backtop


Print 109 comment(s) - last by murphyslabrat.. on Oct 17 at 8:46 PM

Necessary sacrifice or cash grab?

Shacknews reports that Blizzard has chosen to release the much anticipated Starcraft 2 as a trilogy of separate games with each release focusing on one of the 3 factions. The first game in the trilogy will consist of the Terran campaign, and will be called "Terrans: Wings of Liberty." The second campaign will focus on the Zerg and will be called "Zerg: Heart of the Swarm," The third campaign will be focused on the Protoss and will be called "Protoss: Legacy of the Void."

Blizzard’s Rob Pardo stated, "The second and third games will be like expansion packs, but we really want them to feel like standalone products." He also justified the decision mentioning it 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.

According to the Shacknews article, each of the campaigns will have different play styles with the Zerg campaign implementing RPG elements, the Protoss campaign will implement diplomacy elements, and the Terran campaign will implement a Protoss mini-campaign.

The very important multiplayer component will be unchanged despite the separation of the campaigns. Some units will be specific to the each campaign and will not be available in multiplayer.

It remains to be seen if the separation of the campaigns is a necessary sacrifice to provide the best possible gaming experience to the customer. Each game will now feature more in-game cinematics and story content. Whether the decision was an unnecessary cash grab or not will become clear after the game is released.



Comments     Threshold


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

En Taro Adune
By isorfir on 10/13/2008 10:03:46 AM , Rating: 5
Terrans: Wings of Liberty, 49.99
Zerg: Heart of the Swarm, 39.99
Protoss: Legacy of the Void, 39.99

Blizzard knowing that we'll pay whatever they ask, Priceless




RE: En Taro Adune
By Gank on 10/13/2008 10:19:06 AM , Rating: 4
Then everyone wonders why ppl don't pay for games and just download them...


RE: En Taro Adune
By ted61 on 10/13/08, Rating: -1
RE: En Taro Adune
By Flunk on 10/13/2008 11:38:14 AM , Rating: 5
I think disliking the price structure is the most common reason for pirating software. How many people do you know with legal copies of Adobe Photoshop?


RE: En Taro Adune
By Souka on 10/13/2008 11:42:22 AM , Rating: 2
I know of at least one. ;)


RE: En Taro Adune
By ET on 10/13/08, Rating: -1
RE: En Taro Adune
By Alexstarfire on 10/13/2008 8:30:19 PM , Rating: 5
Because they are harder to pirate, simple as that. And it has to do with the fact that it's closed hardware. Only way to pirate console games now is to have a mod chip, usually anyways, and that's too much effort for some people. Then there are those who don't know how, me being included sadly. I don't know how to solder, so I couldn't get one if I wanted it.

While I used to pirate games.... there isn't much point any more. Most of the games I play now are online.... and playing pirated games online is hard to do... if not downright impossible sometimes thanks to the good ole' cd-key.

Only reason I've seen to pirate now is because of crappy DRM. Thanks to those cracks being illegal there is no reason to spend $50 on a game if you're going to do something illegal to remove the DRM anyways. I, for one, will never buy a game with crappy DRM like Spore and BioShock. I really don't care if they say it only affect 1% of the people, or whatever arbitrarily small figure they gave, but I go through too many computer changes to be bothered by the off-chance that I may end up being forced to buy the game again.


RE: En Taro Adune
By Homerboy on 10/14/2008 9:32:57 AM , Rating: 2
No need to solder for either the Wii or the 360 :)


RE: En Taro Adune
By erikejw on 10/16/2008 9:30:43 PM , Rating: 2
"The second and third games will be like expansion packs, but we really want them to feel like standalone products."

That quote is probably wrong.

but we really like to price them like standaline products


RE: En Taro Adune
By tastyratz on 10/13/2008 12:13:54 PM , Rating: 5
Everyone has a different price point.
If Adobe Photoshop was 10 bux we would see a ton more licenses legally... but they would lose a ton of money. Like it or not it still cost them quite a bit to produce. They aren't in the business of charity.

Also, the people Photoshop really targets would be the business sector which generally doesn't risk running pirated software.

There are a large portion of people who would buy games/programs they normally steal if it was cheaper... less drm... etc. Lots of people steal windows just out of spite for dislike of Microsoft.

People don't like to pay the price they charge for games and complain they want too much money, but the reality is games are CHEAPER now adjusted for inflation. People have an even cheaper alternative now of free which makes that $50 sound much higher.
Think of this: Sega genesis released Phantasy star for $70 in 1988. Adjusted for cpi inflation that game would be $129.64 today.

interesting related link:
http://curmudgeongamer.com/2006/05/history-of-cons...


RE: En Taro Adune
By Mojo the Monkey on 10/13/2008 12:57:02 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Also, the people Photoshop really targets would be the business sector which generally doesn't risk running pirated software.


I don't know about that... I've seen a lot go on in the name of keeping IT costs down.


RE: En Taro Adune
By kickwormjoe on 10/13/2008 4:28:03 PM , Rating: 2
That's pretty foolish. All it takes is for one ignorant employee to call up Adobe Tech Support for help with a Photoshop issue and then the cease-and-desist letter arrives in the mail. This happened at a previous company I worked for, only with a CAD-related software.

There are THREE sure things in life:

Death
Taxes
Stupid People


RE: En Taro Adune
By ElBrujo on 10/15/2008 2:05:44 AM , Rating: 2
Doesn't even take that. A pissed-off employee calls 888 NO PIRACY and can even get a reward!


RE: En Taro Adune
By kelmon on 10/13/2008 1:40:32 PM , Rating: 2
Me. Does that help?


RE: En Taro Adune
By hadifa on 10/13/2008 6:55:26 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I think disliking the price structure is the most common reason for pirating software.


The more common reason is ease of software pirating and little risk of getting caught.


RE: En Taro Adune
By kkwst2 on 10/14/2008 12:12:40 AM , Rating: 3
I think it is one reason. I think that most games are pirated by young people that can't afford them. Add to that how easily available they were via P2P, and I downloaded quite a few games during grad school. I also had quite a few ripped Dreamcast games back in the day.

Now that I make good money, I wouldn't really consider downloading a pirated game now. I certainly play fewer games now, but I probably buy either a 360 or PC game every 2-3 months on average.

In a way, I think the access to downloaded games made me a life-long customer. I use Steam a lot, because it's got the same instant gratification, since when I get the itch to get a game, I want it right away. Plus they run quite a few sales and such.


