kaliyamaLeft to find less-moderated foraRegistered Userregular
edited November 2008
Here's the issue: they spent X dollars to develop the engine and balance test all three sides. Making people pay for each campaign and race? is just leveraging relatively easy to develop new content with an existing engine. They'll make a tidy profit and recoup development costs on just the first release - so what's bothering people is that they're using an episodic, full-priced model to extort a lot more money from gamers than what they usually pay ($50) for almost the same amount of product. It's near-perfect price discrimination, which means gamers are getting a much poorer deal than they usually do. It doesn't mean it's not worth buying, but we're getting comparatively screwed.
People who keep calling this "slicing up a pie" make my brain hurt.
They're releasing SCII and two SCII expansions, each with a full, complete story.
And you really have no idea what the single player will be like. To think it'll be 90 missions of "defend the base / escort the bad A.I. / watch cutscene" is to, retardedly and without justification, assume that StarCraft II (which will be made with more money spent every single month than was spent on the entirety of StarCraft probably) will have the same stupid, boring single player.
Why the flying fuck would you assume this? I must only conclude it's a mental deficiency.
Untwist your panties. Calm down. And only buy the one you want.
MikeMan on
0
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
edited November 2008
Blizzard is giving you three full games.
The fundamental flaw in your argument is you assume some people want three full games.
They don't. Some people would rather one game, for a multitude of different reasons. One could be that there is a certain amount of angst over feeling like they have to wait even longer to play a game with the race they like. In a game where you can play all three sides, it doesn't matter if you don't like one of the races over the other.
If you don't like playing terran and find them boring, you're SOL.
Here's the issue: they spent X dollars to develop the engine and balance test all three sides. Making people pay for each campaign and race? is just leveraging relatively easy to develop new content with an existing engine. They'll make a tidy profit and recoup development costs on just the first release - so what's bothering people is that they're using an episodic, full-priced model to extort a lot more money from gamers than what they usually pay ($50) for almost the same amount of product. It's near-perfect price discrimination, which means gamers are getting a much poorer deal than they usually do. It doesn't mean it's not worth buying, but we're getting comparatively screwed.
But it's not episodic at all! Nor is it the same amount of product as in one full game!
Each fucking game is a full game!
By that logic, KOTOR 2 should be much cheaper than KOTOR 1 because the engine and assets were already in place. You're completely ignoring all the new content being developed per game, particularly the RPG and Diplomatic elements in the Zerg and Protoss campaigns.
Here's the issue: they spent X dollars to develop the engine and balance test all three sides. Making people pay for each campaign and race? is just leveraging relatively easy to develop new content with an existing engine. They'll make a tidy profit and recoup development costs on just the first release - so what's bothering people is that they're using an episodic, full-priced model to extort a lot more money from gamers than what they usually pay ($50) for almost the same amount of product. It's near-perfect price discrimination, which means gamers are getting a much poorer deal than they usually do. It doesn't mean it's not worth buying, but we're getting comparatively screwed.
Unless their campaign model for the three overgames is so good that it would be fun even if you didn't have starcraft 2 to resolve the battles, and each actually has it's own engine. If the game is still fun even if I just throw a dice and add a point if I have the advantage in the overworld or whatever then this is justified.
If this is not the case, and the add ons are full price then this is an absurd money grab. If it is the case it is just godawful PR
The fundamental flaw in your argument is you assume some people want three full games.
They don't. Some people would rather one game, for a multitude of different reasons. One could be that there is a certain amount of angst over feeling like they have to wait even longer to play a game with the race they like. In a game where you can play all three sides, it doesn't matter if you don't like one of the races over the other.
If you don't like playing terran and find them boring, you're SOL.
Umm. No.
You can a) play skirmishes and multiplayer with all three races right out of the gate, and b) god forbid wait 6 months or a year to get to the race you want.
Also, yes, do not speak for everyone, I'm more than happy to buy three full games.
YaYa on
0
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
The fundamental flaw in your argument is you assume some people want three full games.
They don't. Some people would rather one game, for a multitude of different reasons. One could be that there is a certain amount of angst over feeling like they have to wait even longer to play a game with the race they like. In a game where you can play all three sides, it doesn't matter if you don't like one of the races over the other.
