Blizzard Denies Milking StarCraft II

Nathan Meunier

New member
Nov 19, 2007
595
0
0
Blizzard Denies Milking StarCraft II



Splitting one decidedly sexy game into three installments to be released over several years may seem a bit excessive, but Blizzard Entertainment doesn't seem to think so.


At BlizzCon last month, Blizzard's announcement of the decision to release the hotly anticipated defended the decision [http://www.starcraft2.com/].

Speaking to Video Gamer [http://www.videogamer.com], Sams said the goal was not about making more money off the game and claimed the move to an expansion trilogy format is rooted in a desire to give players a better gaming experience. However, the over-emphatic tone of Sams' comments on the matter possesses a distinct bouquet.

"The fact of the matter is it's absolutely, positively untrue about us trying to stretch it out and milk it. People think that it was a monetary driven decision. I can absolutely, positively tell you, with 100 percent certainty, that that was not part of the conversation," he said. "I guarantee it. I give my word. There was never, ever a conversation where we said, 'let's do this because we're going to make more money'. I guarantee it. As a matter of fact the sole reason we did it was because we thought it was going to be a better experience. Anybody that says otherwise is not correct. It is absolutely not what we did it for."

Geez Sams, I think we need a little more reassurance.

Each StarCraft II installment will focus on one of the game's three playable races - Terran, Zerg, and Protoss. As expected, the first installment will be Terran: Wings of Liberty. Zerg: Heart of Swarm and Protoss: Legend of the Void will follow. The first installment is expected some time in 2009, though a solid release date has yet to be announced.



Permalink
 

Baby Tea

Just Ask Frankie
Sep 18, 2008
4,687
0
0
I think he's serious. Like REALLY serious. You may not think he's serious, but I do. I've never been so serious as I am now, describing his seriousness. Seriously.

/sarcasm.

I actually laughed when I read this. I can't believe someone would be so defensive.
 

L.B. Jeffries

New member
Nov 29, 2007
2,175
0
0
It sounds like they realized Dawn of War 2 was going to be more innovative than their linear tri-campaign game and just couldn't stand being one upped at their own genre.

Good luck Blizzard, you're gonna need it.
 

gains

New member
Jan 8, 2008
99
0
0
Each of these games better have a campaign mode 3 times the length of Starcraft I.

Also, what's going to happen to the units in the later releases? Will there be upgrades with each new edition? That could piss off more fans who find the balance of their favored troop disposition ruined when the Terran tanks from episode 2.1 are juiced up, or whatever.
 

GyroCaptain

New member
Jan 7, 2008
1,181
0
0
He seems a little repeatedly, recurringly, redundantly redundant there, a couple times too often in fact.
 

Skrapt

New member
May 6, 2008
289
0
0
If money isn't an issue why not just give us all 3 games for $30! Because hey, you said it yourself it's not about the money!

I wouldn't mind the approach if it was more episode minded so smaller game but smaller price tag, as it is it seems like we're going to get 3 smaller games at full price tags.
 

GothmogII

Possessor Of Hats
Apr 6, 2008
2,215
0
0
L.B. Jeffries said:
It sounds like they realized Dawn of War 2 was going to be more innovative than their linear tri-campaign game and just couldn't stand being one upped at their own genre.

Good luck Blizzard, you're gonna need it.
Huh...I'd always considered the DoW series a genre within' a genre, an RTT (Real Time Tactics) as opposed to an RTS, that's not to say it's not awesome, it is, but just there's not much to compare it with Starcraft. From what I've read, DoW 2 is set to have even -less- traditional RTS elements than even it's predecessors.
 

DeadlyYellow

New member
Jun 18, 2008
5,141
0
0
I wonder if it will be episodic game price (around $20) or new game price ($50.)

Bah. Might as well stick it out for a few more years until the collection is released.
 

ima420r

New member
Aug 14, 2008
93
0
0
At least we know that someday in the not-too-distant future we will be able to get all 3 of them together in one box for a low price. I'd say less that a year after the final one is released, maybe soner if the game isn't as good as everyone wants it to be.

Of course, maybe they will give use each at a resonable price, say $30 each or less. Or maybe each one will be as large as a normal game, with lots of levels and lots of play time.
 

L.B. Jeffries

New member
Nov 29, 2007
2,175
0
0
GothmogII said:
L.B. Jeffries said:
It sounds like they realized Dawn of War 2 was going to be more innovative than their linear tri-campaign game and just couldn't stand being one upped at their own genre.

