Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => Gaming Discussion => Topic started by: Bob-san on October 11, 2008, 12:49:07 pm
-
Blizzcon 08: StarCraft II Split Into Three Games
Blizzard drops bombshell and says real-time strategy sequel is now a trilogy. We talk to Blizzard's Rob Pardo for answers.
by Eduardo Vasconcellos and Jason Ocampo
October 10, 2008 - ANAHEIM--Blizzard dropped a bombshell at the 2008 Blizzcon today by announcing that StarCraft II, the highly-awaited sequel to the smash hit 1998 real-time strategy game, StarCraft, has been split into three. The company said that StarCraft II now consists of three different stand-alone titles--one for each faction campaign. The first of the StarCraft II trilogy will be StarCraft II Terrans: Wings of Liberty. The second will be StarCraft II Zerg: Heart of the Swarm, with the third and final installment of the main trilogy being StarCraft II Protoss: Legacy of the Void.
http://pc.ign.com/articles/918/918895p1.html
Discuss.
EDIT: 1000th post.
-
Just a money raking scheme.
Take a standard campaign, divide into 3 parts and sell each standalone for more $$$.
Oh, how low has the mighty Blizzard fallen.
-
Unless each of them is $20 or $25 or if the first you get is $30-$40 but the remaining two have major discounts, I'll be pirating 2 of them.
-
Yes, because stealing is always the answer when you don't feel like paying for something.
Perhaps people should wait and see what the pricing plan for these things is before jumping all over the idea. It sounds like each segment is going to have a hell of a lot of content, at least on the singleplayer side of things, and each one will also feature full multiplayer functionality. If you don't care about storyline, just buy a third of it and be done with it.
-
I also don't feel like paying $150 for all three parts. If it's the same game just with a new (30-35 mission) chapter of the storyline, I don't feel that it should be another $50. $20-30 would be more reasonable.
-
I too hope that it's fairly low-priced.
It's going to be really frustrating to finish the Terran campaign and then have to wait a year for the Zerg release.
Of course, this way they can release a strategy guide and a line of figurines with each one, and then bundle them into a battle chest...marketing genius!
-
Marketing genius, at least until the market's hatred takes over.
-
I really don't know where all the hatred is coming from. It sounds like a great idea: get SCII out faster. Read the article. They're really fleshing out the campaign. It's effectively twice what the original was. The original was 32 missions and a full MP. This is about 90-110 missions and a full MP. The minimum amount in each of these SCII games will be 30 missions. So, to me, this is twice the game. Anyways--I don't think it warrants a $150+ total price--I think it should be priced $120 total at tops, $100 is more respectable. They have bills to pay and they want us to love the campaigns and their universe. The original has over a decade of play--if they can do the same with the new version, they're definitely doing something huge RIGHT.
-
One hundred and twenty dollars? When each new expansion will be effectively mandatory, since it contains multiplayer updates? That's gouging.
And each campaign is supposedly going to occur concurrently -- meaning that once we've played one, we'll know how the others will end. I'd rather have it episodic, like the original Starcraft.
I'm still going to shell out for Starcraft 2, but I don't like the way this is going. No matter how long the Terran campaign is, it's still just a third of the game.
That said, the chunk of the opening cinematic they showed at Blizzcon was genius.
-
That said, the chunk of the opening cinematic they showed at Blizzcon was genius.
Link?
-
All depends on how expensive each installment is. If they turn out to be pretty cheap, then it's actually pretty brave of them.
-
That said, the chunk of the opening cinematic they showed at Blizzcon was genius.
Link?
Here! (http://starcraft.org/videos.php)
It's shaky-cammed, but still, pretty sweet. Zeratul is badass and I love the design of his warp blade.
-
Just a money raking scheme.
Take a standard campaign, divide into 3 parts and sell each standalone for more $$$.
Oh, how low has the mighty Blizzard fallen.
not really.. the south koreans will practically powder and snort the damn games, after all. :P
-
I really don't know where all the hatred is coming from. It sounds like a great idea: get SCII out faster. Read the article. They're really fleshing out the campaign. It's effectively twice what the original was. The original was 32 missions and a full MP. This is about 90-110 missions and a full MP. The minimum amount in each of these SCII games will be 30 missions. So, to me, this is twice the game.
Maybe so, but RTS missions are easy to make and the mission files themselves take very little space. You can effectively put all FS campaign mission ever made on a single CD. And I bet you the mission themselves are more complex than Starcraft Ones.
