Print 76 comment(s) - last by ranutso.. on Jun 27 at 6:29 PM

Blizzard announces it will release StarCraft 2 when it is "ready"

In a video interview with Swedish game site, lead producer Chris Sigaty and lead designer Dustin Browder discussed in depth the decisions and thinking that went in to the development of StarCraft 2. One of the key bits of information revealed was that Blizzard is aiming for a 2009 release as long as the game is “ready”. Sigaty stated, “Blizzard is going to try to get the game out this year. However, we're not going to ship the game if it's not ready. Blizzard is working hard to get the game out the door, but won't put out an unfinished title.” The interview itself revolved extensively around Blizzard’s decision to release the game as a trilogy and what this decision meant for gamers.

When quizzed why it took six years since the release of the Warcraft 3: The Frozen Throne for StarCraft 2 to be ready, Sigaty explained one of the reasons was they had decided to develop a completely new graphics engine and to not use any Warcraft 3 technology. Another factor that extended development time was the need to development a graphics engine that could accommodate the real-time strategy multi-player part of the game and also support the extensive single player story telling aspect of the game.

The discussion about the single player aspect of the game lead to a question about why StarCraft 2 is going to be split into three separate releases with each release focusing on the story of one race. Browder reiterated the company line this was a “creative” decision that was needed due to the fact the single player focused story telling aspect had grown so large it could not possibly fit in to a single game.

The two Blizzard employees were then asked why StarCraft 2 was so focused on creating a very well developed single player component when the original StarCraft’s extended popularity and immense replay value came from the multi-player component. Sigaty explained that their goal was not to use the single player experience as a training ground for the multi-player experience. He pointed out for many Blizzard real-time strategy games players who had finished the single player component and went on to play on Battle.Net for the very first time were painfully unprepared for what awaited them when playing against experienced players. He explained the single player component existed to develop the story of the StarCraft universe.

They were also asked if they were concerned some players would not bother to purchase and play the second and third installment of the StarCraft 2 trilogy because the first installment would include a fully featured multi-player component. Browder repeated the mantra he believes players would still be interested in the single player parts of the second and third installment because it would provide so many unique experiences that cannot be enjoyed in multi-player due to issues such as game balance.

The interviewers then came straight to the point asking if the second and third installments of StarCraft 2 would include new units and other new content which would provide a powerful incentive for players to purchase the rest of the trilogy. Browder completely dodged this question claiming he could not answer because the game was not finished and not all the decision had been made.

In terms of music for the game Sigaty confirmed that a full scale orchestra would be used and stated that their music director was busy recording at that very moment. He also confirmed the release of the StarCraft 2 beta was imminent although he did not announce a specific date. One interesting point Browder made with regards to the beta was that StarCraft 2’s release date would be influenced by fan reaction to the beta and he encouraged fans to provide as much input as they can once they have tried it.

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

By Golgatha on 6/18/2009 11:05:50 AM , Rating: 3
The discussion about the single player aspect of the game lead to a question about why StarCraft 2 is going to be split into three separate releases with each release focusing on the story of one race. Browder reiterated the company line this was a “creative” decision that was needed due to the fact the single player focused story telling aspect had grown so large it could not possibly fit in to a single game.

No, it would be a hell of a value, but it could certainly be released as a single game. It won't, because it's a "creative" way to milk your customers.

RE: Right.....
By cigar3tte on 6/18/2009 11:10:44 AM , Rating: 5
If it's anything over $30, I'd agree with you.

RE: Right.....
By bighairycamel on 6/18/2009 11:23:51 AM , Rating: 3
I'm a little torn myself. I hope they will be "expansion" prices, but I want to at least play the Zerg campaign so I may pay full price for 2 games if I have to.

But on another note, if there is nothing significant added to the multiplayer game (which is where I know I will be spending 99% of my time) I really don't want to pay full price for a 2nd game. 2 new units per race is not significant enough for me.

RE: Right.....
By Korvon on 6/18/2009 12:01:28 PM , Rating: 5
Blizzard is the only publisher where I have purchased every game they produce. They just put out quality stuff.
If each of the 3 upcoming releases only had 10 levels like they did in the original SC, then I would call foul. However there is going to be 26-30 levels, making it the same as the first SC.
I love the story of SC and would pay money to hear the rest of the story, just like a good book.