If you don't like playing terran and find them boring, you're SOL.
Umm. No.
Ummm yes.
You can a) play skirmishes and multiplayer with all three races right out of the gate, and b) god forbid wait 6 months or a year to get to the race you want.
It won't be six months and this is on top of a lot longer wait again.
But I already answered this argument:
This is what happens when an unstoppable nerd rage meets an unmovable deaf object.
Does nobody fundamentally understand that, put together the whole thing will actually end up being better for each race getting proper focus (inevitably). This all the while at the same time appreciating that people who don't like X race get less value (outside of multiplayer) for the same thing? I don't like Terran, I think they suck. Has it occurred to anyone that it's poorer value for a full priced game is with 30 missions of a race I don't particularly care for just for multiplayer effectively?
If all three were coming out at similar times, I wouldn't be so worried. But with at least a year in between, it means there isn't much to look forward to anymore as I like both alien races (but don't care for the humans). Which means I get to wait another 2 years on top of everything I've already waited to play what I've been waiting for. Sure, when it's all out it will be fine and I'm not focused on the money aspect (But bear in mind I'm looking at $220 dollars NZ minimum for this shit, that's a full game and two expansion prices on average here in NZ BTW), but I'm disappointed in the way they are doing it.
I would far rather a group of coherent Terran missions, Zerg missions and Protoss missions in one game. If you can't fundamentally grasp this concept can you cease posting because the stupid is getting to the point where it's burning.
Please feel free to read what I write and then respond to me.
The fundamental flaw in your argument is you assume some people want three full games.
They don't. Some people would rather one game, for a multitude of different reasons. One could be that there is a certain amount of angst over feeling like they have to wait even longer to play a game with the race they like. In a game where you can play all three sides, it doesn't matter if you don't like one of the races over the other.
If you don't like playing terran and find them boring, you're SOL.
Umm. No.
Ummm yes.
You can a) play skirmishes and multiplayer with all three races right out of the gate, and b) god forbid wait 6 months or a year to get to the race you want.
It won't be six months and this is on top of a lot longer wait again.
But I already answered this argument:
This is what happens when an unstoppable nerd rage meets an unmovable deaf object.
Does nobody fundamentally understand that, put together the whole thing will actually end up being better for each race getting proper focus (inevitably). This all the while at the same time appreciating that people who don't like X race get less value (outside of multiplayer) for the same thing? I don't like Terran, I think they suck. Has it occurred to anyone that it's poorer value for a full priced game is with 30 missions of a race I don't particularly care for just for multiplayer effectively?
If all three were coming out at similar times, I wouldn't be so worried. But with at least a year in between, it means there isn't much to look forward to anymore as I like both alien races (but don't care for the humans). Which means I get to wait another 2 years on top of everything I've already waited to play what I've been waiting for. Sure, when it's all out it will be fine and I'm not focused on the money aspect (But bear in mind I'm looking at $220 dollars NZ minimum for this shit, that's a full game and two expansion prices on average here in NZ BTW), but I'm disappointed in the way they are doing it.
I would far rather a group of coherent Terran missions, Zerg missions and Protoss missions in one game. If you can't fundamentally grasp this concept can you cease posting because the stupid is getting to the point where it's burning.
Please feel free to read what I write and then respond to me.
So you're the same as everyone? Oh, no, I hate the Terran thus Blizzard are fucking all of us over? I get that some people want coherent missions from all races in the one game, fine, but with the amount of content Blizzard has already either designed or implemented it would be a massive impediment to them and an overall inferior product for you. Also, your pricing argument is moot no matter what side you're on: you claim that you'll either be paying for a full game and two expansion packs or three full games for the same price?
It seems to me your main problem is that they picked the race you don't like to go first. If this is the case, suck it up.
YaYa on
0
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
The fundamental flaw in your argument is you assume some people want three full games.
They don't.
you really are not in a place to be speaking for everyone.
I know.
Read what I wrote again:
The fundamental flaw in your argument is you assume some people want three full games.
Not everyone wants three games. It's a simple argument.
I don't, are you going to claim I don't exist?
'Some don't' would have been more appropriate then 'they don't.'
