Starcraft II Now A Trilogy [Archive]

DoctorFinger

10-10-2008, 07:01 PM

http://www.colonyofgamers.com/images/newsimages/star-craft-2.png

Starcraft fans, begin hording pennies and patience now. Blizzard announced today at Blizzcon that Starcraft 2 will essentially be a trilogy: one stand-alone game each for the Terran, Zerg and Protoss factions.

The first Starcraft II game will be Terran: Wings of Liberty, where you'll play as the human forces. The second iteration will be Zerg: Heart of Swarm with the last being Protoss: Legend of the Void. Each game will also have slightly different play styles, with the Terran game being pure RTS, the Zerg game having RPG elements, and the Protoss game incorporating diplomacy.

Each game will have 26-30 missions, and Blizzard assures fans that they won't be doing cliffhangers: each game will have it's own real story and a full, satisfying ending. But yes, they will each be a separate purchase and apparently on a staggered release schedule.

Sources - 1UP (http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3170574); Shacknews (http://www.shacknews.com/onearticle.x/55267)

DoctorFinger

10-10-2008, 07:03 PM

While you're at it, watch these two videos of the game from Blizzcon.

22007

22008

GunnyMo

10-10-2008, 07:04 PM

Wow, just wow. Talk about exploitation of a franchise. Even for Blizzard this seems weak.

digitalErich

10-10-2008, 07:06 PM

How will MP work?

King3567

10-10-2008, 07:06 PM

I saw this and this is really really stupid. Not that StarCraft II or anything Blizzard really appeals to me any more since WoW came into existence...

DoctorFinger

10-10-2008, 07:08 PM

How will MP work?They're going to charge a dollar per click! :D

Honestly? I have no idea. I assume you'll be able to play MP with all of the factions with only one disc, but I don't know for sure.

Sly Marbo

10-10-2008, 07:08 PM

This was a first day purchase. Now I won't buy any of them.

Hellbug

10-10-2008, 07:09 PM

Starcraft has three campaigns that are each about 8-10 missions long. It isn't a very large drop in content at all. I am actually glad they are going this route because that means that there will be more Starcraft 2 content!

Of course, if they decide to be pricks and make each game full priced, and just different campaigns in place of each other, that is just rude.

King3567

10-10-2008, 07:10 PM

How will MP work?

I've read that you can use all the races regardless of which and how many of Starcraft II you buy. Not sure if it's real or not, but that would be even worse if it were any other way.

DoctorFinger

10-10-2008, 07:11 PM

Seriously. That means that these games will run you - minimum - $150. Because you know they're not going to release them cheap just because there are three of them. I hope to God this isn't Activision's doing. If we find out it is, the entire nation of South Korea may invade their HQ in protest.

pomeroy

10-10-2008, 07:11 PM

This is sort of weak. The beauty of Starcraft is(was?) the fact that you could play with any race at the outset. Now they're taking that away and the first disc is going to be the effing Terrans...

Whatevs. My computer probably can't handle this anyway, so it's not like I am suddenly not going to buy it.

Adam Blue

10-10-2008, 07:20 PM

As long as full MP is there...will most care? I personally like SP, so if the initial release feels enough like a full game on its own, I won't have a problem buying the others.

Disgustipated

10-10-2008, 07:26 PM

Starcraft II just became the new Pokemon.

Crowe

10-10-2008, 07:26 PM

26-30 Missions each is a lot guys. And it's Blizzard so take a wait and see approach before bringing out the pitchforks.

Variable Gear

10-10-2008, 07:32 PM

26-30 Missions each is a lot guys. And it's Blizzard so take a wait and see approach before bringing out the pitchforks.
It depends on who made the decision. If it was Activision, it's going to smell bad right from the start. Then there's the issue of pricing, which seems quite strange for an RTS. StarCraft II doesn't deserve this. :(

Crowe

10-10-2008, 07:37 PM

It depends on who made the decision. If it was Activision, it's going to smell bad right from the start. Then there's the issue of pricing, which seems quite strange for an RTS. StarCraft II doesn't deserve this. :(

It's all about pricing. How much would people here pay for 80-90 missions set over 3 campaigns?

I figure I could pay $120 Australian. Any more than that they would be stretching my wallet and love for all things Blizzard.

AgtFox

10-10-2008, 07:47 PM

Why are people thinking Activision has anything to do with this? Blizzard runs its own ship without oversight regardless of the Activision Blizzard merger. I thought this had been covered before.

Or do we just want to blame Activision because we're shocked Blizzard could think to pull such a thing?

It is also sounding like they might be priced less, more of an expansion type of system. I would guess the Terran one may be a prerequisite whether you decide to buy the others or not.

Kryopsis

10-10-2008, 07:50 PM

Heh. I wonder if they are going to release an expansion for each of the three versions of the game. ;0)

Unfortunately due to the popularity of both the developer and the franchise, they can justify absolutely any price for the separate campaigns. Sad but true. Not that I was ever interested in StarCraft II, however, I am just waiting for the Warhammer 40,000: Dawn of War sequel.

Hotcod

10-10-2008, 07:53 PM

the price point will make or brake this idea... if the price point is good relative to the content than i'll be happy. In that i won't mind paying more for all 3 than i would for one game IF all 3 have more content than i would have gotten in just one game.... so i'm sitting on the side lines until the price comes out

Johan

10-10-2008, 07:58 PM

For an IP that's been sitting on the shelf for a while, they sure seem to have decided to milk it now that they've taken it off of that shelf...

Spigot

10-10-2008, 08:03 PM

Unless the games are priced quite cheaply ($30 each, max) I'm out. I enjoyed Starcraft & Brood War back in the day but RTS in general have pretty much fallen off my map. Sure, I'd like to play a new campaign in a prettier version of the Starcraft universe, but not enough to drop a pile of money on 3 different games in order to get the whole story.

And I'll agree with a few of the other posters. A large part of why I enjoyed the original was because you got to play through 3 different storylines that were part of a bigger, overarcing plot. Sure, 25-30 missions is a lot but you tend to get tired of Race X by the time you hit the 10-12 mission mark. That's been my experience in almost any RTS where you have multiple factions, unless some of the levels are really short.

I'll hold off on lighting my torch and sharpening my pitchfork just yet, esp. if they release these as $25-30 games, but if they try to get $40-50 each, I'm out.

OrangePulp

10-10-2008, 08:04 PM

It sounds to me like you've got the core game, with three different singleplayer campaigns/games layered on top of it. I can only assume that, once you have one game, you'd pay a reduced price for the others or what have you, as they'd basically then be mission packs. I can't imagine Blizzard being stupid enough to charge $50 for each.

And hell, while I like the single player, the meat is in the multiplayer, and all you need is one copy for that.

Illuminus

10-10-2008, 08:12 PM

Erg, i dont like this idea at all... next we know they will do the same to Diablo 3. Or even worse, have subscription fees for MP!!!! :eek:

Spigot

10-10-2008, 08:12 PM

See, I'm the opposite way. I could care less about the multiplayer. I want to enjoy a solid singleplayer campaign like the original and Brood War.

Orangie, if your method works out, I'd be all over that. $40 or so for the first game and then $20 for the latter two games would be ok. Not optimal, but ok.

I am interested in a Zerg RPG though... :)

Xerxes

10-10-2008, 08:15 PM

You'll buy it, and you'll like it. Blizzard said so.

bryan

10-10-2008, 08:15 PM

I hope this was done with the intent of telling a better story. I was going to pre-order this but now I have to wait and see.

Lekon

10-10-2008, 08:30 PM

You'll buy it, and you'll like it. Blizzard said so.

I won't buy it and I'll like Dawn of War 2. No need for Zerg RPG when I can have Empire or Orky RPG instead.

Crowe

10-10-2008, 08:36 PM

I won't buy it and I'll like Dawn of War 2. No need for Zerg RPG when I can have Empire or Orky RPG instead.

Just another noob we wont have to 'deal' with in MP :p

Hemalin

10-10-2008, 08:37 PM

The original Starcraft was 30 missions long. How many people here bought Dawn of War and its three expansions? It looks like they are doing what Relic did when they left the Chaos, Eldar, and Ork campaign for Winterassault.

Rogue_hunter

10-10-2008, 08:53 PM

I'm glad to see that more people are excited for Dawn of War 2 now. DoW2 has the RPG aspect, and the overarcing galaxy map. Add in the fact that the campaign is dynamic (missions will expire, and you will have more than one mission to choose from at anytime), I think there will be more campaign missions overall. And really, StarCraft is a poor man's W40k, as WarCraft is the poor man's Warhammer and LotR.
oh yeah. that's right, I said it. suck it up blizzard fanboys

It looks like Blizzard is taking a page from Relic's handbook, but still keeping 3 races. DoW 1 came with 4 races, as will DoW 2. At least you won't be penalized in multiplayer like you could be in DoW with the expansions unlocking races.

Hemalin: only one of the expansions actually had story, and that had two different campaigns. The other two expansions played like Risk, no actual story. The last two expansions served more as map packs and new races instead of continuing the story.

This still reminds me that I need to figure out how to encode the video I took at the DoW2 panel at PAX. I never really cared to walk by the Blizzard booth at PAX after seeing that live demo. And where would I have a ~40 minute video hosted without having to break it up?

EDIT: damn it, forgot to include the fact that DoW2 will have co-op. OMG, that's gonna be fun. And they've focused on quick battles, and no base building. Most skirmishes should take 10-15 minutes. Focus on action is more fun than having to gather resources and build an army.

KingGorilla

10-10-2008, 08:56 PM

I toyed around with this idea as a pure mental exercise. Games need to get cheaper, in all respects. They need to have shorter turn around, and all that. If they release 3 fully featured campaigns, at a lower price, then I do not see the bad in this. If they are comprably priced to say a Half-Life episode, that seems about right. Or what if they release it on their own store like the Sam and Max seasons?

I also wonder if this is a symptom of just how little of Starcraft is actually done. It has already come out that Diablo III will be coming out before SC3, even though it was announced more recently.

What this does not answer is what will be the fate of the multiplayer? Will you need each pack to play each race, like Warhammer 40k? Will you have the full compliment of races from the get go, and then buy map packs? Will the multiplayer be its own product now?

bryan

10-10-2008, 09:00 PM

This still reminds me that I need to figure out how to encode the video I took at the DoW2 panel at PAX. I never really cared to walk by the Blizzard booth at PAX after seeing that live demo. And where would I have a ~40 minute video hosted without having to break it up?