It's just a money grabbing scheme - especially since they will be stand alone, which means that you get the same art resource,s same engine, everything for each "game" - only the missions are different.
As for StarCraft universe and story - LOL. Blizzard doesn't have good stories, sadly. Fun games, yes. But good stories? I can find better stories in a cereal box.
-
we Germans have a word for this...
Abzocke.
You could translate it as rip-off, although this is far to weak.
-
Ein wahres Wort.
Hab gar nicht gewusst, das du aus Deutschland kommst. Grüsse aus der Schweiz.
-
I just read about it. Don't know what I should think. From what I heard each pack should have the content/length of a full game. Only the first should have the normal prize and the later ones be addon prizes.
Still I doubt it and even the guy who gave the interview stated that the prize might change to full.
I am bit torn...on the one side its nice that they want each campaign to have a larger story, more cutscenes and stuff. On the other hand, why don't they just push the release back? I mean its Blizzard, they could push it back without a problem. Most likely people will even praise them for pushing the release backwards when they only say "We do it for quality ensurance".
They would be praised as the only company that is still in search for quality. I mean I could imagne the marketing manager sitting their with the programmer
Manager "Are you done?"
Tech "Sure we could release it every day you want"
Manager "How long does it take you to do another trailer?"
Tech "2-3 days?"
Manager "Good, lets tell people that they have to wait another month because of quality ensurance while you show them one or two trailers. That will push sales skyhigh"
I think you get what I mean.
Anyway I aspect SC2 to have a quite good share of illigal downloads, maybe even toping Spore, because of this.
Well I don't know. I think I will just sit back and wait. When the release is their and I see that its worth the money I buy it. If not...well then not.
I mean if all these releases are truely what they promise, I think it will be worth buying.
To me this is a little bit like "Dawn of War".
You have the first part with the SM campaign and each addon comes with new factions and a "campagne".
I haven't regred it to have bought these addons...well a little after I saw that there was a "all in one" release. Anyway I think Blizzard could do well with this kind of release scheme IF they can keep up to what they promised.
-
As for StarCraft universe and story - LOL. Blizzard doesn't have good stories, sadly. Fun games, yes. But good stories? I can find better stories in a cereal box.
Actually, the Starcraft story is pretty well-respected. Obviously, stories are a matter of opinion, but most people (myself included) seem to think it's either pretty good or really good.
You're free to disagree, of course.
-
To me this is a little bit like "Dawn of War".
You have the first part with the SM campaign and each addon comes with new factions and a "campaign".
Except this doesn't give you new factions, weapons or mechanics with the "addon".
Actually, the Starcraft story is pretty well-respected. Obviously, stories are a matter of opinion, but most people (myself included) seem to think it's either pretty good or really good.
You're free to disagree, of course.
MY beef with Warcraft, Starcraft and basicely any Blizzard game universe is that the fluff is just thrown there. It feels tacked on. Like a bunch of people just sat in a room and started making out events with kings and kingdoms..and then they just glued it all together. It lacks...depth.
Yea, sure - it looks nice when you look at it. But upon closer inspection you'll start finding holes.
I realise it's a game and "why should they bother with that much attention to detail?" springs to mind.
Let's just say that I've seen far better stories.
Heck, Arhanas's switch to the evil side was even faster than Anakin Skywalkers.
-
Hmm, I always thought the Starcraft manual came with a ton of depth and consistency.
I agree with those points in regard to Warcraft, though.
-
Hmm, I always thought the Starcraft manual came with a ton of depth and consistency.
I agree with those points in regard to Warcraft, though.
Agree, loved the manual which came with the original game.
My opinion as far as splitting the games goes is that it would be worth it only if each campaign/game release were equal to in length and content to the original game.
-
Except this doesn't give you new factions, weapons or mechanics with the "addon".
This is not completly true.
The point is what you want to call new in that comparsion.
I know all of the W40k factions before they where in the PC-games. I just got over to the next phantasyshop and read the codex for the factiong. People who are actually playing the game where even less suprised.
But that isn't the importend point to me.
Each pack should contain the storyline of one of the factions, a unique playingstyle, terrans AKA Raynor have a more "mercenary" playstyle. Protoss shall become more concerned with diplomatic decicions like what of the many different Protoss tribes you want to assist or ally with and Zerg isn't written in stone yet..at least I don't know anything about it.
So here is a hugh differance between the games on how you play them in singleplayer. Even more the between spacemarines and Tau when you want to take the SC2 - DAW comparsion.
