Blizzard Denies Milking StarCraft II

[Umwerfer]

That quote almost made it sound like he had a gun pointed at his head.

Agreed, but perhaps more like an anti-aircraft turret oe some such, he really did sound like he was on the verge of tears, puppy eyes and all^^ Almost ashamed for mocking him xD

 

[Neosage]

Is it me or is the starcraft universe very similar to the 40k one? you know TERRANS (Earth in 40k is called Terra) Zerg= A weaker version of the Tyranids and Protoss= Eldar, but 40k came out first. Though I admit that 40k did pinch some of those ideas from various different things but for Blizzard to copy them again, can't they copy separate ideas?

 

[pkhtjim]

It makes me feel uneasy seeing this. Then again, as I was working in Gamestop for the WoW: WOTLK launch, I asked alot of people on line if they played a Blizzard title before WoW. 95% of them said that they only like WoW and not any of the other titles Blizzard has released.

Are they trying to pull WoW gamers over to their other projects or what?

 

[santaandy]

Well, despite my misgivings for fans who will have to shell out more, I kind of like the idea in theory at least, as I was only interested in the Terran SP campaign anyway. Perhaps a decoupling of the SP and MP packaging would be better; release the MP first (which will not be faction-divided), then release the SP campaigns later; SP campaigns could function like expansion packs. Everyone could pick up the full MP at the same time and then their choice of SP later. As long as it was price:quality:quantity balanced appropriately, I think that'd be an even better model still.

 

[mooncalf]

I'm taking him at his word. Why not? The Multi-Player is what most people are gonna be interested in. Let them have their glorified expansions and if they demand full price *shrugs* well you can decide then if it's really worth it for the extra Multi-Player units. Probably gonna see a new race or two before this saga is over though.

 

[John Funk]

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.

I think each game (campaign) will have 30 missions, the total from SC1 - so you'd end up getting a campaign mode three times the length, yes.

As far as I understand it from Blizzcon and speaking with the devs, any updates in multiplayer that come with the three new games will just be patched in. So if the Zerg game updates some of the units in multiplayer, someone who has just the Terran game will get it patched in like they've always done. It won't affect the single-player game since those have been balanced accordingly (one of the reasons for the trilogy was that it allowed them to divorce single-player from multi-player balance).

 

[KSarty]

Even if the trilogy announcement was the only thing they were doing, I still wouldn't believe him. But with the announcement that Battle.net will soon have some fees in place, and the rumor that Diablo 2's MP will be pay to play, its obvious that they really are just going for the money right now. And that doesn't even bother me, I've always understood that it is about money. That is the point of starting a business, to make money off of your talents. What bothers me is them doing this for their own wallets and then desperately trying to convice us that it is for our benefit, that they were only thinking about us.

Is it me or is the starcraft universe very similar to the 40k one? you know TERRANS (Earth in 40k is called Terra) Zerg= A weaker version of the Tyranids and Protoss= Eldar, but 40k came out first. Though I admit that 40k did pinch some of those ideas from various different things but for Blizzard to copy them again, can't they copy separate ideas?

Warcraft was born from the Warhammer universe. Blizzard began making Warcraft as a Warhammer game. I'm not sure if they then tried to pitch it to Games Workshop and were refused, or if Games Workshop suddenly backed out of the deal, but Blizzard ultimately tweaked a few story elements and released it as Warcraft. By Warcraft II they had had enough time to turn it into their own story. They may have just used the same method for Starcraft, lightly basing it off the Warhammer universe, then creating their own story from that.

 

[TsunamiWombat]

I'm being SOOPER SOOPER SERIOUH righ now, we need to kill ManBearPig.

No, I believe him. And i'm glad he came out and directly addressed the criticism. Fans are so fickle- remember when Blizzard could do no wrong? Then they get aquired by another company and suddenly, regaurdless of there being no visible changes to their development system, EVERYTHING they do was wrong. If Activision didn't own them people would be lauding this as a revolutionary move.

I'm not saying Blizzard can do no wrong mind you, horrible things do happen. I'm just saying it's Blizzard and i'll wait till I see it to pass judgement.

Well, despite my misgivings for fans who will have to shell out more, I kind of like the idea in theory at least, as I was only interested in the Terran SP campaign anyway. Perhaps a decoupling of the SP and MP packaging would be better; release the MP first (which will not be faction-divided), then release the SP campaigns later; SP campaigns could function like expansion packs. Everyone could pick up the full MP at the same time and then their choice of SP later. As long as it was price:quality:quantity balanced appropriately, I think that'd be an even better model still.

Okay, this -IS- what they did. PLEASE read the news posts people. Full undivided multiplayer will come with the FIRST game, so if the singleplayer campaign doesn't interest you, you can just buy the first release and play online forevar.

