacy of the Void (working title), will continue the story experience with a single-player campaign centered on the protoss.


StarCraft II's terran campaign will consist of approximately 26 to 30 missions, and each expansion set will include a similar number of missions. This means that the complete StarCraft II Trilogy will include as many as 90 single-player missions. This allows us to create a truly epic story experience with a great variety of unique missions and gameplay types.

Now I'm not saying they're telling the truth, but because we have yet to see it, I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt. The Terran game will also include a mini Protoss campaign.

[Hotcod]

Considering that Blizzard flat-out said that was the case when they split it up, yeah, I think that's accurate.

If by "that's what bilzzard said" you mean they said "we worked on the terran campaign first but found that we quickly had to much content to fit in to the 1/3 campaign length we had planned. We really didn't want to cut any of the cool stuff and we still had loads more ideas and content planned so we felt it was best to split the game across 3 boxes each getting a campaign the length we had had planned for all 3 in the one box. So you get 3 times the content for likely less than 3 times the price" then ya your right.

[Exodus]

I'm Blizzard's bitch.

Besides the stupid card crap, the wow pets, achievements and WoW expansions they have never let me down.

Most of you singing the I hate activision tune I bet half of you will be purchasing the game within a couple months of its launch. An entire single player campaigns worth dedicated to one faction is EPIC. This is blizzard we're talking about and considering how much content they jam into their RTS games...as much as I loved CoH, DoWII, Supreme Commander, World in Conflict...none of their campaigns can touch what Blizzard's done.

But, if the sp isn't as epic as I think it is(but I'm pretty sure it will be)...it will not be pretty for Blizzard.

[DoctorFinger]

Wings of Liberty is not 1/3 of the game. You get the full multiplayer experience, and the campaign is as long as the SC1 campaign, you just have to play as 1 faction for 90% of it. The amount of content you get in the game is the same as it was always going to be.

The rub comes with the other 2 parts. If you already own WoL, then you're paying $60 for a new campaign and a MP component you already own. IF the other two parts are sold as expansions, then it's not so bad, but A-B has not said yet if they'll be priced differently.

[Savok]

My prediction on size? Lots and lots of padding. Raynor wants a glass of water, that's a god damn level. Also grinding, because nothing adds length to a game like a good grind, right Blizz!

[Dukefrukem]

Is this done as a boycott to hopefully stop them from what they are doing? 2.5 Million sales of DLC say that won't be happening anytime soon, also without any previous successful video game boycott, I say do yourself a favor and try to enjoy some gaming.

I enjoy the single player games fine. ;)

Not paying it, period. I don't care if it sells 6,692,030,277 copies.

[Stoke]

Still a bloody stupid way of doing things, as shit will of been tweaked by the time they get to the last game so the last race is going to have the best technology and the first will be crap by comparison.

Should of done it like they always did it, main game and 2 expansion packs. Oh wait, you can't charge full price on an expansion pack, HAHAHAHAHAHA silly me.

Can't charge full price for an expansion pack? You're talking about Activision here. You'll be lucky if the next 2/3s of the game are only $60 a piece. Have to account for extended development times, and "inflation," and all that. ;)

[Adam Blue]

I'm Blizzard's bitch.

Besides the stupid card crap, the wow pets, achievements and WoW expansions they have never let me down.

Most of you singing the I hate activision tune I bet half of you will be purchasing the game within a couple months of its launch. An entire single player campaigns worth dedicated to one faction is EPIC. This is blizzard we're talking about and considering how much content they jam into their RTS games...as much as I loved CoH, DoWII, Supreme Commander, World in Conflict...none of their campaigns can touch what Blizzard's done.

But, if the sp isn't as epic as I think it is(but I'm pretty sure it will be)...it will not be pretty for Blizzard.

Be careful, I got shit for making the 'you' claim; even though it was for sake of argument it was taken rather seriously. I agree though...except the comparisons to the other RTS's. :D

[Ten19]

IF the other two parts are sold as expansions, then it's not so bad, but A-B has not said yet if they'll be priced differently.
Blizzard has already said that the two follow-up campaigns WILL be expansions. I heavily suspect they will be priced accordingly. The "1/3 of a game" bullshit needs to stop.

[Scull]

From Blizzard's site:





Now I'm not saying they're telling the truth, but because we have yet to see it, I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt. The Terran game will also include a mini Protoss campaign.
Ah, I hadn't seen that, so it does sound like a pretty decent length for the single player, and there is a small light when they call parts two and three "expansions" so that maybe we'll get them at a reduced cost (I doubt it though). It still reeks of a cash grab, and I still have many doubts and reservations, so I will be firmly in the wait and see camp.

[Adam Blue]

I enjoy the single player games fine. ;)

Not paying it, period. I don't care if it sells 6,692,030,277 copies.

So you bought them anyway? Just not doing multi?

[Dukefrukem]

So you bought them anyway? Just not doing multi?

I repeat, I have never, and will never, pay for a $60 PC game.

[Exodus]

Be careful, I got shit for making the 'you' claim; even though it was for sake of argument it was taken rather seriously. I agree though...except the comparisons to the other RTS's. :D

I know wutcha mean but...what can I say...I'm totally their bitch. >_<

[Savok]

If by "that's what bilzzard said" you mean they said "we worked on the terran campaign first but found that we quickly had to much content to fit in to the 1/3 campaign length we had planned. We really didn't want to cut any of the cool stuff and we still had loads more ideas and content planned so we felt it was best to split the game across 3 boxes each getting a campaign the length we had had planned for all 3 in the one box. So you get 3 times the content for likely less than 3 times the price" then ya your right.
Because it's not like Blizzard or anyone else has ever lied before... have they?

