Blizzard Denies Milking StarCraft II
- Thread starter Nathan Meunier
- Start date
Frederf said:
Umm...you -do- know with those ingredients you can make -several- sandwiches? I mean...who the hell pays $1.50 for two slices of bread? 0_o You can buy a whole loaf for that. And a whole head of lettuce, several slices of ham and a block of cheese for what's listed there. The only reason people by the whole packaged sandwiches for $7 is convenience. Not that it's cheaper, which, in most cases it isn't.
^ This. Ingredients are almost always the cheaper option, you just have to bother buying them and taking them home and sometimes you simply can't be arsed or you want a sandwich right there and then and it's far easier to just buy a ready made stuff for a larger price tag.GothmogII said:
facepalm.jpg. Seriously. Did you even bother reading up about this? I'm fairly certain both Blizzard and GW are already far more aware of any sort of IP infringement than you are, what with the legions of properly trained lawyers they have at their beck-and-call. Is it a rip off? Yeah, probably so. Does that for some reason cheapen the series and make it less good than it otherwise would be if it weren't a rip off? Of course not. Starcraft is its own universe with its own rules, just like 40K is. Sure, one's a horse and one's a zebra but they're still different animals.Jackpot said:
With the death of Westwood, Blizzard is pretty much the reigning champ of RTS games. Dunno about a rip off beyond aesthetics, Warhammer 40k is much more intelligent and thought provoking than Starcraft.Jackpot said:
You do realize that those sandwiches will last longer then the $7 one?
My guess, so will Starcraft 2. Much longer.
Sounds as if people are whining just because they will actually have to pay for something.
It's a company. It's nothing like the toothfairy. They have to pay their employees.
A game costs to develope and program, not to mention support it's customers.
Blizzard still haven't let me down since the first day of Orcs and Humans.
I really don't think they are about to start now.
My guess, so will Starcraft 2. Much longer.
Sounds as if people are whining just because they will actually have to pay for something.
It's a company. It's nothing like the toothfairy. They have to pay their employees.
A game costs to develope and program, not to mention support it's customers.
Blizzard still haven't let me down since the first day of Orcs and Humans.
I really don't think they are about to start now.
Hardly. Here, take this for an example:Imitation Saccharin said:
I'm buying a new pair of headphones when my old one broke, and I have to choose between two of them. One is more expensive - it doesn't matter how much more - and might have slightly better sound quality/better microphone for gaming. However, I've played with that headset before, and I know that the earphones are uncomfortable and actually hurt my ears after wearing them for about 45 minutes. So, I end up buying the other, more comfortable pair... that HAPPENS to be cheaper.
It doesn't matter how much more expensive the other pair is - $5, $20, $50. Yes, by buying the cheaper pair I am saving money that I can now spend on other things. But that doesn't matter, and it wasn't ever part of the decision. I would have bought the more comfortable pair over the one that makes my ears hurt ANY day, and the fact that I get the cheaper one is just a nice side affect.
So yes, Blizzard can certainly realize that the trilogy will likely be more lucrative (HOW much more lucrative, we have no way of knowing until the pricing is announced), but it was irrelevant. Say they sell all three at $20 apiece - if someone buys all three, they get $60, which is more than they'd have made with a single $50 dollar game. But whether the extra revenue is $10 more, $15 more, $30 more, whatever... the point was not to profit, but to make a better game.
They'd be doing the trilogy whether they made a huge net gain, a small net gain, or broke even, because it'll make it closer to what they actually want to do.
http://www.wowwiki.com/Warcraft_Adventures:_Lord_of_the_Clans
There we go. Warcraft Adventures shows more my point than SC:G anyway, because WCA was practically complete at the time they canned it.
Here's the Blizz press release in response to a petition to bring the game back:
[blockquote]Blizzard Announcement ? 22 May 1998
Press Desk: Blizzard Cancels Warcraft Adventures: Lord of the Clans
Blizzard wants to take a minute to respond to the Warcraft Adventures petition that is circulating on the Internet. First, we want to express our gratitude to the Warcraft fans that took the time to organize such an effort. We recognize that the cancellation of Warcraft Adventures has disappointed some of our customers, and we appreciate that they have shared their opinions with us.
Secondly, we want let you know that stopping development was not a decision that was taken lightly. It was a hard call to make, but each of us knows that it was the right choice. The cancellation was not a business or marketing decision or even a statement about the adventure genre. The decision centered around the level of value that we want to give our customers. In essence, it was a case of stepping up and really proving to ourselves and gamers that we will not sell out on the quality of our games.