Good luck Blizzard, you're gonna need it.
Huh...I'd always considered the DoW series a genre within' a genre, an RTT (Real Time Tactics) as opposed to an RTS, that's not to say it's not awesome, it is, but just there's not much to compare it with Starcraft. From what I've read, DoW 2 is set to have even -less- traditional RTS elements than even it's predecessors.
That's what I liked about it, they didn't just reskin an RTS they added a lot of new mechanics to it. I never really thought of it as an RTT but that's a good way to put it. The upcoming game's biggest edge on an RTS with linear missions is that it's going to change and adapt depending on what missions you lose or beat.

I dunno, I'm not trying to stir anyone up but I admit I'm glad Blizzard is going to push the envelope. When they were first releasing info for the game I kept thinking, "This is sorta behind the times." Their new approach sounds a lot more interesting.
 

Nathan Meunier

New member
Nov 19, 2007
595
0
0
I'm not against the 3-game split so long as each of the three campaigns are long enough to justify being their own release, and as well, the multiplayer end must contain all three races as playable, not "you can only play skirmishes with Terrans if you only have the Terran game".
 

Dectilon

New member
Sep 20, 2007
1,044
0
0
The_root_of_all_evil said:
I mean, when have Blizzard ever been accused of immoral ventures? Oh, apart from Battlenet...
Wait, what? Except for WoW battle.net is completely free as opposed to a lot of console venues for example. Where does the immoral venture come in?

Scott Adams (he draws Dilbert) once said that it's easy to identify liers, because when you ask them about something they don't say "No" or "That's wrong". Instead they say "What gave you that idea?" or "Who told you that?". I think they actually ARE shocked that people are angry about this, but I think they must learn to take the gaming communities temperature a bit better than they have.

I have a theory that people inside the gaming industry aren't as good at judging what constitutes a good idea when it comes to these things as those outside it. : /
 

AntiAntagonist

Neither good or bad
Apr 17, 2008
652
0
0
Go to the Blizzard forums.

The hardcore fanbase and arguments over gameplay get mind numbing. The fans quibble over everything.

From what I can tell it's the reason that they hardly update the site anymore. Most info updates come from the StarCraft 2 forums.
 

Amnestic

High Priest of Haruhi
Aug 22, 2008
8,946
0
0
Khell_Sennet said:
I'm not against the 3-game split so long as each of the three campaigns are long enough to justify being their own release, and as well, the multiplayer end must contain all three races as playable, not "you can only play skirmishes with Terrans if you only have the Terran game".
They said that each campaign section for SC2 (Terrans, Zerg and Protoss) will amount to about the same length of the original Starcraft. Something like 30-odd missions I believe, and you'll be getting that per race.

Fairly sure they also said that multiplayer/skirmishes wouldn't be race-restricted depending on what pack you bought. You can play as Terran/Zerg/Protoss from the get-go.

Considering how much fun I've had with all the Blizzard products I've played thus far I trust that each installment will be worth the money.
 
Feb 13, 2008
19,430
0
0
Dectilon said:
The_root_of_all_evil said:
I mean, when have Blizzard ever been accused of immoral ventures? Oh, apart from Battlenet...
Wait, what? Except for WoW battle.net is completely free as opposed to a lot of console venues for example. Where does the immoral venture come in?
Here's some pertinent information [http://www.visi.com/~tneu/blizzard.html]. Battlenet's agreement was also rewritten after the original EULA circumvented protection laws. And the clamp down on b.net.
Scott Adams (he draws Dilbert) once said that it's easy to identify liers, because when you ask them about something they don't say "No" or "That's wrong". Instead they say "What gave you that idea?" or "Who told you that?".
The problem is that good liars have probably read that as well.
I think they actually ARE shocked that people are angry about this, but I think they must learn to take the gaming communities temperature a bit better than they have.

I have a theory that people inside the gaming industry aren't as good at judging what constitutes a good idea when it comes to these things as those outside it. : /
The real problem is neither are those outside the gaming industry, just look at Hilary Clinton.
 

Sombra Negra

New member
Nov 4, 2008
181
0
0
Wow, that's a whole lot of bollocks coming straight from the horse's mouth. They had better not mutilate Warcraft 4 in the same way, or take away our level editor.
 

shadow_pirate22

New member
Aug 25, 2008
301
0
0
As long as all three campaigns are long enough to satisfy me aas a full game, I won't care that much. Still, It'd be nice if they could decrease the price on each a bit...
 

Solo508

New member
Jul 19, 2008
284
0
0
Blizzard don't need any more money, they aren't EA and they have proved that in the past; they care about more than money; thats why they are sucessful.