[Adam Blue]

I repeat, I have never, and will never, pay for a $60 PC game.

Why didn't you buy Assassin's Creed?

[Stoke]

Why didn't you buy Assassin's Creed?

I'm guessing it's the $60 price tag they put on it.

[Dukefrukem]

Why didn't you buy Assassin's Creed?

because it's $60. (http://store.steampowered.com/app/33230/)

[Exodus]

Then why not buy it for the ps3/360?

[Ten19]

*sigh*

It's amazes me how stupid people can be some times.

This is the internet, where most people parrot misinformation to each other creating a giant ignorant cacophony. Something easily prevented by a few people checking facts, but who has time for stuff like that when I have threads I could be posting in!

[ElektroDragon]

Meh, where's the Diablo III Collector's Edition?

[Exodus]

next year elektro...it's going to be a long long year

[Hotcod]

Because it's not like Blizzard or anyone else has ever lied before... have they?

So if the game comes out being shorter than it should, as the reviews will no doubt tell us, we can... shock!... not buy the game and the complain based on... shock!... facts!

But of course that would the be reasonable none retarded way of dealing with what blizzard have said there plans are... and given this is the internet and people need to whine about something to make them seem even more like idiotic children than the lack of basic logic skills already does, well, it might be a bit to much to hope for eh?

[DoctorFinger]

Meh, where's the Diablo III Collector's Edition?Laughing at you from 2013. :p

[frederec]

Yes, they will. Then they'll put out a version with all the campaigns in one package. Then a GOTY edition. Then you get the expansions. $50 is fair price for an expansion, right?

This is why I'm willing to wait for the eventual battle chest that has the whole thing together. It helps that I'm not great at RTS, I just enjoy playing around a little.

[Adam Blue]

Then why not buy it for the ps3/360?

Yeah, that's what my point was getting too.

[Goronmon]

If this is so terrible, why aren't people pissed at Valve for releasing Half-Life 2 as only "1/3 of a game"?

[Xerxes]

Yeah, that's what my point was getting too.
I think UBI tried to get $60 for it. Great game, but PC gamers don't roll like that. Although I thought everyone was boycotting UBI's DRM. <shrug>

It's a ubi game and should be $15 before the year is up.

[Dukefrukem]

Yeah, that's what my point was getting too.

I never buy games on console that are available on PC.

If this is so terrible, why aren't people pissed at Valve for releasing Half-Life 2 as only "1/3 of a game"?

Totally different situation. The episodes they released after Half-Life 2 were announced months after the success of HL2.

[Adam Blue]

I think UBI tried to get $60 for it. Great game, but PC gamers don't roll like that. Although I thought everyone was boycotting UBI's DRM. <shrug>

It's a ubi game and should be $15 before the year is up.

Well I know he's a PS3 guy, I thought he'd just grab it for that console...unless console games shouldn't be $60? If boycotting due to DRM, one, it won't work, and two, pirating to boycott DRM is stupid.

Though, these video game boycotts are silly. In the end, only the publisher wins since they still make a killing.

[Exodus]

It just seems so wrong to complain about the price of a video game with an aussie present in the thread.

[Dukefrukem]

Though, these video game boycotts are silly. In the end, only the publisher wins since they still make a killing.

My wallet is winning and I can spend more time hating Final Fantasy XIII. ;)

Believe it or not, I'm not only a PS3 guy but a huuuuuge PC guy. Funny though considering I hate Microsoft so much.

[Exodus]

My wallet is winning and I can spend more time hating Final Fantasy XIII. ;)

Believe it or not, I'm not only a PS3 guy but a huuuuuge PC guy. Funny though considering I hate Microsoft so much.

I'm a huge PC person too but 60$ vs. 27.99$ is a no brainer. Think smart not stupid.

Or, better yet...rent it? That's still legal.

[Iron Past]

[Update] - It also looks like the Starcraft II will require an active internet connection to play, contradicting previous statements by Blizzard.

Aw, what the fuck, man?! And I'm off the Star Craft wagon, just like that. Boo.

[Savok]

So if the game comes out being shorter than it should, as the reviews will no doubt tell us, we can... shock!... not buy the game and the complain based on... shock!... facts!

But of course that would the be reasonable none retarded way of dealing with what blizzard have said there plans are... and given this is the internet and people need to whine about something to make them seem even more like idiotic children than the lack of basic logic skills already does, well, it might be a bit to much to hope for eh?
How dare these people complain about $60 PC games and Activision's patented way of screwing customers. God, it's like complaining about Bioware/EA's lack of support for Mass Effect 2...

And now you need an Internet connection too, at least the pirates can fix that one.

[pronounconnoun]

Though I enjoy the perspective of the many colonists who have voiced their disdain for Blizzard's pricing, it seems to be the trend now-a-days to try to spread content to DLC/Expansions for more money. Capcom did it with Street Fighter 4 and Resident Evil 5, and now Blizzard is doing it with SC2. Though with Blizzard I feel that separating the campaign into different sets makes more sense as long as the content is extensive and gives me the satisfaction of playing a complete game.

I will wait until more information about the game comes out before deciding if $60-$100 dollars is reasonable for SC2. Though, like most things in life, what is "worth" it is relative.

[Abyssion]

I don't know why everyone is so bent out of shape when it comes to connecting to the internet to play a game. Honestly how often when you turn on your PC are you NOT connected to the web? The only time I was bothered by connecting to the internet to play a game was for Half-Life 2, and that's only because I was on 56k and our house had one phone line.

Did anyone read the article by the way?


We contacted Blizzard's Bob Colayco, who clarified the situation for us.