I'm not claiming anything. Lets not get tied up argument of semantics (and I apologize for sparking one).
No offense, but you should read everything I write. That sentence, when put together with this sentence immediately after the "They don't" is: 'Some people would rather one game, for a multitude of different reasons. "
How you get "everyone" out of that is an utter mystery to me. If you had read what I wrote on the previous page, it's even more obvious that I would not mind having three games either and I have a more specific objection (one that lacks pizza and pie analogies or whatever).
But again, people do not read what other people write.
Specifically:
If all three were coming out at similar times, I wouldn't be so worried. But with at least a year in between, it means there isn't much to look forward to anymore as I like both alien races (but don't care for the humans). Which means I get to wait another 2 years on top of everything I've already waited to play what I've been waiting for. Sure, when it's all out it will be fine and I'm not focused on the money aspect (But bear in mind I'm looking at $220 dollars NZ minimum for this shit, that's a full game and two expansion prices on average here in NZ BTW), but I'm disappointed in the way they are doing it.
This is what happens when an unstoppable nerd rage meets an unmovable deaf object.
Does nobody fundamentally understand that, put together the whole thing will actually end up being better for each race getting proper focus (inevitably). This all the while at the same time appreciating that people who don't like X race get less value (outside of multiplayer) for the same thing? I don't like Terran, I think they suck. Has it occurred to anyone that it's poorer value for a full priced game is with 30 missions of a race I don't particularly care for just for multiplayer effectively?
If all three were coming out at similar times, I wouldn't be so worried. But with at least a year in between, it means there isn't much to look forward to anymore as I like both alien races (but don't care for the humans). Which means I get to wait another 2 years on top of everything I've already waited to play what I've been waiting for. Sure, when it's all out it will be fine and I'm not focused on the money aspect (But bear in mind I'm looking at $220 dollars NZ minimum for this shit, that's a full game and two expansion prices on average here in NZ BTW), but I'm disappointed in the way they are doing it.
I would far rather a group of coherent Terran missions, Zerg missions and Protoss missions in one game. If you can't fundamentally grasp this concept can you cease posting because the stupid is getting to the point where it's burning.
Cut the fucking condescension, Aegeri, I'm reading and responding to your apparently infallible argument. If you think that people aren't grasping what you're writing, express it better.
YaYa on
0
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
edited November 2008
I think it will actually make the game fundamentally better, assuming they can make the missions varied enough (if they can't it's just going to be a complete disaster of course). Their excuse that it isn't for money feels like bullshit, but it still arguably allows them to make a bigger and more "epic" game. It's just annoying that you don't get your choice of race and will be buying a "dead weight" campaign if you aren't interested in that race essentially for multiplayer.
Why this sails right over certain peoples heads repeatedly is a mystery.
The fundamental flaw in your argument is you assume some people want three full games.
They don't. Some people would rather one game, for a multitude of different reasons. One could be that there is a certain amount of angst over feeling like they have to wait even longer to play a game with the race they like. In a game where you can play all three sides, it doesn't matter if you don't like one of the races over the other.
If you don't like playing terran and find them boring, you're SOL.
You did word that badly Aegeri. Fixed it below.
The fundamental flaw in your argument is you assume everyone wants three full games.
They don't. Some people would rather one game, for a multitude of different reasons.
Morkath on
0
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
Cut the fucking condescension, Aegeri, I'm reading and responding to your apparently infallible argument.
You aren't responding to my argument.
At all, so feel free to keep raging against the invisible man in your head who is making you oh so angry instead of reading the points actually being made.
My annoyance is more at instead of reading the obvious, they put the "Everyone" in a place the context clearly indicated was not the case, especially given the argument I had already made on the previous page.
My annoyance is more at instead of reading the obvious, they put the "Everyone" in a place the context clearly indicated was not the case, especially given the argument I had already made on the previous page.
Welcome to the internet?
It's not always easy to know if someone just worded something badly, or is in fact just an idiot and is saying something that makes no sense.
Plus this thread was moving pretty quickly for a bit, its entirely possible they didn't see your previous posts, no reason to start quoting yourself repeatedly.
Okay. Aegeri. Every time you "respond" to someone you take one line out of an entire paragraph and argue that, instead of addressing every counter-point made.
