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.
I'm sure the entire game is totally complete right now. They're just fucking with us.
I bet those bastards just want to release a complete game when its complete for the public. The cooler thing to do would delay the release while they worked on the other campaigns, and just let the rest of the game sit and collect dust.
Those bastards.
And I'm totally sure all the games will totally sell for full price.
At first I assumed that they are splitting the game up into three parts and releasing those parts at the same time. This is just a play for more money, plain and simple:
"I am JRR Tolkien, I have written the Lord of the Rings, but you have to buy it in three parts so I get three times the money!"
versus
"I am writing The Lord of the Rings and plan to release it to you in three parts. There is no crossover between the parts, and I am going to have them come out over time so you can start reading now and hopefully the next volume will be out when you're finished with that one. However, in exchange for this accelerated release, you'll have to pay more money."
Clearly, the second in the better choice. But now I understand that SC2 is not being released as three parts simultaneously, but the problem of Blizzard's greed still exists:
What am I buying with a version of SC2?
-Game Engine
-Multiplayer
-Single Player Campaign
Why do I have to pay for the Game Engine and Multiplayer three times when all I want is the Game Engine, Multiplayer, and all three single player campaigns?
I think some people are overestimating how much fun it is to play against the AI with the Terran for forty straight hours.
And I think some people are overestimating "The Man."
That quote from the OP? What's wrong with it?
"Oh, he's totally lying."
Says the angst-filled teen.
*shrug* It reeks more like an inability to find a good editor/inability to rein in their writers to me than malice, but they're so desperately trying to rationalize it that you can't help but wonder.
Not that we should be grateful for stupidity instead of evil, but eh. Idjits. What can ya do?
Aroduc on
0
HonkHonk is this poster.Registered User, __BANNED USERSregular
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!"
I agree, Lord, but... How shall we-"
THREE CAMPAIGNS!
ITT: People complain about getting a game.
You are haywire. Where Tolkien wrote three books from the beginning - this was a decision Blizzard made now - which means they'll be splitting up ONE GAME and try to put more shit into the different parts to flesh them out... Which may or may not work as they intend, which may or may not take several extre years.
They'll try to make the content valid for three games, maybe it'll work - but we won't see SC2 for 5 years more.
Clearly you should tell them what their rights are. They just don't get it. Or maybe it's something else.
The expansions will probably be cheaper, with specific regard to what you're saying.
What they do as practice is entirely their call. I happen to think it isn't out of ignorance or malice, but I'm sure the fine people here are just better and smarter people. All of 'em. Really. Truly.
I get similar feelings reading these replies as I get to this.
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.
See I planned on getting it, However I Cannot justify 100 dollars for it, I want the multiplayer and I want to experience each races campaign. I don't need it to be epic so them making it like that, lost my sale.
It's not the paying for it that people dislike, it's the possiblity that we will be paying much more for one game then we initially expected that is vexing. If such isn't the case, though, that would be nice.
Some people do enjoy the single player experience. And the way things are going, it looks like it's going to be rough for them if they prefer to play as zerg and/or protoss in SP.
Well, how about if Blizzard scraped all that extra work and just shoved out the standard 30 mission / 3 races singleplayer for $50? Is that what you really want? No more non-linear mission structure, different metagame for each race, secret and mini campaigns, extra units and multiplayer functionality. I bet just as many people would bitch about that.
Or you could wait another 2 1/2 - 3 years to get the whole, epic 90+ mission package, all for the standard $50-60, right? Would you be willing to pay extra for the largest RTS (content wise) ever? Or would Blizzard be justified in charging more for what is basically x3 a standard game?
If each release was 10 missions long and didn't add anything, I could see what the complaints are about. But each release will be ~30 missions long and have a different metagame, plus extras, and Blizzard has not said anything about the price, either way. Plus, we get the game much sooner.
I think a lot of the problem that people have is that they practically flat out said "This is incomplete, but don't worry, it's reallllllllly long and totally awesome." In a world where the hype machine runs out of control and you've got graphical designers claiming that the way they designed their wooden crate will revolutionize the wooden crates in games every other week, the claim of awesometude really needs to be taken with a grain of salt while the claim of the story being incomplete means... well... it's going to be incomplete. You can either be excited for something uncertain, or disappointed in something certain.