You will also have some unique weapons for each faction in the singleplayer mode. I heard, for example, that Raynor might have to buy some old units like Goliath since he can't affort the newer Viking.
I think, if they will do as they promised its more then just an addon. Its nearly a complete new game sharing the same engine and backgroundstory.
As much as I dislike the splitting and also had the "cheap rip off" thought when I first heard about it I think one should just keep an eye on it.
About Blizzards storys. Well the ingame parts are mostly...simple. On the other hand they had these nice manual and I found it to be a good read. Sure it wasn't the holybook of whatever but good.
It gave you quite a lot of information about the different species, their past and development and a view into the different factions inside of each species.
The game itself was just the last part of a long ongoing conflict. At least that was my impression. Also they have allready said that the limits they had back then prevented them from showing much of the storyline they had planned.
As for WarCraft...I was never that much interested in it. Played it on LAN but it didn't catch to much of my attention. I just prefer Scifi enviourments.
-
Each pack should contain the storyline of one of the factions, a unique playingstyle, terrans AKA Raynor have a more "mercenary" playstyle. Protoss shall become more concerned with diplomatic decicions like what of the many different Protoss tribes you want to assist or ally with and Zerg isn't written in stone yet..at least I don't know anything about it.
So here is a huge differance between the games on how you play them in singleplayer. Even more the between spacemarines and Tau when you want to take the SC2 - DAW comparsion.
So? Sword of the Stars came with 4 races, each totally different in the way you play. Each expansion brought a completley new race + hoards of changes. Each patch brought new stuff. You hear that? A PATCH that brought more changes than a whole new "addon" of SC2.
You get all the factions with each installment of SC2, or else one couldn't play multi. What you don't get is missions.
So yea, it's a poor attempt to milk as much money as possible, and it's a very shallow attempt too. I don't buy games to watch pretty cinematics.
I think, if they will do as they promised its more then just an addon. Its nearly a complete new game sharing the same engine and backgroundstory.
And art. and units. And everything BUT the missions.
No, that's a definition of "ripoff".
EDIT: New as in "new". Something that wasn't in the first part. Yeah, missions fall into the "new" category too, but they way this is done..I'd call it borderline.
For reference, most user-made campaigns for FS2 bring more new stuff than a SC2 part. And I can bet 90% have a better story or execution to boot.
-
I will now take this point to note the Valve is releasing HL2 similarly, e.g Episode 1,2 and 3.
I think most of the commotion is that Blizzard didn't reveal initially that they were releasing it episodically, and everyone thought they'd release everything at one shot.
-
As I see it, its just a matter of the prize.
SC1 had 30 Missions and would now cost 45-50€
Each pack of the new sets is supposed to have 30-40 missions. Making a total of 90-120 missions.
When they make it true and only the first pack is full prize and the others are prized like addons its cheaper in direct comparsion to the first game.
-
After reading some more comments, my opinion is changed a bit. You have given good points. I do think Blizzard should push it back--but I really would like to play it. I think part of it is a decision based on the engine: they must have a fully-working engine, but pushing it back much more could outdate it? I don't know--but I would like to see something a bit more substantial. Who knows what the storywriters are doing: we could have a fully branching campaign for each race and the voice acting to go with it. They could certainly do a bit more to flesh out the story, so who knows. With all the thousands of play styles in RTS's, they could have quite the time setting up some missions.
-
What is most interesting for me is the option that instead of other games where you basicly have the same gameplay with just another faction, the gameplay should change for every race. Mercs, Diplomats and what else for the Zerg. Its rumored to be more RPG like and very much centered around Karigan.
-
Please, don't let it be another WarCraft 3... I hated the concept of hero units.
Even if they were present in the StarCraft campaign, at least they weren't ridiculously overpowered (Zerg Kerrigan aside) and were not present in multiplayer.
-
What is most interesting for me is the option that instead of other games where you basicly have the same gameplay with just another faction, the gameplay should change for every race. Mercs, Diplomats and what else for the Zerg. Its rumored to be more RPG like and very much centered around Karigan.
There are no hero units, don't worry.
However, each race has a campaign 'metagame' that plays out between missions. The Terrans will have a big 3d-rendered bar where Raynor can wander around and talk to people, and their metagame focuses on upgrading technology and scavenging.
Interestingly, the Zerg metagame has been hinted to be about diplomacy. How odd!
The Protoss metagame hasn't been discussed yet. It might involve hunting for Xel'naga relics or something, since the Xel'Naga are clearly returning and Zeratul is interested in them.
