StarCraft II x3

[Warlock]

http://pc.ign.com/articles/918/918895p1.html

Blizzcon 08: StarCraft II Split Into Three Games
Blizzard drops bombshell and says real-time strategy sequel is now a trilogy. We talk to Blizzard's Rob Pardo for answers.

October 10, 2008 - ANAHEIM--Blizzard dropped a bombshell at the 2008 Blizzcon today by announcing that StarCraft II, the highly-awaited sequel to the smash hit 1998 real-time strategy game, StarCraft, has been split into three. The company said that StarCraft II now consists of three different stand-alone titles--one for each faction campaign. The first of the StarCraft II trilogy will be StarCraft II Terrans: Wings of Liberty. The second will be StarCraft II Zerg: Heart of the Swarm, with the third and final installment of the main trilogy being StarCraft II Protoss: Legacy of the Void.

More details at that link.

So umm.. weird.

[Reagraham Lincool]

Cha-ching, motherfuckers!

[Warlock]

Cha-ching, motherfuckers!

Pretty much I do hope that at least they change a little less for these though.

[Reagraham Lincool]

If it weren't Blizzard I might mind if it wasn't but to be honest, I think the chance that all three of these games will be anything less than excellent is very very close to zero.

[Maclowery]

So how does multiplayer work then? You don't get to be Protoss unless you buy that one? Are they all coming out at once?

I don't really give a shit, as I am thoroughly incompetant at RTS games, but it seems pretty nuts. Then again, they'll still sell 10 million copies or more, so zippity.

[daoist]

the idea of paying $150 to get $50-worth of game doesn't piss any of you off?

PASS.

[Agape]

Will the Protoss race be full featured in the Terran version of the trilogy? It's hard to imagine them releasing each game without some new units each time.

[Arch_Bushmaster]

i was considering getting this, but i definitely won't now. i'm just a casual strategy game fan, and even though i really like SC back in the day i'm not going to spend $150 for this mess

[Warlock]

So how does multiplayer work then? You don't get to be Protoss unless you buy that one? Are they all coming out at once?

I don't really give a shit, as I am thoroughly incompetant at RTS games, but it seems pretty nuts. Then again, they'll still sell 10 million copies or more, so zippity.

All three games will have the same multiplayer, though they talked about possibly adding new features in each successive one.

If you don't care about single player, you can always just buy the first one and skip the other two.

[Gretyl]

the idea of paying $150 to get $50-worth of game doesn't piss any of you off?

PASS.

I think you mean

PIRACY.

[Warlock]

It sounds like the other two games are going to be treated as expansions, with new units, etc. So that is not quite so bad.
http://www.mymym.com/en/coverage/529/18.html (near the end of that video)


On the down side, it sounds like they may start charging for "certain features" of Battle.net (they would not say what yet, so maybe it won't be a big deal):
http://www.joystiq.com/2008/10/11/blizz ... monetized/

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.

What does that mean for our beloved free online gaming service? We're hoping to find out when we talk to Blizzard bigwig Rob Pardo later this afternoon.

http://pc.gamespy.com/pc/diablo-iii/901260p3.html

Is our intent to make a subscription-based game like World of Warcraft? No. We're not an MMO. That's not our goal. So we are leaning towards more of a boxed product. Would we consider microtransactions? Yes, we would -- if it was right for the game. Would we consider some kind of subscription-based, or pay-to-play? Maybe in some regions. Or maybe for North America, if it was right for the game, and if it felt like a "win" for the fans. We want to make money, obviously, we're in business for that, but we don't want to gouge our customers, we don't want them to have an experience that feels worse. What we prefer is to offer them a service that they feel is worth paying for. And that's how we tend to approach things: "This is a service that we want to offer. How much is it going to cost us? OK, it's going to cost us this much, so we do need to supplement. Is it something we feel is worth paying for?" And if the answer is yes... obviously, no one likes paying for anything. I'd love to get everything for free. That would be awesome, right? But the truth is, we wouldn't ever get anything.

[nippletwister]

It sounds like the other two games are going to be treated as expansions, with new units, etc. So that is not quite so bad.

Yeah, if this is true, then it sounds a lot like other big releases from them (Starcraft, Diablo, etc.) where they just keep releasing expansions.