RE: En Taro Adune
By omnicronx on 10/14/2008 11:17:17 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I think disliking the price structure is the most common reason for pirating software.
So I guess this makes it ok for me to go out and steal a BMW or Mercedes. I mean I really don't like their price structure, as you are really just paying for the name. This defense will hold up in court right?.. <cough cough>


RE: En Taro Adune
By atwood7fan on 10/13/08, Rating: -1
RE: En Taro Adune
By on 10/13/2008 8:06:10 PM , Rating: 2
you deserve a -1.. oh wait!


RE: En Taro Adune
By Ringold on 10/13/2008 9:28:39 PM , Rating: 4
Did I miss the joke on why there are a thousand Camaro clones?


RE: En Taro Adune
By kelmon on 10/13/2008 1:50:24 PM , Rating: 1
Entirely agree. I have a degree of sympathy for people who need access to certain software applications in order to make a living if that software is very expensive and circumstances prevents access to it. However, I have no sympathy for those who pirate games since they can never be considered a necessity. If the price is so much of an issue, don't buy it and eventually the price will come down.


RE: En Taro Adune
By therealnickdanger on 10/13/2008 2:35:37 PM , Rating: 4
You'll never convince people of that around here. Notice all the -1 ratings on people speaking the truth? Pirating software is stealing and everyone that does it rationalizes it in order to justify it. I'm not sure when exactly that line was crossed.

Do games cost too much? No, games today are a STEAL already at their pricing. Bioshock cost $60 when it came out. Zelda on NES cost $70. Compare the artwork, audio, development time, development staff, and coding of both games. Compare the budgets of both games....

Do anti-piracy measures suck? Yes, limiting installs, "calling home", etc. are all annoying features that I hope the industry shys away from. In this regard, I fully support cracking the games, but it still doesn't justify stealing the game on the whole. Buy the retail copy, apply patches, then crack it.

The problem doesn't lie with anti-piracy measures or costs, despite being often cited. The problem is that people have become used to getting things for nothing, and even worse, they advocate it. Just because it's "on the Internet" doesn't make it free, let alone legal. It's cool to "fight the man", but games are made by gamers! They don't work 80-hour weeks just to get laid off due to poor sales. The only reason they end up siding with "the man" is because of the attitude so many have adopted regarding stealing their products.


RE: En Taro Adune
By TSS on 10/13/2008 3:48:02 PM , Rating: 3
well it still isn't stealing. the murky part is this: when you walk into a store, find a chair a craftsman has taken time and effort to build costing him money for labor and materials, and take it. this would be stealing. walking into the same store, finding the same chair, then go "POOF" and there's a second chair exactly like the first one standing there, which you carry out of the store undetected. the store didn't lose a chair, but it did lose a customer. unless said chair was already above the pricepoint of said customer making it impossible for him to buy it, in which case the store never had any revenue to begin with.

it's honestly a mind**** of epic proportions. you spend millions and millions into making a product, which can then be copied and transported around for no money at all. so how much is it worth then?


RE: En Taro Adune
By rcc on 10/13/08, Rating: 0
RE: En Taro Adune
By inighthawki on 10/15/2008 9:38:15 PM , Rating: 2
If you want to get "technical" you can copy the chair a billion times if you like, as long as you don't sell it or use it for personal gain. Private use is protected under fair use.

Please don't argue with me on a specific side from this comment, I'm just pointing out factual information, not taking sides.


RE: En Taro Adune
By rcc on 10/16/2008 6:59:02 PM , Rating: 2
The "specifics" are not the point. The point is that it's easy, they want, so it's ok by them.


RE: En Taro Adune
By therealnickdanger on 10/14/08, Rating: -1
RE: En Taro Adune
By kelmon on 10/14/2008 8:33:03 AM , Rating: 3
Technically, I believe the product is "worth" whatever your customer is prepared to pay for it. At its most basic level, that's the cost of the raw materials used in the product that the customer could sell to someone else. If the customer values the function of the product itself then its value increases accordingly. Additionally, more value can be placed on the product if the customer believes that they can sell it to someone else for a cost in excess of the raw materials cost.

Ultimately, I can never condone downloading unauthorised versions of anything, be it games, books, music, or whatever. It is not our place to decide how much we value something and then only pay that unless the owner has agreed to this (i.e. an auction or similar).


RE: En Taro Adune
By rudy on 10/14/2008 11:13:09 AM , Rating: 2
Millions and millions divided by the number of customers which is why you get it for a steal of 60$ rather then paying millions. I think you are wrong people have a right to ask what ever they want for their product and the free market will determine success or failure. Stealing is not part of the free market. If you do not like DRM DO NOT BUY IT. Comananies will very quickly get the hint when sales are dead even on a good product.


RE: En Taro Adune
By Totally on 10/13/2008 8:21:55 PM , Rating: 2
games a steal at current their pricing? are you that ignorant, you guys saying this fail to realize the landscape was very different from two decades ago. The markets were small video gaming was almost a checkbox under niche markets. You could compare budgets but go ahead and compare the returns. It would be criminal for then to charge more $60 for a game today.


RE: En Taro Adune
By therealnickdanger on 10/14/2008 12:27:37 AM , Rating: 2
Adjust for inflation and today's games should be almost double the price... so you still can't justify price being a factor. Prices are way down from where they should be, not up.


RE: En Taro Adune
By Totally on 10/15/2008 2:22:13 AM , Rating: 2
that's like saying after adjusting for inflation, i should be happy i don't have to take out a second on my home to buy a new pc.


RE: En Taro Adune
By inighthawki on 10/15/2008 9:41:48 PM , Rating: 2
Now account for the gains in technology, and the software that allows for far faster and superior quality of content, and tada, a difference.

You think the NES was as easy to develop for as the 360 or PC for example? Hell a lot of people can make the nes zelda in week, alone, because they were bored.


RE: En Taro Adune
By feelingshorter on 10/13/2008 12:43:15 PM , Rating: 5
The disadvantage of releasing it in packs like this is that they cost more. Traditionally, SC2 + expansion (50+50) would cost $100. Releasing three games means they can milk us out of (50+40+40) another $30 dollars. Is that $30 worth it to gamers? And is there greed around what they are doing?

Well, lets look at how the original SC turned out. Without going into much detail, SC is the most balanced RTS game out there. ( most balanced DOES NOT imply perfectly balanced as Korean progamers will tell you ). There are obviously a lot of updates that can be done to SC but the programmers cannot do it if the company management says they have to focus on other projects.