For someone who really wants people to read what he's writing, you seem to be really bad at doing the same for others.
YaYa on
0
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
Okay. Aegeri. Every time you "respond" to someone you take one line out of an entire paragraph and argue that, instead of addressing every counter-point made.
I didn't argue with you, there is your mistake. I merely restated what I wrote because you clearly badly mangled it and your argument didn't have much, fundamentally to do with it. Why you think that is a "counter point" is beyond me.
I cannot be baited into playing "pizza analogy" yelling match for 5 pages sorry. Stick to the argument or don't bother responding.
I know what it's like when people don't read what you write. like when I say something like 'lets not start arguing semantics' and people keep going anyways.
I know what it's like when people don't read what you write. like when I say something like 'lets not start arguing semantics' and people keep going anyways.
I'm sorry, but when you put something into my mouth that I never said, anywhere and is directly contrary to everything I argue I get more than a little annoyed. Especially when it's a sad continuation of the rest of the thread, where nobody reads anything the other person writes and argues against this strange boogeyman that's been created.
It is, in fact, perfectly obvious I never said that. I will, in fact, defend myself to make it 100% clear such a retarded opinion is not mine.
I know what it's like when people don't read what you write. like when I say something like 'lets not start arguing semantics' and people keep going anyways.
I'm sorry, but when you put something into my mouth that I never said, anywhere and is directly contrary to everything I argue I get more than a little annoyed. Especially when it's a sad continuation of the rest of the thread, where nobody reads anything the other person writes and argues against this strange boogeyman that's been created.
It is, in fact, perfectly obvious I never said that. I will, in fact, defend myself to make it 100% clear such a retarded opinion is not mine.
Aegeri, you are really over-reacting about this. You worded something badly, people took it the wrong way. It was cleared up. Let it drop.
Let's go back to SC, isn't it great/awful that they are releasing multiple versions?
Honestly I wasn't even planning on getting SC2, the videos they have shown so far haven't really seemed that different from the original, I just think they handled this whole thing badly.
Is there a reason why they can't just sell all the content as one game? Would they not make enough profit by charging a single game price instead of a triple game price? It seems to me like it's guaranteed to sell plenty enough copies to cover production costs and give them a tidy profit. As far as I know, there's no legal mandate that says there is a maximum of content that a game can deliver for a given sales price. Certainly the discounting of games over time would demonstrate that. Therefore, I can't really see a motivation other than a desire for more profits behind this move. Which is justified, since the market will almost certainly allow it.
Man this thread is like lawyer-city with all the sentence parsing going on...
Can we all agree that this is a rather "brave" design decision made by Blizzard with several pros and cons? Clearly we get a better "experience" overall from this method, and considering Blizzard's "reputation", they probably felt that this was the right move - for the fans and the franchise.
Of course, you would be an idiot to assume that monetary consequences did not flow from this event - they are a business - and Paul Sams is being extremely disingenous with his statement; sure, the first thought probably wasn't about money once this design decision was considered... but I bet it was the second.
So yeah, ultimately it will probably be a good thing, but at the risk of pissing off a large and rather loyal fanbase. Of course one could argue that Blizzard fans are like Republicans - bitch and bitch about their company/party not doing what they want, then all turn out to support them on voting/buying day anyway...
Docken on
0
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
edited November 2008
Inevitably that's what you'll end up with (just one big all together package for whatever) and many people will probably buy that and be perfectly happy. It's just another 2 or so years on top of the time the game has already taken etc.
I doubt that they are entirely thinking about profit basically making one larger game for more money. They could always have just made a terran campaign and then sold the zerg/protoss campaigns as microtransactions.
Is there a reason why they can't just sell all the content as one game? Would they not make enough profit by charging a single game price instead of a triple game price? It seems to me like it's guaranteed to sell plenty enough copies to cover production costs and give them a tidy profit. As far as I know, there's no legal mandate that says there is a maximum of content that a game can deliver for a given sales price. Certainly the discounting of games over time would demonstrate that. Therefore, I can't really see a motivation other than a desire for more profits behind this move. Which is justified, since the market will almost certainly allow it.
Time/team size is the other reason.