[Gretyl]

Monetizing Battle.net's made sense to me since 2001. They have 7 years (and counting!) of my goodwill.

[Warlock]

Monetizing Battle.net's made sense to me since 2001. They have 7 years (and counting!) of my goodwill.

Right, it really depends on what exactly they charge for. For example, if they charged for say, tournaments and ladder type games, who the hell cares. I suck enough that this wouldn't effect me

[Prison Mike]

PASS.

[MrTippet]

I'll buy the first one and then decide if the others are worth giving a shot.

[Talenos]

This just sounds like them saying there will be two expansions planned. I don't know why people wouldn't buy the game based on that fact alone

[Gretyl]

Whenever there's a mention of increased financial transactions, people worry. The converse happens when companies announce FREE! services, even if they're otherwise obvious and omnipresent.

[Warlock]

Regarding the battle.net thing, this clears some of that up:
http://www.joystiq.com/2008/10/13/blizz ... onetizing/

So Julian Wilson told us that you guys are looking monetize Battle.Net in some way. Is that right?

Wow, that's an evil way of putting it. Julian's turning into a business guy on me. Here's the way I would put it. We're definitely not looking at turning Diablo into a subscription based game. It's clearly not an MMO, so it's not appropriate to do a business model like that. The way we approach all of our games now, is we come up with what we think is a great game, and then we wrap the appropriate business model around it. If that's just a box price, then that's that.

With Battle.Net we're definitely looking at possible different features that we might be able to do for additional money. We're not talking about Hellgate or anything like that. We're not going to tack things on. I think World of Warcraft is a great example to look at. We charge people if they want to switch servers or if they want name changes, things that aren't core to the game experience, they're really just optional things that some people want. It takes us some development work to do it, so it makes sense to charge for it. We would never do something like say to get the full game experience, you'll have to pay extra.

So it sounds like nothing major. Though I am wondering what features of Diablo would be comparable to name changes, etc (i.e. would you really care enough about your diablo character to change his name?).

[Talenos]

Whenever there's a mention of increased financial transactions, people worry. The converse happens when companies announce FREE! services, even if they're otherwise obvious and omnipresent.

Damn them for not shipping WoW with the Wrath of the Lich King content!

[Gretyl]

lol, SC2 will be shipping br0k3n!

[Prison Mike]

This just sounds like them saying there will be two expansions planned. I don't know why people wouldn't buy the game based on that fact alone

I'm not going to pay $150 to play SC. They aren't adding any other races, that I've heard of. They simply don't want to delay the initial launch of the game and they want to have a larger storyline for each race. Or, if you read past the bullshit, they just really like money. They've had no problems delaying games in the past, and history has shown it hasn't hurt them in the slightest.

[Cody]

What's the problem here? We expect Starcraft 2 to have similar content to Starcraft 1? I don't doubt that it will. Shit, they're trying to flesh out each of the races' campaigns into a full experience, fuck them.

If they had never announced Starcraft 2; if they had instead announced Starcraft 2: Terran; we would not even be talking about this. The words "Starcraft" and "2" clearly come with too much expectation. Let them make the games they want to make, and they won't disappoint us.

[Prison Mike]

If they announced SC2: Terran, I'd still be whining. Why is it absurd to have the expectation that SC2 have three playable races? They did it years ago, and did it very, very well.

I'll wait for the battle chest.

[Cody]

So you're assuming that the first version of SC2 will be one-third the game that Starcraft 1 was. What if it's not? How are you so sure it will be when you don't really know any details? I'd pay $150 for 3 awesome games.

[MrTippet]

Blizzard has a pretty good track record. I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt until we see otherwise.

[J-Dogg]

Some people here are making it sound like they're releasing 1/3rd of the game three times. Based on the description up above, each of the 3 releases is going to be almost as big as all of Starcraft 1, which sounds like each is a full game in itself. I don't see what the big deal is.

[Agape]

bull. With the first release, you're paying $50 for a game that is a full iteration from the original game. Unless the other two games are also as different and revolutionary, you aren't getting the same deal.

[Warlock]

bull. With the first release, you're paying $50 for a game that is a full iteration from the original game. Unless the other two games are also as different and revolutionary, you aren't getting the same deal.