"An initial activation check-in is required, which we also have been mentioning since BlizzCon and even before that. The campaign and other solo aspects of the game are still playable offline after your initial activation."

That seems completely reasonable, doesn't it? I mean, if you don't have access to the internet whatsoever, how are you reading this? Your phone? Don't be ridiculous, phones don't have the internet.

But maybe you guys are looking at it from a different angle than me.

[Dukefrukem]

LOL @ "That seems completely reasonable, doesn't it? I mean, if you don't have access to the internet whatsoever, how are you reading this? Your phone? Don't be ridiculous, phones don't have the internet."

[DoctorFinger]

I don't know why everyone is so bent out of shape when it comes to connecting to the internet to play a game. Honestly how often when you turn on your PC are you NOT connected to the web? The only time I was bothered by connecting to the internet to play a game was for Half-Life 2, and that's only because I was on 56k and our house had one phone line.Blizzard said months ago that you won't have to be connected to the net to play Campaign, and now they announce that you will have to be. In the grand scheme it's a little thing, but it's still saying one thing and doing another.

It's not as bad as the Ubisoft "you better damn well be online or else" DRM though.

[Jackel]

I don't know why everyone is so bent out of shape when it comes to connecting to the internet to play a game. Honestly how often when you turn on your PC are you NOT connected to the web? The only time I was bothered by connecting to the internet to play a game was for Half-Life 2, and that's only because I was on 56k and our house had one phone line.

Did anyone read the article by the way?



But maybe you guys are looking at it from a different angle than me.

For most of the year, I live in Alaska where my internet connection is shoddy. Quite frequently, tree's come down during storms knocking out the power / internet. It is nice being able to play my games on the laptop without worrying about connecting to the internet.

[Abyssion]

Blizzard said months ago that you won't have to be connected to the net to play Campaign, and now they announce that you will have to be. In the grand scheme it's a little thing, but it's still saying one thing and doing another.

It's not as bad as the Ubisoft "you better damn well be online or else" DRM though.

For most of the year, I live in Alaska where my internet connection is shoddy. Quite frequently, tree's come down during storms knocking out the power / internet. It is nice being able to play my games on the laptop without worrying about connecting to the internet.

Yeah, I see what you guys mean.

[Dukefrukem]

In Ubisoft's case, didn't the CEO actually tweet something where he lost hours of gameplay because he lost his internet connection...? So much fail it's funny at this point.

[Hotcod]

How dare these people complain about $60 PC games and Activision's patented way of screwing customers. God, it's like complaining about Bioware/EA's lack of support for Mass Effect 2...

And now you need an Internet connection too, at least the pirates can fix that one.

Complaining about fact's is one things complaining based on speculation that blizzard are nothing sort of bear faced lying about campaign lengths is another. If you want to talk about mass effect 2 go to the mass effect 2 thread where, shock, we are talking that.

If you are bitching about the this first realise being 1/3 of a game for the full price you are an idiot, it's that simple. Can we move on to talking about the stuff that matters like how the internet connection stuff is going to work? is it one time when you buy the game or do you have to log in then go to an offline mode? or what?

[Dukefrukem]

Complaining about fact is one things complaining based on speculation that blizzard are nothing sort of bear faced lying about campaign lengths is another. If you want to talk about mass effect 2 go to the mass effect 2 thread where we are talking that.

How ironic. I'd love to apply this logic to every Sony bashing thread in the past 4 years please.

[Hotcod]

How ironic. I'd love to apply this logic to every Sony bashing thread in the past 4 years please.

Ironic? how exactly?

But on to your point there's a vast difference between some one saying things that will soon enough be solid provable facts and what mostly amounts to PR, spin and company speculation. Which is not to say a lot of sony bashing isn't just blind idiotic fanboy hate 'cus 95% of it is... i just wish people would some times just engage there brains for 5 seconds before deciding the sky is falling down.

[Adam Blue]

i just wish people would some times just engage there brains for 5 seconds before deciding the sky is falling down.

This was my point of the Ubi DRM threads yet most of you told me to shut up and just accept that fact that Ubi needs to be boycotted... While I never agreed Ubi was doing the right thing, we as gamers need to enjoy games and understand the industry is going through a lot of crap due to piracy, digital distribution, and PC vs. console sales.

[Adam Blue]

In Ubisoft's case, didn't the CEO actually tweet something where he lost hours of gameplay because he lost his internet connection...? So much fail it's funny at this point.

I have not seen this and couldn't find it in a search. This would be crazy funny.

[Savok]

This was my point of the Ubi DRM threads yet most of you told me to shut up and just accept that fact that Ubi needs to be boycotted... While I never agreed Ubi was doing the right thing, we as gamers need to enjoy games and understand the industry is going through a lot of crap due to piracy, digital distribution, and PC vs. console sales.
Give an inch, they take a mile. And since we keep giving inches and they keep taking miles, hey presto, Ubi's latest DRM.

We say it's going to get worse, others say "no it won't, stop panicking", then it gets worse.

[Dukefrukem]

I have not seen this and couldn't find it in a search. This would be crazy funny.

Someone posted it on Cog. Argh let me try and find it. What Ubisoft game just came out?

[Dukefrukem]

Found it, but it was EA and Jeff Green. My B.

http://twitter.com/Greenspeak/status/10779486078

[Widgetcraft]

Well, I think you can get it for $50 right now if you hurry. Gamestop (http://www.gamestop.com/Catalog/ProductDetails.aspx?product_id=65548) still lists it at $49.99 and they have a "Worry-free guarentee":

Official pricing and release dates have not been announced by Blizzard. Price and release date listed are estimates only and subject to change. Worry Free Guarantee - if the price decreases between the time you place your preorder and the release date, you’ll receive the lower of the two.

