CantFaketheFunk said:
Gildan Bladeborn said:
Its times like these that make me glad I stopped caring about anything Blizzard does ever since they decided it was totally cool to let us wait more than a decade for the sequel to Starcraft, and then, since we'd, you know, waited over a decade, we wouldn't mind buying the sequel 3 times instead of just the once (at full price each time or I will eat my non-existent hat!).
Screw Blizzard and their games, screw them I say! There is only so much crap I can take from a developer before I stop cutting them any slack on account of the goodwill their previous games generated - Blizzard reached that and has long since kept going.
*Ahem*
VG247: Will they be priced as expansions? [http://www.vg247.com/2009/08/17/interview-vg247-vs-blizzards-rob-pardo/]
Rob Pardo: Yeah. They?ll be priced appropriately to the content. Right now the plans are to do something along the lines of full single-player campaign and some additional features on the multiplayer side, but obviously using the same engine. That to me is an expansion price point. If we decided to put in three new races, and a bunch of new technology and features, maybe that would be a standalone product. But right now I think we?re looking at being much more like an expansion feature-set.
Might want to buy a hat in preparation
Ah, but therein lies the crux of the matter!
Rob Pardo: Yeah. They?ll be priced appropriately to the content. That to me is an expansion price point.
That sounds entirely reasonable... if there were any figures mentioned. But since there aren't, we have to wonder what Blizzard considers to be an appropriate "expansion price point". So lets look at the last two expansion packs they sold!
They charged $30 dollars for the Burning Crusade expansion and $40 for Wrath of the Lich King.
Those are NOT "expansion price points", I have purchased entire games
new at retail for $30 (Ghostbusters), and $40 is about 10 dollars less than we pay for the average
brand new entire game. Even if they
only(!) charge $30 dollars for each, that works out to be $90 dollars ($30 more for the set than virtually every new PC game costs), and if they charged $40 (and what evidence do we have that they won't?), that works out to a Starcraft 2 that costs
$120 dollars.
Get me a quote of a Blizzard rep saying that they will be in the 15 to 20 dollar price point and I'll start shopping for a hat [small](at $20 a pop you'd still be paying $10 more than full retail price for the majority of PC titles, but then MW2 has already done that so at least it wouldn't be
worse)[/small]. Until then I stand by my earlier assessment*.
[small]*This is of course ignoring the bit where paying
anything for the other two campaigns when they were originally all supposed to just be
the game is a calculated insult to begin with. How much more money they want to charge us so we can have the
entire game is really a secondary issue when you have that bugbear in the room. Does anyone
honestly think that not meeting their (non-existent because Blizzard never announces them) release date is the real reason Blizzard decided to do this? Ha![/small]
Avykins said:
Eh who really gives a feth anymore? Look at SC2. All that time and hype and it just looks like a ever soo slightly upgraded reskin of the first. They wanna take too long and release something meh, so be it.
In the end by the time it comes out it had better give you a BJ while you play and cure cancer otherwise people are going to tear it to shreds.
Relic/THQ announced DoW2 and had it out within a year. And they seemed to have been far, far, far more innovative than the SC crew.
Amen to that! The awesome Dawn of War games are a large part of why I don't really care about what Blizzard does anymore.
