The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
Please vote in the Forum Structure Poll. Polling will close at 2PM EST on January 21, 2025.
Honestly all it makes me do is not give a shit about the story of Starcraft anymore. It doesn't seem like story is as important as sales anymore anyway--given the lore mangling that happened with Warcraft.
Woulden't the point of these extra single player things be exactly for, you know, story?
To put it in video game terms, remember Final Fantasy VII? Remember how it came on three discs? I'm sure you do. Now, imagine if you had to buy each disc separately, with each disc costing as much as a whole Playstation game. Not a pretty picture, is it?
NO IT FUCKING ISN'T THE SAME WHY DO YOU PEOPLE SUCK AT ANALOGIES.
It's like if Final Fantasy VII, Final Fantasy VIII, and Final Fantasy IX all came separately with each game costing as much as a whole Playstation game.
So one disc will be Starcraft 2, one will be Starcraft 3 and one will be Starcraft 4, I take it? Because unless that's what they are doing, you are unfortunately incorrect.
Oh now I see, this is just the same situation as when Vice City and San Andreas weren't packaged with GTA3
Would you like to answer my question, perhaps?
You didn't ask a question. Also, you act as if appended numerals are the actual dividing line between one product and another. I would call these games more different than Pokemon Red and Blue, and less different than Quake 2 to Quake 3, though probably more different than Fallout 2 was from Fallout 1. I'd ballpark it around the differences between Quake 3 and Jedi Outcast.
Edit Well you did but it was dumb.
There's more of a difference between Quake 3 and Quake 2 than between Quake 3 and Jedi Outcast? O_o
I guess what I was trying to say is that Quake 3 and Jedi Outcast were both iD-tech 3, while Quake 2 wasn't.
Edit And there's a pretty big difference between Quake 2 and Quake 3 in that there was a single player for Quake 2 that wasn't bot mode, but there was also a single player in Jedi Outcast, so maybe Jedi Outcast was closer to Quake 2 than Quake 3.
Same engine, completely different gameplay.
I expect the races will play pretty different, despite being in the same engine.
And seriously, everyone playing $50 for the story and not for the fun of playing the game is already paying far too much for the story.
My problem with it is in the original starcraft you got zerg, Protoss, and Terran. Now they are cutting it up and being heres the campaign for one, heres some units and the campaign for another etc. If they had starcraft 2 have all the races, but than released expansions that increased one or the other races campaign length a bit and added some new units I would be fine with it. This just pisses me off however.
Let me see if I have this right.
If blizzard released SC2 and two expansions, each with 30 missions for each race, and the same amount of unit additions per game, that would not piss you off?
To put it in video game terms, remember Final Fantasy VII? Remember how it came on three discs? I'm sure you do. Now, imagine if you had to buy each disc separately, with each disc costing as much as a whole Playstation game. Not a pretty picture, is it?
NO IT FUCKING ISN'T THE SAME WHY DO YOU PEOPLE SUCK AT ANALOGIES.
It's like if Final Fantasy VII, Final Fantasy VIII, and Final Fantasy IX all came separately with each game costing as much as a whole Playstation game.
So one disc will be Starcraft 2, one will be Starcraft 3 and one will be Starcraft 4, I take it? Because unless that's what they are doing, you are unfortunately incorrect.
Oh now I see, this is just the same situation as when Vice City and San Andreas weren't packaged with GTA3
Would you like to answer my question, perhaps?
Your question which seems to think that naming conventions are indicative of anything other than the name of the game?
I am almost 100% sure that Starcraft 2s different campaigns will have different names, yes. They probably won't be numbered sequentially, no.
I fail to see how that makes any difference in anything other than their names.
If they are three separate games, then they should just release them as such and not call them Starcraft 2, which implies that they are supposed to be one game.
Like Final Fantasy VII, Final Fantasy VII: Crisis Core, and Final Fantasy VII: Dirge of Cerberus?
Squeenix's continuous humping of FFVII's corpse is a slightly different kind of money grab. But of course, none of those three games came out at the same time, so the comparison is not exactly apt.
Kayura on
Gridman! Baby DAN DAN! Baby DAN DAN!
