Blizzard Explains Tough Decisions Behind StarCraft II Trilogy

[Altorin]

All of you buy sequels all the time. All I see here is hypocrisy.

And yet I never bought 1 game, divided in 3, all at full price + absurdly high inflation just because they felt like it.

GAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH NO.

First of all, I'd be willing to bet it will be around the 50 bucks mark, and there's still no confirmation that it won't be, but even if it is 30 bucks, here's the rundown: 60 (70 in some places) + 30 + 30 = 100 bucks. Ok, so, in a best case scenario which I honestly don't see happening, you're ONLY paying twice as much for one game. Much better!

math fail is fail

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

Sure, why not? Assuming you mean five dollars, as opposed to, say, five grand.

Sadly, we won't find out for another 16 months or so.

I can wait. *spits and shakes hand* Good to see someone willing to stand up for their beliefs.

 

[RedDeadFred]

This is dumb. Half the game is multiplayer and since you get that with Wings of Liberty they should not put it in the next two and make them cost half the price.

 

[Cabamacadaf]

I'm glad they did this so I wouldn't have to wait another five years or more to play Starcraft 2.

 

[lacktheknack]

All of you buy sequels all the time. All I see here is hypocrisy.

And yet I never bought 1 game, divided in 3, all at full price + absurdly high inflation just because they felt like it.

GAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH NO.

First of all, I'd be willing to bet it will be around the 50 bucks mark, and there's still no confirmation that it won't be, but even if it is 30 bucks, here's the rundown: 60 (70 in some places) + 30 + 30 = 100 bucks. Ok, so, in a best case scenario which I honestly don't see happening, you're ONLY paying twice as much for one game. Much better!

Um, math fail. But still, it annoys me beyond belief that people actually think they'll be released at full price. And besides, if the price bothers you THAT much, then ignore it. It's not like you don't have multiplayer anyways.

Or buy the battle chest when it comes out.

 

[DocBalance]

Wow, to all the people saying that it's a waste of money and Blizzard is just greedy: Have you actually played SC2? Because I have, and even if my computer is too much of a pansy for Battle.net play, this game is, pardon my french, god.Damn.Epic. Seriously. It is Game of the Year material, with no doubts.

 

[lacktheknack]

The truth is still that Blizzard is charging people three times for one game.

No. They. Are. Not. Do. Some. Damn. Research.

Done plenty of it.

I mean it's fine if you want do disagree, but from everything I've seen, and read, including this article with Blizard making a case directly, I still think they are charging for the game three times.

Just because someone disagrees with you, doesn't mean they haven't done research, or in some way ignorant. It just means they don't agree with you.

What's more the entire point of this getting an Escapist article is that there are plenty of people who think the same thing. Probably more of them than agree with you if Blizzard feels the need to issue statements to begin with. If it was a minor bit of dissent that wasn't affecting anything they wouldn't have bothered.

The general consensus is that the expansion packs are thirty dollars.

And also, Blizzard is treating them as expansion packs.

The story wasn't the game's strong point, the multiplayer was.

Multiplayer is in the main game, in full.

Thus, it appears that people who don't care enough about the story to buy a hundred more scenarios don't have to, and everyone will be happy.

Oh, of course they won't. This is the internet.

 

[Galaxy613]

Wow, to all the people saying that it's a waste of money and Blizzard is just greedy: Have you actually played SC2? Because I have, and even if my computer is too much of a pansy for Battle.net play, this game is, pardon my french, god.Damn.Epic. Seriously. It is Game of the Year material, with no doubts.

That is pretty much how I feel to. But w/e some people are more entitled than others.

 

[Caliostro]

It's not wrong for the consumer to want the best deal.

But something's "value" is PRECISELY what people will pay for it.

So Activision hikes the price of MW2, and it's the fastest selling entertainment launch in history? What that says to me, is for all of his crazy Bond-Villain-Esque soundbytes, Bobby Kotick was right about one thing - games are too cheap. People are willing to pay more, so therefore games are worth more. If they weren't worth that much, people wouldn't pay for them, at least not in that magnitude. Think about it like this.. new games have always been in the 40-60 dollar range. Since like, the 80s. If you account for inflation, games have been getting cheaper and cheaper every single year since they were invented.