Not really interested in it myself, as I don't like RTS games.

EDIT: Nevermind, I see now. It only matters if the price decreases. Probably doesn't mean shit if it increases.

[Stoke]

Well, I think you can get it for $50 right now if you hurry. Gamestop (http://www.gamestop.com/Catalog/ProductDetails.aspx?product_id=65548) still lists it at $49.99 and they have a "Worry-free guarentee":



Not really interested in it myself, as I don't like RTS games.

It says it the price decreases. I think we all know what happens if it increases.

[Hotcod]

This was my point of the Ubi DRM threads yet most of you told me to shut up and just accept that fact that Ubi needs to be boycotted... While I never agreed Ubi was doing the right thing, we as gamers need to enjoy games and understand the industry is going through a lot of crap due to piracy, digital distribution, and PC vs. console sales.

I'm making no comments about the online activation until we have more confirmed details on just how it's going to work.

Ubisofts DRM is idiotic and the only logical product of stopping and thinking for 5 seconds is, in fact, that the sky was falling down in that case. To presume that just because 99% of the time stopping and thinking about things will show that the world is not ending means that the world can never be ending after you've stopped and thought for 5 seconds is almost as idiotic as not stopping to think in the first place.

[Mike Kelehan]

It says it the price decreases. I think we all know what happens if it increases.

Unless they've changed their policy, you'll always get the lowest price. I've preordered some games that went up before they shipped, and they always honored them. Maybe they won't now; I don't know.

[OrangePulp]

I had always been under the impression that you needed to activate it online, at least once. Did they ever say anything to the contrary? "Being able to play the campaign offline" is not the same as "you never need an internet connection to play the campaign".

[Exodus]

I agree that having a constant connection is bullshit because let's face it...when your internet is down the last bastion of hope of enjoyment for your PC is some gaming. It's fucking bullshit to require internet connection to play a single player game of any kind.

Other than that though...let's face it I'm online all the time and my uptime is awesome because I pay a flat rate electrical bill and I bloody make sure I use it to the tips of its tits.

[tacitus]

We will see about exactly what they mean by internet connection; if it is just mean activation for single player and connection for multiplayer I can live with that. Connection for single player ... no.

Now the $60 price tag seems a bit steep; particularly if there are no guarantees that you get a discount for the other parts. But then again we will see exactly how good it is.

[OrangePulp]

We will see about exactly what they mean by internet connection; if it is just mean activation for single player and connection for multiplayer I can live with that. Connection for single player ... no.

Ok, really, from the article linked at the end of the newspost:

"An initial activation check-in is required, which we also have been mentioning since BlizzCon and even before that. The campaign and other solo aspects of the game are still playable offline after your initial activation."

[Telefrog]

Are people really griping about the initial activation check?

There's a world of difference between that and Ubi's DRM.

[DeathtollWRX]

Wow talk about pricey.. Oh well hopefully by the time Beta is done I will be done with multiplayer battling


HAH hell no... I sure won't be buying the special edition.

[Goronmon]

Totally different situation. The episodes they released after Half-Life 2 were announced months after the success of HL2.But they had to have been planning the episodes before the release of the game.

I mean, games aren't created in a vacuum where there is some standard cost for creating a game regardless of size. If Blizzard is putting as much money and time into developing the first 1/3 of the campaign as most companies put into their entire single player offering, then what exactly is the problem?

[Sandman]

I'm gonna pass; I ordered SC2 from amazon last year with an ECA code so I'm getting it for $49 with one day shipping.

[PathMaster]

I will be purchasing this.

[Talanvor]

I mean, games aren't created in a vacuum where there is some standard cost for creating a game regardless of size. If Blizzard is putting as much money and time into developing the first 1/3 of the campaign as most companies put into their entire single player offering, then what exactly is the problem?

But it's the first game in a series of three? 1/3! 1/3!!!! 1/3!!!1!1!omgwtfbbq!!!!1!

God damn. Were people whining that SC was only 1/2 a game when Brood War came out? When did people start pissing and moaning over this? Let's see how big the game is first, then we can bitch our heads off if it seems like 1/3 of a game or not.

Christ why is this getting everyone to act like they're in the gamefaq forums?

Now if there's a constant internet connection required, I'll be pissed and won't be buying. An initial registration check is okay, but persistent connectivity? Fuck that. :mad: Is this actually official or is it another one of those lovely internet rumors?

[Satertek]

Is this actually official or is it another one of those lovely internet rumors?

To play any multiplayer games, including LAN, you have to be connected to Battle.net. For single player it's supposed to work like Steam, you have to login to Battle.net at least the first time, then it lets you play offline.

[Narradisall]

Dear god. The amount of things people post as 'fact' are horrid.

I do agree personally that I've never liked the $60 SE pricing on games. The prices seem to creep up each year.

I hardly see that being a problem for most of the people here though. Fuck, I bet I can get a copy of this game day one for less than that. Actually I think if my pre-ofer sticks I'll be getting it for about $45 (head converting that though).

I'll still wait on what the price of the 2nd and 3rd are like, although they do plan to make the SP campaigns as long as the 1st, but as the MP will only probably have map packs and with the 2nd and 3rd requiring voice acting, etc and less engine building I would hope that the price would reflect that.

[Exodus]

Dear god. The amount of things people post as 'fact' are horrid.

I do agree personally that I've never liked the $60 SE pricing on games. The prices seem to creep up each year.

I hardly see that being a problem for most of the people here though. Fuck, I bet I can get a copy of this game day one for less than that. Actually I think if my pre-ofer sticks I'll be getting it for about $45 (head converting that though).

