If it release is going to be a full stand-alone game. I'm not seeing the issue here? 30 missions per race? With full fleshed out story? That's bad? I'm honestly not seeing the big deal here. Especially when I see no complaints from the shovel ware expansions SOE releases, or the full priced Guild Wars expansions, or any of the shovel ware expansions UO has gotten.
If Blizzard managed to sold you that it will be three different stand alone games, then they already have won.
Aren't you shocked to buy 3 campaigns of the same game separately for 50$? This is the first time it happens in the history of RTS.
My addiction History: >> EQ1 2000-2004 - Shaman/Bard/Wizard/Monk - nolife raid-whore >> WoW 2004-2009 + Cataclysm for 2 months - hardcore casual >> Current status : done with MMO, too old for that crap.
If it release is going to be a full stand-alone game. I'm not seeing the issue here? 30 missions per race? With full fleshed out story? That's bad? I'm honestly not seeing the big deal here. Especially when I see no complaints from the shovel ware expansions SOE releases, or the full priced Guild Wars expansions, or any of the shovel ware expansions UO has gotten.
If Blizzard managed to sold you that it will be three different stand alone games, then they already have won.
Aren't you shocked to buy 3 campaigns of the same game separately for 50$? This is the first time it happens in the history of RTS.
Would you please post where your hard proof on what they are charging per game(starcraft 2 ), also along with that features of each game?
Be honest and ask your self in how many games pc or console that you paid full price only to play very little and now sitting collecting dust or traded it in at a gamestore for 1/5 what you paid for?
Im willing to guess they might have a different price structure for this since this is kinda of unique, though Im only guessing which is exactly what your doing.
I don't care playing SC2. .....Not my kind of game. The War/Mythic fans are willing to pay 15 Euros per month for War. So they are paying 180 + 50 Euros for an underdevelopped and crappy MMO. If they can stand the boredom of course for that long. Mythic should be giving refunds for those with a nervous breakdown after this period. Blizzard must have thinking if THAT is possible, well we can sell 3*40 Euros for the complete SC2 campaign as well. And I don't even play SC, but I bet you it will have more lasting appeal than that clunky piece of hyped War has in stock. So blame it on Mythic and FunCom: they create hype without an added value and STILL can charge 50 bucks. So the customers are once again the victims.
HAHA I think its funny bodypass that you have been a member here for 1 month and have almost 400 posts almost all of them bashing WAR and promoting WoW. This post isnt even about WAR and somehow you "vomit" out your "WAR touches me at night" attitude full of anger and spitefulness. How much does blizzard pay you? Maybe a better question is -- Do you use vasoline or lotion when polishing Robert Kotick's short sword? Reguardless you need to give it a rest. Go outside and get some sun on those pasty thighs.
Tell me where am I wrong?
If some people want to pay 230 Euros or dollars for playing a piece of War a whole year, why wouldn't Blizzard ask 3*40 Euro over a 2 or 3 year period for a gameplay that can't possibly be worse than War?
Not all 400 posts are War bashing btw. But I am far from the only one noticing, WAR isn't even a decent game. Tell me when I was wrong somewhere.
Even in this reasoning you know I am right. 230 bucks to play a game like War for one year against a Blizz game for half that price for many years.
Everyone can count. And as usual, it were the War fanboys shouting at the beginning of this post. So I react. Normal and standard procedure, certainly when I am right.
You are wrong because you let your emotion cloud logic which gives you 0 credibility. As a matter of fact every time you whine about how bad Warhammer is you just present yourself as a bitter and seemingly jealous little kid. As a matter of fact I think it is pretty safe to say that ALL of your posts are QQ posts. You have nothing to offer or teach people all you do is complain. Perhaps if you presented an actual point instead of opinion people wouldnt feel like they wasted however many seconds reading your preschool rants. 400 QQ posts srsly get a grip nobody truely hates your precious blizzard. You can sleep safe at night just dont forget your binkey.
Well at first I must say I thought WTF but guys please understand what your getting and why there are doing it.