And finally, we hope that Warcraft fans will consider our track record and trust our judgement on ending the project. The cancellation of Warcraft Adventures does not signal the demise of Azeroth. We have every intention of returning to the Warcraft world because there are still chapters to be told. We will keep you informed as we announce future Warcraft plans. [/blockquote]
The value goes beyond the financial bottom line here.
Oh, my story is very much true - just not naming names to respect my acquaintance's privacy. It all boils down to whether or not you trust what *he* told me - and I see absolutely no reason not to.
"Unverified objective statements"? This is a discussion, and the only thing that'd really fall under that would be the WCA/SC:G claim, that I've now backed up
Otherwise, I have nothing to gain from lying to you; Blizzard ain't paying me to do anything. They're just a game studio that I respect tremendously, and in speaking with the people who work there, I absolutely believe that it's wholly possible to take them at their word.
I support CantFaketheFunk's view entirely.
"This is just a case of bad PR on Blizzard's part. I'll admit that Blizzard's PR is crappy though.
With today's gaming industry moving towards difficult and nearly impossible deadlines and development cycles, we customers should expect to see a lot more of this. Larger game projects will less likely be released as one complete game, but as separate installments.
Now I have no doubt in my mind that each of the 3 campaigns will be much longer and much more interesting then those found in StarCraft 1. If that means purchasing each subsequent campaign as an expansion pack, then so be it."
Quoting myself from the Gamespy comments section about the subject.
"This is just a case of bad PR on Blizzard's part. I'll admit that Blizzard's PR is crappy though.
With today's gaming industry moving towards difficult and nearly impossible deadlines and development cycles, we customers should expect to see a lot more of this. Larger game projects will less likely be released as one complete game, but as separate installments.
Now I have no doubt in my mind that each of the 3 campaigns will be much longer and much more interesting then those found in StarCraft 1. If that means purchasing each subsequent campaign as an expansion pack, then so be it."
Quoting myself from the Gamespy comments section about the subject.
CantFaketheFunk said:
Because you don't have a mandate to make money.
A company does.
Hence they are stupid or lying.
So would "I have a friend who supports my claim X"CantFaketheFunk said:
I will accept this claim has been verified.CantFaketheFunk said:
I cannot verify this.CantFaketheFunk said:
I'm sure they didn't. They want to make quality games. They had too much content they wanted to fit into one game and were thinking of how to adress that. Then Vivendi gave them a deadline and they came up with this.Paul Sams said:
Despite intent, it still is milking the game, imo.
Well I thought CantFakeTheFunk was doing a solid job presenting his side of the arguement.TsunamiWombat said:
Was kinda talking about you man... you honestly think it's possible Blizzard is paying cantfakethefunk? ...Man, I wonder how you get a gig like that.Imitation Saccharin said:
Alright, a bit harsh maybe, your present concise and clearly thought out arguments. Your concerns are legitimate and I apologize for insinuating you are a failboy.
I still believe in Blizzard. Yes We Can and crap like that. We'll have to see how they do.
You said "boys" as in plural.TsunamiWombat said:
I believe I cannot discount that possibility.TsunamiWombat said:
No offense, but the fun of forum posting is the debate. People's opinions are largely incidental.TsunamiWombat said:
*FACEPALM* You totally missed the point of my analogy. I was showing how the exact same product sold in many parts is almost always more expensive than the package deal. I was inferring that all those individual components (bread, lettuce) were exactly the same quantity as those found in the complete sandwich.GothmogII said:
I can see that analogy was too complicated. I'll try for one more direct. Take Valve's Orange Box. The Orange Box costs what? $60? What do you spend if you try to buy all the components of Orange Box a la carte? Substantially more ($90? Just a guess).
What I'm getting at is that splitting up a product into more pieces means you can charge more for each piece. I have a $60 game here but if I split it up into 3x $30 chunks I will sell just as many if not more and make more money.
Except they're not, your analogy is inherently flawed. It costs $1.50 for a full loaf of bread, whereas for a single slice it'd be, what, a couple of cents? Your analogy fails because they're not the same quantity, you can infer all you like but you failed to state that. As it stands at the moment you'd buy everything at your price and make about 10-15 sandwiches out of it, likely with a few bits and bobs left over, all for only slightly more than it'd cost you to buy one ready made thing.
You're paying $30 for a $30 game. In the case of Valve's Orange Box you got incredible value that you wouldn't normally find elsewhere, that was undoubtedly a special case and people give them (deserved) praise for it. As it stands at the moment, Blizzard have stated that you'll pay for what you get and until the release day neither you nor I can prove otherwise.
If it makes you feel any better, just treat the Terran Campaign as the full SC2 and the Zerg+Protoss bits as expansions. That is, essentially what they are. Standalone expansions. I have no idea why people are suddenly complaining about paying full price for a full game.