RE: Right.....
By bighairycamel on 6/18/2009 12:13:55 PM , Rating: 1
Blizzard is the only publisher where I have purchased every game they produce. They just put out quality stuff.
That sounds like a bit of an overstatement, since the company has been around since 1991 and officially with the Blizzard name since 1994. Unless you actually bought and played games like Blackthorne, The Lost Vikings 1 and 2, Justice League taskforce, or Rock 'n Roll Racing, etc.

Since the original Diable though, they've been doing nothing but epic titles.

RE: Right.....
By woof69 on 6/18/2009 12:23:51 PM , Rating: 5
the lost Vikings is one of my fav platformers of all time

RE: Right.....
By Spivonious on 6/18/2009 12:37:29 PM , Rating: 2
Mine too. Zany game.

RE: Right.....
By joos2000 on 6/18/2009 10:57:58 PM , Rating: 2
Vikings was fun, but Blackthorne was awesome. Rockn'roll dude with a shotgun killing space orcs... Or some such... Don't quite remember, but I do remember, I never had so much fun with a shooter/platformer since Turrican 2 on the amiga.

RE: Right.....
By s12033722 on 6/18/2009 4:44:35 PM , Rating: 5
Oh, how I have wished for a re-make of Rock 'N Roll Racing. That game was FUN!

RE: Right.....
By MrBlastman on 6/18/09, Rating: 0
RE: Right.....
By aharris on 6/18/2009 4:28:07 PM , Rating: 5
Or you could stop your whining and only buy the first part of the game, since you're already well-aware that the 2nd and 3rd parts will have nothing whatsoever to offer you.

RE: Right.....
By MrBlastman on 6/19/2009 12:42:39 AM , Rating: 2
Not exactly, Blizzard is _very_ likely to include new units in the second and third box that you will have to buy in order to use online... Much like StarCraft vs. StarCraft Broodwar. Soooooo in order to compete with the majority of players, you have to shell out the cash.

That isn't too hard of a concept for you to grasp, is it?

RE: Right.....
By The0ne on 6/18/2009 12:29:49 PM , Rating: 2
Blizzard expansion have been around $39.99. Not much of a value price.

RE: Right.....
By 2bdetermine on 6/22/2009 5:29:18 PM , Rating: 1
WoW sucks!

MMO u spend a lot of time exploring. WoW graphic engine there ain't anything pretty worth exploring.

RE: Right.....
By MozeeToby on 6/18/2009 11:17:33 AM , Rating: 5
There's a crazy new way you can show your displeasure if you don't like the price: Don't buy it. Seriously, Blizzard has no obligation to sell you the game at any price. If you don't like the price they offer, you can choose not to buy it until the price drops.

If Starcraft II lives up to the expectations, they could easily sell it for $90 or more and plenty of early adopters would still jump in. What I hope they do here is something like $50 for the first and $20 for each of the other two.

The first one you buy would give you full online access with the other two acting as single player expansion packs. If you think about it, this is probably in line with development costs and considering the number of online vs offline gamers these days, it probably makes sense to charge the offline gamers a premium for the content that a lot of online users will never see.

RE: Right.....
By LeftSide on 6/18/2009 11:28:41 AM , Rating: 2
I would have paid $150 for the first Starcraft. Seriously, the game is that good. I've played it more than any other game ever. Probably 3 times more than any other game ever. And if Blizzard wants to make more off of Starcraft 2, I'll be paying for it...

RE: Right.....
By StevoLincolnite on 6/18/09, Rating: 0
RE: Right.....
By Regs on 6/18/2009 5:52:37 PM , Rating: 1
Are you suggesting a boycott? ;)

RE: Right.....
By inperfectdarkness on 6/19/2009 12:15:23 AM , Rating: 2

i don't pay full price for game any more. i'll wait till i can have the battle chest for $50---THEN i'll jump.

RE: Right.....
By Russell on 6/19/2009 3:10:02 AM , Rating: 3
Must be a lot of fun always being 6 years behind the curve.

