Starcraft 2: Will you pay full price for 1/3 of a game?

[Mathak]

I wonder why people are claiming that the expansions are worth the money when the base game isn't even out yet?

Statistical analysis of previous Blizzard expansions, pointing to a rough estimation of a 100% chance of SC2 expansions being awesome.

 

[Lovelocke]

Starcraft sucked, for the record... but for the question, "Yes people will buy it, for the same reason Left 4 Dead (and L4D1.5) became a hit: People don't know what they want."

 

[kingcom]

Starcraft sucked, for the record... but for the question, "Yes people will buy it, for the same reason Left 4 Dead (and L4D1.5) became a hit: People don't know what they want."

Unless, you know, people know they want more starcraft 1 with a different flavor and thats exactly what they are getting.

 

[JaredXE]

Most definately not. I'll wait until the full game is released.

And I don't give a rat's ass about multiplayer, so that is not a selling point.

 

[JEBWrench]

Because of what has been quoted to be in it? I mean the beta demonstrated the games quality already.

And just for the sake of argument, suppose Blizzard's writers drop the ball on the aspect of the game that costs extra money (the single player), would people still be saying it was worth $140+?

Because they've already played it and they know that more starcraft 2 can only be a good thing.

See above. People are saying they'll pay an extra $80 for something that is an expansion to the part they haven't seen yet.

 

[kingcom]

Because of what has been quoted to be in it? I mean the beta demonstrated the games quality already.

And just for the sake of argument, suppose Blizzard's writers drop the ball on the aspect of the game that costs extra money (the single player), would people still be saying it was worth $140+?

Because they've already played it and they know that more starcraft 2 can only be a good thing.

See above. People are saying they'll pay an extra $80 for something that is an expansion to the part they haven't seen yet.

Based on Blizzards track record so far, im getting it. If it should change i would perhaps change my mind but at this point im far too interested to see how the starcraft story develops

They have the added bonus of an interesting story and world already and have demonstrated unique missions which as an RTS can even wave the need for top quality narrative.

 

[Serafis]

I was wondering something actually: how come people didn't complain this much about Halo: ODST when it came out as a 60 dollar expansion? Technicality speaks that this is perhaps a similar case?

 

[TheBaron87]

I already paid the $100 for the collector's edition and totally happy about it. It's the sequel to the BEST GAME EVER. I would pay more.

 

[TsunamiWombat]

Did you yell at Peter Jackson for making you pay full price for 1/3 of a movie? What's that? You didn't?

Roeper did...



Check @ 4:20

-m

edit: transcript:

R: "... but Roger, it goes on forever."
E: "Ok, Well I'm gonna say-"
R: "and then - and I understand that movies - y'klnow, Harry potter is part of a series but it ends on a satisfactory note."
E: "Ok,"
R: "But this thing, it's like after three hours and they kinda look at each other and they almost look at the viewers and go, "See ya next Christmas for another big commercial movie!"
E: "Ok, well of course, because it's a trilogy. It is a trilogy. So it doesn't end after the first book. That's what a trilogy does."
R: "Yeah, well it's a $27 dollar trilogy for some people. I think that for $9 you should get some kind of closure."

/facepalm

That made me lul.

Onto business.

YOU AREN'T PAYING FULL PRICE FOR A THIRD OF THE GAME. EACH RACES CAMPAIGN WILL BE A -FULL- GAME WITH SPECIAL SINGLE PLAYER ONLY UNLOCKS AND UPGRADES. ALL RACES WILL BE AVAILIBLE FOR SKIRMISH AND MULTIPLAYER.

Jesus...

 

[TiefBlau]

Let's talk about the subjectivity of pricing.

I personally think that paying 60 dollars for ANY video game is absolutely absurd, but as far as pricing goes, Starcraft II is a lot more worth the large amount than, say, Call of Duty: World at War or Mirror's Edge.

If you're the type of gamer who would rather have hours of repetitive content than even DARE toy with the idea of fulfilling, yet not-as-filled-with-superfluous-features content, then Starcraft II's Terran campaign is a fucking crime.