-
I will now take this point to note the Valve is releasing HL2 similarly, e.g Episode 1,2 and 3.
The difference is that FPS levels, like the ones for Half-Life, are FAR harder and more time-consuming to make than missions for a RTS. The whole content is more difficult and time-consuming, compared to War3 and SC2.
Heck, FS2 SCP models and missions re more difficult and time consuming that SC2 ones.
-
Interestingly, the Zerg metagame has been hinted to be about diplomacy. How odd!
The Protoss metagame hasn't been discussed yet. It might involve hunting for Xel'naga relics or something, since the Xel'Naga are clearly returning and Zeratul is interested in them.
I heard it a bit different. The Zerg "metagame" is unknown the Protoss is finding allies in the other Protoss tribes. From the latest trailer/news I guess that all factions are interested in the Xel'Naga artefacts. Concidering how powerfull they are in the fiction its no wonder that everyone searches for them.
Blizzard dropped a line that Raynor has the option to search for artefacts and in the trailer we see Zeratul searching an old place, maybe Xel'Naga. At the end of the trailer Karigan appears "I thought so that you would appear"
Anyway the metagame is an quite interesting point. Reminds me of good old Wing Commander where you had placed you could visit and talk to people.
-
The difference is that FPS levels, like the ones for Half-Life, are FAR harder and more time-consuming to make than missions for a RTS. The whole content is more difficult and time-consuming, compared to War3 and SC2.
Heck, FS2 SCP models and missions re more difficult and time consuming that SC2 ones.
I like how you keep making comments like this with absolutely no objective justification whatsoever. Hell, I've never made so much as a skirmish in FRED, and I could probably whip together a generic defend-a-convoy mission within the course of an hour or two. You want to tell me that that's the amount of time it takes to craft an entire physical map setup, not to mention working out the objectives, unit deployments, and such? In terms of pure tehcnicality, FS is just about the easiest game out there to make basic missions for. You don't need to worry about physical level structures, you don't need to craft terrain...all you have to do is plop down ships in empty space and tell them what to do.
...why the hell am I even bothering with this thread? I've never played a single Blizzard game. :p
-
Oh, I have justification.
I have been modding games for years and I made stuff for every type of game you can name. I know very well the differences involved in content for different games.
And it's true that RTS have terrains, that aren't as easy as plopping a FRED background, but what I was implying is that I've seen FS2 campaigns, made by non-professional in their spare times, who's execution and design put to shame most games today - not merely Blizzard. And it's in no small part to the FRED and the modding friendliness of FS, but that's beside the point.
-
I've yet to see a FS2 campaign that in any way lives up to a fully-developed commercial game. And that's not taking anything at all away from any of the truly excellent campaigns available out there...it's just that they're working with an already-established engine that has already-established modding tools available for it. Even if it goes so far as to include new models and weapons, any user-created campaign, no matter how well-executed the story is, is essentially utilizing a plug-and-play style of modeling. That's entire levels of sophistication below coding an entire game engine from scratch and creating every single bit of content for said engine...all of that comes before you can start worrying about the implementation of story, which is the preliminary step in FS2 campaign creation. And Blizzard's one of the developers I'd put at the very top of the game when it comes to game mechanics and world creation.
-
I'm withholding any major for/against comments till after WoL releases.
-
thank satan for piracy
-
thank satan for piracy
So again, it's something you want to play, yet since you don't feel like paying the price the people who made it are asking for it, it's perfectly fine to do the equivalent of yanking it off the shelf? Here's a novel idea: if you're not willing to pay whatever Blizzard winds up asking for this, don't play it. We're talking about what at the very most would be three installments of $50 over the course of three or four years for 30+ mission campaigns in each installment, along with whatever multiplayer accouterments go along with them...and that's somehow far too steep of an asking price? Christ, with that attitude, it's no wonder that a few of these publishers feel like they're forced into shoving asinine DRM all over the place. Has the concept of paying someone for a legitimate and substantial piece of entertainment completely fallen by the wayside at some point?
-
I doubt very much I'll be buying it OR pirating it.
FYI, Crysis:Warhead brought new weapons, veichles, enemies a new story, new levels and it was sold as an expansion. BoB brought tons of new stuff and it was sold as an expansion. Etc, etc..
SC2 parts don't bring any new content save from different missions and they want to sell it at full price? No. Way. I'd rather be caught dead then buy that.
-
Dude are you even reading what other people say or do you just want to honour your name?