RE: Right.....
By inperfectdarkness on 6/20/2009 12:33:15 PM , Rating: 2
maybe not 6 years...but 2 or so doesn't hurt.

when you add up the cost saved from games dropping from $50 to $20-30; add that to the cost of buying a 2k laptop instead of a 4k quad sli steroided desktop; etc--it makes a lot of sense.

the gtx 260m in my new pc is BRAND NEW to the market--and can run UT3, Orange Box, and a few other titles maxed out in resolution & details (WUXGA). I cannot achieve that performance on a mobile rig (in brand new games) without going for a huge chassis & dual graphics cards.

if bragging rights are going to cost me 50% more for my games, and 50% more in hardware (just to be able to actually take advantage of the graphics) then i'll gladly wait ~2 years. i'll probably buy bioshock, FEAR 2, etc sometime this fall.

i did the 4k gaming rig thing back in 02. not really worth it. 22" CRT alone cost me $850. only difference between that screen & this one (other than size) is 240 lines of vertical pixels. the ti4600 was a beast in its day--but was immediately eclipsed by agp 8x.

if anyone disagrees with me--i'd be willing to bet you're the type of person the sims is marketed to; 1 game & 45 different expansion packs required for full gaming experience--all at full price.

RE: Right.....
By MrPoletski on 6/18/2009 11:20:38 AM , Rating: 3
You think as I do..

RE: Right.....
By someguywithfacts on 6/23/2009 9:08:57 PM , Rating: 2
sc unit quote anyone? lol

RE: Right.....
By ClownPuncher on 6/18/09, Rating: 0
RE: Right.....
By Raidin on 6/18/2009 12:55:20 PM , Rating: 5
They have said in the past that splitting the game up in 3 parts not only makes sense to them, but is also the only way for them to release anything soon. If they were bundling all 3 chapters into 1 game, it would take far longer to complete.

RE: Right.....
By Akrovah on 6/18/2009 5:34:05 PM , Rating: 5
That statement only brings to mind the horrors of waiting for the Half-Life 2 episodes, which were supposed to be released at 6 month intervals.


RE: Right.....
By Regs on 6/18/2009 6:33:56 PM , Rating: 2
It's only logical in my mind. 10 years ago all you needed was a programmer or two, a "graphics" artist, and a game designer.

Now you need a dozen programmers, a team of animators, UI designers, system designers, world designers, a team of artists, a team of web programmers, game testers, Q&A team, and another dozen modelers. And the applications that are suppose to make their jobs "easier" cost a fortune to license.

It's really become expensive to keep us entertained. A developer who can utilize all these resources to their fullest and at optimum efficiency will obviously make the best games and a bigger profit.

RE: Right.....
By lco45 on 6/18/2009 9:35:46 PM , Rating: 3
Another way to look at it is that we're getting 3 games instead of just one.

Personally I'm such a fan I'd rather have 2.1, 2.2 and 2.3 regardless of the cost. The more content the better!


I would complain but...
By brybir on 6/18/2009 12:29:24 PM , Rating: 2
Over three years I have spent about $400 on monthly WOW access fees and bought two expansion packs at $30 or $40 a pop so Ive paid about $500 to Blizzard for one game.

The savings graces there were that 1) I havent played WOW in almost a year and 2)In contrast it is very cheap entertainment (and a cheap addiction I guess too)

If StarCraft2 lives up to its hype and all three single player campaigns are epic, I would probably buy them. But if they are all $50 a pop and I get the feeling that I am just being suckered into spending $150 when it should have been all one game, I probably will just get one and use it for multiplayer.

RE: I would complain but...
By BigPeen on 6/18/2009 12:52:21 PM , Rating: 2
You're exactly the kind of person that's driving up the price of games :'(. $500 for 3 years of gaming?!?!? What the hell kinda sucker are you?

RE: I would complain but...
By BigPeen on 6/18/09, Rating: 0
RE: I would complain but...
By brybir on 6/18/2009 1:13:05 PM , Rating: 3
Except I do not enjoy counterstrike or those sorts of shooter games. I play team fortress 2 with some friends on and off but its not the kind of game I could play for years. I also own WC3 and starcraft and have played them quite a bit. But, I am not going to play the same games for 10 years just to save a few bucks.