With the first game you get;
30 mission campaign (none linear)
Hours of blizzard quality FMV and story
Ingame/Inengine cutscenes between each mission
A mini protross campaign
Full FREE mulitplayer with all 3 races playable
The games that follow will be simiar 30 mission campaign, packed full of cutscene story and FMV - zerg then protross - new units and so on - just like an expansion.
Blizzard basicaly said they could of done a normal 8-10 missions for each race but they would have to cut down on the story, the FMV and the over all quality.
SC2 is a none linear game, its hard to spread a none linear game across 8-10 missions.
But lets be honest your all goona buy you know you will.
Well at first I must say I thought WTF but guys please understand what your getting and why there are doing it. With the first game you get;
30 mission campaign (none linear) Hours of blizzard quality FMV and story Ingame/Inengine cutscenes between each mission A mini protross campaign Full FREE mulitplayer with all 3 races playable
The games that follow will be simiar 30 million campaigns, packed full of cutscene story and FMV - zerg then protross - new units and so on - just like an expansion. Blizzard basicaly said they could of done a normal 8-10 missions for each race but they would have to cut down on the story, the FMV and the over all quality. SC2 is a none linear game, its hard to spread a none linear game across 8-10 missions. But lets be honest your all goona buy you know you will.
to be honest i dont give a toss either way. Blizzard campaigns were hardly decent in my opinion. also you still have access to all 3 factions online with 1 purchase and (being starcraft) i assume most people will get it for the online play.
no problems here, move along.
MMO wish list:
-Changeable worlds -Solid non level based game -Sharks with lasers attached to their heads
thats just bad form, now to get the complete game..we gonna have to spend 3x$50?
It's kinda obvious that you dont like this but resorting to out right lying is unacceptable.
No where in that article and at no time during BlizzCon did Blizzard state a price for StarCraft 2.
Just for the record: I dont care about StarCraft 2 or any RTS game. What I do care about however are people spreading lies to defame a company and will correct those lies where I can.
If they thnk each game =SC1 then why wouldn't they sell it as a $50 game each?
Hold on Snow Leopard, imma let you finish, but Windows had one of the best operating systems of all time.
If the Powerball lottery was like Lotro, nobody would win for 2 years, and then everyone in Nebraska would win on the same day. And then Nebraska would get nerfed.-pinkwood lotro fourms
AMD 4800 2.4ghz-3GB RAM 533mhz-EVGA 9500GT 512mb-320gb HD
If it release is going to be a full stand-alone game. I'm not seeing the issue here? 30 missions per race? With full fleshed out story? That's bad? I'm honestly not seeing the big deal here. Especially when I see no complaints from the shovel ware expansions SOE releases, or the full priced Guild Wars expansions, or any of the shovel ware expansions UO has gotten.
If Blizzard managed to sold you that it will be three different stand alone games, then they already have won.
Aren't you shocked to buy 3 campaigns of the same game separately for 50$? This is the first time it happens in the history of RTS.
You've never played the Warhammer 40K: Dawn of War series have you? I honestly don't have a problem with it. Even with Starcraft 1 I never had any interest in the other races. I like my Space Marines and that it. If breaking the game up into 3 complete parts. Helps me get a great story for each of the races, even the ones I do not care about. Then I have no problem with it.
If you stand back and look at the bigger picture. It's not much different then what happens with expansions now. You either A) Get new Campaign Get New Faction/Race C) New Maps or D) A combination of A/B/C with the new expansion. Blizzard has proven track record. If they say they are going to do 3 completely fleshed out stories with this process. I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt, based on previous history with them. I'm in no way saying you should do the same. I just don't really have a problem with this approach, and it may be partly because I only have interest in 1 of the 3 races.
In War - Victory. In Peace - Vigilance. In Death - Sacrifice.
If it release is going to be a full stand-alone game. I'm not seeing the issue here? 30 missions per race? With full fleshed out story? That's bad? I'm honestly not seeing the big deal here. Especially when I see no complaints from the shovel ware expansions SOE releases, or the full priced Guild Wars expansions, or any of the shovel ware expansions UO has gotten.