The average person is remarkably stupid. I'm not joking, if you examine the "average" person, it's scary. People get scammed all the time. Does that mean ponzi schemes are legitimately worth it if people ARE falling for them?

Besides, that is what I said. Why shouldn't they hike prices? The pigeons they're targeting will pay anything. Sell them a turd in a box for $70 if they'll buy it!

However, allow me to point out a logical fallacy here:

Think about it like this.. new games have always been in the 40-60 dollar range. Since like, the 80s. If you account for inflation, games have been getting cheaper and cheaper every single year since they were invented.

Yes, and in the 80s games that sold 100 000 copies were big hitters. A game that sold a million copies was some unthinkable hit. In the end of the 90's, 1998 to be exact, the original Starcraft sold 1.5 million copies and was considered PC's best selling hit that year. 1.5 million copies was absurd!

Nowadays 1.5/2 million copies are basically the starting points for any big name title. Gaming became a lot more mainstream. A lot more copies are being sold. And somehow, despite all the "troubles", the bigger companies still manage to prosper with CEOs that earn millions on an annual basis.

 

[Caliostro]

All of you buy sequels all the time. All I see here is hypocrisy.

And yet I never bought 1 game, divided in 3, all at full price + absurdly high inflation just because they felt like it.

GAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH NO.

First of all, I'd be willing to bet it will be around the 50 bucks mark, and there's still no confirmation that it won't be, but even if it is 30 bucks, here's the rundown: 60 (70 in some places) + 30 + 30 = 100 bucks. Ok, so, in a best case scenario which I honestly don't see happening, you're ONLY paying twice as much for one game. Much better!

Um, math fail. But still, it annoys me beyond belief that people actually think they'll be released at full price. And besides, if the price bothers you THAT much, then ignore it. It's not like you don't have multiplayer anyways.

Or buy the battle chest when it comes out.

It was, my bad. I'm tired and multi tasking. Was thinking "20" for some reason. Either ways, that only helps my point. 120 bucks. We're almost back at "3 times the price".

And I am. I'm avoiding Starcraft II and MW2 like the fucking plague, and unlike Assassin's Creed 2 (avoiding it due to Ubi's retarded DRM), I actually have absolutely no problem not playing them. I just find it hilarious that Blizzard tries to makes this out to be anything other than corporate greed, and that people honestly think this is something other than a scam to triple (or close to) a game's normal price (and consequently it's income).

 

[Caliostro]

math fail is fail

Yeah, fixed it. Tired and multitasking. The number 20 was stuck in my head for some reason.

Either ways, you do realize that only helps my point right?

 

[mattaui]

I thoroughly enjoyed WoL and didn't feel cheated for what I paid for it, so that's good value for me, just like I didn't feel cheated that Brood War and Frozen Throne weren't included with SC or WC3. I'm not really sure what I can say to those people who think that it should be different, or that, somehow, Blizzard making money is a bad thing.

They're one of the few game developers that produce stuff that I absolutely love, and I happily pay them for the value they deliver to me. When I feel that it's no longer worth the money, that will stop.

 

[Vhite]

Everyone seems so negative. After playing starcraft 2 me and my buddies cant wait for the expansions. More of a good thing is defiantly worth paying for ;-)

/thread

late edit: also SC2 has almost as much missions as SC1, IT IS NOT one game divided into 3 parts. SC2 is full game worth of every penny.

 

[Therumancer]

Still sounds like buying three games to me. Do I have to go pay $40-60 for each one? then I'm buying three games. If they make them as Expansion packs and charge $20-30 for each... well thats not so bad.

This is the part that I don't get. If each game offers as much single player content (and by that, I mean specifically the campaign) as Wings of Liberty, even if it has absolutely no impact on the multiplayer, why should it be treated as an expansion pack in terms of price? Wings of Liberty easily offered more content for my dollar than most games I've bought in the last year in the campaign alone. Indeed, in the last calendar year, the only games that offered me more play time in a single run were Dragon Age: Origins and Mass Effect 2.