Torrent it using a public tracker. We'll hop on and help you seed.

bryan

10-10-2008, 09:02 PM

Reading Shack's story on this, and saw this:

"[The second and third games] will be like expansion packs, but we really want them to feel like standalone products," said Blizzard's Rob Pardo.

So I hope that sets the tone for the pricing. To me, until the boom actually falls, Blizzard still has a lot of good faith.

Oh and another bit.

The campaigns are planned as concentrated, epic storylines, with enough content to justify a full release. As a result, the games will now feature more in-game cinematics and story content.

So if product values are consistently high, then I don't mind. And more of their awesome cinematics!

KingGorilla

10-10-2008, 09:02 PM

Yeah torrent it. That would be the easiest for all involved.

Crowe

10-10-2008, 09:10 PM

Reading Shack's story on this, and saw this:

So I hope that sets the tone for the pricing. To me, until the boom actually falls, Blizzard still has a lot of good faith.

Oh and another bit.

So if product values are consistently high, then I don't mind. And more of their awesome cinematics!

Those quotes are all I need to hear. I've been dying for more Starcraft, and the wait is going to hurt.

Loki

10-10-2008, 09:14 PM

WHAT THE FUCK?! For fucks sake. This is ridiculous.

bryan

10-10-2008, 09:16 PM

WHAT THE FUCK?! For fucks sake. This is ridiculous.

Knee jerk knee jerk.

Loki

10-10-2008, 09:19 PM

Knee jerk knee jerk.

How else would you expect my reaction? If it means that the multiplayer will be intact in the first installment, I won't care; if it is missing things then I will care.

bryan

10-10-2008, 09:23 PM

How else would you expect? If it means that the multiplayer will be intact in the first installment, I won't care; if it is missing things then I will care.

Either way at this point in time we don't know. We need more substantive info first on how complete the multiplayer will be. Hey I'm with you on wanting a complete multiplayer from the get go.

Thought further thinking on this it seems to me if the first game is multiplayer complete, the subsequent games will probably see a substantial fall off in sales. Unless I'm putting too much stock into the MP aspect.

Loki

10-10-2008, 09:27 PM

Either way at this point in time we don't know. We need more substantive info first on how complete the multiplayer will be. Hey I'm with you on wanting a complete multiplayer from the get go.

Thought further thinking on this it seems to me if the first game is multiplayer complete, the subsequent games will probably see a substantial fall off in sales. Unless I'm putting too much stock into the MP aspect.

I'll buy all 3. I love the StarCraft universe and many other people do as well. However, it would be insane if they didn't include all 3 races on the outset since multiplayer would be quite boring until you acquired the entire trilogy. If they treat each one as a standalone game that opens up new units, techs, etc. in the multiplayer game (a la Broodwar) it will have a much better reception amongst the Starcraft crowd.

On the 'bright' side, I like that they cut down on the 'WoW' color scheme, especially for the terrans. It looks more like how I had imagined the game to be when first introduced.

KingGorilla

10-10-2008, 09:31 PM

Starcraft sucks anyway.

bryan

10-10-2008, 09:33 PM

I'll buy all 3. I love the StarCraft universe and many other people do as well. However, it would be insane if they didn't include all 3 races on the outset since multiplayer would be quite boring until you acquired the entire trilogy. If they treat each one as a standalone game that opens up new units, techs, etc. in the multiplayer game (a la Broodwar) it will have a much better reception amongst the Starcraft crowd.

On the 'bright' side, I like that they cut down on the 'WoW' color scheme, especially for the terrans. It looks more like how I had imagined the game to be when first introduced.

I'm still downing the HD trailers but that's good news to hear, it looked a bit too bright in the initial gameplay movie.

I'll buy all three myself, MP isn't a huge factor for me. My fondest memories of Starcraft are the story moments.

BrassGecko

10-10-2008, 09:42 PM

I'll wait and see. I was never much for online multiplayer in Starcraft, but if the singleplayer of the first part released looks good enough, I'll buy it. If not, I'll wait a while until I can buy them as a set for the first day price of one.

BabyJesus

10-10-2008, 09:57 PM

Boo, bad move. No buy here.

Zonkuya

10-10-2008, 10:10 PM

Guys, how about the real important issue?

How can we play the new/upgraded units from the other races (zerg and protoss) without knowing the backstory behind their creation/evolution? It's going to be a huge spoiler! I can't possibly use the other races in mp games now! :cries:

Add: Assuming Blizzard sit on the first installment for a year or two or something

agentgray

10-10-2008, 10:11 PM

So, it's Dawn of War with new textures?

:D

pheriannath

10-10-2008, 10:20 PM

The cynic in me thinks Blizzard drank a little too much of Activision's Kool-aid.

The optimist in me thinks that Blizzard wouldn't do this if they didn't think they could actually justify it.

VerseD

10-10-2008, 10:23 PM

Harv

10-10-2008, 10:26 PM

It sounds like the first game will support multiplayer with all the races and the other two add the campaigns for the other two races.

I can deal with that. I make money now.

Rogue_hunter

10-10-2008, 10:26 PM

Interesting. I'll probably wait for a price drop before I start collecting these, but I'm still excited.

This also means that the Protoss win. Whichever race's campaign comes last in this sequence, that's who comes out on top.

*cough* They were also last in the first game, and lost their homeworld. I'd say that's a major loss. Especially since the Zerg came back stronger under Kerrigan, so killing the Overmind was moot.

Deadend

10-10-2008, 10:44 PM

Starcraft 2.

Starcraft 2: The Zerg Crusade

Starcraft 2: Wrath of The Protoss

KingGorilla

10-10-2008, 10:46 PM

Starcraft 2.

Starcraft 2: The Zerg Crusade

Starcraft 2: Wrath of The Protoss

Starcraft 2: The Craftening.

Zonkuya

10-10-2008, 10:49 PM

I know we can't do anything about the story at this point...

But I'm wishfully thinking, for the expansion, they'd go true "choose your own winning race" style, ala Red Alert. And then they'd just pick one as canon for the 3rd game. Would that make up for this "trilogy?"

Xerxes

10-10-2008, 11:15 PM

Starcraft 2.

Starcraft 2: The Zerg Crusade

Starcraft 2: Wrath of The Protoss

Something like this is what they should have done anyways. Marketing is smoking crack.

DeathtollWRX

10-10-2008, 11:24 PM

Wow, I am blown a way by this news.

Question 1. Will we be able to play all the races in multiplayer when we only buy the first story?

Question 2. Will we be able to play all the races in singleplayer even though the story is based on only the Terran campaign?

Question 3. Why do this so to it's fanbase?

Seriously. I want to buy one game with the campaign for all three races, just like part one. Is this the future of gaming? Episodic content for everything?

This has got to be the most disappointing video games news I have heard in this lifetime.

Blizzard, please do not let me down, I have been waiting ten years for this.

J Arcane

10-10-2008, 11:26 PM

Welcome to the new Blizzard, guys. They jumped the shark with Burning Crusade, and at this point are well and truly clued into the fact that they can do whatever the fuck they want, and once you set the bar at WoW level revenue it was only inevitable they start finding ways to milk their other franchises for as much cash as possible. Anyone else remember the interview where they hinted at making Diablo III episodic, or at least doing annual xpacs for it?

They've got their whiff of fat filthy lucre, and that's all that really matters now.

Talanvor

10-10-2008, 11:33 PM

This is Blizzard, they usually don't needlessly screw their fans. If the first game is normally priced but the other two come out with expansion pricing, or if all three add up to less than 3 full priced games then I'll be fine. I imagine you won't have a problem with MP anyway, since all the assets with be there, just not the campaign and cinematics.

Crowe

10-10-2008, 11:48 PM

90 missions over 3 campaigns is epic, if they price these right, which they should do, then it's more than worth it. It's ok for people to dislike these games and it's ok for people to be a little jaded over World of Warcraft, but for people who love Starcraft like me, this is epic. Same with Diablo 3, I have been so starved of Diablo 3 I can barely wait.

For them to have a tiered Starcraft release or yearly Diablo Xpac's is fine by me, why? Because I know what I'm getting when I buy them, I know I'm going to get a full experience each time. I don't see this as milking franchises, they have spent years and years on these games and like I said you know you're going to get a full on experience with their games. It beats buying a game on Xbox 360 for $110 that gives you 8 to 10 hours of mediocre gaming. Add in the multiplayer that these 2 titles bring and hot damn.

TheEvilNarwhale

10-11-2008, 12:33 AM

The only thing that came to mind for me was, You Bastards!

DeathtollWRX

10-11-2008, 12:35 AM

Well at any rate I'd still buy each game if it were a hundred dollars. I must have played 4000 matches on battle.net

4v4 TvB BGH!

Spectre-7

10-11-2008, 12:37 AM

Well at any rate I'd still buy each game if it were a hundred dollars. I must have played 4000 matches on battle.net

4v4 TvB BGH!

There's a word for your kind -- Enabler.

Xerxes

10-11-2008, 12:44 AM

OrangePulp

10-11-2008, 12:53 AM

cp#

10-11-2008, 02:02 AM

What a fucking retarded idea.

Coming soon: Diablo 3 @ $14.95 per month

cp#

10-11-2008, 02:04 AM

This was a first day purchase. Now I won't buy any of them.

Oh yeah:

This.

boratika

10-11-2008, 02:38 AM

I don't know, it sounded like good news to me:o

I really liked the campaign in Starcraft and Broodwars. From the sounds of things it sounds like they're doing three at that length.

I'm figuring it like a Crysis-Crysis Warhead situation. Like a full stand alone expansion type deal. Just as long as the pricing is similar.

If each one doesn't get the full multiplayer I get in on the hate floor though.

My cynical explanation is that this is probably because it's taking them so long to finish the Terran campaign, they figure this is the best way to get the game out this century and then they can work on the different play style of the Zerg campaign, then Protoss. Seems like a better way to make sure each campaign style is well polished, rather than having them all half baked in the first instalment.

I guess they need to make it clear now that you're just getting Terrans now, but the others will come.
And really, StarCraft is a poor man's W40k

Tyranids? Moar liek pseudo-arachnids! AMIRITE:p

Crowe

10-11-2008, 02:46 AM

What a fucking retarded idea.