If Blizzard managed to sold you that it will be three different stand alone games, then they already have won.
Aren't you shocked to buy 3 campaigns of the same game separately for 50$? This is the first time it happens in the history of RTS.
I'd rather buy the terran box and get the full story/campaign, then wait 3 years while i get 2 xpacs each containing 33% more of the terran story.
I'm really a big Starcraft fan. But this massive separation is a big let down.
If 3 separate single player games weren't enough. They are saying each release will have "changes and upgrades" to multiplayer which suggests each version won't be compatible with each other.
Everyone does realize that they're releasing a minimum of a year apart, right? So this is basically two expansion packs.
Oh wait, I have to remember its fashionable to hate Blizzard for releasing a lot of really quality products and having a wildly successful MMO (that has not shrunk the market a bit, the Non-WoW population of MMO players is larger than the population of MMO players prior to WoW . WoW brought new gamers into MMOs).
In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.
So this could just be a game with two expansion pakcs pre-planned, only it separates the three-part story into one big storyline per race (terrans in the main game, the others in each their expansion) instead of three small story parts - one for each race in each box.
Pardo said in the interview that there are parts to be decided about this split. Maybe they're even waiting to see what seems to get concensus in the community now that the word about this is out.
the fact they tried to cover it up by saying it will make each storyline that much better is a freakin joke! Havent they seen a game with 3 storylines under one title? They will clean up in Asia where the game is huge. They know X millions times by 3 is a gimmie over there. Smart money would be to buy shares in the company
you guys are surprised that starcraft 2 will be a trilogy. LOL its the same thing as Warcraft 3 with its expansions. You didn't finish that game until frozen throne if i remember correctly
The development cost of each sc2 part would be lower than that of a singular full game so I expect the price to be lower as well. All three parts use the same basic software at its core which was developed just once. As the cost of mission development is lower than the cost of the development of the basic software it would be a rip-off If Blizzard sells a part at 40+ $/€.
Most players are interested only in the multiplayer part anyway. If Blizzard makes the multiplayer content of all three parts identical then most players will just buy one game and pirate the other two. Blizzard knows this as well so I am betting that each part will give you new units and modifications. Overall I'd say you will have to buy all three parts to get all multiplayer options which will cost you 100+ $/€. Blizzard is a company and they know that people would still buy it despite the price.
--- Insanity: Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
Wow. Just wow. I bought Warcraft 3 precisely because of the multiplayer, or, more specifically, the custom maps. Here Blizzard is trying to shove story and more down my throat, and I don't give a damn. I only want the multiplayer and user-made content, but if I want that, I have to pay for their bloated, convoluted story that I'm never going to play.
The development cost of each sc2 part would be lower than that of a singular full game so I expect the price to be lower as well. All three parts use the same basic software at its core which was developed just once. As the cost of mission development is lower than the cost of the development of the basic software it would be a rip-off If Blizzard sells a part at 40+ $/€. Most players are interested only in the multiplayer part anyway. If Blizzard makes the multiplayer content of all three parts identical then most players will just buy one game and pirate the other two. Blizzard knows this as well so I am betting that each part will give you new units and modifications. Overall I'd say you will have to buy all three parts to get all multiplayer options which will cost you 100+ $/€. Blizzard is a company and they know that people would still buy it despite the price.
I am guessing the same thing. The other two will most likely be expansions. Still the possibility of a revolt of SC fanbase did cross their mind (I think) while they were making the game. Im compelled to believe they made this to get us pissed. Or they're toying with us, i dunno.
I really don't see what the big deal is. The original Starcraft had 32 missions, according to the article. I remember only having a few short missions for each race, giving me enough understanding of each unit that I could play each in muliplayer.