Even if the trilogy announcement was the only thing they were doing, I still wouldn't believe him. But with the announcement that Battle.net will soon have some fees in place, and the rumor that Diablo 2's MP will be pay to play, its obvious that they really are just going for the money right now. And that doesn't even bother me, I've always understood that it is about money. That is the point of starting a business, to make money off of your talents. What bothers me is them doing this for their own wallets and then desperately trying to convice us that it is for our benefit, that they were only thinking about us.

This rumor has been disproved. Blizzard has come right out and said they will not make Diablo 2 nor Battle.net Pay to Play.

http://forums.battle.net/thread.html?topicId=10972023506&sid=3000

Q u o t e:
So Julian Wilson told us that you guys are looking monetize Battle.Net in some way. Is that right?

Rob Pardo: 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.

 

[domicius]

Although you could see it as a cynical ploy to make money (which is how I see it), there's also the point of view that says "this will allow players to buy the campaign they want".

After all, I'm guessing most people will just buy one, and move on. Especially since the multiplayer content is the same on all the boxes.

Where this doesn't make sense (for them) is that splitting up the game like so means they'll essentially be diluting their own advertising, not to mention that the boxes will be competing with each other on the game shop shelf. Maybe their new corporate masters had something to do with the decision?

For what it's worth, I also think that Sams is saying the truth. It's not about money. It's about *sales*.

 

[AceDiamond]

Although you could see it as a cynical ploy to make money (which is how I see it), there's also the point of view that says "this will allow players to buy the campaign they want".

They also of course have to wait a certain amout of time to get the campaign they want and if they want to play multiplayer, well...

Basically I hold this "it's not about the money" statement to be about as true as when Roger Clemens said it right after he signed a huge-ass contract with the New York Yankees to sit on his ass for most of a year and do steroids completely suck as a pitcher for them.

Of course it's about money.

 

[Amnestic]

Although you could see it as a cynical ploy to make money (which is how I see it), there's also the point of view that says "this will allow players to buy the campaign they want".

They also of course have to wait a certain amout of time to get the campaign they want and if they want to play multiplayer, well...

Basically I hold this "it's not about the money" statement to be about as true as when Roger Clemens said it right after he signed a huge-ass contract with the New York Yankees to sit on his ass for most of a year and do steroids completely suck as a pitcher for them.

Of course it's about money.

A business wanting to make money?

Perish the fucking thought.

 

[Jursa]

There is truth in their words. They have always aimed at quality since... ever.

 

[AceDiamond]

Although you could see it as a cynical ploy to make money (which is how I see it), there's also the point of view that says "this will allow players to buy the campaign they want".

They also of course have to wait a certain amout of time to get the campaign they want and if they want to play multiplayer, well...

Basically I hold this "it's not about the money" statement to be about as true as when Roger Clemens said it right after he signed a huge-ass contract with the New York Yankees to sit on his ass for most of a year and do steroids completely suck as a pitcher for them.

Of course it's about money.

A business wanting to make money?

Perish the fucking thought.

Yes because what I totally said was that I hate capitalism and the idea of profit. I am so glad you're here to do my thinking for me and put words in my text boxes.

Now then what I was saying is that not only are they lying about their motivations but they're being a dick about it. Why not, oh, say, release all 3 versions at the same time? That way people can get the campaign they want AND play multiplayer without having to buy two versions of the same damn game just to satisfy the multiplayer half of the equation as soon as possible.

 

[Neosage]

Is it me or is the starcraft universe very similar to the 40k one? you know TERRANS (Earth in 40k is called Terra) Zerg= A weaker version of the Tyranids and Protoss= Eldar, but 40k came out first. Though I admit that 40k did pinch some of those ideas from various different things but for Blizzard to copy them again, can't they copy separate ideas?

Blizzard has fully acknowledged that both Warcraft and Starcraft were parodies on the Warhammer/40K franchises. Games Workshop and Blizzard have always been fine with this, even making fun of it from time to time, and because one is a parody of the other, they've both taken bits and pieces from eachother's IP. Nothing new about that.

But re: Terra, that's not a Warhammer thing, or is it related between the two games. Terra Firma (latin, lit. Solid Earth), or Terra for short, is one of the less common but still well known proper names for earth. Warhammer 40K sometimes refers to Earth as Terra, but the Terra from Starcraft is unrelated, it is not Earth. It's not in the Milky Way galaxy, or the Sol system, it's entirely fictional. Thus Starcraft Terrans are not Earthlings, but some 40K humans are the descendants of earthlings.

I suppose, Oh and about Terra I did know that it wasn't GW's idea though i just think its a little coincidental that they are sci-fi similar setting and just HAPPEN to have the same name for the first human planet

 

[John Funk]

Yes because what I totally said was that I hate capitalism and the idea of profit. I am so glad you're here to do my thinking for me and put words in my text boxes.

Now then what I was saying is that not only are they lying about their motivations but they're being a dick about it. Why not, oh, say, release all 3 versions at the same time? That way people can get the campaign they want AND play multiplayer without having to buy two versions of the same damn game just to satisfy the multiplayer half of the equation as soon as possible.

Have you seen how long it takes them to make a game?