The amount of content is more or less irrelevent to this.

A point of consideration here is that "Dragon Age: Origins" and "Mass Effect 2" both told complete stories and came to an overall resolution. Both could stand alone more or less on their own, even allowing for "Mass Effect" having a direct cliffhanger being part of a trilogy.

The thing here is that "Starcraft 2" is only telling part of an entire story that is "Starcraft 2" but in doing so it's requiring you to effectively buy "Starcraft 2" three times each with a differant subtitle added to the end of it. Starcraft 2 effectively being Starcraft 2, 3, and 4... but using the Starcraft 2 name and none of the products being able to stand on it's own in any form. At least with "Mass Effect" each story is self contained and each new chapter is a proper sequel carrying an additional number.

A lot of people appreciate "Starcraft" for the storyline and the single player experience, and despite it's popularity, don't care that much about the multiplayer and such. While okay, the storyline for "Starcraft 2: Wings Of Liberty" does not resolve the central conflicts of the story and pretty much stops part way through, which is what the other chapters are for. It doesn't "close" like a Mass Effect 2 does (which can be enjoyed entirely on it's own with internal consistincy and resolution).

What's more, while people talk about the content, that mostly comes down to arguements about the fact that it has a multiplayer mode (albiet a ridiculously popular one). The number of missions being somewhat irrelevent in the overall scheme of things because as many people have pointed out some of them are very short, and do nothing to progress the overall storyline. While the original Starcraft had less missions, the ones it did have were pretty decent and meaningful.

Generally speaking, Blizzard should have developed all three campaigns, released them together, and been happy with it. They did not because there is more money to be made from stringing a fanatical fanbase along.

The excuses in this article make this rather clear, unless you really believe that it was going to take 10-12 years to do it. If you believe that, you also believe your not going to be seeing the end oif this story until around 2020, in which case you should be POed for entirely differant reasons if you bought this game, even if you disagree with me on a lot of this. Besides, while good, SC2 isn't all that, a game of this level shouldn't be taking a time frame of a decade to have 3 chapters. If like me you smell BS there, you should be doubting all of it.

 

[DocBalance]

Game of the Year? Excuse me while I go laugh my lungs out in that corner over there.

I'd like your verdict on the story of the game and the Battle.net system if you truly think this is Game of the Year material.

The story was well-paced, if a bit predictable. Then again, most things are predictable to me, so I don't really count that against it. The are several sequences in that game that are intense, such as

Spoiler

The Tychus-Raynor showdown, the sequence where Raynor has to kill the colonist's leader because she infected herself with swarm, and the sequence between Raynor, Matt, and the leader of the Specters on the purpose of war, to name a few.

As to Battle.net, as I mentioned in my post my computer is a bit too much of a wuss to handle much Battle.Net, so I can't say much there. I know the gameplay is far beyond functional and plays well in the single-player mode and the few matches I have been able to do, so I have no complaints there. It really is a remarkable game, and worth every bit of praise it's recieved.

 

[Cynical skeptic]

To be fair I may agree to a point if this were a regular game company. But Blizzard is notorious for taking forever to finish a game with there when it's done philosophy. They prefer to do less and polish it up a lot. If they were the other kind of company I wouldn't expect SC2 to have a ton of missions but rather that we would be at like SC7 by now.

I don't know if that last bit was pointed twords me but I do take offense if so. I'm 28 I was in high school when SC came out.

Last point was generalized. Its no secret the vast majority of this site falls into the 14-18 demographic. Most of which simply don't know how shitty gaming has become mostly due to greed and the fact most people don't know how shitty gaming has become.

If the story didn't suck and there wasn't that little of it, I wouldn't agree with you. As it is, it appears so.

A whole pizza: awesome
One third of a pizza: less awesome.

Di'ya keen?

Ironically, $180 is exactly how much you'll pay if you play a MMO for more than a year.

I really wonder why people didn't throw a cage about Mass Effect. It's also a game that they decided to release as a trilogy, each game at the FULL PRICE. The audacity! Each one is a DIRECT CONTINUATION OF THE SAME STORYLINE. Those bloody money grubbing imbeciles at EA and Bioware, I hate them all.