More than likely the decision was not ultimately based around making more money, but it was probably still a factor. Most along the lines of, "We can split it into three games, giving us more time on each one and allowing us to put out more content, and then we don't need to hire more designers/devs/testers. We ultimately pay less for development due to needing less manpower. Plus we can charge for each version!"
Clearly we get a better "experience" overall from this method,
Actually its a worse experience, more content.
Worse because you have to buy essentially the same game three times.
More content as they can focus on each one individually.
Morkath on
0
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
edited November 2008
All of this will hinge on if they can make 30 varied missions in an RTS campaign from one races individual dynamics, without feeling like the game is being bogged down or similar. I'm trying to think of any RTS games that have managed to achieve this.
Because really, this is what justifies the decision or not.
When the game comes out, I will buy the game, and I will say, "Man, this game is so much fun you guys!"
And you will go, "BUT IT'S NOT SUPPOSE TO BE FUN YOU'RE NOT GETTING A FULL PRODUCT ARRGGGHHHH."
And I will say, "I am sorry, but I cannot hear you over how much fun I am having."
So, who's the real winner here? The person who feels moral superiority in not buying an "inferior" product, or the one who is having fun?
This is mostly it. As I've said so many times before, this decision was more based on getting a good product out before the end of the next century. All the rest of you can wait another 2-3 years and just get the "Starcraft 2 Trilogy Edition," which will have all the games combined, and at a reduced price. Because that's what you all seem to want anyways.
The rest of us can get the game early and do what we want to do with SC2: Play the multiplayer.
HonkHonk is this poster.Registered User, __BANNED USERSregular
edited November 2008
People ITT who thinks this is a good idea might be missing a few points:
What many of us are worried about is; we were gonna get SCII soon, the whole packade (Zerg, Toss, Terran campaigns - everything advertised was supposed to be in it. I'm mostly looking forward to the campaigns myself really), now they've split SCII up into three parts!
The consequences are that they've effectively added +1.5/+2 years over the release of the first part until I'll be able to play the last part. They've also raised the price TIMES THREE, buying SCII will cost you buying the whole instrument set for rock band. And they've split up the content of everything advertised for 1.5 years as ONE game, into THREE games.
1/3 Content.
+2 Years until we have played the entire SCII.
x3 Price tag.
Except it'll be three complete length games. We have nothing that indicates otherwise.
"Did you hear? That bastard Tolkien is going to split up "The Lord of the Rings" into pieces, and sell them piecemeal over years!"
"That fucker just wants more money!"
or...
"Jesus Christ. One minute I'm hearing about Star Wars, and the next it's this fucking bullshit about 'A New Hope' and 'The Return of the Empire' or some shit. What the fuck?!"
I'm sure that Blizzard execs sat in their scarlet chambers. Dark drapes hung over brick windows. Red candles light black chandeliers. Blood dresses the walls and floor. Moans echo throughout.
"What... What can we dooo to our customers. We.. We require... sustenance!"
Posts
They're releasing SCII and two SCII expansions, each with a full, complete story.
And you really have no idea what the single player will be like. To think it'll be 90 missions of "defend the base / escort the bad A.I. / watch cutscene" is to, retardedly and without justification, assume that StarCraft II (which will be made with more money spent every single month than was spent on the entirety of StarCraft probably) will have the same stupid, boring single player.
Why the flying fuck would you assume this? I must only conclude it's a mental deficiency.
Untwist your panties. Calm down. And only buy the one you want.
The fundamental flaw in your argument is you assume some people want three full games.
They don't. Some people would rather one game, for a multitude of different reasons. One could be that there is a certain amount of angst over feeling like they have to wait even longer to play a game with the race they like. In a game where you can play all three sides, it doesn't matter if you don't like one of the races over the other.
If you don't like playing terran and find them boring, you're SOL.
But it's not episodic at all! Nor is it the same amount of product as in one full game!
Each fucking game is a full game!
By that logic, KOTOR 2 should be much cheaper than KOTOR 1 because the engine and assets were already in place. You're completely ignoring all the new content being developed per game, particularly the RPG and Diplomatic elements in the Zerg and Protoss campaigns.