Coming soon: Diablo 3 @ $14.95 per month

Or just an expansion pack a year. Which would be so much fucking better than getting a Lords Of Destruction and then having to wait 7.

Diablo is not WoW and you won't be paying 15 a month to play.

Xerxes

10-11-2008, 02:54 AM

I don't know, it sounded like good news to me:o
I think it is good news presented poorly.

Ancalagon

10-11-2008, 03:25 AM

Starcraft II just became the new Pokemon.

Very true!

The only reason for buying the others would be the story. So.... looks I'll buy one of them and then read the story on Wikipedia, and maybe check out the videos on youtube.

Seriously, this is lame. You telling me they couldnt have wrapped the story up in one game? Lame lame lame. This also means that each full price game only has one race to campaign with.

Blizzard has screwed the pooch on this one.

Crowe

10-11-2008, 03:49 AM

Very true!

The only reason for buying the others would be the story. So.... looks I'll buy one of them and then read the story on Wikipedia, and maybe check out the videos on youtube.

Seriously, this is lame. You telling me they couldnt have wrapped the story up in one game? Lame lame lame. This also means that each full price game only has one race to campaign with.

Blizzard has screwed the pooch on this one.

Who said they were full price, even I will pissed off if they are.

bryan

10-11-2008, 04:25 AM

I think there needs to be a note in the OP that EVERYONE should read Shack's newspost on this in full.

blair

10-11-2008, 04:47 AM

I'll take a wait-and-see aproach on this one. I really liked the campaign in starcraft 1 (and to be honest: I've only played the multiplayer on lan parties) and the prospect of thrice the playtime makes me giddy. While I'm certainly willing to buy to expansion packs to get to that amount of content, I honestly can't see me buying 3 games.

Raen

10-11-2008, 05:48 AM

While I'm not in favour, I think the different game styles could save it. Assuming they do it well it'd be good. And plus making the campaign that long is pretty cool.

DoctorFinger

10-11-2008, 07:31 AM

We are breaking the game up into three parts. But nooooo, they couldn't have just said there are two planned expansions to be released in the near future. Every time you tell folks you have all of this other stuff already in hand, it looks like you took it out the game just to milk it. Nobody wants to feel like you selling them half of what was intended. In this cases it's like a third of what they planned. It's probably not like that, but it's how it was presented. Hell, they could have leached off this game for two years with nobody really feeling like you jipped them.If they said the first game would have about 30 SP missions everyone would likely be fine with it. Except people have expectations with Starcraft, and that includes playing as all three factions in SP. They're taking a bold step, and overall I'm okay with it (mostly because I don't play RTS' so I wouldn't be buying it anyway) but the controversy is appropriate here.

Dukefrukem

10-11-2008, 07:35 AM

this isn't surprising...

boratika

10-11-2008, 07:39 AM

If they said the first game would have about 30 SP missions everyone would likely be fine with it. Except people have expectations with Starcraft, and that includes playing as all three factions in SP. They're taking a bold step, and overall I'm okay with it (mostly because I don't play RTS' so I wouldn't be buying it anyway) but the controversy is appropriate here.

Well there's a mini-Protoss campaign in it. 2 out of 3 ain't too bad. Maybe they'll add a Zerg one as well for that reason.

DjinniMan

10-11-2008, 08:40 AM

I think folks are overreacting.

We'll get all three races in multiplayer, for sure. I'd guess full price for the first game. Then, the single player campaigns will come as expansions, likely adding new units and such for around $30 each. Yeah, it's more money to "keep up" but two expansions would be awesome. Who isn't wishing they'd made third expansions for Diablo 2 and Warcraft 3?

They are smart, and have a fantastic track record. Blizzard isn't gonna screw us all over anytime soon.

Karmakin

10-11-2008, 08:41 AM

Maybe I've drunk the kool-aid being a WoW fan (duh), and thinking that Diablo III looks amazing....but I read the Shacknews article and I think that the anger may be a bit too quick here.

"[The second and third games] will be like expansion packs, but we really want them to feel like standalone products," said Blizzard's Rob Pardo.

That indicates that it'll probably be done Dawn of War style in a way, and sold at a lower price. Sounds fair to me.

Each campaign will be very different, with Pardo announcing the Zerg campaign will contain RPG elements. The Protoss campaigin will likewise be differentiated by elements of diplomacy. In addition, the Terran campaign will feature a Protoss mini-campaign.

The campaigns are planned as concentrated, epic storylines, with enough content to justify a full release. As a result, the games will now feature more in-game cinematics and story content.

So each expansion brings something new to the table. That's good. And enough content to justify a full release?

Well there's the kicker. Really? That waits to be seen. (I give them the benefit of the doubt to be honest)

Blizzard added that the plans for the multiplayer component are unchanged by the splitting of the campaigns. However, some units will now be unique to the campaigns and will not be playable in multiplayer.

Sounds like you'll be able to pick up any of the three packs and play in the multiplayer. Cool. That some of the units won't be in multiplayer, is a GOOD thing. You get both multiplayer balance and really really cool stuff in single-player.

Pardo noted that the decision was necessary to maintain the quality of the product, the alternatives either being a long delay of the game, or a scaling back of the campaigns

Ah. That's the kicker.

It's simple. Starcraft II is going to be a blockbuster. We all know that. Basically what they're doing is making sure the game is at the scale that..well..it deserves.

Nah. I don't see that big of a problem with this. Blizzard could blow it of course, but I'll give them the benefit of the doubt here.

fitbabits

10-11-2008, 08:52 AM

Starcraft sucks anyway.
your gay

See how easy that is?

Oh, and my mum says that if you can't say anything nice about something, then it's better not to say anything at all.

Commissar Rob

10-11-2008, 09:07 AM

Hmm, they talk about these being enough content for a stand-alone game, but they also want them to be though of as expansion packs.

The Zerg get RPG elements (build a zerg?) and the Protoss get diplomacy (if you don't eat my face, I'll get you these beads?). I wonder if that will impact the MP game at all?

*shrug* My PC is probably getting too long in the tooth to be able to play this anyway. I'm just hoping I have enough umph left in the beast to run DoW 2 when it launches.

KingGorilla

10-11-2008, 09:52 AM

your gay

See how easy that is?

Oh, and my mum says that if you can't say anything nice about something, then it's better not to say anything at all.

I really hope that first was with irony. If not: Yes Starcraft, is my personal gay. I own that gay.

But, that was mostly for Loki, with whom I have had epic discussions about all the major problems Starcraft has, as a multiplayer game.

But as for the other shit, I basically said, for all we know Starcraft II will be like Half-Life 2, with a main story game and then episodes. And until we see pricing on their idea of a trilogy, people can just shut up.

Starcraft has a story that a lot, a lot of people have an attachment to. If they manage to pull off 3 stories that can hold a candle to those memories, flesh out the characters, it would be worth a lot to many folks.

bone_matrix

10-11-2008, 11:17 AM

I'm looking forward to this. I think people are over reacting. We get one big game, full single and multiplayer, and then 2 expansion packs that (supposedly) pack a bunch more single player with new multiplayer units.

And people bitch? I don't get gamers. We all knew there would be at lease one expansion, pretty much like every other game they have done. They are just telling us now.

Lance Uppercut

10-11-2008, 11:33 AM

Just read about this news, and I have mixed feelings. Blizzard's doing the same thing that Dawn of War did, and I don't have much of a problem with that. However, my favorite race is the Zerg, and not being able to play their campaign from the get go is disappointing.

Sandman

10-11-2008, 11:33 AM

I'm personally interested in the Zerg RPG.

itchyeyes

10-11-2008, 11:44 AM

And people bitch? I don't get gamers. We all knew there would be at lease one expansion, pretty much like every other game they have done. They are just telling us now.
People bitch because they're operating under the, delusional, assumption that prior to this announcement Blizzard was planning to offer all of this content in one game. 90 missions in a single game was never going to happen, expansion packs were practically a guarantee from the moment they made the announcement the game was being made. But because this is the Internet, people will still bitch because unless a company is giving away a massive amount of content with no strings attached, they will always bitch.

Spigot

10-11-2008, 11:52 AM

Had Blizzard ever promised 90 missions before this announcement? I think most people were under the assumption that the game would be delivering a multi-faction campaign like the first game did with a likely 25-30 missions total.

That, and the way the original news post was worded made it sound like they were three full price games that you'd essentially have to play through to get the entire story. It seems that it has been clarified that you'll get one full game with the first game and then a set of lower priced expansion packs, but that wasn't abundantly clear in the original post.

King3567

10-11-2008, 12:59 PM

Some bad news: link (http://www.joystiq.com/2008/10/11/blizzards-wilson-some-battle-net-features-to-be-monetized/)

Magma

10-11-2008, 01:05 PM

Starcraft II was always going to be the game I'd upgrade my PC for. But I have to say this news isn't exactly thrilling for me.

Maybe it'll turn out great but you have to admit this looks a lot like milking a hugely anticipated title for all it's worth. There aren't many details yet but with this kind of news, you'd think if the details were any good, Blizzard would have released some more.

I guess it makes sense though. WoW makes so much money... SC2 could never come close if they'd sell it only once to each of us.

Nikjitsu

10-11-2008, 01:16 PM

Some bad news: link (http://www.joystiq.com/2008/10/11/blizzards-wilson-some-battle-net-features-to-be-monetized/)

"We are looking to monetize Battle.Net so that we get to keep making these games and updating features," said Wilson. "We kind of have to."

oh snaaaaaaaapppppppppp

astranoir

10-11-2008, 01:35 PM

"We are looking to monetize Battle.Net so that we get to keep making these games and updating features," said Wilson. "We kind of have to."

oh shiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiitttttttttttt

Not just "oh shit," also "bullshit" that they supposedly have to monetize something they've had free for so many years.

Loki

10-11-2008, 01:45 PM

Not just "oh shit," also "bullshit" that they supposedly have to monetize something they've had free for so many years.

Eh, times change. Besides, the only thing that they said was that they were looking into it. Probably a gaffe on their part, but I won't make a decision until the new Battle.Net system is fully detailed.

astranoir

10-11-2008, 01:50 PM

Eh, times change. Besides, the only thing that they said was that they were looking into it. Probably a gaffe on their part, but I won't make a decision until the new Battle.Net system is fully detailed.