In the grand scheme of things $13 a month for a game that entertains me is one of the cheapest forms of entertainment I have encountered. $13 is not even two movie tickets or the price of a few beers. Seems worth it to me. You could argue that I should demand that Blizzard make WOW free, but as its not the case, so my choice is to pay $13 a month or not play it at all.

So, you may not like the fact that I have different preferences than you, or that I choose to spend MY money in ways that make ME happy, but I dont really care about your opinion of MY spending habits. And if my, (and the millions of others playing games with monthly fees) drive the game model away from one shot shooters that I dont like, and drives the development and publishing of games I do like (such as WOW and other games of that type like Everquest back in the day) then I am all for it. You are in turn invited to spend your money where you want it and if YOU dont like that I guess thats just life eh?

RE: I would complain but...
By BigPeen on 6/18/09, Rating: 0
RE: I would complain but...
By someguywithfacts on 6/23/2009 1:47:24 AM , Rating: 1
What you consumer sap wow players don't realize is that there IS reason to care what you do with your money. You (and the millions) paying monthly raise game prices, as someone has said. Look at the money blizzard is making, can a game developer who doesn't charge monthly compete? No, so there inlay the incentive for the one-time charge developer to raise prices.

WoW is much more of a trend than a good game, how many players do you think play because other people play? WoW is not a good game. Have you seen the look on a WoW players face when they're playing? It's definitely not immersion or emotion, it looks like more of a trance, like they are in purgatory between boredom and slavery. WoW is not a great game, its a lower standard. It's a time vampire with little fruit to bear outside of its milieu.

You're "all for" the abolishment of one-time charge games, consequently a well crafted tool. I'll have you know I, among others, don't care about what YOU think about the games YOU like. Your opinion is devoid of value considering how well crafted of a tool you are, still so even when ignoring the fact your a WoW player.

RE: I would complain but...
By ranutso on 6/27/2009 6:29:05 PM , Rating: 2
Wow, and you really don't know how to respect other people's opinions (and tastes).

RE: I would complain but...
By grant2 on 6/18/2009 2:00:12 PM , Rating: 1
How much did you pay for your 3 or 8 years of counterstrike hosting servers?

If you never hosted a server, it means someone else paid for you to play... just because it's free for you, doesn't mean it's free.

RE: I would complain but...
By aharris on 6/18/2009 4:31:30 PM , Rating: 2
Economics 101: "Free lunch isn't free."

RE: I would complain but...
By callmeroy on 6/18/2009 2:42:12 PM , Rating: 2
i play wow and have been playing it a few years now myself. Your type of argument has NEVER made the faintest logical sense to me at all. For a few reasons....first and foremost is the most obvious --- why the hell do you care what other people do with their money, for their entertainment expenses? Second reason, your comparison with countstrike (which I also think is a great game btw) is an apple being compared to WoW (or any MMORPG game) as an orange. Kind of a huge difference between largely static and small game, than a forever changing "living" gameworld that is many times the size and scope of a FPS game like counterstrike. MMO's are generally much more complex in what they offer the player too -- in an FPS your game play is the same except the maps change. In MMO's its instances, professions, character development, pvp and then more corny stuff like like collecting pets and vanity items (those parts of the game I never got into -- nor do I care to). The point is you can do a lot more than just one mode of play.

Next, life I believe is all about balance and moderation --- and thus one shouldn't judge were another spends their entertainment money. For instance yeah I pay $13 a month for WoW --- but aside from that and maybe going out to the movies once in a while --- I rarely spend any money on myself, its always on other people I'm with. I'm a cheap bastard to other words -- so if $13 a month is being a sucker, I don't care -- its one thing I do for me with the money I earn that I enjoy. Finally, the most fun I have with arguing this point is when the person is a smoker and then says I'm the one who's a sucker paying to play a game....My uncle has said that to me --- despite the fact that he burns through nearly a carton of smokes a week -- if a carton goes for about $50 (I don't smoke I'm just guessing) a is my $13 a MONTH on a game more of a sucker thing to do than spend $50 a WEEK on smokes --- that attribute to cancer no less?

