Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA
The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Starcraft 2: No Lan Support

1235746

Posts

  • VerrVerr Registered User
    edited June 2009
    Verr is a sad panda.

    Verr on
  • AxenAxen My avatar is Excalibur. Yes, the sword.Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    subedii wrote: »
    Kazhiim wrote: »
    subedii wrote: »
    Out of curiosity, how do you feel about Half-Life 2 and its episodes?

    not too good

    I bought episode 1 and was disappointed, bought episode 2 only because it came with the orange box, and don't plan on buying episode 3 unless it comes with something cool (and since portal 2 is involved, I guess it counts)

    I am much more tolerant of an FPS than an RTS selling me the same shit though

    How's it the same though? As far as I'm concerned the other two are like Brood War. Admittedly pricing is different for an expansion, so there is that to consider, but completely reworked and new campaign + multiplayer modifications seems a pretty huge addition.

    I said this in an edit, but it was BoTP.

    Valve is not a good example if you ask me. I have nothing against episodic content, but if I have to wait years for a 4-5 hour episode then its just not worth it. I do not care what new things they bring to the table.


    Not that I expect SC2 to take years in between each one.

    Axen on
  • DsmartDsmart Registered User
    edited June 2009
    subedii wrote: »
    Dsmart wrote: »
    I still don't know why anyone would want to play 90 single player RTS missions.


    I don't know. Why would anyone want to play 60 singleplayer RTS missions?

    I wouldn't probably. Not with the same gameplay.

    Dsmart on
  • MoioinkMoioink Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    I would pay full price for HL2 episodes if it magically made them come out faster. I enjoyed every minute of them (except the last fight in ep2, that was quite the difficulty spike) but they're too short and they take too long to come out. Episode 3 not being at E3 was a huge letdown.

    Moioink on
  • subediisubedii Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    Taranis wrote: »
    subedii wrote: »
    Kazhiim wrote: »
    I was thinking something along the lines of three enormous cakes

    yes, they're really big cakes, but I only want one decent sized cake

    I'm not going to feel like eating the second and third cake after I've had the first, but maybe I'd like to try those flavors

    I want a neapolitan cake

    Out of curiosity, how do you feel about Half-Life 2 and its episodes?

    What's helpful is that these releases are also going to be major testing points which will allow Blizzard to get a metric tonne of data about the game as it currently plays, what worked and what didn't. This applies to both singleplayer and multiplayer. The benefit of episodic schemes for the devs is that they can use this data to iterate and improve the formula instead of making an all-or-nothing release.

    Or to put it another way, Half-Life 3 would not have been nearly as good if Valve simply set to work on it straight away and released the next chunk of story in 6 years time. What they've learned from the episodes has very directly gone back into the game with each iteration, making it better than it would have been as they learn how to tweak the franchise.

    So I'm expecting similar here, what Blizzard learns from the first release will allow them to see what new units need to be added in the next pack to make things more diverse, balanced and interesting, and they can also learn what worked in the SP campaign and improve the future campaigns accordingly.

    Then again, I'd also like to hold out for an in-game directors commentary, because seriously, more devs need to do that, it's freaking awesome.

    Terrible analogy. Valve didn't market each episode as a seperate full featured game and the reduced price reflected this fact. Also, a campaign for each race included in an RTS is the standard. If a game comes out lacking features that are considered the norm only to be released later at full price, it should be no surprise that everyone is going to bitch about it.

    So Dawn of War wasn't worth anything then? Dawn of War 2 was lacking a crucial feature? Because to me it just looks like they decided to expand on that SP campaign and make it something more than just 4 sides take on the same thing. They added in the whole RPG mechanic and features, and likewise here in SC they're making something a lot more in-depth.

    If the campaign's about the same size as the previous games, I don't have any issue that it's just one side. From looking at the singleplayer vids they've showcased it looks far, FAR more in-depth than Starcraft ever was.

    Yes, pricing is an issue, since like I said if it's like an expansion pack, I'd expect similar pricing. That I can wait on until I find out more about how these games are going to work.

    subedii on
  • subediisubedii Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    Dsmart wrote: »
    subedii wrote: »
    Dsmart wrote: »
    I still don't know why anyone would want to play 90 single player RTS missions.