0
KageraImitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered Userregular
edited November 2008
Perhaps if expectations weren't that it was going to come in one package the problem wouldn't have surfaced.
Honestly all it makes me do is not give a shit about the story of Starcraft anymore. It doesn't seem like story is as important as sales anymore anyway--given the lore mangling that happened with Warcraft.
Woulden't the point of these extra single player things be exactly for, you know, story?
if you need 90 missions to tell your story I don't have high hopes.
To put it in video game terms, remember Final Fantasy VII? Remember how it came on three discs? I'm sure you do. Now, imagine if you had to buy each disc separately, with each disc costing as much as a whole Playstation game. Not a pretty picture, is it?
NO IT FUCKING ISN'T THE SAME WHY DO YOU PEOPLE SUCK AT ANALOGIES.
It's like if Final Fantasy VII, Final Fantasy VIII, and Final Fantasy IX all came separately with each game costing as much as a whole Playstation game.
So one disc will be Starcraft 2, one will be Starcraft 3 and one will be Starcraft 4, I take it? Because unless that's what they are doing, you are unfortunately incorrect.
Oh now I see, this is just the same situation as when Vice City and San Andreas weren't packaged with GTA3
Would you like to answer my question, perhaps?
Your question which seems to think that naming conventions are indicative of anything other than the name of the game?
I am almost 100% sure that Starcraft 2s different campaigns will have different names, yes. They probably won't be numbered sequentially, no.
I fail to see how that makes any difference in anything other than their names.
If they are three separate games, then they should just release them as such and not call them Starcraft 2, which implies that they are supposed to be one game.
Like Final Fantasy VII, Final Fantasy VII: Crisis Core, and Final Fantasy VII: Dirge of Cerberus?
Squeenix's continuous humping of FFVII's corpse is a slightly different kind of money grab. But of course, none of those three games came out at the same time, so the comparison is not exactly apt.
These parts will not be coming out at the same time
See the thing is, they aren't selling you 3 complete games, they are selling you one "full" game and two expansions. As the multiplayer is the same on all 3 versions, you are in fact paying full price for half the content on the other two versions you buy.
Also, most of the content they would use in the subsequent races would have already been created for either multiplayer/the first campaign. So the majority of the work going into these other versions, is just going to be them writing the dialogue/placing the stuff for the maps. If they only charge $30 for subsequent expansions I would be cool with that. But as they are, from what it sounds, going to be charging $60 for each version, it is a bit BS. Not to mention the whole lying about the reason.
So if you want a pizza analogy, it's like selling half a cheese pizza to someone, then placing a single mushroom on each remaining slice, and telling the customer if they want any more they have to buy it by the slice, each costing the same price as the first half, as it is now a mushroom pizza.
Honestly all it makes me do is not give a shit about the story of Starcraft anymore. It doesn't seem like story is as important as sales anymore anyway--given the lore mangling that happened with Warcraft.
Woulden't the point of these extra single player things be exactly for, you know, story?
if you need 90 missions to tell your story I don't have high hopes.
They definitely don't need that much, but there's a game here too.
I just don't see a logical reason for it. If you need a disc for every race and campaign, sell the game with all three discs. I am not at all convinced there's something they can do here that they couldn't by selling it as one complete package.
Oh, they will, six months after they have released all three separately. They will call it the Starcraft 2 Power Box or something and lots of people who bought them separately will be very cross, and then they will inexplicably buy it anyway.
Just reiterating this, because this is exactly what's going to happen.
My problem with it is in the original starcraft you got zerg, Protoss, and Terran. Now they are cutting it up and being heres the campaign for one, heres some units and the campaign for another etc. If they had starcraft 2 have all the races, but than released expansions that increased one or the other races campaign length a bit and added some new units I would be fine with it. This just pisses me off however.
Let me see if I have this right.
If blizzard released SC2 and two expansions, each with 30 missions for each race, and the same amount of unit additions per game, that would not piss you off?
Pretty much, yeah. In the vein of terrible analogies, I like my matrices divided by columns. I do not like that blizzard wants to divide my matrices by rows. These new ways frighten and confuse me.
My problem with it is in the original starcraft you got zerg, Protoss, and Terran. Now they are cutting it up and being heres the campaign for one, heres some units and the campaign for another etc. If they had starcraft 2 have all the races, but than released expansions that increased one or the other races campaign length a bit and added some new units I would be fine with it. This just pisses me off however.