Its like asking why wasn't harry potter (or lord of the rings or bourne series) released as one movie instead of a trilogy? Because people WANT it long! I wish there were more quality fantasy movies like LOTR and action trilogy like Bourne (batman included) that gives you much more depth than what a single movie ever can.

You'd have to have been there when SC2 was released to understand. Most people who understand my position are probably in their early/late 20s. If your younger, you've probably grew up with command and conquer or company of heroes/world in conflict/world at war.

SC2 story line has so much more depth and thats why a lot of people love Blizzard games. They aren't like a traditional company. I wonder why the guy that says they are trying to meet a deadline got a 5 rating on his post when i know thats not true. During interviews the programmers said it themselves that "management doesn't really give us a deadline, they say ' just get it done right'" Meaning the programmers are the one in charge of deadlines and not so much as the management and thats why they have always said "its done when its done."

Despite what the press release and most news sites are reporting, the trilogy is just allowing the programmers to work more/longer on starcraft. The focus of SC2 is multiplayer(see the interviews with the programmers of SC, there is no argument here but fact).

Releasing it in a trilogy allows SC2 to have the team focus on balancing the game in the long run.

If anything, more games should be sold in a trilogy instead of just game + xpack. I often hate games that play well but have a piss poor story line. I need to feel like the universe is alive. I need the details. I need the depth. The voice acting. The cinematic. Characters with motivation and feelings. Conflict with no clear enemy as to whose absolutely right or wrong.

There is no question that blizzard's products are TOP quality. Period. I'd rather them release a trilogy, and have the game update in graphics, balancing, and gameplay over a period of perhaps 4-6 years than a mere 2 years traditionally. I want to be immersed in the SC world. That allows the game to age well over time, like a bottle of wine. More time = more balanced game play = better graphics = more depth = me more happy. Whats the difference of buying a $50 dollar game yearly instead of just buying 2 starcraft games every year? I'd rather have one great game that continue to improve than just 3 games from other companies that are half assed RTS with poor story lines.


RE: En Taro Adune
By CloudFire on 10/13/2008 2:54:21 PM , Rating: 2
i totally agree. the thing is that blizzard have stated each of the 3 trilogies will be as long as the normal starcraft game. so you should expect 3x as much content as the original SC. to me that is a sealed deal because i rather have 3 SC games, instead of 1 on one disc.

seemingly, everything that is epic these days seems to be released in trilogies.

i'm so buying all these games just because i want to support blizzard, they are undoubtedly one of the best game developers in the world. when was the last time you saw a blizzard game with DRM? ;) never, why? because they don't need to put on crap like that to restrict the user because they KNOW their games are quality that people would GLADLY buy aka me and so should everyone of you.


RE: En Taro Adune
By Alexstarfire on 10/13/2008 8:43:21 PM , Rating: 2
That might be great for those who enjoy playing single player a lot. While I'm sure I will play it... it's not my main focus. Multiplayer is my main focus. I see this being a problem. Many say that Brood War balanced the game out.... but it didn't seem that way from my perspective. I see it as a problem because it's going to do one of two things. Make an already balanced game more unbalanced... or make an unbalanced game more balanced. Either way it's a lose-lose. Well, maybe a win in the long run for the latter, but a certain loss for the early people. That's not something I want to run the risk of.

We've already waited a decade for SC2... what's another year if it means it'll be that much more perfect. The price is also a big deal, if you're looking at it from a multiplayer perspective. I'm not sure if the prices the OP posted are accurate. I hope someone can clear that up. But if it is then I mostly certainly won't be buying it until all 3 packs/games are out. That is far too expensive for the 2 other games. It's not that I don't love their work... but $40 is damn close to an entire new game, and we know that it's not going to be an entirely new game. Might have different units, different story, etc... but it's all from the same game. Same coding, least coding style, same engine, etc... it'll be MUCH MUCH quicker to produce the last two pieces that the first one because they aren't starting from scratch. $50 for the first part is totally acceptable to me, but $40 for the next two are WAY WAY overpriced. Should be $25-$30 tops.

You must know this comes from a person who owns EVERY Blizzard game and has paid for several more than 1 time.


RE: En Taro Adune
By CloudFire on 10/14/2008 4:45:39 AM , Rating: 2
very well said :)

i have been a vivid blizzard fan since the days of wc1.

i agree wholeheartedly with you that 50$ for the first game is acceptable and that the consequent expansions should only cost around 25-30$ as well.


RE: En Taro Adune
By just4U on 10/14/2008 3:05:10 AM , Rating: 2
Jury will be out for me until I see the game. If the campaigns are extremely long for each piece then yeah.. Ill go that was worth it. If they are short I'll be a bit ticked and think Blizzard is milking me, since the main attraction of SC2 for me will be the storyline. Been waiting a long time for Raynor and Kerrigan to return.

Ofcourse for those that don't mind waiting I am sure Blizzard will release the boxed trilogy for a fair price when all three have been out for a bit.


RE: En Taro Adune
By omnicronx on 10/14/08, Rating: 0
RE: En Taro Adune
By CosmoJoe on 10/13/2008 10:53:41 AM , Rating: 2
I was at Blizzcon for the presentation and announcement. Blizzard is releasing these as three standalone products.

Blizzard has established a strong level of quality for all of their products. If the content of each of these games is what you would get for 3 separate games, I don't see what the problem is.


RE: En Taro Adune
By MrBlastman on 10/13/2008 12:08:14 PM , Rating: 2
I really could care less about the single player portion of an RTS. Multiplayer is really the only use of the genre, as Starcraft in its most perfect for was a worthy successor to chess in the modern age. Very tactical, strategic and visceral all at the same time.

So, as long as they let us get the full multiplayer experience by purchasing the first game, I could care less. Now, if they do something such as making the addons add units/strategies in multiplayer like Broodwar did, that is ok. Just don't charge us too much for it and make sure it is very refined like the original's expansion was.


RE: En Taro Adune
By Nik00117 on 10/13/2008 4:19:19 PM , Rating: 2
I agree keep mulitplayer the same and let the two additons be story line only


RE: En Taro Adune
By CSQuake on 10/13/2008 5:19:53 PM , Rating: 2
I wish I could you a six.