So with that all said, please don't tell me you smoke on top of everything else --- i'd laugh to hard.

Anyway that's my 2 cents on that...

RE: I would complain but...
By lukasbradley on 6/18/2009 2:47:10 PM , Rating: 2
Do you drink beer? I spend more than $500 a year on beer. Beer is somewhat of a hobby, and I'm not a sucker for spending that much on it. It's goddamn important.

Come to think of it, I'd say it's more like $1000 a year ($20 per week). And I'd estimate I have been drunk for around 250 hours a year (5 hours a week). That's about $4 per hour of drunken entertainment. And I'm no sucker.

I bet his gaming dollar to entertainment value is lower. Maybe you're just cheap.

RE: I would complain but...
By BigPeen on 6/18/2009 3:19:30 PM , Rating: 2
Do I drink beer? Lol, I think I spent like 50-100 bucks in the last 10 days on beer/wine/alcohol. I agree, I'm a cheapass when it comes to video games. I have no problem spending thousands of dollars a year on my other hobbies. So I understand paying for entertainment and fun (once you start buying $1k forks for you mountain bike just to have as spares, come talk to me). I just can't for the life of me understand why I paid $50 for WC3 and no monthly fees and have gotten years of constant playing, and why I would have to pay $15 (or whatever it is) per month, on top of expansions for WoW. What is all that money going to??? WC3 has servers, it has updates. I just don't see the value added aspect of it. That's my point. (Yes I realize CS was a bad example).

RE: I would complain but...
By lukasbradley on 6/18/2009 4:04:28 PM , Rating: 2
It takes a hell of a lot more time and effort to make a game than it does our beer.

RE: I would complain but...
By brybir on 6/18/2009 5:34:48 PM , Rating: 3
Sometimes I do wonder how much of my fee that I paid was going to maintaining the servers and paying employees and how much of it is just pure profits for Blizzard. But for me thats just a thought thing and not something I worry about.

I can sympathize with you a bit though, every time I am at Best Buy and I see the Sims2 stuff everywhere with about 14 expansion packs at $20 each I think..."man, the people that buy the Sims2 and all the expansions are sure suckers" because I hate the Sims for the most part. But, to each their own.

I also dislike that I have to *pay* for expansion packs to games like WOW where somehow I feel like my ongoing monthly fee should be enough to entitle me to the newest and latest gameworld. In that sense I often felt like a sucker paying their monthly fees AND buying their expansion packs, but again my choices were to play or not and I made my choice that way.

RE: I would complain but...
By Frejk on 6/19/2009 6:22:44 AM , Rating: 2
WC3 is also no the best example. Yes, there were updates, but count how often they were and how much additional content did they bring? A handfull of maps and a few neutral heroes?

MMORPG updates usually come 1-2 times a month, with really large updates every few months. Not counting the hotfixes and server-side tweaks that come few times a week.

What WC3 does good and some other games is release tools that allow user-generated content that is "free". Why "free" and not free? Because someone spends time to create, someone to host, and you spend time digging through loads of crap until you encounter something worthy.

RE: I would complain but...
By callmeroy on 6/19/2009 8:13:50 AM , Rating: 2
I can't lie and say I never thought about where my monthly fees go. For me I have finally rationalized it having to do with the enormous scope of the game (50%) and then the other (50%) reason is likely merely them cashing in on popularity. I mean there are some god awful movies done by very famous actors/musicians and folks go and pay the fee to see them --- largely because of the popularity of the star. I think part of the fee (btw the monthly fee varies slightly in WoW based on the plan you select just so no one thinks folks are lying when you hear different fees -- if you pay month to month it winds up about $15, if you pay a few months at a time its like $13 etc.) is simply blizz going "yeah we are the #1 most well known MMO in the world -- you want to join our party -- here's the cover charge...".

I have no problem paying because I get real enjoyment out of the game and since I've managed to build a huge network of in game "gaming buddies"....(I just had using the term friend so loosely -- because in reality I don't know them from squat we are just cool with each other in game) there's some joking and loosely defined socializing going on while gaming. Also unless you honestly played the game and I don't mean just for a week...i mean gave it a good spin for a month played through several raid instances, explored the world, etc. you can't appreciate the amount of work that went into it. So I don't begrude them collecting fees to maintaining a monster of a game like WoW. Guild Wars is the first game most compare when debating fees as in "Well how can Guild Wars be free then?"....Guild Wars is fun too (I have that game as well) WoW is much larger in almost every aspect of an MMO you can think of -- maps, number of instances, player base, amount of items, mobs, spells, skills, etc.