Let me see if I have this right.
If blizzard released SC2 and two expansions, each with 30 missions for each race, and the same amount of unit additions per game, that would not piss you off?
Not sure I know what you mean there, thing is for me I don't want a super long campaign for one race. This really may just be me I like a smaller story for each campaign and than having it repeat in the expansion. I mean I am not gonna raise a fit about it with blizzard I just probably will not be buying SC2.
Ziac45 on
0
KageraImitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered Userregular
edited November 2008
Anyway my only contention is Paul Sams claiming money played no part in the decision. Bull.shit even Blizzard has money men and they creamed their pants at this idea.
And if someone asked me to buy that pizza, I just wouldn't. But then I guess I wouldn't get the whole pizza story. But if I was nerdgasming about having to make sure I had that whole damn cheese pizza, I guess I wouldn't have much of a choice.
See the thing is, they aren't selling you 3 complete games, they are selling you one "full" game and two expansions. As the multiplayer is the same on all 3 versions, you are in fact paying full price for half the content on the other two versions you buy.
Also, most of the content they would use in the subsequent races would have already been created for either multiplayer/the first campaign. So the majority of the work going into these other versions, is just going to be them writing the dialogue/placing the stuff for the maps. If they only charge $30 for subsequent expansions I would be cool with that. But as they are, from what it sounds, going to be charging $60 for each version, it is a bit BS. Not to mention the whole lying about the reason.
So if you want a pizza analogy, it's like selling half a cheese pizza to someone, then placing a single mushroom on each remaining slice, and telling the customer if they want any more they have to buy it by the slice, each costing the same price as the first half, as it is now a mushroom pizza.
How does it sound like that at all? Nobody has said dick about prices yet, and if you look at their previous games the expansions were always cheaper. This is pure and cynical conjecture for no good reason.
Wasn't the rationale that every race is going to get 30 singleplayer levels now?
who the hell wants to play 90 singleplayer levels for the same rts? just give me the fucking game
Are they offering exclusive multiplayer content or something with each game? Cause as far as I see it your only forced to pay once if all you want is multiplayer.
It has been hinted that there will be, similiar to Brood War.
It has also been hinted that all three won't be released at once, which sounds plausible. More akin to two expansions being released some time after the game.
Each game has a different name. Each game will have 6+ months between release. Blizzard hasn't even started working on the Zerg campaign (which comes after the Terran campaign) yet, they'll start after SC2 is out.
Also, the stories are sequential, as far as anyone knows, so all the "same story from different perspectives" analogies fail even harder than they already did.
Can we stop talking like these points don't exist?
Wasn't the rationale that every race is going to get 30 singleplayer levels now?
who the hell wants to play 90 singleplayer levels for the same rts? just give me the fucking game
Are they offering exclusive multiplayer content or something with each game? Cause as far as I see it your only forced to pay once if all you want is multiplayer.
It has been hinted that there will be, similiar to Brood War.
It has also been hinted that all three won't be released at once, which sounds plausible. More akin to two expansions being released some time after the game.
Each game has a different name. Each game will have 6+ months between release. Blizzard hasn't even started working on the Zerg campaign (which comes after the Terran campaign) yet, they'll start after SC2 is out.
Also, the stories are sequential, as far as anyone knows, so all the "same story from different perspectives" analogies fail even harder than they already did.
Can we stop talking like these points don't exist?
So, they've been working on this for years, and still haven't gotten to the Zerg campaign yet? What the hell are they doing?
I think the biggest mistake Blizzard did is announce that they're releasing three separate packages. Had they only announced that they are making ONE awesome game with ONE full sized campaign, and then later announced that expansions were coming, this whole kerfuffle would have probably been less intense.
That said, if they charge maybe $20 for each package, then it would still be the same thing and I don't see any reason to be angry. Hell, I'd be happy even if they charge full price for the first, and expansion rate price for the second and third. Just as long as they don't sell all three at full price.
Wasn't the rationale that every race is going to get 30 singleplayer levels now?
who the hell wants to play 90 singleplayer levels for the same rts? just give me the fucking game
Are they offering exclusive multiplayer content or something with each game? Cause as far as I see it your only forced to pay once if all you want is multiplayer.