    I don't know. Why would anyone want to play 60 singleplayer RTS missions?

    I wouldn't probably. Not with the same gameplay.

    So you never played Brood War I take it?

    Leaving that aside, what if the gameplay was varied drastically between them, as they're suggesting at the moment?

    subedii on
  • DsmartDsmart Registered User
    edited June 2009
    Here is the problem with compartmentalizing art. The end user no longer derives a cohesive finished product. Each iteration of Starcraft 2 will be "the sum of some parts". All you have to look at is forced sequels and tired remakes in the film industry, killing all originality and driving good concepts into the dirt.

    If I had creative control of the Starcraft license I would want to release one worthy and complete successor that I could be proud of. I suspect that Activision/Blizzard realizes they can do this and get away with it, but I fear that the product will be compromised.

    Dsmart on
  • TL DRTL DR Not at all confident in his reflexive opinions of thingsRegistered User regular
    edited June 2009
    Tarranon wrote: »
    As an aside, what's with all the blizzard hate lately? IE All of their 'money grubbings and rawr we eat puppies'. They made an MMO 5 years ago, supported the shit out of it in terms of content for free, and now there are two expansions, both well received critically.

    So evil?
    Hahahaha, supporting an MMO "for free".

    No kidding. I imagine you could read blue posts and patch notes and determine the exact day when they realized they could charge people just to play, and they only had to add content through $30 expansions and then have a small subset of manic-depressive players beta test the new instances before nerfing everything for the majority and releasing the next round of untuned dungeons.

    And then the achievements came.

    TL DR on
  • LemmingLemming Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    Dsmart wrote: »
    Here is the problem with compartmentalizing art. The end user no longer derives a cohesive finished product. Each iteration of Starcraft 2 will be "the sum of some parts". All you have to look at is forced sequels and tired remakes in the film industry, killing all originality and driving good concepts into the dirt.

    If I had creative control of the Starcraft license I would want to release one worthy and complete successor that I could be proud of. I suspect that Activision/Blizzard realizes they can do this and get away with it, but I fear that the product will be compromised.

    They're focusing on making each of the three races' single player campaigns unique and fun instead of just doing the same thing they did with Starcraft and Brood War where ultimately most missions ended up being pretty much identical with a few different ones thrown into the mix. That sounds a lot more creative and original to me then just stuffing all the different races into the same mold.

    HAHA WHAT AM I SAYING BLIZZARD WANTS ALL YOUR MONEY EACH VERSION WILL COST 60 DOLLARS

    Lemming on
  • TarranonTarranon Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    Tarranon wrote: »
    As an aside, what's with all the blizzard hate lately? IE All of their 'money grubbings and rawr we eat puppies'. They made an MMO 5 years ago, supported the shit out of it in terms of content for free, and now there are two expansions, both well received critically.

    So evil?
    Hahahaha, supporting an MMO "for free".

    Oh excuse me, I thought we were judging intent here with regards to their supposed greed. My bad.

    Tarranon on
    You could be anywhere
    On the black screen
  • RBachRBach Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    Morkath wrote: »
    rbach, he is using sarcasm.
    Kris_xK wrote: »
    Hi! Welcome to the internet, were sarcasm is the national language.

    Also, you listened to Pancake. Never do that.

    Uh, er...Hey guys, look over there! *runs away and hides in the corner*

    Also, duly noted re: Pancake.

    RBach on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • DsmartDsmart Registered User
    edited June 2009
    They got lazy with WoW and now they are getting lazier with their other IP. They are applying the WoW design philosophy to anything they create at this point and trading on their name. Reusing assets, monetizing every bit of decent content. I grow tired of it.

    Dsmart on
  • subediisubedii Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    Lemming wrote: »
    Dsmart wrote: »
    Here is the problem with compartmentalizing art. The end user no longer derives a cohesive finished product. Each iteration of Starcraft 2 will be "the sum of some parts". All you have to look at is forced sequels and tired remakes in the film industry, killing all originality and driving good concepts into the dirt.