RE: En Taro Adune
By ShammGod126 on 10/14/2008 11:10:13 AM , Rating: 2
I noticed that a lot of people are trying to justify why it's OK to pay for 3 games, and I totally agree with them. If the games are really 30+ campaign missions with new multiplayer mods then it would be worth 150 for the whole package. My main grip is with the reason that Blizzard provided. Saying that they would have to delay the game another two years if they wanted to release a single game. The thing is we've waited over 10 years for another Starcraft and the main reason is because Blizzard have been busy milking the WOW cash cow dry. I don't blame them for cashing in on a sure thing, and WOW is about as profitable as actually having a tree that grows money, but please don't say you didn't have enough time when you had 10 years to come out with a sequel…


RE: En Taro Adune
By CollectorZ on 10/15/2008 4:18:53 AM , Rating: 2
Actually I won't.

Some of us just wait until all three parts are released and buy the inevitable "Compilation".

I prefer to play a game straight through first time anyway.
Also gives them time to work out the bugs and balance issues.


Hmmmmmmmm
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 10/13/2008 9:58:17 AM , Rating: 5
I don't buy it. Sounds more like they haven't finished the other campaigns and in order to hit a release date they are scaling back and focusing on polishing just the one that comes first. This way they can milk the releases and keep people occupied until D3 hits in about 2 years.




RE: Hmmmmmmmm
By TheFace on 10/13/2008 10:25:00 AM , Rating: 5
Exactly! We have a winner! You have won the pleasure of purchasing 1 game for the price of 3!


RE: Hmmmmmmmm
By The0ne on 10/13/2008 10:43:26 AM , Rating: 1
This is what's going on. They don't have, but could, that many staff members to complete the two anticipated games on schedule...SC2 and D3. So they market this as a strategy and try to make MORE money out of loyal Blizzard fans. I tell you, Blizzard has become so greedy I'm beginning to think they've lost their way. I don't blame Vivendi for this one, it seems to me this is all Blizzard's doing.

IMO this is sure to blow up in their faces. With so many loyal SC fans spreading the game like this and then changing the type of gameplay for each to have diplomacy and RPG, it's not going to last. Odds are Blizzard will see the light and take the schedule hit and release what gamers already would like to see happen.


RE: Hmmmmmmmm
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 10/13/2008 11:00:15 AM , Rating: 2
Well given the huge outcry of complaining right now on Kotaku and other forums http://kotaku.com/5062018/starcraft-ii-lead-produc... smart money says Blizzard is going to feel some pain. Granted the blind following will let them get away with this, they will likely find that the episodic releases don't work so well for RTS games unlike MMO's. Expect Diablo 3 to get back on track but it looks like Starcraft 2 will be the sacrificial lamb to attempt and fail at a new release strategy.


RE: Hmmmmmmmm
By Entropy42 on 10/13/2008 11:14:19 AM , Rating: 3
People can bitch about this all they want, but if these games are good, people are going to buy them in droves. That's why Blizzard has the fan base they do, because they make games that are easy to pick up, and challenging to master.

Saying this is just greed is a little premature until we know what the content of each game is. If each game has enough content to stand on its own (or is priced like an expansion) then they'll still be as "worth the money" as a single SC2 with average content.


RE: Hmmmmmmmm
By The0ne on 10/13/08, Rating: 0
RE: Hmmmmmmmm
By CosmoJoe on 10/13/2008 12:25:53 PM , Rating: 5
Like I said, I was at the Blizzcon panel when the announcement was made. I watched the presentation of what kind of content will be in SC2. The type of choice-driven missions and number of missions PER SIDE (30-36) basically means each game of the trilogy is the equivalent content of 1 game.

quote:
I hope Blizzard puts more "content" into the games before they are release rather than spread the already thin content over 3 releases and charges you for each one.


This is the exact reason Blizzard is doing this. They stated that for what they are trying to do with the game, it would be too much to put into one game without drastically delaying the game and/or trimming down content. This is not a case of taking a single game and chopping it into 3 smaller pieces but charging the same for each piece.


RE: Hmmmmmmmm
By CloudFire on 10/13/2008 3:04:39 PM , Rating: 3
"So far both SC2 and D3 are not innovating anything that hasn't been done before. I'm still waiting for the "ohhh", "that's amazing" type of wow factor. I hope Blizzard puts more "content" into the games..."

well, if blizzard can't deliver the "that's amazing" factor, i don't know what company can. Maybe you should stick to your EA or ubisoft ;)

besides that, each part of the trilogy has as much content as the original SC game stated by blizzard. SC is agreed by millions to be the pinnacle of the RTS genre, it's still being played 10 years later. what other RTS has seen such an amazing fan base and long lasting life? NONE.

diablo by itself was the game that revolutionized and helped propel the action-RPG genre. these 2 franchises are WHAT created the so called "innovation" you speak of.


RE: Hmmmmmmmm
By Reclaimer77 on 10/13/2008 6:04:32 PM , Rating: 1
We loved Diablo II. We don't WANT " innovation " as you call it. We want the gameplay we know and love with a new engine, content, and updated graphics etc etc.


RE: Hmmmmmmmm
By esoteric01 on 10/13/2008 12:49:31 PM , Rating: 3
When has Blizzard ever tried to hit a release date?


RE: Hmmmmmmmm
By Mojo the Monkey on 10/13/2008 1:01:15 PM , Rating: 2
Or any software release, for that matter?


RE: Hmmmmmmmm
By CloudFire on 10/13/2008 3:10:56 PM , Rating: 5
that is because they have no release date. they release the game when they feel it is up to their quality standards.

hence why their games don't suck, unlike other companies who tries to release their games for crucial dates such as the holiday seasons or else it won't sell for #*!& otherwise.

ie. game that are based on movies/books at the time.


RE: Hmmmmmmmm
By Alexstarfire on 10/13/2008 8:48:59 PM , Rating: 2
And that is why we have all come to love Blizzard.... this new attitude they have is making serious doubt whether I should buy this game when it comes out or whether I should wait until all 3 are in a Battle Chest. I'm thinking I'll have to wait.


RE: Hmmmmmmmm
By DASQ on 10/14/2008 2:03:12 PM , Rating: 1
Look at it this way: The campaigns are so Goddamn large that the Terran campaign alone is as long as all 3 from StarCraft 1. You are getting 9 campaigns for the price of 3.

Seriously, I don't understand why so many people are bitching. Many books some in a series. Many movies come in a series. Why can't games? Why can't games grow to epic proportions that push hundreds of hours of gameplay? Dollar for dollar, the SC2 trilogy will probably be more entertainment:time for the dollar than any Hollywood blockbsuter.