What?

[Cody]

bull. With the first release, you're paying $50 for a game that is a full iteration from the original game. Unless the other two games are also as different and revolutionary, you aren't getting the same deal.

What?

He's saying he wants to see 1->2->4->8. He won't be satisfied with 1->2->3->4. Even though it took 10 years to go from 1->2 and then the next two iterations will come out within a year of each other.

[Crump's Brother]

So has Blizzard announced the price points yet? Every seems to assume it'll be $50x3, but I haven't read anything to actually confirm that.

[daoist]

This just sounds like them saying there will be two expansions planned. I don't know why people wouldn't buy the game based on that fact alone

But it's not the same. An expansion is an additional part of a complete game. Starcraft is a 3-sided RTS game. That's its core description. Hacking the game into 3 chunks and selling them separately isn't like an expansion at all. it's...hacking the game into 3 chunks and selling them separately.

My complaint is based more on the price than anything. If each piece of the game is at the traditional $50 price point that's going to be a huge disappointment.

[Reagraham Lincool]

This just sounds like them saying there will be two expansions planned. I don't know why people wouldn't buy the game based on that fact alone

But it's not the same. An expansion is an additional part of a complete game. Starcraft is a 3-sided RTS game. That's its core description. Hacking the game into 3 chunks and selling them separately isn't like an expansion at all. it's...hacking the game into 3 chunks and selling them separately.

My complaint is based more on the price than anything. If each piece of the game is at the traditional $50 price point that's going to be a huge disappointment.

Well it sounds like only the singleplayer content is being "hacked into 3 chunks" where "hacked into 3 chunks" = expanded into 3 full-sized (meaning all three starcraft 1 campaigns) single-player games.

Would you have had a problem paying $50 for starcraft 1?

[Warlock]

My complaint is based more on the price than anything. If each piece of the game is at the traditional $50 price point that's going to be a huge disappointment.

But they haven't announced price. So I don't see what the complaint is. Blizzard usually charges about $30 for expansions, I really don't see that changing.

[Talenos]

This just sounds like them saying there will be two expansions planned. I don't know why people wouldn't buy the game based on that fact alone

But it's not the same. An expansion is an additional part of a complete game. Starcraft is a 3-sided RTS game. That's its core description. Hacking the game into 3 chunks and selling them separately isn't like an expansion at all. it's...hacking the game into 3 chunks and selling them separately.

My complaint is based more on the price than anything. If each piece of the game is at the traditional $50 price point that's going to be a huge disappointment.

So I'll only be able to play Terran vs. Terran first, and then Zerg vs. Terran? They're not doing anything like what you're saying. they're giving you a campaign for each race as long as the entire campaign of all three races of the original.

[Warlock]

This just sounds like them saying there will be two expansions planned. I don't know why people wouldn't buy the game based on that fact alone

But it's not the same. An expansion is an additional part of a complete game. Starcraft is a 3-sided RTS game. That's its core description. Hacking the game into 3 chunks and selling them separately isn't like an expansion at all. it's...hacking the game into 3 chunks and selling them separately.

My complaint is based more on the price than anything. If each piece of the game is at the traditional $50 price point that's going to be a huge disappointment.

So I'll only be able to play Terran vs. Terran first, and then Zerg vs. Terran? They're not doing anything like what you're saying. they're giving you a campaign for each race as long as the entire campaign of all three races of the original.

Right, as I said in the original post - multiplayer is going to be the same in all three games (except of course whatever they add in the "expansions" in terms of units, etc). You can still play as Zerg or Protoss in the Terran game's multiplayer. The only difference is that there will be one, 30 mission long Terran single player campaign, instead of three 10 mission campaigns for Terran, Zerg and Protoss.

[Dragmire]

No game I've ever played (minus MMOs that continuously evolve) has been worth $150 or even $100, and I don't expect that to change here.

Well, maybe LttP, or Civ 4.

There'd have to be a radically different way of playing an RTS for me to cough up that kind of cash. Though, as has been said, they haven't announced prices.

http://www.joystiq.com/2008/10/13/blizz ... year-plan/

[Talenos]

mmorpgrts?