    If I had creative control of the Starcraft license I would want to release one worthy and complete successor that I could be proud of. I suspect that Activision/Blizzard realizes they can do this and get away with it, but I fear that the product will be compromised.

    They're focusing on making each of the three races' single player campaigns unique and fun instead of just doing the same thing they did with Starcraft and Brood War where ultimately most missions ended up being pretty much identical with a few different ones thrown into the mix. That sounds a lot more creative and original to me then just stuffing all the different races into the same mold.

    HAHA WHAT AM I SAYING BLIZZARD WANTS ALL YOUR MONEY EACH VERSION WILL COST 60 DOLLARS

    Starcraft one is "the sum of its part", Starcraft and Brood War. There's nobody feasibly playing JUST Starcraft 1 today without Brood War. And that also ended on a cliffhanger. Ditto with Warcraft 3 and its expansion. So far I haven't seen Blizzard deliberately compromising their products just to sap more cash with inferior games. Each title has been well worth the money asked for it and the additions they made with it.

    subedii on
  • LemmingLemming Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    subedii wrote: »
    Lemming wrote: »
    Dsmart wrote: »
    Here is the problem with compartmentalizing art. The end user no longer derives a cohesive finished product. Each iteration of Starcraft 2 will be "the sum of some parts". All you have to look at is forced sequels and tired remakes in the film industry, killing all originality and driving good concepts into the dirt.

    If I had creative control of the Starcraft license I would want to release one worthy and complete successor that I could be proud of. I suspect that Activision/Blizzard realizes they can do this and get away with it, but I fear that the product will be compromised.

    They're focusing on making each of the three races' single player campaigns unique and fun instead of just doing the same thing they did with Starcraft and Brood War where ultimately most missions ended up being pretty much identical with a few different ones thrown into the mix. That sounds a lot more creative and original to me then just stuffing all the different races into the same mold.

    HAHA WHAT AM I SAYING BLIZZARD WANTS ALL YOUR MONEY EACH VERSION WILL COST 60 DOLLARS

    Starcraft one is "the sum of its part", Starcraft and Brood War. There's nobody feasibly playing JUST Starcraft 1 today without Brood War. And that also ended on a cliffhanger. Ditto with Warcraft 3 and its expansion. So far I haven't seen Blizzard deliberately compromising their products just to sap more cash with inferior games. Each title has been well worth the money asked for it and the additions they made with it.

    You just haven't seen the truth! Each game will cost 60 dollars and then when you get home it's just a postcard with instructions on where to send your additional 200 dollars to get the real game

    Lemming on
  • BlueDestinyBlueDestiny Registered User
    edited June 2009
    Lemming wrote: »
    subedii wrote: »
    Lemming wrote: »
    Dsmart wrote: »
    Here is the problem with compartmentalizing art. The end user no longer derives a cohesive finished product. Each iteration of Starcraft 2 will be "the sum of some parts". All you have to look at is forced sequels and tired remakes in the film industry, killing all originality and driving good concepts into the dirt.

    If I had creative control of the Starcraft license I would want to release one worthy and complete successor that I could be proud of. I suspect that Activision/Blizzard realizes they can do this and get away with it, but I fear that the product will be compromised.

    They're focusing on making each of the three races' single player campaigns unique and fun instead of just doing the same thing they did with Starcraft and Brood War where ultimately most missions ended up being pretty much identical with a few different ones thrown into the mix. That sounds a lot more creative and original to me then just stuffing all the different races into the same mold.

    HAHA WHAT AM I SAYING BLIZZARD WANTS ALL YOUR MONEY EACH VERSION WILL COST 60 DOLLARS

    Starcraft one is "the sum of its part", Starcraft and Brood War. There's nobody feasibly playing JUST Starcraft 1 today without Brood War. And that also ended on a cliffhanger. Ditto with Warcraft 3 and its expansion. So far I haven't seen Blizzard deliberately compromising their products just to sap more cash with inferior games. Each title has been well worth the money asked for it and the additions they made with it.