Well, theres nothing ironic about that. You get what you pay for with MMOs. The game styling of proper MMOs (read: not fucking guildwars or goddamn runescape) cannot be supported by free-to-play models.

As far as your points dealing with planned trilogies... they're kinda (read: completely) irrelevant in this case because blizzard has said, over and over and over again, they didn't plan to make three games. They just split starcraft 2 into three games because, apparently, giving people a really good game is bad business.

Being treated like a deaf dumb and blind wallet corporations can dip into at any time (and any attempt to slap their hand away being considered criminal) is really tiring. So, fuck business. Make the best game you can. Stop focusing on the bottom line, as the bottom line is strangling everything that used to be good about video games from the industry.

 

[Altorin]

math fail is fail

Yeah, fixed it. Tired and multitasking. The number 20 was stuck in my head for some reason.

Either ways, you do realize that only helps my point right?

probably, and I'm really glad you didn't start mouth breathing down my neck like some nerdy dragon. It was actually a good natured joke, although that doesn't come through well in text

Think about it like this.. new games have always been in the 40-60 dollar range. Since like, the 80s. If you account for inflation, games have been getting cheaper and cheaper every single year since they were invented.

Yes, and in the 80s games that sold 100 000 copies were big hitters. A game that sold a million copies was some unthinkable hit. In the end of the 90's, 1998 to be exact, the original Starcraft sold 1.5 million copies and was considered PC's best selling hit that year. 1.5 million copies was absurd!

Nowadays 1.5/2 million copies are basically the starting points for any big name title. Gaming became a lot more mainstream. A lot more copies are being sold. And somehow, despite all the "troubles", the bigger companies still manage to prosper with CEOs that earn millions on an annual basis.

Well, the size of the industry has increased, but that doesn't change my point. For the consumer, game prices have been going down and down and down since the first time pong was released on TV. In the 80s, new games cost 60 bucks.. today, they cost 60 bucks.. Most things are cheaper in the past (although new technology seems ridiculously inflated.. the first VCRs were like a thousand dollars in the 70s. You could have a VCR or eat for a year) because money was worth more back then.

 

[Worgen]

they needed 3 games to be able to tell as bad a story as they really wanted to

 

[lacktheknack]

All of you buy sequels all the time. All I see here is hypocrisy.

And yet I never bought 1 game, divided in 3, all at full price + absurdly high inflation just because they felt like it.

GAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH NO.

First of all, I'd be willing to bet it will be around the 50 bucks mark, and there's still no confirmation that it won't be, but even if it is 30 bucks, here's the rundown: 60 (70 in some places) + 30 + 30 = 100 bucks. Ok, so, in a best case scenario which I honestly don't see happening, you're ONLY paying twice as much for one game. Much better!

Um, math fail. But still, it annoys me beyond belief that people actually think they'll be released at full price. And besides, if the price bothers you THAT much, then ignore it. It's not like you don't have multiplayer anyways.

Or buy the battle chest when it comes out.

It was, my bad. I'm tired and multi tasking. Was thinking "20" for some reason. Either ways, that only helps my point. 120 bucks. We're almost back at "3 times the price".

And I am. I'm avoiding Starcraft II and MW2 like the fucking plague, and unlike Assassin's Creed 2 (avoiding it due to Ubi's retarded DRM), I actually have absolutely no problem not playing them. I just find it hilarious that Blizzard tries to makes this out to be anything other than corporate greed, and that people honestly think this is something other than a scam to triple (or close to) a game's normal price (and consequently it's income).

Oh the horrors of paying more for a good thing. Anyways,

The general consensus is that the expansion packs are thirty dollars.

And also, Blizzard is treating them as expansion packs.

The story wasn't the game's strong point, the multiplayer was.

Multiplayer is in the main game, in full.

Thus, it appears that people who don't care enough about the story to buy a hundred more scenarios don't have to, and everyone will be happy.

Oh, of course they won't. This is the internet.

This is my trump card. Take it or leave it.