[Reagraham Lincool]

No game I've ever played (minus MMOs that continuously evolve) has been worth $150 or even $100, and I don't expect that to change here.

Well it's a good thing that they're not selling any one of the three games they're offering for $150.

[Dragmire]

No game I've ever played (minus MMOs that continuously evolve) has been worth $150 or even $100, and I don't expect that to change here.

Well it's a good thing that they're not selling any one of the three games they're offering for $150.

Its not THREE games. Its a single game with two expansions.

[Reagraham Lincool]

No game I've ever played (minus MMOs that continuously evolve) has been worth $150 or even $100, and I don't expect that to change here.

Well it's a good thing that they're not selling any one of the three games they're offering for $150.

Its not THREE games. Its a single game with two expansions.

Well the expansions are the size of the original game which is, itself, a full-sized game. So while I'm sure calling them "expansions" is convenient for your argument. It's pretty much just proving:

If they had never announced Starcraft 2; if they had instead announced Starcraft 2: Terran; we would not even be talking about this.

[Agape]

bull. With the first release, you're paying $50 for a game that is a full iteration from the original game. Unless the other two games are also as different and revolutionary, you aren't getting the same deal.

What?

He's saying he wants to see 1->2->4->8. He won't be satisfied with 1->2->3->4. Even though it took 10 years to go from 1->2 and then the next two iterations will come out within a year of each other.

No...I AM satisfied with 1->2->3->4. I'm not satisfied with 1->2->2.1-2.2, with versions 2.1 and 2.2 possibly costing as much as version 2, both of which cannot be the same value as ver 2.0 is over vers 1.

[Reagraham Lincool]

bull. With the first release, you're paying $50 for a game that is a full iteration from the original game. Unless the other two games are also as different and revolutionary, you aren't getting the same deal.

What?

He's saying he wants to see 1->2->4->8. He won't be satisfied with 1->2->3->4. Even though it took 10 years to go from 1->2 and then the next two iterations will come out within a year of each other.

No...I AM satisfied with 1->2->3->4. I'm not satisfied with 1->2->2.1-2.2, with versions 2.1 and 2.2 possibly costing as much as version 2, both of which cannot be the same value as ver 2.0 is over vers 1.

But you're not paying for an upgrade from 1 to 2, you're paying for the content of 2 itself.

[Gretyl]

I'd rather they just edited the content of each campaign. I'd rather play 10 awesome levels per side than 10-per and 60 mediocre ones I had to pay for anyway.

[Reagraham Lincool]

I'd rather they just edited the content of each campaign. I'd rather play 10 awesome levels per side than 10-per and 60 mediocre ones I had to pay for anyway.

Well I don't think that will be the case here given Blizzard's past.

[Gretyl]

What came before WoW? I can hardly remember!

[Talenos]

some game with vikings in it I thin.

[strjms72]

I only play Starcraft for the multiplayer - so for me this isnt that exciting unless they release a couple new units for each side - per expansion. I'll only buy the first part otherwise.

[Cody]

bull. With the first release, you're paying $50 for a game that is a full iteration from the original game. Unless the other two games are also as different and revolutionary, you aren't getting the same deal.

What?

He's saying he wants to see 1->2->4->8. He won't be satisfied with 1->2->3->4. Even though it took 10 years to go from 1->2 and then the next two iterations will come out within a year of each other.

No...I AM satisfied with 1->2->3->4. I'm not satisfied with 1->2->2.1-2.2, with versions 2.1 and 2.2 possibly costing as much as version 2, both of which cannot be the same value as ver 2.0 is over vers 1.

You're making an assumption about the quality of the second and third games after Starcraft 2. One that I'm not prepared to make, seeing as how there's basically no information whatsoever and everyone is shouting about this like it's the end of the world based on no information. Seeing as how this is Blizzard, I think it's much safer to err on the side of awesome given the amount of information we have.

[daoist]

My complaint is based more on the price than anything. If each piece of the game is at the traditional $50 price point that's going to be a huge disappointment.

But they haven't announced price. So I don't see what the complaint is. Blizzard usually charges about $30 for expansions, I really don't see that changing.

Blizzard usually releases a whole game and then adds expansions later, and they apparently changed that, too.