Unless their campaign model for the three overgames is so good that it would be fun even if you didn't have starcraft 2 to resolve the battles, and each actually has it's own engine. If the game is still fun even if I just throw a dice and add a point if I have the advantage in the overworld or whatever then this is justified.
If this is not the case, and the add ons are full price then this is an absurd money grab. If it is the case it is just godawful PR
Umm. No.
You can a) play skirmishes and multiplayer with all three races right out of the gate, and b) god forbid wait 6 months or a year to get to the race you want.
Also, yes, do not speak for everyone, I'm more than happy to buy three full games.
I know.
Read what I wrote again:
The fundamental flaw in your argument is you assume some people want three full games.
Not everyone wants three games. It's a simple argument.
I don't, are you going to claim I don't exist?
Not everyone will be happy, no matter what? Your point is?
Anyone want to beta read a paranormal mystery novella? Here's your chance.
stream
Ummm yes.
It won't be six months and this is on top of a lot longer wait again.
But I already answered this argument:
Please feel free to read what I write and then respond to me.
and if they don't want to do that they can shut their fucking mouths before the first iteration is released.
And I'm not claiming anything. Lets not get tied up argument of semantics (and I apologize for sparking one).
So you're the same as everyone? Oh, no, I hate the Terran thus Blizzard are fucking all of us over? I get that some people want coherent missions from all races in the one game, fine, but with the amount of content Blizzard has already either designed or implemented it would be a massive impediment to them and an overall inferior product for you. Also, your pricing argument is moot no matter what side you're on: you claim that you'll either be paying for a full game and two expansion packs or three full games for the same price?
It seems to me your main problem is that they picked the race you don't like to go first. If this is the case, suck it up.
No offense, but you should read everything I write. That sentence, when put together with this sentence immediately after the "They don't" is: 'Some people would rather one game, for a multitude of different reasons. "
How you get "everyone" out of that is an utter mystery to me. If you had read what I wrote on the previous page, it's even more obvious that I would not mind having three games either and I have a more specific objection (one that lacks pizza and pie analogies or whatever).
But again, people do not read what other people write.
Specifically:
I'm going to quote this repeatedly I feel.
I can quote myself again:
Once you feel free to read it, come back.
This isn't something you could get away with if you weren't blizzard and we weren't guaranteed to hand them their money. (Me included)
Can we just accept that this is purely for financial reasons?
Why this sails right over certain peoples heads repeatedly is a mystery.
You did word that badly Aegeri. Fixed it below.
You aren't responding to my argument.
At all, so feel free to keep raging against the invisible man in your head who is making you oh so angry instead of reading the points actually being made.
My annoyance is more at instead of reading the obvious, they put the "Everyone" in a place the context clearly indicated was not the case, especially given the argument I had already made on the previous page.
Welcome to the internet?
It's not always easy to know if someone just worded something badly, or is in fact just an idiot and is saying something that makes no sense.
Plus this thread was moving pretty quickly for a bit, its entirely possible they didn't see your previous posts, no reason to start quoting yourself repeatedly.
Okay. Aegeri. Every time you "respond" to someone you take one line out of an entire paragraph and argue that, instead of addressing every counter-point made.
For someone who really wants people to read what he's writing, you seem to be really bad at doing the same for others.
He's not going to help you.
I didn't argue with you, there is your mistake. I merely restated what I wrote because you clearly badly mangled it and your argument didn't have much, fundamentally to do with it. Why you think that is a "counter point" is beyond me.
I cannot be baited into playing "pizza analogy" yelling match for 5 pages sorry. Stick to the argument or don't bother responding.
fuck it this is like explaining agriculture to a cow
someone else deal with it
I'm sorry, but when you put something into my mouth that I never said, anywhere and is directly contrary to everything I argue I get more than a little annoyed. Especially when it's a sad continuation of the rest of the thread, where nobody reads anything the other person writes and argues against this strange boogeyman that's been created.
It is, in fact, perfectly obvious I never said that. I will, in fact, defend myself to make it 100% clear such a retarded opinion is not mine.
Aegeri, you are really over-reacting about this. You worded something badly, people took it the wrong way. It was cleared up. Let it drop.
Let's go back to SC, isn't it great/awful that they are releasing multiple versions?