So, if each installment consists of over 30 missions, and you still have access to all 3 in multiplayer, what really are we losing? If you don't want the other two games because you're all into the "Blizzard is a capitalistic pig" attitude, simply don't buy them. If they are expanding the amount of missions for each, I can only anticipate that the storylines will be more rich and fulfilling for each race. And if that's truly the case and I enjoy the campaign of the first, I have no problem paying for the second and third. Does that make me a Blizzard fanboi? Sure, why the hell not. But maybe it also means I'm using some common sense, and understanding that I'm getting the same for my money as I did before. And if the first installment sucks, I don't buy the second or third. And if I don't, I'm still out nothing because I can still play all 3 in multiplayer.The only thing I see is what I mentioned in the beginning: I won't have the benefit of playing each race solo and getting a feel for each unit before I use them in multiplayer. But after a few multiplayer matches, that's not going to matter. So, what exactly is the problem again?
The only thing I see is what I mentioned in the beginning: I won't have the benefit of playing each race solo and getting a feel for each unit before I use them in multiplayer. But after a few multiplayer matches, that's not going to matter. So, what exactly is the problem again?
For now, it's confirmed that there will be a Protoss mini campaign in the Terran part. It will be focused on Zerathul and I suppose it serves to introduce the race.
Following the same logic, it would be safe to assume Zerg will also have few missions to serve as some kind of a tutorial expirience, but the main story and it's metagame will be focused on Terrans and Raynor.
Comments
If Blizzard managed to sold you that it will be three different stand alone games, then they already have won.
Aren't you shocked to buy 3 campaigns of the same game separately for 50$? This is the first time it happens in the history of RTS.
My addiction History:
>> EQ1 2000-2004 - Shaman/Bard/Wizard/Monk - nolife raid-whore
>> WoW 2004-2009 + Cataclysm for 2 months - hardcore casual
>> Current status : done with MMO, too old for that crap.
If Blizzard managed to sold you that it will be three different stand alone games, then they already have won.
Aren't you shocked to buy 3 campaigns of the same game separately for 50$? This is the first time it happens in the history of RTS.
Would you please post where your hard proof on what they are charging per game(starcraft 2 ), also along with that features of each game?
Be honest and ask your self in how many games pc or console that you paid full price only to play very little and now sitting collecting dust or traded it in at a gamestore for 1/5 what you paid for?
Im willing to guess they might have a different price structure for this since this is kinda of unique, though Im only guessing which is exactly what your doing.
HAHA I think its funny bodypass that you have been a member here for 1 month and have almost 400 posts almost all of them bashing WAR and promoting WoW. This post isnt even about WAR and somehow you "vomit" out your "WAR touches me at night" attitude full of anger and spitefulness. How much does blizzard pay you? Maybe a better question is -- Do you use vasoline or lotion when polishing Robert Kotick's short sword? Reguardless you need to give it a rest. Go outside and get some sun on those pasty thighs.
Tell me where am I wrong?
If some people want to pay 230 Euros or dollars for playing a piece of War a whole year, why wouldn't Blizzard ask 3*40 Euro over a 2 or 3 year period for a gameplay that can't possibly be worse than War?
Not all 400 posts are War bashing btw. But I am far from the only one noticing, WAR isn't even a decent game. Tell me when I was wrong somewhere.
Even in this reasoning you know I am right. 230 bucks to play a game like War for one year against a Blizz game for half that price for many years.
Everyone can count. And as usual, it were the War fanboys shouting at the beginning of this post. So I react. Normal and standard procedure, certainly when I am right.
You are wrong because you let your emotion cloud logic which gives you 0 credibility. As a matter of fact every time you whine about how bad Warhammer is you just present yourself as a bitter and seemingly jealous little kid. As a matter of fact I think it is pretty safe to say that ALL of your posts are QQ posts. You have nothing to offer or teach people all you do is complain. Perhaps if you presented an actual point instead of opinion people wouldnt feel like they wasted however many seconds reading your preschool rants. 400 QQ posts srsly get a grip nobody truely hates your precious blizzard. You can sleep safe at night just dont forget your binkey.
Well at first I must say I thought WTF but guys please understand what your getting and why there are doing it.