Well, I would be pretty disappointed in them if they made it into a monetized system without an incredibly convincing reason as to why a switch was made after so many years - what exactly changed for them.

itchyeyes

10-11-2008, 02:05 PM

Well, I would be pretty disappointed in them if they made it into a monetized system without an incredibly convincing reason as to why a switch was made after so many years - what exactly changed for them.
Does someone really have to spell it out for you? Games cost orders of magnitudes more to make today than they did ten years ago when Blizzard put out Starcraft, that's what changed.

Ancalagon

10-11-2008, 02:12 PM

Does someone really have to spell it out for you? Games cost orders of magnitudes more to make today than they did ten years ago when Blizzard put out Starcraft, that's what changed.

I'd expect them to recoup their development costs on the sale of the game(s), not charging for subscription fees. Games being expensive to make has nothing to do with charging for Battle.net.

I realize that running servers and providing bandwidth isnt cheap either, but then I would ask why no other non MMO game charges a subscription fee.

itchyeyes

10-11-2008, 02:45 PM

I'd expect them to recoup their development costs on the sale of the game(s), not charging for subscription fees. Games being expensive to make has nothing to do with charging for Battle.net.

I realize that running servers and providing bandwidth isnt cheap either, but then I would ask why no other non MMO game charges a subscription fee.
For starters, I don't see any mention of subscription fees. Yes they said they were looking into ways to monetize it, but there are a lot of ways to do that without charging for subscriptions. And there are plenty of non MMO games that monetize online gameplay. Even Valve, the developer that can supposedly do no wrong, put ads in Counterstrike.

Also, there are very few non-MMO games out there that require as much online support as Starcraft. Most other games can get away with free online gaming because they don't have to anticipate hosting the entire nation of South Korea for the next decade.

Nameless

10-11-2008, 02:56 PM

Not sure my PC will be able to run it, but if the single-player campaigns are as good as the one in the first game, I'll be getting each of these with a smile on my face. I don't care about the multiplayer, I care about the story, the characters, and the interesting/fun missions.

Also, Battle.net being monetized doesn't affect me much, but I still think it's a bad idea. It's been free for 11 years, do you really need to change it if you're going to be charging for three separate games?

Zonkuya

10-11-2008, 03:45 PM

BTW, Zerg RPG... Zporge?

KingGorilla

10-11-2008, 03:56 PM

I realize that running servers and providing bandwidth isnt cheap either, but then I would ask why no other non MMO game charges a subscription fee.
Other companies tend to operate on either third party servers or locally hosted servers, like many of Valve's games. Most other companies also have quicker dev cycles for their games. Blizzard has been running Starcraft gratis for over a decade now. Since then there have been 4 main versions of Rainbow Six, each with expansions sold. There were the expanded Half-Life contents, then Half-Life 2 and its expanded content from the Episodes and the Portal/TF2. There were two versions of Neverwinter Nights and a myriad of expansions.

For the RTS, we are on the third Red Alert, third Command and Conquer, third Age of Empires, all with their expansions.

In 10 years Star Craft has one expansion. And with other free games, they either cut the first party servers, Which Starcraft cannot do because they do not have that alternative, or they find a new revenue stream-Ad supported Counterstrike, as Counterstrike 1.6 began to lose money.

Loki

10-11-2008, 04:01 PM

If the monetization of Battle.net means that I will be able to play StarCraft 2 online 10 years after it being released, I don't really mind.

Harv

10-11-2008, 04:19 PM

Considering that Blizzard has not failed to deliver AAA titles consistently throughout the years I'm surprised everyone is so negative about this latest announcement.

Granted I haven't played any WoW, so if there are complaints about them based on that I wouldn't know. Though, I don't see how that game can be a basis for complaining about their non MMORPG titles. They have yet to underperform in that realm.

anakin876

10-11-2008, 07:12 PM

I'm still looking forward to this - I am interested in what the "real" system requirements are going to be. I need to upgrade my system for this and for Fallout 3 - and I don't want to find out I didn't upgrade "enough." However - when I consider that Diablo3 is supposed to come out before SC2 - I might be waiting a looong time to play SC2.

If each "expansion" cost 50 bucks - for a grand total of 150 dollars - I probably would not end up getting all of them. I would want them, but until the grand total got closer to 60 bucks (ahhh - to dream,the impossible dreeeeeam!) I wouldn't consider it. Hopefully they can keep it under 100 dollars - I would be unhappy with the price, but probably satisfied in the end.

If there are units in the campaigns that aren't available for MP - what's the point of those units? I can see units only available in MP if you have purchased the expansion (a la Broodwar)

KingGorilla

10-11-2008, 07:19 PM

That is where Blizzard has to be very careful. Broodwar, Lords of Destruction, really had a fracturing effect on the playerbase. They are also dealing with this in WoW as people just abandon the content from the old world. You either got the expansion, or quickly had no one to play with. The smart route would be to ship the full version, with the trilogy as story only. One of the cool things that Relic has capitalized on is giving all people the same core experience, and then sell expand-alones for different armies. People are not splintered on what maps they have or what races they have. And each version works with the previous one.

Or, like I said, with Half-Life. When all is said and done, most of us will have spent, over a hundred dollars on that story. As it stands now, most of us have spend closer to 120, 130, if we got Half-Life 2, Ep1 at launch, and the Orange Box. I do not know anyone who has regretted it, either.

bean

10-11-2008, 08:31 PM

3 games I won't buy. But not because of this. . . I'm not an RTS fan. I'd be pretty pissed if Final Fantasy XIII came to us in 3 different games that were 20 hour installments. That would make me rent them instead of purchasing them.

My guess is that these will still be worth their purchase price for RTS fans though. The multiplayer is where these RTS games thrive.

boratika

10-12-2008, 02:53 AM

If there are units in the campaigns that aren't available for MP - what's the point of those units?

I'd guess it would mostly be heroes that they are talking about. Though I suspect they will be they're own units this time rather than modified existing units, like Kerrigan was. The first one also had units like hunter killers and the Torasque.

Shadowstorm

10-12-2008, 08:05 AM

Some bad news: link (http://www.joystiq.com/2008/10/11/blizzards-wilson-some-battle-net-features-to-be-monetized/)

Wow, that sucks.

Spigot

10-12-2008, 10:47 AM

anakin876

10-12-2008, 10:51 AM

J Arcane

10-12-2008, 01:18 PM

Anakin, I'm sure that if you upgrade your system enough to run Fallout 3 that it would easily handle Starcraft 2 and Diablo 3. Blizzard tends to scale their stuff very well so that they can cast the widest possible net and snag the most gamers.
Nothing I've seen of either game looks anymore intensive than WoW, and WoW will run on pretty much any old piece of shit. I started playing it on an Athlon 1ghz with a Radeon 7200.

Xydarc

10-12-2008, 04:22 PM

So the millions of $$ Blizzard pulls in each month from WoW isn't enough to support a free battle.net?

Ah well, at least there's Dawn of War 2.

bryan

10-12-2008, 05:35 PM

So the millions of $$ Blizzard pulls in each month from WoW isn't enough to support a free battle.net?

It's a separate product. One has nothing to do with the other. It's a business. If a product can't sustain itself, it gets canceled.

Telefrog

10-12-2008, 08:15 PM

DeathtollWRX

10-12-2008, 09:42 PM

Paying for Battle.net that has been free for so many years is slightly annoying.

If Starcraft 2 is a full game with single player campaign for all three races and then the extras were just more campaign for each I would really be okay with it. But since we only get to play one race in campaign from the get go I think it's kind of crappy. So this means that If I want to play Protoss I have to wait till the expansion comes out? Kinda weak..

Of course I'll still buy them all but still.

MagGnome

10-12-2008, 10:04 PM

I typed out a long and somewhat thoughtful response, but the site kept preventing me from posting and then my comment was gone. So instead I'm just bitching about that. :p

Spectre-7

10-12-2008, 10:08 PM

Blizzard didn't say that Battle.net will become a pay-for-play service... they said that they're looking into monetizing it, which could mean any number of things.

He went on to say that they do recognize that everyone loves having it as a free service, and that they don't have a strong desire to make a subscription-based game.

If I were a betting man, I'd say you should expect some form of advertising in the future. Whether that will take the form of banners or interstitial ads, I really couldn't say.

Kryopsis

10-12-2008, 10:16 PM

If I were a betting man, I'd say you should expect some form of advertising in the future. Whether that will take the form of banners or interstitial ads, I really couldn't say.

Like what they were doing for years, you mean? Don't tell me you forgot about those annoying ads in Diablo II lobby.

Spectre-7

10-12-2008, 10:34 PM

Like what they were doing for years, you mean? Don't tell me you forgot about those annoying ads in Diablo II lobby.

Forget? Actually, I never saw 'em. ;)

Ya caught me. The last game I played on Battle.net was the original Diablo back in '97. Diablo II was the game my roommates wouldn't shut up about, long past the time I really, really wish they had.

"The next person who says the words Amazon, Barbarian, or plus five poison will get a size-eleven boot upside their head."

Pardon my ignorance then, but part of my point still stands. They went out of their way to say monetize, which leaves the door open to different revenue streams, and in the same stroke specifically stated that they're against subscriptions (although they also left that door ajar).

Who knows... They could institute some of the other schemes that are becoming popular, such as purchasable character armor and weapons. They could start running ladders and leagues with entrance fees, or they could allow gold farmers to trade directly over Battle.net for a small tax.

There's a lot of ways to pull money out of a service, and I just wanted to point out that they're not talking specifics just yet.

OrangePulp

10-12-2008, 10:38 PM

If they made battle.net a pay service, they would kill a lot of their business, or drive it onto hamachi networks and the like. So yeah, they're not going to do that. Sure, they've got banner ads in battlenet, but that's it; maybe they're going to go for more effective ad placement. And, honestly, if more ads helps finance constant patch updates and bnet itself, I have no problem with it.

KingGorilla

10-13-2008, 06:02 AM

Like what they were doing for years, you mean? Don't tell me you forgot about those annoying ads in Diablo II lobby.

To my recollection, those ads advertised other Blizzard products and news.

Abednigo

10-13-2008, 09:58 AM

If the price is right, I'm in.

xoanon

10-13-2008, 11:24 AM

I still want to play through the campaigns, but now I'll probably wait until there's some kind of bundle. I've already waited 8 years. I don't really blame them for splitting it up, though, since they are undoubtedly putting a lot of effort into each piece.