RE: Hmmmmmmmm
By omnicronx on 10/14/2008 2:30:12 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Seriously, I don't understand why so many people are bitching.
Because if they didnt, they would be no justification for them to download it illegally ;)

Lucky for blizzard, the online Gameplay is what most people are going to buy this game, and it will require to pay for the game to get a valid key. Funny how everyone jumps on the fact that there will be 3 releases, yet nobody mentions that the most played part of starcraft has always been and always will be online gameplay. And as the article states, online gameplay will be pretty much the same throughout all versions.


Compilation
By AmberClad on 10/13/2008 10:09:35 AM , Rating: 2
Fair enough...I won't be getting it until they release the compilation "Gold" or "GOTYe" version, with all three games bundled at a discount then.

I'm kind of tired of having tons of game cases lying around because of devs trying to squeeze out more money by releasing expansion packs (BF2, Heroes V, NWN, Dawn of War, Oblivion, etc. come to mind). These days, I prefer to wait until I'm sure no more expansions will be released -- then I get the compilation version, usually at the price that a single game is normally priced at.




RE: Compilation
By 325hhee on 10/13/2008 10:26:28 AM , Rating: 2
There are some games that I do feel the need to buy right away, and others can wait. Given the statement they made, I'm waiting. I hope the trilogy is going to set at either $39.99 or less, until then I'll play Supreme Commander to get my RTS fix. CoD 5 on the other hand is a must buy for me and my friends, we've been waiting for co-op mission type games for a long time, frag fest gets redundant after a while.

The Zerg empire is going to have to wait for me, and I hope by the time the trilogy is out, a new Starship Trooper map is available, that must be my most favorite map for the original Starcraft.


RE: Compilation
By Screwballl on 10/13/2008 10:37:51 AM , Rating: 2
if you like these games then give Sins of a Solar Empire a try.


RE: Compilation
By 325hhee on 10/13/2008 12:52:56 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
if you like these games then give Sins of a Solar Empire a try.


I just looked at a vid on Youtube, wow that game does look awsome, reminds me of Home World, but better, gonna pick up a copy, thanks for the recommendation. I hope there's a Star Trek skin for it, hehe :)


RE: Compilation
By Ringold on 10/13/2008 9:38:54 PM , Rating: 2
There is an awesome-looking Star Trek mod out there for it, but it hasn't been finished yet. It'll be nice when it is, though.


RE: Compilation
By ASKman on 10/13/2008 11:14:44 AM , Rating: 2
You guys all have a right to do as you please, but i'm going to buy the game when it comes out and I will almost surely believe it was worth it. Check out the scope of the new campaigns. Starcraft had 30 missions and a multiplayer and it was released at full retail price. Wings of Liberty is going to have between 26-30 missions and will have a fully functioning multiplayer. To me that says full price (which today is like 60 dollars). Now the expansions i feel should be cheaper because if you already own the multiplayer you shouldn't be paying full price for it again. But certainly 40 dollars a pop would not be excessive (again for a 30 mission expansion).

My final point is how much money have you guys spent over the years on games you played only for a few hours? I've played every blizzard game for at least 150 hours. I know a lot of people don't do that, but if i had had to pay 200 dollars for warcraft 3 it would have been worth it simply because ive played it at least 10 times as much as most of the games i spend $50 on.


RE: Compilation
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 10/13/2008 2:09:15 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
but i'm going to buy the game when it comes out and I will almost surely believe it was worth it.

Otherwise known as the placebo effect.


Hope
By IraeNicole on 10/13/2008 12:38:10 PM , Rating: 2
I am curious how much time there will be between each release.

I suppose I can be optimistic that Blizzard will use a lot of the money they make off of this to use towards a new, ambitious project that may cost a lot of money to develop but bring something new and exciting to gamers.




RE: Hope
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 10/13/2008 2:22:33 PM , Rating: 2
Word on the street is the development of another MMO, either a successor to Starcraft 2, a new IP entirely, or a successor to WoW.


RE: Hope
By 325hhee on 10/13/2008 2:59:21 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Word on the street is the development of another MMO, either a successor to Starcraft 2, a new IP entirely, or a successor to WoW.


I thought it was semi official for a SC MMO? It would make more sense going that route, than via Diablo, WoW and Diablo are part of the same fantasy genre and might step on its own self. On Star Craft at least it's sci-fi. Plus with Diablo, you have battle net. It'd be too weird for me to see a Diablo MMO.


RE: Hope
By IraeNicole on 10/13/2008 4:39:17 PM , Rating: 2
It sounded like they had a lot of back lash when people thought that Diablo III was going to be another MMO.


RE: Hope
By IraeNicole on 10/13/2008 4:37:39 PM , Rating: 2
Hmm yeah I saw they had announced something about a next gen MMO and their hiring page did have an unannounced job listing section. That sounds like a potentially good use for the money. A next gen MMO would be great but as much as I love all their current series, I hope it is something new. They tend to create great and detailed stories and universes and a new one would be fun to get absorbed in. I am not sure what since they already have the science fiction and the fantasy angles covered.


This is bad?
By esoteric01 on 10/13/2008 11:32:29 AM , Rating: 5
I don't understand why everyone seems to think this is a bad thing. If this were EA or Activision (yes I know) I would be just as cynical as everyone else but this is Blizzard - they have proven time and again they are not willing to sacrifice quality to make a quick buck (cut SC:Ghost, could be on Diablo 7 by now, only 2 WoW xpacks in 4 yrs!?). When has a blizzard product ever not been worth every cent you paid for it?




RE: This is bad?
By Alexstarfire on 10/13/2008 8:55:30 PM , Rating: 2
They haven't YET. Just go take a look at that keyword there. Just because they haven't yet doesn't mean it's impossible for them to do so.


RE: This is bad?
By murphyslabrat on 10/17/2008 8:46:03 PM , Rating: 2
It would be a sad day, indeed, when Blizzard released a sub-par product. Until then, look forward to not just getting an awesome game, but getting three.

My 4-year-old copy of Starcraft: BW still sees occasional use, and remains the best $20 I have ever spent.


Impact on D3
By cingkrab on 10/13/2008 12:48:52 PM , Rating: 2
Hey, maybe next Blizzcon they'll announce that D3 will arrive as five separate games, with one character and one act each.