Hell, development time was one of the reasons they did this in the first place. It was coming down to them having to make the choice to A.) cut out a huge chunk of what they wanted to put in the game, and essentially release a game that was not up to their standards (which they have a history of simply not doing: see SC Ghost and Warcraft Adventures), or B.) release one massive game but delay it for YEARS. In the end, the Trilogy way sort of answered both of these. They'll be able to get the multiplayer out the door quicker for people who want that, but will also be able to do everything they want in the singleplayer campaign.

I don't think you understand what they're doing here. If you buy *one* of the trilogy games, you will have full multiplayer access. Period. All three races, all the units, in skirmishes and multiplayer. Any updates that come with the other two games will be patched in (you know, like they do these days with Brood War changes anyway).

 

[KSarty]

Even if the trilogy announcement was the only thing they were doing, I still wouldn't believe him. But with the announcement that Battle.net will soon have some fees in place, and the rumor that Diablo 2's MP will be pay to play, its obvious that they really are just going for the money right now. And that doesn't even bother me, I've always understood that it is about money. That is the point of starting a business, to make money off of your talents. What bothers me is them doing this for their own wallets and then desperately trying to convice us that it is for our benefit, that they were only thinking about us.

This rumor has been disproved. Blizzard has come right out and said they will not make Diablo 2 nor Battle.net Pay to Play.

http://forums.battle.net/thread.html?topicId=10972023506&sid=3000

Wow, thats weird because it was a Blizzard employee who stated the Battle.net thing just a few weeks ago. They must not have liked the customer response or something. I'm looking for that interview now, I can't remember where I read it.

EDIT: found it [http://www.joystiq.com/2008/10/11/blizzards-wilson-some-battle-net-features-to-be-monetized/]

 

[GothmogII]

Is it me or is the starcraft universe very similar to the 40k one? you know TERRANS (Earth in 40k is called Terra) Zerg= A weaker version of the Tyranids and Protoss= Eldar, but 40k came out first. Though I admit that 40k did pinch some of those ideas from various different things but for Blizzard to copy them again, can't they copy separate ideas?

Blizzard has fully acknowledged that both Warcraft and Starcraft were parodies on the Warhammer/40K franchises. Games Workshop and Blizzard have always been fine with this, even making fun of it from time to time, and because one is a parody of the other, they've both taken bits and pieces from eachother's IP. Nothing new about that.

But re: Terra, that's not a Warhammer thing, or is it related between the two games. Terra Firma (latin, lit. Solid Earth), or Terra for short, is one of the less common but still well known proper names for earth. Warhammer 40K sometimes refers to Earth as Terra, but the Terra from Starcraft is unrelated, it is not Earth. It's not in the Milky Way galaxy, or the Sol system, it's entirely fictional. Thus Starcraft Terrans are not Earthlings, but some 40K humans are the descendants of earthlings.

I suppose, Oh and about Terra I did know that it wasn't GW's idea though i just think its a little coincidental that they are sci-fi similar setting and just HAPPEN to have the same name for the first human planet

Actually, there are plenty of other games that use 'Terra' as a name for an Earth but not Earth type place if they're feeling lazy. Sounds more...exotic. Like calling a car an automobile.

 

[santaandy]

Well, despite my misgivings for fans who will have to shell out more, I kind of like the idea in theory at least, as I was only interested in the Terran SP campaign anyway. Perhaps a decoupling of the SP and MP packaging would be better; release the MP first (which will not be faction-divided), then release the SP campaigns later; SP campaigns could function like expansion packs. Everyone could pick up the full MP at the same time and then their choice of SP later. As long as it was price:quality:quantity balanced appropriately, I think that'd be an even better model still.

Okay, this -IS- what they did. PLEASE read the news posts people. Full undivided multiplayer will come with the FIRST game, so if the singleplayer campaign doesn't interest you, you can just buy the first release and play online forevar.

Actually, what I meant was sell the MP client *separately* as a stand alone-game, *not* bundled with an SP campaign. That way you won't have to buy the first campaign just for the MP if you don't like the SP campaign that's bundled in. I actually *do* like where this setup is going, I just wish they'd go a little further.

 

[patnicskillz86]

I understand how the gameplay experience can be enhanced through splitting up and extending the single-player campaign, but it wasn't the single-player campaign in SCI that made the game so successful. Millions of Koreans don't watch competitions between players to see who can beat the single-player campaign in the shortest amount of time or with the highest score - they watch players face-off against each other in multiplayer matches. It is the multiplayer aspect of SCI that made it so wildly successful and sustained its popularity over this past decade, so if Blizzard is really intent on just improving the gameplay aspect they should mainly focus on making the versus play better. Most players of SCI I know, including myself, only played through the single-player campaign once or twice, and if Blizzard puts in campaigns with 30+ missions apiece for each of the races, then no matter how great the gameplay and story are I feel that will make players only more likely to drop the single-player after after their first go-through. Everyone, including Blizzard, should know that it is the multiplayer aspect of SCII that will make or break the game.