    You just haven't seen the truth! Each game will cost 60 dollars and then when you get home it's just a postcard with instructions on where to send your additional 200 dollars to get the real game

    And then the real game is actually contained in a tubular number-puzzle device and you have to go on a globetrotting adventure quest to find all the missing components and expose the conspiracy. And then it opens and kicks you in the mean bean machine.

    BlueDestiny on
    Any sufficiently advanced friendship is indistinguishable from magic.
  • Raiden333Raiden333 Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    I was on the fence on SC2 after the whole splitting fiasco. I suck too much at RTS to play online, so I only have fun with singleplayer and fun LAN games with friends.

    They have completely lost my interest now.

    Raiden333 on
    steam_sig.png
  • BladeXBladeX Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    Lemming wrote: »
    subedii wrote: »
    Lemming wrote: »
    Dsmart wrote: »
    Here is the problem with compartmentalizing art. The end user no longer derives a cohesive finished product. Each iteration of Starcraft 2 will be "the sum of some parts". All you have to look at is forced sequels and tired remakes in the film industry, killing all originality and driving good concepts into the dirt.

    If I had creative control of the Starcraft license I would want to release one worthy and complete successor that I could be proud of. I suspect that Activision/Blizzard realizes they can do this and get away with it, but I fear that the product will be compromised.

    They're focusing on making each of the three races' single player campaigns unique and fun instead of just doing the same thing they did with Starcraft and Brood War where ultimately most missions ended up being pretty much identical with a few different ones thrown into the mix. That sounds a lot more creative and original to me then just stuffing all the different races into the same mold.

    HAHA WHAT AM I SAYING BLIZZARD WANTS ALL YOUR MONEY EACH VERSION WILL COST 60 DOLLARS

    Starcraft one is "the sum of its part", Starcraft and Brood War. There's nobody feasibly playing JUST Starcraft 1 today without Brood War. And that also ended on a cliffhanger. Ditto with Warcraft 3 and its expansion. So far I haven't seen Blizzard deliberately compromising their products just to sap more cash with inferior games. Each title has been well worth the money asked for it and the additions they made with it.

    You just haven't seen the truth! Each game will cost 60 dollars and then when you get home it's just a postcard with instructions on where to send your additional 200 dollars to get the real game

    Then after that you just have to provide your bank account number and pin and you're good to go! Each expansion will cost you a credit card, or first born if you don't have enough cards, or organs if you don't have enough children.

    BladeX on
  • AxenAxen My avatar is Excalibur. Yes, the sword.Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    Blizzard: They want your money, they want all your monies!

    Axen on
  • MonstyMonsty Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    How will the expansion sets impact multiplayer gameplay?

    The expansion sets will add new content to each race for use in multiplayer matches. This could include additions such as new units, abilities, and structures, along with new maps and Battle.net updates.
    I'm just annoyed that, instead of needing one expansion to stay current and competitive, I'm already guaranteed to need at least two full-priced(most likely) games. I don't care about the single-player. I almost wish they'd release a fourth game which was only multiplayer that stayed updated...

    Oh, well. I love Blizzard and Starcraft so I'll continue to be their bitch.

    Monsty on
  • DunxcoDunxco Should get a suit Never skips breakfastRegistered User regular
    edited June 2009
    Blizzard: New monies? For me? Oh, we promise we won't muck up this time!

    *Ahem* That said, gutted about the LAN thing. Starcraft 2? I'm out. Still holding out for Diablo III being awesome though.

    Dunxco on
  • BlueDestinyBlueDestiny Registered User
    edited June 2009
    Monsty wrote: »
    How will the expansion sets impact multiplayer gameplay?

    The expansion sets will add new content to each race for use in multiplayer matches. This could include additions such as new units, abilities, and structures, along with new maps and Battle.net updates.
    I'm just annoyed that, instead of needing one expansion to stay current and competitive, I'm already guaranteed to need at least two full-priced(most likely) games. I don't care about the single-player. I almost wish they'd release a fourth game which was only multiplayer that stayed updated...

    Oh, well. I love Blizzard and Starcraft so I'll continue to be their bitch.