I sincerely think it would only imprress me if an MMO came along and truely replaced WoW as the number 1 MMORPG in the world and they made it free to play....when that point happens the fee argument will be hard to defend, until then I'm not upset at the current cost structure -- so long as the game is entertaining for me.

Side Note: $20 a month is my limit for monthly fees, I've decided a while ago I'll never pay more than $20 a month to play a game so WoW is ok with me until / if the day comes and blizz goes ok "$25 a month is the new cost"...that's the day I'll quit (if I'm still playing at all...been reducing my play time a lot over the last month anyway).

RE: I would complain but...
By brybir on 6/18/2009 5:26:28 PM , Rating: 2
I wonder how much ive spent on various forms of alcohol in the past. I bet it would be suprising on many fronts.

RE: I would complain but...
By Proxes on 6/19/2009 5:15:01 PM , Rating: 2
How much does the average person pay for the mindless drivel called Cable TV over 3 years?

Being conservative lets say it's $60 a month, that's $2,160 over 3 years.

Why even announce a game too early?
By sage1 on 6/18/2009 12:07:11 PM , Rating: 2
I would have preferred Blizzard to not even announce any games until it had more of a definitive release date; I have already begun to lose interest. The Diablo 3 site has not changed much in the year or so it has been up.

By BiuTech on 6/18/2009 12:33:08 PM , Rating: 3
I loved the previous Starcraft and Diablo games but I admit that I have lost interest now. What I don't understand is how you have a game in development for over 5 years and you then split it up into three episodes. Now they say that it's still not ready.

Well, why don't you focus on the first episode and release it sooner, then work on the others in the meantime. Kudos to Blizzard for making great games but come on already.

RE: Why even announce a game too early?
By thartist on 6/18/2009 12:58:01 PM , Rating: 2
Absolutely exactly precisely true! :P
besides, seeing where Diablo 3 is heading to has also been a huge bonus for my 'loss of interest' so now i plain don't care sh't about it.
Excitement is very washed out now.

By nycromes on 6/18/2009 2:02:34 PM , Rating: 2
Where is the line? I hear constantly from people that they get really irked when they end up paying $50 to be a post-release beta tester, yet when a company takes it's time to release a game that is relatively free of bugs (compared to other releases) people blast them.

I am anxiously awaiting these releases, but I want to get the Blizzard experience out of this game. One where I can install and just be wowed by the game from the get go. Not waiting for 2 or 3 patches and then find out the game is truly playable. I hope they get it out in 2009, but I want them to release a complete and stable game rather than force it out prematurely and have users find all sorts of bugs.

By kalak on 6/19/2009 12:36:53 PM , Rating: 2
Who needs Diablo 3 ?

Median XL RULEZ !!!!

By GodisanAtheist on 6/18/2009 4:15:16 PM , Rating: 2
They do it for the share holders, no doubt. Oops, parent company's stock price is beginning to dip? Fire-up the PR machine on all engines!

On a slightly different note:
I only hope that what Blizzard was able to do with deadlines and a limited budget, it can do unlimited money and all the time in the world...

Both too much and too little can stunt creativity and drive.

By callmeroy on 6/19/2009 11:07:26 AM , Rating: 3
I agree with you on this one.....

I think Blizzard is one of the highest quality publisher/developers out there for PC Games today --- but one thing that I can't stand is how far ahead they announce a title from when it really is available. Then they seemingly get annoyed when folks ask for a release and they say "when its ready".....I always thought to myself "Well Blizz if you kept your mouth should about a release you are working on until its within 6 months of release maybe folks wouldn't pester so much about it...".

Blizzard has announced things literally over a year out from release. Heck if you really want to nit pick on this topic --- they announced a World of Warcraft movie back in '06 --- now over 3 years later, there's like zero information on the progress or status of the film at why hype it YEARS ahead of time. Before folks say they hype stuff for increased sales -- actually that theory only holds water in the short term (within 6 months of release). If you hype a product too far out it in fact can have the opposite effect and result in decreased sales.