All kidding aside, there'll probably be a riot or something if they announced that at Blizzcon.




RE: Impact on D3
By Alexstarfire on 10/13/2008 8:59:03 PM , Rating: 2
No... there would be a massacre of all the employees of Blizzard.


RE: Impact on D3
By xsilver on 10/14/2008 12:49:18 PM , Rating: 2
When the sales of SC2 with this new pricing model goes through the roof, I would put money down that they will take the pricing model further on Diablo 3.

book it.


Half Life 2?
By NaughtyGeek on 10/13/2008 11:02:32 AM , Rating: 2
Valve set the trend and now others will follow. It's a double edged sword however. Some gamers will feel like they're being bilked for their hard earned dough while others will see it as a way to solidify game content and play. I personally like the episodic content model as things don't get rushed out the door. Plenty of you are well aware of what a rushed game feels like. I'd rather a developer takes this route than continue rushing titles out like EA tends to do.




RE: Half Life 2?
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 10/13/2008 2:20:53 PM , Rating: 3
Right lets but look at the Valve comparison.

Half-Life 2
-Comes with CS: Source
-Source Engine for Multiplayer
-Tons of Community Mods
-Singleplayer

Half-Life 2 EP 1
-Single Player Only

Half-Life 2 EP 2
-Single Player Only

I'm going to ignore Portal, TF2, and the other little extras because they can be purchased separately and do not require EP1, or EP2 to run. The multiplayer required only the initial investment, anything else multiplayer was a stand alone game and could be purchased as such. Mods continue to work as our Source Engine is updated for free through Steam.

Starcraft 2 - Terran
-Terran Campaign
-Multiplayer

Starcraft 2 - Zerg
-Zerg Campaign
-Additions to multiplayer, preventing you from playing with people who also do not have the Zerg expansion online.

Starcraft 2 - Protoss
-Protoss Campaign
-Additions to multiplayer preventing you from playing with people who also do not have the Zerg AND Protoss expansion online.

You can bet that user created maps will have to be updated with each release(Like in Brood War), thus invalidating their use in the original Terran or Terran/Zerg if its updated for Protoss. I would also bet good money that these expansions must be installed in order and you couldn't per se skip the Zerg campaign and just buy the Terran/Protoss.

If that isn't shaftage I don't know what is. It reeks of something EA would pull, but the constant revenue stream model from WoW must have finally gone to their heads and they are trying to replicate that model as well as they can in the RTS and likely RPG areas as well.


RE: Half Life 2?
By on 10/13/08, Rating: 0
Blizzard is a business
By Gymnogene on 10/13/2008 4:23:23 PM , Rating: 2
Of course they'll milk us for what they can. That's the idea of a business, profit maximization. Anybody thinking that a substantial gaming company, movie company etc. gives a stuff about what 'the fans' think is seriously fooling themselves. They only care about making you think they care enough to get you to buy their games. And there's nothing wrong with it, if the games are good we'll pay it, if not they'll go bankrupt and we have our sweet revenge, its capitalism! If I had Blizzard/Activision shares I would be going Hurray! right now.




RE: Blizzard is a business
By xxsk8er101xx on 10/13/2008 6:56:44 PM , Rating: 2
And it's your responsibility to not buy into their business practice by not spending 130 dollars for a game.

I am not spending 130 dollars for a game. I am not spending 130 dollars for a game. I am not spending 130 dollars for a game. I am not spending 130 dollars for a game. I am not spending 130 dollars for a game. I am not spending 130 dollars for a game.

read it, remember it, and don't do it!


It's a combination of many things
By ajvitaly on 10/13/2008 10:04:36 AM , Rating: 3
First of all, they'll charge more money. $25-30 for each campaign. Second, like Blizzard said, they're adding in a little bit more content. It's likely not enough to justify any sort of price hike, but consider it a perk. And last, it will allow them to release the initial part of the game a little bit sooner. It will also keep Starcraft in the news and minds of gamers everywhere for a longer time since the game is getting a staggered release.

Overall, it's an excellent business strategy by the only company that can probably pull this off for an RTS game.




In game Ads
By englisboa on 10/13/2008 10:43:08 AM , Rating: 3
I guess it would be better for them to do like Google and have in-game ads. That way they get their revenue and the users pay less for the games they like. What's wrong in a terran marine drinking a coke before some serious slaughter?

Or even a Zerg swarn advertising some insect killing product....




By lakrids on 10/13/2008 12:33:22 PM , Rating: 3
I don't want to see lame plots in the storyline campaigns.
I don't want to see seasoned Terran admirals pick up stray soldiers here and there and suddenly 2 games into the campaign trust these new soldiers more than old subordinates/close friends who's been with them through thick and thin.
I don't want to see lame and gullible protoss leaders go "oh Kerrigan has become a good girl now! why won't you trust her???"
I don't want lame deus ex machina plot like "lolol I was brainwashing your matriarch all along".

Basically I don't want a repeat of the incredibly lame and weak Brood War "plot"...

Blizzard, if you're going to demand thrice the money from me, FINE. But you better hire real scriptwriters for the storyline or I'll be very disappointed...




Not going to buy it
By xxsk8er101xx on 10/13/2008 6:52:45 PM , Rating: 1
I am not spending 130 dollars for a game.

Got that!?

I am not spending 130 dollars for a game. I am not spending 130 dollars for a game. I am not spending 130 dollars for a game. I am not spending 130 dollars for a game. I am not spending 130 dollars for a game. I am not spending 130 dollars for a game. I am not spending 130 dollars for a game. I am not spending 130 dollars for a game. I am not spending 130 dollars for a game. I am not spending 130 dollars for a game. I am not spending 130 dollars for a game. I am not spending 130 dollars for a game. I am not spending 130 dollars for a game. I am not spending 130 dollars for a game. I am not spending 130 dollars for a game. I am not spending 130 dollars for a game. I am not spending 130 dollars for a game. I am not spending 130 dollars for a game. I am not spending 130 dollars for a game. I am not spending 130 dollars for a game. I am not spending 130 dollars for a game. I am not spending 130 dollars for a game. I am not spending 130 dollars for a game. I am not spending 130 dollars for a game. I am not spending 130 dollars for a game. I am not spending 130 dollars for a game. I am not spending 130 dollars for a game. I am not spending 130 dollars for a game. I am not spending 130 dollars for a game. I am not spending 130 dollars for a game. I am not spending 130 dollars for a game. I am not spending 130 dollars for a game. I am not spending 130 dollars for a game. I am not spending 130 dollars for a game. I am not spending 130 dollars for a game. I am not spending 130 dollars for a game. I am not spending 130 dollars for a game. I am not spending 130 dollars for a game. I am not spending 130 dollars for a game. I am not spending 130 dollars for a game. I am not spending 130 dollars for a game. I am not spending 130 dollars for a game. I am not spending 130 dollars for a game. I am not spending 130 dollars for a game. I am not spending 130 dollars for a game. I am not spending 130 dollars for a game. I am not spending 130 dollars for a game. I am not spending 130 dollars for a game. I am not spending 130 dollars for a game. I am not spending 130 dollars for a game. I am not spending 130 dollars for a game. I am not spending 130 dollars for a game. I am not spending 130 dollars for a game. I am not spending 130 dollars for a game. I am not spending 130 dollars for a game.