It has been hinted that there will be, similiar to Brood War.
It has also been hinted that all three won't be released at once, which sounds plausible. More akin to two expansions being released some time after the game.
Each game has a different name. Each game will have 6+ months between release. Blizzard hasn't even started working on the Zerg campaign (which comes after the Terran campaign) yet, they'll start after SC2 is out.
Also, the stories are sequential, as far as anyone knows, so all the "same story from different perspectives" analogies fail even harder than they already did.
Can we stop talking like these points don't exist?
So, they've been working on this for years, and still haven't gotten to the Zerg campaign yet? What the hell are they doing?
Textures/ models/ the Engine/ multi-player gameplay mech?
See the thing is, they aren't selling you 3 complete games, they are selling you one "full" game and two expansions. As the multiplayer is the same on all 3 versions, you are in fact paying full price for half the content on the other two versions you buy.
Also, most of the content they would use in the subsequent races would have already been created for either multiplayer/the first campaign. So the majority of the work going into these other versions, is just going to be them writing the dialogue/placing the stuff for the maps. If they only charge $30 for subsequent expansions I would be cool with that. But as they are, from what it sounds, going to be charging $60 for each version, it is a bit BS. Not to mention the whole lying about the reason.
So if you want a pizza analogy, it's like selling half a cheese pizza to someone, then placing a single mushroom on each remaining slice, and telling the customer if they want any more they have to buy it by the slice, each costing the same price as the first half, as it is now a mushroom pizza.
How does it sound like that at all? Nobody has said dick about prices yet, and if you look at their previous games the expansions were always cheaper. This is pure and cynical conjecture for no good reason.
Same conjecture for no good reason in respect to them apparently having not started work on other campaigns. Which is odd considering the stories happen to intertwine, the game mechanics will already be represented and it only took them what, 6 months to release Brood War?
Yeah, we're the ones being naive here.
Meiz on
0
Clint EastwoodMy baby's in there someplaceShe crawled right inRegistered Userregular
Wasn't the rationale that every race is going to get 30 singleplayer levels now?
who the hell wants to play 90 singleplayer levels for the same rts? just give me the fucking game
Are they offering exclusive multiplayer content or something with each game? Cause as far as I see it your only forced to pay once if all you want is multiplayer.
It has been hinted that there will be, similiar to Brood War.
It has also been hinted that all three won't be released at once, which sounds plausible. More akin to two expansions being released some time after the game.
Each game has a different name. Each game will have 6+ months between release. Blizzard hasn't even started working on the Zerg campaign (which comes after the Terran campaign) yet, they'll start after SC2 is out.
Also, the stories are sequential, as far as anyone knows, so all the "same story from different perspectives" analogies fail even harder than they already did.
Can we stop talking like these points don't exist?
So, they've been working on this for years, and still haven't gotten to the Zerg campaign yet? What the hell are they doing?
Textures/ models/ the Engine/ multi-player gameplay mech?
I would like to take this opportunity to say that if the Zerg campaign doesn't get delayed I will eat my cock. No fucking way does it come out six months later, especially if they haven't even gotten around to working on it yet.
I think the biggest mistake Blizzard did is announce that they're releasing three separate packages. Had they only announced that they are making ONE awesome game with ONE full sized campaign, and then later announced that expansions were coming, this whole kerfuffle would have probably been less intense.
That said, if they charge maybe $20 for each package, then it would still be the same thing and I don't see any reason to be angry. Hell, I'd be happy even if they charge full price for the first, and expansion rate price for the second and third. Just as long as they don't sell all three at full price.
you make a good point here. the second two really need to not be full priced.
See the thing is, they aren't selling you 3 complete games, they are selling you one "full" game and two expansions. As the multiplayer is the same on all 3 versions, you are in fact paying full price for half the content on the other two versions you buy.
Also, most of the content they would use in the subsequent races would have already been created for either multiplayer/the first campaign. So the majority of the work going into these other versions, is just going to be them writing the dialogue/placing the stuff for the maps. If they only charge $30 for subsequent expansions I would be cool with that. But as they are, from what it sounds, going to be charging $60 for each version, it is a bit BS. Not to mention the whole lying about the reason.