Honestly I wasn't even planning on getting SC2, the videos they have shown so far haven't really seemed that different from the original, I just think they handled this whole thing badly.
Can we all agree that this is a rather "brave" design decision made by Blizzard with several pros and cons? Clearly we get a better "experience" overall from this method, and considering Blizzard's "reputation", they probably felt that this was the right move - for the fans and the franchise.
Of course, you would be an idiot to assume that monetary consequences did not flow from this event - they are a business - and Paul Sams is being extremely disingenous with his statement; sure, the first thought probably wasn't about money once this design decision was considered... but I bet it was the second.
So yeah, ultimately it will probably be a good thing, but at the risk of pissing off a large and rather loyal fanbase. Of course one could argue that Blizzard fans are like Republicans - bitch and bitch about their company/party not doing what they want, then all turn out to support them on voting/buying day anyway...
I doubt that they are entirely thinking about profit basically making one larger game for more money. They could always have just made a terran campaign and then sold the zerg/protoss campaigns as microtransactions.
Time/team size is the other reason.
More than likely the decision was not ultimately based around making more money, but it was probably still a factor. Most along the lines of, "We can split it into three games, giving us more time on each one and allowing us to put out more content, and then we don't need to hire more designers/devs/testers. We ultimately pay less for development due to needing less manpower. Plus we can charge for each version!"
Actually its a worse experience, more content.
Worse because you have to buy essentially the same game three times.
More content as they can focus on each one individually.
Because really, this is what justifies the decision or not.
Maybe people enjoy buying things
When the game comes out, I will buy the game, and I will say, "Man, this game is so much fun you guys!"
And you will go, "BUT IT'S NOT SUPPOSE TO BE FUN YOU'RE NOT GETTING A FULL PRODUCT ARRGGGHHHH."
And I will say, "I am sorry, but I cannot hear you over how much fun I am having."
So, who's the real winner here? The person who feels moral superiority in not buying an "inferior" product, or the one who is having fun?
Oh snap, opinions? Its not like someone could possibly not want to play Starcraft 2.
This is mostly it. As I've said so many times before, this decision was more based on getting a good product out before the end of the next century. All the rest of you can wait another 2-3 years and just get the "Starcraft 2 Trilogy Edition," which will have all the games combined, and at a reduced price. Because that's what you all seem to want anyways.
The rest of us can get the game early and do what we want to do with SC2: Play the multiplayer.
That way everyone wins.
Then why are they here?
Anyone want to beta read a paranormal mystery novella? Here's your chance.
stream
Because this is a thread about them splitting SC2 into three games, not a thread about how we love sc2?
He didn't say, "Some people don't want SC2 split into 3 games," he said, "Some people don't want to play SC2." There's a difference.
Anyone want to beta read a paranormal mystery novella? Here's your chance.
stream
What many of us are worried about is; we were gonna get SCII soon, the whole packade (Zerg, Toss, Terran campaigns - everything advertised was supposed to be in it. I'm mostly looking forward to the campaigns myself really), now they've split SCII up into three parts!
The consequences are that they've effectively added +1.5/+2 years over the release of the first part until I'll be able to play the last part. They've also raised the price TIMES THREE, buying SCII will cost you buying the whole instrument set for rock band. And they've split up the content of everything advertised for 1.5 years as ONE game, into THREE games.
1/3 Content.
+2 Years until we have played the entire SCII.
x3 Price tag.
How'll they balance that to status quo?
"Did you hear? That bastard Tolkien is going to split up "The Lord of the Rings" into pieces, and sell them piecemeal over years!"
"That fucker just wants more money!"
or...
"Jesus Christ. One minute I'm hearing about Star Wars, and the next it's this fucking bullshit about 'A New Hope' and 'The Return of the Empire' or some shit. What the fuck?!"
I'm sure that Blizzard execs sat in their scarlet chambers. Dark drapes hung over brick windows. Red candles light black chandeliers. Blood dresses the walls and floor. Moans echo throughout.
"What... What can we dooo to our customers. We.. We require... sustenance!"
I agree, Lord, but... How shall we-"
THREE CAMPAIGNS!
ITT: People complain about getting a game.