RE: Not going to buy it
By on 10/13/08, Rating: 0
RE: Not going to buy it
By inperfectdarkness on 10/13/2008 8:55:16 PM , Rating: 2
i agree. so i'm going to wait until i can get starcraft 2: battle chest for $50. THEN and ONLY THEN...will i purchase.


so...
By swizeus on 10/13/2008 11:43:00 AM , Rating: 2
when will the launch date be ?




By VooDooAddict on 10/13/2008 12:24:41 PM , Rating: 2
Are we sure of where the prices are yet?

I really wouldn't mind this if they take a page from Valve and keep prices low.

Make the initial game $30 or $35
Second and third "episodes" $25

Yes the overall cost will be greater then if we just paid $60 upfront, but if they can truely give us the same ammount of content that we would have been getting from $50 base + Blizzard's ussual $30 expansion I don't see the differance.

I think this would drasticly increase sales for people only interested in multiplayer.




On pirating...
By gochichi on 10/13/2008 12:54:07 PM , Rating: 2
I may or may not pirate because huge companies are themselves thieves.

In terms of Blizzard and Starcraft 2, I have no complaints. In fact, most games I have zero problems with. Particularly computer games since their price drops very nicely not too much after release unless its a super amazing game.

Gears of War: $15
Bioshock: $20.00 (I paid $30.00 the day it came out)
Call of Duty 4 : $30.00
And on and on.

Blizzard makes fantastic games, and I'd much rather they do a "cash grab" and release the flipping game already than have to wait EVEN LONGER for the three campaigns in one. I seriously doubt anyone in a developed country can complain about paying up to $80.00 for the first installment of Starcraft 2. There is no game like it, and no publisher takes the time and effort to polish like Blizzard does. If something is actually twice as good, why can't it cost twice as much?
N
ow, back to why I may or may not pirate. Purchased Adobe CS2, have NO problems with CS2, no need for improvements... yet they saw fit to offer ABYSMAL Vista support (totally not a Vista issue, Vista does great when given the chance), this was Adobe's way to steal money from their customers by forcing them to either stay with Windows XP or "upgrade" to CS3... CS4 around the corner. So yeah, when faced with the option of being forced to pay for CS3 just to run Adobe's suite well under Vista, I may or may not have opted for a free and unlocked version of it. Though I'm not sure.

I was such a stickler for original software, but I have to be honest, other than Microsoft's stuff (Microsfot may be "evil" or whatever, but their customer service is second to none, I had a retail copy of Windows XP Pro that lasted 6-years of hardware changes and is still running strong. Office is updated only every 3-4 years, they offer free service packs unlike Adobe who'll charge full price for service packs.

Here's a good one, Mathematica... bought it and they won't let me reinstall it, period... cannot under any circumstances install it on a desktop and a laptop... much simpler to get an updated version on the torrents (you can install it on anything you want), but ultimately opted to not bother with Mathematica at all, there are open source alternatives.

So yeah, I used to think that pirated software created instability and just wasn't as good... but honestly I think the opposite is true. Buying expensive software is like paying for a crippled version of something from a bunch of thugs (specially Adobe). I've been burned too many times to be a "piracy is always wrong" guy anymore (I've been there and done that.)

In terms of this game, I hope it's not even piratable at all, it's going to be such a good game and Blizzard deserves the asking price. They don't do totally unethical things like Adobe and others do. Warcraft 3? Yep, it's Vista compatible... no problem at all. What's more it was always Mac and PC compatible... but it gets even better, they made it intel-Mac native via an update, no charge, no problems. I don't play Starcraft but I'm sure it's Vista capable as well (and again, Mac and PC from the very beginning).

So many software publishers refuse to hit the "recompile button" for their LEGITIMATE customers that I'm sorry... but they have done unto me, and I see no issue claiming my license in the most convenient way possible. Adobe CS2 for Mac... could have been Intel-Mac compatible with very little effort, instead they cashed in their ethics and traded them for more CS3 sales.

I have done business with different companies and Blizzard is a fine company to do business with, I fully recommend buying their products legitimately. I cannot make a blanket statement such as, "Piracy is always wrong"... I think piracy is leverage against the tiranny of huge, unethical software giants, or record companies, or whatever.

Don't buy into the lies and hype either, piracy DOES NOT increase the price for the "legitimate" customers, that's a bunch of bulloks. Piracy just says, "Hey, you'd better watch your price.

Here is where piracy hurts the industry: Piracy makes software monopolies. Adobe is a piece of junk (customer-service wise) company, with horrible prices, but no other software suite can compete because who would pay $250.00 for a competing product when you can pirate the "best" instead? Piracy created Microsoft, I mean c'mon, there was Dr. DOS and others which were perfectly viable operating systems (back in the day when OSes could be created by a handful of people) but why do that when you can just pirate the most compatible version of DOS? OS/2 Warp may have been cheaper and better but why do that when the piracy circuit has Microsoft's product?

Piracy doesn't stifle the mega-giants, it creates them. Piracy destroys the smaller companies.




It's not like...
By gochichi on 10/13/2008 1:03:30 PM , Rating: 2
It's not like you have to buy the main game and the two expansion packs together.

I really think this is a healthy combination of quality control and profit maximization.

If Starcraft 2 is a total dud (yeah RIGHT!) you can keep your cash and buy a better game from a different company (yeah RIGHT!).

We (customers) want this quality of product out in the market.

Blizzard is such a quality control freak. They could have made so much cash from Starcraft 2 if they released it ten (TEN!!) years ago. Most other publishers would already be at Starcraft 9 by now.