I'm just saying that if these things are priced as full games each and aren't a "full game" type of experience, it'll necessarily be disappointing. That's all.

[Reagraham Lincool]

What came before WoW? I can hardly remember!

Games that I've played made by Blizzard?

Warcraft
Warcraft II (Tides of Darkness and Beyond the Dark Portal)
Warcraft III(Reign of Chaos and The Frozen Throne)
Starcraft (and Broodwar)
Diablo
Diablo II (and Lord of Destruction)

Games that I have haven't played made by Blizzard because they scrap games that aren't really good?

Warcraft Adventures
Starcraft:Ghost

[Cody]

You forgot Blackthorn and Lost Vikings. And Lost Vikings 2: This Time There's A Werewolf.

[Reagraham Lincool]

You forgot Blackthorn and Lost Vikings. And Lost Vikings 2: This Time There's A Werewolf.

I didn't play those games.

[Cody]

You forgot Blackthorn and Lost Vikings. And Lost Vikings 2: This Time There's A Werewolf.

I didn't play those games.

So someone asks what Blizzard did before WoW, and you only list the games you've played and the ones that you haven't played because they were scrapped? That seems weird.

[Reagraham Lincool]

You forgot Blackthorn and Lost Vikings. And Lost Vikings 2: This Time There's A Werewolf.

I didn't play those games.

So someone asks what Blizzard did before WoW, and you only list the games you've played and the ones that you haven't played because they were scrapped? That seems weird.

It seemed like she we making fun of me for being a WoW fanboy or something.

[Cody]

guys this thread really needs to be split in half because we were really getting somewhere with the bickering about how much we're willing to pay and for what when we don't have any details yet. Why aren't the moderators doing anything to step in and remove this stuff about retardation that is really crapping up our very informative debate.

[Ted]

So, punish all the honest gamers who buy their games off the shelves by having them buy one game for the price of three?

[Cody]

ow, I just heard a snap in the back of my head, and now my eye won't stop twitching. I think I need to lie down for a while.

[Ted]

No game I've ever played (minus MMOs that continuously evolve) has been worth $150 or even $100, and I don't expect that to change here.

Well it's a good thing that they're not selling any one of the three games they're offering for $150.

Its not THREE games. Its a single game with two expansions.

Rob Pardo, executive vice president of game design, said that each game would be approximate in size to the original StarCraft. Each game will be a stand-alone installment – not an expansion.

I suppose they are going to rewrite the game engine for each installment (sarcasm). Probably just a strategic move (and convenient excuse) to charge the standard full game price for each "stand-alone installment."

[Gretyl]

So, punish all the honest gamers who buy their games off the shelves by having them buy one game for the price of three?

I know I'd rather buy three games for the price of one!

[Gretyl]

I suppose they are going to rewrite the game engine for each installment (sarcasm). Probably just a strategic move (and convenient excuse) to charge the standard full game price for each "stand-alone installment."

How many games have shipped on the various Quake & Unreal engines? If the three games are independently installable of each other, then that'd make them stand-alone, wouldn't it?

This choice lets them soak the hardcore while letting everyone else pick & choose which campaign to play. I know I don't give two shits about the Terran campaign and am probably 50/50 on the Protoss right now. WIth this setup, I only pay for what I am interested in.

[Cody]

I'd rather just put it on my Christmas list and not even worry about how much it costs.

[Gretyl]

^^^ hardcore who thinks it'll ship by Christmas

[daoist]

With this much lead-up it's definitely got to ship in time for the holiday season. It'd be retarded to wait.

[J-Dogg]

I suppose they are going to rewrite the game engine for each installment (sarcasm). Probably just a strategic move (and convenient excuse) to charge the standard full game price for each "stand-alone installment."

How many games have shipped on the various Quake & Unreal engines?

Or Doom, Doom 2, and Final Doom. Grand Theft Auto 3, Vice City, and San Andreas. God of War, GoW 2. Goldeneye and Perfect Dark (a stretch, but debatable). Sonic 1, 2, and 3. Almost all Resident Evils up until 4. The game play between the original and the sequels is nearly identical, and the sequels could arguably be called expansions. These kinds of games come out all the time and people don't seem to care. Why do some people think this time is any different?