Well, how about if Blizzard scraped all that extra work and just shoved out the standard 30 mission / 3 races singleplayer for $50? Is that what you really want? No more non-linear mission structure, different metagame for each race, secret and mini campaigns, extra units and multiplayer functionality. I bet just as many people would bitch about that.
Or you could wait another 2 1/2 - 3 years to get the whole, epic 90+ mission package, all for the standard $50-60, right? Would you be willing to pay extra for the largest RTS (content wise) ever? Or would Blizzard be justified in charging more for what is basically x3 a standard game?
I would have no problem with the first option. I never demanded that Starcraft 2 be the longest, most complex, most epic RTS in human history. I just wanted it to be a good Starcraft game, which, as the first game showed, could be done on a smaller, non-epic scale.
Well, how about if Blizzard scraped all that extra work and just shoved out the standard 30 mission / 3 races singleplayer for $50? Is that what you really want? No more non-linear mission structure, different metagame for each race, secret and mini campaigns, extra units and multiplayer functionality. I bet just as many people would bitch about that.
Or you could wait another 2 1/2 - 3 years to get the whole, epic 90+ mission package, all for the standard $50-60, right? Would you be willing to pay extra for the largest RTS (content wise) ever? Or would Blizzard be justified in charging more for what is basically x3 a standard game?
I would have no problem with the first option. I never demanded that Starcraft 2 be the longest, most complex, most epic RTS in human history. I just wanted it to be a good Starcraft game, which, as the first game showed, could be done on a smaller, non-epic scale.
There's no way Blizzard could have made SC2 and not have made it the most epic and involving RTS of all time. It's Starcraft 2 we're talking about here. And as much as the hardcore fanbase would have been fine with a new coat of paint, balance fixes, maybe a higher res, better battlenet, and a few new multiplayer options, there were a lot of people who really enjoyed SC1 for the singleplayer. Blizzard has been walking a tightrope through the whole dev cycle, and their openness with the SC1 competitive community is probably the only that's saved them.
Well, how about if Blizzard scraped all that extra work and just shoved out the standard 30 mission / 3 races singleplayer for $50? Is that what you really want? No more non-linear mission structure, different metagame for each race, secret and mini campaigns, extra units and multiplayer functionality. I bet just as many people would bitch about that.
Or you could wait another 2 1/2 - 3 years to get the whole, epic 90+ mission package, all for the standard $50-60, right? Would you be willing to pay extra for the largest RTS (content wise) ever? Or would Blizzard be justified in charging more for what is basically x3 a standard game?
I would have no problem with the first option. I never demanded that Starcraft 2 be the longest, most complex, most epic RTS in human history. I just wanted it to be a good Starcraft game, which, as the first game showed, could be done on a smaller, non-epic scale.
There's no way Blizzard could have made SC2 and not have made it the most epic and involving RTS of all time. It's Starcraft 2 we're talking about here. And as much as the hardcore fanbase would have been fine with a new coat of paint, balance fixes, maybe a higher res, better battlenet, and a few new multiplayer options, there were a lot of people who really enjoyed SC1 for the singleplayer. Blizzard has been walking a tightrope through the whole dev cycle, and their openness with the SC1 competitive community is probably the only that's saved them.
Well, if they hadn't waited so damn long to make a sequel, they wouldn't have built up the expectations of so many fanboys, now would they? They've got no one to blame for that but themselves.
Well, how about if Blizzard scraped all that extra work and just shoved out the standard 30 mission / 3 races singleplayer for $50? Is that what you really want? No more non-linear mission structure, different metagame for each race, secret and mini campaigns, extra units and multiplayer functionality. I bet just as many people would bitch about that.
Or you could wait another 2 1/2 - 3 years to get the whole, epic 90+ mission package, all for the standard $50-60, right? Would you be willing to pay extra for the largest RTS (content wise) ever? Or would Blizzard be justified in charging more for what is basically x3 a standard game?