Hotcod

10-13-2008, 03:52 PM

There's some updates to this which you can find in the PC gaming forum... i just made a point there that i thought was relevant... how many of you where up in arms about having to pay to see 3 different films to tell the lord of the rings story? not many of you i'm betting...

I know it's not a perfect example but there are very close parallels to what is going on here. This happened beacuse the first campaign kept on growing and they had to make a choice, either do 3 "full" games for each campaign or savagely cut back on something they thought was really good and full in and of it's self... they picked to give them selfs the room of 3 games to explore each race and campaign in a full way... it's exactly like not being able to fit lord of the rings in the "size of one book", let alone one film. Yet most people don't think twice about paying to watch a series of films or a number of books (wheel of time anyone?) yet when you are being offered 3 times the content for what will be about 3 times the price you go on about how your not going to buy the game... it's strange

MagGnome

10-13-2008, 04:38 PM

Hotcod - I see what you are getting at, but you have to realize that films and books are quite a bit cheaper than games. It's not an exact parallel.

KingGorilla

10-13-2008, 04:42 PM

How much will these Episodes cost then? Because thus far every episodic game I have come accross costs less than a DVD or DVD boxed set. Most of us suckers, when all is said and done, will have paid close to 200 American Dollars for the Half-Life 2 trilogy.

Hotcod

10-13-2008, 04:48 PM

Hotcod - I see what you are getting at, but you have to realize that films and books are quite a bit cheaper than games. It's not an exact parallel.

In the end it's not the price it's self that matters, it's relative value. How long dose a film last and how much dose it cost to go see one? how long dose a game last and how much dose one cost? if anything you pay more per hour for films than for most games... in this case they are going to give you 3 times the content than they first planed for and as such are splitting it across 3 games... and from the sound of things probably not over all for 3 times the price.

Why this is so shocking to some people i'm not sure... i get that they planned on 3 campaigns in the one product but it's not that they are just splitting up that product they are just making 3 times the "stuff" why it's then money grubbing to expect to be paid i have no idea

MagGnome

10-13-2008, 07:02 PM

I see what you are saying Hotcod, and your point is valid.

I guess I just get tired of games and movies being compared sometimes. The comparisons that especially bug me are when game sales are trotted out as being higher than movie sales, which takes a lot of spin to be true.

I do see what you are saying though.

MalReynolds

10-13-2008, 07:07 PM

stupid idea ... its gonna be dumb

PathMaster

10-14-2008, 09:31 AM

After watching the opening cinematic shown I think I may be giddy with anticipation.

Telefrog

10-14-2008, 10:10 AM

In the end it's not the price it's self that matters, it's relative value. How long dose a film last and how much dose it cost to go see one? how long dose a game last and how much dose one cost? if anything you pay more per hour for films than for most games... in this case they are going to give you 3 times the content than they first planed for and as such are splitting it across 3 games... and from the sound of things probably not over all for 3 times the price.

Why this is so shocking to some people i'm not sure... i get that they planned on 3 campaigns in the one product but it's not that they are just splitting up that product they are just making 3 times the "stuff" why it's then money grubbing to expect to be paid i have no idea

By that standard, you could ask "how long does a meal last and how much does it cost" in comparison. Value between products isn't dependent on the time it takes to consume them. The book/movie/game/concert comparisons are inevitably flawed because the only direct basis for comparison is with like products not between entertainment genres.

Hell, even within games, people disagree on what consistutes proper value for the length of the game! Look at the debates people have over the pricing of $60 games to $50 games this generation.

Many people are torqued off about this decision because splitting SC2 into three games (regardless of the games' individual length) smacks of paying three times as much for the single game when compared to the original SC experience. Especially for folks (like me) that don't necessarily care for multiplayer and favor one race over the others.

30 campaign games per race initially sounds good, but I think most people will agree that no RTS game has had every singleplayer mission turn out to be a jewel. Frankly, I think about 90 singleplayer RTS missions and I shudder at the thought of all the grinding involved. 30-40 missions overall seems to be the sweet spot for singleplayer RTS campaigns. $90 minimum ($50+$20+$20 although I really doubt that the other two games will only be $20 bucks) for a brutally long RTS slog does not sound like a great deal.

Finally, I know Blizzard is aiming for an installment per year, but does anyone really believe this? Really?

raymeswh

10-14-2008, 10:20 AM

This will get pirated to shit just like spore did. dont piss off the masses Blizz

Hemalin

10-14-2008, 01:55 PM

Finally, I know Blizzard is aiming for an installment per year, but does anyone really believe this? Really?
They've managed it for every non-WoW expansion so far so why not?

Telefrog

10-14-2008, 03:24 PM

They've managed it for every non-WoW expansion so far so why not?

Really? How many Blizzard games have more than one expansion?

[crickets]

itchyeyes

10-14-2008, 03:34 PM

Really? How many Blizzard games have more than one expansion?

[crickets]
I think he was referring to the fact that every expansion pack Blizzard has made since WC2: Beyond the Dark Portal (with the exception of Burning Crusade), has come out within a year of the launch of the original game. Blizzard does take their time with their games, but they have a good track record of providing content updates in a timely manner.

DiBiddilyBop

10-14-2008, 03:45 PM

Blizzard has a record of not setting deadlines for initial releases (ever), but meeting deadlines when they do set them. For expansions, they basically just have to do the cut scenes and balance a few more units, rather than building a whole new game which they traditionally take their sweet time on.

Telefrog

10-14-2008, 03:53 PM

I think he was referring to the fact that every expansion pack Blizzard has made since WC2: Beyond the Dark Portal (with the exception of Burning Crusade), has come out within a year of the launch of the original game. Blizzard does take their time with their games, but they have a good track record of providing content updates in a timely manner.

Maybe so, but the record otherwise is less clear. Blizzard has never shipped three games in a row for three years.

Regardless, I'm not a fan of this arrangement. Even if they are able to ship according to their stated schedule, that's still a minimum of $90 for most gamers. Let's not even talk about the planned "monetization" of aspects of Battle.net. Who knows what that will entail.

DiBiddilyBop

10-14-2008, 03:59 PM

Maybe so, but the record otherwise is less clear. Blizzard has never shipped three games in a row for three years.

Regardless, I'm not a fan of this arrangement. Even if they are able to ship according to their stated schedule, that's still a minimum of $90 for most gamers. Let's not even talk about the planned "monetization" of aspects of Battle.net. Who knows what that will entail.

For a comparatively large amount of gameplay value. I mean, it sucks that you don't like playing as one of the races, but I love all three so this just means I'm (more than likely) getting 3x the gameplay that I initially thought I was going to get. It all comes down to what the value is for you. I love StarCraft, so $90 for what will probably end up being 90 missions is great for me. If it's not a good deal for you... maybe you should steer clear of this one.

Telefrog

10-14-2008, 04:04 PM

If it's not a good deal for you... maybe you should steer clear of this one.

Honestly, I probably will. I'm pretty good at staying away from games that piss me off for whatever reason.

For example, I still haven't bought Spore and I have no plans to ever do so.

Edit: Also, keep in mind that $90 is my completely unrealistically optimistic estimate. I think the pricing would actually be more like $49.99 + $34.99 + $34.99.

Hemalin

10-14-2008, 04:32 PM

Maybe so, but the record otherwise is less clear. Blizzard has never shipped three games in a row for three years.
<table class="wikitable"><tbody><tr><td>Diablo II (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diablo_II)</td> <td>2000</td> <td>
</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Diablo II: Lord of Destruction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diablo_II:_Lord_of_Destruction)</td> <td>2001</td> <td>
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expansion_pack)</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Warcraft III: Reign of Chaos (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warcraft_III:_Reign_of_Chaos)</td> <td>2002</td> <td>
</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Warcraft III: The Frozen Throne (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warcraft_III:_The_Frozen_Throne)</td> <td>2003</td> <td>
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expansion_pack)</td> </tr> <tr> <td>World of Warcraft (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_of_Warcraft)</td> <td>2004</td></tr></tbody></table>

Regardless, I'm not a fan of this arrangement. Even if they are able to ship according to their stated schedule, that's still a minimum of $90 for most gamers. Let's not even talk about the planned "monetization" of aspects of Battle.net. Who knows what that will entail.I, along with a lot of other people payed $90 for the complete Starcraft experience 10 years ago. All of their games since Warcraft 2 have had some sort of expansion and Starcraft 2 would be no different so you would have had to pay $90+ regardless.

Telefrog

10-14-2008, 04:38 PM

<table class="wikitable"><tbody><tr><td>Diablo II (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diablo_II)</td> <td>2000</td> <td>
</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Diablo II: Lord of Destruction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diablo_II:_Lord_of_Destruction)</td> <td>2001</td> <td>
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expansion_pack)</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Warcraft III: Reign of Chaos (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warcraft_III:_Reign_of_Chaos)</td> <td>2002</td> <td>
</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Warcraft III: The Frozen Throne (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warcraft_III:_The_Frozen_Throne)</td> <td>2003</td> <td>
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expansion_pack)</td> </tr> <tr> <td>World of Warcraft (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_of_Warcraft)</td> <td>2004</td></tr></tbody></table>
I, along with a lot of other people payed $90 for the complete Starcraft experience 10 years ago. All of their games since Warcraft 2 have had some sort of expansion and Starcraft 2 would be no different so you would have had to pay $90+ regardless.

Meh. Got me on the three year thing, although it's still not three titles in the same franchise while concurrently shipping games and (presumably) expansions in their other franchises. I'll let Rob Pardo field that one:

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.

I already covered the $90 figure. That's a wildy optimistic number. It's probably closer to $120 if they price the installments equal to previous expansions. Now add the unknown Battle.net monetization prices on...

Hemalin

10-14-2008, 04:57 PM

Meh. Got me on the three year thing, although it's still not three titles in the same franchise while concurrently shipping games and (presumably) expansions in their other franchises. I'll let Rob Pardo field that one:They'll already have the engine and most of the art assets complete. With the separate teams for each of their games releasing another WoW expansion shouldn't impact much.

I already covered the $90 figure. That's a wildy optimistic number. It's probably closer to $120 if they price the installments equal to previous expansions. Now add the unknown Battle.net monetization prices on...
And if Blizzard had released a second expansion I would have paid $130 for the first Starcraft and so would most other people. Blizzard will be providing the content of 3 games, why shouldn't they charge the price of 3 games?