I'll still wait on what the price of the 2nd and 3rd are like, although they do plan to make the SP campaigns as long as the 1st, but as the MP will only probably have map packs and with the 2nd and 3rd requiring voice acting, etc and less engine building I would hope that the price would reflect that.


Don't take it too seriously. I can't speak for everyone but for myself this has been a long and anticipated wait. Diablo 3 even more so...

[Narradisall]

Don't take it too seriously. I can't speak for everyone but for myself this has been a long and anticipated wait. Diablo 3 even more so...

Oh, I'm not taking it seriously. It just gets long winded having to scroll through so many posts claiming 1/3rd of a game, $300 for all three games etc to actually find the bits worth reading.

Anyways, back on topic. $60 is still too high imo, but I reckon they'll be plenty of places to pick it up cheaper on launch.

[Trebor]

It's always nice when people can air their opinions, good and bad on a forum like this.

As for my position on this, it's simple, if the game is good it will sell, if not it won't. But don't tell that to the South Koreans, they practically live and breathe StarCraft there in Seoul. As for the cost, it seems that $60 is the new $50. Is that a good thing, depends on what you consider a "fair" price? Since no one knows what the release schedule for part 2 and 3 of this game you can either opt not to buy those when it comes out or not. It would not affect your multiplayer experience in any event.

As for the CE of SC2, nice to see what kind of "flair" you can get if you are a diehard SC player.
.

[Narradisall]

No no Trebor, this is the INTERNET.

If someone is WRONG, or DISAGREES with ME, they must suffer, suffer horribly!

Nah, I do actually agree with the complaints over the price. Hell, Duke sticks to his guns and doesn't pay $60 for a PC game, and I agree with him. It's too much. Yes prices of producing games increases, but there is no way the 2nd and 3rd should cost the same amount given they must save time and money on working with the existing engine at least (not a designer myself, but it makes logical sense).

I would say it will sell well, regardless, its fucking Starcraft! I still don't think that gives the right for you to be beaten to death with pricing.

Which is a shame, cause that collectors edition is sweet, but I've never bought a CE in my life due, so meh.

[Dukefrukem]

But they had to have been planning the episodes before the release of the game.

I mean, games aren't created in a vacuum where there is some standard cost for creating a game regardless of size. If Blizzard is putting as much money and time into developing the first 1/3 of the campaign as most companies put into their entire single player offering, then what exactly is the problem?

No they weren't. During the release of HL2 they were evaluating whether or not episodic was the direction they wanted to take. They decided yes, then after EP2 they changed their mind again... (I'm assuming this latter part)

[Voodoo]

I'll certainly pay $60 for Starcraft 2 Part 1 because I know with it being a Blizzard game that it will be supported for the next ten years. Whereas other games from other developers at the same price will be lucky to get 2 or 3 years of support.

I'm disappointed with modern boxed copies though... In this age of digital distribution, a retail copy should be a collectors edition and the digital copy should be the standard edition. Reminds me of modern music where the idea of collecting rare modern albums is unheard of.

Also glad a good lot of you weren't buying games when Wing Commander 3 came out. You would have a heart attack at the $79 price tag.

[Dukefrukem]

See that's the problem here. The people who are willing to pay this price are the reason why developers like IW, Ubisoft and Blizzard can charge these prices. X-(

[ClannerDelta]

See that's the problem here. The people who are willing to pay this price are the reason why developers like IW, Ubisoft and Blizzard can charge these prices. X-(

If something is worth $60 to me, I'll pay it. If it's not, I wont. You can always wait for the price to come down or for the inevitable Warchest.

If it's worth $60 to enough people, that certainly sucks for you, but that's life.

[Voodoo]

See that's the problem here. The people who are willing to pay this price are the reason why developers like IW, Ubisoft and Blizzard can charge these prices. X-(
I can take a picture of my boxed copy of Wing Commander 3 if you like.

[boratika]

Oh boo-hoo $60!


I could import that, and with the five odd dollars of shipping on top, I'd still be saving about $28 (USD) over going into a shop and buying it.:p




(assuming keys aren't region locked, anyway, and I'm not too optimistic about that one)

Anyway, yeah, I want this. But not in a "I will buy this" kind of way.

[Talanvor]

To play any multiplayer games, including LAN, you have to be connected to Battle.net. For single player it's supposed to work like Steam, you have to login to Battle.net at least the first time, then it lets you play offline.

Right, that's all I've heard from Blizzard so far. If the SP works like Steam, then I'm okay with that. I'm a kind of annoyed by the Battle.net requirement for LAN play, since it's not at all necessary.

I think, though, the last time I played SC between multiple computers we ended up just logging into Battle.net and playing through that since we could not get the damn network to behave.

[Cit Phil Cit]

I stopped defending gaming companies, when they became corporate entities. They are all equal scumbaggish, they take turns being the worst.

Don't defend them.

The order of the day is: nickel and diming.

[Adam Blue]

Also glad a good lot of you weren't buying games when Wing Commander 3 came out. You would have a heart attack at the $79 price tag.

This is another reason why I don't understand the complaints. Game prices fluctuate. They've been $50 before, and upwards to $70. This happens on almost every platform. It was the PS1's intro hook to help make the system sell.

If you buy $60 console games, you're only telling publishers that you will buy $60 games. And $15 DLC.

Let's Boycott!!!11

[Ghostbear]

Awesome, consider me sold on the collector's edition. Blizzard has always been able to put on together.

[PathMaster]

90% sure I will grab the Collector's Edition.