If you're the type of person who gets angry that they have to pay the same price for a ticket to a 2 hour movie than, say, a 4 hour movie, you're an idiot. And also, Starcraft II is not for you. But wait; even if you WERE that kind of person, a 30-mission campaign is pretty fucking large, despite only handling one tech tree. Could it be that your conventional perception of what defines "content" is slightly skewed?

I admit that my neighbors at Blizzard in sunny Irvine, California are greedy slimes without a modicum of self-restraint. After all, they made WoW and came up with the concept of "Premium Maps", didn't they? But as far as the campaign goes, it can't be that bad.

Come to think of it, why are people bitching right now? They haven't even played the damn thing yet, and they think they're the fucking judges of whether or not it constitutes a fulfilling story? Well, I haven't studied astronomy before, and I say it's all a conspiracy to increase revenue for the telescope industry.

 

[thatstheguy]

nerds have tons of money from their geek squad jobs so i would count on them buying all 94 60$ games for each unit they will make forever,how bout you just pick a new hobby like being handsome or funny so girls will be attracted to you?

Wow, you really contributed to this conversation. Your insight is great.

OT: It may be one third of what they're going to do, but it's not one third of a game. Each race's campaign is supposed to have as many missions as there were total in the original.

Just ignore him. He's just trolling. The less attention you give him, the better.

OT: I'm a fan of StarCraft, so this will be the first game in a while that I'll be paying full price for. Not buying the collectors edition though. Would rather save that money towards the expansions.

 

[tsb247]

I'm not going to be buying SC2. I just don't like the direction they have taken.

1. Three seperate games for full price.
2. No LAN.
3. RealID on forums

I was also not a fan of the original. It was ok, but it hardly lived up to the hype imo.

 

[feebstalicious93]

the other two are expanisons, which won't be full priced. any thinking being would know that. blizzard never finishes the story with one game, they always have expansions

 

[igloomaker]

I will not be buying it for a few reasons.
1) No LAN support
2) "Blizzard announced that Korean players would be able to play StarCraft II for free as long as their World of Warcraft subscriptions are active."
3) $180 or $140 is not worth it to play multiplayer for 1 RTS game because they WILL be adding multiplayer content with each "expansion"

 

[Aux]

I have zero intention of buying it because of this. I don't care if each campaign is going to be a full game or not. I would much rather wait a year so everything would come out together in one package then pull $50 over and over. I find most games now do this just to milk some money when the content that is being released isn't worth the price. I'm sure Starcraft 2 will be different but it still annoys me.

 

[Wolfram23]

I will not be buying it for a few reasons.
1) No LAN support
2) "Blizzard announced that Korean players would be able to play StarCraft II for free as long as their World of Warcraft subscriptions are active."
3) $180 or $140 is not worth it to play multiplayer for 1 RTS game because they WILL be adding multiplayer content with each "expansion"[/quote

LAN support? Well maybe that's your cup of tea but it seems to me that a lot of people are citing this just because they can, not because they actually take advantage of it. I know, maybe you would, but for the majority LAN isn't an issue and even then, there's no telling whether they will bring it in down the road.

Your #2 reason, that's just called jealousy. Granted, it is unfair and I'd like to hear what the reason for this is. Probably has to do with the game becoming the #1 most pirated if they don't lol.

As for #3, you only need to pay for all 3 games if you want all the content. If you only buy the first game you can continue to play online regardless of the expansions you just won't be able to play with the extra stuff. Just like they did with SC1 and Brood War.

 

[.Ricks.]

One word, yes. Each part will be the size of a full-fledged game, I mean they are 3 games, think of it as a trilogy and the first one will keep you occupied until the second one and the second till the third.

 

[WiwuX]

I'm getting tired of the "well they are all very long" that's not an argument. I can guarantee that there are games longer than all Starcraft 2 games combined. I'm not paying for length, I'm paying for a mechanic. Unless every version provides drastically different gameplay or other value, this is a rip-off, as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Digitaldreamer7]

This is 3 separate games. You get fully unlocked multiplayer and 1 full length campaign. with each game. I'd only call it 1/3 of a game if you couldnt get all 3 races in multiplayer right off the bat