As it currently is, they haven't set a prize, they haven't given you a 100% info about what you will get with each pack. The have only announced what you might get and that the prize might be between a addon and a full prize game.
Their current anouncement of what you might get is a complete different gameing experiance, new storyline, new units and new mission in each pack and if they sell the first for the full prize and every other at the prize of an expension you get quite a lot for you money.
-
Their current anouncement of what you might get is a complete different gameing experiance, new storyline, new units and new mission in each pack and if they sell the first for the full prize and every other at the prize of an expension you get quite a lot for you money.
That's not their announcement.
However, note that I said IF. If what I fer turns out to be true.
Altough ti's highly unlikely I'd buy or pirate the game either way. Blizzard just lost my trust some time ago. However, we'll see...we'll see.
"new gaming experience" .. lol. .that can mean anything and nothing. New units? No. Unless you consider Raynors battlecruiser a "new" unit.
-
Yeah, are you even reading what people are posting? I'm no big fan of this expansion strategy, but they have said there will be entirely new units, new stories, new cinematics, and a new campaign metagame in each one.
They're treating each one as a full expansion, like Brood War, which was a superb piece of gaming.
-
I was initially opposed but if it means we're guaranteed two very large expansion packs then I'm ok with that.
-
In a way, this sounds more like the strategy taken with the Dawn of War series rather than anything else; something which succeeded with Dark Crusade and Winter Assault, and fell flat on its face then fired a couple of bolter rounds into its head with Soulstorm.
-
In a way, this sounds more like the strategy taken with the Dawn of War series rather than anything else; something which succeeded with Dark Crusade and Winter Assault, and fell flat on its face then fired a couple of bolter rounds into its head with Soulstorm.
Actually that one failed because Soulstorm failed. It was Ironlore's first time making an RTS, so...
-
And last.
The game's not that bad as an RTS, but it's bad as a game due to bugs.
Well, that and the fact the Dark Eldar are not made of glass.
-
And last.
Yea. I was hoping for a Titan's Quest 2. Too bad it closed down after the fail of Soulstorm.
-
thank satan for piracy
So again, it's something you want to play, yet since you don't feel like paying the price the people who made it are asking for it, it's perfectly fine to do the equivalent of yanking it off the shelf? Here's a novel idea: if you're not willing to pay whatever Blizzard winds up asking for this, don't play it. We're talking about what at the very most would be three installments of $50 over the course of three or four years for 30+ mission campaigns in each installment, along with whatever multiplayer accouterments go along with them...and that's somehow far too steep of an asking price? Christ, with that attitude, it's no wonder that a few of these publishers feel like they're forced into shoving asinine DRM all over the place. Has the concept of paying someone for a legitimate and substantial piece of entertainment completely fallen by the wayside at some point?
Blizzard makes as much money as what, exxon? besides that, some people here really don't care all that much about singleplayer and just want it for the multi aspect. Besides, i'd rather have 10 interesting missions than a stretched out watered down story with 30 redundant missions.(note, i'm NOT saying SC I had good missions. in reality they were quite generic, and I expect worse with SC II)
-
thank satan for piracy
So again, it's something you want to play, yet since you don't feel like paying the price the people who made it are asking for it, it's perfectly fine to do the equivalent of yanking it off the shelf? Here's a novel idea: if you're not willing to pay whatever Blizzard winds up asking for this, don't play it. We're talking about what at the very most would be three installments of $50 over the course of three or four years for 30+ mission campaigns in each installment, along with whatever multiplayer accouterments go along with them...and that's somehow far too steep of an asking price? Christ, with that attitude, it's no wonder that a few of these publishers feel like they're forced into shoving asinine DRM all over the place. Has the concept of paying someone for a legitimate and substantial piece of entertainment completely fallen by the wayside at some point?
Blizzard makes as much money as what, exxon? besides that, some people here really don't care all that much about singleplayer and just want it for the multi aspect. Besides, i'd rather have 10 interesting missions than a stretched out watered down story with 30 redundant missions.(note, i'm NOT saying SC I had good missions. in reality they were quite generic, and I expect worse with SC II)
What economy are YOU looking at? ExxonMobil earns about $404.5b annually, compared to Blizzard Entertainment that makes $1.1b annually. Hell--Electronic Arts makes $4b annually! And that's just revenue--not counting expenses.