On the 1/3 game issue, you get a massive SP game and FULL MP. Lets break this down some. Three parts single player and three parts multi-player, that is 6 parts. You are getting 1 sp and all 3 MP, that is 4/6 or two thirds of a game. If you want to view all MP as one, then its still 1/2 of a game. That is not even taking into account the sheer size of the SP game. Yes, we will have to wait and see exactly what the campaigns will end up looking like, but I will enjoy the game. If you do not want to pay that much for so "little" content, then simply do not. Either wait for it to drop in price, or do not buy it at all. We do not have to consume all media we encounter. Our brains can survive not doing so.

On the internet connection, I asked a Blizzard guy at PAX East. I care a good deal on this since I am on a 56k connection. He said that the install with require to do a security/activation, then beyond that the game will require it for MP and perhaps for updates that is it. Can that change? Of course. Do I expect it to? No. The Blizzard guy did say that Blizzard wanted the players to enjoy the experience and not get bogged down in DRM and "not playing the game" time.

[Chaos Machine]

since mw2 just took a price dive(to $50.99 on steam lol) and given the traditional staying power of blizzard games in terms of price. I would expect that i wont be buying this game for a VERYYYYYY long time. I bet quite a few people are just gunna pirate it and buy a cdkey for multiplayer from whorea or wherever on the cheap, I guess thats what you get when you slap your customers in the face.

[Exodus]

This game needs a release date...NOW...or did it get one already while I wasn't looking?

[boratika]

This game needs a release date of NOW

Fix'd that one for ya ;)

[pomeroy]

I guess thats what you get when you slap your customers in the face.

Jesus Christ. The overreactions and drama are spectacular this time of year.

[Savok]

Everyone is just finally catching up to my hate, that's all.

[MagGnome]

A World of Warcraft mini Thor in-game pet that can be applied to all World of Warcraft characters on a single Battle.net account

Sadly this alone will probably sucker millions.

I said on this very site that Starcraft 2 would be $60, and I'm pretty sure several people said I was flat out wrong. It looks like I wasn't, unfortunately. I'd be willing to bet that the other two chapters will be $60 as well, yet they will still sell millions.

Oh well, I decided over a year ago that I wasn't going to buy this game, and this announcement made that even easier. To hell with Activision/Blizzard and their overpriced games and shitty DRM. They and Ubisoft sit in my short list of gaming companies who will not get any of my money.


Edit - Hopefully that bit about not having to be always online to play the singleplayer is true, but I wouldn't be surprised if that changed.

[MagGnome]

Blizzard has already said that the two follow-up campaigns WILL be expansions. I heavily suspect they will be priced accordingly. The "1/3 of a game" bullshit needs to stop.

"Priced accordingly" probably means $50 each then, since past Blizzard "expansions" have been $40, it follows that expansions to Starcraft 2 will likely be $50.

$160 for all three, or even $140 in the best case scenario.

I'm tired of games getting more expensive while simultaneously getting more restrictive. I won't be supporting this, but sadly a lot of gamers will and as a result things will only get worse. Within a few years games will probably be $70 each, and so on. Oh well, it just means I'll wait that much longer to play them. Not all of us make a ton of money and can afford buying all of these new releases, especially when the prices go up.


But they had to have been planning the episodes before the release of the game.

I mean, games aren't created in a vacuum where there is some standard cost for creating a game regardless of size. If Blizzard is putting as much money and time into developing the first 1/3 of the campaign as most companies put into their entire single player offering, then what exactly is the problem?

Weren't the episodes $20 each? That's a key difference that you are glossing over. If the Starcraft expansions/chapters/whatevers are $20 I'll eat my hat.


I stopped defending gaming companies, when they became corporate entities. They are all equal scumbaggish, they take turns being the worst.

Don't defend them.

The order of the day is: nickel and diming.

I don't understand why gamers feel the need to defend large corporations all the time. It's sad that we all have to fight with each other like this, as if it's some ridiculous war in which one must take sides at all times. This sort of fanboyism is why companies can get away with pushing up prices and releasing more and more DLC, while adding in more hoops for us to jump through.

[Lance Uppercut]

$60 for a PC game... not sure if I want anymore, not until that price drops to something more reasonable. And I fucking love Starcraft.

[CappinCanuck]

This is another reason why I don't understand the complaints. Game prices fluctuate. They've been $50 before, and upwards to $70. This happens on almost every platform. It was the PS1's intro hook to help make the system sell.

If you buy $60 console games, you're only telling publishers that you will buy $60 games. And $15 DLC.

Let's Boycott!!!11


Well, I know I might get shit on for saying it, but the US dollar crapped pretty hard :). The increase is only partially because Blizz is pushing the envelope and partially an increase in price overall. Remember in 2002 when they put WC3 out for $20 more than the typical price? Some others in the industry tried to follow suit for a few months before reverting back. The truth is that we've been paying $60 since 2002 up herein Canada. It has been $50 for the past 2 years when they finally updated pricing to reflect actual currency values in most sectors. In PC games and other games, we were getting screwed pretty hard heh. Either way, the value is probably 60, 70 as a regular price is A-B tacking on their awesome fee :)

It should be 50 in both US and CAN now though. I think it's another move like WC3 just because they can :). You'll likely see others trying to stick to the $60 price point in the next year though. Not sure it'll last.

P.s. At the end of 2002, I paid $79.99 for WC3. That was standard at the time. The sad part is that it translated to about $65-70 USD. I think your retail (Gamestop) was selling them for $49.

[Savok]

I'm sorry, hello, Australian here, most of my games translate to over $100US these days thanks to obnoxious region pricing.