I would have no problem with the first option. I never demanded that Starcraft 2 be the longest, most complex, most epic RTS in human history. I just wanted it to be a good Starcraft game, which, as the first game showed, could be done on a smaller, non-epic scale.
There's no way Blizzard could have made SC2 and not have made it the most epic and involving RTS of all time. It's Starcraft 2 we're talking about here. And as much as the hardcore fanbase would have been fine with a new coat of paint, balance fixes, maybe a higher res, better battlenet, and a few new multiplayer options, there were a lot of people who really enjoyed SC1 for the singleplayer. Blizzard has been walking a tightrope through the whole dev cycle, and their openness with the SC1 competitive community is probably the only that's saved them.
Uh. Maybe other people are just a little more grounded than you. You really should probably wait until the game's out before you declare it the second coming of Moses.
From reading the complains, I thought at first that they were releasing all 3 at once, like Pokemon. But instead, they're just going to focus on making one campaign per expansion? That sounds pretty much like the normal development process of an expandable game.
I think it's a pretty good deal, and I don't even like Starcraft.
"We're not doing this for money. Why? Because I say so."
If you're going to stand there and bold face lie to all of your customers, you could at least lie in a believable fashion. Telling us that you're not doing this for money without telling us the "real" reason why you're dividing SC2 into 3 products doesn't really convince me.
Blizzard is becoming a bigger cash cow than Square.
It's a good thing that I could care less about the campaign and multiplayer is the only thing that interests me. Then again, Blizzard probably has some plan to milk money out of players like myself as well. Like a special unit (except it'll be a key unit like the Carrier) only available in multiplayer if you buy the campaign box for the race you play.
I still can't get over the fact that people at Blizzcon cheered when Blizzard announced StarCraft 2 would be sold as three seperate products.
Well for me is when it was stated that "As a matter of fact the sole reason we did it was because we thought it was going to be a better experience."
Yeah, lets not divide the multiplayer base into 3 because you're conveniently adding units for each "wonderful game" you're releasing under the same title. That would be a better experience right there.
Well, how about if Blizzard scraped all that extra work and just shoved out the standard 30 mission / 3 races singleplayer for $50? Is that what you really want? No more non-linear mission structure, different metagame for each race, secret and mini campaigns, extra units and multiplayer functionality. I bet just as many people would bitch about that.
Or you could wait another 2 1/2 - 3 years to get the whole, epic 90+ mission package, all for the standard $50-60, right? Would you be willing to pay extra for the largest RTS (content wise) ever? Or would Blizzard be justified in charging more for what is basically x3 a standard game?
I would have no problem with the first option. I never demanded that Starcraft 2 be the longest, most complex, most epic RTS in human history. I just wanted it to be a good Starcraft game, which, as the first game showed, could be done on a smaller, non-epic scale.
There's no way Blizzard could have made SC2 and not have made it the most epic and involving RTS of all time. It's Starcraft 2 we're talking about here. And as much as the hardcore fanbase would have been fine with a new coat of paint, balance fixes, maybe a higher res, better battlenet, and a few new multiplayer options, there were a lot of people who really enjoyed SC1 for the singleplayer. Blizzard has been walking a tightrope through the whole dev cycle, and their openness with the SC1 competitive community is probably the only that's saved them.
Uh. Maybe other people are just a little more grounded than you. You really should probably wait until the game's out before you declare it the second coming of Moses.
Of course, I haven't played the game yet (holding out on my friend and his beta key), but I've been paying attention to the dev blogs. I like what I see so far, and Blizzard is going way out of their way to please the fans, especially the competitive communities. Most of their development has been focused on balance so far, and I like that.
Good or bad, what I mean is that they couldn't set their aim any lower than "greatest RTS ever," because that's what all the fans expect. It could be a complete dud (again, I don't think it will be from what I've seen, but I didn't think that when the first gameplay was released, I was actually quite underwhelmed then), but they still have to put in the effort.
I do think the announcement was a kind of a dumb move, but if that's how they decided to roll then there's no point in denying it. Bite the bullet, tell everyone, get it over with, that sort of thing.
Well for me is when it was stated that "As a matter of fact the sole reason we did it was because we thought it was going to be a better experience."
Yeah, lets not divide the multiplayer base into 3 because you're conveniently adding units for each "wonderful game" you're releasing under the same title. That would be a better experience right there.
Yeah pretty much this.
I really couldn't care about the single-player but this....
"We're not doing this for money. Why? Because I say so."
If you're going to stand there and bold face lie to all of your customers, you could at least lie in a believable fashion. Telling us that you're not doing this for money without telling us the "real" reason why you're dividing SC2 into 3 products doesn't really convince me.
They've said that they only have the Terrain campaign thought out, so they want to release what they have made soon, instead of taking another 5 years to have all the races done.
Fuga on
0
KageraImitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered Userregular
edited November 2008
It would take five years to finish the Zerg/Protoss parts?
And how would releasing it separately change that?
As far as I can see if they boxed them all as one game it would have 3 times the content of an average game, and since they're including all races as playable in multiplayer even if you just buy one game. This is not that big of a deal.
"We're not doing this for money. Why? Because I say so."
If you're going to stand there and bold face lie to all of your customers, you could at least lie in a believable fashion. Telling us that you're not doing this for money without telling us the "real" reason why you're dividing SC2 into 3 products doesn't really convince me.
They've said that they only have the Terrain campaign thought out, so they want to release what they have made soon, instead of taking another 5 years to have all the races done.
I know this. I have this wonderful thing called the internet that tells me almost everything I ever wanted to know. However, the point is that this guy rambled on for about 10 sentences, saying in each and every one "We're not doing this for money." without backing up his statement.
Regardless, there seems to be a lot of people in this thread with disposable income.
Blizzard made their own bed and slept in it. They said SC2 would be ready for release in 2008. Then they delay and divide what was supposed to be a single product, up into 3 products. If Blizzard had announced from the start that they are making StarCraft 2, 3 and 4 and releasing them every 6 months sequentially, then there wouldn't be any reason to be upset. That is not the case here.
I understand the logistics behind the choice. I understand that it takes a long time, a lot of effort and resources to develop a video game. However, as a consumer, I am upset at this choice. I work hard for my money and I choose not to give Blizzard 3x as much money as I should be paying for this game. Simple.
Also, someone please elaborate a little on "more content than the average game". What is considered average? I've bought single games that have well over 100 hours of content, yet I didn't have to pay 3x the price of a "average game". Strange that.
Frankly an epic Terran campaign is probably going to be more interesting than the usual 10 mission per race structure we're used to.
If they can provide 3 products worth the full price each, I dont see what the problem is here.
Prohass on
0
MorninglordI'm tired of being Batman,so today I'll be Owl.Registered Userregular
edited November 2008
I don't actually care if they are doing it for money. I don't care if they really mean it and the games are going to be great.
I just think they're idiots for going against the typical stereotype responses to a situation like this. Regardless of how good the individual parts of the games are there is always going to be the word of mouth "money grab" associated with it, regardless of wether this is true or not or how much anybody argues it is not.
It's just part and parcel of public relations with human beings and they're being idiots if they think they can just ignore that.
It'd be like seeing my psychology professor walk out in front of traffic or something I mean why would you do that it is a stupid thing to do.
That's my take on it really. Smart people doing stupid things with the best intentions.
I can't hate them for that though I mean I do shit on a similar level every day.
Morninglord on
(PSN: Morninglord) (Steam: Morninglord) (WiiU: Morninglord22) I like to record and toss up a lot of random gaming videos here.
Frankly an epic Terran campaign is probably going to be more interesting than the usual 10 mission per race structure we're used to.
Its this part that i doubt, i mean the ten mission structure thing already has a bunch of pain in the ass filler material. A note though i'm not planning on buying/playing any of these so yeah.
Well its worked very effectively in a lot of recent RTS games, and with higher production values and a focus on really telling a good story ive got my hopes.
I don't even like Starcraft and I don't see what the problem is. You pay more money for more content, if you don't want more content then don't pay more money. Valve is doing this with episodic gaming, and it is fucking fantastic.