DiBiddilyBop

10-14-2008, 05:03 PM

$120 is still cheap to me. If it turns out to be 90 campaign missions, that's the equivalent of 3 games or $180 worth of material.

If I pay the money and Blizzard still manages to put a smile on my face, then they've done their job.

MagGnome

10-14-2008, 05:42 PM

$90 is pretty unrealistic if you ask me. I'd be surprised if it wasn't closer to $130. Blizzard loves to charge $40 for an expansion, which is highway robbery if you ask me. :p

KingGorilla

10-14-2008, 05:44 PM

The real highway robbery is that in WoW you pay 15 a month AND 40 every two years for expansions. Generally in an MMO, you get content upgrades for the cost of membership as well.

MagGnome

10-14-2008, 05:55 PM

The real highway robbery is that in WoW you pay 15 a month AND 40 every two years for expansions. Generally in an MMO, you get content upgrades for the cost of membership as well.

I totally agree. That's one of the reasons I stay away from MMOs in general. I don't need another money/time sink.

Loki

10-14-2008, 08:09 PM

Why are we discussing the game in console sale numbers? When has a non-CE game for the PC cost more than $50 in this day and age? Why will StarCraft 2 be different?

KingGorilla

10-14-2008, 08:14 PM

Why are we discussing the game in console sale numbers? When has a non-CE game for the PC cost more than $50 in this day and age? Why will StarCraft 2 be different?

I paid 70 for the CoH special edition, and still hate myself for it.

Loki

10-14-2008, 08:19 PM

The real highway robbery is that in WoW you pay 15 a month AND 40 every two years for expansions. Generally in an MMO, you get content upgrades for the cost of membership as well.

Name one MMO, other than EVE Online, that provides free expansion packs? Even WoW has provided a large amount of free content (Darkmoon Faire, Zul' Aman, Echoes of Doom, Dire Maul, Onyxia, Battlegrounds, Zul' Gurub, Ahn'Qiraj, Naxxramas, The Black Temple, Maraudon, Fury of the Sunwell) that were not included in the expansions which, in their own right, contain large amount of new content.

KingGorilla

10-14-2008, 08:27 PM

It is sort of virgin territory. Off the top of my head, LOTRO released several "books." But Turbine is a special animal. They believe in libre and gratis, Blizzard never really has. I know that EQ likes to release smaller packs at lower proces and big esxpansions with new classes, etc.

And I never said that Blizzard did not add content between iterations, just that the 15 a month and 40 dollars for expansions is highway robbery. For 15 a month they should be expected to make major upgrades. But to fully price expansions in addition, and from what I hear Lich King is considerably smaller than what Burning Crusade had in it, is borderline exploitation.

Loki

10-14-2008, 08:30 PM

KingGorilla

10-14-2008, 09:01 PM

You are just still mad I said Starcraft sucks. But like I said, I am not disputing that they make major content updates to subscribers. I am disputing that they also release a fully priced expansion, each with less content, top force upgrades on the community. Why was BC not available in the same way? And given how much smaller it is, why is it still fully priced.

It is very similar to the how Ubisoft or Activision deals with "sequels." Full price, half the work.

And why I mentioned turbine is because they have said, many times, the subscribers pay for the ongoing development, so they get the content. Why should WoW or Sony charge those folks twice?

Loki

10-14-2008, 09:55 PM

KingGorilla

10-14-2008, 09:59 PM

The disease is spreading. Now everyone gets treated like crap, are you happy now?

And since when is 40 dollars not full price? Don't buy into the console propoganda.

Loki

10-14-2008, 09:59 PM

The disease is spreading. Now everyone gets treated like crap, are you happy now?

And since when is 40 dollars not full price? Don't buy into the console propoganda.

Ever since $50 has been the norm?

MagGnome

10-15-2008, 05:32 AM

Ever since $50 has been the norm?

$40 is, afterall, SO much less than $50.

Come on, $40 is pretty damn close to full price, and charging that much for an expansion has always seemed like a bit of a rip off to me. $10 difference - whoopty-do.

Spigot

10-15-2008, 06:49 AM

Yeah. $30 is the magic number for expansions in my mind.

Telefrog

10-15-2008, 06:52 AM

Yeah. $30 is the magic number for expansions in my mind.

Yup. $20-$30 is the sweet spot for an expansion price to me.

KingGorilla

10-15-2008, 03:41 PM

$40 is, afterall, SO much less than $50.

More, I was thinking of what I paid for STALKER, Sins, Opposing Fronts, The Witcher.

itchyeyes

10-15-2008, 03:53 PM

And since when is 40 dollars not full price? Don't buy into the console propoganda.
Why do we even have this ridiculous concept of "full price"? Not all games cost the same to make, not all games sell to the same audiences, not all games have the same quality, so why do we think that all games are somehow supposed to be priced the same?

There's no "full price" for new release DVD's, there's no "full price" for new release books. Why do we think that there's some magical number that every new release game is supposed to conform to?

Spigot

10-15-2008, 05:13 PM

Why do we even have this ridiculous concept of "full price"? Not all games cost the same to make, not all games sell to the same audiences, not all games have the same quality, so why do we think that all games are somehow supposed to be priced the same?

There's no "full price" for new release DVD's, there's no "full price" for new release books. Why do we think that there's some magical number that every new release game is supposed to conform to?This used to be a valid arguement, especially in the PS2 days, when games were priced along a scale that ranged from $25-70 depending on the game, the quality, the company, etc.

Maybe it's because we've become conditioned with games (at least on the console side of things) to come at one set price this generation. A lot of PC titles have followed suit by usually hitting for about $20 cheaper than their console brethren. Sure, you get odd game X selling for $25 or major game Y selling for $50, but even amongst retail versions of PC titles, there isn't a lot of variation in the price these days.

It's not like DVDs, where you can have a niche Criterion disc retailing for $50 and The Dark Knight hitting Blu-Ray for $25. You just don't have that vast range of prices in the game prices these days unless you're dealing with digital distribution, which is much more like the good ol' days.

KingGorilla

10-15-2008, 05:18 PM

Can someone explain to me how publishers and console makers get around RICO with this obvious price fixing and collusion?

Spectre-7

10-15-2008, 05:36 PM

Can someone explain to me how publishers and console makers get around RICO with this obvious price fixing and collusion?

Because no one's raised a stink about it? U.S. Attorneys have no motivation to prosecute if the people don't give a shit.

Maybe you're just the agitator this cause needs.

Hotcod

10-16-2008, 07:24 AM

By that standard, you could ask "how long does a meal last and how much does it cost" in comparison. Value between products isn't dependent on the time it takes to consume them. The book/movie/game/concert comparisons are inevitably flawed because the only direct basis for comparison is with like products not between entertainment genres.

Hell, even within games, people disagree on what consistutes proper value for the length of the game! Look at the debates people have over the pricing of $60 games to $50 games this generation.

Well done for completely missing the point. I am not saying that more = better, i am not saying that this is inherently a good move. What i have been saying is that if you going to buy the first game you where willing to pay a given amount for a given amount of game play time... yet for some reason people are now now very unhappy about paying 3 times that amount for 3 times that game time? the amount you are paying per hour stays the same as it was you just get more hours. I was not talking about the entertainment value in those hours but just trying to get past this some what stupid view that blizzard is trying to rip people off

Many people are torqued off about this decision because splitting SC2 into three games (regardless of the games' individual length) smacks of paying three times as much for the single game when compared to the original SC experience. Especially for folks (like me) that don't necessarily care for multiplayer and favor one race over the others.

Yes, this is one of the very valid concerns i have about this move, it's just that debate about these valid issues has some what been obscured by an over reaction by people who clearly don't get what is going on and just want to hate on blizard.

30 campaign games per race initially sounds good, but I think most people will agree that no RTS game has had every singleplayer mission turn out to be a jewel. Frankly, I think about 90 singleplayer RTS missions and I shudder at the thought of all the grinding involved. 30-40 missions overall seems to be the sweet spot for singleplayer RTS campaigns. $90 minimum ($50+$20+$20 although I really doubt that the other two games will only be $20 bucks) for a brutally long RTS slog does not sound like a great deal.

Finally, I know Blizzard is aiming for an installment per year, but does anyone really believe this? Really?

Yes but that it just as true for 10 missions as 30, not all are going to be good. Given that each campaign is going to have non liner choices and there over unique campaign mechanic i just don't think we can make any real judgements about if making each campaign longer is inherently a bad thing until we start getting some feedback about how the first one plays

As people have already pointed out blizzard have been able to get lots of games out year on year... but that not the point, they've only said a year as a ball park figure to what they are aiming for. In all the interviews about this they've said that until they have finished the first one they can't really know how long the others are going to take. Still i think they will try and push for a year each simply beacuse they need to keep the momentum going... this whole thing is stupidly risky on a lot of levels and it could turn out to either be an amamzing way of doing things or the worst thing blizzard have ever done.

I just think that in the end we know there would be at lest 1 or two expatiation packs after sc2 had come out in it's old form... i mean you just have to look at DoW to see just how well expatiation packs can do. Given that it's interesting to see blizzard accept that and embrace it as a way to deal with the design problem they where faced with. It's a really interesting experiment and if it works it could have a lasting and deep impact on how games are made... in some ways it's a lot more interesting that the half life 2 episodes and may represent a way to deal with the ever increasing costs of game development.

I think, while there is a lot to talk about here, we can't jump the gun... it's such a different idea of how to sell a game than any we have really seen before that i think it's mostly going to be a case of wait and see

Spigot

10-16-2008, 08:01 AM

I think, while there is a lot to talk about here, we can't jump the gun... it's such a different idea of how to sell a game than any we have really seen before that i think it's mostly going to be a case of wait and seeThere is merit to this sentiment. However, much like the insane 'Forward Compatibility' thread, this is another example of a company tossing out an idea without properly explaining it and then watching it blow up on the internet.

If they can explain it properly, either in an interview or by way of a press release, then they should do it. Until they're able to properly express what their intention is, they should keep quiet about it, unless this was all just a way to stir up discussion about Starcraft 2 more than anything else, in which case they've succeeded.

It should not be up to us, the general gaming public, to have to scrounge through the bowels of the internet to discern the intentions of a company. Maybe I'm just being naive, but I like it when someone who is trying to sell me something just comes out and tells me what it will cost and what I will get for it. When they start getting all vague and slippery and leave it up to me and my buddies to try to figure out exactly what we'll get for how much, then I start to get a little leery.