[OrangePulp]

I'll pay $60 with a smile. The game is easily worth that to me. The gaming market is an interesting beast; anything over the 'standard' pricepoint is generally shouted down as overpriced, even if the game is of much higher quality than it's competition. Whether or not you consider it higher quality is, of course, a persona decision.

[SilentScreams]

Got to love the "1/3 of the game" comments.

Internet melodrama. We should be used to it by now! :D

Edit: And is an initial online activation really so bad? I mean even if my internet goes out, which it hasn't done in around 6 years (not including power cuts) I can hook my phone up to my PC and get connectivity. Slow yes, but enough to activate a game.

[BigJonno]

Internet melodrama. We should be used to it by now! :D

Edit: And is an initial online activation really so bad? I mean even if my internet goes out, which it hasn't done in around 6 years (not including power cuts) I can hook my phone up to my PC and get connectivity. Slow yes, but enough to activate a game.

I heard that they're going to require a constant supply of electricity to play SC2. It's not just an initial activation; you've got to be hooked up to the fucking mains the entire time you're playing. Screw Acti-Blizzard!

[Savok]

That's why we have a Gerbil-Wheel hack.

[PathMaster]

Starcraft II: Collector's Edition $80 or $76 AC w/Free Shipping (http://www.cheapassgamer.com/?f=2031&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+cheapassgamer+%28Cheap+Ass+Ga mer+%28USA%29%29&utm_content=Google+Reader) at GameStop.com

[Satertek]

Preordered with that CAG deal for $75. So this will be the most expensive game I've ever bought, and last week was the first time I'd ever played a Starcraft game. Crazy.

Just wish there was a release date. June would be perfect, though I'd expect September/Novemeber.

[Narradisall]

I'm weak.

I'm seriously considering trying to find the cheapest EU SCII:CE.....

[CappinCanuck]

It's just semantics and partly familiarity with SC1 that's the problem. It's less 1/3 of a game than it is a game with two planned expansions. We're just used to SC1 with the campaigns for three races. It was just one game though, it's not tradition now that they have to put 3 campaigns into every game.

That's my thought on it. Either way, SC2 will be a must-buy and I will laugh at the boycotters, which there will be some for certain.

[ClannerDelta]

That's my thought on it. Either way, SC2 will be a must-buy and I will laugh at the boycotters, which there will be some for certain.

SC2 is too good for me to pass up. Fuck roaches though. :p

[Exodus]

It's just semantics and partly familiarity with SC1 that's the problem. It's less 1/3 of a game than it is a game with two planned expansions. We're just used to SC1 with the campaigns for three races. It was just one game though, it's not tradition now that they have to put 3 campaigns into every game.

That's my thought on it. Either way, SC2 will be a must-buy and I will laugh at the boycotters, which there will be some for certain.

Exactly how I looked at it when I learned that the following campaigns are just expansions.

I honestly can't wait!

[Purple Santa]

Preordered with that CAG deal for $75. So this will be the most expensive game I've ever bought, and last week was the first time I'd ever played a Starcraft game. Crazy.

Just wish there was a release date. June would be perfect, though I'd expect September/Novemeber.

I never played one either. I'm signing up for this though. Some games you keep hearing about you just need to try as a gamer.

[Narradisall]

Damn, no news on UK CE's.

Balls.

[CappinCanuck]

I'm sure one of the big digital distributors will have the regular version up for $40-45 pre-release. $40 within a week. Thanks to Squidbot, I'm hooked, so I'll pick up whatever looks best just before the release date. Although no CE. You should have seen the look my wife gave me when I put up a SC2 calender.

[pronounconnoun]

I didn't see anyone bring this up in a previous argument:

Since the first Starcraft was 30 campaigns and Starcraft 2 will have 30 campaigns, then the purchase is totally worth it for a "full game."

P.S. This point does not support the price of the game, only the 1/3 argument.

P.P.S. This point supports CappinCanuck.

[MagGnome]

I'm sure one of the big digital distributors will have the regular version up for $40-45 pre-release. $40 within a week. Thanks to Squidbot, I'm hooked, so I'll pick up whatever looks best just before the release date. Although no CE. You should have seen the look my wife gave me when I put up a SC2 calender.

That won't happen. Starcraft 2 is being sold digitally through Battle.net. I would be shocked if it was available on Steam or anywhere else online.

[Stoke]

I didn't see anyone bring this up in a previous argument:

Since the first Starcraft was 30 campaigns and Starcraft 2 will have 30 campaigns, then the purchase is totally worth it for a "full game."

P.S. This point does not support the price of the game, only the 1/3 argument.

P.P.S. This point supports CappinCanuck.

It all depends on how you look at it. You could just as easily say "since the first Starcraft had 3 different races to campaign with and Starcraft 2 only has one, it's only 1/3 of what you got in the original." Either way, it's silly to continue arguing the point since everyone has already made up their mind.

I wonder if there's ever been a time where someone changed their mind on something after arguing about it over the internet? :p

That won't happen. Starcraft 2 is being sold digitally through Battle.net. I would be shocked if it was available on Steam or anywhere else online.

Surely they realize forcing people onto yet another DD outlet to get Starcraft 2 will make a lot of people unhappy. Maybe that's their goal with Starcraft 2? Maybe they're harnessing the nerd rage to charge their Wii-motes at the office or something.

[MagGnome]

All of Blizzard's games are only available digitally through Battle.net. I'm sure Starcraft 2 will be the same way.

[ClannerDelta]

I wonder if there's ever been a time where someone changed their mind on something after arguing about it over the internet? :p
Those of us that aren't retarded.

Surely they realize forcing people onto yet another DD outlet to get Starcraft 2 will make a lot of people unhappy. Maybe that's their goal with Starcraft 2? Maybe they're harnessing the nerd rage to charge their Wii-motes at the office or something.