-
thank satan for piracy
So again, it's something you want to play, yet since you don't feel like paying the price the people who made it are asking for it, it's perfectly fine to do the equivalent of yanking it off the shelf? Here's a novel idea: if you're not willing to pay whatever Blizzard winds up asking for this, don't play it. We're talking about what at the very most would be three installments of $50 over the course of three or four years for 30+ mission campaigns in each installment, along with whatever multiplayer accouterments go along with them...and that's somehow far too steep of an asking price? Christ, with that attitude, it's no wonder that a few of these publishers feel like they're forced into shoving asinine DRM all over the place. Has the concept of paying someone for a legitimate and substantial piece of entertainment completely fallen by the wayside at some point?
Blizzard makes as much money as what, exxon? besides that, some people here really don't care all that much about singleplayer and just want it for the multi aspect. Besides, i'd rather have 10 interesting missions than a stretched out watered down story with 30 redundant missions.(note, i'm NOT saying SC I had good missions. in reality they were quite generic, and I expect worse with SC II)
They were actually pretty careful to say they weren't stretching things out. They made it clear they would have had to have really pack events in to fit the campaign into ten missions.
I'm not sure how I feel about this any more. At first I was strongly against it, but it's beginning to seem like a not-half-bad idea.
-
Blizzard makes as much money as what, exxon? besides that, some people here really don't care all that much about singleplayer and just want it for the multi aspect. Besides, i'd rather have 10 interesting missions than a stretched out watered down story with 30 redundant missions.(note, i'm NOT saying SC I had good missions. in reality they were quite generic, and I expect worse with SC II)
If you just want the multiplayer aspect, all you have to do is buy the first release. No piracy required. And judging the quality of the mission structure before said missions have even been completed, much less previewed, makes all sorts of sense, don't you think?
-
thank satan for piracy
So again, it's something you want to play, yet since you don't feel like paying the price the people who made it are asking for it, it's perfectly fine to do the equivalent of yanking it off the shelf? Here's a novel idea: if you're not willing to pay whatever Blizzard winds up asking for this, don't play it. We're talking about what at the very most would be three installments of $50 over the course of three or four years for 30+ mission campaigns in each installment, along with whatever multiplayer accouterments go along with them...and that's somehow far too steep of an asking price? Christ, with that attitude, it's no wonder that a few of these publishers feel like they're forced into shoving asinine DRM all over the place. Has the concept of paying someone for a legitimate and substantial piece of entertainment completely fallen by the wayside at some point?
Blizzard makes as much money as what, exxon? besides that, some people here really don't care all that much about singleplayer and just want it for the multi aspect. Besides, i'd rather have 10 interesting missions than a stretched out watered down story with 30 redundant missions.(note, i'm NOT saying SC I had good missions. in reality they were quite generic, and I expect worse with SC II)
Well if you believe what they are saying they have enough for 30 missions and that 10 missions couldn't possibly do it justice. Until I see the end result that of course is just taking their word for it but Blizzard folks tend to sound like impassioned artists and creators so I think they believe it...the end result of is of course up in the air.
-
Blizzard makes as much money as what, exxon? besides that, some people here really don't care all that much about singleplayer and just want it for the multi aspect. Besides, i'd rather have 10 interesting missions than a stretched out watered down story with 30 redundant missions.(note, i'm NOT saying SC I had good missions. in reality they were quite generic, and I expect worse with SC II)
If you just want the multiplayer aspect, all you have to do is buy the first release. No piracy required. And judging the quality of the mission structure before said missions have even been completed, much less previewed, makes all sorts of sense, don't you think?
Rest assured they'll add certain quirks so the other installments are mandatory. As for blizzard making 1.1b, I was exagerating -_-. Never the less, 1.1 bil is ALOT of money
-
I can't help but wonder if they had named this Starcraft II, III and IV, or named the follow on two as "expansions" ala Diablo II's, if everyone would still be whining...
-
I can't help but wonder if they had named this Starcraft II, III and IV, or named the follow on two as "expansions" ala Diablo II's, if everyone would still be whining...
Probably not.
The proof will be in what the pricing is. If the first chapter is priced like a full game and essentially has the content of a full game (which is what they seem to be saying) and then the other two are like really large addons priced at addon pricing...then I think they have a solid go of it. They can almost guarantee huge sales already and this is a good way to solve their dilemma. If they charge full game pricing for all 3 installments then I can see being a bit miffed myself.
That'd be how I'd do it.
-
I can't help but wonder if they had named this Starcraft II, III and IV, or named the follow on two as "expansions" ala Diablo II's, if everyone would still be whining...
I doubt it too.