With the first game you get;
The games that follow will be simiar 30 mission campaign, packed full of cutscene story and FMV - zerg then protross - new units and so on - just like an expansion.
Blizzard basicaly said they could of done a normal 8-10 missions for each race but they would have to cut down on the story, the FMV and the over all quality.
SC2 is a none linear game, its hard to spread a none linear game across 8-10 missions.
But lets be honest your all goona buy you know you will.
*edit typo's
30 million thats epic :P lol.
March on! - Lets Invade Pekopon
to be honest i dont give a toss either way. Blizzard campaigns were hardly decent in my opinion. also you still have access to all 3 factions online with 1 purchase and (being starcraft) i assume most people will get it for the online play.
no problems here, move along.
MMO wish list:
-Changeable worlds
-Solid non level based game
-Sharks with lasers attached to their heads
if it makes it so each factions get longer play time and better story overall i don't mind at all -shrug-
"The great thing about human language is that it prevents us from sticking to the matter at hand."
- Lewis Thomas
It's kinda obvious that you dont like this but resorting to out right lying is unacceptable.
No where in that article and at no time during BlizzCon did Blizzard state a price for StarCraft 2.
Just for the record: I dont care about StarCraft 2 or any RTS game. What I do care about however are people spreading lies to defame a company and will correct those lies where I can.
If they thnk each game =SC1 then why wouldn't they sell it as a $50 game each?
Hold on Snow Leopard, imma let you finish, but Windows had one of the best operating systems of all time.
If the Powerball lottery was like Lotro, nobody would win for 2 years, and then everyone in Nebraska would win on the same day.
And then Nebraska would get nerfed.-pinkwood lotro fourms
AMD 4800 2.4ghz-3GB RAM 533mhz-EVGA 9500GT 512mb-320gb HD
If Blizzard managed to sold you that it will be three different stand alone games, then they already have won.
Aren't you shocked to buy 3 campaigns of the same game separately for 50$? This is the first time it happens in the history of RTS.
You've never played the Warhammer 40K: Dawn of War series have you? I honestly don't have a problem with it. Even with Starcraft 1 I never had any interest in the other races. I like my Space Marines and that it. If breaking the game up into 3 complete parts. Helps me get a great story for each of the races, even the ones I do not care about. Then I have no problem with it.
If you stand back and look at the bigger picture. It's not much different then what happens with expansions now. You either A) Get new Campaign
Get New Faction/Race C) New Maps or D) A combination of A/B/C with the new expansion. Blizzard has proven track record. If they say they are going to do 3 completely fleshed out stories with this process. I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt, based on previous history with them. I'm in no way saying you should do the same. I just don't really have a problem with this approach, and it may be partly because I only have interest in 1 of the 3 races.
In War - Victory.
In Peace - Vigilance.
In Death - Sacrifice.
If Blizzard managed to sold you that it will be three different stand alone games, then they already have won.
Aren't you shocked to buy 3 campaigns of the same game separately for 50$? This is the first time it happens in the history of RTS.
I'd rather buy the terran box and get the full story/campaign, then wait 3 years while i get 2 xpacs each containing 33% more of the terran story.
I'm really a big Starcraft fan. But this massive separation is a big let down.
If 3 separate single player games weren't enough. They are saying each release will have "changes and upgrades" to multiplayer which suggests each version won't be compatible with each other.
-Azure Prower
http://www.youtube.com/AzurePrower
Everyone does realize that they're releasing a minimum of a year apart, right? So this is basically two expansion packs.
Oh wait, I have to remember its fashionable to hate Blizzard for releasing a lot of really quality products and having a wildly successful MMO (that has not shrunk the market a bit, the Non-WoW population of MMO players is larger than the population of MMO players prior to WoW . WoW brought new gamers into MMOs).
In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.
-Thomas Jefferson
Forgive me but was I reading the this was supposed to be spread over a 3 year period?
Why is it that, as a culture, we are more comfortable seeing two men holding guns than holding hands? ~Ernest Gaines
Alas, the downfall has started.
I feel the same, and its painful...
So this could just be a game with two expansion pakcs pre-planned, only it separates the three-part story into one big storyline per race (terrans in the main game, the others in each their expansion) instead of three small story parts - one for each race in each box.
Pardo said in the interview that there are parts to be decided about this split. Maybe they're even waiting to see what seems to get concensus in the community now that the word about this is out.
the fact they tried to cover it up by saying it will make each storyline that much better is a freakin joke! Havent they seen a game with 3 storylines under one title? They will clean up in Asia where the game is huge. They know X millions times by 3 is a gimmie over there. Smart money would be to buy shares in the company
they only charge that much, becuase there exist people like me who beleive its going to be worth every penny.
after 6 or so years, I had to change it a little...
I feel the same, and its painful...
Don't feel bad, it's just human nature wanting to see someone who is on top to fall down where the rest of us are.
you guys are surprised that starcraft 2 will be a trilogy. LOL its the same thing as Warcraft 3 with its expansions. You didn't finish that game until frozen throne if i remember correctly
Games:
Currently playing:Nothing
Will play: Darkfall: Unholy Wars
Past games:
Guild Wars 2 - Xpiher Duminous
Xpiher's GW2
GW 1 - Xpiher Duminous
Darkfall - Xpiher Duminous (NA) retired
AoC - Xpiher (Tyranny) retired
Warhammer - Xpiher
The development cost of each sc2 part would be lower than that of a singular full game so I expect the price to be lower as well. All three parts use the same basic software at its core which was developed just once. As the cost of mission development is lower than the cost of the development of the basic software it would be a rip-off If Blizzard sells a part at 40+ $/€.
Most players are interested only in the multiplayer part anyway. If Blizzard makes the multiplayer content of all three parts identical then most players will just buy one game and pirate the other two. Blizzard knows this as well so I am betting that each part will give you new units and modifications. Overall I'd say you will have to buy all three parts to get all multiplayer options which will cost you 100+ $/€. Blizzard is a company and they know that people would still buy it despite the price.
---
Insanity: Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
Wow. Just wow. I bought Warcraft 3 precisely because of the multiplayer, or, more specifically, the custom maps. Here Blizzard is trying to shove story and more down my throat, and I don't give a damn. I only want the multiplayer and user-made content, but if I want that, I have to pay for their bloated, convoluted story that I'm never going to play.
Or, I guess I'll never buy the game.
I am guessing the same thing. The other two will most likely be expansions. Still the possibility of a revolt of SC fanbase did cross their mind (I think) while they were making the game. Im compelled to believe they made this to get us pissed. Or they're toying with us, i dunno.
I really don't see what the big deal is. The original Starcraft had 32 missions, according to the article. I remember only having a few short missions for each race, giving me enough understanding of each unit that I could play each in muliplayer.
So, if each installment consists of over 30 missions, and you still have access to all 3 in multiplayer, what really are we losing? If you don't want the other two games because you're all into the "Blizzard is a capitalistic pig" attitude, simply don't buy them. If they are expanding the amount of missions for each, I can only anticipate that the storylines will be more rich and fulfilling for each race. And if that's truly the case and I enjoy the campaign of the first, I have no problem paying for the second and third. Does that make me a Blizzard fanboi? Sure, why the hell not. But maybe it also means I'm using some common sense, and understanding that I'm getting the same for my money as I did before. And if the first installment sucks, I don't buy the second or third. And if I don't, I'm still out nothing because I can still play all 3 in multiplayer.The only thing I see is what I mentioned in the beginning: I won't have the benefit of playing each race solo and getting a feel for each unit before I use them in multiplayer. But after a few multiplayer matches, that's not going to matter. So, what exactly is the problem again?
For now, it's confirmed that there will be a Protoss mini campaign in the Terran part. It will be focused on Zerathul and I suppose it serves to introduce the race.
Following the same logic, it would be safe to assume Zerg will also have few missions to serve as some kind of a tutorial expirience, but the main story and it's metagame will be focused on Terrans and Raynor.