Wait til their voices change
By fishbits on 6/18/2009 11:30:18 AM , Rating: 5
"The discussion about the single player aspect of the game lead to a question about why StarCraft 2 is going to be split into three separate releases with each release focusing on the story of one race."
Could have sworn this had been answered a long time ago. Doesn't mean Press2play or anyone else can't disagree with the decision, but it's a useless question.

"Browder reiterated the company line this was a “creative” decision that was needed due to the fact the single player focused story telling aspect had grown so large it could not possibly fit in to a single game."
Maybe it's not "the company line," maybe it's the truth?

"Browder completely dodged this question claiming he could not answer because the game was not finished and not all the decision had been made."
Likewise, if the decision hasn't been made, how is stating this "dodging the question?"

The gaming press needs to grow a pair. If, as we're seeing, some feel that Blizzard is doing something wrong or dishonest, they should call Blizzard on it straight up. None of this weasle-characterization of Blizzard statements that could well be appropriate.

Bottom line: All this passive-aggressive drama seeding is coming from people who were delighted with a "Starcraft 1" that was "split up to milk the customer" as two seperate titles. Which makes it especially pathetic to watch them pretend a multi-title release of a Starcraft game is something that gives them moral qualms. If any of the games end up not being worth it, blast them for it at that time. Until then, if you really think Blizzard is doing something wrong, then man up and say so. Especially when their reps are there to answer your questions.

RE: Wait til their voices change
By inperfectdarkness on 6/19/2009 8:30:15 AM , Rating: 3
it doesn't take nintendo 5+ years (on average) to put out top caliber games. and it's been 11 years since SC1--keep that in mind.

it also doesn't take them splitting the content into 3 different packages to get it to market.

can you imagine the fiasco if twilight princess was a "game with two add-ons"?

4 years between windwaker & twilight princess--and the wait was worth it. nintendo didn't pull punches or try to usurp the wallets of their loyal fanbase. they also manufactured NUMEROUS other top shelf games in that timeframe.

only ONE company has managed to redeem themselves from overhype, overdelay, etc. the game was TF2, and the company was Valve. the apology was Orange Box.

RE: Wait til their voices change
By SPARTAN VI on 6/24/2009 12:32:20 PM , Rating: 2
Not trying to defend anyone here, but those same Nintendo games aren't still being played competitively by over 30k people every day.

To provide some perspective, Company of Heroes, probably the most popular "new" RTS out right now averages about 2-3k players a day.

Where's my diablo 3?
By WoWCow on 6/18/2009 11:08:23 AM , Rating: 2
It should also include Diablo 3

Blizzard announces it will release Starcraft 2 AND Diablo 3 when it is "ready"

Yes, keep the excitement up; but don't let us down :(

I'm betting SC2 might just have a 5 year development story, with 1 year in between the releases.

Year 1: Terran, Year 3: Protoss, Year 5: Zerg

RE: Where's my diablo 3?
By MrPoletski on 6/18/2009 11:22:58 AM , Rating: 2
*dingzzzzzssss... I sense a soul in search of answerssszzssss*

RE: Where's my diablo 3?
By icanhascpu on 6/18/2009 10:48:09 PM , Rating: 3
I'm betting SC2 might just have a 5 year development story, with 1 year in between the releases.

3-1 = 2.
5-3 = 2.

1 != 2

RE: Where's my diablo 3?
By Silver2k7 on 6/21/2009 4:45:58 AM , Rating: 2
DukeNukem Forever anyone ;)

nah im sure StarCraft III and Diablo III will get released eventually..

By Xenoterranos on 6/18/2009 11:51:31 AM , Rating: 3
I don't believe you Blizzard! I won't believe you until it's in my shaking, sweating hand!

RE: No
By Proxes on 6/18/2009 1:25:32 PM , Rating: 2
I'm just waiting for beta! Went to Blizzcon last year and got the beta code for it, now I'm going to this year's Blizzcon. Would like the beta to come out before then at least.