Why would it? You already need the login and most people that will play SC2 probably have a Battle.net account anyway. Unless you're unreasonably attached to a distributor, there isn't a compelling reason I can think of as to why you'd be offended by Blizzard handling their own distribution.

[Stoke]

Why would it? You already need the login and most people that will play SC2 probably have a Battle.net account anyway. Unless you're unreasonably attached to a distributor, there isn't a compelling reason I can think of as to why you'd be offended by Blizzard handling their own distribution.

Most people would feel more comfortable buying from a distributor they have bought from in the past if for no other reason than they know what to expect. I know you've seen the "I'll wait for it to hit Steam" comments just like I have on several occasions. Besides, I think you're taking my comments a little too seriously. I thought it was obvious my last post was pretty tongue in cheek but sarcasm is an iffy thing on the internet.

[Xerxes]

They really shouldn't have released word of there being 3 parts to it. I think people would of been happier.

[ClannerDelta]

Most people would feel more comfortable buying from a distributor they have bought from in the past if for no other reason than they know what to expect. I know you've seen the "I'll wait for it to hit Steam" comments just like I have on several occasions. Besides, I think you're taking my comments a little too seriously. I thought it was obvious my last post was pretty tongue in cheek but sarcasm is an iffy thing on the internet.

I saw the plum in the first bit. Not the second. As for steam, that falls under the unreasonable attachment to a distributor. They are there to take your money, they'd also fuck your mother if they could. So being more faithful to one without any real reason to believe you'll get less service from the other is just being a fanboy. :p

[Narradisall]

They really shouldn't have released word of there being 3 parts to it. I think people would of been happier.

God no, could you have imagined the internet rage if people bought it to find the terran the only SP campaign?

The way I see it, is all three campaigns cover a large story arch over 3 games. The MP you get all in one shot with the first one, so unless they add a *REALLY* good reason to buy the latter 2 for MP then most of the people can just buy one game!

The SP people will get 3 games, much like they would with Mass Effect, Modern Warfare etc etc for the whole story.

The price complaints are mute. Most people can get this cheap day one with a bit of searching.

[ShivaX]

It's just semantics and partly familiarity with SC1 that's the problem. It's less 1/3 of a game than it is a game with two planned expansions. We're just used to SC1 with the campaigns for three races. It was just one game though, it's not tradition now that they have to put 3 campaigns into every game.


I don't have a horse in this race, but ummm:

Warcraft 1 - each race got a campaign
Warcraft 2 - each race got a campaign
Warcraft 3 - each race got a campaign
Warcraft 3 Frozen Throne - each race got a campaign
Starcraft - each race got a campaign
Starcraft Broodwar - each race got a campaign

So... its kind of a tradition. They've done it in every single RTS they've ever made. If doing something for as long as you've been around isn't a tradition to you, I'm not sure what is.

[CappinCanuck]

I don't have a horse in this race, but ummm:

Warcraft 1 - each race got a campaign
Warcraft 2 - each race got a campaign
Warcraft 3 - each race got a campaign
Warcraft 3 Frozen Throne - each race got a campaign
Starcraft - each race got a campaign
Starcraft Broodwar - each race got a campaign

So... its kind of a tradition. They've done it in every single RTS they've ever made. If doing something for as long as you've been around isn't a tradition to you, I'm not sure what is.

Maybe. Even my original point is sort of meh now that I think about it. We don't have any reasonable point of expectation to maintain the same formula. With video games, I would almost say there's an expectation that it will change. Either way, they're more than valid in doing whatever they want.

I'm more curious about what Magnome said. I hope this does come out in more places than Bnet. I have a feeling they'll be selling it at full price for a while if that's the case.

[ShivaX]

Either way, they're more than valid in doing whatever they want.


I wont disagree with that. I'm not buying it anyway, so I don't really care. Though if I was it would probably irk me a little that they do seem to be milking it a bit in that I'd have to buy two expansions instead of one to get the whole story/experience. In the end it would likely come down to how much each expansion cost.

[Xerxes]

God no, could you have imagined the internet rage if people bought it to find the terran the only SP campaign?

The way I see it, is all three campaigns cover a large story arch over 3 games. The MP you get all in one shot with the first one, so unless they add a *REALLY* good reason to buy the latter 2 for MP then most of the people can just buy one game!

The SP people will get 3 games, much like they would with Mass Effect, Modern Warfare etc etc for the whole story.

The price complaints are mute. Most people can get this cheap day one with a bit of searching.

Well present it as a epic trilogy :p

[MagGnome]

I'm more curious about what Magnome said. I hope this does come out in more places than Bnet. I have a feeling they'll be selling it at full price for a while if that's the case.

I would honestly be quite shocked if it came to Steam, Impulse, or any of the other big distributors. They said quite some time ago that they were going to sell it digitally via Battle.net/Blizzard.com. That is Blizzard's online portal, and they haven't supported any others.

Blizzard games tend to stay at higher prices longer than a lot of PC series, so unless a retailer runs a deal I wouldn't expect this to even hit $40 for a couple of years.

[forklord]

I paid 99$ each for chrono trigger and FF 3/6 for SNES when they first came out in canada at wal-mart and minimum wage was literally half what it is now. I still have my NES box that has a price tag still on it for 299 from 1987. It wasn't much different in the U.S. then. Not much difference at all. And all that fucking thing did was play cartridges you had to blow on. Now we have systems that do a million different things for essentially the same price. 60$ too much for a PC game? What does that even mean?

[Narradisall]

I'm getting my normal edition from amazon for $41.

I've yet to see a CE for the EU on sale.