Greedy?
By kyleb2112 on 10/13/2008 8:29:31 PM , Rating: 2
What previous evidence is there that Blizzard's ready to trash their reputation for the sake of skimping on quality? Other companies, sure. But Blizzard's earned some trust at this point. More Blizzard content = more gaming goodness, afaic.




pirating games
By frozentundra123456 on 10/14/2008 8:23:31 AM , Rating: 2
I believe the definition of stealing is taking something of value that does not belong to you. To me, pirating games is definitely stealing.
Furthermore, I get very upset when people say they pirate games because of DRM. Pirating is why we have DRM, and the DRM does not justify taking something of value that one has not paid for. To give an extreme example, does the fact that a bank locks up their money justify stealing it ????
Finally, pirating hurts the gamer who legitimately pays for games, in that many games do not come out for PC or come out later than on consoles and are saddled with DRM.
Piracy at least is part of the reason for this.




Another good idea for Blizzard
By japlha on 10/14/2008 10:24:43 AM , Rating: 2
Charge a monthly fee for everyone playing SC2 for each separate game!
Just give me $1.00/month for each subscription for the idea.




ps3 photos
By RamarC on 10/13/2008 9:53:38 AM , Rating: 1
don't seem to be relevant to this article.




Cash Grab...
By mmp121 on 10/13/2008 10:01:24 AM , Rating: 1
Seems like a cash grab attempt to me. Unless they are going to sell all three for $20.00 a piece.

Somehow I really doubt that.




Cheaters!
By Sylar on 10/13/2008 12:22:30 PM , Rating: 1
Blizzard is invoking "show me the money".




Buy one... pirate the other 2
By Strunf on 10/13/2008 1:25:40 PM , Rating: 1
Broodwar brought 3 campaigns and a pack of new units, that's why it worked so well, if it was just a different campaign no one would dig into it.

Besides it was the multiplayer part of Starcraft that made its success, and that you can get with just one episode unless Blizzard pushes it further and put new units on each episode to "force" people to buy it.




Blizzard is getting greedy.
By Radnor on 10/13/08, Rating: -1
RE: Blizzard is getting greedy.
By isorfir on 10/13/2008 10:04:33 AM , Rating: 2
Wait, you payed for Battle.net?


RE: Blizzard is getting greedy.
By Radnor on 10/13/2008 10:12:12 AM , Rating: 2
No, but read the news, we will pay.

Blizz is getting the taste for a monthly fee.


By Master Kenobi (blog) on 10/13/2008 10:19:53 AM , Rating: 3
Yea, I was going to pre-order SC2 but I might wait until all of the xpacks are out and buy the battlechest.


RE: Blizzard is getting greedy.
By MrBlastman on 10/13/2008 12:05:18 PM , Rating: 2
I see no mention of them charging a monthly fee for Battle.net.

If they do, then forget playing on battle.net. I have a long standing belief in never paying monthly to play anything online. I've done just fine sticking to that and haven't missed out on anything.

I guess if bnet does become pay to play, a bunch of us will play Starcraft 2 on Kali again, just like in the good old days. At least Kali is (or was) a one time membership fee of 20.00. Besides, everyone knows the best Starcraft players of the old days played on Kali.


RE: Blizzard is getting greedy.
By Screwballl on 10/13/2008 10:28:14 AM , Rating: 2
agreed... these companies need to take the "Gamers Bill of Rights" from Stardock and run with it.
No ingame ads, no monthly fees, no DRM... but also no updates or bug fixes without legal and proper CDKey registration. Also having client based multiplayer takes the load of having to host servers themselves.


RE: Blizzard is getting greedy.
By Spivonious on 10/13/2008 10:33:32 AM , Rating: 4
The word is "paid" people, not "payed".


RE: Blizzard is getting greedy.
By The0ne on 10/13/2008 10:38:42 AM , Rating: 1
yea lol so bad seeing misspellings from many users. :) But then again this is the web and I hardly pay attention to my own hahaha


RE: Blizzard is getting greedy.
By pugz3d on 10/14/2008 12:41:58 AM , Rating: 1
RELEASE THE DAMN GAME ALREADY...
You already caved and stuck with 3 races instead of growing a pair and giving us some Xel'Naga or something else new.

I wonder why PC gaming has a lingering rep of decay...
Blockbuster, rock-solid, beloved game comes out, and it takes 10, 11, 12 years for a follow up?!?!!?!

I don't want constant sequels, but Blizzard could use some of the BILLIONS of dollars that the WoW suckers have given them, to repay their real original base, the RTS PEOPLE!

I'm sure it'll be 60 then 50 then 40 bucks for the first game over 6-12 months. Then an expansion after another 6-12 for another 40 then 30 then 20, etc, etc. They won't be standalones, don't dare call them that, and if they are, it'll be the most epic PC gaming disaster OF ALL TIME.

I WILL NOT PAY $130 for a game I've been forced to wait a DECADE FOR. They should pay ME for still singing the praises of the original, and checking the website every couple weeks to see if there's any news.

If they release the first game next week, I'll bite when it hits 40, otherwise, I'll give up on it until you can get all 3 for less than 50 in 2 or 3 years (by which time many people will have already moved on and the online community will be a sad effigy of what it could/should be). If they release them at anything more than 60, 30, 30, I'll swear off Blizzard forever.

I can appreciate a bit of the bind they find themselves in, but as I said, the WoWtards have made them filthy stinking rich, how bad am I supposed to feel? They do put out quality stuff, but at this point they've reached a simple conclusion. Release it in stages or risk releasing an outdated game in 5 years when the fans of the original will all be too old to care anymore, and OpenGL4/DX11 games will make it look dated.

Cinematics = I watch two or three, Elaborate Storylines that are usually a Frankenstein of a hundred other sci-fi plots = save it for the RPG nerds, Balanced, Innovative multiplayer system/gameplay = a game I'll play for a very long time.

I'll pay $20 a year for Battle.net if it includes ALL Blizzard titles, but $15 a month for one sucker game is baffling idiocy. MS at least gives you, what, a 1000+ games online for 50-60 bucks a year. Ideally they'll keep it free so the community isn't stifled.

Finally...
They haven't lost me yet, but it's hard to hype a non-existent game to your friends to get them interested in playing, and even harder to sell them a non-existent 1/3 of a game...


"DailyTech is the best kept secret on the Internet." -- Larry Barber











botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki