backtop


Print E-mail del.icio.us 100 comment(s) - last by afkrotch.. on Oct 23 at 2:35 PM

Paid Battle.Net service a possibility

The announcement StarCraft II will be released as a trilogy generated significant discussion among the gaming community. One of the main theories put forward was that Blizzard was bending to pressure from Activision to release the game as a trilogy in order to increase revenue over time. In an exclusive interview with game news site Edge Online, Blizzard representative Bob Colayco denied this claim.

Colayco stated, “No, absolutely not. [Activision] does not play a factor at all,” when asked if Activision had pressured Blizzard to release the game as a trilogy. He also stated, “I think the readers aren’t understanding that there’s a full, gi-normous single-player campaign experience in each of these three products.”

According to Colayco the decision to split the game was made by the Starcraft II development team. He stated, “Activision doesn’t really factor in, because ultimately the people calling the shots on how this game is going to turn out is the StarCraft II dev team. This trilogy decision was really made by that team.”

The original Starcraft had roughly 10 missions for each of the races and another 8 were added with the Brood Wars expansion. According to Colayco, the large number of single player missions is the justification for splitting the game. He stated,” All we’re really doing is reshuffling how players are going to experience the single-player content. In StarCraft II, we’re going to have a campaign that focuses strictly on the Terran. It’ll be 26-30 missions long, and you’ll play as Jim Raynor.”

Colayco also confirmed the all important multiplayer component will work the same as it did for the original Starcraft stating, “Effectively, the multiplayer will work just as it did before. You’ll get all three races, a bunch of maps, the full Battle.net experience. And when we tack on each of the expansion packs, as we did before, we’ll throw in a couple new units, abilities, maps, upgrades and things like that.”

When asked about Blizzard implementing a paid Battle.Net service Colayco failed to confirm or deny anything concrete. Colayco vaguely added, “All I can say is that once we figure out and develop what it is, we’re going to look at it and come up for something that makes sense from a business perspective. It could be anything, and it could also vary a lot from region to region.”



Comments     Threshold


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

Can anyone say...
By Hieyeck on 10/20/2008 8:25:07 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
*snip* And when we tack on each of the expansion packs, as we did before, we’ll throw in a couple new units, abilities, maps, upgrades and things like that.”

~Milked dry~




RE: Can anyone say...
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 10/20/2008 8:33:28 AM , Rating: 3
Unfortunately your right. This forces the purchase of all 3 volumes to play on Multiplayer. I'll wait for the battle chest when it eventually comes out.


RE: Can anyone say...
By Kremlar on 10/20/2008 8:39:41 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
Colayco also confirmed the all important multiplayer component will work the same as it did for the original Starcraft stating, “Effectively, the multiplayer will work just as it did before. You’ll get all three races, a bunch of maps, the full Battle.net experience


Uhh, no.


RE: Can anyone say...
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 10/20/2008 11:50:49 AM , Rating: 5
Alright let me clarify since it apparently went straight over your head.

You buy Starcraft: Terran. You play multiplayer. All is good.

Starcraft: Zerg is released. You have a choice, buy or not to buy. But keep in mind you will be unable to play multiplayer with ANYONE that does not make the same choice as you. As you can imagine the bulk will purchase Zerg, should you choose not to. This will radically shrink the playerbase with your version of the multiplayer client. Kind of like the majority play with the BW Expansion rather than without. Anyone who doesn't have it is largely left out.


RE: Can anyone say...
By DeuceHalo on 10/20/2008 12:11:38 PM , Rating: 1
That's not necessarily true. Take the Company of Heroes series as an example. If I buy both the original and the Opposing Fronts expansion pack, I can play multiplayer as the U.S., Brits, Wehrmacht, or Panzer Elite. If I only buy one of them, I can play against other folks who only have the other, or both. (Kudos to Relic on this BTW - even though it does mean a humongous patch.)

With Starcraft 2, since they are having full MP with all 3 races, they could conceivably limit you by not allowing you to play with the new units added by Starcraft 2:Zerg. Being competitive and able to win without said units due to balancing may be another issue entirely.


RE: Can anyone say...
By DeuceHalo on 10/20/2008 12:14:44 PM , Rating: 2
NM - just read the FAQ quote provided by omnicronx below stating how they planned to separate lobbies for folks with base vs base/expansion installs. Lame!


RE: Can anyone say...
By adiposity on 10/21/2008 5:34:41 PM , Rating: 2
No, it's not necessarily true. Nothing is guaranteed. For example, Allied Assault had two upgrade packs, Spearhead and Breakthrough. Although AA was a very popular multiplayer FPS, the expansions were not that compelling, and many did not upgrade. Thus, you could play with the original install base.

However, this is Blizzard we are talking about. Everyone always buys the expansion packs. They are very compelling and are usually as good as the original game in terms of new levels, and usually contain new unis to better balance races, etc. Bottom line: you NEED the expansion packs because everyone will get them. Blizzard has never released an add-on that was not overwhelmingly purchased.

There is no guarantee this will continue to be true. But it certainly is likely.

-Dan


RE: Can anyone say...
By JonnyDough on 10/21/2008 8:37:40 PM , Rating: 3
ZOMG! Did you just compare a l33t game like StarCraft to Company of Heroes? Oh no u dint!

Dude.

StarCraft = lyfe.

You = 3p1c Fa1L


RE: Can anyone say...
By TOAOCyrus on 10/20/2008 1:36:54 PM , Rating: 3
So this is exactly like Brood Wars and every RTS expansion out there, except there will be two of them. I dont see the problem there.


RE: Can anyone say...
By Alexstarfire on 10/20/2008 2:55:08 PM , Rating: 2
Because according to Blizzard this isn't an expansion pack... it's part of the original game. If they really wanted to sell the Zerg and Protoss campaigns separately then I doubt anyone would care. It's the fact that they are saying one things but then doing another. The fact that the Zerg and Protoss parts are going to affect multiplayer means that they are in fact expansions and not part of the original game. If they didn't affect multiplayer at all then no one would care if they sold the other two campaigns separately, but that's not what they are saying.


RE: Can anyone say...
By TOAOCyrus on 10/20/2008 4:40:52 PM , Rating: 2
Why should people care if the expansions effect multilayer? That's absolutely no different then any expansion ever. The only real difference is the campaign's will be from one factions perspective instead of all three.


RE: Can anyone say...
By TOAOCyrus on 10/20/2008 4:42:48 PM , Rating: 3
I should also say that Blizzard said they could be considered expansions but they wanted them to feel as much like stand alone games as possible. The only thing I get from that is Blizzard is upping the standard of quality for expansion packs.


RE: Can anyone say...
By JonnyDough on 10/21/2008 8:41:06 PM , Rating: 2
Agreed. This means that you can play the expansion without owning the other expansion or the original game. Schaweet! I think Blizzard is onto something. And whoever says they're milking the franchise, why the heck wouldn't they? At least they aren't being absolved by EA. Blizzard is one of the top game software developers out there. Period. They've been around quite awhile and most of their titles have made it big. Give them the props they deserve. I really miss Activision though. NBA Jam, Re-volt. Great games.


RE: Can anyone say...
By afkrotch on 10/23/2008 2:35:14 PM , Rating: 2
WRONG!

More like let's say Starcraft. You buy the game, but can only play as Terrans for the single player. You can't be Zerg or Protoss. You can play as all of them in multiplayer though. If you want to play Zerg or Protoss in single player, you must purchase them seperately.

I really don't like this. Was it going to be too hard to cram them all into one/two/three discs? How about shrinking the amount of campaigns and releasing them as episode discs?

I doubt Blizzard is going to get bought out, so having episodes would be fine. Unlike Sin. I enjoyed episode 1, but the game got bought and the episodes got canned.


RE: Can anyone say...
By solgae1784 on 10/20/2008 8:47:43 AM , Rating: 3
According to the official FAQ, each game will be a separate multiplayer, much like how original starcraft and brood war worked.


RE: Can anyone say...
By omnicronx on 10/20/2008 11:03:27 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
If I buy StarCraft II but don't buy any of the expansion sets, will I still be able to play online?

Yes. This will work similarly to Warcraft III and the original StarCraft, which maintained separate online gaming lobbies and ladders for expansion set players and players with the base Warcraft III or StarCraft.


The games will be very similar, but you are right not directly compatible. I really don't understand most peoples argument here, you get a full version of the game with all three races when you buy the first of the triligy, nobody is forcing you to buy the next two releases, and people will continue to play the old version, just as people STILL play the original version of Starcraft sans expansion packs.

So in other words, you are not being milked, if you really think it is stupid to buy two new games for some single player missions and a few extra online features, then don't, you already have a fully working game.


RE: Can anyone say...
By Mitch101 on 10/20/2008 11:07:02 AM , Rating: 5
I would have been happy with another expansion to the original starcraft.


RE: Can anyone say...
By artemicion on 10/20/2008 8:52:37 PM , Rating: 2
What I find odd is why in the world Blizzard decided to herald this as a "feature". Even though it's what everybody in the world KNOWS was going to happen with SC2, it's basically an admission of selfishness that just makes them look bad. The marketing guy at Blizzard who made this call is looking through the craigslist employment ads right about now I would think . . .

I agree to some extent that they're basically doing the same thing that every company does with their RTS games, which is to release the base package and then follow up with expansions. The one significant difference I would point out would be the fact that will previous releases you had a complete storyline from all three perspectives whereas here you have to buy them separately. I'm sure there's some Protoss fanboy out there that's going to be pissed that he has to sit on the Terran box for however many months until the next expansion hits. Again, uncharacteristically idiotic for Blizzard. They've made blunders before, but this is turning out to be a disaster.

But admit it, when WC3 came out, you KNEW Frozen Throne was just a few months away. The only difference here is that Blizzard is being more open about their money-making intentions . . .


RE: Can anyone say...
By mcnabney on 10/21/2008 12:39:34 PM , Rating: 2
I am that Protos fanboi, and I am going to be even more pissed if I have to buy Zerg as a prerequisite for Protos. Maybe I will skip the whole thing.


RE: Can anyone say...
By CrazyBernie on 10/21/2008 4:35:29 PM , Rating: 2
How can you call yourself a Protoss fanboi when you can't even spell it correctly?? For shame!!

0_o


RE: Can anyone say...
By blazeoptimus on 10/20/2008 10:06:41 AM , Rating: 2
While I definitely believe there is a monetary component to the decision, this is actually par for Blizzard development. Those of us that have played World of Warcraft can tell you that Blizzard pretty much plays by its own rules when it comes to development time lines. They do there best to never announce a time line because they almost never hold to them (which is common among software developers, but Blizzard seems to be especially bad about this). They seem to be one of the few companies that can get away with saying "its ready when its ready". I see this move as more of a reflection of what has become the norm for Blizzard development, the inability to gauge there time tables needed to release a product.

None of this is to say they don't have great games. I love them and will continue to play them. Its just frustrating waiting for there games.


RE: Can anyone say...
By Digimonkey on 10/20/2008 10:23:02 AM , Rating: 2
It's true that it can be frustrating to have to wait for a game, but I'd rather wait than be let down by a game I anticipated for a year or two only to have it be pushed out the door to soon because of deadlines and epically fail to meet expectations or even to be playable due to bugs.

Blizzard makes solid games because they don't try to meet deadlines. They just want to make sure they get things right. I believe in this strategy, people tend to forget about how long they waited for a game when they're busy playing it and having an awesome time, but I think the poster child for the "When it's done" ideology will be Duke Nukem Forever.


RE: Can anyone say...
By blazeoptimus on 10/20/2008 11:14:19 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
It's true that it can be frustrating to have to wait for a game, but I'd rather wait than be let down by a game I anticipated for a year or two only to have it be pushed out the door to soon because of deadlines and epically fail to meet expectations or even to be playable due to bugs


I completely agree with you on this. Its part of the reason why I keep playing there games. That being said, its still a business. One of the basic precepts of business is that you make a projection of how long it will take to do the job "right", and then you hold to it. Exceptions are allowed, but they shouldn't (in most cases) extend the time line significantly. Ideally there's a happy medium, between rushing a product out, and continually extending your deadline. If Blizzard were new to this, that would be one thing, but Blizzard has been making games for a very long time. We've should have seen a gradual decline in extending deadlines, or at least seeing the extended deadlines steadily becoming shorter. This doesn't appear to be the case.

What I want to see from them, is for them to put out a realistic time frame, and then do what it takes to hold to it. This is not unreasonable, most businesses do it. When they don't, its considered weakness or a mistake. Blizzard, instead of putting a higher priority on customers and good business practices, have put priority on there developers. Let me be clear though, I don't want them to sacrifice quality. I will always favor quality over a time line (that's why I still buy there products). That being said, it is possible to have both a reasonable time line and a good quality product. Blizzard can and should do better. This SCII split release is just the latest symptom.


RE: Can anyone say...
By Keeir on 10/20/2008 2:04:51 PM , Rating: 2
From your comments, I think you view games primarly like a puzzle or a building.

On the other hand, I think games are/can be works of art. Similar to buildings in many ways. Some games are straight-forward, easy to assemble, and are "functionally" fun. However, there is always the massive work of art/ambition that can never truely be constrainted with a schedule. I mean, humans have been contrusting buildings for millenium, we should never have delays to a construction project then!

I too wish blizzard would stick to a schedule, however, I am realistic enough to be grateful that they do not release a schedule. There is almost no way they could stick to a schedule, so its better just to not know...


RE: Can anyone say...
By blazeoptimus on 10/20/2008 3:09:23 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
From your comments, I think you view games primarly like a puzzle or a building


I view it as a business, because that's what it is. There selling a product, and I'm the consumer. As a for instance, if your bank said "well, the way we handle money is an art. It looks really good, but you might not be able to get to it all the time" would you bank there?

As to
quote:
I too wish blizzard would stick to a schedule, however, I am realistic enough to be grateful that they do not release a schedule. There is almost no way they could stick to a schedule, so its better just to not know...


If you read my posts here, you'll see that I'm actually ok with a delay, as long as I'm not the one paying for it. It looks like to me there trying ot adapt a little of an MMORPG model to the system (incramentlally release content - in the form of Expansions - which the buyer pays for). This actually makes alot of sense from a business/software development standpoint, but the decision is at the consumer's cost. If they had started with this perspective, then it would be ok. The problem is, they made a PR mistake in that they let the consumers (us) know that that wasn't the original intended product, but more of a fix for development issues - to smooth out there timeline - reach the low hanging fruit.

quote:
On the other hand, I think games are/can be works of art.

Hey, if you want to think of Blizzard as something akin to Michalangelo commisioned to sculpt a magnificent work of art, then by all meens, go ahead. Thats what's great about being people, were all titled to our opinions. While I honestly think the end product is extrodinary (been playing wow for over 3 years), Its difficult for me to think about them as something other than a business. After all, there their to make money.

As to the construction analogy, it fits the situation. In building though, delays translate to loss. Someone has to pay the loss. In Blizzard's case, there trying to put at least a part of that loss on us. I don't think that's right.

I'm actually on your side (as long as your not a Blizzard employee). I don't think its right for you, the consumer, to pay for Blizzards "change of mind". Good faith in a company is a form of capitol. That capitol is increased by treating your customers fairly, and spent when you make a decision that negatively impacts them. The kind of action Blizzard took here spends that capitol. And eventually, if they keep going this route when the have to fix a problem, it will hurt there bottom line, possibly even end the company. Then we wouldn't have these "works of art" anymore.

It's my opinion (please keep that part in mind)that Blizzard has a problem, and its my hope, that they fix it. I also hope they fix it sooner rather than later. Honestly I want the best for them and us - I don't think thats to much to ask :D


RE: Can anyone say...
By The0ne on 10/20/2008 10:51:04 AM , Rating: 2
I also would rather wait then to have crappy games pushed out for release. I'm sure we don't want to play name games here. All it will do is irritate each and everyone one of us of the bad and sometimes horrifying memories. The quality of Blizzard games has not cease to impress me yet. Blizzard as well as Square-Enix are truely companies that does great work. Their CG animations alone are top notch.

Having said this, Vivendi plays a part in some of the blame if not the majority. They were, seeing as I have not kept up with them lately, dmbasses that wanted to break Blizzard down.


RE: Can anyone say...
By blazeoptimus on 10/20/2008 11:32:43 AM , Rating: 2
Just to re-iterate, I agree, I believe quality trumps time-lines. If my post indicates otherwise, I apologize. I've felt for a long time that Blizzard's ability at accurately predicting the time it takes to complete a project must be very bad. As long as it just affected the release date, its OK. Now however, the game is likely to cost its customers three times as much because they don't hold there developers accountable to time lines. I think this is unacceptable. If they had stated it from the beginning that would be one thing, but they changed mid stream. If you buy the game(s), you'll be paying for there mistake.


RE: Can anyone say...
By Digimonkey on 10/20/2008 11:58:09 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
As long as it just affected the release date, its OK. Now however, the game is likely to cost its customers three times as much because they don't hold there developers accountable to time lines. I think this is unacceptable.


If you could say they promised or were planning single player campaigns for all 3 races in one game, this would be a truthful comment.

I have not seen any such report though, so you can't really say Blizz is doing any thing unacceptable. While it would've been nice to get all the campaigns in one game; like the first one...We shouldn't pass judgment yet until the actual game and expansions are out.


RE: Can anyone say...
By blazeoptimus on 10/20/2008 1:59:14 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If you could say they promised or were planning single player campaigns for all 3 races in one game, this would be a truthful comment. I have not seen any such report though, so you can't really say Blizz is doing any thing unacceptable. While it would've been nice to get all the campaigns in one game; like the first one...We shouldn't pass judgment yet until the actual game and expansions are out


I'm actually not sure where your coming from on this. The whole article is based on an apparent change in direction in going from 1 game with 3 campaigns to 3 games with 1 campaign each. This is what my comment is based on. If there wasn't some indication that the game was originally intended to be a single release, there wouldn't be any news here and this post wouldn't exist.
-
Actually, its your right as a customer to pass judgment on the company you buy from. Your most powerful tool in making that judgment is the decision of whether to buy the product or not, or whether to buy future products from the company or not. But without going to those extremes you also have the right to ask why certain business decisions are made. Every buyer should review what there buying, and if you can't find the answer to what your looking for you ask. There's nothing wrong with that. I'm asking why do Blizzard's time lines change so much, and are so unreliable, that they've stopped giving them. And this when the rest of the industry, and business as a whole, is able to do much better. I'm also asking why we the customer should be asked to pay for a decision that appears to be to ease development. Are they within there rights to charge whatever they want for a product, absolutely. I've never questioned that. Are we within our rights to ask why we should pay for there product, and to pass judgment on there answer - absolutely.


RE: Can anyone say...
By Digimonkey on 10/20/2008 5:18:30 PM , Rating: 2
Like you mentioned earlier it's all a matter of opinion and how you break things down. You yourself see it as Blizz offering less for the same amount of money. Which is true if you go by campaign numbers alone, but if you go for overall gaming experience or hours played, it's probably not true.

Just to clarify what I meant earlier is it was just presumed that Starcraft 2 would have Campaigns for all 3 races included into one game, because the first one did. No specific details were released until a few days ago. Whether it was their original plan or not, they made no promises to the customers, so I can't see that as being unacceptable.



RE: Can anyone say...
By MrBlastman on 10/20/2008 10:07:01 AM , Rating: 5
PAY TO PLAY BATTLE.NET?!

No. You better not Blizzard. If you do, you've lost another potential buyer. I will not pay monthly to play anything online.

Blizzard is living fat off the hog with WoW, the last thing they need is more cash to pay for a server which will be nothing more than a matchmaking service. RTS games are P2P and do not require a dedicated server to host each match. Look at Supreme Commander - FREE GPG.NET. GPGNET simply provides some chat channels, a ladder (which is electronically driven), an automatch system and an ability to host custom games which, once you start the game, is independent of gpgnet.

I don't see many IRC servers charging for access. The overhead is extremely small.

There is no excuse, whatsoever, to charge for bnet.

None.

This is rediculous. Bunch of greedy pigs. You know what they say about pigs who get too fat - they get slaughtered. Perhaps this will be the extra food which will fell Blizzard - their own success.

Do they not remember who made them successful - us. Not them. Without us, they are nothing. Get a clue guys.


RE: Can anyone say...
By Reclaimer77 on 10/20/08, Rating: -1
RE: Can anyone say...
By MrBlastman on 10/20/2008 11:26:03 AM , Rating: 2
I am happy with my Nerddom. Are you? Acceptance is the first step. :)


RE: Can anyone say...
By Alexstarfire on 10/20/2008 3:01:23 PM , Rating: 2
If you'd learn to read you'd know that only certain "extra features" are going to be pay-to-use.


RE: Can anyone say...
By MrBlastman on 10/20/2008 3:46:20 PM , Rating: 2
I'm quite literate, so much so that none of that "extra feature" stuff was mentioned in the last paragraph pertaining to Battle.net respective of rumored paid subscription.

But, lets make it easier for your memory since it is a little fuzzy:

"When asked about Blizzard implementing a paid Battle.Net service Colayco failed to confirm or deny anything concrete. Colayco vaguely added, “All I can say is that once we figure out and develop what it is, we’re going to look at it and come up for something that makes sense from a business perspective. It could be anything, and it could also vary a lot from region to region."


RE: Can anyone say...
By KaiserCSS on 10/20/2008 11:43:30 AM , Rating: 2
I'm sure you're name doesn't reference a certain super-soldier from a certain series of mediocre first person shooters, either.


RE: Can anyone say...
By Etsp on 10/21/2008 11:10:22 PM , Rating: 2
If only gpgnet wasn't a buggy nightmare on any OS that's not 32-bit, I'd agree completely. But alas, it is a terribly coded piece of crap software which doesn't understand a world with more than 32 bits. Even on 32-bit Xp people have had nightmares with it.


RE: Can anyone say...
By The0ne on 10/20/2008 10:46:53 AM , Rating: 2
All his statements lead to it. It's very disappointing to be reading his comments for me. I'll probably will not support the game release, not that it matters much due to the high number of followers, but I'll have to wait and see.


RE: Can anyone say...
By ineedaname on 10/20/2008 12:36:57 PM , Rating: 2
I really don't get why people are making such a big deal out of this. What game doesn't have an expansion or two nowadays. Most RTS games work pretty much the same way. They're just splitting the expansion based on the campaign instead. 30 missions is still a good amount for single player. Even if they didn't split it this way they would add 2 more expansions differently anyway.

I doubt this decision had anything to do with Activision.


RE: Can anyone say...
By Alexstarfire on 10/20/2008 3:06:59 PM , Rating: 2
BECAUSE THEY SAY THESE AREN'T EXPANSION PACKS. If this is in fact the exact same game but with different single player campaigns.... then why are they treating the online portion as an expansion pack. This is why people are upset. They know that people will buy the Zerg and Protoss because they want the single player... and because of that even more people will have to buy it so that they can play with all the other people who already own the Zerg and Protoss parts.

If they kept the same multiplayer throughout all 3 parts then no one would be complaining. Then again... they wouldn't have very many people buying the Zerg and Protoss parts unless they dropped the price to at least $30 since it's not a brand new game.

They can say what they want... but if you believe this is anything more than milking it's fanbase... but you are truly one naive person.


RE: Can anyone say...
By TheFace on 10/20/2008 3:02:10 PM , Rating: 2
Congratulations! You are eligible to purchase 1 game for the price of 3! This large man over here is going to grab you by the ankles, flip you upside down and shake all the money out of your pockets! Have a nice day. :)


RE: Can anyone say...
By ICE1966 on 10/20/2008 4:16:55 PM , Rating: 3
yeah, Blizzard is going to milk it dry. just look at how they screw the WOW players every month, and Starcraft will be no different. there are about 10 million wow players playing at a charge of approx. $14 A MONTH. thats 140 million dollars a month mulitiplied by 12 months in a years, you get a little over 1.5 billion dollars a year. I can promise you that it does not take anywhere remotely close to that much money to run thier servers during the year. Now, you figure out if you think they are going to milk people on the new starcraft, hell thier already milking the hell out of every WOW player. why not every body else,lol.


RE: Can anyone say...
By Wightout on 10/21/2008 11:07:45 PM , Rating: 2
Sounds a lot like what the people over in the Warhammer 40k Dawn of War series did / are doing

Man that is a great game... =D


RE: Can anyone say...
By leidegre on 10/22/2008 3:34:11 AM , Rating: 2
Com'on what's this all about, the game will be released as 1+2 campaign where the first will feature everything you might ever want in multi-player.

It has nothing to do with milk'in the franchise, it just about delivering a massive campaign. The issue was time and to get around that Blizzard simply releases each campaign as separate titles. It's the campaign that will be released as a trilogy not the game itself. It's in the damn FAQ. Read it!


Total milking
By Eugenics on 10/20/2008 8:27:43 AM , Rating: 2
Did anyone buy Starcraft for the single player campaign? Nobody I know did...




RE: Total milking
By dflynchimp on 10/20/2008 8:36:35 AM , Rating: 3
I can't speak for others but I thought that while the first player campaign was by and large a glorified tutorial for the game, the story line was definitely well conceived. Better than most FPS games, and we all know how little true variation apart from graphics FPS games can have.

I think the extra units make the expansion all the more worth it. Blizzard is known for their quality work, I have faith in them.


RE: Total milking
By Bateluer on 10/20/2008 8:47:45 AM , Rating: 5
The SP campaign in SC was very good and its characters were very well developed. Who didn't feel a certain anger and dark satisfaction when playing as Zerg Kerrigan?

I am ticked at Blizzard for breaking up SC into a trilogy though, its definitely milking. If they release each product for a fair price, I won't be bothered too much though. But, I also know that they'll release the game at three installments of 50 USD a piece.

SC2 has big shoes to fill and expectations are very high. With Blizzard's declining quality over the last few years and their constant dumbing down of their games, SC2 could turn into a colossal flop.


RE: Total milking
By StevoLincolnite on 10/20/2008 8:52:35 AM , Rating: 2
I have StarCraft and the 3 Expansions. (Brood War, Insurrection and Retribution) - I mainly got StarCraft at first in 1998 for the Single Player, Then after sometime people were jumping onto Battle.net, so I followed, I love the Campaign, but Battle.net brand the game into a completely different Arena.

I am looking at the Trilogy as if they are "expansion Packs" of sorts, so I am hopeful they will be worth the while.

But considering that after 10 years, StarCraft is still going strong with Battle.net access, to me it's one of the few games that I have felt have paid for itself over all these years, I hope I feel the same when I purchase StarCraft 2.


RE: Total milking
By kalak on 10/22/2008 11:50:29 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I have StarCraft and the 3 Expansions. (Brood War, Insurrection and Retribution)


Do you PAYED for Insurrection AND Retribution ???!!!

Are you nuts ???!!!

Insurrection = Retribution = TOTAL GARBAGE !!!!

Quoting Greg Kasavin:

quote:
And unless you're perfectly starved for single-player action, then you can live without the campaign, too. Insurrection's production quality is nowhere near the original's. You'll know that right away when you realize there's no front end to the game. You access the campaign exactly how you would any fan-made scenario. And with several high-quality fan-made campaigns already available for free on the Internet, there remains little reason to own this add-on; rather, there remains only the question as to why Blizzard authorized such a lackluster product in the first place.


RE: Total milking
By InvertMe on 10/20/2008 9:30:55 AM , Rating: 3
I enjoyed the single player campaign more than the multiplayer aspect of the game and so did many of my friends who played.

So to us this is AWESOME news. More campain is exactly what we wanted.

I don't understand why people have such a hard time with the idea that this game will be broken up. If it wasn't we would be waiting a lot longer and probably recieve less content.

If this plan gives us more content and Blizzard can make a few extra bucks then thats great for everyone.

However - If they charge 50 bucks for the expansions I will be a little put off. If the first one is $50 and the following expantions are 30 then I have no problems with the release.


RE: Total milking
By Megaknight on 10/20/2008 9:54:05 AM , Rating: 2
I did and I refuse to play RTS games online. I make some LANs with some friends, but no online to me. I just don't have time for online games. With the single player campaign, which had a wonderful story, I have time to play at my own pace and I'm pretty sure a lot of people think like me. Besides, if they provide 30 quality missions per game it's not milking at all. Bring it on Billzard!


RE: Total milking
By The0ne on 10/20/2008 10:52:56 AM , Rating: 2
I go for the story more so than the gameplay.


RE: Total milking
By omnicronx on 10/20/2008 11:16:13 AM , Rating: 2
But as the OP pointed out, most people played starcraft for the multiplayer, there is no reason to believe starcraft 2 will be any different. Its nice that you like story over gameplay, but in this series most people don't, so the entire they are milking the customers is pretty much BS.


RE: Total milking
By The0ne on 10/20/2008 12:56:12 PM , Rating: 2
Agreed. And as I've pointed out before, it's the online mode that will suffer from this.


RE: Total milking
By DeuceHalo on 10/20/2008 12:19:24 PM , Rating: 2
*raises hand* I did. Never really got into Starcraft until late in the game, as I was a Total Annihilation junkie for most of that time.


RE: Total milking
By tallcool1 on 10/20/2008 12:44:11 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Did anyone buy Starcraft for the single player campaign? Nobody I know did...
I did, but then again I do not know you... ;-P
I enjoyed the storyline in the single player campaigns. :-)

In regards to milking, etc... I am willing to give Blizzard a pass until proven otherwise. Reason is because just about everything they release has been golden up until this point. The only release of theirs I haven't played is WOW, but I hear its been quite successful.


I don't care
By dickeywang on 10/20/2008 9:04:01 AM , Rating: 2
I think what really matters is whether Blizzard could provide us a RTS as playful as the original StarCraft. Honestly I haven't seen any RTS(including WarCraft3) that could surpass the original StarCraft, if Blizzard can do their magic again, I won't mind to pay a bit extra, as long as they do it right.




RE: I don't care
By InvertMe on 10/20/2008 9:33:17 AM , Rating: 2
Exactly - you get what you pay for sort of situation.


RE: I don't care
By Spivonious on 10/20/2008 10:12:41 AM , Rating: 2
Supreme Commander?


RE: I don't care
By The0ne on 10/20/2008 10:54:32 AM , Rating: 2
not for me. Still waiting for the "next" jump in RTS...same goes for D3.


RE: I don't care
By MrBlastman on 10/20/2008 10:59:51 AM , Rating: 2
SupCom is wonderful. It is probably the closest a RTS game has ever come (other than Total Annihilation - and actually, SupCom > TA in many ways) to being as good as StarCraft.


RE: I don't care
By Jedi2155 on 10/20/2008 2:14:22 PM , Rating: 2
I own all of the above RTS's (SupCom, TA, SC etc.) but I find Relic's RTS games to be far more enjoyable in that you're allowed to focus on a small group of powerful units rather than just sending troops to the meat grinder.....

<3 Homeworld, DoW, CoH....


RE: I don't care
By DeuceHalo on 10/20/2008 12:24:37 PM , Rating: 2
SupCom is an excellent RTS and is a LAN favorite for me and my friends. However, the SP storyline really didn't hold a candle to the Starcraft SP storyline.


RE: I don't care
By Spivonious on 10/21/2008 10:44:24 AM , Rating: 2
I'll give you that, but for me TA trumps Starcraft in every way. Starcraft just felt like Warcraft with aliens.


I loved the campaign...
By oozarux on 10/20/2008 9:45:21 AM , Rating: 2
Yea, I am one of those lore nerds who loves a good story and Blizzard always puts out awesome ones, even when I was playing WoW still and I was in a top end guild, that game started to feel like a job but when I had the time I kept pushing forward to try to experience new content first...

I know that most don't care about the story mode but I'm excited for more missions...but this is nothing new, having been in high school when the original came out and been in the gaming universe since then, I have realized younger generations these days care less and less about story for any media (movies, games, shows)...so par for course I guess




RE: I loved the campaign...
By theoflow on 10/20/2008 9:54:07 AM , Rating: 2
Agreed. The single player campaign was pretty damn good and battle.net just made the game LEGENDARY.

For everyone who is complaining about not spending their money that is their prerogative. You can always get things cheap if you buy things that aren't brand new or used. There are far more people whom are going to purchase the game upfront then holdouts.

People will complain about everything, and it is kinda sad that Blizzard is taking a hit because they want to run a good business.


RE: I loved the campaign...
By The0ne on 10/20/2008 10:59:26 AM , Rating: 2
Yep. Kids these days don't actually pay attention to the storyline at all. All Blizzard games have great stories within them. Most players nowadays just want to get to "endgame" as quick as possible with minimal effort. This just doesn't apply to WoW but in many games. I play FFXI and the same thing can be said of majority of the US players. Sadly it is the US players.


RE: I loved the campaign...
By InvertMe on 10/20/2008 12:29:50 PM , Rating: 2
What server do you play on? I am currently taking a break from FFXI (dunno if its forever or not) but I played on Valefor and moved to Bismarck.

And yes I completely agree - the American instant gratification mentality ruins so many games.

"If it requires work - I aint doing it"

grrrrr


RE: I loved the campaign...
By The0ne on 10/20/2008 1:05:24 PM , Rating: 2
Raganrok

taru: whm, brd, nin, war, rdm, cor, smn
hume: war, nin, mnk
elvaan: war, nin, rdm, brd

my 75's and a few more close to it. Hardly play anymore though but account still active.


RE: I loved the campaign...
By Alexstarfire on 10/20/2008 3:12:56 PM , Rating: 2
For single player games I can totally agree, but for multiplayer games then it's not really the same. For games that have both... take each part separately. I don't want a short no brain game... in fact I've put many a game down because I don't really think too much. Some can overcome this... like many Mario games. If there isn't some sort of challenge to a game then I usually stop before I even finish. It's too damn boring and repetitive. I think of it more like busy work we used to get in school. It's not difficult.. just time consuming. That might be fine when you're sitting in a doctor's office waiting to be seen, but when I choose to game that's not what I'm looking for.


RE: I loved the campaign...
By DeuceHalo on 10/20/2008 12:31:05 PM , Rating: 2
I think the problem with WoW (or any MMO for that matter) is the fact that there are so many quests that it would take a significant amount of time to read all the text. As a result, folks have simply gotten used to clicking accept/continue on a quest without reading just so they can keep playing.

I'll plead guilty on this one for MMOs - I start off with the intention to read them, but find later that I just go back to read when I can't find something or need some details to finish it. With RTS games though, I never skip through cut scenes. There are significant less of these and often don't interrupt gameplay.


RE: I loved the campaign...
By The0ne on 10/20/2008 1:01:24 PM , Rating: 2
yep yep. I follow the Warcraft storyline because it's my favorite game from Blizzard. But since WoW there are just too many to keep up for the little time I have left...being older and working harder :) I wouldn't mind continueing but having to pay monthly when I hardly get a chance to continue is not worth it for me. I read the novels to help out :)

This isn't to say that a diehard would not read everything as I know people that do but I simply can't afford the time for such a large game. Add to that most quests are fetch this and that and it's pointless and bores the heck out of me quickly :)

RTS games can afford to tell a cleaner story due to it's length and scope of gameplay. MMO's are just too large for semi to busy people.


LOL
By Aberforth on 10/20/2008 9:51:25 AM , Rating: 3
No company will accept they are milking something unless cows are involved.




RE: LOL
By The0ne on 10/20/2008 11:01:19 AM , Rating: 2
There are always cows involved, ALWAYS. However, the exact wording might change here and there. For example, one replacement for Cow is "fanboy." I am a cow for their Warcraft series because of the storyline :)


RE: LOL
By lealwai on 10/20/2008 11:55:25 AM , Rating: 2
thereisnocowlevel


RE: LOL
By raphd on 10/21/2008 12:36:39 PM , Rating: 2
secret cow level in diablo 2 was the first sign.


its blizzard
By poohbear on 10/20/2008 10:01:06 AM , Rating: 2
im not too keen to pay 3 different time for essentially one looooong game. if any other company did this i'd tell em where to go. But this is blizzard, and every one of their games i've bought has been polished like a diamond on crack and i enjoyed them thoroughly. so im definetly giving them the benefit of the doubt.




RE: its blizzard
By The0ne on 10/20/2008 11:05:21 AM , Rating: 2
And that's where Blizzard is most likely going to far short of. Are each of the releases going to be polish enough on the single and online content enough. For single I can see the justification but for online the way they are describing the releases, it's doesn't sound like a good plan at all. So even though the game is polish it might not be complete, at least not enough to satisfy 10 long years of waiting for a sequel.


RE: its blizzard
By icrf on 10/20/2008 11:28:43 AM , Rating: 2
I'm a little put off by it, but that's more or less how I look at it, too. I'll buy the first one, and if it's as awesome as the original (which I still play a decade later) then I'll probably pick up the expansions. I just hope they don't price the expansions like new games. $50 for the first, $30 for exp is ideal IMO.


RE: its blizzard
By The0ne on 10/20/2008 1:08:00 PM , Rating: 2
Base on Blizzards track record it's never cheap. Price for expansion have been $29.99 and up for sales.


How pathetic
By Gymnogene on 10/20/2008 3:32:09 PM , Rating: 3
I can't believe they're trying to defend this obvious profiteering scheme. Saying the 'Starcraft team' makes the decision is just laughable and pathetic.

However, I also can't believe people are making such a fuss about it. If you don't like it don't buy it, or wait for the Battlechest.

This is business boys and girls, not charity, they will definitely milk us dry if we're willing to give the milk. How else will they afford that house in the Hamptons.




RE: How pathetic
By TOAOCyrus on 10/20/2008 4:48:37 PM , Rating: 2
Sigh, once again the first game will have just mas much content as the original Statecraft. The ONLY difference is the campaign is from one factions perspective and they announced the expansions packs before the games release. Blizzard is NOT cutting content to do this, from interviews it looks like they hadn't even started on the second and third campaigns well before this decision was made.


RE: How pathetic
By CosmoJoe on 10/21/2008 12:32:49 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I can't believe they're trying to defend this obvious profiteering scheme. Saying the 'Starcraft team' makes the decision is just laughable and pathetic. However, I also can't believe people are making such a fuss about it. If you don't like it don't buy it, or wait for the Battlechest. This is business boys and girls, not charity, they will definitely milk us dry if we're willing to give the milk. How else will they afford that house in the Hamptons.


I can't believe the whining.

Have none of you bothered to get your facts straight about why Blizzard is doing this? This the content of 3 individual games, not one game sliced into 3 small pieces.

I could understand the complaining if none of the games could stand on their own.

When has Blizzard made a bad decision concerning their games? Why do you think they have such a huge fan base?
Unbelievable.


$49.99 vs $29.99 - 39.99 plus 2x$19.99 = Milking
By whirabomber on 10/20/2008 8:31:22 AM , Rating: 2
The entire trilogy if kept together would be about $50, but by breaking it up at a minimal it will cost users about $70 to buy the trilogy seperate as retailers have a hard time selling a new boxed games at less than $19.99 a pop, and the first installment would at least be $29.99 if not more.

Moooooo




By Master Kenobi (blog) on 10/20/2008 8:36:10 AM , Rating: 2
I'd bet on each installment costing $49.99. If were absolutely lucky it will be 49.99, with each other installment coming in at 39.99.


By vdig on 10/20/2008 10:00:09 AM , Rating: 2
Yes, retailers would have a hard time selling the game. Not only that, but the cost of the game itself would be driven upwards due to the production of media, shipment costs and other overhead.

That said, I think this would lead to online purchasing and downloading of Starcraft 2: Three's Company. Give us a good reason to purchase online, like less minerals and vespene gas to purchase versus retail, and countless people would push the web purchase button.

Immediately afterward, all buyers will succumb to a Zerg rush.


Charging to play on Battle.net
By TerranMagistrate on 10/20/2008 12:31:42 PM , Rating: 2
Will be a huge mistake by Blizzard, I think.

Part of the huge appeal of the original SC/SC:BW was that you could just go online and battle it out with other real people.

Unfortunately, it's all but certain now that Blizzard will have a monthly fee thanks to unrelenting corporate greed.




RE: Charging to play on Battle.net
By InvertMe on 10/20/2008 12:48:35 PM , Rating: 2
There is a plus side to charging for battle.net though. It will reduce the amount of idiots playing. Most idiots wont pay for a service just to grief people.

I'm not saying I would pay for it but it's still a plus.

I never used battle.net with the original starcraft. I always played on a closed LAN with friend while drinking many beers. Good times!


RE: Charging to play on Battle.net
By xsilver on 10/21/2008 6:10:24 AM , Rating: 2
There are no idiots or kiddies on WOW?
SHOCK HORROR ;)


By Creig on 10/20/2008 8:49:57 AM , Rating: 2
So now instead of going out and purchasing StarCraft II as soon as it hits the shelf, I'm simply going to wait until all three modules are packaged together into one "Complete trilogy pack" and find it on sale somewhere. Not only will I then get the entire game as it SHOULD have been released, but I will also have access to all the bug fixes that will have been released along the way. Oh, and as a bonus, by waiting to purchase all three in one package I also effectively get to give the finger to Blizzard and their beancounters.

Who needs to purchase it as soon as it becomes available anyhow? I mean, it's already been 8 years since the original StarCraft was released. What's another year or two of waiting until all three modules are out?




By Denithor on 10/20/2008 9:13:40 AM , Rating: 3
Fine but I'll bet you're going to be waiting quite a while before they release a compilation edition.


The deciding factor..
By Sanity on 10/20/2008 9:35:09 AM , Rating: 3
For me will be battle.net. Specifically, if I'm going to have to pay for it or not. If I don't have to pay to play on battle.net, I'll probably buy the games. They'll probably be released far enough apart that paying $50 a pop won't hurt too much. But if I have to pay for battle net just to play the multiplayer, you can forget it. To me, that would mean that I wouldn't even be able to play on my own LAN with friends. No way.

Though, if the first one is a total let down, I won't be worried about buying the 2nd and 3rd.

And I do agree that this trilogy is more of a:

"We have too much material for one game, lets make it two! $$"

"Screw that, we have three races, lets just add a bit of fluff and make a trilogy! $$$"




Moneys
By Legenic on 10/21/2008 1:40:44 AM , Rating: 3
considering blizzard makes 11ty billion dollars a month on wow, I'm surprised they'd do this. wait.., no I'm not.




WoW anyone?
By vapore0n on 10/20/2008 9:46:03 AM , Rating: 2
Blizzard already proved that their customers will bend over to whatever they throw out at them.

Especially since its the long awaited Starcraft II.

I complained, and guess what, Ill probably buy too.




you guys complain waaaaaay too much
By philmax on 10/20/2008 9:57:06 AM , Rating: 2
all that matters is that they make a great game(s), if this is what it takes to do it, then fine. I have gotten more play hours out of starcraft than any other game I have played. The amount of good games made each year is very small, any good game is worth twice its price, its the garbage that p!sses me off.




Sure, why not?
By fishbits on 10/20/2008 11:54:32 AM , Rating: 2
Starcraft and Broodwars are among the best gaming dollars I've ever spent. Broodwars was already "a seperate game that just added a few units and single-player missions." I'll be purchasing SC2 on day one, hoping it will be as good a game. If it is, I'll be purchasing the sequels on their releases dates.

If these games really are great, no way would I go 3 years without being able to play them, buying (likely) inferior games along the way to spitefully save a few bucks. If the games stink, then Blizzard will take it in the shorts with 2 unsellable sequels.

As for bnet? I'd pay. Yep, a microtransaction of say $2 month. If those fees would go toward having staff periodically sweep through and perma-ban racists, spammers, exploiters, etc. Keep a free side up and running as well where those kiddies can go. Heck, I'd pay a slight premium on MMO subscriptions too for a "moderately grown-up behavior expected" server.

Really not seeing the doomsday of paying for games/ online services (within reason). But, as always, we're free to not buy them.




Paying for BNET
By Sharpie on 10/20/2008 12:31:28 PM , Rating: 2
This will be the final straw for me, I'm not paying for battle net.




Anyone think
By someguy123 on 10/20/2008 3:30:56 PM , Rating: 2
this problem could be internal pressure from blizzard (not activision) on the SC2 team to pull in profits comparable to WoW? people seem to forget that the SC2 team is sort of a separate entity in the Blizzard corporation, much like the old Diablo team. i highly doubt these choices could have come instantly after the acquisition. WoW is pretty much following this "milking" trend, with each expansion being essentially a large patch, and coming in with a 40$ charge that doesn't include subscription. I'd guess blizzard is seeing how WoW's business model is working ridiculously well, so they believe (incorrectly) that it should work for their other games.

The original SC really started to take off when the price finally dropped, so I'd say most SC fans won't be looking to adopt SC2 until the cheaper battlechest comes out.




a mistake on their part
By LumbergTech on 10/20/2008 5:41:30 PM , Rating: 2
i dont have a problem with the triology, yet, we'll see how it pans out

but i think its a mistake on their part to assume that people are going to keep paying for more and more services

im not going to pay for wow, diablo 3 and starcraft 2...

the most i would accept is a 5 dollar monthly fee for the use of battle.net..of course this would cut down tremendously on the number of players in the game..realy not that great of an idea..

the best thing about the old battle.net was that you just made an account and logged on..poof..you play..there was no barrier..i dont like where this is headed