It's a problem throughout the industry... SC2 is just a prime example of this kind of vague conjecture and it's getting under my skin!

Ancalagon

10-16-2008, 08:06 AM

itchyeyes

10-16-2008, 08:48 AM

If they can explain it properly, either in an interview or by way of a press release, then they should do it. Until they're able to properly express what their intention is, they should keep quiet about it, unless this was all just a way to stir up discussion about Starcraft 2 more than anything else, in which case they've succeeded.
They have (http://blog.wired.com/games/2008/10/qa-starcraft-ii.html) explained it properly. This is the problem with the way people on forums react to this kind of news. People get their panties in a bunch about the initial announcement, it spreads across the Internet like wild fire, and any follow up comments, clarifications, or retractions are lost amidst the cacophony of people railing about the original news article. Information on the Internet moves fast, too fast sometimes. This is why it's important for people to keep a rational mindset about these things, especially the people writing the articles covering it. Fanning the flames doesn't help anyone.

Spigot

10-16-2008, 08:58 AM

They have (http://blog.wired.com/games/2008/10/qa-starcraft-ii.html) explained it properly. This is the problem with the way people on forums react to this kind of news. People get their panties in a bunch about the initial announcement, it spreads across the Internet like wild fire, and any follow up comments, clarifications, or retractions are lost amidst the cacophony of people railing about the original news article. Information on the Internet moves fast, too fast sometimes. This is why it's important for people to keep a rational mindset about these things, especially the people writing the articles covering it. Fanning the flames doesn't help anyone.I get that. The problem is that what was initially reported wasn't clear at all and got spun into a crazy firestorm of rumours and innuendo.

Like I said, I'm not really ragging on SC2 as much as I am about what seems to be a real spike in these incredibly unclear announcements that end up getting everyone up in a tizzy. I just want more companies to just muzzle their employees until they have the strategy planned out and clear and THEN let us know about it.

Oh well.

itchyeyes

10-16-2008, 09:10 AM

I get that. The problem is that what was initially reported wasn't clear at all and got spun into a crazy firestorm of rumours and innuendo.

Like I said, I'm not really ragging on SC2 as much as I am about what seems to be a real spike in these incredibly unclear announcements that end up getting everyone up in a tizzy. I just want more companies to just muzzle their employees until they have the strategy planned out and clear and THEN let us know about it.

Oh well.
I see your point, but it's not always possible for developers to know how fans are going to react to things. From what I've seen in Blizzard interviews, they expected people to actually be excited about 3 games. Like I said the problem here is that this news spreads way too fast. That article I linked to was put up on Oct 13th, the original announcement was made the 10th. So they made the announcement, went home for the weekend, and came back to a shit storm. There's just no possible way for a company to react fast enough to this kind of stuff and clear things up. That's why it's important that gaming communities be responsible and reasonable in their reactions, and don't blow things out of proportion.

For instance, all the talk on the forums is about how Blizzard is just doing this to milk the franchise. That certainly wasn't in their announcement, and if you read the interview I linked to it's pretty apparent that that's not how the developers see it either. That came from the community alone, and it's our responsibility as a community to make sure that things like that remain speculation and don't get established as fact by shear virtue of everyone repeating it ad nauseum.

Spigot

10-16-2008, 09:21 AM

It sounds like the original announcement was made at a panel at Blizzcon though. That's not necessarily the best place to make an announcement like this unless you're also sending out press releases that spell things out to the various game news sites. If they'd put the information that came out AFTER the panel in the original announcement (or had the details available to the press so that could be explained) then it would have helped to alleviate a lot of the craziness.

And while you can't tell how every individual person would react to a given piece of news, you can't honestly say that they didn't expect this announcement to start a bit of a brush fire. That's fine, if the purpose is to get people talking, positively or negatively. Any press is good press, as they say. But we don't need to be apologizing for the community's reaction given the way the original statement was presented.

Of course, now that the supplementary information has come out, people should back off and think about it more. But companies should make sure that if they're going to announce something like this they try to clarify the details as much as possible before doing so if they don't want people storming their office with torches and pitchforks.

bryan

10-16-2008, 09:22 AM

itchyeyes: Very well said. I noticed how a lot of people didn't even read the full article. The OP here was just a summary (that I thought missed out on some key points) of the news post over at the Shack. People should take it upon themselves to find out as much info before passing judgement. However, the unfortunate truth is that people sieze upon potential bad news like it was a winning lottery ticket and refuse to let go.

Hotcod

10-16-2008, 09:29 AM

http://arstechnica.com/journals/thumbs.ars/2008/10/14/showdown-is-starcraft-2-a-cash-grab-or-more-of-what-we-want

On this page, I agree with what Ben is saying - that its a cash grab, but not so blatant as to cause us to lose faith in Blizzard.

See i have problems with how people are presuming that this is some kind of cynical money grab. With out this change we would have seen expiations... i don't think any one can argue other wise. So we would be putting more money to get the 'full product' in the long run than just a single game... yet some how blizzard are making a cash grab by admitting that they would have done expatiations anyway and integrating the idea in to the game to allow them expand the core content in a way that would not have been possible even with expatiations.

The guy in that also seems to not really get why the 3 games over 3 year is happening... which i'm finding a lot... asking for some missions of all races per game. To do that they would have to hold off for at lest 2 or 3 years fullstop and hold back content they have already finished as they have always said they where mainly working on one campaign at a time... it's in other words, messy, and that screams to me that it has come out of them finding they have a campaign that is too big but they don't want to cut back on.

Given it's so damn messy then if it is just a cash grab it's a risky and inept one to pull at this point rather than just fall back on doing a few expatiation packs. They could have done the announcement better but honestly most of the talk about this has been beacuse people like to bitch and moan and instead of informing them selfs... any one informed on what is going on here tends to either dislike the idea based on some valid points on which to dislike it or says "we have to wait and see"... all this "its a crash grab!AAjkjadfdfskla" crap is just typical uninformed internet sensationalism

bryan

10-16-2008, 09:31 AM

Telefrog

10-16-2008, 09:31 AM

They have (http://blog.wired.com/games/2008/10/qa-starcraft-ii.html) explained it properly.

Okay. Hold up a minute. How does any of that change the discussion?

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.

Come on. This is PR talk, nothing more. "We had to do it this way because the game was too much concentrated awesome in one box! Bitchin!" Please.

Spigot

10-16-2008, 09:35 AM

I believe any instance where people are quick to condemn without all the facts warrants an apology. The very fact that it was something said at a panel should have clued people in that the full facts were to come after. Unfortunately as I said above people are all too quick to jump on the bad.But then they shouldn't have announced it, at least not the way it was announced. None of the referenced articles from the OP lay out the details that ended up coming out later in the week.

Instead of doing a half-baked announcement at a panel and then going, "Gee, I wonder why everyone is going nuts about this!", they should have just waited until the official announcement to make the announcement OR made the full announcement in the panel with all of the details that trickled out over the remainder of Blizzcon.

itchyeyes

10-16-2008, 09:49 AM

Come on. This is PR talk, nothing more. "We had to do it this way because the game was too much concentrated awesome in one box! Bitchin!" Please.
So direct words from the lead designer of the game carry less weight than supposition and speculation by anonymous forum-goers who have no connection to the game aside from what they read on the very forums they're writing on? Come on, you're venturing dangerously close to tinfoil hat territory here. I mean, he'd have to be outright lying here for these ideas about milking the franchise to be accurate. That's more than just "PR talk" you're accusing him of, and on what basis? Do you have any actual evidence that suggests he's not telling the truth, or do you just "feel it in your gut"?

DiBiddilyBop

10-16-2008, 09:53 AM

Come on. This is PR talk, nothing more. "We had to do it this way because the game was too much concentrated awesome in one box! Bitchin!" Please.

Dude... they gave their reason. Paraphrasing, "The game got too big for us to do all in one whack. We could have shortened it, but we didn't want to because that's not the story we want to do."

It's not PR talk, it has to do with cost vs. returns. It's a perfectly valid point. What more do you want them to say?

Telefrog

10-16-2008, 10:52 AM

So direct words from the lead designer of the game carry less weight than supposition and speculation by anonymous forum-goers who have no connection to the game aside from what they read on the very forums they're writing on? Come on, you're venturing dangerously close to tinfoil hat territory here. I mean, he'd have to be outright lying here for these ideas about milking the franchise to be accurate. That's more than just "PR talk" you're accusing him of, and on what basis? Do you have any actual evidence that suggests he's not telling the truth, or do you just "feel it in your gut"?

I've got no problem with his explanation of the final product. Great. Separate campaigns with possibly new units and other stuff for each. Okay fine.

My issue is with the hyperbolic explanation for why they're doing it. You bet I'm not going to trust the word of the guy in charge of a product as the absolute truth of how and why the final product is going to be at least $120 dollars. You'll have to excuse me if "it was just too much pure win to fit in one release" is something I'm going to take with a grain of salt.

You can call it tinfoil hat thinking if you want, but I'll place my trust in places other than multimillion dollar companies that compete for my money.

That said, does it sound like Blizzard as a whole believes that they are doing the right thing? Of course! I see no indication of machivellian hand wringing or Snidely Whiplash cackles. The absence of that does not neccessarily mean that they aren't also keeping their eyes on the goal - which is to make money.

It's like my feelings towards Valve or Stardock. I like both of those companies and their products are (IMHO) superior to their competitors. They're not altruistic foundations, however. They're in business for a reason. I don't "trust" them anymore than I "trust" my utility company or my own employer. No one is going to go out of business just to please me.

Hotcod

10-16-2008, 11:33 AM

Telefrog

10-16-2008, 11:52 AM

so you just feel it in your gut? fine... just say so and stop trying to make a logical argument for your view points when there clearly isn't one. The game got to big to sell reasonably sell it as one product... is it a decision motivated my money? of course it is and a perfectly valid one from the looks of it... they wanted to expand the amount of content beacuse they liked what they where doing and have the money and backing to make a major change and triple the work and investment they had planed. Is it a money grab? no it's not, its to messy and to late in the game for such a major change to an imperfect set up... given the risks, the mess, and the extra cash they'll have to pour in to it it would have been a lot simpler and easier to pump out a few expatiations after putting the game out than to do what they've done... the idea that it's all about the money simply dose not fit....