    I figure that if any new units or whatever are added in campaign packs you will either get them for free or be able to buy the units only at a small price.

    BlueDestiny on
    Any sufficiently advanced friendship is indistinguishable from magic.
  • MonstyMonsty Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    Monsty wrote: »
    How will the expansion sets impact multiplayer gameplay?

    The expansion sets will add new content to each race for use in multiplayer matches. This could include additions such as new units, abilities, and structures, along with new maps and Battle.net updates.
    I'm just annoyed that, instead of needing one expansion to stay current and competitive, I'm already guaranteed to need at least two full-priced(most likely) games. I don't care about the single-player. I almost wish they'd release a fourth game which was only multiplayer that stayed updated...

    Oh, well. I love Blizzard and Starcraft so I'll continue to be their bitch.

    I figure that if any new units or whatever are added in campaign packs you will either get them for free or be able to buy the units only at a small price.
    If that's how it goes down I will love them even more forever and ever!

    Fo' real, yo!

    Monsty on
  • DsmartDsmart Registered User
    edited June 2009
    Micropayments would be even worse than the current plan

    Dsmart on
  • TaranisTaranis Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    Monsty wrote: »
    How will the expansion sets impact multiplayer gameplay?

    The expansion sets will add new content to each race for use in multiplayer matches. This could include additions such as new units, abilities, and structures, along with new maps and Battle.net updates.
    I'm just annoyed that, instead of needing one expansion to stay current and competitive, I'm already guaranteed to need at least two full-priced(most likely) games. I don't care about the single-player. I almost wish they'd release a fourth game which was only multiplayer that stayed updated...

    Oh, well. I love Blizzard and Starcraft so I'll continue to be their bitch.

    I figure that if any new units or whatever are added in campaign packs you will either get them for free or be able to buy the units only at a small price.

    Why would they do that when they'll make more money by requiring you to buy the expansion packs? You're delusional if you really think that the game was split into 3 parts as a "service to the fans".

    Taranis on
    / steam / [blizzard] taranis#1834 /
  • AxenAxen My avatar is Excalibur. Yes, the sword.Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    Dsmart wrote: »
    Micropayments would be even worse than the current plan

    You get charged one penny every time you train a unit.

    Axen on
  • bladecruiserbladecruiser Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    Welp, that's it for me. StarCraft was always a LAN game for me. Unless it works like Steam games that can be unlocked for LAN, I'm going keep on playing AoE2 and SINS. Oh well. GG Blizz, have fun without me.

    bladecruiser on
    ...danke schön, danke schön...
    MedicSig.jpg
  • RaslinRaslin Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    Axen wrote: »
    Dsmart wrote: »
    Micropayments would be even worse than the current plan

    You get charged one penny every time you train a unit.

    Mass carriers = instant win, on the cheap!*

    *interceptors cost $0.02 each

    Raslin on
    I cant url good so add me on steam anyways steamcommunity.com/id/Raslin

    3ds friend code: 2981-6032-4118
  • DsmartDsmart Registered User
    edited June 2009
    Honestly who even cares that much anymore? There are tons of RTS' that have surpassed Starcraft for me.

    Horrible lies I will still buy this day one

    Dsmart on
  • subediisubedii Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    Taranis wrote: »
    Monsty wrote: »
    How will the expansion sets impact multiplayer gameplay?

    The expansion sets will add new content to each race for use in multiplayer matches. This could include additions such as new units, abilities, and structures, along with new maps and Battle.net updates.
    I'm just annoyed that, instead of needing one expansion to stay current and competitive, I'm already guaranteed to need at least two full-priced(most likely) games. I don't care about the single-player. I almost wish they'd release a fourth game which was only multiplayer that stayed updated...

    Oh, well. I love Blizzard and Starcraft so I'll continue to be their bitch.

    I figure that if any new units or whatever are added in campaign packs you will either get them for free or be able to buy the units only at a small price.

    Why would they do that when they'll make more money by requiring you to buy the expansion packs? You're delusional if you really think that the game was split into 3 parts as a "service to the fans".

    Or possibly that they really did have far too large a story and too much stuff to fit into the requisite 30 missions?

    You see, unlike you I can't outright dismiss what they've said on that one, largely because like I said, previous releases have very easily been worth what they've been asking for. So I'm willing to wait and see whether that's actually the case here, and to be honest, I expect the answer is going to be the same as last time. If you feel that it's a rip off, then I can understand that, but I can't simply dismiss the COMPLETELY AUDACIOUS theory that they might be telling the truth and genuinely want to release three awesome products instead of one hamstrung game.

    Well what do I know, I'm probably just corporate sheeple.

    subedii on
  • BladeXBladeX Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    Axen wrote: »
    Dsmart wrote: »
    Micropayments would be even worse than the current plan

    You get charged one penny every time you train a unit.

    "You wish to perform a zerg rush. This requires a non-refundable payment of 500 b.net points. Please enter your credit card number to purchase b.net points now."

    BladeX on
  • GoombaGoomba __BANNED USERS
    edited June 2009
    I have to wonder why people are so concerned about getting the full story after Warcraft 3 and up. Transdimentional space ships full of space demons. Blue space demons.

    I mean, they're just versions of the same game, it's not that big of a deal. Unlike not having a LAN option.

    Goomba on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • DsmartDsmart Registered User
    edited June 2009
    subedii wrote: »
    Taranis wrote: »
    Monsty wrote: »
    How will the expansion sets impact multiplayer gameplay?

    The expansion sets will add new content to each race for use in multiplayer matches. This could include additions such as new units, abilities, and structures, along with new maps and Battle.net updates.
    I'm just annoyed that, instead of needing one expansion to stay current and competitive, I'm already guaranteed to need at least two full-priced(most likely) games. I don't care about the single-player. I almost wish they'd release a fourth game which was only multiplayer that stayed updated...

    Oh, well. I love Blizzard and Starcraft so I'll continue to be their bitch.

    I figure that if any new units or whatever are added in campaign packs you will either get them for free or be able to buy the units only at a small price.

    Why would they do that when they'll make more money by requiring you to buy the expansion packs? You're delusional if you really think that the game was split into 3 parts as a "service to the fans".

    Or possibly that they really did have far too large a story and too much stuff to fit into the requisite 30 missions?

    You see, unlike you I can't outright dismiss what they've said on that one, largely because like I said, previous releases have very easily been worth what they've been asking for. So I'm willing to wait and see whether that's actually the case here, and to be honest, I expect the answer is going to be the same as last time. If you feel that it's a rip off, then I can understand that, but I can't simply dismiss the COMPLETELY AUDACIOUS theory that they might be telling the truth and genuinely want to release three awesome products instead of one hamstrung game.

    Well what do I know, I'm probably just corporate sheeple.


    If they had 90 missions worth of story before they split the game into 3 they need to fire their concept people and writers

    Dsmart on
  • AxenAxen My avatar is Excalibur. Yes, the sword.Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    BladeX wrote: »
    Axen wrote: »
    Dsmart wrote: »
    Micropayments would be even worse than the current plan

    You get charged one penny every time you train a unit.

    "You wish to perform a zerg rush. This requires a non-refundable payment of 500 b.net points. Please enter your credit card number to purchase b.net points now."

    You can only buy B.net points in odd increments that guarantee you will always have an odd number extra.

    Axen on
  • TaranisTaranis Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    subedii wrote: »
    Taranis wrote: »
    Monsty wrote: »
    How will the expansion sets impact multiplayer gameplay?

    The expansion sets will add new content to each race for use in multiplayer matches. This could include additions such as new units, abilities, and structures, along with new maps and Battle.net updates.
    I'm just annoyed that, instead of needing one expansion to stay current and competitive, I'm already guaranteed to need at least two full-priced(most likely) games. I don't care about the single-player. I almost wish they'd release a fourth game which was only multiplayer that stayed updated...

    Oh, well. I love Blizzard and Starcraft so I'll continue to be their bitch.

    I figure that if any new units or whatever are added in campaign packs you will either get them for free or be able to buy the units only at a small price.