By judasmachine on 6/18/2009 4:23:55 PM , Rating: 2
Oh their serious?

RE: Bwhahahahahahaha
By icanhascpu on 6/18/2009 10:52:41 PM , Rating: 2
RE: Bwhahahahahahaha
By someguywithfacts on 6/23/2009 1:59:50 AM , Rating: 1
haha asshole... he could know the difference it couldve been a typo

By Soundgardener on 6/19/2009 4:05:36 AM , Rating: 2
Example 1)
Orange box - HF2 & EP 1 & 2 - at least 100 hours (run through twice so far)
TF II - close to 300 hours and counting, brilliant fun
$US50 / 400 hours
12c / that's value.

Example 2)
Age of Conan - 3 straight days of install hell, glitches not experienced in any other title / software on my PC, 3 ~25 GB installs (all downloaded over Steam), 20 futile hours running around killing crocodiles and snakes, unbelievably crap game engine, no DX10 content, etc etc. Can't sell cos it's on Steam.

Choose your games wisely.

RE: Value
By 2bdetermine on 6/22/2009 5:16:19 PM , Rating: 2
TF2 never get old. It will always give u a giggle everytime u play it.

AoC one sexy looking MMO. Minor glitches with the exception memory management issue.

Yes I knew it!!!
By Barfo on 6/18/2009 11:06:46 AM , Rating: 2
Can't wait for this to come out, I'm sure it won't disappoint.

"Creative" decision
By Yawgm0th on 6/18/2009 11:24:16 AM , Rating: 2
Browder reiterated the company line this was a “creative” decision that was needed due to the fact the single player focused story telling aspect had grown so large it could not possibly fit in to a single game.

Browder reiterated the company line that this was a “business” decision that was needed due to the fact the game will be so awesome that most consumers will be willing to pay for it three times, so why not milk them for as much as we can?

Starcraft Fanbase = WIN
By Shig on 6/18/2009 4:07:43 PM , Rating: 2
They can do whatever they want and people will buy the games.

I guarentee anyone who claims they're going to 'boycott' it because it's split up into a trilogy will buy all three.

It's hilarious for me to see these die hard fans claim that they aren't going to buy the games because they are being split up.

Next Gen Consoles....
By makots on 6/18/2009 8:06:45 PM , Rating: 2
Now if Microsoft or Sony really wanted to up the graphics ante for the next generation of consoles. They would forget garbage like Natal and produce games with real time graphics that would resemble some of the great Blizzard CGI cutscenes over the years. Be it with Larabee or some other upgrade of DirectX. DirectX9 has been great but it is time for a serious upgrade.

Star What ?
By Landiepete on 6/19/2009 2:41:59 AM , Rating: 2
Good thing for Blizzard there's still people waiting for this, apparently...for me personnally, my interset just disappeared after too many years of announcements.

Also interesting to see how time affects perception. Starcraft was a good game, but from the comments here you'd think it was miles ahead of anything else. It wasn't, it was just a good game.

Some of you may be in for a major disappointment when reality hits.

SC2 Hope of perfection
By brandonicus on 6/19/2009 5:29:19 AM , Rating: 2
Sorry i did not have time to read everyone else's comments. (also grammar is not my strong point) I know this game is anticipated to become a serious competitor among video games, cheesy or not. However, I am completely infatuated by it. Starcraft has been the only balanced rts game that i have played period... and i would pay an incredible amount for any version of it. As far as i am concerned it is a game of chess...a game i love.

By Nik00117 on 6/24/2009 5:43:30 PM , Rating: 2
Blizzard is smart, they can pack everything in one ame and move it out the door. However let's suppose there goal is to sell the game for $150? Well $50 one ytear, and $50 another year then a final $50 the next year. That isn't so bad. However Blizzard still makes $$$.

Blizzard puts out quality products. I can't recall a single instance where there guys haven't been a success. I logged on to Diablo I in 2005 poeple were still playing it! That says something about the game.

Once upon a time...
By TejTrescent on 6/18/09, Rating: 0
RE: Once upon a time...
By riottime on 6/18/09, Rating: 0
"DailyTech is the best kept secret on the Internet." -- Larry Barber
Related Articles

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki