Starcraft II Catch-All

At that news I'm out. I don't need this hassle from game companies, I've got enough drama in real life. Blah. Of course I could eat these words if SC2 could gt my friends Andrew and Emily to play with me online. But then I wouldn't really be playing for SC would I? I'd be paying to hang out with some far away friends. Sigh.

PyromanFO wrote:
Thirteenth wrote:
fangblackbone wrote:

So do you guys think if they announced that the first part was Protoss instead of Terran, people wouldn't be so upset?

Could you elaborate?

Terrans are the most boring of the races so saying the first single player campaign is Terran only for 30 missions sounds pretty tedious to people.

To some people anyway. I don't think Terrans are boring at all. Maybe thematically they are the least exotic, but they still have their own cool set of toys. Like Rat Boy said, some people are going to get upset no matter which race comes first. I don't think what fang suggested is going to change anything.

So.... it's a sequel... that's a trilogy. WTF? Why does every game need to be a trilogy? Doesn't anyone notice none of these so-called trilogies have progressed beyond the first installment? We still don't even know the first thing about Mass Effect 2, nevermind 3. What ever happened to just making games? Does this mean Starcraft II is going to cost $150-$180 for the retail edition? Will the super deluxe mega limited edition that comes in a hollowed out zerg carapace cost $600 total?

LobsterMobster wrote:

So.... it's a sequel... that's a trilogy. WTF? Why does every game need to be a trilogy? Doesn't anyone notice none of these so-called trilogies have progressed beyond the first installment? We still don't even know the first thing about Mass Effect 2, nevermind 3. What ever happened to just making games? Does this mean Starcraft II is going to cost $150-$180 for the retail edition? Will the super deluxe mega limited edition that comes in a hollowed out zerg carapace cost $600 total?

Yeah, the thing is, none of us knows how much it's going to be!

I'm going to have to trust Devmani on this one though. He's the only one that has a lot of experience with it.

Devmani wrote:

other units I can't talk about = fun!

They better involve bears of some sort.

Side note: Seige tanks = Fun, Viking = Fun, other units I can't talk about = fun!

FYI I'm a Ghost.

Hmm. With that description of what the campaign might be like, I definitely understand why they want to break things up. That sounds pretty major, and not like something that could work at all similarly for the other races.

Rat Boy wrote:
Devmani wrote:

other units I can't talk about = fun!

They better involve bears of some sort.

Why I'm inclined to say that space bears while awesome require resources not available to most players for a good portion of the match. Units do have a linked feature as in where if you attack one you will automatically get all other bears in play to attack you at once......yes even your own bears. =(

Yeah, they don't make bears like they used to.

LobsterMobster wrote:

Yeah, they don't make bears like they used to.

Falcons, on the other hand...

jowner wrote:

Wonder if they took the queue from DoW that you can actually just keep releasing expansions to the same game and people will buy it if the quality and franchise is strong enough. There they go again stealing from GW ;)

Heh. Nicely done.

Devmani wrote:

Units do have a linked feature as in where if you attack one you will automatically get all other bears in play to attack you at once......yes even your own bears. =(

Please tell me that wasn't a "skinning a bear should aggro every bears" reference in my nice, clean, GWJ forum!

Devmani wrote:

It's not as if you are spending a lump sum at the beginning but in stages if anything it will save you from buying crappy games and justifying your purchase IE. games like shadowrun, Brothers in arms 2, Too Human.

I would like to point out that with those games I can try them out by renting them and, even if I buy them, I can always get a small amount of money back at a gaming store. Also, even if delayed I don't think Blizzard would be able to sell it for $120 straight-up. Which says, to me, this is a money grab pure and simple. Which is understandable but very disappointing.

Understand that this isn't a comment on the quality of the game, it's an issue of how much I feel like paying for a quality game and how much I want to support a company that would try to milk even more money from me. When it comes right down to it there are enough games that interest me that skipping over StarCraft II isn't going to leave me lacking in absolutely awesome games at any given month.

I trust Blizzard when they say that the amount of development "money" going into what is SC2 and its expansion is worth the ~$120. After all why wouldn't I?

I think this has been blown out of proportion somewhat. I think we simply don't know enough about this yet. People complain that gaming companies never try anything new, and can you blame them when there's a reaction like this? When they've announced that they're all going to be $80 (Australian that is), then sure, I'll get grumpy. At the moment, anything else is speculation. Blizzard has never let me down so far.

Redwing wrote:

I think this has been blown out of proportion somewhat. I think we simply don't know enough about this yet. People complain that gaming companies never try anything new, and can you blame them when there's a reaction like this? When they've announced that they're all going to be $80 (Australian that is), then sure, I'll get grumpy. At the moment, anything else is speculation. Blizzard has never let me down so far.

We complain that they never try anything new conceptually. I don't think anyone's bored with the traditional ways of paying and wishes there was a new and exciting way to pay for stuff.

I'd pay $100 for a solid Starcraft II. I'd be surprised if they ask more than that. These days a hundred bucks does not seem like much money for a quality piece of very clever entertainment - sheesh, do any of you guys drive any where? Have you filled up a tank of gas lately - that's $60, and a whole lot less value than this great looking game, imho. So if Starcraft II equals two tanks of gas, I'll buy it on day one and smile the whole way.

LobsterMobster wrote:

We complain that they never try anything new conceptually. I don't think anyone's bored with the traditional ways of paying and wishes there was a new and exciting way to pay for stuff.

And as I said before, this could set a very bad precedent. If Blizzard's a la carte pricing model for SC2 is successful (and there's not doubt it will be), who knows how many other publishers will follow suit to milk gamers for all they're worth? Throw that in with the rumors of Battle.net no longer being free at least in terms of SC2 and D3 and Blizzard could burn up a lot of the goodwill its generated with its customers.

What ever happened to just making games?

They had to do something. Production costs are skyrocketing. One way to deal with it is to fund a three game project where the first game breaks even. The second and third leverage existing technology and become 50% profit.

IMHO the Terrans aren't the most boring. In fact, its the Terrans characters that are the strongest and that carry the plot for the first 2 campaigns. Kerrigan was the reason anyone had any interest in Brood War.

The Terran units are the least cool but that looks fixed in spades in SC2.

RatBoy wrote:

Throw that in with the rumors of Battle.net no longer being free at least in terms of SC2 and D3 and Blizzard could burn up a lot of the goodwill its generated with its customers.

Good will isn't important to a drug dealer, only the addiction. Blizzard has World of Warcraft. Everything else is gravy.

LobsterMobster wrote:

We complain that they never try anything new conceptually. I don't think anyone's bored with the traditional ways of paying and wishes there was a new and exciting way to pay for stuff.

I think people are getting hung up on the monetary part of this... splitting the campaign into a trilogy, with each one being longer, is something new. It's a bit like episodic content I suppose, with an RTS flavour. Are people really so disillusioned that all they think of when told of this is "Great, now I have to pay for it three times"?

I picture this as more like pre-planned expansions. And some form of expansion, with the multiplayer changes that entails, was inevitable, all Blizzard games since Warcraft II have had them. I seriously doubt we'll be paying full price for the next two campaigns, but that too is speculation. I'm happy to wait and see.

LobsterMobster wrote:

We complain that they never try anything new conceptually. I don't think anyone's bored with the traditional ways of paying and wishes there was a new and exciting way to pay for stuff.

But there has to be a new way to pay for stuff. Gamers expect more and more from their games every year, and the cost to meet those demands has increased significantly while at the same time gamers remain unwilling to pay anymore than the $50-$60 that they've been paying for games since the early 80's (which is actually about half of what we paid for games back then factoring for inflation). Expanding markets have kept this in check somewhat but they haven't nearly kept pace with development costs. So developers are left with only three options: put less into their games, charge more up front, or find new ways of creating revenue (ads, expansions, DLC, subscriptions, etc...). As gamers we, should welcome efforts like expansion packs and DLC, which although they cost money at least give us something more in return, because the alternatives do not work out in our favor at all.

Redwing wrote:

Are people really so disillusioned that all they think of when told of this is "Great, now I have to pay for it three times"?

I am, yes.

itchyeyes wrote:

Stuff

Is that really why it costs more? Or is it because they insist on using cutting edge, state of the art graphics made by only the best 3D modelers in the business? Or because they need their characters to be voiced by Sean Bean? I disagree that we're ASKING for more than we used to. Rather we're getting higher production values that we didn't ask for and don't really need.

LobsterMobster wrote:

I am, yes.

I like to give people the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps I'm just naïve.

LobsterMobster wrote:

Rather we're getting higher production values that we didn't ask for and don't really need.

You don't want better games? No, I think you're being way too economic in your argument. There's more to that one sentence there.

Thirteenth wrote:
LobsterMobster wrote:

Rather we're getting higher production values that we didn't ask for and don't really need.

You don't want better games? No, I think you're being way too economic in your argument. There's more to that one sentence there.

Wayyy off topic, but too interesting to pass up: I don't think higher development costs imply better games, particularly not costs incurred as Lobster has described them.

Rat Boy wrote:

Throw that in with the rumors of Battle.net no longer being free at least in terms of SC2 and D3 and Blizzard could burn up a lot of the goodwill its generated with its customers.

Rumors?

Joystiq wrote:

Speaking at yesterday's Diablo III Gameplay panel, Blizzard's Jay Wilson was asked one of the questions that's been hiding in the back of all of our brains, "Is Battle.Net going to remain free?"

His response probably wasn't what you'd want to hear. "We are looking to monetize Battle.Net so that we get to keep making these games and updating features," said Wilson. "We kind of have to." He went on to say that they do recognize that everyone loves having it as a free service, and that they don't have a strong desire to make a subscription-based game.

My immediate and visceral reaction to these two pieces of news has been feeling my heart sink in regards to Blizzard.

I think its safe to say we should start panicking!

If each game is a full campaign, then I don't care if they split it. The only reason people think they're entitled to 3 campaigns in 1 game is because they did it with the first one.

You're not "paying $120-150 for StarCraft 2", you're paying $120-$150 for Starcraft 2, 3, and 4.

Tannhauser wrote:
Rat Boy wrote:

Throw that in with the rumors of Battle.net no longer being free at least in terms of SC2 and D3 and Blizzard could burn up a lot of the goodwill its generated with its customers.

Rumors?

Joystiq wrote:

Speaking at yesterday's Diablo III Gameplay panel, Blizzard's Jay Wilson was asked one of the questions that's been hiding in the back of all of our brains, "Is Battle.Net going to remain free?"

His response probably wasn't what you'd want to hear. "We are looking to monetize Battle.Net so that we get to keep making these games and updating features," said Wilson. "We kind of have to." He went on to say that they do recognize that everyone loves having it as a free service, and that they don't have a strong desire to make a subscription-based game.

My immediate and visceral reaction to these two pieces of news has been feeling my heart sink in regards to Blizzard.

Ugh. Just as they had me reeling from the first announcement they sucker punch me with that vague one. DoW:2 is looking really great right now in comparison which is something Blizzard might be forgetting. There are other games coming out.