So if you want a pizza analogy, it's like selling half a cheese pizza to someone, then placing a single mushroom on each remaining slice, and telling the customer if they want any more they have to buy it by the slice, each costing the same price as the first half, as it is now a mushroom pizza.
How does it sound like that at all? Nobody has said dick about prices yet, and if you look at their previous games the expansions were always cheaper. This is pure and cynical conjecture for no good reason.
1) Each game contains the same MP and a new SP, they have to charge the same for each. They would have to only put the MP in one version to lower the costs on the others, which of course then comes with the downside of forcing you to buy that specific version if you want MP. They could alternatively make the MP a separate version entirely, but again more backlash.
2) They have not said they were going to charge less for later versions, if they were going to do so they would have said so already, due to the current shitstorm them mentioning it being 3 differant versions has caused.
Again, this will not affect the multiplayer in any way. Blizzard has said they will probably add extra units or abilities in the expansions, but that's about it.
Those two statements are contradictory. If they add units in the packs it will affect multiplayer either by splintering the community (if there are separate servers for people with different packs) or by giving some players an unfair advantage (if all the units are in an update but you need an expansion to use them).
If they decide to make all the additional units free updates then there isn't much incentive to buy the expansion packs. I would guess that most of the people still interested in Starcraft are mostly in it for the online multiplayer, since there hasn't been new singleplayer content for the game in over a decade.
If they truly are only making stand alone expansion packs then they really shot themselves in the foot by marketing them as full games.
Wasn't the rationale that every race is going to get 30 singleplayer levels now?
who the hell wants to play 90 singleplayer levels for the same rts? just give me the fucking game
Are they offering exclusive multiplayer content or something with each game? Cause as far as I see it your only forced to pay once if all you want is multiplayer.
It has been hinted that there will be, similiar to Brood War.
It has also been hinted that all three won't be released at once, which sounds plausible. More akin to two expansions being released some time after the game.
Each game has a different name. Each game will have 6+ months between release. Blizzard hasn't even started working on the Zerg campaign (which comes after the Terran campaign) yet, they'll start after SC2 is out.
Also, the stories are sequential, as far as anyone knows, so all the "same story from different perspectives" analogies fail even harder than they already did.
Can we stop talking like these points don't exist?
So, they've been working on this for years, and still haven't gotten to the Zerg campaign yet? What the hell are they doing?
Textures/ models/ the Engine/ multi-player gameplay mech?
I would like to take this opportunity to say that if the Zerg campaign doesn't get delayed I will eat my cock. No fucking way does it come out six months later, especially if they haven't even gotten around to working on it yet.
Most likely true. But if it's delayed there will be a reason, and it'll probably be a good one.
If any of you have been paying attention to the SC2 development cycle so far (Blizzard has been very open about it) you'd probably find it easier to understand. The SC2 that exists today is almost completely unrecognizable when compared to the first build they rolled out. Barely any of the units are the same, hell there's a unit taken out/added back in/renamed/reworked just about every 2 weeks. Blizzard is not half-assing this game, and they've been focusing almost exclusively on multiplayer balance up until fairly recently. Then surprise, surprise! Right after they start into the singleplayer content they realize there's just no way they can deliver what they wanted to withing a sane timeframe, and then comes the announcement that the game is getting split up. I see no problem with that.
See the thing is, they aren't selling you 3 complete games, they are selling you one "full" game and two expansions. As the multiplayer is the same on all 3 versions, you are in fact paying full price for half the content on the other two versions you buy.
Also, most of the content they would use in the subsequent races would have already been created for either multiplayer/the first campaign. So the majority of the work going into these other versions, is just going to be them writing the dialogue/placing the stuff for the maps. If they only charge $30 for subsequent expansions I would be cool with that. But as they are, from what it sounds, going to be charging $60 for each version, it is a bit BS. Not to mention the whole lying about the reason.
So if you want a pizza analogy, it's like selling half a cheese pizza to someone, then placing a single mushroom on each remaining slice, and telling the customer if they want any more they have to buy it by the slice, each costing the same price as the first half, as it is now a mushroom pizza.
How does it sound like that at all? Nobody has said dick about prices yet, and if you look at their previous games the expansions were always cheaper. This is pure and cynical conjecture for no good reason.
1) Each game contains the same MP and a new SP, they have to charge the same for each. They would have to only put the MP in one version to lower the costs on the others, which of course then comes with the downside of forcing you to buy that specific version if you want MP. They could alternatively make the MP a separate version entirely, but again more backlash.
2) They have not said they were going to charge less for later versions, if they were going to do so they would have said so already, due to the current shitstorm them mentioning it being 3 differant versions has caused.
As I stated earlier, I woulden't doubt it if they offered an upgrade program to those who already owns one of the games. Less money, same content. So your not paying the extra cash for multiplayer you already have each and everytime.
I may be wrong, but I doubt that they won't do something like this.
Again, this will not affect the multiplayer in any way. Blizzard has said they will probably add extra units or abilities in the expansions, but that's about it.
Those two statements are contradictory. If they add units in the packs it will affect multiplayer either by splintering the community (if there are separate servers for people with different packs) or by giving some players an unfair advantage (if all the units are in an update but you need an expansion to use them).
If they decide to make all the additional units free updates then there isn't much incentive to buy the expansion packs. I would guess that most of the people still interested in Starcraft are mostly in it for the online multiplayer, since there hasn't been new singleplayer content for the game in over a decade.
If they truly are only making stand alone expansion packs then they really shot themselves in the foot by marketing them as full games.
Slightly out of context. My first statement was directed at people thinking the first release would be Terran only, even for multiplayer.
With the time and effort put into further releases, and my certainty that they will be expansion priced, I have no problem with paying the extra $. It'll be like getting 2 expansions withing 1 1/2 - 2 years, instead of one expansion a few years later. And there may even be a full expansion after the complete trilogy is out.
I want you guys to understand how much time developers actually get to make a game. So much effort - months and months of effort - goes into getting a pipe line in place, tools for dozens of disciplines in place, getting your ENGINE in place and ready to accept your core features.
Once all these ducks are in a row, then and only then, can serious development begin. And it's not uncommon for their to be only be six months left to make the game at this point. That's not a lot of time to make a triple A game. I've seen it first hand, and also heard about it second hand (Metroid Prime 1 became the game it was in little over six months after making their demo level for E3, for example).
This is the reason why technology is often used over and over to create multiple entries in a franchise very quickly. With the necessary pieces are already in place from their last efforts in a franchise, a game team can dedicate a a full dev cycle to making a whole game instead of a fraction of a cycle.
It's what expansion packs are. This is what game trilogies are (Prince of Persia: SOT/WW/TT, GTA3/VC/SA, Metroid Prime123), and pseudo-sequels (Crysis, Crysis Warhead).
Blizzard has looser scheduling and deeper pockets, but I think it's foolish to assume that just because their resources and patience are greater, they aren't affected by this. 'it's done when it's done' is a fine policy, but just because it's there I wouldn't assume Blizzard's dev team isn't suffering some fairly significant pressures. Pressures that might have required more dev cycles, lest they become unreasonable.
Anyways, just saying. I don't know what's going on in there.
Honestly the only way this makes sense is if they have thought of a way to make each single player campaign a fully realized independant game which simply uses the Starcraft 2 engine to resolve its battles. So the Terrans play like a big map counter based RTS, the zerg are like an RPG and the Protoss play like a space exploration game or something. IE, each 'overgame' is it's own game with its own fully independant merits which would be fun even if you just rolled a dice to resolve the battle.
Blizzard is giving you three full games. The first full game is the Terran Campaign with 30 missions, traditional SC gameplay, as well as full multiplayer. The second full game (or first expansion, whichever) is the Zerg campaign with 30 missions, RPG elements included as WELL as the traditional Starcraft gameplay, and additional multiplayer content. Basically Brood War but a new full campaign complete with radically new gameplay elements, which most rational people would call a sequel. Third game, Protoss Campaign, 30 missions again, diplomatic elements to boot, and more multiplayer content still.
I think Blizzard asking you full price for sequels that are also expansion packs is completely rational, especially considering that every other company under the fucking sun has done it.
Also, naysayers, consider the alternatives:
1) You get a game that's severely neutered from what it could be, squashing three games worth of story into one and removing a majority of the new content.
2) Instead of a one year gap between games, you wait for three-four for the giant behemoth that you seem to believe Blizzard owes you, despite the herculean effort it would take and the total impracticality of it. Also they'd pretty much be forced to sell it for 100 bucks with all the content in it.
If you still legitimately think it's a money-grab than keep on thinking it, but one last thing: after WoW, do you really think Blizzard's first goal is "Get more money"? When your company could probably buy half of Europe, sometimes the priorities get re-allocated.
Posts
Woulden't the point of these extra single player things be exactly for, you know, story?
I expect the races will play pretty different, despite being in the same engine.
And seriously, everyone playing $50 for the story and not for the fun of playing the game is already paying far too much for the story.
Let me see if I have this right.
If blizzard released SC2 and two expansions, each with 30 missions for each race, and the same amount of unit additions per game, that would not piss you off?
Squeenix's continuous humping of FFVII's corpse is a slightly different kind of money grab. But of course, none of those three games came out at the same time, so the comparison is not exactly apt.
if you need 90 missions to tell your story I don't have high hopes.
Also, most of the content they would use in the subsequent races would have already been created for either multiplayer/the first campaign. So the majority of the work going into these other versions, is just going to be them writing the dialogue/placing the stuff for the maps. If they only charge $30 for subsequent expansions I would be cool with that. But as they are, from what it sounds, going to be charging $60 for each version, it is a bit BS. Not to mention the whole lying about the reason.
So if you want a pizza analogy, it's like selling half a cheese pizza to someone, then placing a single mushroom on each remaining slice, and telling the customer if they want any more they have to buy it by the slice, each costing the same price as the first half, as it is now a mushroom pizza.
They definitely don't need that much, but there's a game here too.
Pretty much, yeah. In the vein of terrible analogies, I like my matrices divided by columns. I do not like that blizzard wants to divide my matrices by rows. These new ways frighten and confuse me.
Not sure I know what you mean there, thing is for me I don't want a super long campaign for one race. This really may just be me I like a smaller story for each campaign and than having it repeat in the expansion. I mean I am not gonna raise a fit about it with blizzard I just probably will not be buying SC2.
Seriously, no more analogies.
I mean jesus christ--they need representation and BAD. The cat was let out of the bag with the subtlety of a dropped casket.
How does it sound like that at all? Nobody has said dick about prices yet, and if you look at their previous games the expansions were always cheaper. This is pure and cynical conjecture for no good reason.
Anyone want to beta read a paranormal mystery novella? Here's your chance.
stream
Can we stop talking like these points don't exist?
Anyone want to beta read a paranormal mystery novella? Here's your chance.
stream
Or maybe after your first purchase you could upgrade with a price drop. Time shall tell.
Steam id: skoot LoL id: skoot
So, they've been working on this for years, and still haven't gotten to the Zerg campaign yet? What the hell are they doing?
That said, if they charge maybe $20 for each package, then it would still be the same thing and I don't see any reason to be angry. Hell, I'd be happy even if they charge full price for the first, and expansion rate price for the second and third. Just as long as they don't sell all three at full price.
Textures/ models/ the Engine/ multi-player gameplay mech?
Same conjecture for no good reason in respect to them apparently having not started work on other campaigns. Which is odd considering the stories happen to intertwine, the game mechanics will already be represented and it only took them what, 6 months to release Brood War?
Yeah, we're the ones being naive here.
you make a good point here. the second two really need to not be full priced.
1) Each game contains the same MP and a new SP, they have to charge the same for each. They would have to only put the MP in one version to lower the costs on the others, which of course then comes with the downside of forcing you to buy that specific version if you want MP. They could alternatively make the MP a separate version entirely, but again more backlash.
2) They have not said they were going to charge less for later versions, if they were going to do so they would have said so already, due to the current shitstorm them mentioning it being 3 differant versions has caused.
If they decide to make all the additional units free updates then there isn't much incentive to buy the expansion packs. I would guess that most of the people still interested in Starcraft are mostly in it for the online multiplayer, since there hasn't been new singleplayer content for the game in over a decade.
If they truly are only making stand alone expansion packs then they really shot themselves in the foot by marketing them as full games.
Most likely true. But if it's delayed there will be a reason, and it'll probably be a good one.
If any of you have been paying attention to the SC2 development cycle so far (Blizzard has been very open about it) you'd probably find it easier to understand. The SC2 that exists today is almost completely unrecognizable when compared to the first build they rolled out. Barely any of the units are the same, hell there's a unit taken out/added back in/renamed/reworked just about every 2 weeks. Blizzard is not half-assing this game, and they've been focusing almost exclusively on multiplayer balance up until fairly recently. Then surprise, surprise! Right after they start into the singleplayer content they realize there's just no way they can deliver what they wanted to withing a sane timeframe, and then comes the announcement that the game is getting split up. I see no problem with that.
And I say again, nobody has mentioned prices yet.
Anyone want to beta read a paranormal mystery novella? Here's your chance.
stream
As I stated earlier, I woulden't doubt it if they offered an upgrade program to those who already owns one of the games. Less money, same content. So your not paying the extra cash for multiplayer you already have each and everytime.
I may be wrong, but I doubt that they won't do something like this.
Slightly out of context. My first statement was directed at people thinking the first release would be Terran only, even for multiplayer.
With the time and effort put into further releases, and my certainty that they will be expansion priced, I have no problem with paying the extra $. It'll be like getting 2 expansions withing 1 1/2 - 2 years, instead of one expansion a few years later. And there may even be a full expansion after the complete trilogy is out.
Anyone want to beta read a paranormal mystery novella? Here's your chance.
stream
Once all these ducks are in a row, then and only then, can serious development begin. And it's not uncommon for their to be only be six months left to make the game at this point. That's not a lot of time to make a triple A game. I've seen it first hand, and also heard about it second hand (Metroid Prime 1 became the game it was in little over six months after making their demo level for E3, for example).
This is the reason why technology is often used over and over to create multiple entries in a franchise very quickly. With the necessary pieces are already in place from their last efforts in a franchise, a game team can dedicate a a full dev cycle to making a whole game instead of a fraction of a cycle.
It's what expansion packs are. This is what game trilogies are (Prince of Persia: SOT/WW/TT, GTA3/VC/SA, Metroid Prime123), and pseudo-sequels (Crysis, Crysis Warhead).
Blizzard has looser scheduling and deeper pockets, but I think it's foolish to assume that just because their resources and patience are greater, they aren't affected by this. 'it's done when it's done' is a fine policy, but just because it's there I wouldn't assume Blizzard's dev team isn't suffering some fairly significant pressures. Pressures that might have required more dev cycles, lest they become unreasonable.
Anyways, just saying. I don't know what's going on in there.
Given their penchant for releasing when it's done, they have to be giving at least a year for actual creation/test.
The rest of what I'm reading here ranges from ignorance to self-aggrandizement for the sake of an argument.
猿も木から落ちる
Agreed. Only if they are cute.
猿も木から落ちる
Khavall has it right dudes.
Blizzard is giving you three full games. The first full game is the Terran Campaign with 30 missions, traditional SC gameplay, as well as full multiplayer. The second full game (or first expansion, whichever) is the Zerg campaign with 30 missions, RPG elements included as WELL as the traditional Starcraft gameplay, and additional multiplayer content. Basically Brood War but a new full campaign complete with radically new gameplay elements, which most rational people would call a sequel. Third game, Protoss Campaign, 30 missions again, diplomatic elements to boot, and more multiplayer content still.
I think Blizzard asking you full price for sequels that are also expansion packs is completely rational, especially considering that every other company under the fucking sun has done it.
Also, naysayers, consider the alternatives:
1) You get a game that's severely neutered from what it could be, squashing three games worth of story into one and removing a majority of the new content.
2) Instead of a one year gap between games, you wait for three-four for the giant behemoth that you seem to believe Blizzard owes you, despite the herculean effort it would take and the total impracticality of it. Also they'd pretty much be forced to sell it for 100 bucks with all the content in it.
If you still legitimately think it's a money-grab than keep on thinking it, but one last thing: after WoW, do you really think Blizzard's first goal is "Get more money"? When your company could probably buy half of Europe, sometimes the priorities get re-allocated.