    Why would they do that when they'll make more money by requiring you to buy the expansion packs? You're delusional if you really think that the game was split into 3 parts as a "service to the fans".

    Or possibly that they really did have far too large a story and too much stuff to fit into the requisite 30 missions?

    You see, unlike you I can't outright dismiss what they've said on that one, largely because like I said, previous releases have very easily been worth what they've been asking for. So I'm willing to wait and see whether that's actually the case here, and to be honest, I expect the answer is going to be the same as last time. If you feel that it's a rip off, then I can understand that, but I can't simply dismiss the COMPLETELY AUDACIOUS theory that they might be telling the truth and genuinely want to release three awesome products instead of one hamstrung game.

    Well what do I know, I'm probably just corporate sheeple.

    Exactly. They can charge whatever they want for their products and people will pay it because people are have so much faith in blizzard. Blizzard knows this. They could easily put it all into one game if they wanted to. They take their time when making games, why should this time be any different?

    Taranis on
    / steam / [blizzard] taranis#1834 /
  • subediisubedii Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    Dsmart wrote: »
    subedii wrote: »
    Taranis wrote: »
    Monsty wrote: »
    How will the expansion sets impact multiplayer gameplay?

    The expansion sets will add new content to each race for use in multiplayer matches. This could include additions such as new units, abilities, and structures, along with new maps and Battle.net updates.
    I'm just annoyed that, instead of needing one expansion to stay current and competitive, I'm already guaranteed to need at least two full-priced(most likely) games. I don't care about the single-player. I almost wish they'd release a fourth game which was only multiplayer that stayed updated...

    Oh, well. I love Blizzard and Starcraft so I'll continue to be their bitch.

    I figure that if any new units or whatever are added in campaign packs you will either get them for free or be able to buy the units only at a small price.

    Why would they do that when they'll make more money by requiring you to buy the expansion packs? You're delusional if you really think that the game was split into 3 parts as a "service to the fans".

    Or possibly that they really did have far too large a story and too much stuff to fit into the requisite 30 missions?

    You see, unlike you I can't outright dismiss what they've said on that one, largely because like I said, previous releases have very easily been worth what they've been asking for. So I'm willing to wait and see whether that's actually the case here, and to be honest, I expect the answer is going to be the same as last time. If you feel that it's a rip off, then I can understand that, but I can't simply dismiss the COMPLETELY AUDACIOUS theory that they might be telling the truth and genuinely want to release three awesome products instead of one hamstrung game.

    Well what do I know, I'm probably just corporate sheeple.


    If they had 90 missions worth of story before they split the game into 3 they need to fire their concept people and writers

    If the Lord of the Rings films had to be split into a trilogy, each part of which was ginormous, they need to fire their adaptation people and writers, since clearly previous renditions like the animated feature were only released as one.

    Not that I'd compare Starcraft to Lord of the Rings, but that statement doesn't really say anything other than "LOL, get new people you clearly don't know what you're doing with your story and games."

    subedii on
  • TaranisTaranis Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    Dsmart wrote: »
    subedii wrote: »
    Taranis wrote: »
    Monsty wrote: »
    How will the expansion sets impact multiplayer gameplay?

    The expansion sets will add new content to each race for use in multiplayer matches. This could include additions such as new units, abilities, and structures, along with new maps and Battle.net updates.
    I'm just annoyed that, instead of needing one expansion to stay current and competitive, I'm already guaranteed to need at least two full-priced(most likely) games. I don't care about the single-player. I almost wish they'd release a fourth game which was only multiplayer that stayed updated...

    Oh, well. I love Blizzard and Starcraft so I'll continue to be their bitch.

    I figure that if any new units or whatever are added in campaign packs you will either get them for free or be able to buy the units only at a small price.

    Why would they do that when they'll make more money by requiring you to buy the expansion packs? You're delusional if you really think that the game was split into 3 parts as a "service to the fans".

    Or possibly that they really did have far too large a story and too much stuff to fit into the requisite 30 missions?

    You see, unlike you I can't outright dismiss what they've said on that one, largely because like I said, previous releases have very easily been worth what they've been asking for. So I'm willing to wait and see whether that's actually the case here, and to be honest, I expect the answer is going to be the same as last time. If you feel that it's a rip off, then I can understand that, but I can't simply dismiss the COMPLETELY AUDACIOUS theory that they might be telling the truth and genuinely want to release three awesome products instead of one hamstrung game.

    Well what do I know, I'm probably just corporate sheeple.


    If they had 90 missions worth of story before they split the game into 3 they need to fire their concept people and writers

    I agree. I don't think many other developers would just think they could get away with splitting what was originally intended to be one game into three parts and selling them all at full price. I refuse to believe the fact that all them are pretty much guaranteed to sell millions of copies didn't have something to do with it.

    Taranis on
    / steam / [blizzard] taranis#1834 /
  • BladeXBladeX Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    Axen wrote: »
    BladeX wrote: »
    Axen wrote: »
    Dsmart wrote: »
    Micropayments would be even worse than the current plan

    You get charged one penny every time you train a unit.

    "You wish to perform a zerg rush. This requires a non-refundable payment of 500 b.net points. Please enter your credit card number to purchase b.net points now."

    You can only buy B.net points in odd increments that guarantee you will always have an odd number extra.

    "At under 80 points to the dollar* we feel that B.net points are a far better investment then other points based systems of currencies."

    *79 points to the dollar.

    BladeX on
  • BlueDestinyBlueDestiny Registered User
    edited June 2009
    Stop the presses, a company figured out how to make more money! We must get this word out to the man on the street, such tyranny cannot go unpunished!

    BlueDestiny on
    Any sufficiently advanced friendship is indistinguishable from magic.
  • subediisubedii Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    Taranis wrote: »
    subedii wrote: »
    Taranis wrote: »
    Monsty wrote: »
    How will the expansion sets impact multiplayer gameplay?

    The expansion sets will add new content to each race for use in multiplayer matches. This could include additions such as new units, abilities, and structures, along with new maps and Battle.net updates.
    I'm just annoyed that, instead of needing one expansion to stay current and competitive, I'm already guaranteed to need at least two full-priced(most likely) games. I don't care about the single-player. I almost wish they'd release a fourth game which was only multiplayer that stayed updated...

    Oh, well. I love Blizzard and Starcraft so I'll continue to be their bitch.

    I figure that if any new units or whatever are added in campaign packs you will either get them for free or be able to buy the units only at a small price.

    Why would they do that when they'll make more money by requiring you to buy the expansion packs? You're delusional if you really think that the game was split into 3 parts as a "service to the fans".

    Or possibly that they really did have far too large a story and too much stuff to fit into the requisite 30 missions?

    You see, unlike you I can't outright dismiss what they've said on that one, largely because like I said, previous releases have very easily been worth what they've been asking for. So I'm willing to wait and see whether that's actually the case here, and to be honest, I expect the answer is going to be the same as last time. If you feel that it's a rip off, then I can understand that, but I can't simply dismiss the COMPLETELY AUDACIOUS theory that they might be telling the truth and genuinely want to release three awesome products instead of one hamstrung game.

    Well what do I know, I'm probably just corporate sheeple.

    Exactly. They can charge whatever they want for their products and people will pay it because people are have so much faith in blizzard. Blizzard knows this. They could easily put it all into one game if they wanted to. They take their time when making games, why should this time be any different?

    So, let's recap:

    1 - You agree that people have faith in Blizzard.
    2 - You agree that faith has been justified to date.
    3 - It's been justified so far because Blizzard haven't half-assed any of their releases to date.

    I'm not suggesting anyone go out and get the releases if they're crap or clearly not worth the asking price, but points 1, 2 and 3 seem to point at having just a teensy bit of patience here, don't you think?

    subedii on
  • Undead ScottsmanUndead Scottsman Never do what your enemy expects you to do! Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    If it wasn't originally a money grab, five bucks says it originated with the branching campaign structure they added into the game. It also may have had something to do with the idea to make each campaign radically different. (The Zerg campaign was described as like an RPG and the Protoss was described as more like an adventure game.)

    Undead Scottsman on
Sign In or Register to comment.