Could the decision have been because they wanted to get the multiplayer out the door as fast as possible and right now if they spent the time creating Zerg and Protoss SP campaigns to match what they're making for the Terrans then it would push the release date back much further?
Posts
I bet those bastards just want to release a complete game when its complete for the public. The cooler thing to do would delay the release while they worked on the other campaigns, and just let the rest of the game sit and collect dust.
Those bastards.
And I'm totally sure all the games will totally sell for full price.
And I think some people are overestimating "The Man."
That quote from the OP? What's wrong with it?
"Oh, he's totally lying."
Says the angst-filled teen.
"I am JRR Tolkien, I have written the Lord of the Rings, but you have to buy it in three parts so I get three times the money!"
versus
"I am writing The Lord of the Rings and plan to release it to you in three parts. There is no crossover between the parts, and I am going to have them come out over time so you can start reading now and hopefully the next volume will be out when you're finished with that one. However, in exchange for this accelerated release, you'll have to pay more money."
Clearly, the second in the better choice. But now I understand that SC2 is not being released as three parts simultaneously, but the problem of Blizzard's greed still exists:
What am I buying with a version of SC2?
-Game Engine
-Multiplayer
-Single Player Campaign
Why do I have to pay for the Game Engine and Multiplayer three times when all I want is the Game Engine, Multiplayer, and all three single player campaigns?
*shrug* It reeks more like an inability to find a good editor/inability to rein in their writers to me than malice, but they're so desperately trying to rationalize it that you can't help but wonder.
Not that we should be grateful for stupidity instead of evil, but eh. Idjits. What can ya do?
You are haywire. Where Tolkien wrote three books from the beginning - this was a decision Blizzard made now - which means they'll be splitting up ONE GAME and try to put more shit into the different parts to flesh them out... Which may or may not work as they intend, which may or may not take several extre years.
They'll try to make the content valid for three games, maybe it'll work - but we won't see SC2 for 5 years more.
The expansions will probably be cheaper, with specific regard to what you're saying.
What they do as practice is entirely their call. I happen to think it isn't out of ignorance or malice, but I'm sure the fine people here are just better and smarter people. All of 'em. Really. Truly.
I get similar feelings reading these replies as I get to this.
See I planned on getting it, However I Cannot justify 100 dollars for it, I want the multiplayer and I want to experience each races campaign. I don't need it to be epic so them making it like that, lost my sale.
This, however, not being the case, makes the accusations of money-grubbing all the more silly.
Or you could wait another 2 1/2 - 3 years to get the whole, epic 90+ mission package, all for the standard $50-60, right? Would you be willing to pay extra for the largest RTS (content wise) ever? Or would Blizzard be justified in charging more for what is basically x3 a standard game?
If each release was 10 missions long and didn't add anything, I could see what the complaints are about. But each release will be ~30 missions long and have a different metagame, plus extras, and Blizzard has not said anything about the price, either way. Plus, we get the game much sooner.
Anyone want to beta read a paranormal mystery novella? Here's your chance.
stream
I would have no problem with the first option. I never demanded that Starcraft 2 be the longest, most complex, most epic RTS in human history. I just wanted it to be a good Starcraft game, which, as the first game showed, could be done on a smaller, non-epic scale.
Steam id: skoot LoL id: skoot
If it is yay I'll be pretty pissed off about that.
There's no way Blizzard could have made SC2 and not have made it the most epic and involving RTS of all time. It's Starcraft 2 we're talking about here. And as much as the hardcore fanbase would have been fine with a new coat of paint, balance fixes, maybe a higher res, better battlenet, and a few new multiplayer options, there were a lot of people who really enjoyed SC1 for the singleplayer. Blizzard has been walking a tightrope through the whole dev cycle, and their openness with the SC1 competitive community is probably the only that's saved them.
Anyone want to beta read a paranormal mystery novella? Here's your chance.
stream
Well, if they hadn't waited so damn long to make a sequel, they wouldn't have built up the expectations of so many fanboys, now would they? They've got no one to blame for that but themselves.
Uh. Maybe other people are just a little more grounded than you. You really should probably wait until the game's out before you declare it the second coming of Moses.
good show all around people.
This thread has made me hungry for pizza. Good job. Is there any gameplay videos yet?
I think it's a pretty good deal, and I don't even like Starcraft.
Twitter
You DON'T play the full game. BC has two new races and wotlk a new class. What the fuck are you talking about
"We're not doing this for money. Why? Because I say so."
If you're going to stand there and bold face lie to all of your customers, you could at least lie in a believable fashion. Telling us that you're not doing this for money without telling us the "real" reason why you're dividing SC2 into 3 products doesn't really convince me.
Blizzard is becoming a bigger cash cow than Square.
It's a good thing that I could care less about the campaign and multiplayer is the only thing that interests me. Then again, Blizzard probably has some plan to milk money out of players like myself as well. Like a special unit (except it'll be a key unit like the Carrier) only available in multiplayer if you buy the campaign box for the race you play.
I still can't get over the fact that people at Blizzcon cheered when Blizzard announced StarCraft 2 would be sold as three seperate products.
Yeah, lets not divide the multiplayer base into 3 because you're conveniently adding units for each "wonderful game" you're releasing under the same title. That would be a better experience right there.
Of course, I haven't played the game yet (holding out on my friend and his beta key), but I've been paying attention to the dev blogs. I like what I see so far, and Blizzard is going way out of their way to please the fans, especially the competitive communities. Most of their development has been focused on balance so far, and I like that.
Good or bad, what I mean is that they couldn't set their aim any lower than "greatest RTS ever," because that's what all the fans expect. It could be a complete dud (again, I don't think it will be from what I've seen, but I didn't think that when the first gameplay was released, I was actually quite underwhelmed then), but they still have to put in the effort.
I do think the announcement was a kind of a dumb move, but if that's how they decided to roll then there's no point in denying it. Bite the bullet, tell everyone, get it over with, that sort of thing.
Anyone want to beta read a paranormal mystery novella? Here's your chance.
stream
Yeah pretty much this.
I really couldn't care about the single-player but this....
They've said that they only have the Terrain campaign thought out, so they want to release what they have made soon, instead of taking another 5 years to have all the races done.
And how would releasing it separately change that?
I know this. I have this wonderful thing called the internet that tells me almost everything I ever wanted to know. However, the point is that this guy rambled on for about 10 sentences, saying in each and every one "We're not doing this for money." without backing up his statement.
Regardless, there seems to be a lot of people in this thread with disposable income.
Blizzard made their own bed and slept in it. They said SC2 would be ready for release in 2008. Then they delay and divide what was supposed to be a single product, up into 3 products. If Blizzard had announced from the start that they are making StarCraft 2, 3 and 4 and releasing them every 6 months sequentially, then there wouldn't be any reason to be upset. That is not the case here.
I understand the logistics behind the choice. I understand that it takes a long time, a lot of effort and resources to develop a video game. However, as a consumer, I am upset at this choice. I work hard for my money and I choose not to give Blizzard 3x as much money as I should be paying for this game. Simple.
Also, someone please elaborate a little on "more content than the average game". What is considered average? I've bought single games that have well over 100 hours of content, yet I didn't have to pay 3x the price of a "average game". Strange that.
Technically its a full 3 games.
They havent divided anything.
Frankly an epic Terran campaign is probably going to be more interesting than the usual 10 mission per race structure we're used to.
If they can provide 3 products worth the full price each, I dont see what the problem is here.
I just think they're idiots for going against the typical stereotype responses to a situation like this. Regardless of how good the individual parts of the games are there is always going to be the word of mouth "money grab" associated with it, regardless of wether this is true or not or how much anybody argues it is not.
It's just part and parcel of public relations with human beings and they're being idiots if they think they can just ignore that.
It'd be like seeing my psychology professor walk out in front of traffic or something I mean why would you do that it is a stupid thing to do.
That's my take on it really. Smart people doing stupid things with the best intentions.
I can't hate them for that though I mean I do shit on a similar level every day.
Its this part that i doubt, i mean the ten mission structure thing already has a bunch of pain in the ass filler material. A note though i'm not planning on buying/playing any of these so yeah.
Where did they say this? o_O