So go on, think the lead designer is out lie lying to you about a huge risk his company is taking beacuse they want to expand the content of there game in a new and interesting way is lying through his teeth and what they really are doing is grabing at your money that they could have grabed at in a much less risky and easy way... 'cus that makes prefect sense

WTF? Seriously? :mad:

In what way did I say he's outright lying? Isn't it possible that as a lead designer he's a bit too close to the project to have an objective viewpoint of the decison making process on this? Have you ever been in a company that made a product decision that only in hindsight seemed flawed? Ever been caught up in a culture of hype?

I said I don't believe Blizzard has a nefarious motive for this. I'm sure everyone there thinks that what they are doing is a service to the customer. Hell, I don't think Riticello is purposefully being an ass about the DRM decisions EA is making. I think he honestly believes that what EA is doing is right and proper. I bet Bill Roper thought the same about Hellgate right up until the writing was on the wall. No one (reasonable) goes into business to purposefully screw everyone.

You're free to believe that Blizzard is some kind of altruistic organization whose only mission is to make awesome games for you with no thought of profit. Others can believe that Activision is the evil puppetmaster of Blizzard's new business mantra of milking every IP they have. I choose to place my stance somewhere in between.

Hotcod

10-16-2008, 12:16 PM

WTF? Seriously? :mad:

In what way did I say he's outright lying? Isn't it possible that as a lead designer he's a bit too close to the project to have an objective viewpoint of the decison making process on this? Have you ever been in a company that made a product decision that only in hindsight seemed flawed? Ever been caught up in a culture of hype?

So your saying it's both hyperbolic PR talk at the same time as being honest belief breed out of being caught up in there own hype? That makes no sense what so ever and is indicative of the way you keep shifting your standpoint every time some one counters one of your arguments. He either thinks that what he said is the reason for why they are doing it, caught up in there own hype or not... or his spinning PR lines to try and cover up a money grab... you can't have it both ways

Funny that you've now stopped trying to say it's PR talk and jumped on the idea that he believes ins what his saying but that his just misguided now that we've pointed out that it makes no sense for this to be cynical PR talk.... he may very well be caught up in his own hype but if he is that dose not change the fact that they think they are doing the right thing and as such they are doing it for the 'right' reasons. You are now just arguing that you think they are mistaken and it's going to turn out badly...

as i've said through out this thread i don't know if this is a good move or not... if this is a good move or not is not what we've been talking about... it could still suck but i though we where debating if this was a money grab or them doing what they saw as the right thing for the game.

You can say i think of blizzard as an altruistic organization all you want... it means you have to ignore the bit where i've said that turning it in to 3 games and selling that was a choice dedicated by making money but you've not let facts or what people have actually said interfere with your points of view so far so it shouldn't be surprising.

The idea that they are not out to make money is stupid but the idea this splinting up of the game is being done as purely a money grab is amamzing dumb. They, lead by a design decision to increase the content are going to do 3 games and sell them at the same relative value... it makes perfect sense with out either being altruistic or cynical... at this point your argument has become so twisted your contradicting your self so i can't help feeling that you simply are going to have your overly cynical view of this no matter what... which means it's probably motivated by other factors so i honestly don't know why i'm even bothering to post this...

Spigot

10-16-2008, 12:17 PM

Hee hee. This is fun... HotCod vs. Telefrog... WHO WILL WIN!

My money is on Telefrog because he uses less ellipses.

Telefrog

10-16-2008, 12:42 PM

So your saying it's both hyperbolic PR talk at the same time as being honest belief breed out of being caught up in there own hype? That makes no sense what so ever and is indicative of the way you keep shifting your standpoint every time some one counters one of your arguments. He either thinks that what he said is the reason for why they are doing it, caught up in there own hype or not... or his spinning PR lines to try and cover up a money grab... you can't have it both ways

What world do you live in? Is everything black & white to you? PR is inherently malicious? It can never be well-intentioned?

Funny that you've now stopped trying to say it's PR talk and jumped on the idea that he believes ins what his saying but that his just misguided now that we've pointed out that it makes no sense for this to be cynical PR talk.... he may very well be caught up in his own hype but if he is that dose not change the fact that they think they are doing the right thing and as such they are doing it for the 'right' reasons. You are now just arguing that you think they are mistaken and it's going to turn out badly...

So you agree with me now? It is PR talk? He may be caught in his own company hype? Yes or no?

as i've said through out this thread i don't know if this is a good move or not... if this is a good move or not is not what we've been talking about... it could still suck but i though we where debating if this was a money grab or them doing what they saw as the right thing for the game.

You can say i think of blizzard as an altruistic organization all you want... it means you have to ignore the bit where i've said that turning it in to 3 games and selling that was a choice dedicated by making money but you've not let facts or what people have actually said interfere with your points of view so far so it shouldn't be surprising.

Why are you even arguing this with me then? :confused: We seem to be in agreement.

The idea that they are not out to make money is stupid but the idea this splinting up of the game is being done as purely a money grab is amamzing dumb. They, lead by a design decision to increase the content are going to do 3 games and sell them at the same relative value... it makes perfect sense with out either being altruistic or cynical... at this point your argument has become so twisted your contradicting your self so i can't help feeling that you simply are going to have your overly cynical view of this no matter what... which means it's probably motivated by other factors so i honestly don't know why i'm even bothering to post this...

So you missed the part in which I said "I choose to place my stance somewhere in between."

I really have no idea what your stance is at this point.

OrangePulp

10-16-2008, 12:45 PM

We're all used to games having cut content, right? What's so outlandish about saving that cut content for expansions? Hell, look at HL2: it was originally going to contain the borealis, which got cut, and now that's showing up in Ep 2.

Primus

10-16-2008, 12:47 PM

First they change the art style of D3, now this, and there is runmors that bnet is going to to get subscriptions.

Activision has nothing to do with this. I blame WoW's model and how successful it has been. They know they can nickle and dime all they want.

My two cents.

Hotcod

10-16-2008, 03:17 PM

What world do you live in? Is everything black & white to you? PR is inherently malicious? It can never be well-intentioned?

So you agree with me now? It is PR talk? He may be caught in his own company hype? Yes or no?

Right, lets do these two at once because they cover the same thing. and since you don't get that i'll try and go slowly and see if you pick up on this.

If he is caught up in the hype how can he be spinning a PR line? He either believes what he is saying, which covers being caught up in hype or not, or he is exaggerating or lying to put the best face on a none game design decision. Given that that is the context that used PR in for you to turn around and claim that you where talking about good PR is just silly... its good PR in that its the lead designer sitting there openly explaining the choices they made about the game and why.

Now what do you think? if you think he is caught up in his own hype then what he is saying is not a PR line... if he is not caught up in his own hype he is either telling the truth spinning a PR to put the best face on a situation that, if its true, makes no sense what so ever... The point is, caught up in hype or not, if his telling the truth then the fact of the matter is that it is a design lead decision to expand the content the way they have.

Why are you even arguing this with me then? :confused: We seem to be in agreement.

You seem to miss the world 'sell', i was making the point that they are not altruistic beacuse they are not just going to give us the extra content for free. The model to sell the 3 full campaigns as 3 full games is a bushiness decision based on a design decision that came up during the course of development. You seem obsessed with this idea that it's a decision that was about the money and would have been taken if the design team thought it was a good idea or not...

Or at lest you where until we pointed out how stupid that is and we now you have retreated to talking about hype and PR and how you think they think they are doing the right thing... which flat out contradicts what you've been saying up until this point

So you missed the part in which I said "I choose to place my stance somewhere in between."

I really have no idea what your stance is at this point.

No i didn't but given that your posts and the views you express do not reflect that statement it was rather meaningless. Since you have no idea what your own stance is and seem to be arguing for the sake of arguing even when you contradict your self it shouldn't surprise me that you don't get where i stand.

As for my stance? Anything other than this being a decision by the design team to expand the content that lead to a business decision to split that content up in to 3 different "full" games to sell them makes no sense what so ever. This is not a money grab, it is something that blizzard felt best for the game and found the best way for them to sell it.

I don't know if this choice has been a good or bad one, i have my reservations about it and there lots of valid concerns regarding it and i think we can only wait and see what people are saying when the previews and reviews start rolling in.

You on the other had where at first you where saying you think its bad beacuse it's all about the money and that they where lying about why they where doing it... then you where saying its bad beacuse they believe what they are saying but are could be caught up in there own hype and not realise it... and then you say your putting you flag firmly in the middle after arguing other wise through out the thread. If i've gotten you wrong then i'm sorry but your arguments and views have jumped about so much from post to post it's been hard to pin you down about anything and soon as we did you jumped on to something else until we've gotten to the point that your all but arguing what we've been arguing but coming at it from the other side while contradiction your self.

While i'm happy that we seem to have brought you around to accept that blizzard think what they are doing is the right thing for the game and is based on a design decision by the design team... you "middle" flag is still a little out towards cynical... you may very well be right that they are caught up in there own hype but at this point there is no way to know... all we do know is that it's a design lead decision that to the dev team makes sense... that is the best we can hope for.

Telefrog

10-16-2008, 04:06 PM

Hotcod

10-16-2008, 04:58 PM

I'm not even going to try to respond to that post with quotes Hotcod. It seriously makes no sense to me. Sorry. I'm not trying to get into a flamewar, but I'm not even sure if we're discussing the same things.

Being super pumped and excited for your own production does not negate the fact that it's a PR explanation. You can easily believe in something and spout the company line. It happens all the time. It's not evil. It's not scandalous. It is, however, not going to be 100% objective truth.

I think we do both agree that at this point, neither of us can make a definitive verdict about the division of SC2. Perhaps it's best to leave it at that?

well let just say the point i've been trying to make is that if what he is saying is a "PR line" in your terms then the whole thing makes no sense what so ever.... where as if it's more or less the truth (him caught up in hype or not) everything seems to make sense. The whole thing is just to much of a mess and happened at a too odd of a time to be a business lead decision which simply makes what he says in the article seem true beacuse if it is everything fits in to place.

But yes, i don't think i can face writing any more big posts... i've written more about sc2 in the last few days than i care to remember... i think i may end up just hating the game for the amount of stupid crap it made me write... in the end i think it's an interesting out come of there design process, if it sucks or not it's going be... well... interesting to see