-
thank satan for piracy
So again, it's something you want to play, yet since you don't feel like paying the price the people who made it are asking for it, it's perfectly fine to do the equivalent of yanking it off the shelf? Here's a novel idea: if you're not willing to pay whatever Blizzard winds up asking for this, don't play it. We're talking about what at the very most would be three installments of $50 over the course of three or four years for 30+ mission campaigns in each installment, along with whatever multiplayer accouterments go along with them...and that's somehow far too steep of an asking price? Christ, with that attitude, it's no wonder that a few of these publishers feel like they're forced into shoving asinine DRM all over the place. Has the concept of paying someone for a legitimate and substantial piece of entertainment completely fallen by the wayside at some point?
i used to have a policy about not pirating games, but after having problems with more than a couple drm schemes, the clifhanger ending of crysis (and the lack of completion in warhead), im getting sick and tired of this crap game companies are getting away with andi-consumerism policys. and now they want to chop up a game that i waited more than a ****ing DECADE for into 3 so that they can rape my hard earned cash? WHATHTEHELLISWRONGWITHYOUPEOPLE!
while the console market is raping the more intresting pc game market, the pc game developers are busy satcking up annoyances against us. well i say **** that! if youre gonna reject the age old saying that the customer is always right, well then, you dont deserve my buisness. :hopping:
BY THE WAY, IM STILL GONNA PIRATE YOUR GAMES
-
I consider Crysis a EXCELLENT game. The cliffhanger ending does leave yo uwanting for more, but the game itself is great. I must have re-played it 5-6 times, finishing maps on different ways. :p
I can't help but wonder if they had named this Starcraft II, III and IV, or named the follow on two as "expansions" ala Diablo II's, if everyone would still be whining...
Probably. Same graphics engine, same units, same basic gameplay - the difference being a few cinematics and special "hero units". That doesn't deserve a full price tag, sorry.
Now, if they charge it appropriately to the content, then sure.
-
thank satan for piracy
So again, it's something you want to play, yet since you don't feel like paying the price the people who made it are asking for it, it's perfectly fine to do the equivalent of yanking it off the shelf? Here's a novel idea: if you're not willing to pay whatever Blizzard winds up asking for this, don't play it. We're talking about what at the very most would be three installments of $50 over the course of three or four years for 30+ mission campaigns in each installment, along with whatever multiplayer accouterments go along with them...and that's somehow far too steep of an asking price? Christ, with that attitude, it's no wonder that a few of these publishers feel like they're forced into shoving asinine DRM all over the place. Has the concept of paying someone for a legitimate and substantial piece of entertainment completely fallen by the wayside at some point?
i used to have a policy about not pirating games, but after having problems with more than a couple drm schemes, the clifhanger ending of crysis (and the lack of completion in warhead), im getting sick and tired of this crap game companies are getting away with andi-consumerism policys. and now they want to chop up a game that i waited more than a ****ing DECADE for into 3 so that they can rape my hard earned cash? WHATHTEHELLISWRONGWITHYOUPEOPLE!
while the console market is raping the more intresting pc game market, the pc game developers are busy satcking up annoyances against us. well i say **** that! if youre gonna reject the age old saying that the customer is always right, well then, you dont deserve my buisness. :hopping:
BY THE WAY, IM STILL GONNA PIRATE YOUR GAMES
:yes:
-
BY THE WAY, IM STILL GONNA PIRATE YOUR GAMES
And that very attitude is exactly what's going to lead to more DRM nonsense down the line, which is going to further erode the already-minuscule PC gaming market. Way to be.
-
It's a vicious cycle. DRM has turned many people who would never pirate games into software pirates. Because of software pirates, more and more companies are using DRM.
Ultimately, there won't be a resolution I don't think. People always have pirated games, movies, music, etc, and people will continue to do so. Companies will come up with more and more harsh DRM to put in their products to combat the pirates, even though it will eventually be cracked anyways.
Who suffers? The people willing to pay cash for the games. It's strange.
-
I can't help but wonder if they had named this Starcraft II, III and IV, or named the follow on two as "expansions" ala Diablo II's, if everyone would still be whining...
That would become dependent on quality and apparent differences/additions between them.
-
Marketing genius, at least until the market's hatred takes over.
Hmmn, not quite. It would've been marketing genius if they added a fourth faction hahahaha.
-
Hmmn, not quite. It would've been marketing genius if they added a fourth playable faction hahahaha.
Fix'd.
-
Hmmn, not quite. It would've been marketing genius if they added a fourth playable faction hahahaha.
Fix'd.
Until the novelty of that wore off too, hehe
-
Well, I have heard that the infamous Hybrid of Dark Origin fame will make an appearance in SC2. Also that some of the cut units, like Dragoons, will be available in the map editor.
-
Hmmn, not quite. It would've been marketing genius if they added a fourth playable faction hahahaha.
Fix'd.
Until the novelty of that wore off too, hehe
As long as the novelty didnt wear off before they sold the fourth expansion.
-
That would become dependent on quality and apparent differences/additions between them.
Shouldn't that be the yardstick to begin with, regardless of what they decide to call it?
-
No. The ends do not justify the means. Intentions matter, not just results.
-
I think Blizzard is just jumping onto Valve's "episodic content" bandwagon by the looks of it. I mean having one to two expansions for the game was probably an inevitability anyway, at least this way the expansions won't feel tacked on, in theory. Depends what the story is like I suppose.
-
i remember back when you bought a game you got single player, multiplater which usually inclued a form of dm, ctf, and coop. and every game had such features, then came the split between multi and single, where you had dedicated multiplayer games and dedicated single player games, and now they are cutting up sequels. i wouldnt be supprised if they decided to cut multiplayer so they could sell a 4th game.
-
i wouldnt be supprised if they decided to cut multiplayer so they could sell a 4th game.
That'd be a bit over the top and just slightly cynical don't you think? They really want to get the MP going quickly as the interest is building to a critical mass for professional gaming. Particularly in South Korea where StarCraft is like Hockey in Canada.
-
i wouldnt be supprised if they decided to cut multiplayer so they could sell a 4th game.
If they did that, the world would riot. Especially the Koreans, for whome multiplayer/B.Net is like oxygen.
-
They've already stated that each segment of the trilogy will feature full multiplayer capabilities. They're not going to blatantly lie to their core demographic.
-
i wouldnt be supprised if they decided to cut multiplayer so they could sell a 4th game.
Crysis Warhead and Crysis Wars
-
But Crysis Wars is bundled with Warhead, isn't it?
-
Yes, but it could just as well not have been; in fact the logic of making them seperate programs sort of escapes me.
-
its pretty much a commercial mod.
-
What is most interesting for me is the option that instead of other games where you basicly have the same gameplay with just another faction, the gameplay should change for every race. Mercs, Diplomats and what else for the Zerg. Its rumored to be more RPG like and very much centered around Karigan.
If it's RPG-like than I sure as hell ain't buying it. The RPG crap should stay in warcraft where it belongs, not dirtying starcraft. I'm not so sure they actually would do this, since it would royally piss off the core SC fanbase.
Yes, because stealing is always the answer when you don't feel like paying for something.
No, stealing is the way to avoid getting ripped off.
-
Last time I checked, Blizzard isn't ripping your money out of your hands and shoving each part of the trilogy in your face. If you don't want to be "ripped off," as you put it, simply buy the first release and be done with it (or just don't buy the game at all). In any case, until Blizzard announces what pricing scheme they're going with or exactly how much content they're packing into each release, it seems rather presumptuous to be using that term in the first place.
-
When did Blizzard became such a money sucking corporation with defient issue to invade the int...
Oh yeah, World of warcaft.
-
Till now Blizzard allways delivered something that was pretty much worth what they charged you to pay and if they continue with that it you won't be ripped of your money but pay for something that is worth its money.
I will wait with my decision if its moneymaking or good till the release/reviews.
Something I fear much more is that Blizzard might jump on the DRM bandwagon. I just read about Fallout3 and Red Alert3 using Securom and that means I won't buy these or buy it but play a pirated version without securom in it but thats pretty unlikely.
I don't get why a company invests into a "protection" that has been cracked in the past and will most likely be cracked the day after the release.
As for WoW. Blizzard charges pretty much the standart prize for it. A prize that is basicly the same for every MMORPG out there. So I don't see why that is money sucking when Blizzard is doing it while its ok for every one else to have the same prize.
-
As for WoW. Blizzard charges pretty much the standart prize for it. A prize that is basicly the same for every MMORPG out there. So I don't see why that is money sucking when Blizzard is doing it while its ok for every one else to have the same prize.
It's people essentially criticizing the whole basis of the free-market system. Blizzard is offering a certain product for a certain monthly price, and there are obviously millions of people out there who feel that said product is worth said monthly price. If they didn't, WoW would never have become as insanely successful as it is. Just because one person doesn't feel that that sort of price is worth it doesn't mean that millions of other people would agree with him.